Which Seminary?

[Chad Whiteley]

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

From the BF&M 2000:

At the moment of regeneration He [the Holy Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.

 

[rmodis]

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.

I agree; Michael Rea is an excellent philosopher insofar as I have ascertained. I have read several of his pieces. I am not familiar with Flint's work, but I have heard of him. If given a choice, I would really prefer to go into philosophical theology, especially with respect to how the two fields intertwine. What is more, I would like to build cases supporting Christianity's truth claims that start with a purely philosophical standpoint, then shifts to a purely biblical standpoint, and finally combines the two to make a resolute whole.

That is why I would like to obtain a PhD in both fields. I believe that this is the only way that I can acquire the skills to adequately handle both sides of my envisioned argumentation.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Rhetorician]

Theological Triage By Dr. Al Mohler

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:



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:



That got this:



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.

Dear Brother Rev MWC,

I just could not help but be a wee bit concerned for what I think is secondary or even tertiary doctrinal issues expressed by you. For you to say that;

"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" (misspelling and all) is a bit narrow is it not? What about the place of the Gospel of Christ?

Let me commend to you and all others who might read this thread Dr. Al Mohler's "Theological Triage" article. As Dr. Fee states firmly, "All of the Bible is For us; But not all of the Bible is To us!" Please see below.

http://sbcvoices.com/the-importance-of-theological-triage-by-ed-goodman/

This discussion, as little as I have followed, reminds me of some good friends of the Dispensational persuasion I have known over the years. The "Kingdom," the "Kingdom," is the only thing worth noting and is there battle cry.

Then when you try discussing anything with them they are vehement that there is only a 1000 year literal reign of Christ on earth. They will hear of nothing else or nothing less. Some even come to the discussion with dates no less, and a knowledge of who the Anti-Christ is and the dreaded "mark of the Beast."

But what about the Gospel? Is the Gospel not more important than some view of the Kingdom. Some say (not by their saying but by their implication) that the Gospel is just a "ticket" to get into "God's (Christ's) Kingdom" here on earth.

I will grant that I maybe speaking in hyperbole, after all I am a Rhetorician. But the Gospel of Christ is the main thing??!!! No I am wrong!! The Gospel of Christ is the ONLY THING. Please be referred to the five Solas of the Reformation if any clarification is needed along these lines.

FTR, I intend no acrimony in any or all of the content of the message above!

"That is al!!!"

 

[revmwc]

Dear Brother Rev MWC,

I just could not help but be a wee bit concerned for what I think is secondary or even tertiary doctrinal issues expressed by you. For you to say that;

"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" (misspelling and all) is a bit narrow is it not? What about the place of the Gospel of Christ?

Let me commend to you and all others who might read this thread Dr. Al Mohler's "Theological Triage" article. As Dr. Fee states firmly, "All of the Bible is For us; But not all of the Bible is To us!" Please see below.

http://sbcvoices.com/the-importance-of-theological-triage-by-ed-goodman/

This discussion, as little as I have followed, reminds me of some good friends of the Dispensational persuasion I have known over the years. The "Kingdom," the "Kingdom," is the only thing worth noting and is there battle cry.

Then when you try discussing anything with them they are vehement that there is only a 1000 year literal reign of Christ on earth. They will hear of nothing else or nothing less. Some even come to the discussion with dates no less, and a knowledge of who the Anti-Christ is and the dreaded "mark of the Beast."

But what about the Gospel? Is the Gospel not more important than some view of the Kingdom. Some say (not by their saying but by their implication) that the Gospel is just a "ticket" to get into "God's (Christ's) Kingdom" here on earth.

I will grant that I maybe speaking in hyperbole, after all I am a Rhetorician. But the Gospel of Christ is the main thing??!!! No I am wrong!! The Gospel of Christ is the ONLY THING. Please be referred to the five Solas of the Reformation if any clarification is needed along these lines.

FTR, I intend no acrimony in any or all of the content of the message above!

"That is al!!!"

The Gospel of Christ is that He will come as SAving Messiah and conquering Messiah. That He will come for HIS Bride and as He Promised she will not go through the Time of Testing that is coming upon all the earth Rev. 3:10. So yes the Gospel of Christ must be the important Factor that all He claimed He would do He does and that includes the Eschatological teachings of His return for His Bride the Chruch.

 

[Rhetorician]

The Gospel of Christ is that He will come as SAving Messiah and conquering Messiah. That He will come for HIS Bride and as He Promised she will not go through the Time of Testing that is coming upon all the earth Rev. 3:10. So yes the Gospel of Christ must be the important Factor that all He claimed He would do He does and that includes the Eschatological teachings of His return for His Bride the Chruch.

My Dear Bro Rev MWC,

I perceive that we are at an impasse. It is one that I have had with Dispensationalists before. And it very well could be that I am in the wrong or in error and need to look further myself.

I would only comment you to a further study of the Five Solas of the Reformation and a consideration of Dr. Mohler's "Theological Triage." By the by, did you look at his comments in the pyramid and consider such? I hope so.

I bid you a fond adieu and ask God's blessings on you and your ministry wherever He may lead?

"That is all!" :applause:

 

[Ryan.Samples]

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.

Who taught your class? Online or Res? What made it junk?

Care to expound on Celebration of Discipline?

 

[revmwc]

My Dear Bro Rev MWC,

I perceive that we are at an impasse. It is one that I have had with Dispensationalists before. And it very well could be that I am in the wrong or in error and need to look further myself.

I would only comment you to a further study of the Five Solas of the Reformation and a consideration of Dr. Mohler's "Theological Triage." By the by, did you look at his comments in the pyramid and consider such? I hope so.

I bid you a fond adieu and ask God's blessings on you and your ministry wherever He may lead?

"That is all!" :applause:

It has nothing to do with my being dispensationalist or not, I also would not attend a school that taught thiestic evolution or the gap theory, althoug I once taught the Gap theiry myself. Nor would I attend a school that did not teach we are born spiritually dead or that we don't have an old sin nature. The one I really wouldn't attend is the one that teaches 5 point calvanism or arinian doctrine that one can lose their salvation. Those are all major doctrines to me. We are to follow after sound doctrine.

 

[Chad Whiteley]

Just to resurrect a really old thread. Liberty seminary is now ATS accredited.... Yay! They saw the same need I did to ensure their school was recognized in theological circles.