Since posting Dr. McCormack’s essay, I have had many emails come my way that were critical of the essay. Two things are interesting to me about this: 1) These people chose to email me privately about the essay instead of posting their criticisms in a comment and 2) most of these criticisms had nothing to say about the content of Dr. McCormack’s essay.
The objection that was raised the most was that Dr. McCormack is a Barthian, therefore he cannot speak to the situation. In essence they were saying, “What has Princeton to do with Westminster?” or, perhaps, “What has Barth to do with Bavinck/Van Til/Murray?”
However, this line of reasoning does not hold up in the least. Instead, it is a tactic which allows the critics to write off the content of Dr. McCormack’s essay without interacting with the points that he makes within the essay. Instead of interacting with the content, these critics turn to “dirtying the water” in order to excuse themselves from thinking through the implications of what was said in the HTFC document. In a word: its bad scholarship.
What is interesting to me is that Dr. McCormack’s essay should have resonated with all those who call themselves Reformed, especially those who follow the apologetical method of Van Til. Saying that Dr. McCormack cannot comment on the Reformed faith is eerily similar to saying that a Christian cannot talk to a non-Christian. How? Glad you asked.
What Dr. McCormack does in this essay is come onto the grounds of conservative Reformed theology, for the sake of argument, and shows how what is written in the HTFC report does not comport with the Reformed understanding of Christology. In a sense, he is pointing out the inconsistencies of the HTFC while playing by their rules.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Almost like the presuppositional apologetics of Van Til, where the believer assumes, for the sake of argument, the presuppositions of the unbeliever in order to point out the inconsistencies in their worldview.
So if we can follow Van Til and say that a believer can truly assume, for the sake of argument, the presuppositions of an unbeliever in order to, rightly, point out the inconsistencies of their worldview, then how does the critique that “McCormack is a Barthian” hold up to scrutiny?
It doesn’t. It’s a smoke screen which allows the comfortable to continue in their naive state of comfort without worry.
To these critics I have a question: where in the essay does Dr. McCormack’s “flaming Barthianism” (an actual quote from an email) come shining through to the point where one can write off his critique? Was it when he was quoting Calvin, Turretin, and Owen? Or was it when he was quoting the WCF and the Helvetic Confession?
I’d actually like to know the answer to this.
So, “what has Princeton to do with Westminster?” That’s probably the wrong question. It presupposes the idea that one can only be taught or critiqued by someone within your own tradition. And that idea is intellectually, and perhaps even morally, bankrupt.
22 May 2008 at 10.44 am
Amen.
Is this sort of reactionary Reformed confessionalism common at WTS? Is Barth really just thrown to the side there?
22 May 2008 at 10.54 am
Kevin D.: i have two more courses to take at WTS. The systematics courses I have taken are: Intro to Systematics, Doctrine of God, and Doctrine of Man. The other two systematics courses for an M.Div. are Doctrine of Salvation I & II. The only required reading from Barth is about 30 pages from his Church Dogmatics I.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Besides this we are not required to read Barth and hear very little about him, except in passing, which is almost always framed negatively. So, I would say yes: Barth is thrown to the side here.
22 May 2008 at 11.04 am
To add to Art’s reply to Kevin D:
When i took “Intro to Systematics” (sometimes called Doctrine of Scripture) in the fall of 2003, with Dr. Gaffin, we did have to read a chapter or so of Barth, from the section of the Church Dogmatics that deals with Scripture. We also were required to read some explanations of Barth’s doctrine of scripture written by PTS prof Daniel Migliore. I also know that a PhD-level course on Barth was sometimes offered, though i didn’t take it myself. By and large, though, he was not at all a major part of the curriculum. And when he was mentioned or studied it was with heavy suspicion. Some students were frustrated by this lack of interaction, since he was such a major figure in 20th-century theology.
22 May 2008 at 12.33 pm
Thanks Arthur and Justin. It’s a good reminder of the blessings I have here at Aberdeen.
23 May 2008 at 1.53 pm
Hi Arthur,
I’m grateful that you’re willing to facilitate this discussion. I wish to disassociate myself from any form of anti-intellectualism. I’m not a Barthian nor am I the son of one but I do appreciate Barth’s historical importance.
I can’t speak to what happens in Phila but we do take Barth seriously at WSC. Mike Horton lectures on him in at least two courses and we just had a PhD student, WSC alumnus Ryan Glomsrud, on campus to lecture on Barth and Schleiermacher and others in the Mod Mind course. Ryan’s coming back in Jan 09 to lead a seminar/course on Barth.
In the WTS/WSC curriculum there is a fundamental problem with primary source readings. Speaking as a teacher I constantly bump up against the need to require general survey readings for orientation — most sem students don’t come with sufficient background to be able to eliminate such reading. So assigned readings are a zero sum game. I would like to require more readings but every year students complain, sometimes bitterly, about too many required readings as it is. With Barth, 30 pages goes a long way. To assign an uninitiated MDiv or MA student 30 pages in the CD is the equivalent of assigning 100 pages or more in other, easier to read, texts.
Barth should be read and read about but wedging in substantial Barth readings into an already over-crowded 109 credit hour MDiv curriculum is not as simple as it might seem from the other side of the lecturn.
23 May 2008 at 1.59 pm
Art: I feel like Michelle Obama and you’re Hilary Clinton, always moving the bar.
At first I thought the issue was I&I. There you have suggested that criticism is out of line because everyone knows Prof. Enns is Reformed. Now the issue is the HT committee and some people at least at Princeton are unsure about the committee’s Reformedness.
Then I thought the question was humble theology, with Prof. Enns again a model of such virtue. But then I find that it’s humble to regard Dr. Lillback’s response as an embarrassment.
When folks mentioned in these discussions that Enns’ view of Scripture might tilt toward Barth (not Simpson), you chided them for casting aspersions. Now you publish a piece by a Barthian the effect of which is to defend Enns’ Christology.
Along the way I received the impression that I&I did not need to draw on the Reformed doctrine of Scripture because he was writing for evangelicals. Now I find that Reformed dogmatics — dogmatics!!!! — is actually undergirding a book written for evangelicals. (Can evangelicals even spell dogmatics?)
And all along I thought the issue was one of biblical interpretation and the degree to which BT at WTS could accommodate the human aspects of Scripture while maintaining the infallibility of the Bible. Now I see that the issue is not really BT, but ST. And here I had learned that all theological assertions were provisional.
One last shift of the bar: I thought that Enns concluded I&I by saying that we (Reformed? Evangelicals?) need to read theology from all different traditions and settings. But now I find the HT committee faulted for reading outside the Reformed tradition.
As Michelle said a few weeks back: “They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach. . . .And that’s just what’s been happening in this race.”
Pardon me if I feel like that’s what’s going on on your blog over I&I and its fallout.
Disclaimer: I have not applied for a job at WTS for over 15 years, but I do use the library.
23 May 2008 at 4.28 pm
http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=159
Statement of the Board
May 23, 2008
Statement of the Board of Trustees
Westminster Theological Seminary
May 21, 2008
Certain matters raised at a March 26, 2008 meeting of the Board of Trustees concerning Professor. Peter Enns have been addressed procedurally by the Board’s Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC), which sought and received input from Professor Enns.
In response the Board has, without dissent, established a Hearing Committee with equitable representation from Board and Faculty, chaired by the Chairman of the IPC. A process has been approved that seeks to follow the Faculty Manual and respect the rights of Professor Enns. The process will be completed with a recommendation to the Board no later than the December 2008 Board meeting at which a final determination will be made.
The IPC Chair has asked that any further communication concerning this matter go through the Chairman of the Board, Dr. John H. White.
23 May 2008 at 6.36 pm
[...] Art Boulet’s recent response to Clark and others ‘critiquing’ McCormack “because he is a Barthian,” etc. [...]
23 May 2008 at 6.44 pm
Dr. Hart,
I hope this is not too blunt. Your comment (6) strikes me as an attempt to distract (others and/or yourself) from the issues. Your complaining of Enns and his supporters “moving the bar” is baffling.
Let us remind ourselves of several things. Enns and his supporters did not start this conflict at WTS, the members of the HTFC did so. One of their official complaints was that Enns’ theology and Christology was not Reformed. Part of that critique included their use of a supposedly proper Reformed Christology to critique Enns. Thus, a critique of the HTFC’s Christology as not even Reformed itself is actually addressing the issue exactly where the HTFC (not Enns and his supporters) “set the bar.”
As the other points you bring up, again, I feel as though you are simply distracting others (and yourself?) from the issues in an attempt to avoid dealing with questions you do not like. Enns targeting a broadly evangelical audience and not specifically a Reformed one has no bearing here. Again, the HTFC are the ones who have “set the bar” on issues of Reformed or not–not Enns and his supporters.
Since Historical-Theology and Church History are certainly your area of expertise, I would very much like to hear some of your thoughts on McCormack’s historical-theological work (I am not trying to be sarcastic here).
On a totally different note, Art and I had lunch today at McMinimons (sp?)–I hear that is one of your frequent spots.
23 May 2008 at 11.40 pm
Mr. Young: because history is one of my fields, I think I know that I&I came out before the HTFC report. That would suggest that I&I was the source of this controversy, not the HTFC report. The report would not exist if not for the report.
So all of the points in my response are to the ways that I think Art has tried to move the bar away from I&I, which seems always to be above the bar and so above criticism.
Also, I don’t see how any of my comments are irrelevant. If you or Art want to defend I&I, wouldn’t you want to do so in the best way possible? And if someone like me can see problems in the book and in the defense, wouldn’t you want to consider those points to improve your defense?
As far as McCormack’s paper, I’d need more time to evaluate since I am not a historical theologian. Plus, whenever I bring up the history of biblical criticism that Princeton opposed (Briggs) or the theology that Machen opposed (liberalism) in connection with I&I, I’m told it’s irrelevant. Enns is no Briggs and he’s no liberal.
I still prefer UJ’s but you can’t smoke a cigar anywhere these days.
26 May 2008 at 4.30 pm
Dr. Hart: I don’t even know where to begin, so I’ll just quote your comment with my thoughts interjected.
Hillary is my girl, so I’m flattered. It’s also two l’s.
The issue never moved from I&I, so I don’t get your point. All of these discussions are centered around I&I and some of the critiques that have been brought against it. I’m not the one that started talking about Christological formulations. The HTFC did that. So if you want to start pointing fingers at a group of people who started “moving the bar” then I would start on the first floor of the Andreas Center.
You are categorically mistaken. There is a qualitative difference between having a humble theology (i.e., understanding that we cannot ever comprehensively understand the divine), on the one hand, and pointing out logical fallacies and flat out mistakes on the other.
Where in this essay, or anywhere else on this blog, does someone promote a Barthian understanding of Scripture? Where in Dr. McCormack’s essay does this “Barthianism” shine through? I have asked this on several occasions and have yet to get an answer. If you cannot answer the question, then don’t make statements like this. They are purely smoke screens so you can dodge the issues presented.
Once again, you are categorically mistaken. McCormack was writing about Christology and the Reformed understanding of it. You are talking about Scripture. Your arrogance concerning evangelicals is saddening to me.
You are not making any sense. No one said that it is now about ST.
He actually said that we need to learn from other traditions. You should read it again.
You are pardoned, but not justified in your thinking.
You should branch out and hang out on the top floor a little more (that’s the one with all the Biblical studies and commentaries).
26 May 2008 at 8.45 pm
^ Wow.
Now that Dr. Hart’s side-stepping has been called out for the second or third time now, it would be interesting to see him actually engage the substance of Dr. McCormack’s brief essay.
Can you offer a response to the historical theological critique he offers, Dr. Hart?
26 May 2008 at 10.09 pm
Art, the second letter of I&I stands for Incarnation. So Enns actually started Christology, not HTFC. I continue to find it highly ironic that for a book that is trying to do justice to the humanity of Scripture, and faults evangelicals for not doing so, it comes down to ST.
What does Christology have to do with Second Temple Judaism? I doubt that Jon Levinson would know the answer. But it does appear to be relevant when some are seeking cover for controversial views, even while affirming that all theology, even Christology is provisional. This is the ST side-step.
You also say that I’m not making any sense, that no one said it is now about ST. Then please tell me why you posted a paper on Reformed Christology that is very specialized? (I have to plead ignorance on many of its assertions. Do you actually know all of the references?) Again, what bearing do you think it has on I&I? And if McCormack’s essay is not ST — actually I said it was dogmatics — then is it exegetical or biblical theology? Maybe you’ve been hanging out too long in one place in the stacks, Art. (When I use the library I don’t hang out, I borrow books.) But is sure doesn’t look like Enns’ book.
R. James: I am not side-stepping (though I think I know who is). I do not claim to know Reformed dogmatics as well as McCormack does. Do you? If not, what do you think the essay has to do with Enns’ book? I’ve tried to answer that one. Maybe you could too.
27 May 2008 at 11.01 am
Dr. Hart,
I don’t know Reformed dogmatics as well as Dr. McCormack. I’m a student of Reformed dogmatics who really likes ST.
I think the answer to your question is simple. To rehearse the obvious in simplistic form again (please pay attention): I&I laid out various ‘problems’ of Scripture for evangelicals that have been introduced by the fields of text and literary criticism; Dr. Enns’ offered a Christological paradigm for thinking about the humanity-divinity of Scripture, specifically oriented towards providing a framework for thinking about the concomitant ‘problems’ and ‘difficulties’ of the human aspect of Scripture; the HTFC Report attempted, among other things, to demonstrate that Dr. Enns’ Christological paradigm was non-Reformed and non-orthodox and thus was to be rejected; Dr. McCormack reviewed the Christology purported in the HTFC Report, attempting to demonstrate that Enns’ Christological position bears much more in common with the historic Reformed (the tradition that he (i.e., Enns) works within) interpretations of Chalcedon than that of the HTFC.
Just in case you missed it, the common bond between I&I, the HTFC Report, and McCormack’s essay is that each are concerned with Christology (though, of course, the latter much more exclusively than the former two), specifically the orthodoxy of the Christological framework employed by I&I, which is used to begin thinking about the humanity-divinity of Scripture. And just in case you missed it, to quote Dr. McCormack:
“The issue for the writers of the Historical and Theological Field Committee Report [hereafter HTFC] does not seem to lie in the use of a Christological analogy for assessing the relation of divine and human ‘causality’ in the production of Holy Scripture; the writers are quite willing to argue for their own version of the analogy in question. The real issue is: which Christology counts as ‘orthodox’ for Reformed Christians? The presumption throughout is that a simple and straightforward equation can be made between the Chalcedonian Formula and Reformed Christology. But can it? I will state my conclusion at the outset and then seek to explain how I arrived at it. My conclusion is that the Christology of the writers of HTFC is certainly ‘orthodox’ in the ecumenical sense of the word, but–ironically, given the current situation at WTS–it is not Reformed.”
Seeing as how the Reformed tradition has, as Dr. McCormack lays out, continually stressed the integrity of the two natures of Christ coming together in one person (where the humanness of Christ is heavily stressed qua Calvin, the WCF, etc.), Enns’ construction is completely within in the bounds–even more so, as Dr. McCormack demonstrates–of the Reformed interpretation of Chalcedon. In case you’re missing the point, I’ll state it differently: the Chalcedonian prescription, as historically interpreted by prominent figures and documents in the Reformed tradition, supports the Christological paradigm found in I&I, thus the HTFC report is wrong to maintain otherwise. As such, it should (or anyone defending it–that means you, Dr. Hart) either provide an explanation as to why Dr. McCormack’s critique is misguided, or concede that his critique is completely on target and that the Christological paradigm found in I&I is completely acceptable from a Chalcedonian and Reformed point of view.
Now that I’ve answered your question, and perhaps you could help me out if I’ve been deceived here, maybe you could actually engage Dr. McCormack’s argument and defend the HTFC’s accusations. If you cannot, then we’ll just have to conclude Dr. McCormack’s essay conclusively showed the HTFC Report–insofar as its critique of the Christology found in I&I is concerned–to be nothing more than a sloppy, undeveloped bit of critique. And thus we may conclude that the Christology presented in I&I is fully vindicated. To state the challenge yet again: your responsibility is to engage the substance of Dr. McCormack’s argument if you disagree with it. I look forward to your substantive response.
Sorry this is so long, but I don’t know how to make things clear for you, Dr. Hart, other than by repeating myself over and over again.
27 May 2008 at 1.28 pm
Dr. Hart:
Where in Enns’ book is the focus on “Christological formulations” (the actual term that I used)? Or, does Enns note Chalcedon and Christology in passing and then go onto other things?
It’s the latter.
The reason it “comes down to ST” is because of the HTFC report’s charges that Enns was not within the WCF. It is not because of Enns, his defenders, or McCormack. It is because of the HTFC. I’m not sure how you could deny that.
It might be the fact that most of the NT writers were second Temple Jews….or that Paul was a highly trained second Temple Jew…or that Christ himself was a second Temple Jew…or that the early church, as recorded in Acts, is in heavy conversation with second Temple Jews…or that the NT authors refer to both second Temple literature (Jude to The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch) and to second Temple exegetical traditions (Luke, Paul, Jude, etc.).
But that’s just a hunch I have.
I do hope you are not serious. Perhaps you should read Jon LevEnson’s book The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity for starters….then let me know if you still think so.
Your faulty understanding that second Temple Judaism has nothing to do with Christology makes this comment invalid. It is relevant for Christology and for understanding Scripture, which is what Pete was doing. To say that his purpose was to seek “cover for controversial views” is to misunderstand Pete, his work, second Temple Judaism, and the nature of Scripture.
The book, and the main issues surrounding the book, are about BT. Once the HTFC report came out, the focus, at least for them, was on ST. If you read the HFC report, you will see that their focus is still on BT because that was the focus of the actual book. The reason I posted this essay was because it showed that the HTFC, while charging Pete will not being Reformed, was actually manifesting a Christology that was not Reformed. Ironic.
Do you understand that an complex situation, such as this one, can have different issues for different people? In other words, the issue for me is BT and how there is a lack of explanation of the examples that Pete uses and that critical scholars bring up from the ST side. The issue for the ST side is the Christology reflected in the book. The issue for McCormack was that the Christology of the ST side was not actually Reformed.
I do hope you understand that.
Are you serious?
Let me attempt to be very, very clear here, because this is an important point.
The HTFC presented an argument that the Christology represented in Pete’s book was not Reformed. Therefore, Pete was outside of the WCF.
McCormack argued that the HTFC report presented a Christology that was more akin to Lutheran or Orthodox Christology. Therefore, their critique was invalid in that it did not reflect a Reformed Christology.
Therefore, if their critique was invalid in that it did not reflect a Reformed Christology, then Pete is not outside of the Reformed Confessions.
I do hope that is clear. I didn’t think it was that difficult to understand.
It’s historical theology. Again, I thought this was exceedingly clear.
Perhaps I have, but I have not been given a good enough reason to move. I hang out in the library. It affords me the opportunity to talk to people (in the conversation room, of course) and to grab books that I need while typing papers. If I type them at home I find that I am constantly running back to the library to get another commentary, journal article, etc. With gas at $4 a gallon, it saves me both time and money.
So an essay on historical theology doesn’t look like a book about the OT.
Why is that shocking?
27 May 2008 at 5.28 pm
R. James: wow indeed. You say you have to keep repeating yourself because I keep missing things. Funny how this was only your second post in response to me in thread of comments. (I feel like Michelle again — now the bar of repetition is being moved.)
I do appreciate your spelling this out in such detail. But there is one detail that eludes you. It is that McCormack never refers to Enns or I&I. Nor do I recall Enns ever going down into the details of Chalcedonian or Second Helvetician Christology. How could he? He was writing for evangelicals.
The other important detail that is missing is the one I keep repeating — if all theology is situated as Enns clearly asserts, what difference does it make what Chalcedon or Bullinger said? Neither are particularly binding for us contemporary Christians who live in an era of Major League Baseball, a sport unknown to the church fathers or the Reformers. If you want to claim that Chalcedonian or Reformed Christology matter to this discussion, wouldn’t it help if we agreed that those theologies were more than provisional and situated?
So to be clear, I am not compentent do decide whether McCormack, Trueman or Clark is right about Reformed Christology — something that your fine report on McCormack’s argument does not decide either. But I am competent enough to see that an appeal to orthodoxy as something from the past that is binding on HTFC is at odds with an appeal to historicism.
27 May 2008 at 5.42 pm
Art: thanks for the tip on Levensons book. I actually read a review of it some time ago and forgot my mental note to take a look at it.
At the same time, in your string of comments you could not have made my case any better. They are also comments that R. James might be interested in.
They were: “Where in Enns’ book is the focus on “Christological formulations” (the actual term that I used)? Or, does Enns note Chalcedon and Christology in passing and then go onto other things?”
And then: “The HTFC presented an argument that the Christology represented in Pete’s book was not Reformed. Therefore, Pete was outside of the WCF.
McCormack argued that the HTFC report presented a Christology that was more akin to Lutheran or Orthodox Christology. Therefore, their critique was invalid in that it did not reflect a Reformed Christology.”
So I&I had very little to say about Christology. McCormack wasn’t defending Enns’ Christology because there was little to defend. HTFC critiqued Enns’ analogical use of the incarnation. McCormack responded with a critique of HTFC’s Christology.
In which case, Christology does have little to do with I&I. It is useful for trying to undercut the HTFC report. But it is hardly a defense of I&I.
In which another case, a debate about how biblical scholars should proceed has turned into a debate about ST. Again, I find this ironic for two reasons. I&I had little to say about ST. And yet it said more than intended because it appealed to Christology, something that most members of SBL would deem illegitimate.
The lesson seems to be that when you play with dogma, you get dogmatized.
27 May 2008 at 7.19 pm
Alright, Deeg, if you aren’t going to actually deal with McCormack’s essay, then I’m going to go have a red herring sandwich.
27 May 2008 at 9.05 pm
Friends,
McCormack’s essay was not exactly careful. What would you like Darryl to deal with? Would you like Darryl to argue that McCormack has misunderstood Reformed theologians like Owen, for example, who was heavily dependent upon Cyril and rejected the claims of Nestorius? Would you like Darryl to critique McCormack’s strange dichotomization of the Chalcedonian Creed? After all, how is it that McCormack can quote both Turretin and Owen in an attempt to cast aspersions on the Reformed orthodoxy of the HTFC report and fail to mention that Owen and Turretin manfully resisted any sort of association with Nestorius because of his refusal to acknowledge that Mary is indeed Theotokos? And would you like Darryl to mention that McCormack only quotes twice – and sparingly – from the HTFC report to build his case; quotes, I might add, that were somewhat divorced from their context?
Sure, there may have been some tension at Chalcedon, but that doesn’t mean that the Reformed orthodox did not focus on the unity of the Person. They were happy with the whole Creed. Only, Owen wanted to bring more coherence to it by giving added attention to the Spirit’s role. Some of you guys could use a good dosage of Alan Spence’s book, Incarnation and Inspiration (T & T Clark, 2007) which shows how Owen would not have recognized the portrait that McCormack suggests. Or you could just read Owen for yourselves and see that he had no problem with the Creed?
Blessings,
Mark Jones
27 May 2008 at 10.16 pm
Jimmy, while you’re eating you’re sandwich, maybe you could jot down a few thoughts on how your one substantive post here actually went beyond the book report treatment of McCormack’s essay and get back to us. Our host, Art, seems to think that Christology is tangential to I&I. Be sure not to read that comment by Mr. B while you’re dining so that you don’t choke.
BTW, Mr. Jones seems actually to deal with McCormack’s essay. Maybe you could chew on it. I’ve made no pretense to being a historical theologian (church and cultural history are different). I’ve only been here trying to get the Enns choir to see that a real discontinuity exists between WTS’s original biblical scholar, Machen, and more recent versions.
28 May 2008 at 11.40 am
Occcum:
That’s a bit harsh… esp since Hart and Jones are only very loosely connected to WTS and don’t speak for the school – umm… it’s seems a bit unfair to accuse anyone of not doing their homework while calling Hart and Jones “WTS scholars” and criticizing their work without referencing it, and connecting it to schools they don’t represent.
28 May 2008 at 1.07 pm
Unfortunately, Occcum is an embarrassment not only to WTS but also to Princeton. I can’t imagine those sympathetic to McCormack and Princeton being happy with such vitriolic statements. Without accusing McCormack of Barthian suppositions, I engaged him in his historical analysis. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think one can accuse me, as Occcum does, of not reading and interacting with McCormack’s essay.
Mark
29 May 2008 at 10.30 am
I suspect Occcccccccccum is a pseudonym for Lord Peter.
30 May 2008 at 5.27 pm
Umm, Doc Ock, could you turn the dial on your rhetoric down a few notches? This discussion isn’t going to get anywhere if you’re just taunting and yelling. You may have some good points to make, about why WTS folk shouldn’t dismiss McCormack so easily, but your ranting is drowning these points out.
Thanks.
30 May 2008 at 7.38 pm
In light of some of the ad hominem, infantile, rude, and anonymous comments that have been posted on this post recently, I should let it be known that those comments will not be tolorated and will be deleted immediately. If you have something to say, do so in a Christ like fashion.
3 June 2008 at 4.31 am
I have been fascinated reading through your discussion on ‘what has Princeton to do with Westminster.’ I thought you might be interested that we are holding a conference on John Owen in August this year in Cambridge England at which Mike Horton and Carl Trueman from Westminster will be speaking along with George Hunsinger from Princeton. I am sure the discussion will continue. It would be good to have some of your respondents there. Contact Johnowentoday@aol.com