How will the GCR affect seminaries?

I am really curious what Seminary you attended! You do not seem to have a very good grasp of progressive revelation.

Tell me; do you believe that Moses knew just as much about God as the Apostle Paul? I do not even think you can argue that point...

Progressive Revelation absolutely does NOT destroy the fabric of the innerancy and sufficiency of scripture. In fact, those doctrines demand that progressive revelation be true.

Which could just as well be a Seminary, as any other group of believers. There is no scriptural mandate that people be trained in the local congregation. In fact, there are not many examples of this in the Bible (young men being trained at only a local congregation). There seems, instead, to be a kind of early Seminary model, where young men train under teachers, and then go out to work in a local congregation. Think of the twelve...think of Titus and Timothy...all of these were trained under a teacher/teachers, not in the context of a single local congregation.

It is not a question of sufficiency of scripture. Nor is it just about "methods." It has to do with training which best occurs in a Seminary context, with a multitude of trained, qualified, and Godly teachers. Again, the amount a pastor has to learn today is 10 times what a first century pastor would have to learn (since, presumably a first century Pastor would already know the Biblical languages...and there was not much Church History to learn, nor great Christian teachers like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, etc.).

I just think your position is indefensible, and would result in a HUGE "dumbing down" of the ministry, and a huge number of poorly trained men.

 

I attended three different seminaries, but progressive Revelation is often used in liberal circles or charismatic circles and often attack II TImothy 3:16. In that regards, I do believe the Bible is sufficient to teach us all we need to know about God, His Church, and His ways. I do not gain anymore knowledge than they had in Scripture. While I do agree the Old Testament Concealed the New Revealed is valid, I would disagree that I would gain more knowledge than that which is contained in the 66 book. There is no more progressive Revelation, the Bible is closed.

I have fought against progressive revelation most of my Pastoral career. From my first Pastorate to when I finally left the SBC, I have seen many who claimed progressive revelation likened the the classical liberals. This view does attack the sufficiency of the Bible because at it's heart it says the Bible is not sufficient to know all we need to about God, that we need a progressive revelation to live and act today. By the historic understanding of sufficiency, this is a denial of that doctrine.

No, the Universal Church is invisible. You cannot have a sub-entity that is visible to be a part of an invisible entity. There is no structure in the invisible Church. There is no accountability in the invisible church. The invisible Church is merely, and all it is, all God's people from all time. That is all it is and that is all it will ever be. A seminary cannot be a member of the universal church because there is no entity of the Universal Church.

Titus and Timothy were trained under the auspices of the local church. Paul was sent out and accountable to the local church, he was sent out as their designated missionary. He, as well, reported back to them for accountability and further help. Titus and Timothy were trained under Paul. Yet, Paul was a man under the authority of the local church. The 12 was different in that the church was not around and Jesus was establishing the New Covenant. Yet, even in this case, he was using the 12 to establish His Church so it would be responsible for training men and women in the things of God.

God ordains not only the means but oftentimes the methods. You still believe the local church is insufficient to carry out God's plan and your attacks on the local church is disturbing. Yes, what I need to learn is a lot of theology, church history, etc. and I do not expect a church to slight anyone in the academics. I, however, believe local church accountability, mentoring, and shepherding is missing in our seminary education.

I disagree. I have been to three seminaries. The one I thought gave the best theological education was the one out of the church. I do not think people like Calvin, Bunyan, and Spurgeon were dumbed down because they didn't go to Seminary. As well, I have two Masters completing my 3rd. I am not for dumbing down any academics. Your assessment may say more about your view of the local church than it does about my proposal. My proposal is defensible. There is no earthly entity designed for the training of people for the ministry except the local church. The Universal Church is not that entity.

If the local church is not sufficient, then the Pastoral Epistles should be rewritten. I believe the local church is sufficient to provide a world class education. Years ago people said that homeschoolers would result in the dumbing down of education... what we have found is the opposite... they excel. There is no evidence that a church engaged in Christian Education would dumb down anything. There is evidence that seminaries will ultimately delve into heretical doctrine.

 

And this is why I asked about your seminary experience. Progressive revelation does not deny that the Canon is closed. However, we know more about the Bible, and understand it better, than they did 400 years ago. We have older manuscripts that have allowed us to translate more accurately, we have the Bible, as well as commentaries and tools, readily available, and there has also been a technological advancement in educational instruction.

Again, it says nothing of the kind. Progressive revelation simply states that one generation knows more about God than the generation before. This is born out through the scriptures, and through history. Moses knew more than Abraham, Paul knew more than Moses, etc. It does not deny that this is through God's Word, nor that the canon is now closed.

Its funny that you say Paul was sent out and "accountable" to the local Church, when Paul specifically says this is not true. Read the first two Chapters of Galatians. Paul specifically states that he did not receive his ministry from anyone. Timothy and Titus were trained under Paul...not a local assembly.

But when He does, he issues commands; He does not leave it to vague historical accounts. It is very poor hermeneutics to build definite doctrine out of nothing more than an historical account of something that happened. Thus, even if it were the case that everything that happened in the New Testament were from a local assembly (and it is absolutely NOT the case), it would still not be o.k. to state this is how it HAS to be done.

Not at all. I believe the local church is sufficient; I just do not believe it is limited. Why do you place unscriptural limitations on what a local church can do? Where does the Bible say a local church can not participate in a cooperative plan with other churches, and establish seminaries for the purpose of training pastors? It doesn't, nor does it even hint that such is inappropriate.

How dare you use cars...the apostles didn't. Nor did they have church buildings, air conditioners, printed Bibles, or any of the other advancements we use for the ministry. It is absolutely silly to say that it cannot use the advancement in educational structures as well.

Nothing short of a multi million dollar mega church can provide the number of qualified teachers to teach the number of subjects which need to be taught, at the level that needs to be taught. This is just insane...

Yet Spurgeon disagreed, and founded a Seminary to stop the dumbing down which we are discussing. Calvin, also, touted the importance of theological education.

And the church can utilize any means it desires, which is not forbidden by God. Which is why He gave it seminaries.

The local Church is sufficient...but not if you strip the tools away from it. If you take away the modern advancements in printing, transportation, and education, it cannot reach a global community. No church, outside a mega church (which goes against the "community" inherent in the New Testament church model), can provide the necessary education if you strip away its tools and rights, to cooperate with other churches to form seminaries...such as with the Big Six.

I would also state that a Seminary fits the New Testament model of a local Church (it has all the elements), and therefore, your point is moot. Forming a seminary is just forming a church, for the purpose of training pastors. Nowhere is this forbidden by the New Testament.

 

Yeah, sorry about that. We should really take this to the "debate" forum..:laugh:

 

havensdad,

I will let it be since this if off topic. I did want to clarify a couple of things, not as a debate but as my point.

1. I do not believe in coaching but in classes, it was not about degrading academics but could be about upgrading the Church.

2. I do not believe his is limited to mega-churches as many model churches who do this are normally under 400 members.

3. It is a form of seminary (classroom) but also practical.

4. It can rely on outside teachers and also inside.

5. It is accountable to Elders (both Spurgeon's and Calvin's schools were accountable to a local church) but not always taught by them.

 

I may have missed the answer, but which three different seminaries did you attend?

 

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg VA
Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis TN
Mid-West Center for Theological Studies, Owensboro KY

Two I believe were good schools. Mid-West I took classes and were involved in much of what they did in a years time. Mid-America I was there a year before transferring to Liberty due to strong philosophical, educational, and theological differences. Liberty is where I completed most of my work.

 

Nothing was really directed toward the seminaries, don't think it had anything to do with the fact that several seminary presidents served on the task force, do you?!?!

The only thing mentioned of any significance was the fact that the GCR felt like the seminaries should focus on masters and doctoral work - here is what it said

"Give primary attention to masters and doctoral level programs for the education and training of pastors, missionaries and other church leaders"

I guess they think the undergrad colleges started to keep enrollment numbers up need to be phased out. This isn't going to happen as the seminary presidents do what they want without much concern for how it may effect other Baptist entities as evidenced by the fact they started these undergrad programs while being surrounded by other four year Baptist colleges in the first place.

The fix was in for the seminaries from the beginning. Sure we are going to blow up NAMB and the IMB but God forbid we even discuss the seminaries.

 

Oh no, what's going to happen to Mrs. Mohler's and Mrs. Patterson's oikology programs?! :laugh:

 

The "other" 4 year "Baptist" Colleges, are horrific, liberal cesspools like Baylor. I pray that most serious Baptists would think twice before sending their children off to such centers of heresy!

The Seminaries are probably the most important organizations in the SBC. They are the starting place for everything else. And they need to be strengthened, not weakened. The four year colleges some of them started, was a great idea...keep the students from being ruined before they get there!

 

Cesspools, is that really the word you want to use? Poor Baylor they seem to be the poster boy for "liberal" baptist schools. But your wide sweeping generality does not describe the vast majority of these schools - but somehow I think you knew that already.

The point is there are great baptist schools surrounding most of the SBC seminaries and there is no need to duplicate and divert resources from a seminaries primary mission, training ministers.

 

First, Lifeway is not controlled or operated at all by the SBC. It receives no CP money.
Second, the six seminaries are controlled by the local SB churches who support them.
Third, Dr. Mohler is being misrepresented here somewhat.
Fourth, there is indeed room for both church centered and seminary based training, but let's not make a bifurcation here. Why does one mean the other isn't happening?
Fifth, let's stay on topic :wavey:
Sixth, have a nice day!

 

Wow.

Not only is your assessment of Baptist universities incredibly misinformed, you are also completely defaming the character of many godly men and women selflessly who serve at those schools.

FYI, Baylor is quite different than the rest of the Texas Baptist schools.

 

There are, to my knowledge, 3 non-"liberal cesspool" undergrad Baptist institutions in the state of Texas; The College at Southwestern (which is one of the schools being slammed by the above poster), Criswell, and Jacksonville (which is a two year college).

The other 8, (the only ones that I know of; if there are more than that, let me know) are indeed liberal cesspools.

And no, I am not defaming anyone. You are defaming the people that I have personal testimonies from, by denying it. Saying that a college is a cesspool of liberalism, does not mean ALL of the professors are bad. I know Christians that teach in the public school system; am I supposed to support evolution because of this? Your post is completely without merit.

 

Whatever. I can tell an attempt at sane discussion would be fruitless.

For what it's worth, I have a friend who left Criswell because of the "liberalism" taught in all of his classes. His opinion is at least as valid as yours since he graduated from a Texas Baptist university and then attended Criswell. Strangely enough, he didn't see much difference between the two schools except he thought our university professors cared more about the students.

 

I went to Liberty and remember someone telling me that Liberty is "liberal." Liberal is a code word sometiimes with little meaning unless you define what you mean. While I do not like some of what goes on at Liberty, I would not call them liberal. However, people have called it liberal for various reasons.

So, I sometimes need to qualify what people mean. That may be wise in this discussion.

 

Liberal hallmarks among Christian Universities include..

1)Professors who deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement

2) Denial of Christ's deity

3) Denial of the Virgin Birth

4) Denial of a literal 6 day creation account in Genesis

5) Denial of Scriptural infallibility and innerancy.

6) Ordination of Women

7) Ordination of homosexuals (or anyone living in open and deliberate rebellion)

8) Lack of accountability for students. They are allowed to "run wild."

9) Not requiring professors to hold to these core values.

There is more...shall I continue? Pretty much any college in the Texas General Convention strikes out on one or more of these...

 

Havensdad,

My comments were not directed at you, but when I hear schools like Criswell is liberal, I begin to have questions about the person calling the school liberal. The same goes when people call Liberty liberal.

 

Didn't have a professor who did this. However, I have had professors who believed that the explanation of the atonement is much broader and more comprehensive than simply "penal substitutionary atonement."

Didn't have a professor who did this.

Didn't have a professor who did this.

I don't recall anyone "denying" a "literal" six day creation, but I don't recall having that view attacked either. When I first went to my Texas Baptist school, I was undecided on the issue. While there, I became convinced that the Bible taught literal six day creation (although, through my own reading outside of class). It was only when I went to Southwestern Seminary a few years later (after Ken Hemphill became president) that I changed my view to what I hold today: I do not think scripture teaches creation within six literal days for explicit reasons related to what a careful reading the text actually says.

Since these terms mean different things to different people, I'm not sure exactly how to answer this. However, all of my professors had a VERY high view of scripture. I never experienced a professor trying to pick apart the word of God or even suggesting that it was somehow invalid or in error. We spent our time discussing what was being said and what it calls us to do in our cultural context.

Personally, I question the whole idea of ordination the way it is normally practiced in our churches today for both men and women.

In my experience, professors held varying views of the role of women in ministry. When appropriate, students heard these views and were allowed to make up their own minds based on what scripture and their understanding of the issues told them.

I never had a professor advocate or entertain this view.

Nope. Didn't experience this at all. In fact, I thought the standards were about right. I was an R.A. for a year and was involved in tossing several people out for drug use (pot) and sexual impropriety.

I thought the school had the right balance in allowing a bit of diversity of in viewpoints so that the students could be exposed to the issues in a fair and balanced way.

Compared to students from some of the seminaries, I know very few students from my university who have lost their faith over the years.