Fred Zaspel Comments on BTS "Response" | Fred Zaspel Comments on BTS "Response" |
| News Items and Reviews Relevant to BTS Issues | |
| Written by Fred Zaspel | |
| Monday, 16 July 2007 | |
|
We received the following comments from BTS alumnus Fred Zaspel, along with his permission to post them. I've added emphasis. JR
John and Steve, As you know, after three months the BTS board has finally given official response to our Public Request, and we have posted it on the website — www.biblicalalumni.com. Their response, of course, is a non-response. We asked for clarification on such important matters as sola scriptura, inerrancy, sola fide, the exclusive necessity of faith in Christ, and so on. They have declined to reveal their position on these matters, and try as I may to find a happier explanation, it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that they have something to hide. These questions that we raised in the Public Request did not rise from nowhere. They all stem from published works of BTS faculty and from personal conversations (my own and that of others) with Dunbar, Franke, and Mangum. There are good reasons to doubt that the school is any longer orthodox, and their refusal to provide clarification only serves to confirm the suspicion. My conversations with BTS faculty have always been cordial, even if frank. And earlier this year I told Franke and Dunbar that while I cannot know their heart, the fact remains that if they had announced at the front door the theological agenda they now pursue, they would not have been allowed in. They admitted that was the case. This kind of thing has caused many alumni to charge them with hijacking the school surreptitiously. I have not quite gone that far myself, but I understand the charge and will admit to having some sympathy with it. But now their refusal to clarify for us what the faculty believe and teach on such fundamental issues as the ones we have raised only heightens the suspicion of deceit. It seems they have something to hide. Why else would they not want to clarify themselves on such issues? It leaves the appearance that they realize that they cannot afford to let the Evangelical world know who they really are. The few responses I have received from the BTS board follow generally two lines. The first is a blank, completely unsupported insistence that “the school is still orthodox.” If that is so, then we can only wonder why they will not clarify themselves on such important issues. The second is a boasting of the school’s strategic attempt to reach this generation and society with the gospel. I will be the first to say that this is a commendable goal. And I have found Dunbar’s “missional” emails to be not only well done but largely helpful. But what this second line of talk masks is the simultaneous theological shifts that have gone on at BTS. The one does not justify the other. It will do no good to reach this generation with a truncated gospel. And it is this that concerns us, and it is on this score they will not provide clarification. I do not at all believe that all of the BTS faculty have embraced the errors that concern us. But still, I do believe the school is a lost cause. They are very decided in their new direction, and there is no body to which they can be held accountable. They will not respond to the inquiries of the alumni, and the new board is supportive of them. Too many of us were silent for too long, and now it is too late. Thankfully, God is sovereign over all, and he is judge. In the end we are not responsible for BTS but for our own lives and ministries. May God give us grace to be faithful. Fred G. Zaspel No. 1 : Unbelievably sad. It remains for us to pray that the school will "Know My opposition," that good men will avoid associating with it (prospective faculty, staff, students), or supporting it, that good men there will leave so as to make clear the seriousness of the error being propogated and the damage being done to Christ's church, as well as to their own souls. No. 2 : Your response is very perceptive and accurate. I am reminded of a former BTS student who told me that he had brought a certain person on staff at his ministry who was going to perform a heart transplant on their ministry. The task of the long standing staff members was to keep the patient alive during the procedure. The results there have been devastating. In like manner they will be at Biblical. Last week we received a communication from the BFC that John Franke had written assuring them that he is a member of the ETS and upholds the full inerrancy of Scripture in all that it teaches. He convinced the committee that he is "safe" to speak at their ministerial convention in September. Yet when it comes to an appeal to the board of directors of the seminary, they are unwilling to give a definition. Is John not the same person who has written and taught in an effort to undermine the historic doctrine of inerrancy? Ah, yes, but this is a post-modern world that defies definition unless it is to protect cherished turf. Carl T. Martin 
\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
'> Submitted by pastorct • 2007-07-16 07:46:09 No. 3 : Carl I think you're right. It amazes me that the claim "I believe in inerrancy" is supposed to be some kind of magic spell that makes everything OK. At the 21st April event, "The gospel and the church that is emerging," held at BTS, John Franke said "I would see inerrancy of Scripture as something that I believe, although probably not in the ways some other evangelicals earlier in the last century believed. I would hold onto that but I would see that as A way of articulating the authority of Scripture" (http://www.cecl.org/franke_mcknight.htm; Q & A Session #2, at about 23 minutes). This statement simply begs the question of what his view of Scripture really is. Better to go to his book Beyond Foundationalism where Franke characterizes the view of inerrancy that most of us hold to as a recent "modernist" (therefore unbiblical) development. No. 4 : Greetings, I have been following the ongoing discussions of this site for some time now. As I examine the entirety of the site I am beginning to get a feel for the concerns of the voices present, largely as it relates to Biblical's current direction as a missional school (they never use the word Emergent), and Biblical's history as an evangelical, Reformed seminary. What is frustrating to me about this is the debate largely revolves around specific terms, most of which are challenging to define. For example: Inerrancy: do you mean Chicago, or some other concept; or Orthodoxy: do you mean traditionally held evangelical systematics starting with Calvin, ie. the Westminster Confession, or a more general concept such as the Apostle's Creed; and there are others (postmodernism, emerging vs. Emergent, etc.) I write these comments here, because I believe they are relevant to the BTS Response discussed above. Rather than debate and criticize BTS over the definitions they ascribe to words, why not engage with the general direction of the seminary. By this I mean something specific, the "missional" perspective as described by Dr. Dundar's Missional Journal. I personally believe these documents are the clearest indication of Biblical's new direction, and if a legitimate critique of Biblical is to be raised, it must engage this texts (not random conversations, anonymous blog posts, or comments from people loosely connected to the seminary). So, with that being said, I would love to hear all of your thoughts about Dunbar's Missional Journal (maybe create a new prominently displayed article for this engagement). Submitted by AnonAlum • 2007-07-27 12:30:54 No. 5 : Greetings AnonAlum, Thanks for your input. We addressed some of this under our FAQ section, "What is Missional?" We don't have a problem with the idea of missional as expressed by Tim Keller, but we have a very serious problem with Brian McLaren's (and Emergent Village's) idea of missional, in which the mission is not closely connected to the New Testatment gospel. I don't think it is correct to say that BTS is going "missional" as opposed to "emergent." Their mission/vision is still to train people for the emerging church, John Franke is still part of Emergent Village, etc. It may be that BTS would like us to think they are going "missional" rather than "emerging" because McLaren (with whom they've had a long association, who loves their LEAD MDiv program, etc.) has turned out to be such an embarrassment. With regards to inerrancy, the public request did ask if the seminary would subscribe to the Chicago statement (which we think is a good statement). With regards to the Missional Journal, we don't see that much to object to, and what is objectionable is pretty mild compared to the defects of the theology of John Franke being taught at the school, so we'd prefer to keep our focus there. |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 16 July 2007 ) | |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Related Items
