Which Seminary?

[Chad Whiteley]

Um, please don't equate Foxe's Book of Martyrs (that is MUCH older, and viewed to be scholarly and somewhat historically reliable), and the fiction book, "The Trail of Blood."

But you are right: "Trail of Blood" is a Landmarkist book, though it certainly does not exclude Baptist Bride nonsense.

My larger point was about Martyr's Mirror which contains some similarities to Carroll's work. I was very clear in my posts that people are right to challenge the history of Carroll, but you conveniently skimmed over that. More specifically, I was simply stating that having a history book does not a Brider make, whether it is factual or fiction.

With reference to the Baptist Bride at BMATS, I did find a section of the website that would indicate that BMATS does have briders among the faculty. I was unaware that any of the BMATS faculty taught that position, so I am surprised that this is included in their theology class.

http://www.bmats.edu/distance/TH412c/Jackson1.htm

From the BMATS website:

Bride

-- denoting affinity -- "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom," John 3:29. The Lord, while upon earth, had His bride, the church. In a generic sense, the churches of the Lord constitute the bride of Christ, now betrothed to Him. When He comes again, they shall be ceremonially married in the royal palace of the universe. We are told in Revelation 19:7: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him. For the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Then only the saved who were and are members of Scriptural churches will be recognized as the bride. All others who are saved will be guests at the royal wedding. Salvation alone does not make one a part of the bride any more than being a woman makes her a bride. Salvation is basic, like being a roman is essential to being a bride, but one may be a woman without being a bride.

I am man enough to admit when I am wrong. I am obviously wrong about BMATS.

 

[reverist]

PhD Philosophy

I myself enjoy philosophy, particularly philosophy of religion, and I say if you prefer philosophy of religion and can get into Notre Dame do so. Michael Rea and Flint and others are excellent. Oxford had for this upcoming year just 77 applicants to its PhD Theology program (that also has a specialization in phil. of religion) and 19 spaces open. 25% ain't too bad.

 

[reverist]

David Cloud is an IFB. He would be able to sign the BMA statement, but is not a Baptist brider.

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/baptistbrider.html

For what it's worth, I think David Cloud is nuts.

 

[Ryan.Samples]

Depends on the curriculum. If it addresses the Spiritual Disciplines from a right and proper viewpoint, then they are great. Don Whitley, at Southern, teaches these classes. I highly recommend his book on the disciplines.

IF the curriculum is the horrible garbage that MOST seminaries are using, that is heretical nonsense by Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, etc., then it is worse than useless.

Liberty Bapt Theo Sem requires spiritual formation and it was an excellent course. Well, the residential version, anyway. Not sure about the online version's quality.

I for one think Foster's Celebration of Discipline is a worthwhile text, provided you keep in mind his background. I do agree that curriculum determines whether such a course is worthwhile. The professor obviously often makes or break such a course, too.

I haven't interacted with Willard's work, but generally hear good things about him (people speak well of him). What does he teach that is so off-base?

 

[revmwc]

Um, please don't equate Foxe's Book of Martyrs (that is MUCH older, and viewed to be scholarly and somewhat historically reliable), and the fiction book, "The Trail of Blood."

But you are right: "Trail of Blood" is a Landmarkist book, though it certainly does not exclude Baptist Bride nonsense.

I thought as long as the curriculum was great other than teaching a doctrine you don't agree with meant the school was worth attending. So what if you disagree with the Brider teaching as along as it has a great curriculum. I personnally wouldn't but you said you would.

Let me see to quote you:

You are saying a school simply ALLOWING for a mid-trib position in their statement, would cause you to not attend?

I HOPE that's not what you are saying...

Simply because they allow Brider teaching you wouldn't attend?

When I answered that it would keep me from attending you said:

Well, I would disagree. The Mid Tribulation and/or pre wrath rapture has an enormous amount of scripture to back it up. But to each his own.

I guess I can see why the body of Christ is so divided and powerless in the world. Sad.

They back their teaching up with scripture an enormous amount, yet they misinterpret that scripture.

Yet you wouldn't attend if the curriculum was great otherwise?

So which is it?

 

[Havensdad]

Liberty Bapt Theo Sem requires spiritual formation and it was an excellent course. Well, the residential version, anyway. Not sure about the online version's quality.

I for one think Foster's Celebration of Discipline is a worthwhile text, provided you keep in mind his background. I do agree that curriculum determines whether such a course is worthwhile. The professor obviously often makes or break such a course, too.

I haven't interacted with Willard's work, but generally hear good things about him (people speak well of him). What does he teach that is so off-base?

The online and residential classes are basically identical. Not sure how long ago you attended, but the Spiritual Formation class at Liberty is, well, to put it nicely, junk.

Celebration of Discipline is a treasure trove of heresy and untruth. It is, quite frankly, one of the worst books I ever had to read. And it has no business being used at a Baptist Seminary, unless the purpose is for the students to critique it, and explain its doctrinal errors.

Willard is even worse. New Age junk wrapped in Baptist trappings.

 

[Havensdad]

I thought as long as the curriculum was great other than teaching a doctrine you don't agree with meant the school was worth attending. So what if you disagree with the Brider teaching as along as it has a great curriculum. I personnally wouldn't but you said you would.

Of course, that is not even close to what I said. I wouldn't attend BMAT for the same reason I would not attend DTS: a third tier, non-essential belief is REQUIRED by their statement of faith. I am perfectly fine with a statement of faith that allows Landmarkists to attend in good conscience. Not a place to draw a line in the sand.

Simply because they allow Brider teaching you wouldn't attend?

No, because they require it, by putting it in their statement of faith.

When I answered that it would keep me from attending you said:

Yeah, you need to go back and read what I said.

They back their teaching up with scripture an enormous amount, yet they misinterpret that scripture.

First, no they don't. Second, you need to read what I said. BMAT and DTS are both requiring in their statement of faith, that every professor agree with a third tier, non-essential doctrine.

Yet you wouldn't attend if the curriculum was great otherwise?

So which is it?

It is exactly the same as before. You need to learn how to read.

 

[go2church]

There is rarely going to be a place where you agree 100% on everything. Everyone has to decide for themselves what is acceptable and we all have to remember that there is a huge difference between actual learning and indoctrination.

Thanks for doing the research.

 

[revmwc]

Of course, that is not even close to what I said. I wouldn't attend BMAT for the same reason I would not attend DTS: a third tier, non-essential belief is REQUIRED by their statement of faith. I am perfectly fine with a statement of faith that allows Landmarkists to attend in good conscience. Not a place to draw a line in the sand.



No, because they require it, by putting it in their statement of faith.



Yeah, you need to go back and read what I said.



First, no they don't. Second, you need to read what I said. BMAT and DTS are both requiring in their statement of faith, that every professor agree with a third tier, non-essential doctrine.



It is exactly the same as before. You need to learn how to read.

I posted your quotes verbatim right from the forum. Go back and look at them each quote I show was copied and pasted.

 

[Chad Whiteley]

First, no they don't. Second, you need to read what I said. BMAT and DTS are both requiring in their statement of faith, that every professor agree with a third tier, non-essential doctrine.

You and I are in total agreement on this one. This is why I knew that I could never finish a PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty. They require allegiance to several third tier non-essential doctrines as part of admission into that program (pre-tribulational rapture is one non-essential). Of course, as far as I know, beleif in the pre-tribulational rapture is a condition of employment at some other evangelical seminaries.

To a lesser degree, this is why I can no longer attend any of the SBC schools. In 2000, they amended the BF&M to include non-essentials (like the idea that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion).

It was part of the reason I did my undergrad work at Colorado Christian University. This was clearly a conservative college where I could feel free to believe in the historic Christian faith without compromise. At the same time, there was latitude give for disagreement over non-essentials.

At the seminary level, several evangelical seminaries allow such latitude. Off the top of my head, I am thinking of Gordon Conwell and Denver Seminary. I am sure there are dozens more.

To summarize, nearly ever denominational school will inject some non-essential junk into their confession. The BF&M does this very well. Some non-denominational schools who are sold on a system (like dispensationalism) instead of a Savior will also do this. This leaves a very small number of colleges and seminaries on the table.

 

[revmwc]

There is rarely going to be a place where you agree 100% on everything. Everyone has to decide for themselves what is acceptable and we all have to remember that there is a huge difference between actual learning and indoctrination.

Thanks for doing the research.

On the minors we need not agree, but on what we consider majors and that we confess as true doctrine we need to stand firm and not attend a school that requires and teaches them.


My statements:

"If the SBC schools don't teach the Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil view that is enough in my book not to attend any of them. Of course we aren't talking us we are talking to the one that wrote the OP and he must find which school best aligns with his beliefs and go with that school."

Which prompted this response:

You are saying a school simply ALLOWING for a mid-trib position in their statement, would cause you to not attend?

I HOPE that's not what you are saying...

my reply:
"That is exactly what I am saying. I would not attend that school or an amil school or a preterist school. The doctrine to me is not backed up in scripture."

Which is my conviction, but when I make that statement on I get this:

Well, I would disagree. The Mid Tribulation and/or pre wrath rapture has an enormous amount of scripture to back it up. But to each his own.

I guess I can see why the body of Christ is so divided and powerless in the world. Sad.

That got this:

I have to admit I am kind of right there with you... One of the reasons so many Christians can't get along is because of some "I am definitely right and everyone else is 100% wrong" attitude. Sigh.

So if I exclude a school based on my conviction it is called sad and gets sighs. Yet we must all stand on our convictions when choosing a school and should not have negatives made because of standing on convictions. I never said I had to be 100% in agreement as you see but upon the conviction of the Pre-trib, Pre-mil doctrine I firmly belive I would not attend a school that believes or teaches anything other than that, that to me is a major doctrine to which we should not compromise no matter the schools curicullum.

 

[revmwc]

You and I are in total agreement on this one. This is why I knew that I could never finish a PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty. They require allegiance to several third tier non-essential doctrines as part of admission into that program (pre-tribulational rapture is one non-essential). Of course, as far as I know, beleif in the pre-tribulational rapture is a condition of employment at some other evangelical seminaries.

To a lesser degree, this is why I can no longer attend any of the SBC schools. In 2000, they amended the BF&M to include non-essentials (like the idea that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion).

It was part of the reason I did my undergrad work at Colorado Christian University. This was clearly a conservative college where I could feel free to believe in the historic Christian faith without compromise. At the same time, there was latitude give for disagreement over non-essentials.

At the seminary level, several evangelical seminaries allow such latitude. Off the top of my head, I am thinking of Gordon Conwell and Denver Seminary. I am sure there are dozens more.

To summarize, nearly ever denominational school will inject some non-essential junk into their confession. The BF&M does this very well. Some non-denominational schools who are sold on a system (like dispensationalism) instead of a Savior will also do this. This leaves a very small number of colleges and seminaries on the table.

I see pre-tribulational rapture and that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion as essential doctrines. So we disagree however these doctrines especially the Baptism of The Holy Spirit are scripturally based. Again we differ and should be able to and make decisions on schools and not get negative comments.

 

[Chad Whiteley]

I see pre-tribulational rapture and that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion as essential doctrines. So we disagree however these doctrines especially the Baptism of The Holy Spirit are scripturally based. Again we differ and should be able to and make decisions on schools and not get negative comments.

You and I are not oppsed to each other. I have no problem with you selecting a group of leaders to teach you based on your system. That is why we have several schools that have pre-tribulational rapture in their doctrinal confession. I have no problem fellowshipping with those who disagreement with me.

In your case, you have several schools that would fit your paradigm well, including Master's, Liberty, and DTS.

This was my challenge in finding a seminary:

I beleive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a historic event for the early church and not for every beleiver.

I am not convinced that the pre-tribulational rapture is set in stone because I do find explicit scripture to confirm it.

Those seminaries that tried to force me to adopt their doctrinal confessions troubled me. I could not in good conscience make such an affirmation.

 

[revmwc]

You and I are not oppsed to each other. I have no problem with you selecting a group of leaders to teach you based on your system. That is why we have several schools that have pre-tribulational rapture in their doctrinal confession. I have no problem fellowshipping with those who disagreement with me.

In your case, you have several schools that would fit your paradigm well, including Master's, Liberty, and DTS.

This was my challenge in finding a seminary:

I beleive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a historic event for the early church and not for every beleiver.

I am not convinced that the pre-tribulational rapture is set in stone because I do find explicit scripture to confirm it.

Those seminaries that tried to force me to adopt their doctrinal confessions troubled me. I could not in good conscience make such an affirmation.

That was my point on the mid-tribulation churches that were talked about and I was told that if the curicullum was great then their mid view should be overlooked, I don't agree with that type of compromise as you don't agree with compromising on yours.

We all have to make those choices based on our convictions and there you and I are in agreement.

 

[Havensdad]

You and I are in total agreement on this one. This is why I knew that I could never finish a PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty. They require allegiance to several third tier non-essential doctrines as part of admission into that program (pre-tribulational rapture is one non-essential). Of course, as far as I know, beleif in the pre-tribulational rapture is a condition of employment at some other evangelical seminaries.

To a lesser degree, this is why I can no longer attend any of the SBC schools. In 2000, they amended the BF&M to include non-essentials (like the idea that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion).

It was part of the reason I did my undergrad work at Colorado Christian University. This was clearly a conservative college where I could feel free to believe in the historic Christian faith without compromise. At the same time, there was latitude give for disagreement over non-essentials.

At the seminary level, several evangelical seminaries allow such latitude. Off the top of my head, I am thinking of Gordon Conwell and Denver Seminary. I am sure there are dozens more.

To summarize, nearly ever denominational school will inject some non-essential junk into their confession. The BF&M does this very well. Some non-denominational schools who are sold on a system (like dispensationalism) instead of a Savior will also do this. This leaves a very small number of colleges and seminaries on the table.

First, I disagree about the BF & M. I am absolutely astounded that you consider baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion a "non-essential".... guess we all need to work a little harder, so Jesus will REALLY accept us and bless us... :tonofbricks:

The BF & M is very basic, and only includes things which are explicitly taught in the scripture.

As far as Liberty, though you are correct about their official statement of faith, a belief in a pre-trib rapture is not necessary for either entrance to the school (I expressed my disbelief in this when I was admitted), NOR for a professorship (I had a professor that held to a post-tribulation rapture.).

 

[Havensdad]

I posted your quotes verbatim right from the forum. Go back and look at them each quote I show was copied and pasted.

You did. You just didn't respond to them. Apparently you responded to some made up statements in your head. Are you a follower of Jacques Derrida?

 

[revmwc]

You did. You just didn't respond to them. Apparently you responded to some made up statements in your head. Are you a follower of Jacques Derrida?

Did you miss post 43, 46 and 62 while 43 and 46 were response to someone he was agreeing with you so I answered you both with those. 62 was a direct response.

Who is Jacques Derrida? Never heard of him.

 

[Chad Whiteley]

I do not believe that ANY believers are baptized with the Holy Spirit in the modern era. My view is EXACTLY what B.H. Carrol taught.

I believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every beleiver and uniquely fills some for service. However, I do not believe that anyone today is baptized by the Holy Spirit at all.

Some good people believe that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. This is a non-essential for me. I do not agree, but will not part ways over it. If someone teaches that a second blessing is needed, I would part ways over it. I would not attend a school that taught this. We are complete in Christ, for in him dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Since there is substantial disagreement over the nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit among conservative Baptists, the language should have allowed more latitude. You inferred into my statement that I teach a second blessing, which is a bogus inference.

As far as Liberty's statement of faith, if allegiance by the faculty and students is not required, then why do have the thing? It is really laughable.

First, I disagree about the BF & M. I am absolutely astounded that you consider baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion a "non-essential".... guess we all need to work a little harder, so Jesus will REALLY accept us and bless us... :tonofbricks:

The BF & M is very basic, and only includes things which are explicitly taught in the scripture.

As far as Liberty, though you are correct about their official statement of faith, a belief in a pre-trib rapture is not necessary for either entrance to the school (I expressed my disbelief in this when I was admitted), NOR for a professorship (I had a professor that held to a post-tribulation rapture.).

 

[Chad Whiteley]

http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/bhcarroll/Spirit_Baptism.htm

BH Carroll on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He could not have signed the BF&M and neither can I.

I suppose my disagreement is not substantial, whatever that means...

 

[Havensdad]

http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/bhcarroll/Spirit_Baptism.htm

BH Carroll on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He could not have signed the BF&M and neither can I.

I suppose my disagreement is not substantial, whatever that means...

Could you reference the exact sentence in the 2000 BF & M that you have a problem with?