Your Seminary Recommendation

Jimmy, you may be right. I've probably chased some rabbits. But as a moderator, I'm committed to seeing our precious bandwidth conserved to keep it from being pillaged with the same old same old. I get tired of people turning every argument into KJV vs New Translations, SBC resurgence, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, etc.

 

Tom

You do a good job - I was just giving it to you a little!

 

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 </font>[/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. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Inerrancy is considered foundational for membership in the Evangelical Theological Society.....so I guess I am not the only one who views it as an essential of "evangelical".

ETS

BTW, I consider inerrancy much more crucial than just to latch on to some label.

BTW pt.2, being a "soulwinner" does not mean that one believes correctly...nor does it mean that one is winning souls to the true God (ie -Mormons). I think right doctrine is a better sign of faithfulness than this notion of "they win souls, they must be ok".

 

I know I've been one of the chief culprits of this highjacking, but I'd like to make one last comment, if I may.

Good point about the Mormons and "soul winning." I can't argue with you. I'm sure you're right about the ETS, but the NAE doesn't quite see it that way. They use the words "infallibility and plenary authority of scripture" rather than inerrancy. (BTW, again I personally believe in inerrancy. I just think it's a bit too narrow to call everyone "liberal" who does not). I promise I'll stop highjacking now.

http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.values

 

My Seminary Recommendation

For preaching:
Geneva Reformed Seminary
NOBTS

 

Select one of any "TR" Seminaries.

Avoid any "W/H" Seminaries.

 

Glad you give such helpful advice...

 

I did not do my MDiv work at Southern...but I am in the middle of the DMin program at Southern. I have taken 4 classes and I have yet to experience Calvinism being pushed in any way. I would recommend Southern for a Calvinist or a Non-Calvinist.

 

Stefan,

I did an MDiv (1998) and PhD in Church History (2003) at SBTS. Calvinism is not at all "pushed." Some students are strongly Calvinistic and others are not. The seminary's agenda is not to push Calvinism. Rather, it is to train ministers to be submissive to the Word of God and direct their ministries in that manner to the glory of God.

That said, no one is apologizing about being a Calvinist. It is recognized on campus that the heritage of the SBC is strongly Calvinistic.

I highly commend SBTS to you, especially the School of Theology.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Southwestern for a general (broad) theological education or missions.