Your Seminary Recommendation

Charles Meadows · Aug 7, 2005

Good points.

Spong is a liberal of liberals.

I think one can be fairly conservative but still have some nontraditional views, such as a nonliteral Genesis. Many would not agree with me on this point. It is still quite possible to see the scriptures as inerrant while not subscribing wholesale to the standard literalist stance.

Pipedude · Aug 7, 2005

Originally posted by StefanM:
Of course, there are levels of "inerrancy." "Conservatives" might consider the Bible inerrant in all areas. "Moderates" might consider it inerrant in faith and practice.

I'm an Arminian. If I said "I believe in particular redemption, but I believe it includes everyone," you'd know I was either ignorant or dishonest.

The same goes for a "moderate" who says "I believe the Bible is inerrant except for the places where it errs." Well, duh! For those guys, "faith and practice" is always restricted to passages the moderate agrees with. When he disagrees, it isn't faith and practice.

"Inerrancy" has already been defined. We can believe or disbelieve it, but redefining it is just the old double-shuffle.

StefanM · Aug 7, 2005

Originally posted by Pipedude:
I'm an Arminian. If I said "I believe in particular redemption, but I believe it includes everyone," you'd know I was either ignorant or dishonest.

Or a universalist

.

Pipedude · Aug 8, 2005

Yeah, you're right, sort of.

Had I used the term "definite atonement," universalism would be the implied system. But the words "particular" and "everyone" contradict one another, so I obviously had one foot ashore and one in the boat.

I should have said "If I said that I was an Arminian and believed in particular redemption, but believed that it applied to everybody..." Then you'd know I wasn't a universalist, since that would be contrary to Arminianism.

But you knew that anyway...

preachinjesus · Aug 8, 2005

well I just graduated from SWBTS...but, sadly, I can't recommend it for it is an unhappy place right now

I can however suggest Dallas Theological and their ThM (which is their basic ministry degree) as a robust and truly informing degree for someone pursuing ministry.

Humblesmith · Aug 8, 2005

Originally posted by preachinjesus:
well I just graduated from SWBTS...but, sadly, I can't recommend it for it is an unhappy place right now

I can however suggest Dallas Theological and their ThM (which is their basic ministry degree) as a robust and truly informing degree for someone pursuing ministry.

Just curious.......
Why do you say it is an unhappy place? Please DO NOT tell about dirty laundry or individual personal opinions, as that will not help anything. But I am interested in overall trends and what's going on with the schools.

Paige Patterson is coming to speak at my church in November, so I'm especially interested.

Glad to see you respect DTS. Everyone that I've met from there have been very good, solid people.

PatsFan · Aug 8, 2005

Originally posted by preachinjesus:
well I just graduated from SWBTS...but, sadly, I can't recommend it for it is an unhappy place right now

What's going on down there? A friend of mine just graduated from there with her MACE and said she would not recommend it to anyone. She said there was talk about making the men wear coats and ties and the women dresses. I didn't get the full story though.

gb93433 · Aug 9, 2005

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by preachinjesus:
well I just graduated from SWBTS...but, sadly, I can't recommend it for it is an unhappy place right now

I can however suggest Dallas Theological and their ThM (which is their basic ministry degree) as a robust and truly informing degree for someone pursuing ministry.

Just curious.......
Why do you say it is an unhappy place? Please DO NOT tell about dirty laundry or individual personal opinions, as that will not help anything. But I am interested in overall trends and what's going on with the schools.

Paige Patterson is coming to speak at my church in November, so I'm especially interested.

Glad to see you respect DTS. Everyone that I've met from there have been very good, solid people. [/QUOTE]When you see Patterson just ask him why Dr. Doug Jones is no longer the registrar at SWBTS.

Baptist born Baptist bred · Aug 9, 2005

I must disagree about SWBTS. I think it is an exciting place to be. Many new bright professors have been added to the faculty including Emir Caner, Danny Forshee, Keith Eitel, and others.

preachinjesus · Aug 9, 2005

my experience at SWBTS was good and good enough for seminary I suppose...though my undergrad institution provided me with more ministry relationships. I just don't suggest anyone to go there right now.

During my time at SWBTS there was a turn over of 20+ full time theology faculty members. With this turn over there were many people who were forced out for purely political reasons (e.g. not because they were theologically moderate or liberal.) Also there was an extended distrust between the administration and the student body because of some actions of people within the administration. (Truthfully there is just some stuff that students shouldn't concern themselves with because its not their business, but there were several matters which needed to be addressed in our academic community and never were.)

I believe seminary is to be a place where you gain disciplines and academic knowledge to carry you through a lifetime of ministry. The community and fellowship of students builds into this. From my involvement (and I was extremely involved while at SWBTS) the student body suffered greatly during this time.

Another matter was the student body lacked a coherent vision for their futures. The leaders of institution during this transition lacked a solid vision and thus the students' visions were perishing. There was a lack of a global vision for Christ's Kingdom amongst the students.

I became another number in a long line of students who were processed through the seminary simply for the sake of building numbers. At issue is the quantitative growth in students, not qualitative. There was a lack of overal concern for the students betterment and a more pointed emphasis on settling scores, wrapping up legacies, and finishing out plans laid decades earlier.

Of course the ridiculous politics of the two conventions in Texas found a focal point at SWBTS. This didn't help either. There are good people in both conventions, there are bad people too.

Maybe some good days are ahead for SWBTS. I pray and hope for the best for that school, its leaders, its profs, and its students. Yet I still cannot recommend it for a student right now, there are much happier options out there.

not bashing anyone, just telling the facts from my 3 years at SWBTS.

UZThD · Aug 9, 2005

Originally posted by StefanM:
there are levels of "inerrancy."

===

If the original MSS contain affirmations of error, then I would not call these MSS inerrant ; I would call them something else ...like errant.

But I know others disagree (eg, Pinnock's discussion on limited inerrancy in Montgomery's God's Inerrant Word).

Pronto · Aug 9, 2005

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
If you want to discuss what is liberal, I submit the following:

Paul Pressler wrote a book called "A Hill On Which To Die", in which he discusses his role in the events in the SBC. In it, he published a portion of a master's thesis done by a SBTS student in 1976. At that time, the student surveyed students entering the seminary, after the first year, after the second year, and PhD students. He asked questions such as "I know God really exists," "Jesus is the Divine Son of God," and "Jesus was born of a virgin." Those entering responded 96% to 100% in favor. After each year at SBTS, the numbers steadily declined, to the point that only 32% of PhD students agreed that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I take this as proof that as of the mid-1970's, SBC seminaries were immersed in liberalism. As I understand it, they have thankfully turned around.

"Liberal" has nothing to do with the liveliness or deadness of the service. You are correct that many have mixed this up.

We should not tolerate those who want to 'question the academic possibilites' of denying the virgin birth or the deity of Christ. We should not teach students to question these essentials, but they should be taught, along with the heresies that have been excommunicated over the centuries. At the same time, we should indeed question the cultural norms, and the 'way we do church' in order to reach the present generation.

Pressler! People still believe what he says? How do you know Pressler is lying ... his lips are moving.

PatsFan · Aug 10, 2005

Originally posted by preachinjesus:

not bashing anyone, just telling the facts from my 3 years at SWBTS.

I think it's helpful for people to hear how things really are. There are growing pains in several if not all the SBC seminaries. IMO there are identity and vision issues big-time--which are expected when schools go through such major changes like they have. That's one of the reasons I think it is naive to pronounce SWBTS and SBTS world class schools. In time, maybe.

JGrayhound · Aug 10, 2005

Originally posted by Pronto:
Pressler! People still believe what he says? How do you know Pressler is lying ... his lips are moving.

Riiiight.

JGrayhound · Aug 10, 2005

Originally posted by JohnAMac:
"Conservative" and "Moderate" are broad categories, and from a theological perspective, I've had trouble telling the difference. Moderates tend to be less bothered by people who disagree, and that seems to be just about the only difference.

Really? You've had trouble telling the differences in the SBC?

No doubt that rejection of inerrancy makes one a liberal. It also makes one no longer an evangelical (if that label matters to some).

Moreover, this position of "partial inerrancy" is simply absurd. It's self-contradictory. But, sadly, it makes sense that liberal Baptists would be inconsistent here as well.

PatsFan · Aug 10, 2005

Originally posted by JGrayhound:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Really? You've had trouble telling the differences in the SBC?
No doubt that rejection of inerrancy makes one a liberal. It also makes one no longer an evangelical (if that label matters to some).
some [/QB][/QUOTE]The National Association of Evangelicals would have a much smaller membership if you were running the show. While I probably share your position on Inerrancy, you exclude a lot of people including some soul winners from Nazarene Churches, Methodists, Presbyterians,Lutherans and CBF churches who may very well be conservative in every other area of doctrine when you say inerrancy is one of the essentials to be evangelical. I'd agree that it is an essential of Fundamentalism, but not Evangelicalism.

TomVols · Aug 10, 2005

For reasons alreadly listed, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

TomVols · Aug 10, 2005

Folks, the topic at hand is "Recommending a Seminary." We're not here to discuss the resurgence in the SBC and its characters. If you want to talk about this relative to the seminaries, do so STRICTLY. Otherwise, it's not germane.

Thanks!

Jimmy C · Aug 10, 2005

Preach is right about the issues at SWBTS - but, depending upon the degree you are looking for, I would still consider SWBTS. The Educational Ministries School is excellent (you can even get some great women proffs over there!) Richard Ross and Wes Black are outstanding in the youth field, and I would put SWBTS's psychology and counseling school right at the top as well. Hopefully attention will continue to be directed to the theology school and making sure everyone goes to chapel allowing the EM school to continue to do great things without much interference.

Tom, I dont think this is the first or last time a thread has been hijacked - I venture to guess that you may have hijacked a thread or two in your years on this board!

RandR · Aug 10, 2005

In keeping with Tom's admonition to stay on topic, while also wanting to chime in on the on the situation at SWBTS....

I'd recommend NOBTS for the reasons already mentioned, because of its setting right in the middle of a mission field, because of Chuck Kelley, and because I love Louisiana...laissez les bon temps rouler.

I would also recommend it over my Texas alma mater because it doesn't have the baggage of an insecure provost who has (through his policies, "leadership" style, and personal reasons) run off many tenured faculty, who has surrounded himself with sycophants (bright young scholars though they might be), who has all but killed two post-graduate programs, and who has never once served in any capacity in a local church.

Your Seminary Recommendation

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member