Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges / Seminaries' started by StefanM, Aug 7, 2005.
What are some good premillennial seminaries?
Mid America is pre mil.
Some good pre-millennial seminaries?
Liberty Theological Seminary (Liberty University)and Luther Rice Seminary are certainly pre-mill and pre-trib. I believe Southeastern is as well though I could be wrong. Dallas Theological Seminary is still a strong pre-mill school, even though progressive dispensationalism seems to have gained a foot hold there. There are many others. Look at their statement of faith. If it is not made clear there...ask.
Southern Evangelical Seminary. Besides being a good solid school, it has the best program in Christian thought, philosophy, and apologetics anywhere.
Southeastern is also Pre-mil. Are not most of the SB seminaries Pre-mil? I'm not sure but it sounds right..
Western CB Seminary
I think SWBTS is fairly pre-mil under Patterson now. I could be wrong.
Maranatha, Central, Calvary-Lansdale, International Baptist-Tempe, AZ.
For you IFBs add to Squire's list the following: Central Baptist East, Detroit Baptist, and the seminary in Newington, CT (I am away from my office and cannot come up with the name.) Most of the IFB Bible colleges also have graduate programs and they are all premil.
Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary
Should a seminary teach only one position as doctrinal, or even preferred? Sounds a bit odd.
Should a seminary teach only one position as doctrinal, or even preferred? Sounds a bit odd. </font>[/QUOTE]One could make the same argument about having "Baptist" seminaries, also.
"Baptist" is a denominational affiliation. Denominational affiliation is one thing. An issue like this is entirely different.
I find I must disagree with you. The bodily return of Christ is one of the Fundamentals. Its timing is not. However, its timing does affect other parts of doctrine. The affect is not enough for any charges of heresy to be properly made. But, the differences are enough for it to be noticable.
This is not to say a school should ignore other eschatological positions.
Agreed. The average amillennial or postmillennial scholar will have a fairly different approach to theology as a whole, compared to a premillennial scholar.
As for me, I would study under a mix of scholars, or under premillennial scholars. I just wanted to know of any good premillennial schools because I believe premillennialism.
I don't think this issue HAS to be in the statement of faith, but I see no reason why it couldn't be.
Is Western still a "CB" seminary? I traveled with some prof's in the late 90's and they implied that it was no longer officially "baptist" or "conservative baptist".
As far as I know SBTS doesn't have an official position. A few years ago, Dr. Akin led a debate at Boyce among the faculty of SBTS and Boyce. Represented were the Pre-mil/Pre-trib, Pre-mil/Post-trib and A-mil positions.
Should a seminary teach only one position as doctrinal, or even preferred? Sounds a bit odd. </font>[/QUOTE]One could make the same argument about having "Baptist" seminaries, also. </font>[/QUOTE]No, one could not.
Baptismal regeneration is one point of doctrine rejected at all Baptist seminaries.
Should all seminaries allow complete academic freedom to all professors, enabling them to teach or to believe whatever they desire?
I agree with you that no, they should not. There are some that hold that a good education is one that provides all viewpoints and let's the student decide which is true. I disagree in part. On non-essentials, OK, not a huge deal. On essentials, we must teach what is true, why it is true, and why the error is error.
But even on non-essentials, why teach falsity as if it were an acceptable viewpoint? I'd have to think about it, but right now I'm not coming up with an issue in theology or doctrine where we would agree that there is no "right" answer that exists -- we might not be 100% confident that we are able to determine the correct view-- but a correct one would exist, would it not? Even in Rom. 14, where Paul tells us to agreeably disagree about non-essentials, he never claims that there are no correct positions.
I just don't understand this idea of putting a high value on 'present all sides and let you decide' philosophy. My instincts tell me it's been brought in from secular education philosophy.
For crying out loud, it's hard to keep error out of the pulpit even without telling students that they can decide for themselves what is true.
Hey, I'm for first-class scholarship as much as the next guy. But if you study the history of heresy, esp. in the last 300 years, you'll find that the desire to be respected by secular scholars has introduced boatloads of error into the church.