What constitutes an SBC seminary?

I think that is an excellent point gb. In his preaching book Vines recommends a general liberal arts degree (Philosophy, History etc) and then your seminary degree.

I have benefitted (intellectually, financially, etc)from getting a degree in Electrical Engineering 4 years before coming to seminary.

 

I believe that the SBC is in more danger of liberalism than we can imagine. SWBTS has recently hired professors who have a D.Min. from such places as Regent University (Pat Robertson's school). Students do not need to know conservative Baptist theology. They need to know what scripture teaches in light of its historical context. If one only knew what some of those "conservative" professors believed one might be shocked. Some of them hide in fear hoping they can continue and will not get exposed. Some when asked will not deal with the issues. I have asked some of the questions and they have refused to deal with some questions.

The world does not need conservatives. They are liberals with "conservative" theology. Jesus said ot be hot or cold. Conservatives are lukewarm. What the world today is looking for, is radical Christians who follow Christ not a conservative theology, denomination or convention. God's theology is not conservative. It is radical. When Jesus calls to come and follow Him he said to count the cost, deny ourselves and follow Him.

When I stand up to preach on the cost of discipleship I have never had the radical Christians ever get mad. In fact quite the opposite. But I have had conservative Christians get mad because it exposes their complacency and disobedience.

I have never seen a person who knows his Bible well ever become a conservative unless he is tainted by disobedience. By studying scripture with a heart of obedience he becomes a radical follower of Christ.

Many conservatives do not study their Bible.
Many conservatives do not share their faith.
Many conservative are pew sitters and help warm the pew during winter.

Conservative seminaries do not always make conservative theologians. I have watched some men in my years who went to the same seminary I did who took professors who were very conservative but did not expose the student to any liberal points of view or liberal theology. I seriously doubt that some of those professors cared to deal with those issues. But when they left within a few years some of them became Pentecostals, etc. Just because one goes to a conservative church and a conservative seminary does not mean he is given the tools necessary to deal with liberal points of view. The professors I took at SWBTS were the hardest professors but they made us deal with liberal points of view and then we listened as the professor dealt with those issues. We took a serious look at various points of view and dealt with them.

I have seldom seen a person stray very far who was busy sharing their faith and seriously studying the word. But today I see few pastors seriously studying their Greek and Hebrew Bibles they once used in seminary.

 

Sorry but most of your post is based on an altered view of "conservative", one that is different from what most people are using here.

If you are going to contrast something with radical, in relation to devotion to Christ, you would be best served to pick a word other than "conservative."

 

Why should there be a contrast? If there is it is dead or lukewarm.

Why should the bar be held less than radical--what Jesus called up to?

There have been great preachers who have preached in "conservative" dead churches and been asked to leave. Look at Jonathan Edwards.

"Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of God upon the earth."
John Wesley (1703-1791)

When I was pastoring I heard too many times from pastors about how their church would run them out of town if they preached certain things. Do we want those kind of lukewarm churches pastored by pastors afraid of what might happen? I am more afraid of what God might do. Who do we serve anyway? If it's in the Bible then it can be preached.

 

I think you misunderstand....I said you need to pick a word other than "conservative" to describe that position. The Bible does not use "conservative" and it is not helpful to use a term that has many other connotations, especially in the context of theology.

I agree we should not settle for less than radical.....I just object to your use of the term "conservative" as describing those that are not radical.

Try re-reading my post again...I'm not sure how you misunderstood that at all.

 

Examples of what I mean:

You have now used "conservative" in two different ways back to back. This is just confusing the situation, especially because you are adding a definition to "conservative" that no one else has done before, saying "conservative=lukewarm".

Now, you have used your brand new definition of "conservative" and ripped it apart.
No one heer would disagree with you that lukewarm is bad and dangerous and that the call of Christ is radical and costly.
But, you also switched definitions again. Did you mean "lukewarm theology" or "conservative theology"? You can't go back and forth between your definitions, it is not helpful at all, and, again, confuses the issue.

Again, do you mean lukewarm people? If so, I agree. Do you mean those with conservative theology? If so, I think you have made a baseless over-generalized attack.

Do you mean a person who knows is Bible will never be lukewarm? Or is this an attack on conservative theology?

Again, is this an attack on conservative theology or lukewarm people?

Here is where your re-defining "conservative" is the most troublesome. Besides the fatc of not settling on one usage, you have now introduced "liberal" and re-defined that as well.

I know you are not conservative, by any of your definitions. I know you do not like conservative theology. I know you do not like the conservative theological mindset at the seminaries. I know you do not like the way that students are taught at conservative seminaries.
But, are you really helping the situation by equating conservative with lukewarm people who claim to be Christians but really are not?
Are you furthering the discussion by saying conservatives don't share their faith, don't study their Bibles, etc?
Besides being intellectually dishonest by re-defining terms, you are making an underhanded attack at conservatives...and I think it is unfair and uncalled for.

If you want to criticize aspects of conservative thought, fine. Please do. But if you want to equate it with lukewarm people so it is easier to write off in your mind, keep it to yourself, because it isn't fair, helpful, or even close to reality.


BTW, before you try and disregard this post....I am all in favor of radical living for the Christian life, as I believe it IS what we are called to be. My conservative theology is what informs my radical living, not something that tears it down.

 

Perhaps I should have used the word "lukewarm" instead of conservative.
My point is what Henry Balckaby said, "Christians are often theological conservatives but practical atheists, Blackaby said in the second message of his series Feb. 18." http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17795

 

Ok...if that is what you mean...then I agree.

I just didn't know if you were suggesting something more sinister.

 

The profs I respect the most (and there are several here at SBTS) say that studying conservative theology is a lot harder than liberal theology. Their reason is, they make us understand the liberal side as well, whereas most liberal theologians don't care to read conservative theologies.

Sounds like that is the path you took in SWBTS. To be equipped to handle what is really out there.