BJU and What they Teach vs. What they Do

Truth ,tenets, And Teaching

When you are looking to teach truth you don't look for diversity, you look for those who are best able to teach that truth.

=======================

I do agree that those who do not affirm essentials of the Faith should not be faculty. However,

Scripture is truth. The teaching of Scripture is only Biblical truth to the extent that that teaching is the precise equivalent of the intent of the Biblical authors.

At times the value of faculty diversity, as long a prof is not supposing that he speaks "ex cathedra ," in graduate education is that it requires students to re examine their beliefs to determine the consistency of those beliefs with Scripture.

IMO grad teaching is not telling a grad student what to believe!!!

IMO Christology is the core of Christianity. Yet we disagree MUCH about Christology!

Were Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson on a Baptist faculty two very different views would be taught on the effects of the Incarnation on the divine nature ; one holding that the divine nature stopped using divine attributes(Mk 13:32) . But other denying that by postulating that all limitations are in the humanity which has its own mind and will.

Were Chas Hodge and JO Buswell or BB Warfield and Berkhof on a Reformed faculty, one would say the HN is an entity that acts; another would deny that; a third would say the Son does not receive essence eternally from the Father; the fourth would say He does.

The reasons for these differences are many and complex...how can graduate Theology be done without much interaction with each??

Now how might a school address this issue of different views TO SEE THAT ONLY TRUTH IS TAUGHT?

(1) by stating a restrictive faculty teaching position which excludes one from being on the faculty who varies any from that position, so as not to "contaminate students" with any view which departs from that position? Then the SUPPOSITION is that the teaching position =truth.

(2) or, allow the several views to be taught. The supposition is that if dedicated Christian scholars cannot agree even about Christ, perhaps it is not so clear as to what is TRUTH!

While my views on such issues are decided, I would not feel bad to have other views taught [ as long as MY VIEWS, it was agreed, are THE TRUTH:smilewinkgrin: ]

Bill

 

There seems to be somewhat of a misunderstanding in grad school education and graduate professional education. The MDiv is a "grad-professional" school education and therefore, IMHO, should put out somewhat of a product that that lends itself towards the "Indoctrination" end of the scale. But, this should/must be tempered with the ability to do work at the opposite end of the scale, again IMO!

===

IMO, the pastor to be should be able to do more than parrot the narrow creed he has been taught. His education should not only familiarize him with a wide variety of viewpoints, as I've illustrated above in Christology, it should also have allowed and prepared him to interact honestly and vigorously with the rationale behind each.

So, for example, if he has graduated from a more hierarchical school which, say, disallows women preachers, because of, eg, the restriction in 1 Cor 14:34, and in his study he comes to the opining of Bilizekian who says that because 1 Cor 14:36 begins with a disjunctive particle, the restriction is that of the Corinthians, not Paul, I am saying that the graduate should be able to honestly and scholarly evaluate that view( which view, btw, I reject)..

Less than honest is not Christian, and less than scholarly is not graduate ,and why church members would want less of either in their preacher/teacher I cannot fathom.