1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why start an online BB ministerial academy?

Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges & Seminaries' started by Rhetorician, Jul 23, 2005.

  1. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    47
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "I would rather have a "generic SOF" for which Exs argues and have a "big tent" in order to draw students"

    NOT :D

    I thought I was suggesting it was too generic :)

    Probably what I would go for is a less generic for the faculty/staff and a broad one for the student. That way you have a faculty that is going in a fairly "same" direction, while students can come as they are.
     
  2. JamesBell

    JamesBell New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    I feel out of place in this conversation, but I also feel that this should be said.

    The discussion seems to have evolved into whether or not the Statement of Faith should lean towards Calvinism, which would exclude Arminians; or whether there should be a "big tent" to include people from different views. While this discussion is going on, I feel as if I am the only person reading it that isn't a 5 point Calvinist. If the faculty is going to made up of those that believe Calvin was correct, shouldn't the Statement of Faith reflect that situation? There was no problem excluding the KJVO folks in the first clause, I don't really think excluding people that can only deal with Arminians is any different. (Of course, this is easy for me to say since I am still working towards my own answer to the debate.)
     
  3. Rhetorician

    Rhetorician Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,208
    Likes Received:
    68
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Exs,

    I am sorry to have misunderstood your intent.

    sdg!

    rd
     
  4. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===
    ===

    Certainly God has protected His Word, but POB's concern was that we not be KJVO and express that we are not, and I certainly could not affirm the KJVO only position.

    It follows that the KJV must be viewed only by us as one of the better versions/translations, but not as inspired- not as the standard by which all translations should be judged. But were it not the inspired standard , then what is?

    That was why I wrote of the originals. A reference to the original text and language , is what I think, only justifies the learning of the Biblical languages and the doing of exegesis which includes textual research.

    I don't see how competent and complete instruction can occur without reference to the originals . Even the use of Strong's simple lexicons ,in his concordance, leads to the question of why use those lexicons at all unless the translations, all of them, while excellent, may be imperfect.

    [ July 30, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  5. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  6. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    47
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "I am sorry to have misunderstood your intent."

    Not a problem, my clarity of words mirrors my clarity of though, well, I mean lack there of :)

    UZTHD, wasn't attacking, just making some observations, which I will refrain from doing [​IMG]
     
  7. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===


    I understand. Perhaps the statement of faith IS a first step as that may determine who is on that same path. As I repeatedly said , that statement is just my suggestion. That statement IS fair game to attack with constructive criticism, and please do so , but then, I must be allowed to respond. But my responses are simply purposed to aid us in deciding what must be said in a statement of belief of THIS purpose and what can be omitted.
     
  8. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now is the time for things to be discussed and ironed out. I can't imagine how closed a system we would be bringing about if we can't openly and fairly discuss issues.Please do share . The only thing I ask is that you all play fair.
     
  10. Rhetorician

    Rhetorician Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,208
    Likes Received:
    68
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To all who are involved in the BB Academy.

    I am more than satisfied with my above statement.

    sdg!

    rd
     
  11. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    47
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "You should not refrain from doing that just because I reponded to what you said."

    I thought I'd refrain because I had brought up the points I wanted to bring up, not because of what you did or didn't do.

    "I am not upset at all ; I just am expressing my opinion which may be wrong."

    I didn't say you were and did not mean to intimate that you were.

    "The only thing I ask is that you all play fair."

    Now, the fun has been taken out of things! [​IMG]
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMO, if you make the SOF very Calvinistic, it will act like student repellent. Most Baptists aren't Calvinists, and non-Calvinist students, IMO, would be resistant to studying under all Calvinist professors.
     
  13. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should be "evangelical" without being sectarian.

    What's wrong with a student learning systematic theology from both a Calvinist and an Arminian? Let the debate begin with good natured love for each other!

    This would be the strength of the program, and not a weakness!

    Perhaps the book by Packer and Oden could be of some help - One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus.
     
  14. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stefan and Paul

    I agree!

    I just ordered a book by three profs of the same school. Yet while all fellows in the faculty, they disagree re the Tribulation. And each in this book argues his position on that.

    I am a member of ETS which includes: Arminians and Calvinists, Pre mills, Amills, and Post mills; Disps and Covs; charismatics and non char. and assorted others. I can fellowship in this society with each because each holds to certain minimal basic doctrines.

    IF this school wishes to be defined by Calv or Disp , then it should say so, but if it does not, then, it should not. One teaching soteriology here must fairly give the several sides. IMO THAT is education instead of indoctrination. I do not think my views are infallible, and therefore I do not mind honestly sharing the other side!

    The detailed , exclusionary first point is because at least two of us feel strongly that we are not wanting the school to be KJVO.

    I will admit, however, that I constructed the statements referencing Trinal relationships and Christology with the intention of being able to fit my particular views into that. And if anyone interested in participating in our "Academy" is uncomfortable with the statement there, he/she should say so.
     
  15. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    47
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Curious, could you elaborate on:

    1. "I constructed the statements referencing Trinal relationships and Christology with the intention of being able to fit my particular views into that." What is your view on that? Mini readers digest format will do :D

    2. Why you would exclude KJVO but accept about every other theological line of thought such as "Arminians and Calvinists, Pre mills, Amills, and Post mills; Disps and Covs; charismatics and non char. and assorted others"
     
  16. JamesBell

    JamesBell New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that the KJVO PEOPLE are being excluded. Rather, it is just an attempt to be clear that the "school" will not be KJVO. If this is the case, I think it is the proper decision.

    This will preclude any people that become involved in the future from trying to take the school in that direction. It will also prevent student from being angered by the use of other versions, since it is clear from the outset that the school is not KJVO.
     
  17. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    47
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "exclusionary" was the term used. Merriam-Webster: "1 : the act or an instance of excluding
    2 : the state of being excluded"

    If, as you say, you just want to set the direction of the school, why would you set the direction away from KJVO and not some of the others? Why is it so bad and the others acceptable? :confused: Just wondering.
     
  18. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on, Ex.

    KJVO by definition excludes all others who use modern translations. There goes the whole faculty, meaning those on the Board discussing this proposed school.

    KJVO by definition excludes. Personally, if someone holds that position, they shouldn't be allowed to teach, IMO.
     
  19. UZThD

    UZThD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===

    Good question.

    Actually, as this thread shows, the denial of KJVO was not my idea, it was POB's. However I am not in discord with it.

    Here's why: In the minds of SOME KJVOers (NOT saying in yours) the KJV is the standard for interpretation. No exegesis in the Biblical languages is at all required. No lexical research, no grammatical or syntactical observations are at all necessary . Did Paul in Greek put a period between Christ and God in Rom 9:5? Who cares! The KJV does put a period there , so that period is inspired whether the originals had punctuation or not.

    So, with that viewpoint, what does one do when teaching John 1:18 for example? Could the better reading be monogenes God and not monogenes Son? Shall we look at the MSS evidence? Naw, why bother, the KJV text is inerrant.

    Might monogenes not even mean only begotten but instead mean 1 of a kind as in the LXX it ONLY translates yahid which does not mean anything like beget . Neither do NT usages indicate a birthing is the point, Might not the adjective derive from genos and not gennao? NAW, none of it matters a whisp because the KJV is inerrant and WHATEVER it say counts!!!.

    Shall we offer Greek in our Academy? But why, WHY?, the KJV surpasses even what the apostles themselves actually wrote!!!

    The resourceful and studious student asks, "Prof XXX shall I look up prototokos in the TDNT, shall I note the reason for the articulated noun in Robertson's Grammar?" "Why NO. All we need is the KJV! "

    Again I am not saying that is your view. BUT these attitudes ARE HERE at BB.

    IMO those attitudes stifle scholarship.

    And anyone who peeks his head out into the sort of Christian academia espoused by societies as ETS or journals like NTS, JETS, or Bib SAc, or schools like DTS, TEDS, or The Masters know that.

    I would like our students to have the freedom to interact with such scholarship, but it is all vanity if one is KJVO in the strictest sense.

    And that is why I see no problem with not excluding Arminianism or a Millennialism , eg, becuse NONE of those limit the research and scholarship which limiting MAY be done if one is a convinced KJVOer.

    oopsie, blathered on again :D

    [ July 31, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  20. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    47
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for the mini micro readers digest version, well done.

    I am not KJVO and know the radical ends it goes to. Most I know aren't that radical and use all sources available to them including the languages which makes them NOT KJVO, but they haven't figured that out yet :D .

    Thanks
     
Loading...