What Is Going On Here?

Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges / Seminaries' started by Martin, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last night I noticed that Norman Geisler has left Southern Evangelical Seminary, a seminary he helped start, and has moved to California to start work with the new Veritas Evangelical Seminary (which is not even accredited). Did something happen? Or is Geisler doing the educational version of flipping?
     
  2. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could this be related to Geisler's almost fanatical anti-reformed stance, and Veritas' statement of faith?

    A chance to express His anti-Calvinist outrage?
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dunno. maybe. He could've raged on at SES, you'd think. Or he could pipe down since he's already alienated so many in Reformed circles. Given his epistemological stance and his apologetic framework, that horse may have already left the barn (HA! I used big philosophical words AND a Southern expression in the same sentence) :tongue3:

    I wouldn't call this a flip. This does happen. However, a name as big as Geisler being involved certainly makes people take a second look.
     
  4. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it's not. It has to do with a new president taking over SES and different views on how to run things, I think. It has nothing to do with Calvinism.

    It' s really not very Chirstian to jump to conclusions and to make such outrageous statements. Many Reformed people appreciate Dr. Geisler as a scholar and apologist. To run him down just because he's not Reformed or a Calvinist is really low, imo.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Havensdad was doing that. When you tie Geisler's statements in the past to the doctrinal stance at the new seminary, one could certainly ask if it comes into play and do so with some measure of logic.

    Geisler is a tremendous scholar, but he does have an burr under his soteriological saddle re: Reformed theology.

    You're right that people shouldn't jump to conclusions and makes uninformed statements. I don't believe that happened here.
     
  6. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0

    LOL...isn't that what you're doing right now? You are assuming I jumped to conclusions.

    I did not. What I did, actually, was look at both schools statements of faith, to determine any discrepancies. The only real difference between the two, is a "We reject" portion in the new organization (absent from SES), which specifically rejects Calvinists and Charismatics.

    I think you owe me an apology for the way you have "jumped to conclusions" :laugh:
     
  7. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    A chance to express His anti-Calvinist outrage?

    How else is one to take this statement? Personally, I too think your statement, though not meant to convey the message received, could have been worded differently. In the statement of faith I didn't sense outrage. I sensed rejection but not a hyper, anger filled, rant against reformed theology.
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most schools I'm aware of don't have these. I find this curious. Most schools would rather articulate what they're for and let that be the answer to the question "So what do you oppose?"

    As Sag pointed out, maybe it could've been worded differently. But the assumption was this was a slam against Geisler. It could be but must not be assumed to be. There's more than one possibility. Sometimes people are praised for anti-whatever outrage. Watched a diatribe by Keith Olbermann this morning where he was outraged against insurance companies. Folks of like mind would call this outrage due to his language, and praiseworthy at the same time. Folks not of his ilk would see his outrage as something less than admirable. So my point: Havensdad could be in agreement with Geisler and extolling his stand, or he could be in opposition to him and to his thoughts on the subject. It was assumed to be the latter and that may be true. But the key word? Assumed.

    Havens....do I owe you a favor or something? I'm carrying your water here :laugh:
     
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I don't know, nor do I have any proof, that his abandonment of SES has anything to do with Calvinism. After all, SES is not a Reformed school. If my memory serves me correctly, Geisler stepped down as President. Nor do I see any major differences in seminary operation under Dr. McFarland.

    What really troubles me is how so many of Dr. Geisler's friends (Ron Rhodes, Randle Price, and even Ravi Zacharias) are now openly endorsing the unaccredited and barely off the ground, Veritas Evangelical Seminary (click HERE). After all, this seminary has only recently submitted its application to grant degrees in the state of California (2/18/10). Why would these people associate themselves so openly with such a new school? Seems rather risky. It makes me wonder if they are endorsing the school or Dr. Geisler. After all, these same people endorsed Southern Evangelical Seminary. It is also interesting to note that some of them have been removed from the adjunct list at SES.


    ==I agree. I have many, many issues with Geisler's positions in "Chosen But Free", but his overall work is great. One disagreement does not, and should not, destroy my respect for him or his work.

    In 2004 I attended the SES Apologetics Conference and heard Dr. Geisler speak (along with Ron Rhodes, Hank Hanegraaf, Ergun Caner, John Ankerberg, etc). While in the temporary bookstore I found myself face-to-face with Dr. Geisler (literally). He was a very nice and polite gentlemen (though very challenged in the fashion department). I must confess, however, that I was so intimidated that I really did not say much to him other than a polite "good evening". O what the man must have thought of me! I also walked right past Dr. Ron Rhodes and did not even recognize him.
     
    #9 Martin, Mar 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2010
  10. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone close to the situation told me that the reason Geisler left SES was due to a hubbub that started with the church that used to meet at the seminary building. The church that met there had some sort of ugly church split, and the thing spilled over into the seminary. Supposedly it had nothing to do with doctrine. But Geisler being well-known and influential, I'm guessing he asked his adjunct friends to come help out the new school. Most of them only did occasional one-week summer modules anyway.

    Regarding Chosen But Free, the book was a summary of a larger, more complex position that he didn't take time to explain in the book. Most theologians don't take time to deal with such things as simple vs. compound beings, the implications of God acting from eternity vs. in time, the difference between how we know and how God is, etc. Geisler was heavily influenced by Thomas Aquinas, and although much of Aquinas' doctrine would align with Calvin, he started from a very different place in explaining sovereignty / human will. Because Aquinas lived before the traditional reformed / arminian debate, he taught much of the same things, but didn't follow the same line of argument that you and I are familiar with......(hence the squeals of "he's redefining the terms"). Aquinas and Geisler are attacking the problem by starting from a very different place.

    For those of you who are interested, see Geisler's book on Thomas Aquinas, or parts of his Systematic Theology. If you're really a glutton for punishment, see the sections in Aquinas' Summa Theologica where he speaks of God and His nature. He deals with most of the same arguments & counter-arguments in this debate. But be warned.....Aquinas assumes you're familiar with metaphysics. If you don't know "act" and "potency" some parts won't make much sense.
     
    #10 Humblesmith, Mar 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2010
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Sadly that is all too common. Churches often divide over the silliest things. It would have been more understandable if doctrine was the reason. Most non-doctrinal issues are not worth dividing over.


    ==Your probably right.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would think that had more to do with SES than Veritas, as the previous poster alluded to (as I look back at his post now). Still, new seminaries can be a breath of fresh air, accredited or not at such an early stage, and this may be a fruitful endeavor. Let us pray so for Veritas and for SES.
     
  13. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Has anyone heard of these Baptist seminaries?
    They too deviate from "positive affirmations".

    Temple Baptist Seminary — Statement of Faith:
    Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary — Our Declaration
    Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary — Articles of Belief
     
    #13 Jerome, Mar 21, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2010
  14. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's one thing to have "anti-" statements in a primary SOF or articles of belief. It's quite another to have them in secondary docs IMO.
     
  15. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Yes, that's a very important distinction:thumbs:
     
  16. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed. Many auxiliary docs are not as binding. Now, some will enforce them as such. Which begs the question why they didn't amend the primary docs in the first place :)
     
  17. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is my alma mater's statement regarding the availability of salvation to all; well-stated in the affirmative:
     
  18. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, a 5 point Calvinist Baptist would agree with it; and yet hold to Limited Atonement.
     

Share This Page

Loading...