# Seminary Choice: TMS, Southern or Westminster?



## TheBigO

Greetings in the precious name of Christ, our Savior! What a joy to be able to post to this forum! I've been reading for some time, but it just clicked in my head that I should probably join and post as well! 

To keep it short, my wife and I live near Dayton, OH, and I have the privilege of serving/teaching a small youth group at our independent Reformed Baptist church. For some time, I have sensed a desire to pursue further training and Lord-willing, serve a pastor in the future. I would also love to learn/practice Biblical counseling as well (I've seen that modeled well in my pastor). 

Thus, I've visited 3 schools to this point. Master's, Westminster (East) & Southern. Seeing as my wife's parents live in Chicago, I am also considering visiting TEDS. 

However, to be honest, I would love to learn how to be a strong expositional preacher with a shepherd's heart who desires to be actively involved in Body life as well. 

Therefore, I just wanted to list some of the strenghts & weaknesses of each school in my mind, and open it up for your thoughts/advice/wisdom. PLEASE share openly! 

Master's: Strengths = Strong expositional preaching emphasis, Biblical counseling, small, more close-knit environment, connected with local church, tuition is low (L.A. is expensive, though!) Cons: Distance from home, Dispensational theology (though from the little I understand, the dispensationalism they teach is not what is usually heralded in some Dispensational circles), Small school & lack of theological breadth.

Southern: Strengths = most Reformed of all Southern Baptist seminaries, Biblical counseling, breadth of excellent scholars, close to home, beautiful campus (I'll be honest!). Weaknesses = a BIG school, not as traditionally Reformed as schools like Westminster. 

Westminster (East): Strengths = Excellent Reformed faculty, rich heritage, strong academics & commitment to learning the Biblical languages; Weaknesses = I am not Presbyterian (please don't hurt me!), has a stigma for being too academic. 

TEDS: I am still learning about this school, so I'd love your thoughts on any strengths or weaknesses. 

Please just let me know what you are thinking about in relation to any of the schools that I am looking at! Thanks!


----------



## Wayne

Greetings. Be sure to visit the User CP section and get your signature block set up so we'll know who you are.


----------



## AThornquist

On Master's:
I have heard only good things from Master's grads and I have been very impressed by the students coming out. My pastor is a Master's grad and he was very well educated. Also, the teachers, though they are dispensational, do not force their conclusions on the students. You can easily disagree if you believe scripture teaches something different. Just back up what you say with the text.

On Westminster: 
They have a track specifically for Reformed Baptists, if you prefer.


----------



## TheBigO

Thank-you so much for your thoughts! I am actually looking at Westminster (East), but I have noticed the program that Westminster (West) offers for Reformed Baptists.


----------



## AThornquist

Oops. I'm not sure why I automatically assumed you were speaking of WSC.


----------



## Idelette

I used to live very close to TEDS so I'll give you my personal opinion for what its worth. I'm not sure that I'm qualified to speak about this subject, but I'm PM'ing you regarding that seminary in particular.


----------



## TheBigO

No worries! I think a lot of people on this board like WSC!


----------



## N. Eshelman

If I were a Baptist and had to choose between the three that you mention, I would go to Southern IN A MINUTE! Lots of great faculty. 

From what I have heard, Westminster East does not produce the pastors that West does, so I would consider that if you want to be a pastor. 

That's all... For the record, Puritan Seminary is close to Ohio...one state over and up; there are a number of Baptists that study there as well. (Props for my alma mater).


----------



## TaylorWest

If I were a Presbyterian, and I had a choice of any seminary in the States, I would choose Southern. Oh wait, I am a Presbyterian. Go with Southern. It is simply the best seminary out there right now. Don't let the size bother you. It is not that 'big'.

In all seriousness, Southern is the best place to study right now. If you are Presbyterian, you might explore getting your MDiv from Southern and then following the course work up with a year at one of our lesser schools to get through credentials.


----------



## ClayPot

TaylorWest said:


> If I were a Presbyterian, and I had a choice of any seminary in the States, I would choose Southern. Oh wait, I am a Presbyterian. Go with Southern. It is simply the best seminary out there right now. Don't let the size bother you. It is not that 'big'.
> 
> In all seriousness, Southern is the best place to study right now. If you are Presbyterian, you might explore getting your MDiv from Southern and then following the course work up with a year at one of our lesser schools to get through credentials.



Taylor,

Why do you consider Southern the best seminary out there right now? I don't have any stake in this as I have never been to seminary--just wondering. Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

TBO,

If I may chime in, I think you ought to take a look at WSC. 

Other notes:

1. Don't go to TMS. It's not Reformed. They don't want you to be Reformed. They don't understand Reformed theology, piety, and practice. We have several ex-TMS students. When students have begun to explore the Reformed faith there, it hasn't gone well. You might listen to this interview which features one of them:

http://www.netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/09.08.09Students.mp3

2. If the Reformed confessions define what "Reformed" means (see a certain volume that I promised not to hype on the PB-- why did I make that promise?) then that also limits your choices if your goal is to become Reformed or to become a Reformed pastor or if you hope to serve Reformed/Presbyterian congregations. Students who graduate from non-Reformed seminaries tend to struggle in licensure and ordination exams and aren't well prepared to serve in P&R congregations because they don't understand them.

If you're not sure, that's a different matter. Then you should decide whether you want to go to a confessional school with a coherent approach to education or whether you want a cafeteria/ala carte approach to education. The difficulty with the latter is that it's hard for a student to discover a baseline from which to work when there is no real baseline at the school among the faculty. Arguably, the cafeteria approach in evangelical theological education undermines the doctrine of the church and relativizes the sacraments. Is evangelicalism better off now, after 50+ years of cafeteria-type education or would we be better off if evangelicalism was commons where people from different ecclesiastical traditions met to talk? I think the latter would be better. 

In other words, even if you don't end up at a Westminster (and I hope you do and I hope you'll give us a call) you'll be better served by studying at some place that is actually married to a tradition and not practicing serial monogamy or theological polygamy.

Things to consider.

Talk to Mark MacVey at 888 480 8474

Best,

rsc


----------



## greenbaggins

At this moment in time, I couldn't recommend Master's, because the dispensational bent of the school is not confessional, and it militates against good expository preaching (Macarthur himself being something of an enigma in this regard, but you'll notice he doesn't do much in the OT). 

I've heard all sorts of good things about Southern, and I highly respect their faculty. 

I will only say about Westminster that either West or East is an outstanding institution, and I if I had to do it all over again, I would go to the same school (I went to East). Westminster East turns out good pastors just as much as West does. Westminster East gets an unfortunate rap as "too scholarly." To put it quite simply, that's false, because, although Westminster East is about is rigorous as you can get, it is a devotional rigor. Doctrine and practice are not separate there. It all comes down to this one issue: if you go in there expecting doctrine and practice to be separated, then it will be for you, but not because of the school. If you go in there expecting rigorous academics inextricably intertwined with practice, that's what you will find, and you will find that it is endemic to the school.


----------



## DMcFadden

Joshua,

I hail from a VERY different tradition from Dr. Clark but find myself agreeing almost entirely with his advice. 

During the past 29 years I have served on my denomination (Baptist) committee on ordination, having examined nearly 500 ordinands in that time. It gives me a unique perch from which to observe (hopefully not to pontificate!).

* TMS is not as Calvinist friendly as one would think listening to MacArthur at various gatherings along with Reformed speakers. I have spoken to a student who heard the orientation of new students and reported (granted that this is second hand since I have not independently verified it) that they were told that if they are "Reformed" or believe in covenant theology, this is NOT the seminary for them and they are not "welcome." However, it would be a better choice (in my opinion) than TEDS for the reasons identified in the next point.

* TEDS was the school I always wanted to attend, but never ventured outside California's sunny clime. However, as Dr. Clark notes, 50+ years of cafeteria evangelicalism has been an unmitigated DISASTER for American Christianity!!! Broad evangelicalism is weakened, in my opinion, by a number of factors, not the least being a tendency to educate their best and brightest in cafeteria seminaries. Taking courses from a dispensationalist at 8, a Wesleyan at 9, a mainline Presbyterian at 1, and a confessional Reformed person at 2 is a recipe for epistemic confusion of a high order!

In my nearly three decades of ordination exams, I have continued to find that the graduates of cafeteria seminaries are profoundly tentative, uncertain, and undecided, even on pretty basic things. And, while a dogmatic pastor is a curse to God's people, it is NEVER appropriate to mount the pulpit to declare boldly that God's word is . . . "on the one hand, but on the other hand." Graduates of caffeteria schools seem constitutionally incapable of speaking definitively about much of anything. 

Plus, most of those graduating from broad evangelical (cafeteria schools) have been exposed to the liberal nonsense of the left without the corrective of an institutional commitment to a uniform perspective on doctrine. This leads them to doubt everything. Graduates of Reformed schools and dispi schools read the same liberal scholars but have a shared "answer" to them. Therefore, both the dispi grad and the Reformed grad tend to fare better than the cafeteria grad. It protects them from the danger of young theologs, falling prey to the persuasive arguments of the cultured heretics. If you go to a broad evangelical school, the reading of the left will sort of hang out there as one more difference of opinion to be added to the dramatic differences of opinion held among your own faculty. 

In my experience, some younger students do not have the maturity to sift and sort without the assistance of senior faculty. My alma mater, for example, assigns readings in MacLaren, Jones, and Padgitt, and follows it up by bringing key emergent leaders to campus to lecture and persuade students.

* Southern is a gift to the Baptist world! The faculty members are outstanding, the orientation is pretty strongly Calvinistic (soteriologically), and the school produces good pastors and preachers. However, if you are a paedo-baptist, it would be the WRONG place to go.

* WTS and WSC are both EXCELLENT seminaries. I don't buy the line that WTS is "too scholarly" and accept the testimony by Lane on the matter. You can also survive as a credo baptist there (especially at WSC).

Bottom line: all of Scott's arguments for a confessional Reformed school make sense if you see yourself heading in a Presbyterian direction rather than a Baptist one. I would echo his observations about the problems men have "fitting" and adjusting in a confessional setting after attending a cafeteria school. However, if you are intending (at this point) to remain Baptist, GO TO SOUTHERN!!!

[Frankly, if I had it to do over again, PRTS or Greenville would appeal to me. But, hey, I'm weird.]


----------



## LawrenceU

Southern. I've not met a man from that school who was not well prepared for actual congregational ministry; and that is both Baptist and Presbyterian.

I would avoid TMS. Occasionally the school turns out a balanced man, but I find that most of the graduates that I meet from that school are very dispensational, almost anti-confessional, and usually more interested in developing the system of church structure that they are taught than expositing the Word. I am not trying to paint with a broad brush. Those are just the men that I have met.

I don't know enough about WSC to comment.


----------



## cbryant

Just to throw in my  in the discussion but the WTS and WSC are the best choices of the ones you listed. I cannot comment too much on Southern but just to say if I were still a Baptist that would be the one I would attend. Another option just to throw out there is Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, TX. It is the seminary that was a spin-off of WTS Dallas. All the professors are committed not only to teaching academically but also to spiritual formation of the man. While predominately Presbyterian (all the faculty attend/work in PCA churches) however we have had over the years had an increasingly number of students from Baptist/Baptistic backgrounds (as well as an Anglican or two, one guy who was Church of Christ i believe and a few that came out of the African Methodist Episcopal) and they definitely fit in with the student body. While I know that TX is a bit of a stretch from OH, it is closer geographically than Cali and just another place to consider.


----------



## PastorSBC

Southern hands down.


----------



## sastark

cbryant said:


> While predominately Presbyterian (all the faculty attend/work in PCA churches)



Just a side note: Sinclair Ferguson is ARP, not PCA. (Go ARP!)


----------



## SolaScriptura

If you are a Baptist, then I can't think of a better place to be than Southern. 

I am a graduate from SBTS. It was a remarkable 4 years. If it wasn't for the fact that I have an almost allergic reaction to the idea of multiple degrees from the same institution, I'd go back for another degree!

Here's why:

1. Academics. Superb... unlike some schools where the "big name" professors teach only highly specialized electives, at Southern the big name guys regularly teach the intro courses so that everyone can get the benefit. They expect a lot from their students. (I can't tell you how often a student would transfer in and be totally blown away. Living in student housing I became familiar with more than a few guys who came as PhD students but got "downgraded" to ThMs because they couldn't keep up.) My preparation for ordination exams consisted primarily of me going over course notes, and I totally blew them away. Take that for what it's worth.

2. Theological consistency. At Southern, the faculty teach from the same Baptist perspective, and they are unapologetically Baptist. So you don't get the uncertainty on matters of ecclesiology that I got at Moody (and several friends got at TEDS). That said, though I was a "token Presbyterian," I was never hassled. I was treated respectfully and kindly. To this day I correspond with a couple of my old professors.

3. Cost. If you're a Baptist you can find a Baptist church in the area that will fit your theology. And this means dirt cheap tuition. At the intersection of price and quality, Southern is maximum value.

4. Campus facilities. Southern is a sprawling kingly estate, a Taj Mahal, compared to the other campuses I've visited. The library simply and literally cannot be matched. The bookstore makes me salivate everytime I enter it. The classrooms are modern. Even the cafeteria is classy.They even have a sweet gym with an indoor running track and an olympic sized swimming pool that you and your family can use for free... well, not for free... but at no additional cost beyond your tuition. the activities they put on for your spouse and your kids make the seminary experience a true _family_ experience. We had such fun there that whenever we are even remotely near Louisville we will drive out of our way to go visit campus so my family and I can walk around remembering the good times.

5. Location. Louisville is a wonderful mid-sized city with a good climate and a host of student friendly job opportunities. You're within a few hours of everything from Chicago to Nashville to St. Louis to Cincinnati.

6. Size matters. Ok, I'm adding this 6th point hours later because I want to address the concern that Southern's size might actually be a detractor. It is true that they are huge (over 4000 students). But this means a vast amount of course scheduling options - 6 days a week, I might add - to make it easier for you to fit things into your schedule. This is in contrast to some schools where they might offer the crucial course you need, but only at a time that conflicts with the only job you can find. Don't underestimate the benefit of easy course scheduling. From early in the morning to late at night there are options. And yes, some of the intro classes at key times (9am, for instance) are going to be packed with 100 students. But even then I never had any problems having interaction with the professor. The electives, especially if you're taking "intense" exegetical or theological or historical courses, remain relatively small with only 12-16 students. That wasn't bad at all. A great perk of their huge size is they bring in world-class guest profs during summer and winter terms.

Seriously... do yourself a favor and give an extra close look to Southern.


----------



## danborvan

As a former student of TMS (1 1/2 years), I can say that the previous critiques are true, but only scratch the surface. You can hear more in the audio-file (yep, that's me) posted by Dr. Clark or send me a pm.

I am now a student at WSC and could not be more pleased with my education. The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies is here and is thriving. Of course, they cannot match the immensity of SBTS, but the intimate setting offers opportunities probably not found in Louisville.


----------



## Marrow Man

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Joshua, Dan, and any others -- you may wish to edit your posts (or signatures) so as not to include your actual email address. There is a possibility that posting an email address on a public forum might result in that email address being harvested by some bot, thereby generating much unwanted email. Posting something like xyz AT whatever DOT com usually works well enough.


----------



## AThornquist

Too late, Tim. My bot already got them.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Howdy,

I have heard that Southeastern is just as much (Soteriologically) reformed as Southern. Anyone know if there is any truth to that?


----------



## PMBrooks

"Howdy,I have heard that Southeastern is just as much (Soteriologically) reformed as Southern. Anyone know if there is any truth to that?"

I have several friends teaching at Southeastern and I would say that is true. Actually, I believe there are more 5 point Calvinists at SEBTS than at Southern, though not all of the theology profs at SEBTS are Calvinists. Dr. Ware considers himself a 4 point Calvinist, for example. Southeastern is also a very good seminary all around.


----------



## Damon Rambo

PMBrooks said:


> "Howdy,I have heard that Southeastern is just as much (Soteriologically) reformed as Southern. Anyone know if there is any truth to that?"
> 
> I have several friends teaching at Southeastern and I would say that is true. Actually, I believe there are more 5 point Calvinists at SEBTS than at Southern, though not all of the theology profs at SEBTS are Calvinists. Dr. Ware considers himself a 4 point Calvinist, for example. Southeastern is also a very good seminary all around.



I notice you are an assistant instructor at NOBTS. I am taking my first language class there in the spring and (hopefully) I am going to be doing the Summer Language program there too: how is the atmosphere over there?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I don't know much about Trinity Evangelical any longer. What do they have to offer? Since you are in the area I would look at the School. I moved a friend who attended a RPCNA Church with me to Trinity with the blessing of the Church if I remember correctly for the field he was seeking to work in.


----------



## PMBrooks

Damon,
The atmosphere here at NOBTS is very cordial, though by no mean thoroughly reformed. We have everyone from 2 pointers to 5 pointers on faculty. I am probably the only faculty member covenantally reformed as far as biblical interpretation goes. We have a few who are Calvinists soteriologically, but that is about it.

Our languages department is excellent in linguistics and grammar. As for adding in some theology to exegesis, not so much. You will definitely learn your Greek and Hebrew when you come out of the language classes and from the Summer Institute. 

Other than that, the food in New Orleans is just incredible. Really. No words can describe it. Prepare to come and stuff yourself!!


----------



## Ivan

Joshua,

You have expressed that this is what you want: 



> 1) I would also love to learn/practice Biblical counseling...
> 
> 2) I would love to learn how to be a strong expositional preacher with a shepherd's heart who desires to be actively involved in Body life as well.



Easy --> Southern. Go.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ivan said:


> Joshua,
> 
> You have expressed that this is what you want:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I would also love to learn/practice Biblical counseling...
> 
> 2) I would love to learn how to be a strong expositional preacher with a shepherd's heart who desires to be actively involved in Body life as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy --> Southern. Go.
Click to expand...


I have heard this also.


----------



## SolaScriptura

FYI - I added a point about Southern's size to my earlier post.


----------



## Notthemama1984

PMBrooks said:


> Damon,
> The atmosphere here at NOBTS is very cordial, though by no mean thoroughly reformed. We have everyone from 2 pointers to 5 pointers on faculty. I am probably the only faculty member covenantally reformed as far as biblical interpretation goes. We have a few who are Calvinists soteriologically, but that is about it.
> 
> Our languages department is excellent in linguistics and grammar. As for adding in some theology to exegesis, not so much. You will definitely learn your Greek and Hebrew when you come out of the language classes and from the Summer Institute.
> 
> Other than that, the food in New Orleans is just incredible. Really. No words can describe it. Prepare to come and stuff yourself!!



I second the motion about the food. YUMMY!!!!


----------



## Wannabee

I graduated from TMS. It's a good school and teaches exegesis and exposition very well. Systematics are not emphasized a great deal. Covenantalism is frowned upon. But I never was pressed in regard to the dispensational eschatalogical aspects of theology either.

The comments here against TMS represent a biased perspective based on limited interaction. Caution and grace are advised. One could say all sorts of negative things about any of these schools by sampling a select few of their graduates. And the PB is not immune to its own form elitism. Perhaps a mirror is more needed than a looking glass.


----------



## CovenantalBaptist

Considering what you identified as being your concerns I think it might be wise to investigate several areas if you are considering Southern: 

1) Do they employ Biblical Counseling as the dominant model? I know that Dr. Mohler has made changes in this department, but, from what I understood it was an integrationist model (psychology+bible). Perhaps someone here can clarify that for you. If it is not a Biblical Counseling approach (think David Powlison, Jay Adams etc.) , then consider supplementary courses through CCEF or consider a school that follows a Biblical counseling model 
2) Evangelism department. Are they Reformed in approach? 
3) Also, consider MCTS - they are a confessional Reformed Baptist Seminary with connections to Southern (including sharing professors like Dr. Tom Nettles) and they have Sam Waldron whose exposition of the 1689 is excellent. In the past they allowed combined degrees. MCTS is a couple of hours away and I know that there are students who do both.
4) Consider seminaries that focus on discipleship. Some distance seminaries like Reformed Baptist Seminary allow you to study at home and learn in your home congregation. This saves you the cost of an expensive seminary and the uprooting of your family. 
5) I hope you have already done this, but, if not, please speak to your pastor/elders. He knows you much better than we do and as such, in the Lord's providence, he is probably better suited to provide this kind of advice.

May the Lord bless you and raise you up as a faithful servant of Him.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

In case you're tempted, here's an essay explaining why distance ed is a mistake:

Westminster Seminary California faculty

Here's more:

How Not to Train Pastors (1) Heidelblog


----------



## Notthemama1984

R. Scott Clark said:


> In case you're tempted, here's an essay explaining why distance ed is a mistake:
> 
> Westminster Seminary California faculty
> 
> Here's more:
> 
> How Not to Train Pastors (1) Heidelblog



Dr. Clark, I would appreciate your input in this other thread if you do not mind.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/online-reformed-vs-campus-Dispensational-56899/


----------



## jogri17

TheBigO said:


> Greetings in the precious name of Christ, our Savior! What a joy to be able to post to this forum! I've been reading for some time, but it just clicked in my head that I should probably join and post as well!
> 
> To keep it short, my wife and I live near Dayton, OH, and I have the privilege of serving/teaching a small youth group at our independent Reformed Baptist church. For some time, I have sensed a desire to pursue further training and Lord-willing, serve a pastor in the future. I would also love to learn/practice Biblical counseling as well (I've seen that modeled well in my pastor).
> 
> Thus, I've visited 3 schools to this point. Master's, Westminster (East) & Southern. Seeing as my wife's parents live in Chicago, I am also considering visiting TEDS.
> 
> However, to be honest, I would love to learn how to be a strong expositional preacher with a shepherd's heart who desires to be actively involved in Body life as well.
> 
> Therefore, I just wanted to list some of the strenghts & weaknesses of each school in my mind, and open it up for your thoughts/advice/wisdom. PLEASE share openly!
> 
> Master's: Strengths = Strong expositional preaching emphasis, Biblical counseling, small, more close-knit environment, connected with local church, tuition is low (L.A. is expensive, though!) Cons: Distance from home, Dispensational theology (though from the little I understand, the dispensationalism they teach is not what is usually heralded in some Dispensational circles), Small school & lack of theological breadth.
> 
> Southern: Strengths = most Reformed of all Southern Baptist seminaries, Biblical counseling, breadth of excellent scholars, close to home, beautiful campus (I'll be honest!). Weaknesses = a BIG school, not as traditionally Reformed as schools like Westminster.
> 
> Westminster (East): Strengths = Excellent Reformed faculty, rich heritage, strong academics & commitment to learning the Biblical languages; Weaknesses = I am not Presbyterian (please don't hurt me!), has a stigma for being too academic.
> 
> TEDS: I am still learning about this school, so I'd love your thoughts on any strengths or weaknesses.
> 
> Please just let me know what you are thinking about in relation to any of the schools that I am looking at! Thanks!


just from my own talking with grads from those and reading books by the faculty members from each. My initial thought for you is Southern or Westminste-Philly. Seminary is not about creating a close-knit community in my opinion and you ought to get those need meet where Christ intended you to get it... in the local church. given your baptist I think southern is best for you and your desires.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Won't do it. Don't accept the premise of the poll. Both are unhappy choices. 

Would a heart surgeon accept the premise of poll that asked us to choose between and online "med" school and a vet school? If one wants to become a heart surgeon then an online school won't work. How is he going to learn to do surgery online? Call me crazy but if one attends a vet school I guess one is likely to come out a trained vet. Not good preparation for heart surgery on humans.

"Wow, the heart of a dalmatian is over there. What's that thing there? My lands, this is really different!"


----------



## jogri17

R. Scott Clark said:


> Won't do it. Don't accept the premise of the poll. Both are unhappy choices.
> 
> Would a heart surgeon accept the premise of poll that asked us to choose between and online "med" school and a vet school? If one wants to become a heart surgeon then an online school won't work. How is he going to learn to do surgery online? Call me crazy but if one attends a vet school I guess one is likely to come out a trained vet. Not good preparation for heart surgery on humans.
> 
> "Wow, the heart of a dalmatian is over there. What's that thing there? My lands, this is really different!"



One would want a doctor who went to the BEST SCHOOL regardless of size and has good practical work. Doctors learn jack in medschool. All the stuff they really use is in their internship. small schools as well as large ones can do that. It is in the church where one developes ministry skills not seminry. Seminary is not for making pastors but rather equiping potential pastors and theologians.


----------



## fredtgreco

jogri17 said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't do it. Don't accept the premise of the poll. Both are unhappy choices.
> 
> Would a heart surgeon accept the premise of poll that asked us to choose between and online "med" school and a vet school? If one wants to become a heart surgeon then an online school won't work. How is he going to learn to do surgery online? Call me crazy but if one attends a vet school I guess one is likely to come out a trained vet. Not good preparation for heart surgery on humans.
> 
> "Wow, the heart of a dalmatian is over there. What's that thing there? My lands, this is really different!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One would want a doctor who went to the BEST SCHOOL regardless of size and has good practical work. Doctors learn jack in medschool. All the stuff they really use is in their internship. small schools as well as large ones can do that. It is in the church where one developes ministry skills not seminry. Seminary is not for making pastors but rather equiping potential pastors and theologians.
Click to expand...

Nearly the exact same principle as lawyers (the other oft example). Pastors may be better off trained in brick and mortar schools, but far more research on the reality of doctors and lawyers is in order.


----------



## SolaScriptura

The problem, or at least a substantial part of the problem, as I see it, is the fallacy of thinking the following:

seminary education = prepared and qualified for ministry

When in reality seminary education is one aspect of preparation and qualification for ministry. Too many operate with the apparent assumption that if someone possesses an MDiv then they are obviously ready to be a pastor.

If we see seminary education as just one of the factors in assessing preparedness, then it leaves us in a position to assess whether the same, or even comparable, level of education (with all the things that go into that term) can be attained via online or independent studies or from resident student status at a "brick and mortar" institution.


For what it is worth, in my opinion there are so many tangible and intangible factors that determine the overall quality of an education, indeed what is meant by the very term "seminary education," that I do not believe that in most circumstances in this country these factors can be duplicated by any form of education competing with the traditional resident student status. Thus I do not recommend, nor do I advocate, online or independent studies to anyone seeking a degree for purpose of the pastoral ministry. In fact, once I am out of the military and able to function in the life of my presbytery, (a scary proposition for some of you, I'm sure!) I can assure you that I will _highly_ scrutinize any candidate coming with a degree from a non-traditional school.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Nearly the exact same principle as lawyers (the other oft example). Pastors may be better off trained in brick and mortar schools, but far more research on the reality of doctors and lawyers is in order.



Fred,

I'm pretty sure we don't need research to know that one cannot learn heart surgery via a cable modem or in a veterinary school. I've known some good vets and large animal vets back home are amazing but they don't step up to do surgery on humans. They know their limits.

As to the reality on the ground of non-sem-prepared pastors, I've seen it. Most of those fellows I've known would say that they wish very much they had gone to school. We hear that fairly regularly here from pastors who skipped school, because their churches didn't require it, and later realized that they made a huge mistake and now are trapped by circumstances and cannot do what they should have done when they should and could have done it.

-----Added 12/23/2009 at 02:52:47 EST-----

SS,

I'm not claiming that if one goes to sem then one is _ipso facto_ prepared; not at all. Rather, I'm claiming that it is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. There are other conditions that have to be met (internal call, consistory/session approval, external call, presbytery/classis approval etc). 

No one who teaches in a sem thinks that going to sem makes one who is not otherwise called into a proper minister but it doesn't follow that simply because one necessary condition hasn't been met that other conditions are unnecessary.


----------



## fredtgreco

The point that is being missed is that for the medical and legal professions, the schooling is (for the vast part) merely a box to be checked. No one really expects substantive value for it. The real proof is in the residency (medical) and the internship/work experience (legal). The schooling serves much more of a "weeding out" function (as Sessions _should_, but often don't) than a building up function. It's just the fact of the matter. 

Saying otherwise over and over again does not make it different.


----------



## LawrenceU

fredtgreco said:


> The point that is being missed is that for the medical and legal professions, the schooling is (for the vast part) merely a box to be checked. No one really expects substantive value for it. The real proof is in the residency (medical) and the internship/work experience (legal). The schooling serves much more of a "weeding out" function (as Sessions _should_, but often don't) than a building up function. It's just the fact of the matter.
> 
> Saying otherwise over and over again does not make it different.



Yep. There is a reason that barristers, physicians, and pastors used to be tested, licensed, and turned loose upon the world after a suitable 'apprenticeship' generation after generation. And, they did right well, to boot.


----------



## Ivan

Here's Southern M.Div. in Biblical Counseling degree (I believe one can get a MA in Biblical Counseling as well).

SBTS – The School of Theology – M.Div. - Concentration in Biblical Counseling

It appears that one can choose between the Adams' approach or the intergrated approach. However, the emphasis is biblical.


----------



## Damon Rambo

R. Scott Clark said:


> In case you're tempted, here's an essay explaining why distance ed is a mistake:
> 
> Westminster Seminary California faculty
> 
> Here's more:
> 
> How Not to Train Pastors (1) Heidelblog



An older Pastor friend of mine, (who went to Seminary, then went on to complete his doctorate, both at schools which would be well recognized here), told me "I didn't learn how to be a pastor at Seminary. I learned how to study scripture, I learned the languages, and I learned history. Another Pastor, taught me how to be a pastor."

The fact is, you can't learn how to be a pastor at Seminary. Seminary gives you a foundation on which to build: head knowledge. This is the same with doctors, btw, and a large part of their education CAN be taken through distance (biology and anatomy courses, etc.). 

The fact is, every study done has demonstrated that Online students do better than B & M students, on average. There is no reason why a church history class, cannot be done through distance ed. There is no "hands on" component. Like Greek, Hebrew, apologetics, and 99 percent of the other classes. There is no "hands on" component. 

The small percentage that is (Homiletics, for instance) in MANY cases of Seminary, are taught by men who cannot preach to save there life. My Pastor (who has never been to Seminary BTW), can outpreach most Seminary professor/preachers that I have heard, both in style, AND content. 

There is no reason why Seminary cannot be completed in large part (or in some cases, completely) by distance.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Damon,

Of course you can learn SOME of what it means to be a pastor at seminary. We teach that all the time. We teach it over lunch. We teach it in the office. We teach it over dinner. We teach it by telling stories in the classroom. I learned a great deal from Derke Bergsma who told us stories, who stopped us in the middle of student sermons, who taught us or communicated to us a lot about pastoral ministry in ways that would be impossible by distance. It's called mentoring and we do it every day, all day. There are things that our faculty teach our students, in person, in conversation, in internships, that they cannot put in a book (even though we do write quite a lot) and that can't be transmitted electronically.

I don't know of ANY evidence suggesting that pastors trained by distance do better than those who are trained at an actual school. I haven't seen any such evidence in my experience. This is why I use the surgical analogy. There are skills in medicine (and I guess law, even if Fred doubts it; we have 2-3 lawyers on campus who disagree with Fred) that cannot be communicated by a talking head on a screen. I've taught both ways. I know the limits of the medium. 

Read Polayni on the personal aspects of learning/knowing. Think about a luthier. The skill of making a violin or cello cannot be taught by a talking head. One has to apprentice. One has to be taken by the hand and learn by experience how to cut, shape, and assemble an instrument. At the same time there is theory involved. The same is true of surgery (I imagine). It's certainly true of the formation of pastors. 

A seminary is not just a place for disseminating information. It's a place for formation. Nor is it a substitute for the visible church. The church is ill-equipped to teach theory (because that's not the sort of institution the church is; it's not a school) but ministerial preparation requires BOTH theory and praxis. A good sem with dedicated, pastoral faculty is partim...partim - partly theoretical and partly practical.

-----Added 12/24/2009 at 10:09:24 EST-----

Fred,

You're saying that med students don't actually learn anything? They don't really learn the difference between this sort of incision and that or between this approach and that or between this organ and that? I guess that folks sitting for their MCAT would probably tell you differently.

I can say at WSC education is a LOT more than simply weeding out folks so that the real preparation can take place in an internship.

It's not an either/or proposition. It's a both/and situation.


----------



## Jake

Any thoughts on why TMS is so anti-reformed? I have read several books by MacArthur as well as many notes in his study Bible and have found him to be very reformed in most areas. His dispensationalism itself is not near as bad as many dispensationalist teachers. How could the seminary he started gone so bad?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Because none of the faculty is Reformed (if "Reformed" = member of a confessional Reformed church and/or agrees substantially with the Reformed theology, piety, and practice as confessed by the Reformed churches in the Three Forms and/or the Westminster Standards). 

One cannot look at MacArthur, who is strongly dispensational but who has sympathies with some aspects of Reformed theology, and impute his views or way of speaking to the entire faculty. Dan and other of our ex-TMS students will tell you that they were told by TMS faculty that if they became Reformed it would "ruin" their ministry. There seems to be a view that it is essential to pastoral ministry to be dispensational and to follow MacArthur's approach (which tends to pit exposition against systematic theology) to expositional preaching.

Some of it is just theological. As far as I know, most of the faculty are quite ardently dispensational. Reformed theology is covenantal. Dispensationalism is largely antithetical to covenant theology. There have been predestinarian dispensationalists (e.g., among the old faculty at Dallas) but dispensationalists are very closely connected with American evangelicalism whereas confessional Reformed folk (e.g., Machen) have had a different orientation to the American evangelical mainstream.


----------



## Damon Rambo

R. Scott Clark said:


> Damon,
> 
> Of course you can learn SOME of what it means to be a pastor at seminary.


You can learn it better from an accomplished Pastor. 



> We teach that all the time. We teach it over lunch. We teach it in the office. We teach it over dinner. We teach it by telling stories in the classroom. I learned a great deal from Derke Bergsma who told us stories, who stopped us in the middle of student sermons, who taught us or communicated to us a lot about pastoral ministry in ways that would be impossible by distance.


All of this can be done, better, by an apprenticed young man under the authority of his local church; being mentored by the Pastors, elders, and deacons on the "front line."


> It's called mentoring and we do it every day, all day. There are things that our faculty teach our students, in person, in conversation, in internships, that they cannot put in a book (even though we do write quite a lot) and that can't be transmitted electronically.



All of which can be just as well, or better, learned under the leadership of a local church, with MUCH better accountability.



> I don't know of ANY evidence suggesting that pastors trained by distance do better than those who are trained at an actual school. I haven't seen any such evidence in my experience.



I am not speaking of pastors in particular: I am speaking of things such as Church history, the Biblical Languages, etc., which are almost exclusively knowledge based classes, that would at many B & M seminaries be taught in monstrous classrooms of up to 100 people. 

There indeed are studies that such knowledge is accumulated and integrated BETTER by those in an online environment (rather than having the huge distraction of other students talking, off topic discussions about what people did that weekend, etc.)

News: The Evidence on Online Education - Inside Higher Ed



> This is why I use the surgical analogy. There are skills in medicine (and I guess law, even if Fred doubts it; we have 2-3 lawyers on campus who disagree with Fred) that cannot be communicated by a talking head on a screen. I've taught both ways. I know the limits of the medium.



Which is actually a teeny tiny percentage of your schooling. As I stated, all of the "theoretical" classes, such as biology, Anatomy, etc. a would be doctor can indeed take online. The "hands on" portion of a doctors training, would correlate to the small amount of classes in Seminary, such as Pastoral counseling or Homiletics, which are "hands on" as well. 

However, with the Pastorate, this "hands on" portion of a young ministers training, can be just as well handled at the local church level, with the "head knowledge" or theoretical portion of it, being done through distance ed.



> Read Polayni on the personal aspects of learning/knowing. Think about a luthier. The skill of making a violin or cello cannot be taught by a talking head. One has to apprentice. One has to be taken by the hand and learn by experience how to cut, shape, and assemble an instrument. At the same time there is theory involved. The same is true of surgery (I imagine). It's certainly true of the formation of pastors.



Neither can it be taught by a person standing directly in front of you. It is learned by doing.



> A seminary is not just a place for disseminating information. It's a place for formation. Nor is it a substitute for the visible church. The church is ill-equipped to teach theory (because that's not the sort of institution the church is; it's not a school) but ministerial preparation requires BOTH theory and praxis. A good sem with dedicated, pastoral faculty is partim...partim - partly theoretical and partly practical.



The church is ill equipped to teach theory....but this can be learned by distance ed. The church is BETTER equipped, in my opinion, to teach practical application, and hands on learning. A church leadership group, with multiple elders, pastors, etc., training ONE or TWO young men, is much better than a single professor (who might have minimal pastoral experience) trying to train 20 or 30.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Any thoughts on why TMS is so anti-reformed? I have read several books by MacArthur as well as many notes in his study Bible and have found him to be very reformed in most areas. His dispensationalism itself is not near as bad as many dispensationalist teachers. How could the seminary he started gone so bad?



I was a young pastor in SoCal when TMS started. Originally, MacArthur had a stallelite campus of Talbot on the Grace Community Church premises. MacArthur was young, brash, and VERY dispensational back then. 

As I understand it (no representations to infallibility here), a debate over ATS requirements led Talbot to "adjust" their curriculum to meet the criticism by ATS as follow-up to an accreditation review. MacArthur and some of the Talbot profs felt that this would diminish the Bible content in the curriculum in favor of the expectations of the "liberals" at the ATS. A few of the more "hard core" profs left Talbot (Biola's grad school) to form a "pure" seminary. People like Robert Thomas are dispensational exemplars, resistant to any revisionism such as "progressive" dispensationalism.

MacArthur has shifted from being an uber successful dispensational pastor to one with a 5pt Calvinistic soteriology in the last decade or two. He retains his dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology. Joe would know more than I would here, but I suspect that Busnitz, Mayhue, Thomas, et. al. would represent a more consistent dispensationalism than MacArthur who calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist" now.

The negative comments about covenant theology _could_ come from MacArthur, but most of the really strong opinions would originate (I suspect) with Busnitz or Thomas.

So, TMS has not changed, MacArthur has. But, with the "old man" (meant with the greatest affection) propounding Calvinist soteriology, it would not surprise me if many of the younger faculty don't reflect MacArthur more than they do some of the original faculty from the Talbot split days.

Historical revisionism being what it is (not to mention Christian charity erasing old wounds), it would not surprise me to hear both institutions papering over the bitterness of the origin when they tell the story today. But, as a pastor at that time with a seminarian attending TMS during the split, I can assure you that folks at Biola were pretty angry and bitter at the time, feeling that MacArthur hijacked the seminary (some complaining that he "stole" it from Biola). Obviously the people at TMS had a very different perspective, believing that it was an act of fidelity to the Gospel to separate from Talbot so "willing" to adjust to the ATS requirements.

Finally, TMS has a dispensational view of the church and eschatology, views at odds with covenant theology. They are also invariably credo baptists who do not want to reconsider that position either. So, while there is a trend among broad evangelicals to be "new Calvinists," that does not correlate with a desire to move to "Reformed" theology, merely to adopt TULIP soteriology. People such as Dr. Clark and others emphasize that "Reformed" theology is more than TULIP. Many on the PB say that it is TULIP + covenant theology + confessional subscription. Some would say that it also involves a commitment to paedo baptism and an eschatology that eschews dispensational premillennialism (Reformed folks can be found who are amil, postmil, and historic premil, but arguably not dispensational premil).


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Dennis,

This is VERY helpful. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that!"

Damon,

At WSC we don't have classes of 100. We RARELY have classes of 50. I have a class of 40 for Med-Ref but when I go to lunch with a student, I do it as a practicing pastor not an isolated academic.

Our faculty are pastors. We shepherd our students and we help to shepherd congregations. We preach. We hatch, match, and dispatch so the dichotomy you may have experienced or imagine just doesn't exist at WSC. 

We're just as passionate about PRACTICE as we are about theory. We have a doctrine of the church. We want our students to be good and active and wise churchmen. So we prepare them with that in mind.

We understand that we cannot do everything a local church does. We know that we CAN'T and shouldn't. That's why we assign 700 hours of internship in local churches who work with our faculty or with whom we cooperate to help train pastors. 

As one who has been involved in pastoral ministry since 1984 (when I began seminary) and who began formal, active ministry in 1987 I think the analogy with surgery is quite apt. I was fortunate to have a wonderful mentor in Norman Hoeflinger. He took me by the hand for 2 years and taught me a great deal about ministry. 

That internship only really worked, however, because we spoke the same language even though he graduated from WTS in 1955 and I graduated from WSC almost 30 years later. Still, we had basically the same training, the same vocabulary, the same basic approach to exegesis, languages etc. In other words, because we had the same theoretical preparation the practical was that much more useful.

The two work together.

As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Damon Rambo said:


> Howdy,
> 
> I have heard that Southeastern is just as much (Soteriologically) reformed as Southern. Anyone know if there is any truth to that?



How SEBTS stacks-up apples-for-apples with Southern I'm not sure. However, I can say that they are a good school with a greater emphasis on preaching and practical ministry than perhaps Southern which is more academic in its emphasis. I've been told that Danny Akin (SEBTS President) is a five-point Calvinist. However, I'm not certain if he is or not. I am certain that he's at least a four-pointer (if you believe in such a thing). I know that their Professor of Systematic Theology, John Hammett is indeed a five-pointer. Which is a pretty influential post for an unashamed Calvinist to hold. 

That said, schools are like churches. You'll never find the perfect one. As a Baptist, I would recommend both Southern and Southeastern as fine academic institutions. Notwithstanding their paedobaptisitic teaching and higher tuition, WTS and WSC are also great schools.


----------



## fredtgreco

R. Scott Clark said:


> Fred,
> 
> You're saying that med students don't actually learn anything? They don't really learn the difference between this sort of incision and that or between this approach and that or between this organ and that? I guess that folks sitting for their MCAT would probably tell you differently.
> 
> I can say at WSC education is a LOT more than simply weeding out folks so that the real preparation can take place in an internship.
> 
> It's not an either/or proposition. It's a both/and situation.


What I am saying is that in both law and medicine (and I also believe pastoral ministry) the practical experience and training ("apprenticeship" if you will) are FAR more valuable than schooling. That does not mean that schooling is unimportant. It is. But it is not that important without the training/apprenticeship.

Look, I don't know what the lawyers on campus say, but when a law school graduate arrives at a firm (and I have worked with Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Columbia, et al grads) he knows less and is far less capable at the job than a high school graduate legal assistant with 5-10 years experience. In fact, to be honest, a first year lawyer is basically worthless (with respect to actual work). But that does not mean that they wasted their education. It means that they need to realize how little prepared they are, and that they need a whole other area of preparation. Once they have BOTH education and experience, they are useful and successful.

You and I have different perspectives. Obviously, you think the greatest danger to a successful ministry is a lack of brick and mortar seminar prep. I don't . I think the greatest danger is a lack of experience and preparedness for the task of pastoring. That does not mean (and I always say this in these exchanges) that I think brick and mortar seminaries are bad or useless. They are not. They are good things. But if I have a choice between a seminary grad with no (or little) experience, or a distance guy (or no seminary) with 10+ years of real (and successful) experience as a pastor, I will take the latter every time.


----------



## Damon Rambo

R. Scott Clark said:


> Dennis,
> 
> This is VERY helpful. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that!"
> 
> Damon,
> 
> At WSC we don't have classes of 100. We RARELY have classes of 50. I have a class of 40 for Med-Ref but when I go to lunch with a student, I do it as a practicing pastor not an isolated academic.
> 
> Our faculty are pastors. We shepherd our students and we help to shepherd congregations. We preach. We hatch, match, and dispatch so the dichotomy you may have experienced or imagine just doesn't exist at WSC.
> 
> We're just as passionate about PRACTICE as we are about theory. We have a doctrine of the church. We want our students to be good and active and wise churchmen. So we prepare them with that in mind.
> 
> We understand that we cannot do everything a local church does. We know that we CAN'T and shouldn't. That's why we assign 700 hours of internship in local churches who work with our faculty or with whom we cooperate to help train pastors.
> 
> As one who has been involved in pastoral ministry since 1984 (when I began seminary) and who began formal, active ministry in 1987 I think the analogy with surgery is quite apt. I was fortunate to have a wonderful mentor in Norman Hoeflinger. He took me by the hand for 2 years and taught me a great deal about ministry.
> 
> That internship only really worked, however, because we spoke the same language even though he graduated from WTS in 1955 and I graduated from WSC almost 30 years later. Still, we had basically the same training, the same vocabulary, the same basic approach to exegesis, languages etc. In other words, because we had the same theoretical preparation the practical was that much more useful.
> 
> The two work together.



All of what you said, even if true, would only apply to practical classes, not theoretical classes (like Church history, languages, etc.). There is absolutely NO advantage, in such classes, in being in a class with dozens of other people. I can name a slew of famous preachers and pastors, who learned such things in the quiet of their own studies, without the many times harmful influences in the B & M classroom.



> As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.



I have met just as many teachers, with just as much experience, that believe that it is not. Regardless, the studies show that Online learning is superior for acquisition of knowledge.

Could you please give examples of studies demonstrating that B & M seminaries produce better Pastors, than the distance ed./local church mentor-ship model? Please make sure such studies exclude people who were not under the authority and guidance of local elders/pastors.


----------



## Wannabee

Dennis,

I think you hit this pretty close. Obviously TMS is not confessional in the historic sense. Among the faculty you'll find Dr. Thomas as one of the more old school dispensationalists and others who are more along the lines of progressives. I would include Dr. Mayhue in your list of strong dispnesationalists too. Covenantalism is frowned upon, but I never heard anyone say anything remotely similar to "it would ruin your ministry." I was very involved with TMS while there and knew of some who either were covenantalists or changed their views. Of course, to be fair, the reaction of WSC to one of their students embracing dispensationalism would likely be similar to what we would see at TMS.

We've discussed all this before. Unfortunately ideas and hearsay are presented as truth all too often, and propagated irresponsibly. I was not pretrib when I arrived at TMS. I was not when I left. And it was NEVER a factor. I was probably one of the most ardent in regard to God's sovereignty in soteriology, and had one professor disagree with a nuance in a paper, but it did not affect my grade. He knew my position was more in line with MacArthur's and I had presented it well.

What has happened though, is that TMS has had an influence of covenantalism among some students that seems to have caused some concern. One graduate at one of the international schools came out of the post-mil closet, so to speak. They, understandably, could not keep him on as a teacher. He was asked to withdraw from the mission field - at least under their banner.

When folks at TMS recall the separation from Talbot it's simply a matter of fact. There is no apparent animosity or ire there. From their perspective Talbot compromised and they'd have no part in it.

It might be helpful to understand that TMS does not aspire to train academicians. They aspire to train men to exposit Scripture. Classes focus on exegesis and exposition. Theology is taught (4 semesters). Ecclesiology is taught. Historical theology is taught. Bible survey is taught. Counseling is taught (nouthetic). But the fluff is largely nonexistent. They offer one primary degree with one curriculum aimed at teaching to exposit Scripture, contrary to some claims in this thread. They don't make pastors. They train men, men who should already be qualified biblically, to learn to study God's Word responsibly and submit to His authority as found therein. If someone wants a broader education then, simply put, TMS is not he place for them. If they want to learn good exegetical and expositional skills, then it is a great place for them. If they do not already possess the character to shepherd God's flock and are not recognized as such by God's people, it's better for all involved if they'd not go to any seminary until God clarifies their calling. Seminary, in many (if not most) cases will further ruin such a man with knowledge that builds up pride.

I'd like to add one more note. I looked very hard for someone to train me before heading off to seminary. One pastor worked with me a bit, but said he couldn't do it and that I should go to seminary. Most simply didn't have the vision (I consider this a lack of obedience to Scriptural mandate) to train men for the ministry. As I neared the end of my seminary training I continued to look for a church where I could study under a pastor. It's hard to find such a situation. They want experience. Who can blame them? I just wanted to learn to be an effective shepherd and to love God's people as I should. There is much I learned from mistakes made. I would never counsel someone to take the road I took. And, honestly, I think I was on that road because of my own ignorance and pride coupled with the lack of vision and obedience of the local church to train men up in the ministry. Perhaps there is a lesson for us all in this.

Blessings,
Joe


----------



## Covenant Joel

R. Scott Clark said:


> Dennis,
> As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.



Dr. Clark,

With respect, I disagree about this. I've had both opportunities. I was on campus at a Reformed seminary for a year. I really enjoyed it. I am now finishing my degree by distance. I would say that I'm more passionate about my studies now, more engaged in the material, and looking for ways to apply it more now than when I was on campus.

Because my program requires I meet with a mentor, I meet on a regular basis with an experienced ruling elder and an ordained TE in the PCA who is a long-term missionary. That is something I didn't really have while on campus. Sure, I could ask questions after class, and did so, and at weekly luncheons (if you got a table with your prof), but to be honest, general interaction with professors was minimal. One professor was kind enough to take me out to lunch once, which was appreciated and helpful obviously. But in general, I was mostly left to myself...and the most conversations I had regarding the material was with friends that I had before seminary.

Now, via distance learning, I get to focus on the content and discuss the material with friends and experienced mentors. I also have the opportunity to be involved in teaching (in a Christian school) and in the local church (and I can afford to do it since I'm working full-time).

This is not to say that B & M seminary education is bad...I did enjoy it, and for some personality types and specific situations, it would be far preferable. But I do think that distance education can be a legitimate alternative for those with the proper motivation and proper oversight and encouragement.


----------



## TaylorWest

*Why Southern*



jpfrench81 said:


> Taylor,
> 
> Why do you consider Southern the best seminary out there right now? I don't have any stake in this as I have never been to seminary--just wondering. Thanks.



Southern has just passed through a very bloody battle with liberalism. The close proximity to the carnage gives it a clarity that can not be gained in any other way. As far as I can tell, its Profs are not playing academic games and there is no attraction to devastating compromises.


----------



## David J Houston

*...*

Just wanted to throw in my two cents about the common complaint that WTS is too academic. When I went to visit WTS during their prospective student days, I sat down with their admissions guy for a while and I asked him to respond to that criticism. He smiled, told me that he wasn't a great Hebrew student and that one of his profs who knew this sat him down one day and informed him that if he found out that he had got anything higher than a B on his final exam he would be speaking to the guy's wife to see if he had neglected his husbandly duties in order to pull off the grade. That doesn't sound like the cold, academic environment that I had been told about.

Just sayin'....


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Joel,

our faculty members spend one-on-one time with students every day. It's the best partof the job. The group settings, class, small group prayer, those are just the beginning. We hang out with and go to lunch with, have dinner with our students all the time. That's where the mentoring takes place. We have something like 11 students for every faculty member, so it's quite intimate here. 




Covenant Joel said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> As a teacher I'm convinced (and there is research to show) that distance ed is a terrible way to prepare men to handle God's Word, to teach God's people, and to shepherd the flock of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> With respect, I disagree about this. I've had both opportunities. I was on campus at a Reformed seminary for a year. I really enjoyed it. I am now finishing my degree by distance. I would say that I'm more passionate about my studies now, more engaged in the material, and looking for ways to apply it more now than when I was on campus.
> 
> Because my program requires I meet with a mentor, I meet on a regular basis with an experienced ruling elder and an ordained TE in the PCA who is a long-term missionary. That is something I didn't really have while on campus. Sure, I could ask questions after class, and did so, and at weekly luncheons (if you got a table with your prof), but to be honest, general interaction with professors was minimal. One professor was kind enough to take me out to lunch once, which was appreciated and helpful obviously. But in general, I was mostly left to myself...and the most conversations I had regarding the material was with friends that I had before seminary.
> 
> Now, via distance learning, I get to focus on the content and discuss the material with friends and experienced mentors. I also have the opportunity to be involved in teaching (in a Christian school) and in the local church (and I can afford to do it since I'm working full-time).
> 
> This is not to say that B & M seminary education is bad...I did enjoy it, and for some personality types and specific situations, it would be far preferable. But I do think that distance education can be a legitimate alternative for those with the proper motivation and proper oversight and encouragement.
Click to expand...


----------



## Covenant Joel

R. Scott Clark said:


> Joel,
> 
> our faculty members spend one-on-one time with students every day. It's the best partof the job. The group settings, class, small group prayer, those are just the beginning. We hang out with and go to lunch with, have dinner with our students all the time. That's where the mentoring takes place. We have something like 11 students for every faculty member, so it's quite intimate here.



Dr. Clark,

That sounds wonderful...something that would be great for other seminaries to emulate. And I've recommended friends to WSC in the past, and it's good to hear that there is a personal component to it.

I believe all that I'm saying is that such mentoring can be accomplished outside of a B & M format...not for everyone, not for every situation, not for every personality type, etc. But to say across the board that it is never acceptable...I'm just not sure about that. I've had both experiences, and have done fine in both. 

But I genuinely am glad to hear that WSC has such a great mentoring environment. If it had worked out for me to be a full-time student on campus, that would have been fine...but this is where I am, and I believe I'm getting just as much out of it as I was on campus.

Blessings.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Damon Rambo said:


> Could you please give examples of studies demonstrating that B & M seminaries produce better Pastors, than the distance ed./local church mentor-ship model? Please make sure such studies exclude people who were not under the authority and guidance of local elders/pastors.



I will assume, Dr. Clark, that such studies do not exist, then?


----------



## Notthemama1984

With all due respect Dr. Clark (and I have tons of respect for you), I think your argument is better formulated as WSC vs. online degrees. I think WSC (as you have described it) would offer a better option than an online degree, but unfortunatley I think WSC is unique compared to other B&M seminaries. In my limited experience at seminary the professors are nice, but serious mentorship is non-existent. I learned more this past semester from my assigned readings than I did in actual class. I would have received the same level of education via distance learning. 

I had a professor discuss once on how a prof is suppose to stay relevant in a world where information is at everyone's fingertips via the internet. I think what you describe at WSC is the answer to the problem. You stay relevant by being available to students as a type of mentor.

Just my two cents.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Joel,

There's a real live sem in your hometown. I'm not telling you what to do and I do understand the draw of distance ed but you don't have time to drive across town? The Springs isn't that big.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Damon,

I don't know of any such studies.

I do know of studies which have been described in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that have described the difference in results between DE and real ed at the undergrad level. Fearful of losing "market share" many sems have begun to incorporate DE into their approach without seriously evaluating the effect. I saw the same thing 10 years ago with the DMin. Just as we began to phase our our DMin program because we weren't happy with the process or the results (and some of us had qualms with the very notion of "professional doctoral" degrees). Schools rushed in with very little research in order not to miss out on market share. In other words, schools sometimes implement programs not because they are pedagogically sound but because they generate revenue.

I say this as one who helped to homeschool two children and who participates more than most academics in the online world (a blog, two podcasts, and the PB). I understand the power and utility of the web and DE but I question the wisdom and the outcome of DE trained pastors.


----------



## Covenant Joel

R. Scott Clark said:


> Joel,
> 
> There's a real live sem in your hometown. I'm not telling you what to do and I do understand the draw of distance ed but you don't have time to drive across town? The Springs isn't that big.


 
Dr. Clark,

I'm not going there for two reasons: 1) I did half my degree at RTS-O, so it made sense to not lose credits by a transfer. 2) The seminary in the Springs is not accredited. Given your posts on your blog a while back, I'm surprised you're suggesting a non-accredited degree as a substitute. Additionally, I only moved to the Springs in August from the Middle East, and I began distance classes prior to getting into the Springs.

I do hear good things about the school and the people involved from others who attend or have attended. After I finish my degree with RTS, I may consider taking some additional classes there, but for now I'm happy with what I'm doing. Thanks for your thoughts though.


----------



## Damon Rambo

R. Scott Clark said:


> Damon,
> 
> I don't know of any such studies.
> 
> I do know of studies which have been described in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that have described the difference in results between DE and real ed at the undergrad level.


Dr. Clark,

All of the studies that I have seen, including the Meta analysis done by the DoE, I believe, show decisively that Distance ed. students actually do BETTER than Brick and Mortar students, across the board. 



> Fearful of losing "market share" many sems have begun to incorporate DE into their approach without seriously evaluating the effect. I saw the same thing 10 years ago with the DMin. Just as we began to phase our our DMin program because we weren't happy with the process or the results (and some of us had qualms with the very notion of "professional doctoral" degrees). Schools rushed in with very little research in order not to miss out on market share.


So, not only do you have a problem with the Superior (according to the evidence) Distance ed. studies, you also have a problem with professional doctoral studies. 

Do you just not like any studies not done at your seminary, Dr. Clark? 



> In other words, schools sometimes implement programs not because they are pedagogically sound but because they generate revenue.



The studies demonstrate that DE is indeed sound: so this argument holds no water.



> I say this as one who helped to homeschool two children and who participates more than most academics in the online world (a blog, two podcasts, and the PB). I understand the power and utility of the web and DE but I question the wisdom and the outcome of DE trained pastors.


 
I appreciate the work you do. But as a relatively young guy (well, mid 30's), I have to say that you, and your institution, have two options. One, you can ignore the statistically sound, quality teaching available through DE, and you WILL (not might) go extinct. It is a technological world now, and we are to be "in" the world, not hold tenaciously to traditions of men, which have no scriptural support.

Two: you can adapt to the technological environment, as many great seminaries have (RTS, SBTS), realizing that the science says a mixture of DE and B & M is actually the BEST combination for students.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Damon - 

After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.


----------



## Damon Rambo

SolaScriptura said:


> Damon -
> 
> After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.


 
I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.

There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.


----------



## Andres

Damon, 
Where have you studied and where did you obtain your degree from if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Damon Rambo said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damon -
> 
> After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.
> 
> There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.
Click to expand...

 
To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse... And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Andres said:


> Damon,
> Where have you studied and where did you obtain your degree from if you don't mind my asking?


 
LOL. At the risk of alienating everyone on the board....

I just started working on my M.Div., friend ( I currently have 15 graduate hours). Currently, I am taking classes as a degree student at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and as a non-degree student at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I have an unaccredited Bachelor of Arts in Religious studies, and as of March (when graduation occurs: once per year), I will receive an accredited 3 year BTh from SA Theological.

Why do you ask?


----------



## Damon Rambo

SolaScriptura said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damon -
> 
> After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of "scientific studies" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.
> 
> There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse...
Click to expand...

Which is all exactly the same with Brick and Mortar Seminaries...except after you do all of that, you lose another thirty minutes to an hour trying to get to class on time.

Personally, I work on my studies in my office at Church (which is across the street), or sometimes my loving wife takes the kids somewhere..



> And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.


 
You get that interaction with other students with DE via Discussion Boards: the difference is, it is forced to stay on topic, instead of hearing fishing stories for 20 minutes of the class...


----------



## Andres

Damon Rambo said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damon,
> Where have you studied and where did you obtain your degree from if you don't mind my asking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. At the risk of alienating everyone on the board....
> 
> I just started working on my M.Div., friend ( I currently have 15 graduate hours). Currently, I am taking classes as a degree student at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and as a non-degree student at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I have an unaccredited Bachelor of Arts in Religious studies, and as of March (when graduation occurs: once per year), I will receive an accredited 3 year BTh from SA Theological.
> 
> Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

 
Thank you. I was just curious.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Damon Rambo said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you think that could defy logic. There is good reason why Distance Education can be superior. More time actually studying the material, instead of time wasted in off topic discussions with others who know just as little as yourself. A quieter, less distracting environment. Fewer distractions with things like going out to lunch with other students, rushing across town to get to class on time, etc.
> 
> There are good, logical reasons for the results. And I am unsure how you can argue with studies which simply demonstrate that one group of people learned the subject matter better than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is all exactly the same with Brick and Mortar Seminaries...except after you do all of that, you lose another thirty minutes to an hour trying to get to class on time.
> 
> Personally, I work on my studies in my office at Church (which is across the street), or sometimes my loving wife takes the kids somewhere..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get that interaction with other students with DE via Discussion Boards: the difference is, it is forced to stay on topic, instead of hearing fishing stories for 20 minutes of the class...
Click to expand...

 
About the studying environment: My point was it is no better, so why on earth would I think it would produce a better product?
About interactions... it would be impossible to convince me that discussion board "interactions" are as formative or helpful in developing one's theology or, just as importantly, learning how to think and communicate with real people in real time. No form of personal interaction can substitute for reallife. You would literally be wasting your time to try to convince me otherwise.


----------



## Damon Rambo

SolaScriptura said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be precise, I didn't say it defies logic... I said it defies common sense! And in that vein... you paint an awfully rosy picture about DE. Quieter less distracting environment... Hah! Everyone I know who does DE education tries to squeeze in a bit of reading in between work, chores, screaming kids, an impatient spouse...
> 
> 
> 
> Which is all exactly the same with Brick and Mortar Seminaries...except after you do all of that, you lose another thirty minutes to an hour trying to get to class on time.
> 
> Personally, I work on my studies in my office at Church (which is across the street), or sometimes my loving wife takes the kids somewhere..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that interaction with other students helps prevent "intellectual ingrownness" that I've seen so often in folks who do theological degrees via independent/DE format.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get that interaction with other students with DE via Discussion Boards: the difference is, it is forced to stay on topic, instead of hearing fishing stories for 20 minutes of the class...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the studying environment: My point was it is no better, so why on earth would I think it would produce a better product?
> About interactions... it would be impossible to convince me that discussion board "interactions" are as formative or helpful in developing one's theology or, just as importantly, learning how to think and communicate with real people in real time.
Click to expand...

I believe these are two things best accomplished separately. Learning verbal communication skills, is not something you can study: it is something you learn by doing, and in my opinion, the better, as well as more Biblical way of doing this, is under a Pastor and Elders interning in a local Church. 


> No form of personal interaction can substitute for reallife.


Nor can a fake environment in a Classsroom. You need real, hands on experience under a real pastor, at a real church. 



> You would literally be wasting your time to try to convince me otherwise.



That's o.k. I am hard headed like that.

I am willing to concede that SOME classes would be better in a B & M environment ( praactical classes like Homiletics, pastoral counseling), however, I think other more "academic" classes, would actually be better in a DE environment (Language classes, Church History, etc.).


----------



## GD

Hi Damon,

I’m glad you’re enjoying your time in Liberty’s program, but can I ask what you have to compare it to? In my case I thought Liberty’s DL program suffered in comparison to the Western Seminary (branch campus) residence classes and so switched to Liberty’s residence program, which I thought was better. I can also compare Liberty with the residential seminary I did my Th.M. at, as well as two major universities. 

You mentioned language courses as a type of class that could best be taught online. To quote CS Lewis’ bulldog from _The Magician’s Nephew_, “I object to that remark very strongly .” I’ve taken Greek from Homeric to Attic to Koine, and I’ve tutored it as well. Can one learn enough to be functional through DL? Yes, through struggle, but DL _can’t _be the optimal way to teach it. We process learning a new language best the same way we learned our native language when we were children - through hearing it spoken. It’s also helpful to hear correct pronunciation and get it right early by having an expert there to immediately correct it. That helps understanding the pattern of morphological changes which are frequently driven by how a language sounds when spoken. 

You referenced having to waste time in an oversized class listening to other students who were ignorant and talked of fishing, but I don’t think that has to be the case. One of the major differences between DL and residence is the small discussion seminar. At a good school with good students, a prof can moderate a vigorous discussion about theology or history that is synergistically beneficial, because everyone has done the reading, has thought carefully about it, and is capable of articulating those thoughts, and interacting with opposing positions _right then_, because they've internalized the material. It drives the learning curve way up. That high-pressure scenario, where you have to know your stuff and know it well enough to articulate it _sans _notes with students who may not agree with your interpretation (or the prof who will test your argument) is invaluable. Believe me, when you’re the lone Reformed student in a roomful of Jesuits at Boston College, you’ve got to be on the ball!  I know from experience that Liberty’s asynchronous discussion board software can’t replicate this, and I’m not convinced that any online attempt could.


----------



## Damon Rambo

David G said:


> Hi Damon,
> 
> I’m glad you’re enjoying your time in Liberty’s program, but can I ask what you have to compare it to? In my case I thought Liberty’s DL program suffered in comparison to the Western Seminary (branch campus) residence classes and so switched to Liberty’s residence program, which I thought was better. I can also compare Liberty with the residential seminary I did my Th.M. at, as well as two major universities.



I am curious when you did your studies at Liberty? Liberty's DE classes have gone through a complete revamp over the last year and a half, and from what I hear (from people who were their before and after), it is completely different. The research and writing requirements are more stringent, their is more interaction required, etc.

Also, I think this depends on the individual. I am a bit of a monk. I learn best in the quiet of my study. My brain does not retain knowledge through a verbal format (this is true of many people), so verbal discussions, even if interesting and enjoyable, do next to nothing to help me knowledge wise. 




> You mentioned language courses as a type of class that could best be taught online. To quote CS Lewis’ bulldog from _The Magician’s Nephew_, “I object to that remark very strongly .” I’ve taken Greek from Homeric to Attic to Koine, and I’ve tutored it as well. Can one learn enough to be functional through DL? Yes, through struggle, but DL _can’t _be the optimal way to teach it. We process learning a new language best the same way we learned our native language when we were children - through hearing it spoken. It’s also helpful to hear correct pronunciation and get it right early by having an expert there to immediately correct it. That helps understanding the pattern of morphological changes which are frequently driven by how a language sounds when spoken.



All of this can easily be accomplished through Mounce, Hildebrandt, etc. They have vast audio sources, which cover every part of their textbooks. Every word in the New Testament, can be heard by audio now.

And as one who taught himself Greek before he ever entered a Seminary class (at least, first year Greek), and considering the great men of God who did the same before me, I have to say I believe your statement is flat wrong. Learning the languages today is easier than it has ever been. And the time spent traveling to and from class, and in class talking about whatever, is better spent studying.



> You referenced having to waste time in an oversized class listening to other students who were ignorant and talked of fishing, but I don’t think that has to be the case. One of the major differences between DL and residence is the small discussion seminar. At a good school with good students, a prof can moderate a vigorous discussion about theology or history that is synergistically beneficial, because everyone has done the reading, has thought carefully about it, and is capable of articulating those thoughts, and interacting with opposing positions _right then_, because they've internalized the material. It drives the learning curve way up. That high-pressure scenario, where you have to know your stuff and know it well enough to articulate it _sans _notes with students who may not agree with your interpretation (or the prof who will test your argument) is invaluable. Believe me, when you’re the lone Reformed student in a roomful of Jesuits at Boston College, you’ve got to be on the ball!  I know from experience that Liberty’s asynchronous discussion board software can’t replicate this, and I’m not convinced that any online attempt could.


 There actually have been a couple of studies which casts great doubt on the value of verbal communication as a way of accumulating information. The problem is, it does not "stick" with most people. Liberty, for one, has been increasing their research and writing, and eliminating the DVD lectures from their classes, for precisely that reason. Reading and research is a much better, and more permanent, way of learning.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Liberty's DL program is severely lacking in any real attempt to combat heretical views. I took my entire undergrad at Liberty via DL, so I have some background. The profs have 30+ per class and multiple classes to study and work with. They next to never get in on the discussions and correct bad beliefs. I had discussions with open theists, universalists, and even a lady to felt that angels did not exist (she achieved this conclusion by learning that theophanies were sometimes refered to as an angel of the Lord, so therefore all references to angels must be a reference to Jesus). 

I also caught a student copy paragraphs of Matthew Henry and Calvin and pawn it off as her own. I brought it to the prof's attention and the student got away with it because she claimed she thought this was how you cite your sources. 

No offense, but LIberty DL program is focused on numbers. There is no real oversight and no real mentorship. I learned nothing from my professors. I learned only from my readings and questions I would post here on PB.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> Liberty's DL program is severely lacking in any real attempt to combat heretical views. I took my entire undergrad at Liberty via DL, so I have some background. The profs have 30+ per class and multiple classes to study and work with. They next to never get in on the discussions and correct bad beliefs. I had discussions with open theists, universalists, and even a lady to felt that angels did not exist (she achieved this conclusion by learning that theophanies were sometimes refered to as an angel of the Lord, so therefore all references to angels must be a reference to Jesus).
> 
> I also caught a student copy paragraphs of Matthew Henry and Calvin and pawn it off as her own. I brought it to the prof's attention and the student got away with it because she claimed she thought this was how you cite your sources.
> 
> No offense, but LIberty DL program is focused on numbers. There is no real oversight and no real mentorship. I learned nothing from my professors. I learned only from my readings and questions I would post here on PB.


 
The University and Seminary are different. The most people I have had in the class is 19, with most of them being around ten. My professors commented on nearly every post that I made. For one of my classes, there was only 5. Dr. Micheal Grisanti (Professor of Old Testament at the Masters Seminary), had actually taken on a class at Liberty: he taught that one. He rebuked one individual for not interacting deep enough with the material, and in front of all, stated flatly that she was going to fail the course. 

I have heard similar things about the University: but the University and Seminary programs are worlds apart. Several of my friends have taken classes at Liberty and then moved on to Southern (due to some theological conflicts...) and stated categorically that the classes are of equal rigor.


----------



## GD

You’ve heard that Liberty has become more rigorous and you’ve taught yourself Greek. Fine. We can agree to disagree.

On this last point, though, we’re talking past each other. You’re stating that verbal communication is a poor way of accumulating information. I'm referring to something higher up Bloom’s taxonomy than accumulation of data. In a small seminar one has to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, while interacting with others under pressure. This is supervised by the professor who can correct, guide, and evaluate weaknesses that can be shored up through in-class discussion and/or personal mentoring. 

Regardless of our disagreeing, best wishes on your studies Damon.

David


----------



## Damon Rambo

David G said:


> You’ve heard that Liberty has become more rigorous
> 
> David


 
I did not say "heard" my friend (at least as of their program NOW). It is a fact that Liberty has revamped there seminary classes. What I have "heard" was the reputation of the classes before they revamped it, of which I know nothing. I only know that NOW, there syllabus' are equivalent to any of the big six in a given class, that the professors are very stringent, and that the writing requirements are large. Comparing the Syllabus' of Liberty, to that of New Orleans Baptist, for instance,there is little question that Liberty is at least as, if not more, rigorous.


----------



## Notthemama1984

A syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor. For example, my Hermeneutics class and my NT class had basically the same requirements in terms of weekly quizzes and term papers. The NT class even had less weekly reading, but the NT class was 10x harder than the Hermeneutics. The weekly quizzes were insane, the mid-term and finals were out of this world, and I took on average 8 pages of notes per lecture class. Hermeneutics on the other hand was a breeze and I was pretty bored in that class.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> A syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor.


An analysis of the students who complete the course, and the syllabus itself, is the only OBJECTIVE way of determining rigor. The studies show that DE students retain more than B & M. The Syllabus says its equivalent. Everything else is opinion. 


> For example, my Hermeneutics class and my NT class had basically the same requirements in terms of weekly quizzes and term papers. The NT class even had less weekly reading, but the NT class was 10x harder than the Hermeneutics. The weekly quizzes were insane, the mid-term and finals were out of this world, and I took on average 8 pages of notes per lecture class. Hermeneutics on the other hand was a breeze and I was pretty bored in that class.



In my own experience, the NT Survey class was among the easiest I completed, even though it consisted of extensive writing. Others may struggle with some of the concepts in Hermeneutics, and believe it is more difficult. Some might believe that B & M is easier: others may believe it is more difficult than DE: this is all opinion.

In every MEASURABLE, scientifically demonstrable way, Liberty classes are equivalent. As I have already stated, there are a slew of people whose opinion of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (not University), is that it is equal, or even more difficult than other institutions such as Southern. If all that you have done is undergrad work at the University (which is, by it's nature, not even close to the same thing), you really have no place of comparison.


----------



## fredtgreco

David G said:


> I'm referring to something higher up Bloom’s taxonomy than accumulation of data. In a small seminar one has to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, while interacting with others under pressure. This is supervised by the professor who can correct, guide, and evaluate weaknesses that can be shored up through in-class discussion and/or personal mentoring.
> 
> David


 This is a critical point. Distance Education is not of much value (in my opinion) without having a rigorous mentoring situation. By that I mean something like weekly meetings with a pastor.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I will return the favor you asked of Dr. Clark earlier, you keep mentioning studies, can you please provide these studies?

In terms of objective rigor, the current Army Chief of Chaplains CH (BG) Carver has implemented a two year ministry stipulation as a requirement for all new chaplains. His reason? (and I heard this from his very mouth standing not 15 ft from me) Too many chaplains are coming from online degree backgrounds and have no experience in application and have next to no people skills, most cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. They have simply spent too much time behind a computer and not enough time in the field.

I know that you will come back with the whole being mentored by the local church so I will respond to it before you do. Most DE programs do not require mentorship from someone local. They may require a letter of recommendation from your current church, but that is about the extent of it. 

I was not attempting to compare Liberty undergrad to Southern Seminary. I recognize they are not the same thing. I have not even tried to point out that DE is any less rigorous than a B&M. The only topic I dealt with was that I felt Liberty did not properly mentor its students and a syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> I will return the favor you asked of Dr. Clark earlier, you keep mentioning studies, can you please provide these studies?



No problem. Here is the actual Meta Analysis of the various studies, done by the department of education

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

And here is a summary, in case you don't want to read through all the data

Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com




> In terms of objective rigor, the current Army Chief of Chaplains CH (BG) Carver has implemented a two year ministry stipulation as a requirement for all new chaplains. His reason? (and I heard this from his very mouth standing not 15 ft from me) Too many chaplains are coming from online degree backgrounds and have no experience in application and have next to no people skills, most cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. They have simply spent too much time behind a computer and not enough time in the field.



RIGHT! I totally agree! But a classroom does not help. People need real world experience, not fake world experience in a clasroom, whether digital, or in the flesh. A DE student, under the internship of a real pastor and real elders at a REAL church, would be the optimum, in my opnion.



> I know that you will come back with the whole being mentored by the local church so I will respond to it before you do. Most DE programs do not require mentorship from someone local. They may require a letter of recommendation from your current church, but that is about the extent of it.



I don't know about the rest, but Liberty Seminary, as part of the requirements into Pastoral programs, (M.Div. etc.) requires you to be aan active member of a local church.



> I was not attempting to compare Liberty undergrad to Southern Seminary. I recognize they are not the same thing. I have not even tried to point out that DE is any less rigorous than a B&M. The only topic I dealt with was that I felt Liberty did not properly mentor its students and a syllabus is a poor way of determining academic rigor.


Not really. Seeing the requirements for a class (syllabus) and seeing the results of that study (see Meta Study, above), are really the only two OBJECTIVE way of determining rigor: everything else is opinion.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Chaplainintraining said:


> In terms of objective rigor, the current Army Chief of Chaplains CH (BG) Carver has implemented a two year ministry stipulation as a requirement for all new chaplains. His reason? (and I heard this from his very mouth standing not 15 ft from me) Too many chaplains are coming from online degree backgrounds and have no experience in application and have next to no people skills, most cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. They have simply spent too much time behind a computer and not enough time in the field.


 
Indeed, I heard him say the same thing. Except in our situation he was talking about endorsing agents needing to send "bona fide" ministers. His comments about education in that context were 1) too many DE folks not being able to communicate at a Master's level 2) too many not having the proper training to do practical ministry. He recounted how there was a situation in which the chaplain didn't know how to administer the Lord's Supper, so the chaplain assistant had to step up... he told of how one guy went from being a bug exterminator one day to an active duty chaplain the next without any ministry experience beyond teaching Sunday school because the endorsing agent approved him. In my estimation, CH Carver was serving notice that the days of anybody and everybody getting in are over. 

DE theology programs usually produce very weak products. Of course there are exceptions, but it is folly to parade those exceptional few as if they are in any way indicative of the majority. And we need to base our rules on norms, not exceptions.


----------



## Damon Rambo

SolaScriptura said:


> What are you basing this on? All of the actual evidence says otherwise


----------



## SolaScriptura

Damon Rambo said:


> RIGHT! I totally agree! But a classroom does not help. People need real world experience, not fake world experience in a clasroom, whether digital, or in the flesh. A DE student, under the internship of a real pastor and real elders at a REAL church, would be the optimum, in my opnion.


 
I totally disagree - a classroom DOES help. It may not be all that is needed, but to say that it doesn't help is way overwrought. 

I believe in the centrality of the local church. Unfortunately, most of the churches and most of the Christians and most of the pastors in our culture do not. I think you're able to take for granted here what "should" happen because you're in the company of people who have a high ecclesiology. But the fact is that most pastors and churches in this country are NOT prepared to properly train a minister. Indeed, I will refuse to name names, but I know a great many PCA ministers who have a working knowledge of the original languages just barely sufficient enough to enable them to use Bible study software. In my opinion it shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm not saying these men can't counsel or can't apply the Word of God, but I am saying that a person can't teach what they don't know. Even when it comes to the "practical stuff" like preaching and counseling, many pastors have a style or approach that "works for them," (maybe!) but they don't know the basic principles to teach someone the borad strokes so that they can develop their own style. 
If every pastor had a mind and a heart like that of our dear Rev. Greco, I'd be all over the idea that most of the instruction could occur in the local church. But as it is, lamentably most pastors are not like him in their intellectual prowess.


----------



## Damon Rambo

SolaScriptura said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> RIGHT! I totally agree! But a classroom does not help. People need real world experience, not fake world experience in a clasroom, whether digital, or in the flesh. A DE student, under the internship of a real pastor and real elders at a REAL church, would be the optimum, in my opnion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree - a classroom DOES help. It may not be all that is needed, but to say that it doesn't help is way overwrought.
Click to expand...


I believe that a discussion forum is better for conversation. It requires one to stop and think; to digest what someone is saying. It helps temper the tendency in you average young seminarian, to make a quick reply. It robs a person of their flair, charisma, etc., and makes everyone discuss a subject on its merits alone. 

As I said, in certain things, such as Homiletics, I can see the benefit of some classroom interaction. However, I think this is completely limited to certain practical types of classes: perhaps 1/3 of a total M. Div.



> I believe in the centrality of the local church. Unfortunately, most of the churches and most of the Christians and most of the pastors in our culture do not. I think you're able to take for granted here what "should" happen because you're in the company of people who have a high ecclesiology. But the fact is that most pastors and churches in this country are NOT prepared to properly train a minister. Indeed, I will refuse to name names, but I know a great many PCA ministers who have a working knowledge of the original languages just barely sufficient enough to enable them to use Bible study software. In my opinion it shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm not saying these men can't counsel or can't apply the Word of God, but I am saying that a person can't teach what they don't know. Even when it comes to the "practical stuff" like preaching and counseling, many pastors have a style or approach that "works for them," (maybe!) but they don't know the basic principles to teach someone the borad strokes so that they can develop their own style.
> If every pastor had a mind and a heart like that of our dear Rev. Greco, I'd be all over the idea that most of the instruction could occur in the local church. But as it is, lamentably most pastors are not like him in their intellectual prowess.



I believe the scriptural method of training up young men is in the context of the Church: not the classroom. Just because certain men are not performing their duties as Pastor, does not invalidate a method. The fact that some Pastors are not doing their jobs, no more invalidates DE, than does the huge amount of B & M seminaries which have overloaded classes, and poor professors invalidate residential studies. 

I have only met a few Pastors who have done their degrees primarily through DE, and all of them were in the top 10 percent of the Preachers whom I have met. I know one Pastor, who never went to Seminary (other than some unnacredtied Bible College work), who is probably the most Godly Pastor I know. The fact is, the optimum system, which combines mentorship and rigorous study from knowledgeable professors, is a DE program combined with internship at a local church. This combines the science, with the scriptural example; the best of both worlds.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Seeing how you live so close to Cedarville, I would talk to some people there.Get the ins and outs of a lot of different places. I would say (in my opinion) that your best 2 options are TEDS or Southern.


----------



## Ivan

Unashamed 116 said:


> Seeing how you live so close to Cedarville, I would talk to some people there.Get the ins and outs of a lot of different places. I would say (in my opinion) that your best 2 options are TEDS or Southern.


 
Damon, if you are considering a B&M education I would certainly choose Southern between these two. In my humble opinion, I believe you will receive a better education at Southern and as a Southern Baptist you are going to save a great deal of money.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Ivan said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how you live so close to Cedarville, I would talk to some people there.Get the ins and outs of a lot of different places. I would say (in my opinion) that your best 2 options are TEDS or Southern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon, if you are considering a B&M education I would certainly choose Southern between these two. In my humble opinion, I believe you will receive a better education at Southern and as a Southern Baptist you are going to save a great deal of money.
Click to expand...

 
This is what happens when a thread derails! 

Our friend was talking to the person who started the thread, not me. I am currently taking classes through Liberty, although I have seriously considered transferring to Southern. This is simply not possible right now, because of the Ministry work the Lord has given me in this area (there ARE NO B & M Seminaries, with the exception of Southwestern {which is more anti Calvinist than Liberty} close enough for me to attend).


----------



## Notthemama1984

If Southwestern is close to you, then Dallas Theological is as well. DTS is more pro-doctrines of grace, but nothing else really in terms of reformed theology.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> If Southwestern is close to you, then Dallas Theological is as well. DTS is more pro-doctrines of grace, but nothing else really in terms of reformed theology.


 
I am sorry I did not qualify my Statement: I am 1 hour south of Southwesterns HOUSTON Campus. DTS is about 4 1/2 to 5 hours from me. Not only that, the last time I checked DTS required one to adhere to dispensational theology.


----------



## Andres

Damon Rambo said:


> No problem. Here is the actual Meta Analysis of the various studies, done by the department of education
> 
> http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
> 
> And here is a summary, in case you don't want to read through all the data
> 
> Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com


 
Damon, I think for the current conversation the above study would be skewed at best, and possibly not even applicable. The reason being is because seminary studies prepare men for ministry. Other academic programs prepare people for various other fields. Preparation for ministry includes much, much more than academics. The study only measures how distance education compares to traditional higher education in the area of academics. 
My point is that in comparing the best way to prepare men for ministry, one would have to look at more than academics.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Damon Rambo said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Southwestern is close to you, then Dallas Theological is as well. DTS is more pro-doctrines of grace, but nothing else really in terms of reformed theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry I did not qualify my Statement: I am 1 hour south of Southwesterns HOUSTON Campus. DTS is about 4 1/2 to 5 hours from me. Not only that, the last time I checked DTS required one to adhere to dispensational theology.
Click to expand...

 
DTS has a Houston Campus and they do not require you to adhere to dispensational theology. I currently go to the Houston campus.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Andres said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Here is the actual Meta Analysis of the various studies, done by the department of education
> 
> http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
> 
> And here is a summary, in case you don't want to read through all the data
> 
> Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon, I think for the current conversation the above study would be skewed at best, and possibly not even applicable. The reason being is because seminary studies prepare men for ministry. Other academic programs prepare people for various other fields. Preparation for ministry includes much, much more than academics. The study only measures how distance education compares to traditional higher education in the area of academics.
> My point is that in comparing the best way to prepare men for ministry, one would have to look at more than academics.
Click to expand...

 
I believe this is completely wrong. Men need an academic, theological background, BEFORE they start ministry. The study is absolutely applicable. How?

It would mean that people who study through Distance ed., learn Church History better than Resident. Greek and Hebrew Language would be learned better. Theology would be better retained. All of these classes, which contain no practical element whatsoever, are better learned by Online classes, according to this study. 

"Preparing men for ministry" starts with academics (M.Div.). These academics, are better learned through Online classes, according to the science. It of course, involves hands on as well, which is better done in a local church, interned under an actual pastor.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Southwestern is close to you, then Dallas Theological is as well. DTS is more pro-doctrines of grace, but nothing else really in terms of reformed theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry I did not qualify my Statement: I am 1 hour south of Southwesterns HOUSTON Campus. DTS is about 4 1/2 to 5 hours from me. Not only that, the last time I checked DTS required one to adhere to dispensational theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DTS has a Houston Campus and they do not require you to adhere to dispensational theology. I currently go to the Houston campus.
Click to expand...

 
It would also triple my current tuition (465 X 15= 6975 DTS, vs. 2000 per semester cap at Liberty{15 credits=2000), not counting the huge wasted time of 2 hours a day driving, the couple of hundred dollars per week in gas, etc. All to take classes at an institution which is much farther removed from my beliefs than is my current institution (Liberty is at least Southern Baptist). 

Why would I do such a thing? I am in a great learning environment already!


----------



## Notthemama1984

If you feel that you are getting what you need from Liberty then by all means stay. I was just pointing out that DTS had a Houston campus. Not intending to imply anything.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*Distance Education & the Ministry*

Is distance education in every way inferior to a traditional “brick and mortar” education? Or are there some advantages that distance education can offer the ministerial student and the church? While we recognize that distance learning is not for everyone and acknowledge that there may be some advantages to a traditional residential form of education, we believe that there are also some clear advantages and benefits associated with distance learning. So does Jerrold H. Lewis, Pastor of Lacombe Free Reformed Church. He has written an excellent article which answers some of the common caveats against distance education and suggests several advantages to this format of learning as it applies to ministerial training.
*
Distance Learning & the Ministry*

If you're interested in a theological education that's Reformed and Baptist, that's affordable, and that allows you to remain in your home church under the mentorship of your own pastoral staff, see *Reformed Baptist Seminary*.


----------



## DMcFadden

Bob,

That was quite insightful! I have examined nearly 500 candidates for ordaintion over the last three decades. The products of the prestige B&M school in my area leave me decidedly UNIMPRESSED. Almost ANYthing would be an improvement over that!!!

If distance ed were coupled with a rigorous apprenticeship and mentoring program, it would complete quite favorably with most B&M schools in my opinion, for the reasons adduced by Pastor Lewis.

BTW, grads of that B&M school typically enter ministry with upwards of $50,000 in debt. I know of one who came out of there with $100,000 in typically non-dischargable debt.

I am, however, impressed with the smaller schools such as WSC, WTS, GPTS, and PRTS where education and training go hand in hand with ministerial formation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Dennis,

I don't think distance education is the best choice or every person under every circumstance. There are, no doubt, some advantages to a B&M school, especially when pursuing a higher-degree. Nevertheless, with the advances in technology, distance learning schools like RBS can offer churches and ministerial aspirants the option of bringing the training to them, which allows the aspirant to remain under the oversight and mentorship of his eldership and to continue serving as an asset to his home church. RBS won't accept non-ordained men for training unless their pastors agree to be involved as mentor-proctors. We don't want to rob the pastor of his role of mentoring men under him. We desire, rather, to be a servant to the churches, empowering pastors and churches to assume a greater role in providing their men with a good theological education. If anyone is interested in knowing the seminary's philosophy about mentorship, see our "Guidelines & Expectations" here. 

Your servant,


----------



## GD

Damon Rambo said:


> I am curious when you did your studies at Liberty? Liberty's DE classes have gone through a complete revamp over the last year and a half, and from what I hear (from people who were their before and after), it is completely different. The research and writing requirements are more stringent, their is more interaction required, etc.



I’ve looked again at some of the syllabi online, and they haven’t changed since I took the classes, so I will stand by what I wrote about Liberty’s DL program. I believe the big revamp you were informed about is what they did in 2007-08 when they completed their changeover from 16 week correspondence classes to 8 week online classes.


----------



## GD

Damon and I have agreed to disagree on the languages issue, but I feel compelled to point out something for those readers who are considering where or how they should attend seminary. The startling argument is being made that distance learning is not some kind of substitute for interactive learning with a teacher, but is a _superior _method for learning languages. Note carefully that Damon is making this case on the basis of having read through a Greek primer _on his own_. I am willing to grant the possibility that Damon is an exceptional individual who has gotten as much out of that experience as a student who has a teacher through it with them, providing guidance and correction, but I think that readers should be careful about generalizing overmuch from his experience.


----------



## Damon Rambo

David G said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious when you did your studies at Liberty? Liberty's DE classes have gone through a complete revamp over the last year and a half, and from what I hear (from people who were their before and after), it is completely different. The research and writing requirements are more stringent, their is more interaction required, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve looked again at some of the syllabi online, and they haven’t changed since I took the classes, so I will stand by what I wrote about Liberty’s DL program. I believe the big revamp you were informed about is what they did in 2007-08 when they completed their changeover from 16 week correspondence classes to 8 week online classes.
Click to expand...

 
As the Syllabi are extremely similar to the same classes from New Orleans Baptist, and even Southern Baptist Theological, (utilizing the same text books, the same type of assignments, etc.), I am curious if your objection is not to the "Baptist" practices of the Schools, rather than the material? I find it odd that although the requirements are basically all the same, and that Southern Baptist Theological also offers 1/3 of it's degree online, that Liberty is the school which gets the head knocking...


----------



## Damon Rambo

David G said:


> Damon and I have agreed to disagree on the languages issue, but I feel compelled to point out something for those readers who are considering where or how they should attend seminary. The startling argument is being made that distance learning is not some kind of substitute for interactive learning with a teacher, but is a _superior _method for learning languages. Note carefully that Damon is making this case on the basis of having read through a Greek primer _on his own_. I am willing to grant the possibility that Damon is an exceptional individual who has gotten as much out of that experience as a student who has a teacher work through it, providing guidance and correction, but I think that readers should be careful about generalizing overmuch from his experience.


 
I would like to add to David's remarks, that it is not just "my opinion." The studies demonstrate that Online only students, do better, retain more of what they learn, and are able to apply that information better, than Resident only students, in ANY field (the results were 'across the board' so to speak). Why this is the case is debatable; the facts of it, are not.,


----------



## GD

Damon Rambo said:


> I find it odd that although the requirements are basically all the same, and that Southern Baptist Theological also offers 1/3 of it's degree online, that Liberty is the school which gets the head knocking...



Why would I write about S.B.T.S., which I never attended (and incidentally have nothing negative to say about)? Making speculative comparisons about things for which I have no frame of reference wouldn’t be all that helpful. 



Damon Rambo said:


> I am curious if your objection is not to the “Baptist” practices of the Schools, rather than the material?



Ascribing my concerns over the quality of theological education to a motive of anti-Baptist bias is a red herring. I think it also signals the end of our discussion.


----------



## Damon Rambo

David G said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it odd that although the requirements are basically all the same, and that Southern Baptist Theological also offers 1/3 of it's degree online, that Liberty is the school which gets the head knocking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I write about S.B.T.S., which I never attended (and incidentally have nothing negative to say about)? Making speculative comparisons about things for which I have no frame of reference wouldn’t be all that helpful.
Click to expand...


You referenced the Syllabi, which is the for all intents and purposes, the same level of rigor as that of the SBTS. Now, if you say the Syllabus doesn't matter, then why are you using the Syllabus as a basis of comparison? Other changes have occurred, such as smaller classes, mandatory graduate writing classes, etc.



> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious if your objection is not to the “Baptist” practices of the Schools, rather than the material?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ascribing my concerns over the quality of theological education to a motive of anti-Baptist bias is a red herring. I think it also signals the end of our discussion.
Click to expand...

 
Brother: I did not mean to imply a bias against Baptists. Historically, from what I have seen, the "extremely reformed" groups (I do not mean this in a negative way), have a different philosophy and methodology on learning, than do the less or non reformed groups. That was all I was saying.


----------

