On Doing a "Cheap" PhD!!

[StefanM]

Martin did not say they were unbiblical, legalistic, and lacking in grace. He said their statement on divorce was unbiblical, legalistic, and lacking in grace.

This is the relevant point.

 

[Martin]

Martin, this expresses exactly the kind of attitude for which Fundamentalists are criticized. They set their own parameters and will not tolerate anything outside. It does not matter whether they have a Biblical basis or not. From our give and take in previous posts, I would have expected better of you. It is alright to disagree but you are writing off these folks over one point of contention for which you cannot establish that they are unBiblical. Here, you are elevating your opinion to the level of Scripture.

==I think you are reading way too much into my posts. My whole point is that I strongly disagree with their (MABTS's) position and I disagree with them enough to refrain from recommending their school to anyone until their position is changed. In other words, their position is so extreme as to be a deal breaker for me.

I tell that it is the same kind of spirit and thing being done when supposedly more tolerant believers, who criticize the Fundamentalists for their narrowness, begin lamblasting other believers over a moot view. If you're going to preach love and tolerance, then you must practice it regardless whether others do or not.

==This is far from a "moot" point or view. MABTS's policy could very well hurt a believer who made a mistake before they were saved or who are the victims of another person's sin. Their policy is simply too unflexible. They should take each student on a case-by-case basis. That way they don't end up throwing out the wheat with the tares (so to speak).

Furthermore, it is easy to judge MABTS when we are not in their shoes. We do not know all the data that went into this decison and we do not know the ins and outs of their interpretation of Scripture on divorce.

==I don't know why they put this particular policy in place. Nor does their reasoning have anything to do with what I am saying. They may have a legal reason for the policy or it may reflect a understanding of Scripture that I don't share. Either way, it does not change what I have said. Their policy just goes too far.

People who are often quick to criticize administration decisions are usually the ones who have never occupied an administrative position in the real world and have never borne the responsibility of said decisions.

==Actually, I have been "the boss" before and I have had to make tough decisions. That is why I am usually the one who defends "the boss" and/or the administration of a business or school. However this situation with MABTS is so extreme that I cannot help but be very critical of their policy.

On the other hand, I challenge you to show me any Scripture that MABTS has violated by this policy. We may not like it or agree with it but that is not the point. We can't just write off people or schools just because we don't like some of their policies. They are still serving the Lord Christ, not us.

==Since Scripture does not address seminary admission policies it is hard to say what admission policies are correct (etc). However I would point out that Scripture is clear that we are to be forgiving towards other believers, not holding their past against them (Eph 4:31-32, etc). Divorce is wrong (Mal 2:16). However it is not the unpardonable sin. There are many Christians who were divorced before they were saved or who are divorced because of the actions of someone else. There is no Biblical justification for Christians punishing the innocent with the guilty.

Although I have my own disagreements with MABTS, I respect their work for the Lord.

==Generally speaking I have the same attitude towards many seminaries and universities. However MABTS's policy on this is just too extreme for me to over look.

 

[Martin]

There is no reasoning offered from Scripture but he merely expresses his sentiment and opinion. Whereas he is entitled to his opinion, it does not attain the authority of Scripture.

==I never said that my opinion attains "the authority of Scripture" and I have never said that everyone had to agree with my position on this matter. Like everyone else on this thread I offered my opinion. Clearly my opinion rubbed some people the wrong way. Therefore there have been several posts discussing what I said. I find that very interesting since I am not calling for a public boycott of MABTS nor am I calling for anyone's resignation. All I said was that I will not recommend MABTS unless/until they change this particular policy. That is my view on this subject.

Is MABTS's policy unBiblical. In a word, no. Is it legalistic? No. Is it lacking in grace? No. It does not mean that they have an animus against divorced people just because they deny admission.

==Animus or not, their policy punishes applicants who are innocent of wrong doing. I'm sorry, but I do not consider such a policy to be graceful. Applicants to any evangelical seminary should be carefully screened. Part of that screening involves examining the individual situation(s) of each applicant. The kind of blanket statement that MABTS has made on this issue, where even they openly admit they apply it to the innocent as well as the guilty, is not an example of carefully examining each applicant's situation.

Somehow, people have the mistaken idea that they have a natural right to everything they want and no one can say no for whatever reason. There is no natural right to admission at any school. MATBS defrauds no one by denying admission.

==I have never said, nor do I believe, that anyone has a "natural right" to admission into any school. That is not even the issue. For me the issue is a policy that denies admission to students based on something they may have had no control over. They have control over their GPA, GRE/MAT scores, moral conduct, etc. However a person can become divorced through no fault of their own.

 

[Martin]

You cannot preach tolerance and practice intolerance. It destroys your credibility.

==Why should I be "tolerant" towards a policy that I believe is ungraceful and unrealistic? I see no reason for such tolerance. In fact, such tolerance would be dishonesty on my part.

you are throwing around a buzz word--legalism.

==First I am not "throwing around" anything. Every word I have posted on this is exactly what I meant. Second I am not throwing around any "buzz word". I called the policy legalistic because that is exactly what I think it is. If you don't agree with me that is fine. Third, what is legalism? Legalism is the opposite of grace. MABTS is not being graceful towards applicants who may find themselves divorced due to no fault of their own or because of sins/mistakes they made before their salvation. MABTS has a right to their policy and I have a right to disagree with their policy.

legalism to deny admission to avowed homosexuals?

==I am talking about how MABTS's policy might affect an applicant who is guilty of NO wrong (sinful) doing. A person who is divorced due to no fault of their own. Or a person who was divorced before they were saved. I am not talking about people who are living in open sin and rebellion against God. Certainly such people should never be admitted into an evangelical seminary.

Let's suppose MABTS sincerely believes that Scriptures absolutely forbids divorce. Theologian J. Carl Laney thinks so. (Have you read his book, The Divorce Myth?) Now, is MABTS a bunch of legalists because they formulate a policy on what they believe that Scripture teaches?

==I believe Scripture forbids divorce. That is not the issue. The issue is that there are people who were divorced before they were saved and there are people who are divorced due to no fault of their own. I don't believe such people should not be turned down automatically because they are divorced. The admissions committee should look at their situation and make a decision based on the results of that examination.

Btw, just because the folks at MABTS who created this policy believe that their policy is Biblical does not (a) make it so or (b) refute the claim that they are being legalistic on this point. As I am sure you know, people can be sincerely wrong.

 

[Martin]

A blanket statement on divorce is unbiblical in light of Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery. Their statement is unbiblical in light of Jesus' words on divorce in Matthew 19. Their application of their statement is legalistic in that it doesn't allow for individual circumstances. Their statement is lacking in grace in that it doesn't allow for the messiness of life to intrude on their institution.

==Thanks for pointing that out Paul. Those are exactly my thoughts on this. MABTS has a right to its policy, but I also have a right to say that I believe their policy is not in line with Scripture's teaching on how we as believers should behavior towards each other. O, and your correct, perfect people do not exist. We are all sinners in need of the grace of God. Those of us who have recieved God's grace (salvation) should not have our pasts held against us. Mainly by other Christians!

 

[sag38]

Wow, their DMin tuition is very reasonable. And, while I don't agree with their marriage policy one would have to admit that their tuition cost is better than other comparable schools.

 

[Pastor Larry]

MABTS is not being graceful towards applicants who may find themselves divorced due to no fault of their own or because of sins/mistakes they made before their salvation.

So it seems that you are saying that "graceful" can only be defined by "admittance into seminary," that there is no way that anyone can possibly have grace toward certain classes of people without admitting them into seminary.

What is the biblical basis for defining grace that way?

If a church has a policy that someone who embezzled from the offering can't count the offering anymore, is that also legalistic? Even if they were unsaved when there were counting the offering?

Or what about a school who says that someone can't enroll in children's ministry majors if they have been convicted of child abuse, even if the abuse was prior to salvation? Is that also legalistic?

Where do you draw the line here?

 

[Havensdad]

Wow, their DMin tuition is very reasonable. And, while I don't agree with their marriage policy one would have to admit that their tuition cost is better than other comparable schools.

That's not true. Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the Big Six, is only 5400 dollars: 400 bucks less than MABTS, and without the legalistic restrictions.

For that matter, all of the Big Six are under 10,000.

 

[Martin]

So it seems that you are saying that "graceful" can only be defined by "admittance into seminary," that there is no way that anyone can possibly have grace toward certain classes of people without admitting them into seminary.

==I am not saying that. You are trying to take what I am saying here and apply it accross the board. It is not meant that way. I have said here several times, and now repeat myself yet again, that I believe seminary admissions should look at each applicant on a case-by-case basis. Their policy on divorced applicants does not do that (see below). I have never said that they should admit everyone who applies.

What is the biblical basis for defining grace that way?

==What is the Biblical basis for their policy?

Notice the policy:
"The Seminary does not admit as a student anyone who has ever been divorced or whose spouse has ever been divorced. This applies without exception both to those who are “innocent parties” of divorce and to others." (here)

They refuse to consider each applicant on a case-by-case basis. Instead they simply make a blanket statement which, by their own admission, automatically disqualifies the guilty and innocent. What is the Biblical basis for that Pastor Larry?

If a church has a policy that someone who embezzled from the offering can't count the offering anymore, is that also legalistic? Even if they were unsaved when there were counting the offering?

==Since I am mainly talking about those who are divorced due to no fault of their own, "innocent parties" as MABTS says, I'm not sure I see the connection. You are, yet again, misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that MABTS must admit divorced students. My objection is simply towards their blanket statement. They should handle each applicant on a case-by-case basis. The situation of each applicant should be taken into consideration. That is how most evangelical seminaries handle the situation.

For example, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary states:

Applicants who are divorced must wait a minimum of one calendar year before they can be considered for admission. Upon receipt of the application materials, additional information may be required, including an interview with the Dean of Students.

That is a perfectly reasonable and Biblical approach to the matter. Allow time to pass and then look at each prospective student's situation.

Or what about a school who says that someone can't enroll in children's ministry majors if they have been convicted of child abuse, even if the abuse was prior to salvation? Is that also legalistic?

==No, it is not. Then again I don't see the connection. As I have said, each applicant's situation must be taken on a case-by-case basis. A prospective student who was convicted of child abuse before their salvation must be carefully examined by the admissions committee.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What is the Biblical basis for their policy?

I am not sure what they would say, but I can see a policy that is based on the idea that divorced people, while forgiven and restored, are permanently ineligible for ministry, and thus admission to program is training them for something they cannot biblically pursue anyway. (Again, I am not supporting that position, but that is a biblical argument and a biblical position held by a great many very gracious, loving men.)

They refuse to consider each applicant on a case-by-case basis. Instead they simply make a blanket statement which, by their own admission, automatically disqualifies the guilty and innocent. What is the Biblical basis for that Pastor Larry?

See above. In addition, it admits that there are "innocent parties" in divorce. That is rarely if ever the case. Although a party might not have committed adultery, it is doubtful that they were completely biblical. We have to be careful how far we take that, and I certainly don't have room to defend it here, so don't read too much into it. Second, to admit some and not others on a "case by case" basis opens the door for all kinds of problems, including lawsuits (by people who don't believe 1 Cor 6). You open the door to politics ("so and so goes to such and such a church and they donated X,000,000 dollars last year so we better not make them mad). So it is fraught with danger.

Now, having said that, I would probably support a case by case basis. But I can't imagine what possible legitimacy there is in calling MABTS' policy legalistic. That doesn't match any commonly used definition of legalistic.

A prospective student who was convicted of child abuse before their salvation must be carefully examined by the admissions committee.

So you think there is a chance that a convicted child abuser could qualify for ministry under the guidelines of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1? I think that is a stretch, and I have taken heat here at the BB for saying we have no grounds to prevent convicted s*x offenders from attending church. But preparation for ministry?

Thanks Martin. I will bow out here (I hope ... unless you direct a question directly to me).

 

[paidagogos]

Bowing out..................

Pastor Larry has posted a very reasonable and calm reply to the criticism of MABTS. I concur and will gracefully bow out of the discussion as well. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

 

[Martin]

So you think there is a chance that a convicted child abuser could qualify for ministry under the guidelines of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1? I think that is a stretch, and I have taken heat here at the BB for saying we have no grounds to prevent convicted s*x offenders from attending church. But preparation for ministry?

==My answer (to your question in bold) is no. Being admitted into a seminary, even graduating from a seminary, does not mean one is qualified or prepared to be a minister. All it means is that the person has met the entrance requirements and graduation requirements.

Having said that, I don't think you are treating 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 correctly. Both passages speak of the man's life and qualifications as a believer, not as an unbeliever. For example, even though the Apostle Paul was a denier of Christ, a persecutor of the church, and an accessory to murder before salvation, none of that disqualified him from being a minister after his salvation. After his salvation and call into the ministry, the church examined his life and teachings and determined that he was properly called (Acts 9:26-30). In the same way, a sinner who (while lost) committed the serious crimes you are talking about but has now come to faith in Christ should be examined by his pastor, local church, family, etc. At the end of the day they are the ones who can rightly judge if (a) enough time has passed to determine that his salvation and repentance are genunie, (b) he is called by God into the ministry, (c) if he is not likely to be a repeat offender. Even if a, b, and c are positive there are churches that will likely not be willing to trust him with their youth. Is that legalistic? No. Is that distrustful? Yes. However it is certainly understandable and any truly repentant person would understand the concerns. All of that aside, the courts may not allow such a person to be a youth minister.

 

[Havensdad]

The Apostle Paul murdered and tortured Christians. Guess he is "ineligible for ministry" now, according to 1 Tim 3, and Titus 1.

Context. Since Paul was engaged in Ministry, and he, self admittedly, was a worse sinner than anyone else He was addressing, he is obviously talking about one's lifestyle AFTER being saved. Else he would not have been in the ministry himself.

 

[sag38]

That's not true. Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the Big Six, is only 5400 dollars: 400 bucks less than MABTS, and without the legalistic restrictions.

For that matter, all of the Big Six are under 10,000.

I stand corrected, but MBTS is a lot closer than Midwestern. You have to take in consideration the cost of travel to the seminary for seminars and the cost of staying on or near campus during the seminars. For me, Kansas City may as well be in Egypt considering the distance.

 

[UZThD]

Martin, you come across as the most narrow and legalistic Fundamentalist in your attitude toward MABTS. Can you persuasively show from Scripture that they are wrong? I think not because there is room for debate and disagreement over the divorce question. However, you harshly judge them with no evidence of tolerance (disagree but allow their right to believe differently). All of your arguments are questions from life and things don't always add up to even sums in life. The real question is what does Scripture teach? There is a range of disagreement even among Bible-believing Christians. If MABTS sincerely believes this is the Scriptural teaching (i.e. ministers ought not be divorced men), then they ought to stand by their policy. Can you prove otherwise? The ball is in your court.

-------------

This is a tough issue. One of my profs at Western in the early 90s, Carl Laney, opines that divorce is never permitted and has written a book expressing that view. It is one topic among several which SATS students may choose to write about in the graduate bridging course GCS5200. Some interesting stuff. As you may know, one of several understandings of 1 Tim 3:2 is that the pastoral applicant may only have married one woman in his lifetime. Sorry if I just repeat what has been already said.

 

[paidagogos]

-------------

This is a tough issue. One of my profs at Western in the early 90s, Carl Laney, opines that divorce is never permitted and has written a book expressing that view. It is one topic among several which SATS students may choose to write about in the graduate bridging course GCS5200. Some interesting stuff.

Yes, I've read the book. Also, your former colleague, Wayne House, has written a book comparing the four views on divorce. It's a recommended read for one to broaden his perspective on the question. You're absolutely right--it's a tough issue. Too often we look at the human side of pain and suffering, which clouds our viewpoint on what Scripture teaches. I am always suspicious the person who says this is it and there's no room for disagreement. Personally, I don't think that individual has done his or her homework. I wonder how your SATS students approach the question.

 

[Pastor Larry]

My answer (to your question in bold) is no. Being admitted into a seminary, even graduating from a seminary, does not mean one is qualified or prepared to be a minister. All it means is that the person has met the entrance requirements and graduation requirements.

I think this gets away from what seminary is about. Historically, seminary was about training pastors. Why would you admit someone and train them for something that they can't do? I realize that there are exceptions, like people taking classes for the fun of it, but by and large, it is a career choice.

Having said that, I don't think you are treating 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 correctly. Both passages speak of the man's life and qualifications as a believer, not as an unbeliever.

Hm. ... I missed that in there. I don't see anything about believer vs. unbeliever. I see "blameless, etc."

You see, I think there are things that a man can do prior to salvation that disqualify him, and things he can do after salvation that disqualify him. We have to ask, Is this man blameless?

People who say, "Well no one is" or "We would have to disqualify everyone" don't understand what it means to be blameless. They are just making stuff up.

At the end of the day they are the ones who can rightly judge ...

This is correct.

All of that aside, the courts may not allow such a person to be a youth minister.

So the courts have higher standards for pastors than churches do? That is truly a sad statement on our churches. It is a bad thing when the world has to tell the church how to act. This is exactly the point of being blameless. When the world ... "those outside the church" ... looks at a man with questions, he is not blameless. Paul says, "He is to have a good reputation with those outside the church." That is not the same as "forgiven by God" or "accepted by the church," both of which can happen without reputation being restored.

Blameless means that you can't lay blame on him. It doesn't mean he's never done anything wrong, or never does anything wrong.

As for appealing to Paul, when you get direct revelation from God by a light from heaven, and three years of teaching in the wilderness from Jesus, then we can talk. But remember that early on, Paul did not have a good reputation with those in the church and had to have Barnabas vouch for him (Acts 9:26-27).

 

[UZThD]

Yes, I've read the book. Also, your former colleague, Wayne House, has written a book comparing the four views on divorce. It's a recommended read for one to broaden his perspective on the question. You're absolutely right--it's a tough issue. Too often we look at the human side of pain and suffering, which clouds our viewpoint on what Scripture teaches. I am always suspicious the person who says this is it and there's no room for disagreement. Personally, I don't think that individual has done his or her homework. I wonder how your SATS students approach the question.

-------

Paid

GCS5200 is one of three SATS' required bridging courses for one without a BA in Bible/Theology to complete before beginning MTh work. The other two are exegesis of Romans and a course on Anthropology, Christology, and Soteriology. I especially enjoy the last.

In GCS5200 the students write two papers. One is in Apologetics and the other in Ethics. In each of the two assignments, the student chooses one of five topics.

The last student to write on Divorce took the position that divorce is allowable in cases of desertion by the spouse or abuse by the spouse. Remarriage was said to be allowed should the spouse die.

Usually in this course , I do not debate tenets with students ; I'm mainly interested in such as their form, style, usage of sources, and basic orthodoxy. I required this particular student to resubmit her work three times before I'd pass it.

Usually one does not pass the first time any of these courses. But I did pass a first try on Romans today, however this student already has a secular PhD!

H Wayne House is a good friend, and we recently co authored "Does God Feel Your Pain?' pub by Harvest House.

 

[gb93433]

They started out years ago, I understand, making a "case by case" examination of the facts and merits of each individual. But, some were allowed. Then they were really "burned" by some that they let in.

I am sure they also got burned by several kinds of people who were not divorced.

 

[Rhetorician]

Cogats to Wayne and Bro. Bill

Bill,

Congratulations to you and Wayne on the release of this new book!!! I too have just had one released--I am sure you have followed the thread?!

How is your health? Good I hope. You and I are major examples of "it ain't over till its over" or "there is a lot of life left in the Ole boy yet" slurs!

Anyway, I am proud of you and for you. There is nothing just like your first book hitting the market.

"I am now and will always be your friend :thumbs: ," Spock to James T. Kirk!

"That is all!"