Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was a Christian, me, along with other fundamentalists, used to have this disdain for seminaries because we had this idea that they did not teach the Bible the correct way. Rumor had it that they tried to teach that some biblical characters were not real or that they held a less than lofty view of God and Jesus. We believed that the professors were closeted atheists who did not really believe the bible was the true word of God and thus, did not teach it with the required esteem and reverence. As a result, we discouraged going to seminaries until I later found out about more fundamentalist seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Seminary, but for the most part, the OLDER seminaries were considered blasphemous like the one at Princeton and I believe, Harvard has one too?
Interestingly enough, I've noticed, even on here, when atheists, deists and other unbelievers decided to drop some actual "meat and potatoes" bible study around here, Christians are often absent. It's as if they have no idea what to say or how to deal with actual facts over "faith" or some fanciful interpretation of various passages that clearly has nothing to do with what they WANT them to say.
When I was a Christian, me, along with other fundamentalists, used to have this disdain for seminaries because we had this idea that they did not teach the Bible the correct way. Rumor had it that they tried to teach that some biblical characters were not real or that they held a less than lofty view of God and Jesus. We believed that the professors were closeted atheists who did not really believe the bible was the true word of God and thus, did not teach it with the required esteem and reverence. As a result, we discouraged going to seminaries until I later found out about more fundamentalist seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Seminary, but for the most part, the OLDER seminaries were considered blasphemous like the one at Princeton and I believe, Harvard has one too?
You're correct. Many seminaries are pretty liberal. Many don't teach what the Bible actually says. You have correctly identified Dallas and Moody as being 2 good ones. There are numerous other good ones, but you are also correct that Harvard and Princeton, while being founded as seminaries have gone completely off the rails in regards to Christianity. It really does matter what Seminary one attends.
Quote:
Interestingly enough, I've noticed, even on here, when atheists, deists and other unbelievers decided to drop some actual "meat and potatoes" bible study around here, Christians are often absent. It's as if they have no idea what to say or how to deal with actual facts over "faith" or some fanciful interpretation of various passages that clearly has nothing to do with what they WANT them to say.
That's why we often draw a line between actual Christians and those that are nominal Christians, or "name only Christians." It really DOES matter what a person actually believes. You say Christians don't have a clue? I'd encourage you to take a hard look at why you call that person a Christian. Is it based on what they believe? Or because they might be a part of a church that has the name "Jesus" in it?
Could it be that those seminaries you disagree with teach the bible and biblical stories using well researched facts about what is true, what might be true and what isn't true? They are open to scholarship and different interpretations of what the bible actually says.
Could it be that those seminaries you disagree with teach the bible and biblical stories using well researched facts about what is true, what might be true and what isn't true? They are open to scholarship and different interpretations of what the bible actually says.
Could it be that those seminaries you disagree with teach the bible and biblical stories using well researched facts about what is true, what might be true and what isn't true? They are open to scholarship and different interpretations of what the bible actually says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
no.
Any so-called seminary that teaches actual bible scholarship would be rejected by Vizio, he believes the "doctrine of demons" that the Bible is 100% the word of God. He tests the Spirit of NOTHING in it. He accepts everything blindly using it as his infallible guide instead of the very guide the Bible actually tells us to use.
When I was a Christian, me, along with other fundamentalists, used to have this disdain for seminaries because we had this idea that they did not teach the Bible the correct way.
This is an old and traditional conflict between the administration and the faculty of a seminary. The goal of the faculty is to get the students to think. The goal of the administration is to turn out successful ministers and missionaries. This opposition can get so strong that the administration will tell incoming to students to respect and humor their teachers but not to believe what they say.
I was not aware that Moody had a theological cemetery now. It was just Moody Bible Institute back in my day. Looks like even MBI has become accredited, or at least has accredited programs. That is what GRSBM tried to do, too late to save itself, in the early 1980s.
Mordant, yeah, we used to jeeringly call them cemeteries too.
The funny thing was, we used to take this great orgasmic pleasure that we knew the bible by virtue of being taught and "guided by the holy spirit" while those in seminary read other fancy, schmancy books. Ain't nobody had time for that?
The funny thing was, we used to take this great orgasmic pleasure that we knew the bible by virtue of being taught and "guided by the holy spirit" while those in seminary read other fancy, schmancy books. Ain't nobody had time for that?
Well I am a GRSBM alumnus and grew up in IFCA churches. Our argument was more along the lines that we just had the correct interpretive system. Our concept of the guidance of the holy spirit was more general and in principle than it was a specific claim that he literally led us individually to truth. That was something we weren't comfortable with ... too easy to be "deceived" and besides, not sufficiently authoritarian.
We had a quasi-intellectual bent. Lewis Sperry Chafer's multi-volume Systematic Theology was quite popular, as it was at Dallas Theological Seminary, where Chafer was founder and first president. We weren't opposed to books provided they were approved books.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
