A glance at the website of Knoxt Theological Seminary (hereafter, Knox) reveals that the Fort Lauderdale based school, founded in 1989, is celebrating its first 25 years by “Honoring the Legacy.” The school certainly seems to be doing well. The website is attractive and up to date. According to one of the banner headlines on the website, Knox was named as one of the “Top 20 Theological Seminaries in the U.S.” by Sharefaith Magazine. This, or course, may very well be true. But it leaves open the question whether Knox actually teaches the truth in its classrooms, which is the only real test of whether the seminary is, in fact, actually honoring its legacy.
Princeton Theological Seminary was, until taken over by the liberals in the first few decasdes of the 20th centry, long the foremost bastion of reformed teaciing in the United States. When he founded Knox in 1989, Dr. D. James Kennedy envisioned that the school would serve as a New Princeton. A school that combined both the Biblical faith and rigorous scholarship that were the hallmarks of the Old Princeton. This was the original vision and true legacy of Knox.
Coming back to that “Top 20″ ranking by Sharefaith, a qucik glance at the complete Top 20 list raises the question whether the Knox of 2014 is truly honoring its legacy or simply living off its reputation . For listed right along side Knox on the Top 20 list are such bastions of Biblical truth as Fuller Theological Seminary, The University of Chicago Divinity School and the University of Notre Dame. Does anyone familiar with original vision for Knox really think that the school’s legacy is honored by comparing it to Fuller, the University of Chicago or Notre Dame? If not, why does the Knox administration think so? The answer is simple, the current vision for Knox is not the original vision, but those who run the school hope you won’t notice the difference.
I’ve written at some lenght about Knox in the past (see, here, here, here, here, here, and here). For those unfamiliar with Knox, the history of the school falls into two distinct periods: 1989 through September 2007, post-September 2007. I use this framework, for it was in September 2007 that the original vision for Knox as a New Princeton was supplanted by a new, decidedly different vision. Those intersted in the details may follow the links at the top of this paragraph. But for an apples to apples comparison that makes manifiest the radical difference between the true legacy of Knox and the current school, one could hardly do better than comparing the Academic catalogs of the old and new Knox.
Having attended Knox in the Fall of 2006, I will let my copy of the 2006 Academic catalog stand for the Old Knox. For the new Knox, please reference the electronic version available on the Knox website.
Logic
In 2006, it was nearly impossible to escape logic in any Knox degree program. To obtain a Master of Divinity degree (oftern referred to as the M.Div., the preferred degree track for those entering the ministry), logic was required. The course, titled ST 500 The Practice of Logic in Theology and Aplogetics, was described in the 2006 catalog thus,
Introduces statunts to the major principles and practices of logic, to the construction and testing of logical arguments, the identification of formal and informal fallacies, and the use of logic in exegesis, hermeneutics, systematic theology and apologetics.
I took this class from Dr. E. Calvin Beisner during my semester at Knox, and it was one of the highlights of my time at the school. Along with my Systematic theology class with Dr. Reymond, it was certainly the the most demanding of the classes I took. But in addition to being demanding, it has also proven to be very useful to me over the years and was well worth the effort.
That Knox offered a course in logic was a remarkable thing. These days, most schools shun logic as irrelevant. But Knox, true to its vision as a New Princeton, saw that logic is a necessary to Christian enterprise. This is consistent with both the Bible and traditional reformed theology.
Why, one may ask, is logic necessary to Christianity? Isn’t Christianity all about warm feelings and being nice to people? Isn’t logic, to borrow a turn of phrase from N.T. Wright, a cold piece of business? Gordon Clark certainly didn’t think so. In his book The Johnannine Logos, Clark argued that ther term “Logos” as used in John 1:1 and traslated as “Word” in our Bibles, would be better rendered into English as Wisdom, Reason or Logic. Chist is the Logos, the logic of God
Fast forward to 2014, and a quick search of the Knox Academic catalog reveals a very differnt Knox. Searching in the catalog for the term “logic,” I received the following response, “Sorry, no results found.” Imagine that! No logic at Knox Seminary. In a way, it’s comically apropos. During his term at the school, former Professor of Old Testament Warren Gage waged a long running and successful jihad against rational thought. Gage believed in substituting warm fuzzies such as intuition and imaginatinon for, what was in his mind at any rate, beastly Puritanical logic.
But what Gordon Clark understood, and what Gage and his acolytes at Knox don’t, is that to study logic is to study Christ. To ignore it is to ignore him To disparage it, is to disparage him. By taking the stand it does on logic, Knox condemns itself.
Romanism
The 2006 catalog has the following as Knox’s Statement of Purpose,
The theological perspective from which training is offered is that of historic Reformed theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms and the principles of Presbyterian church government.
The current catalog has this same statement, but given the shift that has occurred at the schoold since 2007, one wonders why they have bothered to keep it, for it implies, not only a belief in the doctrines of the Reformation, but also a disbelief in all other systems of thought. For Knox in 2006, these were not mere words. The school demonstrated its committment to the Reformed faith not only by teaching truth, but by refuting error. As an example, consider the following course listed in the 2006 catalog.
AP 536 Roman Catholicism
Examines the challenges prestned to evangelical Christianity by classical Roman Catholic orthodoxy and its contemporary variations, along with sound refutation from reason and Scripture. (emphasis added)
One doubts that there are many Protestant seminaries anywhere that would offer such a course today. That Knox did as recently as eight years ago tells you a great deal about the legacy of its committment to the doctrines of grace. Nothing like it appears in the current catalog. In fact, given Warren Gage’s romanizing tendencies, this course along with those in logic were probably the first casualty of the 2007 purge effected by Gage and his followers. No doubt, it was a great embarrassment to them.
Not only was this class, openly critical of Roman Catholicism, purged from the course offerings of the school, but also Knox now has come full circle and openly flacking for Rome. Actually, it has done this for some time.
The change in tone can be dated as far back as 2002, when Gage began his tenure at the school. Gage, who took his doctorate from the Univiersity of Dallas, a Roman Catholic school, never tired of pushing Romanism on students in his Old Testament survey class. But his Romanizing tendencies were manifested most clearly in the John-Revelation Project, Gage’s interpretation of Revelation based upon his doctoral dissertation. The John-Revelation Project (JRP) is a bizarre concoction, a mixture of ideas drawn both from medieval mysticism and Gage’s own perfervid imagination, one of the principle goals of which, apparently, is to get Rome off the hot seat. According to Gage, Protestants own the Pope an apology for what he calls, “five full centuries of slander,” as a result of their identification of the Roman Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon depicted in Revelation 17. Gage pushed this idea aggressively both in the JRP and on his students at Knox.
But even though Gage resigned from Knox at the end of the 2013 – 2014 school year, his influence clearly has not departed. Although one cannot take a class designed to refute Rome, it is possible to take a course dedicated to indoctrinating students with Gage’s pro-Romanist nonsense from the JRP. Consider the class listed below.
DM905 Preaching Christ Prophetically
Two spies sent into the great city, seven trumpets sound, a great city falls, the people of God rescued. Is joshua’s battle against Jericho the basis for the dramatic narrative of the Book of Revelation? The fathers of the church taught as much, but madern expositors have overlooked this completely. What have we missed? Also, there are significant literary patterns intewarving the fourth gospel and Revelation. Is John’s Gospel a significant interpretive clue to The Apocalypse?
Click here if you want to know the contents of this class, and weep for the lost Reformed legacy of Knox seminary.
So pronounced has the Romeward tilt at Knox become that Michael Allen, Kennedy Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Dean of Faculty, has co-authored a book in which he attacks the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone, is the Christian principle that the 66 books of the Bible, and those 66 books alone, are the sole source of authority in the church. But in Allen’s book, we find the following statement,
[F]rom a formal standpoint, the exegesis of Scripture provides the material basis for catholic-Reformed theology. Scripture has a higher authority than tradition, and tradition is always revisable in light of the teaching of Scripture; however that does no mean that the catholic-Reformed approach eschews tradition in approaching Scripture (Reformed Catholicity, The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation, p.151, Michael Allen and Scott Swain, emphasis added).
What Allen and company are saying here is that, contra the Reformation, tradition does too have authority in the church, just not as much as Scripture. As we have discussed, logic is not a popular subject at Knox. So perhaps Allen and Swain do not actually understand the implications of their words. Maybe they really do not mean to agree with Rome that tradition has authority in determing doctrine. Perhaps they really do beleive in Sola Scriptura as set forth in the Westminster Confession and simply allowed a loose statement to find its way into their book. Perhaps I have misread Allen entirely. In any event, if this book in fact says what it appears to say, Allen has made a most serious error.
But one thing is certain, such a confused statement never would have come from the pen of former Knox Professor of Systematic Theology Dr. Robert Reymond. According to Reymond,
The problem with the dual authority of Scripture and later tradition, of course, is that the Scriptures cannot (and in fact do not) really govern the content of tradition, not to mention the fact that wit hthis view of tradition, given Rome’s view of itself as a living organism in its capacity as the “depository of tradition,” there can never be a codification of or limitation placed upon the content of this tradition. As Charles Elliot states: “So far as we are aware, there is no publication which contains a summary of what the church believes under the head of tradition. As a result, because tradition is free to aver doctrines which are the very antithesis of Scripture teaching while yet claiming divine authority, becoming thereby bad tradition as recent history has will verify (see the papal dogmas of the immaculate conception in 1854, papal infallibility in 1870, and the assumption of Mary in 1950), the church is left vulnerable to every kind of innovation. Moreover, Rome’s teaching on tradition impiously implies, since Protestantism self-consciously reject one of the two “indispensible media of divine revelation,” that Protestantism cannot possibly be the church of Christ, when in fact it is Rome with its dogmatic deliverances from the Council of Trent to the present day that is perverting Christian truth by its traditions of men (Systematic Theology, Reymond, pp.85, 86).
Such once was, and not many years ago at that, the stand of Knox on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Dr. Reymond resigned from Knox in January 2008 in protest of the school’s firing of Drs R. Fowler White and E. Calvin Beisner as a result of their opposition ot Warren Gage. Apparently Dr. Reymond didn’t get the memo that, far fom intending any disrespect to Beisner and White, the Knox board actually was honoring the legacy of Knox Seminary when it unceremoniously dismissed them both for daring to speak the truth about Warren Gage.
Student Commitments
Listed below is a quote from the Academic catalog outlining the basic beliefs to which all Knox students were expected to suscribe.
Knox requires its students to affirm the following Statement of Faith. Students acknowledge their understanding of an agreement with these essential truths, which are vital to the Gospel:
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (excluding those books commonly called the Apocrypha) are the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man in one person. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed miracles, and vicariously atoned for sin through His shed blood and death. He was bodily resurrected from the dead. He ascended to the right hand of God the Father and will personally return in power and glory.
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential for the salvation of lost and sinful man.
God justifies the sinner on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, which is imputed to him by grace alone and which is received by faith alone.
Eternal life is received by faith, that is, by trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
The Holy Spirit indwells all true believers an enables them to live godly lives.
Both the saved and the lost will be resurrected from the dead; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life, and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
There is spiritual unity of all true believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
As I wrote in Exit Stage Left, this is not a perfect statement of faith. Although Knox was a Presbyterian school, it was set up to be inclusive of students from non-Presbyterian backgrounds. As such, the statement omits any detailed discussion of election and reprobation. Still, there’s a good deal of sound doctrine in these words. It is certainly a much better statement than is required of current Knox students. The current Knox catalog requires students to adhere to the Apostles’ Creed, which reads,
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
Although it is commonly used in Reformed churches – once a quarter the church I attend recites a slightly different version from the one in the Knox catalog – the Apostle’s Creed is is not a sound statement of faith and should not be used by churches or seminaries professing to be Biblical. The creed is shot through with problems, which have been detailed by Clifton R. Loucks in his article Rethinking the Apostles Creed. Loucks gives a thorough review of the many errors of omission and commission in this document.
Perhaps the most egregious doctrinal error in this statement is its claim that Jesus, “descended into hell.” Protestant churches try to explain away the plain meaning of these words, but their attempts are strained and unconvincing. For as the clear meaning of its words demonstrate, the Creed teaches that Jesus went to hell. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 633).
The Christian answer to the Creed on this matter is that on the authority of the Word of God, Jesus most certainly did not go to Hell, Sheol or Hades. Ever. He was not, “deprived of the vision of God,” for he said to the thief on the cross, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Just how one can be “deprived of the vision of God” and be in paradise at the same time, I leave to the defenders of the Apostles’ Creed to consider.
But for all its theological problems, the Apostles’ Creed does have at least one useful function: it serves as an ecumenical bridge between Catholics and Protestants. In his article, Loucks wrote,
Rome has recently called Protestant dissenters to its hierarchy and doctrine, “separated brethren,” and continues to attempt to end the separation by such means as ecumenical councils, documents, and creeds. The Apostles’ Creed is one ecumenical bridge over the gap. The Apostle’s Creed is a lowest-common denominator attempt at ecumenism (Rethinking the Apostle’s Creed, Loucks)
Given its Romeward shift over the past decade plus, it is not terribly surprising that Knox now requires its students to affirm the errors of Rome as a condition of acceptance and continued good standing at the school. But it is disappointing. It is also not in keeping with the original vision and aim of the school. In this and in many other matters, Knox has abandoned the legacy it purports to honor.
Conclusion
Despite the stated objective of honoring its 25 year legacy, the current version of Knox does nothing of the sort. The board and faculty of Knox are well aware, or should be well aware, of the vast gulf that separates the old Knox from Knox 2.0, which is the same school in name only. To paraphrase Isaiah, Knox’s board and faculty honors the school’s legacy with their lips, but their hearts are far from it. Given the condition of the school, given how far it has drifted from Dr. Kennedy’s founding vision of a New Princeton, it seems to best way the school can honor its legacy is permanently to close its doors. Unlike wine, false teaching does not get better with age.
