Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary

[dallas]

Again, also Brandon, I do wish you would understand that I am not KJVO. First, that has to be defined. Many use that term to lump/paint many into a fallacious theology. I am not a Ruckmanite. I do not believe the KJV is superior to the original languages. I do not believe in double inspiration. I do not hold to a "perfect" KJV, that can only be said of that which was inspired and then preserved. I hold to a Mas. Txt(MT)/TR postion. I do believe for many of the reasons you reject (namely local church reception) that the TR is the preserved words of God. Yes, I do believe that the KJV is an accurate translation of the MT/TR. I do not believe that at the moment the Eng. language has developed/digressed to such a point that we need an updated/another revision. In theory, I would not be opposed to that, if the translation was based on the preserved MT/TR text, as opposed to the corrupt CT/et.al. texts.

Perhaps, you are not, but I truly wish you would distinguish my position from a certain element of KJVO that is so blatantly anti-scriptural. But again, that is a way to dismiss me and others like myself...just paint us in that all inclusive camp and dismiss us as extremeists.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Dallas, fair enough on the KJVO stuff. As to weak ecclesiology? Well I won't even bother to dig into what you mean by that.

Rigorous training? Well, most local churches don't have scholars on staff who are specialists in any field let alone the multitude of fields that a well-rounded seminary degree should have. Furthermore, I have yet to see a local church devote the funds to build up a theological library that even closely resembles that of a good seminary's. I couldn't imagine trying to study Greek, Hebrew, Theology, etc. without the resources of a good theological library under the direction of quality professors. Other churches have (IMO wisely) decided to pool their resources together to attract and equip excellent scholars and funds for a library in order to train their leaders. Some seminaries today started as church-schools (i.e., CBTS and Detroit Seminary to name two) and have progressed from there.

Do all of these churches have weak ecclesiology? Beats me, but when I compare the books, articles, and church leaders that seminaries have produced to that of church-schools like EBTS...there is no comparison--it's as stark as night and day. In other words, the proof's in the pudding.

Some in this thread have tried to make hay of the fact that great church leaders in the past had no formal training but most of those same men started institutes of formal training (i.e., Spurgeon and Moody). Why'd they do that? .

Well I think I'm done with this thread. I do echo a post above: may you and your kind grow and there's plenty of room for us all.

BJ

 

[garpier]

I am at a loss as to why the emphasis is on the credentials of scholars. The emphasis in the Bible is on faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.
As to asking "my professors" to answer my questions, I already have their answers. Studying the Words of God after graduating from those "revered" institutions, led them to the position they now hold on the local church. But alas it is only what the Bible teaches and not what the scholars teach.
As to the instiutions founded by Christian leaders of the past, first, Moody was a Congregationalist and although I believe he was a saved man and did what he believed was right, his theology especially in the area of ecclesiology was wrong. Spurgeon's institution was under the ministry of Meptropolitan Baptist Tabernacle (a local church I believe). If the church is God's institution for today (and it is) where in the Bible is the authority for establishing institutions outside of the local church to train local church leaders? The Great Commission was given to the local churches not parachurch organizations.(If that were not so then baptism would be practised by every parachurch organization.)
I graduated from a parachurch Bible college also. At the time I didn't know of other options. I was fed the lies of higher and lower criticism and have since rejected them. I was fed the lies about the universal church and have rejected them. I realize that there are local churches where the Word of God is not properly taught and people are spiritually abused. EBC is not one of those churches. We may not be as "scholarly and credentialed" as some would like, but we do teach the preserved Word of God. If that is not good enough for some, that's alright, we are not for everybody.

 

[dallas]

Well said garpier! Brandon, I know you state that you are leaving the thread, but may I make an observation.

You stated, "Rigorous training? Well, most local churches don't have scholars on staff who are specialists in any field let alone the multitude of fields that a well-rounded seminary degree should have."

In other words: “Let the experts/crdentialed scholars settle this!” BUT…I thought pastors were to be “theological and textual experts!” Since when does the Bible not REQUIRE that pastors of local churches be scholars??? What of the text in Acts 20? How can pastors proclaim “all the counsel of God” and leave these matters (per our thread: local church only/ perfect preservation of MT/TR)out – or not come to grips with these issues? If pastors come to grips with these issues (I know some foolishly delegate their responsability to "so called" textual experts), are we then not to teach them to our people? Isn’t that the essence of I Tim. 3:2 which, speaking of the pastors, says that they are to be “apt to teach.” Furthermore, I thought that every child of God was to “study to shew thyself approved unto God” (II Tim. 2:15) and that every child of God was to “be ready always to give an answer to every man of the hope that is in you” (I Pe. 3:15)? How can we be intelligent Christians and not tackle these issues raised by unbelieving or doubting scholarship!! I’m afraid the “theological and textual experts” that the many hold so precious are a sort of religious, even fundamentalist aristocracy at the feet of which the rest of the religious world is to sit in silent admiration. This sounds like the Roman Catholic idea that the priests will hand the Truth to the people.

Now, I want it understood that I believe in Christian, biblical scholarship. I believe in a thoroughly biblical, Christian, scholarly education! I thank God for every man of God who has gone above and beyond the call of duty to study and to apply his scholarship to advancing the knowledge of the child of God with regard to biblical truth! That is not what I am arguing against. I have a degree from a para-church institution of higher-learning (college). I have several years of seminary training as well. I say that not to determine my credentials, for I certainly have much to leand and growth. My point is “education without sanctification is abomination,” said one great man of God. There is in such a claim as is advocated by many with a smug assumption that ordinary pastors – who work with God’s people every day; who study God’s word for three and four sermons week after week/month after month/year after year; who counsel out of the Bible on a routine basis – are somehow not qualified to understand many theological issues, let alone to inform their people about it. OR…that God’s people cannot grasp these matters – THEY CAN!!! AND THEY MUST!!!

 

[dallas]

Brandon,

Also, It is as if the problems of IBF seem to be laid at the feet of ignorant and unscholarly pastors and their sheep, alone. It is as if these problems are increased because of the mass of misinformation that has been proclaimed from pulpits and spread in print by those who because of their lack of theological understanding and biblical language training are not qualified to speak to the issues. Obviously the problem, according these folks, is to be laid at the feet of pastors and laymen – never at the feet of scholars! But then again, How could a scholar be misinformed? How could they possibly promote heresy? The problem appears to be in the pulpit and in the pew! I HEARTILY DISAGREE.

Remember, that the Bible says that “the church of the living God…” [i.e., the local church that has bishops and deacons] is… “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15) – not the scholars! not Christian universities! not even Christian seminaries! Jesus left behind one institution that was to teach and defend the faith: the local church.

 

[UZThD]

IITim. 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same, commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also."

I disagree with UZTHD who claims the apostles were inspired. If I'm not mistaken it is "all scripture" which is inspired, not the human authors.


===

IMO the apostles were inspired:

He will guide you into all truth, Jo 17:5 IMO that guiding is an inspiring.

Paul wrote Scripture to you with the wisdom that God gave him, 2 Pet 3:15.16. IMO that wisdom is an inspiring.

IMO neither I nor the teachers at this school can claim to have been led into all truth or to have Scripture. I hope you agree.

THat is why I must study as rigorously as I can, and IMO that rigorous study is best done under experts in their fields.


My issue with this school is not KJVOism or accreditation or papers listed on the website!

MY position is that while leaders in a church may certainly train others to be leaders, as soon as the trainers and the to be leaders claim degrees either as qualifications to train or as effects of that training , then they are claiming something academic!

If one uses "Dr." in front of his/her name , then that implies such a one has experienced what is normally is expected in substance and rigor to earn that qualification. .

I simply do not understand how it is Christian to claim an academic title unless one has earned that title academically.

Is it not all vanity?

 

[UZThD]

An Experiment in Education

I am at a loss as to why the emphasis is on the credentials of scholars. The emphasis in the Bible is on faithful men who shall be able to teach others also. ..... We may not be as "scholarly and credentialed" as some would like, but we do teach the preserved Word of God. If that is not good enough for some, that's alright, we are not for everybody.

===

To All:

I agree with Garpier.

I also think that we must base our beliefs on what the Scripture says. We must pass on on the apostolic tradition.

Our Scripture is much about who Christ is!!!

The Person of Christ is at the very center of our faith.

How could one be supposed to be well prepared to teach others about Christ or claim to be well taught re Christ by others without basing his/her conclusions related to this topic on careful exegetics and systematics?

So,


May we put our understanding of Scripture , the extent of our learning, or the quality of our educational experience to a test? Please ask your teachers at this school who train church leaders to reach about Christ to join in or to advise you if they will.

Does the Scripture teach:

1) That the Son is eternally relationally subordinate to the Father as say Ware, Grudem, Dahms, Horrell, Lewis and Demarest, Kitano, and Shemm ...and why (they all express their reasons)


and/or

(2) That the Father eternally essentiates the Person or deity or essence of the Son [ and the Father and the Son eternally essentiate the Spirit] as say or imply Tertullian, Origin, Berkhof, Wiley, Shedd, The Nicene , Chalcedonian ,, and Westminster Creeds and Arminius, and Gore, as wll ....and why?

OR

3) Does the Scripture instead, rather, teach that the Son's relational subordination began in the Incarnation and was in His humanity, which constituted a distinct mind and will, not in His deity as say the Damascene, Erickson, Warfield, and Hodge too (IMO)....and why?

and

4) That the Son is not eternally essentiated as say Calvin, Reymond, Erickson, and Buswell...and why?



I will , if asked, state my reasons for my answers to these questions here, and I hope you do too, but any argument on our positions is more suitable to otherplaces in of BB.

 

[dallas]

UZTHD,

I quote you: "MY position is that while leaders in a church may certainly train others to be leaders, as soon as the trainers and the to be leaders claim degrees either as qualifications to train or as effects of that training , then they are claiming something academic!

If one uses "Dr." in front of his/her name , then that implies such a one has experienced what is normally is expected in substance and rigor to earn that qualification. .

I simply do not understand how it is Christian to claim an academic title unless one has earned that title academically.

Is it not all vanity?"

Good point! I truly do agree with you on this one! If I or one at any level of academic/spiritual training is going to use "Dr. M.B.S. MDiv, etc..." then they most certainly should have been through a rigorous training by qualified/faithful men! I am in agreement, and fully aware of the deception (sadly -- often willful and deceptive) by many in a ministry or seeking a position in a ministry. I think that is shameful. However, your wrong, in your assumption that by necessity every local church based schooling is automatically inferior or incapable of such stringent, rigor and thorough biblical teaching. (EBTS is such a school) Perhaps, in many places (unfortunately) EBTS is the exception (Although I can't speak of other Church/schools that I have not participated in). That I do not know if I should comment on. I know of EBTS. But again I'm not arguing for EBTS, nor do they need my justification of them, I believe it is absolutely in clear violation of Scripture to even suggest that a para-church ministry can/should give a better education/training to a faithful man....simply because it is not under the authority of a local church. That is a colossal error of Theology/ecclesiology. Granted, many church/schools are negligent in their careful study/training...but so are many other institutions (para-church). The problem does not rest squarely on the shoulders of churches, as many in this room would make others believe.

 

[UZThD]

UZTHD,

However, your wrong, in your assumption that by necessity every local church based schooling is automatically inferior or incapable of such stringent, rigor and thorough biblical teaching.

===

Dallas,

I don't think I said that. If I did I retract it as it would be presumptuous! I would not deny the possibility that one could without having any degrees from a seminary be a rigorous teacher or student. I mnight deny the liklihood, though!

===


(EBTS is such a school)

===


Dallas,


It could be. That is why I am anxious to have you or another representive or promoter of EBTS respond , using the Christological content of the EBTS curriculum, to the tenets of those score or so respected Christologists I mention in my just previous post.

That might convince me of the rigor of EBTS-or, on the other hand, it might reveal a lack in EBTS rigor!

This is about our Lord and who and what He is! IMO that is important!

Those Christologists and framers of creeds base their varied opining on the same Scripture you say is taught at EBTS.

Therefore, what is the position of the scholars at EBTS on those four questions, and just how do they understand and respond to the evidences those Christologists over the centuries have carefully and thoughtfully advanced?

Hopefully, with thanks, awaiting your detailed responses to those four quesions asked in Christian sincerity





Bill

 

[dallas]

Bill,

Nice smoke screen. Again, as stated earlier in this thread, I will not speak for the school, nor will I contact them and ask them to defend Bible truth to some guy on Baptist Board Forums. Stay on topic here. There is not end to theology discussions. My point of contention with you is exactly as you just stated above. You did not articulate in the exact words the position I believe you hold to...but I think it is clear your position. I did not mean to offend you in any way, if I have.

I believe Rhetorician and Brandon have bowed out of this thread, which I believe I will as well.

I do appreciate the candor and honesty that several in this thread have expressed.

 

[UZThD]

Bill,

Nice smoke screen. Again, as stated earlier in this thread, I will not speak for the school,


===
Smoke screen? I qualified that I did not wish to argue Christology here. I just wanted to test the efficiency of the training of the school you are here advancing to us as having quality.

You said you were a graduate and recommended it. Now be honest, did your EBTS training prepare you to deal with Christological issues or not?

Speak for yourself as a proud ETBS grad.

====



nor will I contact them and ask them to defend Bible truth


====

Bible truth? Each of those in my post are saying they are teach "Bible truth." Why do you think that they are not?

What is Bible truth ...only what YOU and the EBTS mentors think it is?


===

Stay on topic here.


===

How EBTS prepares church teachers to teach including how to teach about Christ IS precisely the topic.


===

I did not mean to offend you in any way, if I have.


===

I'm not offended. But if you care to demonstrate the real or imagined quality of your EBTS learning , then explain why the adherants of those views 1-4 are right or wrong..

These views absolutely fill the history of Christian thought in ancient and reformational creeds and in a great variety scholarly Christian literature today such as systematic theologies, journals, lexicons, commentaries,and encyclopedias!! How is one educated in Christian theology without an awareness of the arguments advanced on these various issues?.

If the EBTS training is so good , show what you know about the subject.

Shall I simplify it by narrowing the issues from 20+ pieces of scholarly Christology to one?

hokey dokey I will

: John VC. Dahms, have you read his views about Christ in the two articles in the ETS Journal and the one in the Journal of NT Studies? Dahms represents many in Christendom.

Do you read such literature at ETBS...why or why not?

====

I believe Rhetorician and Brandon have bowed out of this thread, which I believe I will as well.

===

Um...yes...nice cop out, my friend, bye, bye:wavey:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

No pretentions on my part

I don't pretend to understand the ramifications of the three positions UZThD laid out earlier. However, I do recognize enough of the names attached to each to understand each is/was a postion held by men we would otherwise deem as holding good solid orthodox positions.

As to the question of a solid local church based seminary education, I answer

1. http://seminary.cbs.edu/ Calvary Baptist Theological Semin, Lansdale PA; home church: Calvary Baptist Church of Lansdale.
2. http://www.tricityministries.org/ibc/ International Baptist College Tempe AZ; home church: Tri-City Baptist Church

are good examples of quality programs. And I dare say the grads from either school could answer the Christological question.

 

[UZThD]

I don't pretend to understand the ramifications of the three positions UZThD laid out earlier. However, I do recognize enough of the names attached to each to understand each is/was a postion held by men we would otherwise deem as holding good solid orthodox positions.

===

That is right, even Arminus was a Trinitarian,, though I disagree with what he says about Trinal relationships even more than what he says about the relation of the divine foreknowledge to election. But the issue is, I know what he says.

IMo, the issue here is not what I or Dallas or the scholars at ETBS agree with or do not agree with.

The issue is, have we been sufficiently trained to understand and address the complex issues which concern our Great God and Gracious Savior, Jesus Christ!

IMo graduate Theological studies or training which is weak in exegetics, in systematics , and in historical theology needs much. Go elsewhere!

That is why I asked Dallas to put his toes into the water to see if he could, by the ETBS training , swim or not.

I understand Christology is difficult, but IMO it is an important part of solid training!

Bill

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Dear UzThd,
Glad to see you are doing well.I tried to contact you a while back .
Do you blieve Christ is now at this time subordinate to The Father?My belief is that Christ temporarily subordinated Himself while he was on the earth but is now co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Interesting list you picked. Good questions too.:wavey: Oh by the way I hear you all partnered up with Faith Seminary. Would that be Faith Luthren out of Tacoma? Have they changed thier teaching?Or is it Northwest Baptist Seminary out of Tacoma?

 

[UZThD]

Dear UzThd,
Glad to see you are doing well.I tried to contact you a while back .
Do you blieve Christ is now at this time subordinate to The Father?My belief is that Christ temporarily subordinated Himself while he was on the earth but is now co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Interesting list you picked. Good questions too.:wavey: Oh by the way I hear you all partnered up with Faith Seminary. Would that be Faith Luthren out of Tacoma? Have they changed thier teaching?Or is it Northwest Baptist Seminary out of Tacoma?

===


Hi Bill

Good question. Sorry, I disagree a bit:

Erickson is of the opinion that Christ is now as you say "equal." By that E. means relationally equal. He never would say that the Son was ever not essentially equal! Neither would I or ANY on my list above!!

E. thinks, as I do, that the subordination of the Son began in the Incarnation( contrary to the opining of Grudem) , and is not a quality unique to His subsistence( contrary to Dahms). On the other hand, Derickson, who agrees with E. that the subordination incarnationally began, thinks it still goes on!

The difference, you see, is that one (D) contexts the subordination ONLY in Christ's humanity, whereas the other (E) contexts it in a kenotic fashion within a divine nature somehow confined and deprived of the use of the divine attributes. (I disagree with that also!)

I agree with D. and do not think that God the Son lost the use of any divine attributes. As I think the subordination is limited to His humanity, I do not think that humanity now is God's equal as IMO, contary to Pieper, Chemnitz, and Luther, that humanity cannot be deified by way of a communication of qualities from the divine nature to the human.

But maybe I'm wrong. I was wrong once in 1979:laugh:

I am now in my old age I am the Distance Education Director of Faith Seminary of Salem, and I will teach three residential courses in Theology there this next year.

Thank you Jesus for being so kind to me!

It is my understanding the the "mother" school in Tacoma no longer pushes its Lutheranism. Our profs who teach in Salem , all qualified academically, are mostly Conservative Baptists-as am I!


Bill

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Are you speaking of Stanley Derickson? I could'nt be happier that you are doing well.
By the way I don't know if you are aware but Dr. Elmer Towns and a few other distinguished educator's have done what we were previously trying to set up.At my last peek they had over 100 courses set up , all for free for overseas local nationals.

God bless you and your work.

POB

 

[UZThD]

Are you speaking of Stanley Derickson? I could'nt be happier that you are doing well.
By the way I don't know if you are aware but Dr. Elmer Towns and a few other distinguished educator's have done what we were previously trying to set up.At my last peek they had over 100 courses set up , all for free for overseas local nationals.

God bless you and your work.

POB

===

Thanks.

No I am speaking of Gary Derickson, PhD Dallas, who teaches with us at Faith/Salem and also at Corban (formerly called Western Baptist and who has expressed the positions in the literature which I described as being his.

Bill

 

[Rhetorician]

extra-Calvinisticum

UZThD,

Bill, I have just had to read through Calvin's Institutes for an on-line Mentor/Protégé program in which I am involved.

I can across the "extra-Calvinisticum," i.e., that Christ is at one and the same time a bodily presence in Heaven at the Father's right hand and his spiritual presence is everywhere else also. I had always understood that his bodily presence was part of his kenosis and that he was limited in time/space "being found in fashion as a man?"

This has thrown me for a "theological" loop.:laugh: I have been reading, studying the Doctrines of Grace all of my adult life and have just now encountered this after 30+ years. I must say after reading the Institutes that I have probably done something that most Presbyterian ministers have never done or had to do!

Any help or insight would be appreciated.

We may need to take this off line or start a new thread in the appropriate setting.

Please advise.:thumbs:

sdg!

rd

 

[UZThD]

UZThD,

Bill, I have just had to read through Calvin's Institutes for an on-line Mentor/Protégé program in which I am involved.

I can across the "extra-Calvinisticum," i.e., that Christ is at one and the same time a bodily presence in Heaven at the Father's right hand and his spiritual presence is everywhere else also. I had always understood that his bodily presence was part of his kenosis and that he was limited in time/space "being found in fashion as a man?"

This has thrown me for a "theological" loop.:laugh: I have been reading, studying the Doctrines of Grace all of my adult life and have just now encountered this after 30+ years. I must say after reading the Institutes that I have probably done something that most Presbyterian ministers have never done or had to do!

Any help or insight would be appreciated.

We may need to take this off line or start a new thread in the appropriate setting.

Please advise.:thumbs:

sdg!

rd

===

In respect for our BB conventions, this will be my last comment re this Christological subject in the Coll and Seminaries forum.

IMO the nature of God is immutable, yet God is omnipresent, omniscient (and I reject the Open Theistic definition of omniscience), and omnipotent.

As God cannot get tired, or be spatially limited, or any part of Him die, IMO such limiting experiences are to be understood as being confined to Christ's humanity, not to His deity.

This is where Erickson varies from Calvin! Calvin says,eg, that God the Son is everywhere, being omnipresent even when Christ is in the flesh!

But Erickson, as Reymond accuses, is IMO a Christological kenoticist who says that the incarnation depleted the Son of the use of His divine qualities! Erickson says that Mk 13:32 evidences that thew incarnate God no longer shared omniscience with the Father. IMO, this cannot be if God is unchangeable.

THat is why Calvin , with whom I agree, says what He does.

Many interpreters of Chalcedon and Constantinople as Leo, Agatho, Chemnitz, and Hodge feel that each nature in Christ experiences, wills, and acts! Therefore, texts, contrary to the view of Cyril, may be predicated distinctly of either nature but always of the ONE Person.

Then those as Shedd, AB Bruce, Warfield , Reymond, Murray, and Grudem have it that the incarnate Son at times experienced through His humanity and at other times through His deity! These all hold to God's immutabilitry, therefore what limits Christ limits only His humanirty they say. I agree!

This is in keeping with tradition as seen in the writings of Theodoret, John of Damascus, and Tertullian.

That is why, IMO relational subordination occurs only in the Son's humanity ( contra Grudem, Horrell, Ware, Kitano and many others).

But maybe I'm wrong!

Bill

 

[4His_glory]

Here is a good article that debunks Strouses geocentrism.

http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/06/26/a-critique-of-dr-thomas-m-strouses-the-geocentric-cosmology-of-genesis-11-19/