Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary

I have read Strous' work concerning the KJV and makes the same unbilical assertions that all KJVOs make. Emmanuel is blazingly KJVO. I know I have a friend who went there and he is KJVO. I did nothing to mention that Emmanuel takes an extreme postion, but they do take a KJVO postion.

Would EBTS allow a student to use anything but the KJVO or the TR?

 

I recommend this Seminary.

 

I recommend it for some reasons: sense, truth, TR over CT, Biblical sound, Biblical position and more.... This Seminary is NOT KJVO, but it is TR/KJV Seminary.

 

If you do not allow your students the choice of text and version they prefer, and you write articles that sound like the typical KJVO rehtoric, you are KJVO in my book.

Calling a dog a cat does not make him a cat; saying a KJVO institution is not KJVO does not change the truth.

 

They prefer???? Let me ask you question: Are they aware that modern versions are corrupted?

 

Askjo, that is a matter of opinion. The majority of conservative Christian's would disagree with that statement. By the way I personally am offended when some one calls the Word of God "corrupted". God's Word is never corrupted.

 

I'm starting my own movement: NASBO.

 

I wonder if there is a correrelation of the KJVO position and a particular view and /or practice of Christian higher ed. Sorry if this is naive. I've led a sheltered life.:laugh:

 

Acts 4:13 "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

No credentials here either
Go figure

 

==

IMO They were credentialed! They were credentialed by being with the incarnate God for three years..face to face! They were credentialled by being inspired apostles. They even wrote Scripture!!

But I was not and am notand cannot. And neither is or was or can any faculty at any school including the one of this thread!

That is why we get training! Why is that so hard to understand?

 

I don't think anyone here believes that the local church cannot train leaders, but it's all a matter of the quality of those providing the training. Besides, from what I saw on the school's website every teacher made sure that he had initials in front of his name wherever the website mentioned him. I think people here of a "certain ilk" are critical of that school because of the product of those teachers: as exemplified by the articles posted (i.e., the geocentric universe stuff, KJVO, etc.). Thus, suspicions of whether or not the teachers were qualified to teach were justified by what was posted and produced.

I tried to read the article on biblical scholarship but just couldn't get through it :sleeping_2: ...topically, it was all over the place in the first few pages. I must admit I cannot fathom why one needs to first address God's "academic credentials" while discussing "biblical scholarship."

Dallas, your last post was very defensive almost to a condescending level, and I think you mistake peoples' criticism of your school as a criticism of the church. It seems there's a kind of "us vs. them" mentality. We all want strong, healthy churches with great leaders. We may just differ on what constitutes the best training for church leaders.

BJ

 

IITim. 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same, commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also."

Now I may be a nobody and noncredentialed as far as the scholars of this world are concerned, however I do have a Bible and the indwelling HOly Spirit to guide me into all truth. I certainly understand that the apostles trained at the feet of Jesus for three plus years, however I disagree with UZTHD who claims the apostles were inspired. If I'm not mistaken it is "all scripture" which is inspired, not the human authors. (After all Peter had a problem which Paul had to rebuke him for and Paul calls himself a wretched man) Nevertheless I am of the opinion (and I hope I am still entitled to such) that it is possible to be trained properly in a local church, with or without a seminary or Bible college attached to it. Where were the institutions of higher learning in the first, second, third or fourth centuries? Many of our Baptist forbears had no place other than the local church to learn the Bible. If I am not mistaken Charles Spurgeon (whose picture is prominently displayed on the posts of one who disagrees with Dallas and myself) never attended Bible College. At the ripe old age of 20 he took on the pastorate which was formerly held by John Gill. Within a few years he had opened his Preachers college without any academinc credentials!
My question is why is it necessary to trust the teaching of God's men to parachuurch institutions which are not found in the Bible? If the church is God's institution for this age is it not capable of carrying out His work?

 

Garpier, perhaps you could ask your teachers who went to BJU and Tennessee Temple to answer your last question.