Posted on 12/09/2018 6:45:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Presbyterian pastor Ligon Duncan has listed out some of the biggest threats facing Christians seminaries in America, from unbelief to a lack of Biblical understanding in students.
Duncan, who is the chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary in Mississippi, said in a video published on YouTube on Tuesday that one of the main threats facing theological education today is the undergraduate debt crisis.
The scholar warned that the debt is “causing a lot of students to stay away from graduate theological education who would really benefit from it both personally and in their public ministry.
Next, he said that there is a crisis in the devaluation of theological education.
“People don't have a high regard for what graduate theological education can provide people in preparing for the pastoral ministry.”
Duncan also warned of what he called the “perennial challenges of unbelief being propagated in theological institutions.” He said that such unbelief is not “committed to the inerrancy of Scripture” or to “classic Christian Orthodox theology” and the “Great Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Reformed Theological Seminary chancellor said that the biggest threat to theological education in North America, however, is people who think that “they can be adequately equipped for a lifetime of gospel ministry without really knowing their Bibles, and without really knowing theology.”
“We find today that more seminary students come to do graduate theological education with less knowledge of the Bible and theology than ever before. Fifty years ago, students came, they'd read through the Bible many times, they'd memorized a lot of the Bible, they had done their catechisms, they had been schooled in theology in their home churches.”
Today, however, churches are not “equipping people in the same way with a knowledge of the Bible and a theology,” he argued.
“So if people who know less Bible and less theology think that knowing more Bible, more theology is irrelevant to ministry, we're in trouble,” he warned.
Theology professors have also long been warning that biblical illiteracy in America has reached a "crisis point."
Kenneth Berding, professor of New Testament at Biola's Talbot School of Theology, told The Christian Post back in 2014 that biblical literacy has reached an "all-time low."
"My own experience teaching a class of new college freshman every year for the past 15 years suggests to me that although students 15 years ago knew little about the Bible upon entering my classes, today's students on average know even less about the Bible," Berding said back then.
In an article titled "The Crisis of Biblical Illiteracy and What We Can Do About It," the theology professor said that Christians “used to be known as 'people of one book.' They memorized it, meditated on it, talked about it and taught it to others," he wrote.
"We don't do that anymore, and in a very real sense we're starving ourselves to death,” he added.
Just trying to say in a nice way that your pastor is wrong. It’s an “and” not an “or” when it comes to training pastors.
Another thing to keep in mind. You aren’t going to find a man that is 1) a good preacher, 2) a good pastor AND 3) a good administrator. That’s an advantage of a larger church - multiple staff members can cover the multiple needs. Otherwise, members are going to need to step up and cover the gaps.
Ever hear of the London Baptist Confession of 1689? Ever hear of Charles Spurgeon? The roots of the Baptists are reformed. Dispensationalists didn’t take over until the last century.
“Ever hear of the London Baptist Confession of 1689?”
Yes, I have. They were also not the only Baptists.
“The roots of the Baptists are reformed.”
Only in seminaries. Always been that way. And back in the day, few baptist preachers went to seminary. The Southern Baptists started in 1845 and first adopted “The Baptist Faith and Message” in 1925. To this day, you will find Southern Baptist churches which reject it entirely, and others who use the 1963 version. You will also find almost no Baptist who has ever read it in detail.
Calvinism is largely rejected by actual Baptists. I’ve known a few who accept it, but most - like me - are shocked if they hear about Calvin’s TULIP. Probably because no one simply reading the Bible would come up with it. Try telling the average Baptist about “irresistible grace”. He’ll look at you as if you were from Mars. And in 40 years as a baptist, I’ve NEVER heard a sermon discussing it. Or Unconditional Election, or Limited Atonement. Not in a sermon. Not in a Bible study. Not in a Sunday School.
You’d have as much luck convincing the average Baptist of transubstantiation...or a need for priests.
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
The obvious, non-seminary meaning is we should repent and believe. Not that God will make SOME of us do so, while never intending anyone else believe. “For God so loved the world” is taken literally by most baptists, not to mean God loves part of the world. And most baptists believe “whosoever” MEANS whosoever!
Indeed, most baptists have no problem with singing “Jesus loves you, this I know” instead of, “Jesus loves some of you and hates the rest...”!
You find the confessions of the Baptists "deeply unscriptural" yet you seem to embrace the Society of Evangelical Arminians and their doctrinal statement. Are you saying their articles are divinely inspired? What is your criteria for accepting doctrinal statements?
If you do not have a "systematic theology", you simply have a hodgepodge mixture of doctrinal beliefs that have holes and contradictions. I remember studying Ephesian and a Sunday School teacher skipping over In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesian 1:11). He was unable to explain it clearly and concisely. Normally in situations like this, if they don't ignore the verse then what I hear is "Yeah but look what this other verse states...". This is poor analysis of scripture.
The Bible is one book put together by God and fits together in a consistent manner. If you don't believe that, then you simply don't believe in systematic theology.
“You find the confessions of the Baptists “deeply unscriptural” yet you seem to embrace the Society of Evangelical Arminians...”
No. I have no real objection to the Baptist Faith & Message, which is not Calvinistic. I do find the Calvinistic confessions unscriptural.
Listing scripture at the end of a doctrinal statement doesn’t count for squat because the doctrinal statement is an INTERPRETATION. They would do better to list the scriptures they think pertinent and leave it at that. I’m also not a member of the SEA, although I find many of their articles helpful.
“I remember studying Ephesian and a Sunday School teacher skipping over In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”
That is why I like the SEA. If that SS teacher had read their articles, he would have been able to give you an answer. A scriptural one. Because the first two words in the scripture you quote are “IN HIM”. That is a frequently used phrase, yet one many skip. Yet it all depends on being “IN HIM”.
Paul’s teaching about election involves the following truths:
(1) Election is Christocentric, i.e., election of humans occurs only in union with Jesus Christ. “He chose us in him” (Eph. 1:4; see 1:1, note). Jesus himself is first of all the elect of God. Concerning Jesus, God states, “Here is my servant whom I have chosen” (Mt 12:18; cf. Isa 42:1, 6; 1 Pet 2:4). Christ, as the elect, is the foundation of our election. Only in union with Christ do we become members of the elect (Eph 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13). No one is elect apart from union with Christ through faith.
(2) Election is “in him…through his blood” (Eph 1:7). God purposed before creation (Eph. 1:4) to form a people through Christ’s redemptive death on the cross. Thus election is grounded on Christ’s sacrificial death to save us from our sins (Ac 20:28; Ro 3:24-26).
(3) Election in Christ is primarily corporate, i.e., an election of a people (Eph 1:4-5, 7, 9). The elect are called “the body of Christ” (4:12), “my church” (Mt 16:18), “a people belonging to God” (1 Pe 2:9), and the “bride” of Christ (Rev 19:7). Therefore, election is corporate and embraces individual persons only as they identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the true church (Eph 1:22-23; see Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers]). This was true already of Israel in the OT (see Dt 29:18-21, note; 2Ki 21:14, note; see article on God’s Covenant with the Israelites, p. 298).
(4) The election to salvation and holiness of the body of Christ is always certain. But the certainty of election for individuals remains conditional on their personal living faith in Jesus Christ and perseverance in union with him. Paul demonstrates this as follows. (a) God’s eternal purpose for the church is that we should “be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4). This refers both to forgiveness of sins (1:7) and to the church’s purity as the bride of Christ. God’s elect people are being led by the Holy Spirit toward sanctification and holiness (see Ro 8:14; Gal. 5:16-25). The apostle repeatedly emphasizes this paramount purpose of God (see Eph 2:10; 3:14-19; 4:1-3, 13-24; 5:1-18). (b) Fulfillment of this purpose for the corporate church is certain: Christ will “present her to himself as a radiant church…holy and blameless” (Eph 5:27). (c) Fulfillment of this purpose for individuals in the church is conditional. Christ will present us “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4) only if we continue in the faith. Paul states this clearly: Christ will “present you holy in his sight without blemish…if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel” (Col 1:22-23).
(5) Election to salvation in Christ is offered to all (Jn 3:16-17; 1Ti 2:4-6; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9) but becomes actual for particular persons contingent on their repentance and faith as they accept God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Eph 2:8; 3:17; cf. Ac 20:21; Ro 1:16; 4:16). At the point of faith, the believer is incorporated into Christ’s elect body (the church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:13), thereby becoming one of the elect. Thus, there is both God’s initiative and our response in election (see Ro 8:29, note; 2 Pet 1:1-11).
IN HIM we truly have everything. It is also, interestingly, a tribal concept. When I went to Afghanistan, a pamphlet I read discussed how tribes view being in an ancestor, and it was just like hearing Romans 5. A tribe is viewed as having been “in” an ancestor, and retaining his promises, rights and crimes. You can actually kill a descendant, legally, for what a great grand father did, since the descendant was “in” the ancestor.
However, this doctrine is really pretty worthless. Sorry, but it saves no one and damns no one. It is PHILOSOPHY, not theology. Something seminarians argue about to make themselves feel wise, yet almost no christian cares about it. Or even knows about it. Hard though it may be to believe, many Christians will live their lives without ever discussing Calvin, TULIP or free will - although free will is discussed far more than Calvin in Baptist circles!
Predestination, be it personal or corporate, doesn’t change lives to make people more like God. God COULD have given us a perfect systematic theology text. He gave us the Bible - the Word of God, the written revelation of God - to lead us to repentance and changed lives. Not to argue philosophy.
From the same link as before:
Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ. [Life in the Spirit Study Bible, pp. 1854-1855]
I'm not sure I understand what exactly is the "Calvinistic confessions". I posted the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644. You state that you have no objection to the Baptist Faith & Message. I'm not sure what the "Baptist Faith & Message" means or how it was formed. Most likely it was a group of men putting together their doctrine. Yet the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644 is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith developed independently two years later. So there is independent confirmation that these confessions are solid doctrinal principles.
You said "Listing scripture at the end of a doctrinal statement doesn’t count for squat because the doctrinal statement is an INTERPRETATION. ". Yet then you proceed to give me a list of scriptures. Aren't you doing exactly what you are stating? Couldn't I make the same argument?
Listen, I can't go over each theological point or doctrinal reference here because my fingers would wear out. And, quite frankly, it will do neither of us any good to start throwing verses at one another. All I can suggest is that you don't dismiss what was laid down for us from our forefathers. Though Calvin played a role in helping to articulate Protestantism, he is not the author of Protestant theology. The TULIP wasn't Calvin's invention but the works of our Protestant fathers. And, as a note, I find that most people who criticize Calvin have never read his works.
It is important just to compare the confessions against what the scriptures teaches to see if they are so.
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Acts 17:11
“All I can suggest is that you don’t dismiss what was laid down for us from our forefathers.”
I’m not. I’m just choosing a different “forefather” because what Calvin wrote didn’t match what I see in the Bible.
“I’m not sure what the “Baptist Faith & Message” means or how it was formed.”
As close as Southern Baptists come to a creed, although many baptist churches reject it:
http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmcomparison.asp
“Yet the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644 is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith developed independently two years later. So there is independent confirmation that these confessions are solid doctrinal principles.”
No. It means people who largely agreed with each other formed them. There is no objective reason to believe they are more “solid” than any other creed. I see no way to reconcile what Calvin taught with what scripture says: “...but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Believe to receive life, not receive life to believe.
That uncounted millions can read the Bible their entire lives without noticing “irresistible grace” ought to give Calvinists pause. That both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can be saved means the argument - like a lot of doctrinal disputes - doesn’t mean much to Eternity.
“8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ...
16 Therefore, don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his unspiritual mind. 19 He doesn’t hold on to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and tendons, develops with growth from God.
20 If you died with the Messiah to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: 21 “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? 22 All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are commands and doctrines of men. 23 Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value in curbing self-indulgence.” - Colossians 2
Based on my conversations with him, he would agree with your opinion of "and" and not "or." However, he would disagree with your assessment that seminaries are producing such balanced products. Seminary graduates are usually very competent to exposit a passage or do a word study in the original language or defend a denominational distinctive but not so competent to meet the pastoral needs of their congregation.
Another thing to keep in mind. You aren’t going to find a man that is 1) a good preacher, 2) a good pastor AND 3) a good administrator.
I have seen such men. The problem is that they cannot keep it up and are prone to burnout. Our pastor is such a person.
Otherwise, members are going to need to step up and cover the gaps.
Although competent in administration, our pastor doesn't care to do it. His heart is in teaching and pastoral care. Fortunately, although we are a small church, we have members who are willing and able to fill those gaps.
You keep repeating this like a broken record when I have shown this ISN'T Calvin view. The London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 both show virtually the identical Protestant understanding. And these were rather large groups of Protestants all stating the same thing. What in the confessions do you not agree with?
I would suggest that what Arminians believe is nothing more then Catholic lite.
I’ve tried to explain. Obviously not very well, but I don’t know how to be clearer.But...
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call...”
Really? “For God so loved the world...” “Repent and believe”.
“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call...”
Ie, God gives us life that enables us to believe. But John wrote, “...but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” IOW, we repent and believe, and believing, we have life.
“Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved...”
“This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - 1 Tim 2
“which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”
That misinterprets Ephesians 2. Faith is NOT a gift God gives us. Based on the Greek, Ephesians 2 says SALVATION is the gift God gives, not faith: “That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered “that” - touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word “faith” - pistis- is in the feminine. The word “that,” therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to “the salvation by grace” of which he had been speaking.”
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/ephesians-2.html
And so on. Corporate election makes sense. Elections as individuals conflicts with the rest of the Bible. There is something terribly wrong with any interpretation of scripture that prevents someone from saying, “Jesus loves you”! BTW: Saying “Jesus loves you “is VERY different from saying “Jesus approves of you just as you are” - which is the nonsense pedaled by too many modern churches. The Good News starts with “Repent”, not “Jesus wants to be your boyfriend”!
“16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.” - Jesus
I see no way to reconcile the plain understanding of that passage with what Calvin taught. I realize you disagree, and I guess we’ll have to go on disagreeing. And I have no idea how anyone would reconcile what most Baptists believe with Catholic theology. Yet at least 95% of all Baptists I’ve met over the last 40 years have been “Arminians” in their beliefs, although I doubt more than 1% would recognize the name.
The church I’m in is small enough that our pastor makes $25,000/year. He is utterly sincere. Works hard. His sermons are biblical. Not always entertaining, but biblical! He genuinely cares for the people of the church. He is conscientious about administration, but freely admits he relies on others to do the daily work of budgeting, etc. He is a PART of the admin, but freely admits it is hard for him. Others DO fill in the gaps.
Pastors should not be expected to be Superman. A sincere, devout pastor deserves respect. AND HELP! But then, I’m a baptist, and baptists tend to emphasize a bottom up approach to the church.
Which Baptists are we talking about? Arminian Baptists or Calvinist Baptists? Free willed Baptists or Reformed Baptists? I don't know about 95% but you are correct. That is simply because most Protestant Christians today have abandoned the confessions. As you illustrate, most no longer believe them.
But just because most Protestants have abandoned the cofessions does not mean the majority is correct nor are the confessions incorrect. The history of the northern tribe of Israel and of Judah was to abandon what they were taught. Only a remnant was saved. It is a natural progression of fallen nature. Our theology devolves which is why Paul was so insistent on us studying sound doctrine.
In twenty years I suppose everyone will be teaching a prosperity gospel. That will not make it correct.
And I have no idea how anyone would reconcile what most Baptists believe with Catholic theology.
I compared Catholic theology to Arminian theology. Both affirm man's free will to accept the calling of God.
I’m mostly talking Southern Baptist, which cover a large gamut.
“I compared Catholic theology to Arminian theology. Both affirm man’s free will to accept the calling of God.”
That hardly makes Baptists and Catholics close in theology! But yes, when Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news!”, I believe he MEANT it.
He wasn’t deceiving or joking, and didn’t REALLY mean, “My SECRET will is for most of you to be damned, but I want a FEW of you to repent - and you will, irresistibly!”
I tend to take Jesus at what he said, rather than what a seminary or a creed claims he said. If someone walked up to you on the street and said “Turn around”, you would expect them to believe your turning around was possible. I see no reason to make the teaching of Jesus more complicated that that. If he tells you to repent, he assumes you CAN repent. Even if you don’t.
“When they heard this, they came under deep conviction and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?”
38 “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!” - Acts 2
Seems pretty simple to me. You don’t urge people to repent if you believe some will do so irresistibly and the rest cannot do so at all. Ask John Calvin, “What must we do?” and Calvin would reply, “You can do nothing. Wait and see what God will make you do!”
That would be my beef with many seminaries. They teach a lawyerly approach to what God said, rather than assume God WANTS us to know the truth, and thus spoke it plainly. And John Calvin was a young (27) lawyer when he wrote his Institutes. It shows...
[I think it’s a very subtle attack on the integrity of the word.]
agreed
Having met a few graduates with a master’s degrees from a liberal seminary, I find them rather hostile to a basic, exegetical reading of the Scriptures.
I know you are not surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.