What does your seminary teach about........

Since I have just finished two classes that deal with this at New Orleans Baptist here goes

Isaiah: Isaiah authorship with a mention of dutero and why some people claim dual authorship

Pentateuch: Mosiac authorship with someone else writing his obituary...other opinions again were explored

Gospel: Anonymous writers of all but Names are the best reasonable assumption of Authors. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. General consensus that there were other writings of which the authors used in writing: Logia, Testemonia, Q, and perhaps eye witness interviews(ie Mark maybe dictating Peter).

Gospels: First century(between mid 50's and mid 70's)...really no arguement to show otherwise.

Will have to look at the theology text...next semester.

 

What is SES like?

 

Systematic Theology at NOBTS uses Grudem.

 

Tater

Don't remind me of HIM!

;o)

 

SBTS also takes the conservative approach, e.g. one Isaiah, Moses for most (JEDP is outdated nonsense), gospel writers named using written and eyewitness accounts, 1st century. Intro systematic theology text is typically Grudem.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Has anybody ever heard the theory that Moses wrote down his own death in the last chapter of Deuteronomy?

 

==

I have read and much used Grudem's Systematic, and like it -- although IMO he contradicts himself re Christology and Trinal relationships. I think Grudem elsewhere has done great work in defining 'kephale' [head] in his JETS articles and the NT prophetic office in his dissertation. At WS we used Erickson, whom I think also is wrong in his Christology, but ,then, that is just my opinion. Yet, Grudem would also think Erickson wrong in the latter's kenotic Christology and Erickson would think Grudem wrong in his lack of that, so, we all opine, don't we?

I attended Western (CB)Seminary 90-94. The faculty teaching position affirms the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of the autographa of the 66 Books, but does not address authorship. Likely when authorship is broached a conservative position would be espoused by staff.

 

I attend Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Isaiah: deutero-Isaiah, or one Isiaiah?
Like any good school they teach both and give evidence both for and against. They let the students examine the evidence for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. That is how a school of higher education is supposed to teach.

Pentateuch: Moses, or JEPD?
Ditto here, but I have heard many students recently complaining that they are now being taught only the Mosaic authorship option. I took Old Testament survey two years ago (before the change in administration) so I haven’t experienced any indoctrination along this front.

Gospels: Mathew & Luke, or "Q" & others?
The professors teach both. Some professors hold to a particular theory on the subject more than others.

Gospels: first century, or later?
First century.

Unfortunately, Grudem is the main theology book used.

 

Okay, I'll bite....what is the problem with Grudem. I don't necessarily agree with all that he writes but he is solid, intelligent and well reasoned. His Systematic Theology is a classic. Is the objection to him that his is an ardent Reformed (Calvinist) Theologian??

Nord

 

a mistake post...sorry

 

Hey UZ,

Good post on UNIZUL by the way.

Nord

 

Hi North

As for me I like Grudem, but not as much perhaps as Hodge.

I think one may be wrong to like or dislike a systematic text because we agree with it or even because we like its form and style.

Better criteria may be : (1)the quality of the evidence the text makes for each of its doctrines ,and, (2) the coherence of each doctrine with all other related tenets in the system of that systematic.

IMO Grudem falters at times in both areas, but so do we all!

 

UZThD

He does falter.

I wished they used Garrett, he is a scholar's scholar. And he is Baptist!

 

umm, Grudem is a Baptist.

 

Grudem's book is fine and worth having in one's library. Unfortunately, it is really not a comparatively good textbook.

1) The book does not explore a variety of different viewpoints on particular issues. It is more of a book of indoctrination rather than a book of educational explanation. Erickson’s book is just as conservative but fairly offers alternative viewpoints to different doctrines. Erickson provides the strengths and weaknesses of each view and then gives his own. BUT HE FAIRLY PRESENTS OTHER VIEWS.

2) Being highly Calvinistic is not a problem but the fact that the Armenian perspective is presented by open theists is a problem. That is highly unfair to the Armenian position.

3) Grudem is quick to dismiss any viewpoint that differs from his. Any one who is not as Calvinistic or conservative as him is written off as unorthodox. EXCEPT when it comes to dispensationalism. Yes, Grudem treats pre-tribulation rapture dispensational theology with kid gloves even though he himself rejects it. Why isn’t he as dogmatic about eschatology as he is about women in ministry, the role of the pastor, and other such views? Surely eschatology is more important. The truth is that the majority of conservative evangelicals do not support Grudem’s views of eschatology. He is only dogmatic about the views he holds that are popular. When his views are not popular then he is less dogmatic. In short, he panders to popular theological whims.

 

Good discussion on Grudem vs. Erickson. I like Erickson a lot and agree that he does treat each view fairly. I'm considering buying Grudem also. Everyone's comments are helpful. I'll take a second look at Barnes & Noble's at the Grudem book before I buy it.

 

Erickson is too.