Why start an online BB ministerial academy?

[exscentric]

"I would rather have a "generic SOF" for which Exs argues and have a "big tent" in order to draw students"

NOT

I thought I was suggesting it was too generic

Probably what I would go for is a less generic for the faculty/staff and a broad one for the student. That way you have a faculty that is going in a fairly "same" direction, while students can come as they are.

 

[JamesBell]

I feel out of place in this conversation, but I also feel that this should be said.

The discussion seems to have evolved into whether or not the Statement of Faith should lean towards Calvinism, which would exclude Arminians; or whether there should be a "big tent" to include people from different views. While this discussion is going on, I feel as if I am the only person reading it that isn't a 5 point Calvinist. If the faculty is going to made up of those that believe Calvin was correct, shouldn't the Statement of Faith reflect that situation? There was no problem excluding the KJVO folks in the first clause, I don't really think excluding people that can only deal with Arminians is any different. (Of course, this is easy for me to say since I am still working towards my own answer to the debate.)

 

[Rhetorician]

Exs,

I am sorry to have misunderstood your intent.

sdg!

rd

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by exscentric:


Realizing I am not part of this yet, and that I am not aquainted with Southern Baptist statements, it seems generic and possibly laced with unnecessary detail while leaving out other needed detail.

===
===


It isn't a SBC statement, and I am not SBC. It is one I myself wrote just for this. It certainly is subject to modifications.

===
===

I can see an arminian, a calvinist, a dispy and a covey, as well as amill, pretrib and all between feeling warm and fuzzy under this umbrella. If the faculty is that varied how will the new student sort through all the varied positions, thoughts and doctrines they are going to be subjected to? Confusion seems to be the likely outcome. For the trained student the mental gymnastics might be an advantage.

===

But Rhet IS amill and wished not to be excluded by a belief statement which was premill.

And some Baptists are more Arminian than Calvinistic.

Some Baptists are not at all dispensationalists as in Darby's thought .

As I suggested somewhere, in areas where there is a division in the views of faculty members over a doctrine , a peer group might evaluate what is taught to assure that all conservative views are well represented.

I don't think this school is envisioned as an indoctrinating tool for pet positions but for exposure to and education in all views on a tenet held by conservatives.

Still the teacher after honestly explaining various positions and truthfully outlining the evidence for each, is then free to express his own opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

I think THAT is education! Education IMO is not learning one view.

===
===

If a wide and varied faculty is desired then it is probably about what you want.

===
===

Again, I think we did not want to exclude any competent Baptistic prof , who might be like an AT Robertson , or a Wayne Grudem, or a Millard Erickson just because he , as NONE of these could, could not give his full support to a pretribulational view of eschatology..or whatever.

===
===

Point one seems to overdo on the originals and almost detracts from what we do have in the Word today - the protected Word of God. [/qb]

===
===

Certainly God has protected His Word, but POB's concern was that we not be KJVO and express that we are not, and I certainly could not affirm the KJVO only position.

It follows that the KJV must be viewed only by us as one of the better versions/translations, but not as inspired- not as the standard by which all translations should be judged. But were it not the inspired standard , then what is?

That was why I wrote of the originals. A reference to the original text and language , is what I think, only justifies the learning of the Biblical languages and the doing of exegesis which includes textual research.

I don't see how competent and complete instruction can occur without reference to the originals . Even the use of Strong's simple lexicons ,in his concordance, leads to the question of why use those lexicons at all unless the translations, all of them, while excellent, may be imperfect.

[ July 30, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by JamesBell:
[QB] I feel out of place in this conversation, but I also feel that this should be said.

The discussion seems to have evolved into whether or not the Statement of Faith should lean towards Calvinism, which would exclude Arminians; or whether there should be a "big tent" to include people from different views.

===

It's not as simple as Calvinism vs Arminianism. It includes disagreements over millennialism, the rapture question, the relation of the church to Israel, trinal relationships, the meaning of Christ's humanity , and even charismatics. (eg Grudem on prophesy for today).

IMO the tent should be broad enough to cover, except in one or two areas ,[as the issue of KJVOnlyism , where it is felt we must be proactive to distinguish ourselves from what is popular among some Baptists] , the variety of views within traditional conservative Baptist circles.

As an aside, it is also arguable that Calvin was not a 5 pointer. Read: Concerning the Et Pred of God by Calvin.

[ July 30, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[exscentric]

"I am sorry to have misunderstood your intent."

Not a problem, my clarity of words mirrors my clarity of though, well, I mean lack there of

UZTHD, wasn't attacking, just making some observations, which I will refrain from doing

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by exscentric:
-)

UZTHD, wasn't attacking, just making some observations, which I will refrain from doing

[/QB]

===


I understand. Perhaps the statement of faith IS a first step as that may determine who is on that same path. As I repeatedly said , that statement is just my suggestion. That statement IS fair game to attack with constructive criticism, and please do so , but then, I must be allowed to respond. But my responses are simply purposed to aid us in deciding what must be said in a statement of belief of THIS purpose and what can be omitted.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by exscentric:
-)

UZTHD, wasn't attacking, just making some observations, which I will refrain from doing

===


===

You should not refrain from doing that just because I reponded to what you said.

I am not upset at all ; I just am expressing my opinion which may be wrong.

By witholding observations you may circumvent a correction which may be needed.

So please, don't refrain from that.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Now is the time for things to be discussed and ironed out. I can't imagine how closed a system we would be bringing about if we can't openly and fairly discuss issues.Please do share . The only thing I ask is that you all play fair.

 

[Rhetorician]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
HZThD & Exs.,

I would personally prefer to opt for the Calvinistic side; BUT not all are Calvinists. We may loose some very good students and faculty as well if we lean too far in that direction. I can work well with an Arminian who "believes all are saved by grace!"

We may have some "loud discussions" off line about what "real grace" is and means. But, that is to be handled when and if it comes up.

I would vote for "inclusionary" rather than "exclusionary" especially for the project at hand.

I use to be a "High Calvinist" and was hard. I wanted to make "Calvinist disciples" rather than "Christ's Disciples." I believe like I always have believed--I am just not "mad about it" any longer.

I would rather have a "generic SOF" for which Exs argues and have a "big tent" in order to draw students and have a greater ministry focus.

Many (I suppose) will be coming to the programs with little or no theology; the very SOF could be a "teaching tool."

HZThD,
I would go for the modified Calvinistic stance--one that would not be offensive to the "thinking Arminian."

Whatdayathink?

sdg!

rd

To all who are involved in the BB Academy.

I am more than satisfied with my above statement.

sdg!

rd

 

[exscentric]

"You should not refrain from doing that just because I reponded to what you said."

I thought I'd refrain because I had brought up the points I wanted to bring up, not because of what you did or didn't do.

"I am not upset at all ; I just am expressing my opinion which may be wrong."

I didn't say you were and did not mean to intimate that you were.

"The only thing I ask is that you all play fair."

Now, the fun has been taken out of things!

 

[StefanM]

IMO, if you make the SOF very Calvinistic, it will act like student repellent. Most Baptists aren't Calvinists, and non-Calvinist students, IMO, would be resistant to studying under all Calvinist professors.

 

[Paul33]

It should be "evangelical" without being sectarian.

What's wrong with a student learning systematic theology from both a Calvinist and an Arminian? Let the debate begin with good natured love for each other!

This would be the strength of the program, and not a weakness!

Perhaps the book by Packer and Oden could be of some help - One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus.

 

[UZThD]

Stefan and Paul

I agree!

I just ordered a book by three profs of the same school. Yet while all fellows in the faculty, they disagree re the Tribulation. And each in this book argues his position on that.

I am a member of ETS which includes: Arminians and Calvinists, Pre mills, Amills, and Post mills; Disps and Covs; charismatics and non char. and assorted others. I can fellowship in this society with each because each holds to certain minimal basic doctrines.

IF this school wishes to be defined by Calv or Disp , then it should say so, but if it does not, then, it should not. One teaching soteriology here must fairly give the several sides. IMO THAT is education instead of indoctrination. I do not think my views are infallible, and therefore I do not mind honestly sharing the other side!

The detailed , exclusionary first point is because at least two of us feel strongly that we are not wanting the school to be KJVO.

I will admit, however, that I constructed the statements referencing Trinal relationships and Christology with the intention of being able to fit my particular views into that. And if anyone interested in participating in our "Academy" is uncomfortable with the statement there, he/she should say so.

 

[exscentric]

Curious, could you elaborate on:

1. "I constructed the statements referencing Trinal relationships and Christology with the intention of being able to fit my particular views into that." What is your view on that? Mini readers digest format will do

2. Why you would exclude KJVO but accept about every other theological line of thought such as "Arminians and Calvinists, Pre mills, Amills, and Post mills; Disps and Covs; charismatics and non char. and assorted others"

 

[JamesBell]

I don't think that the KJVO PEOPLE are being excluded. Rather, it is just an attempt to be clear that the "school" will not be KJVO. If this is the case, I think it is the proper decision.

This will preclude any people that become involved in the future from trying to take the school in that direction. It will also prevent student from being angered by the use of other versions, since it is clear from the outset that the school is not KJVO.

 

[exscentric]

"exclusionary" was the term used. Merriam-Webster: "1 : the act or an instance of excluding
2 : the state of being excluded"

If, as you say, you just want to set the direction of the school, why would you set the direction away from KJVO and not some of the others? Why is it so bad and the others acceptable? Just wondering.

 

[Paul33]

Come on, Ex.

KJVO by definition excludes all others who use modern translations. There goes the whole faculty, meaning those on the Board discussing this proposed school.

KJVO by definition excludes. Personally, if someone holds that position, they shouldn't be allowed to teach, IMO.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by exscentric:
Curious, could you elaborate on:

1. "I constructed the statements referencing Trinal relationships and Christology with the intention of being able to fit my particular views into that."

What is your view on that? Mini readers digest format will do


===

Some evangelicals as Shedd, AA Hodge, Berkhof,Wiley, and Williams believe that the Father eternally provides by filiation to the Son deity or personhood. (and to the Holy Spirit the same by spiration) . I do not. Therefore, unlike Nicaea or Westminster does, I did not include that in the statement. I made no divine Person the cause of the other!

Also, some like Grudem, Kitano, Lewis, Dahms, and Demerest suppose that God the Son , in His pre existence is eternally role subordinate to the Father. I do not. So, I in my statement emphasize that they are attributionally equal.

Also some , as Erickson, suppose that in the Incarnation God the Son discontinued the use of some divine attributes. After the incarnation , Erickson teaches, God the Son no longer directly could access the omniscience of God! I am much opposed to that view. So, my statement emphasizes that the incarnation did not affect the Son's divine nature because humanity was added to Christ - NOT substituted for Christ's deity!

Sorry if I got windy, I do over such


====


2. Why you would exclude KJVO but accept about every other theological line of thought such as "Arminians and Calvinists, Pre mills, Amills, and Post mills; Disps and Covs; charismatics and non char. and assorted others" [/qb]

===

Good question.

Actually, as this thread shows, the denial of KJVO was not my idea, it was POB's. However I am not in discord with it.

Here's why: In the minds of SOME KJVOers (NOT saying in yours) the KJV is the standard for interpretation. No exegesis in the Biblical languages is at all required. No lexical research, no grammatical or syntactical observations are at all necessary . Did Paul in Greek put a period between Christ and God in Rom 9:5? Who cares! The KJV does put a period there , so that period is inspired whether the originals had punctuation or not.

So, with that viewpoint, what does one do when teaching John 1:18 for example? Could the better reading be monogenes God and not monogenes Son? Shall we look at the MSS evidence? Naw, why bother, the KJV text is inerrant.

Might monogenes not even mean only begotten but instead mean 1 of a kind as in the LXX it ONLY translates yahid which does not mean anything like beget . Neither do NT usages indicate a birthing is the point, Might not the adjective derive from genos and not gennao? NAW, none of it matters a whisp because the KJV is inerrant and WHATEVER it say counts!!!.

Shall we offer Greek in our Academy? But why, WHY?, the KJV surpasses even what the apostles themselves actually wrote!!!

The resourceful and studious student asks, "Prof XXX shall I look up prototokos in the TDNT, shall I note the reason for the articulated noun in Robertson's Grammar?" "Why NO. All we need is the KJV! "

Again I am not saying that is your view. BUT these attitudes ARE HERE at BB.

IMO those attitudes stifle scholarship.

And anyone who peeks his head out into the sort of Christian academia espoused by societies as ETS or journals like NTS, JETS, or Bib SAc, or schools like DTS, TEDS, or The Masters know that.

I would like our students to have the freedom to interact with such scholarship, but it is all vanity if one is KJVO in the strictest sense.

And that is why I see no problem with not excluding Arminianism or a Millennialism , eg, becuse NONE of those limit the research and scholarship which limiting MAY be done if one is a convinced KJVOer.

oopsie, blathered on again

[ July 31, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[exscentric]

Thanks for the mini micro readers digest version, well done.

I am not KJVO and know the radical ends it goes to. Most I know aren't that radical and use all sources available to them including the languages which makes them NOT KJVO, but they haven't figured that out yet .

Thanks