Fundamentalist View On Dallas Theological Seminary Professors

Resurrecting a 9 year old thread to make an enigmatic and unsupported accusation?

The seminary I attended had Dallas Th.D./Ph.D.s as department heads of 3 of the 5 departments. The 4th was chaired by the former Chairman of the Department of Church History at DTS (but his Ph.D. was from Boston University).

I have recently returned to seminary at DTS and am currently auditing courses to stimulate my aging mental faculties and improve my declining study methodology.

I have found that the vast majority of the professors are good and Godly men dedicated to the service of Christ, and consider themselves servants of the servants of Christ.

Of special interest to me is the excellent classes taught by the Chairman of the Department of Old Testament, Dr. James Allman.

For a chapel message by Dr. Allman see

 

Here is another Chapel message by Dr. Allman. Not sure how you can call this "carnality."

 

John of Japan said:
Anyway, IMO a right wing Fundamentalist would be KJV only, practice secondary separation and preach hard against pants on women.

That just it - some extreme Fundamentalist would say that those ARE Biblical fundamentals.

Bottom line - fundamental is a variable term
There are extreme fundamentalist who would call me liberal
and there are liberals who would call me an extreme fundamentalist.

and its exactly the same thing when dealing with the political continuum

 

Correct. The revisionists from both radical fringes have redefined the words to mean something the words never meant.

"Fundamentalist" used to mean "One who believes in the Fundamentals of the Faith."

The original term was inclusionary.

Now the revisionists insist on their own meaning which can, basically, be translated as "Me, my wife, son John, his wife, us four and no more."

The revisionist term is exclusionary.

The same is true in politics.

"Liberal" used to mean maximum liberty from government intrusion.

Now the revisionists have co-opted the term to be synonymous with big government "socialism."

 

You don't want to see God as High and Holy and don't want to Praise Him?

 

There is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. Each of the 5 points (taken from the "5 Heads of Doctrine) depends on the one before it and empowers the one behind it.

Total Depravity is what necessitates Election, which, because of Total Depravity, cannot be based on any human merit, and therefore Election is Unconditional (not conditioned on any human merit).

Election is what necessitates Atonement, and as Election is not conditioned on any human merit, it is Limited in application to believers only.

And the Atonement is what necessitates Grace, and as the Atonement has been applied, on the cross, to the Elect, the Grace of God is Irresistible. (The "God didn't make robots" or "God does not force Himself on anyone" objection is based on a sad failure to understand the Grace of God. The lyrics of the old song got it right "God does not compel us to go, oh, no! He just makes us willing to go." God, through the preaching of the Gospel, makes His Grace so attractive that we no longer desire to resist. God can, and does, change our "wanter.")

Which leads to Preservation of the Saints. The God Who saves us, via the Grace, above, is the same God who sustains us, by that same Grace.

It is like being pregnant. You either are or you are not.

 

Of course Christ died for all men. He just didn't die for all men to Atone for their sins.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Does Jesus save everybody? (Universalism?) (That was a rhetorical question. The obvious answer is "NO!" )

Christ died for all, but not necessarily in a salvific way. His death brings the former and latter rains on the just and the unjust. His death, which saves the elect, also enables them to love their fellow men and help relieve the poor and needy. His death produces a cadre of just and honorable men who influence society and society's laws, to the benefit of all mankind.

One of the reasons this objection is so often raised is that most of us don't have a thorough understanding of the scope and richness of His sacrifice. It is much, much greater than just to the saving of our sin sick souls.

 

But don't you realize that removing one point is like removing one link in a chain?

If the Atonement isn't limited then Grace is no longer necessary. And if Grace is not necessary, the Preservation is moot.

And going the other way, if Atonement is not Limited it is because Election is conditioned on the merits of the person.

And if a person has such merit then Total Depravity is a myth and Paul was wrong when he said, in Ephesians 2:1, "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;"

 

Yes, and as the three are inextricably linked, the person believes none of them and is, in fact, a 5 point Arminian.

 

God has never changed His mind. Salvation is all of Grace and none of me.