Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary

From where did the pres and the Dean get their docs?

 

Rhetorician,

Would you please define what you mean by narrow. I am of the opinion the the Christian life is a narrow way, and am not sure what you mean by the term.

Thanks

 

Rhetorician
Thank you for clarifying that for me. Do you think it is Biblical for a church member to forgo training in an "acreddited" institution and learn at the feet of a Bible centered pastor (not a Jack Hyles type)? Just curious.
Thanks

 

Emmanuel is a KJVO school, as such I would not reccomend it. To call such an unbiblical postion "balanced" makes no sense to me. Also Strouse recently has written a ridiculous artical on a geocentric universe.

 

Ah yes, the geocentric universe. Which proves a point. You need qualified teachers.

 

Clear presentation? He uses I Chronicles 16:30 to complement his geocentric universe. Read vv. 32-33. Do fields and trees sing and rejoice?

whatever, pointless thread. Go to a school with credentials.

 

Most of what I say does not relate to learning praxis. IMO this can be taught by experienced pastors!

I speak in generalities because I do not know the pres or dean of this school. Their docs may be from schools recognized as quite rigorous, I don't know.

I am unsure that an argument should be made that because Jesus, Peter, and et al did not go to seminary or that colleges or seminaries are not words of the Bible, that a church school is the only viable source of education for teachers, pastors, missionaries and so forth.

Unlike Jesus , I am not God,and unlike Peter I am not inspired, so I learn by study not by a pretense of magically knowing. Further, I am separated from the apostolic church by thousands of years in which dogma evolved, societies and languages changed, heresies developed, and both great and narrow differences separated Christians into many denominationsn and Baptists too into varied views and positions. That's a lot to understand!

Higher Christian education as I see it is best done under those highly qualified to provide it. Many realize, eg, that if one is to teach Church History, Historical Theology, New Testament language, exegesis , and literature, Old Testament language, exegesis, and literature, or Systematic Theology at a graduate level, then intensive training in the precise area(s) taught is required.

Many feeling the assurance that God has called them to teach, say Systematic Theology, after finishing a four year BA in generaral ed or in Bible (I did both) , then do an MDiv, which is three more years. Then they do a ThM which is supposed to be one more year (but as I was then working teaching public school, mine took two) . Then they enter a school like, The Masters or The Baptist in Pa or TEDS or Dallas or, in my case a foreign school, wherein a doc is earned in three to five more years.

So, in order to feel qualified to teach graduate studies, such as these have labored very stenuously for elevan to thirteen years to become fairly expert in one area of higher Christian education. Yes! I sat under such men at Point Loma University, Western Seminary, and Unizul. These men gave up much to learn and to earn their qualifications. They gave up much to become a "doctor," (ie, one learned in one's field). The ones that I have sat under do not assume to know. They labor to know!

So, eg, when Grudem is challenged by his understanding of the word Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:3 (kephale) that the word does not mean "source of", he is able to locate 2500 occasions of usage in Greek literature, the LXX, the NT, and the fathers and to argue his view from that.

And, an unnamed student when dissertating is able to justify his thesis that the Son is not eternally relationally subordinate, in contrast to the view of Ware, Tertullian, , Shedd, Berkhof, Dahms, Lewis and Demarest, Wiley, Arminius, and so forth, in part by locating and contrasting scores of Logos -Sarx vs, Logos Anthropos Christologists, throughout church history,and by understanding the many complex issues which divide these schools of interpretation, come to believe that the said subordination of Christ is in humanity not in deity and justify that opining exegetically and theologically. That doctoral process took several years of putting learning first in one's life.

Of course, instead of doing that one could just say, "I'm right."

Realizing that grad level teachers in recognized institutions have done these 11-13 years of rigorous learning to earn the doc degree, to be able to teach, it has become fashionable, and sadly acceptable in some churchly arenas where lay people do not understand higher Christian ed., for the would be professors to adorn themselves with degrees not so rigorously earned. They find easier ways to get degrees.Most laymen do not understand the difference. If their leader is called "Dr." it is just assumed the he must know, and have academically experienced, what a BB Warfield or a Chas Hodge knows and experienced .

Despite it not (along with seminary) being in the Scripture, the title becomes coveted by those who have not really done the work which normally is expected by academia to earn the title, so as to give the appearance of academic qualification to their efforts.

The holes in the learning of some of these are plugged by assertions of inerrancy, authority, and rejection of that not learned as needlesss or unscriptural. They becomes popish and not only are assumed nearly inerrant in what they know but also in what should be learned. Since they have not learned something, trhat area of knowledge is deemed worthless.

No, seminaries are not in Scripture. What is, IMO, is in Scripture is the ethic of honesty in all areas including higher learning. To claim that a doctor is a doctor regardless of what substance and rigor went into his/her education , is not in Scripture either.

 

Grudem thinks, and has well evidenced, that 'kephale' means 'authority over' not source of.

 

This has been an interesting thread. My two cents are this. The qualified professors that UZ speaks of avoid being as narrow as those that Rhet has mentioned above.

Perhaps this can be the litmus test: a school and/or teacher is too narrow when his or her view on anything general or specific in theology is the "biblical" view and every other view is the "unbiblical" view. I've found that many church-schools use the word "biblical" as an adjective in front of everything and all that word means is that it's the church-school's position on something.

BJ

 

No Strouse did not prove geocentricity from Scripture. He said "The Bible never mentions the earth revolves around the sun." Well with that kind of reasoning I could also say the Bible never mentions the sun revolving around the earth.

Sience has proved the sun to be the center of the galaxy, Scritpure never mentions anything about this one way or another.