What does your seminary teach about........

IMO Erickson's incarnational Christology stumbles whereas Grudem's is on track, but IMO also Grudem's view of eternal relational subordination in the immanent Trinity trips over its own feet whereas Erickson in God in Three Person's and his other monograph which name I forget is on target re Trinal relationships. Read 'em like eating chicken and leave the bones.

Probably were I a prof of ST instead of so far just a lowly sub, I'd go ahead and use a text I liked whether it were of my denomination or not- if the school OK'd it. That would be allowing the other side to be heard , and my own views would surface in lectures/discussions. The students at the master's level should be competent enough to draw their own conclusions instead of being indoctrinated.

But, dream on , Bill

 

I think Grudem should def be a part of your library. It should not be the only theology book, but it should be there.

 

First, the word is Arminian. Armenians are people from Armenia.
Second, huh? How do you figure the Arminian position is presented by open theists? Maybe I just misunderstand what you're saying.

No, it is because there is a wide range of views of eschatology that are still orthodox. There is room for many positions in that area. However, either the Bible teaches that women are to be ministers or not. So, when something can be 1 of 3 or 4 views, and still be legitimate, there is no need to be dogmatic. However, when the Bible teaches something VERY clearly, and there are only 2 options, "dogmatism" is necessarily implied.

Something tells me you don't like him or his book because you disagree with him...or because he is conservative...not because of his level of scholarship or the quality of his books.

I think his Systematic book is a great Theology. I own many STs, but his is one of my favorites.

BTW, I think some of you misunderstand the purpose of a ST book. It is not to spend equal time on each position and not come down on anything. That is a dictionary.
The point is for the writer to systematically work through the major doctrines of the faith. this implies that one will take stances on doctrines. Now, he may mention opposing views, but their mention is only to strengthen the position he presented.

 

Well, I don't want any of my professors teaching me a heretical view of Scripture and then leave it saying,"make up your own mind."

No, the purpose of professors, at the MDiv level, is to instruct the students of all views, then to train them in the correct understanding.

The Deutero-Isaiah theory is a dangerous error, and if the professors at SWBTS are really teaching it as an equally viable position then I would have serious concerns about what else you learn at SWBTS.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of what seminary is to be like.

 

Hello,

My Seminary (SEBTS) teaches Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch with a possible redactor (Deu 34, etc). I have not taken any NT courses yet but I would hope they teach against a Q source. In my undergraduate studies I was taught against a Q source and my undergraduate school looking back was liberal to moderate.

I'm pretty sure they teach first century Gospels.

In Christ,

Brooks

 

No, the purpose of professors, at the MDiv level, is to instruct the students of all views, then to train them in the correct understanding.
</font>[/QUOTE]I agree brother. Seminary teaches "this is what so and so says" alot of the time. I believe it is necessary to learn.

 

I agree. It seems rather undergraduate to me for people to want the professors to tell them what to believe. BTW I'd hire you as a professor, Bill!

 

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

One Isaiah.

Mosaic Pentateuch.

Independent synoptics - no "Q".

1st Century Gospels.

Systematics used: Towns, Erickson, Thiessen (rev. ed.)

 

I agree. It seems rather undergraduate to me for people to want the professors to tell them what to believe. BTW I'd hire you as a professor, Bill! </font>[/QUOTE]==

Let me know when you are in a position to hire

Until then, in three days I have the joy to again appear in front of a seminary ST class as a sub.

One of the 20 issues we'll briefly discuss then is whether or not water baptism by Paul is made analogous to Christ's burial or whether LS Chafer , as an example, is right that the baptismal texts in Rom, Gal, Col, and 1 Cor all refer to Spirit baptism only.

Then , as a back up question to that issue, which of the seven views (that I know of in the literature) re Spirit bap is correct?

I don't see a problem at all with a prof agreeing to a faculty teaching statement, neither do I subscribe to the position of "no creed but Christ," but there should IMO be a commitment also to developing minds, not just to indoctrinating them, and our creed must always submit to regular evaluation by our Scripture.

 

Bill,

That sounds like fun! I hope you have a lively discussion. Back to the question of indoctrinating students: Given that the average age of seminarians is 30 something, and that information on different views is readily available, I really don't think most seminary students need to be told what to believe. I suppose you could argue that the 22 or 23 year olds, on the other hand, might need a bit more guidance formulating their theological views--especially if they had no theological training as an undergrad.

 

The overwhelming amount of scholars who are presented by Grudem as giving the Arminian positions are open-theists. The arguments that these open theists present for the Arminian position that are refuted by Grudem are open theists arguments that are the overwhelming minority viewpoint of all Arminians.

There is a wide range of opinions on what Scripture teaches about women in ministry. All of these positions are just as orthodox as the wide range of views about eschatology. There is a wide range of views about Calvinism and Arminianism yet Grudem certainly takes a stand. My point is that he is not consistent. And the issue of women in ministry is not “ERY clear”.

Whatever that something is that is telling you that is wrong. Grudem is a very humble man with a great and note-worthy scholarly reputation. My agreement or disagreement with him or any author on any particular issue or doctrine makes no difference in my critique of the value of his book for educational purposes. You will notice in my critique of his book that I didn’t mention my disagreements with him as a basis for my critique. I have disagreements with both Erickson and Moody but I find there Systematic Theologies a great educational tool.

I think you have more narrow view of the purpose of a Systematic Theology book than myself. I think that there are many different kinds of Systematic Theology books depending upon the needs and the background of the author. If you look at the other great Southern Baptist ST books (Boyce, Mullins, Moody) you will find a wide variety of purposes. Some books are for other scholars and some are for students. I have no problem with an author giving his opinion on a particular doctrine. In fact I prefer that he does. But I still want a ST author to be fair to the validities of other positions. If the author doesn’t fairly acknowledge other positions then he is not being very systematic.

You will have to offer arguments that state the concept of Deutero-Isaiah is a heretical authorship.

That indoctrination, not education. We can teach students what we believe when they are children but by the time they are adults (college, let alone graduate school) I think we are safe to allow people to arrive at their own conclusions. If not then, when?

Again, explain why Deutero-Isaiah is dangerous let alone heretical.

I look at seminary as a school of education, training ministers for the future service in the body of Christ in order to extend the kingdom of God. There are different types of ministries we are educating and training minister for. Regardless of these different ministries, the minister will one day have to confront opinions different from their own. If all the student has learned is some version of an educational catechism then he or she will only be able to spout off sound bites and clichés and never engage the other opinion.

 

Yes, and that’s a growing theory among many very conservative scholars. I have not at all been persuaded this theory’s arguments. Very weak theory in my opinion. My suspicion is that the emergence of this new theory is to buttress the crumbling complementarian theory, the latter being a theory only a few years older than the former.

But I seriously doubt that Grudem would put the doctrinal teachings ministerial role of women on the same level as the doctrinal teaching about the nature of God. Any scholar that does so is losing the argument.

 

There are certain non-negotiables of the faith that must be taught by seminary profs, true?
Or are there no objective truths that you feel we must teach at seminaries (or in your term "indoctrinate")?

Surely, we all agree that there are some truths that are one way and ONLY one way. Is it indoctrination to teach that?
Just because there are other options does not mean those other options are equally viable.

I think the MDiv level requires a certain amount of teachign WHAT to believe. Present all the view, present strengths and weaknesses, but then present the correct view. In areas where multiple views could be right (eschatology), leave it open for discussion. But on other areas (inerrancy, exclusivity of the gospel, etc) teach the correct view. You can discuss the opposing ideas, but don't leave it open as if those opposing ideas could possibly be right if they clearly are not.
Doing what you suggest with seminaries is not helpful to education, but harmful.

 

Oh, as for Grudem, do you feel he inaccurately presented the Arminian position in his book?

 

Certainly. I am not advocating them not teach non-negotiables. I am merely suggesting that a proper graduate level education should teach various interpretations of non-negotiables.

We should always teach objective truths. But we should also teach the various subjective responses to that objective truth. In the ministry and in the world we encounter far more subjective responses to objective truths than we do the objective truths themselves.

Oh, yes. But there are nuances to absolute truths that need to be discussed and need to be made aware of.

But there are other options that can be equally viable. And there are other options that, though not equally viable, can teach us much. Regardless, if we are so confirmed to our position and so confident in our beliefs then we should have no problem exploring other options. I tend to find that those who resist exploring other possibilities are not generally to grounded in their convictions of a particular belief. They are almost scared to hear a contrary opinion for fear that their belief will be exposed. I see liberal Christians doing this quite a bit but I am seeing an ever-increasing amount of conservative Christians doing likewise.

Seminaries are well adults come to educate themselves for future ministry. Are we really so scared that adult Christians from conservative Southern Baptist traditions who want to be future ministers in the church cannot handle learning the well argued position of another belief?

Again, I am all in favor of presenting the strengths and weaknesses of different positions, and I am all in favor of the professor giving his position. Notice that I did not say that the professor is giving the correct position. He or she may very well be giving the correct view on a particular doctrine but how will the student ever know?

The problem with “areas where multiple views could be right” is that each Christian tradition, each school, and each professor has a different view of what to leave open for discussion. A professor coming from Dallas Theological Seminary will generally have a much narrower view of eschatology than professors from Fuller Theological Seminary (we have both at SWBTS and both have different views of discussionary scope of eschatology in the classroom). You see, each professor brings to the classroom his or her own traditions, biases and convictions which is different to one degree or another to the traditions, biases and convictions of another professor. In order to maintain a certain degree of objectivity the professor needs to present multiple positions on an issue and then give his or her own position. The proliferation of subjective views is one of the closest ways a student has at arriving at the objective truth.

In all SBC seminaries the professor is required to teach within the limits of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. All matters not expressly mentioned in the 2000 BFM have not been deemed important enough by the convention to require comment. Therefore, views of Biblical authorship, the plethora of inerrancy views, views on the exclusivity of the gospel, documentary source theories, and, to a certain degree, women in the ministry are views and positions that are open for plenary discussion and debate. And if a student arrives at a position for herself that is not held by the majority of Southern Baptists then “tough nut”; it wasn’t that important to codify in the first place.

Doing what I suggest is not only not harmful to seminaries, it is helpful to students, professors, local congregations and conventions.

Yes.

 

JGrayhound

Grudem does falter. I do not know what kind of Baptist Grudem is. But, he reads like he might be a northern Baptist.

First (and foremost), the book was a waste of my money. IMHO. Grudem is the only author of the 5 major systematic works that I have (several are multi volume) which is/was a TOTAL WASTE of money. Second the time spent reading it was wasted. I could have read two other authors in the time it took to read him once.

3. He is not clear.
3a. He does not present other people's theology clearly. That is poor form, (3b) but I was truly surprised at how often he could not express his opinions clearly.

3c. I find Calvin or Hodge to be 5 times easier to read and comprehend than Grudem. It is as if, Grudem tries to be understood by a few and misunderstood by all others.

3d. We all use parenthetical asides. But, Grudem uses too many. Over 3 parenthetical asides in a sentence obscures the topic.