Should A Seminary President

Because there is already an institution named Biblical Theological Seminary, that is NOT an option.
And Mike, it IS just SO comforting to notice you, here at least, view "both sides" of this 'question' with such an open and unbiased mind!



In His grace,
Ed

 

Sorry! I'm not allowed to play in this sandbox! I don't have to get on the BB to get insulted: I can accomplish that with far less effort!

Martin writes:

To start with, the poll is misleading, for there are two questions, although the OP says one.

So in a similar vein, I have a 'question' for you.

Have you stopped beating your wife? And did you stop only after she caught you stealing from the offering plate? Answer "Yes!" or "No!"

As Lt. Columbo would ask, with a finger pointed against his brow, "You see my problem here?"

I don't like a 'self-serving' question that has only one answer that is acceptable. Ergo, I did NOT vote and give this proposition credence it did not deserve.

For everyone else, we've been 'had' on this so-called question. Although, the second question implies this was probably one of six Southern Baptist Seminary, the first asks no such question.
For it makes no attempt to define either what is "large", or what constitutes "evangelical". Depending on the definitions inserted, you could be talking about any number of schools, from, say, five to, say, two hundred world-wide, and not even necessarily Baptist, and depending on these same undefined definitions, might even not be referring to ANY 'Southern Baptist' institutions as "evangelical". Once one has 'bitten' on the first cast, he or she is 'hooked', and like that proverbial fish, an easy catch for the 'dip net'.

mcd almost avoided the trap; but allowed herself to start to be taken in, as well with her second response. The rest have been hood-winked, save shannonL, whose response, unfortunately is too simplistic. With all due respect, shannon, I am a member of a Baptist church that has chosen to align and affiliate with the SBC. It is not technically So. Baptist, BTW, for as I have posted before, our church cannot 'be' So. Baptist even if we wanted to. We were organized in 1782. The "Trienniel Commission" was not even organized for over 30 years, and we predate the SBC by more than 70 years. I will speak only for myself, here. And I am currently a farmer, with some extended family responsibilities, and even if I were 'led' in that direction, that would make it impossible to attend any So. Baptist Seminary except Southern, were I to attend in person, and even that would entail three and a half hours on the road, there and back. I suspect some others may be in similar situations, and a fair number basically not able to attned in person, at all. (Thanks for distance and on-line edcation, here!) For me, SWBTS would not be an on-site option. If I lived an hour out of KC, its gonna be Midwest.

Regardless of whether or not I am "...a southern baptist with reformed or calvinistic leanings."

(My alter-ego, Language Cop, gently for him, announces that you have four words in this quote that should poperly be capitalized.)

I do lament the 'weakening of principles' as do you. I commend you for this. Well, it's bed-time for LC, so we'll bow out, for the night.
In His grace,
Ed

 

Martin, I am not attacking you. (I assure you, I can find plenty of other targets, without even looking very hard! ) I'd almost say that as 'targets' go, you are not even on the radar screen!

However, you wrote-

Then why not say this, at the outset? And no question of guile, real or imagined, can then arise. And the idea is not that the 'poll' is/was 'self-serving', but rather that the question was, which I did state. I still see the question as misleading, even if that was not the intent, on the part of the questioner.

And I am not questioning your intention, at all. But your definitions leave much to be desired, and the OP places too much weight on my own lack of knowlege, unfortunately.

To the questions-
In the first place, only the six "SBC" seminaries are properly titled "Southern Baptist", at least in the US proper. (Some in other countries are probably SBC, as well.) The "Big Six" are all owned and 'controlled', by the SBC, itself.

Others, such as American, Beeson, Luther Rice, Mid-American, and Truett, just to name five, for examples, may all be 'better' or may all be 'worse', as far as seminaries go. And all have very to extremely strong So. Baptist influence, in various ways, but none can properly be called "So. Baptist", as they are owned and controlled by something other than the SBC, itself. Just for the record.

As to attitudes, I submit that an 'unloving' attitude is not something I wish for, in ANYONE claiming to be Christian. But that does not, in fact, mean that the President was out of line, per se, with that statement, for it may be consistent with the 'statement of principles' of the institution, absent further information. And I am just not willing to pronounce judgment on a 'vapor'.

Something that may be "crystal clear" in your own mind, or my own mind, might not be so perceived by others, in the light of day.
In His grace,
Ed

 

Rd, you don't apprecitae my humor? Sorry! If you can't laugh at yourself you will soon be all alone then the wolves will start attacking you.

I have an old saying, If you open your mind someone will use it as a garbage dump!

 

Ed, you don't apprecitae my humor? Sorry! If you can't laugh at yourself you will soon be all alone then the wolves will start attacking you.

I have an old saying, If you open your mind someone will use it as a garbage dump!

 

Anybody can say anything,the tough part is getting away with it.

 

Is the school in question "very much a Southern Baptist school"? I'm not sure I would disagree. But I don't fully agree either. Since the mid-80s, it has definitely been more closely identified with SBC circles than the IBF circles of its nascent years. I would suggest, however, that its "new" SBC identity has much less to do with doctrine or cooperative missions, and much more to do with the number of students that can be recruiting from good relationships with SBC mega-church pastors.

I guess that's really neither here nor there, though. Your point was to ask whether the comments in question are wise. I think any intellecutally honest person would recognize that they are not. They just dropped the "B" from their name in order to reach students from a broader spectrum of evangelical backgrounds. It would be most unwise for the new Dean to make public remarks that effectively replace that "B" with an "A" for "Amyraldians and Arminians only".

I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I would not expect the new Dean to stick around for long (Maybe 5 years?) anyway.

 

Since when is it not wise to tell the thruth in order to attract more students? It is always wise to be honest. How about saying we want biblicists at our school. If we need a label lets use that one guys.

 

Mike,

I agree that we all should esteem the term "biblicist," except that doesn't really define much. It is like the liberals who cry "No creed but the Bible." The reason we have creeds and confessions is that even people who esteem the Bible have contradictory understandings. Both Reformed and Arminian and everyone in between call themselves biblicist.

For instance, I became a Calvinist through my exegesis and exposition of Scripture, not because I had read Calvin's Institutes. (I have read them since! ). I have some friends who lean toward Arminianism and some who are Wesleyans who call themselves biblicists. Letting folks know where you stand doctrinally is the most honest approach.

While I disagree with a Baptist seminary president announcing that Calvinists are not welcomed, at least I know where he stands.

Bill

 

Bill, I just get weary of the attitude people have of criticizing anyone who does not agree with them. I am not Calvinist neither am I Arminian (by my definition). I came to this conviction by studying the same Bible you did (no intent to involve any translation). I have the same Holy Spirit you have. Can't we just agree to disagree and go on and serve God?

As far as the seminary president, the school should have known his sentiment long before he made a public proclamation! Agreed?

 

Hey Mike,

Sure, we can agree to disagree. This is the way early American Baptists handled their disagreement over soteriology. Jesse Mercer comes to mind. And, really, Bible translations do not enter the picture.

Yes, I am an unabashed Calvinist. I came to this conviction, one which I initially opposed, through study of the scriptures. My mission, though, is not to convert others to Calvin but to Christ. I am much more concerned with believers being submissive to the Word of God.

And, yes, the school should have known, and perhaps did know (we don't really know many details, do we?), of his sentiment.

Thanks for your irenic response.

Bill