# Seminary Choice RTS Charlotte vs DTS



## jsaunders86

I am posting this thread as I am in need of some advice. Lately I have been praying about my seminary choices of RTS Charlotte and DTS. Some may say that that is a weird choice in seminaries theologically speaking but I have known individuals that have come from both institutions proclaiming the word of God with zeal, and frankly that has been refreshing. I was wondering what your guys thought on the idea of church planting? I want to go to a school that will teach me solid theological truths but at the same time can give me practical tools that will aid me as a church planter, as I feel that's where God is leading me. RTS Charlotte is great because I love that it's rooted in a reformed tradition but DTS is great in that they are able to equip you for church planting. I have recently joined an EFCA church so that plays into my decision a lot as to which seminary is better suited for ministry within that denomination. Any Thoughts? Also, what are the pros and Cons of either seminary broadly speaking and then also advantages/disadvantages of either seminary in the light of church planting. Thanks

Jeff


----------



## Notthemama1984

Why do you say they are able to equip your for church planting? I go to DTS and would say that their ecclesiology is far from Reformed, thus their teaching on church planting would be skewed at best.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jsaunders86

Well primarily because they have specific classes pertaining to church planting. Also in what ways would they be skewed in their teaching regarding the matter? Also, have you enjoyed your time at DTS?


----------



## Andres

DTS = the mother of dispensationalism. Obviously have to keep that in mind.


----------



## StrictBaptist

I am also thinking bout DTS for seminary, however if they are not reformed in their I will look elsewhere.


----------



## greenbaggins

I would not recommend DTS, but would recommend RTS Charlotte. However, I am not certain that your concerns for church planting help are the way to go. People often put a huge gap in between church planting and regular pastor positions. I question that gap. Church planters need to be pastors. Learn to be a pastor, and God can use you to plant a church.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I have enjoyed DTS alot, but it does have its shortcomings. 

They have a dispensational ecclesiology. I just finished my ecclesiology course and we spent more time talking about the pre-trib rapture vs. anything of real substance. 

In my opinion, dispensationalism leads to a very low view of the church. The church is a back up plan to Israel. This is a broadstroke analogy, but this is how I see it.....

Jesus is the hunk of high school. Israel is the head cheerleader. The church is the nerdy ugly chick. Jesus wants to take the cheerleader to the prom, but for whatever reason the parents won't let them go. Jesus decides to ask you out to the prom knowing that his parents will allow it. He comes picks you up in a limo, gives you some nice flowers, and treats you like a princess. Once you get to the prom, Jesus leaves you at the punch bowl to go dance with the cheerleader. The cheerleader and Jesus fall in love and go on to get married and have a wonderful life together. 

For the dispensationalist the ugly chick (the church) should be excited that they had the opportunity to ride in the limo with Jesus and spend that little bit of time with him. It shouldn't matter that Jesus did not choose you first. It did not matter that you get dumped at the punch bowl. What we should do is become the cheerleaders groupie and help her get whatever she needs. 

Now I know that the analogy breaks down in parts, but broadly speaking this is the feeling I get when I listen to old school Dispensational profs. 

In my opinion, DTS will also fail you in preparing you to study and preach the OT. Numerous Dispensationalists see the OT as a document given to the Jews to which we can glean morals from, but nothing else really. They may read the OT, they may study the OT, but many will not apply the OT to their lives (case in point most reject the Ten Commandments as being a guide for our lives).

Now in fairness, many of the profs are extremely brilliant. We may disagree on things, but their intelligence cannot be denied. I took Heremeneutics and Greek I and both Southwestern and DTS. DTS was better for both classes. 

DTS is a fine institution and can really prepare you if you have a basic understanding of where dispensationalism and covenant theology differ going in.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------




StrictBaptist said:


> I am also thinking bout DTS for seminary, however if they are not reformed in their I will look elsewhere.



I attend DTS simply because it is close to my home and cannot move. If you are looking for something even remotely reformed, I would look elsewhere.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andres

Chaplainintraining said:


> Jesus is the hunk of high school. Israel is the head cheerleader. The church is the nerdy ugly chick. Jesus wants to take the cheerleader to the prom, but for whatever reason the parents won't let them go. Jesus decides to ask you out to the prom knowing that his parents will allow it. He comes picks you up in a limo, gives you some nice flowers, and treats you like a princess. Once you get to the prom, Jesus leaves you at the punch bowl to go dance with the cheerleader. The cheerleader and Jesus fall in love and go on to get married and have a wonderful life together.
> 
> For the dispensationalist the ugly chick (the church) should be excited that they had the opportunity to ride in the limo with Jesus and spend that little bit of time with him. It shouldn't matter that Jesus did not choose you first. It did not matter that you get dumped at the punch bowl. What we should do is become the cheerleaders groupie and help her get whatever she needs.



that's a great (albeit, sad) analogy!


----------



## Notthemama1984

Glad I could contribute to the board.


----------



## Scott1

It would seem best to do some soul searching about what you really believe God's Word says.

Not to elevate or pull down one of these two choices, there are certainly many believers at both. But one clearly holds a broadly evangelical (as opposed to reformed) view.

Reformed theology= Doctrines of grace ("Calvinism") + Covenant Theology + Confession
Broadly evangelical= Arminian influence + Dispensationalism + Individual interpretation, Consensus

Which better reflects your understanding of what God requires?

Once you settle that, you will have many choices of good seminaries.


----------



## Phil D.

Chaplainintraining said:


> Jesus is the hunk of high school. Israel is the head cheerleader. The church is the nerdy ugly chick. Jesus wants to take the cheerleader to the prom, but for whatever reason the parents won't let them go. Jesus decides to ask you out to the prom knowing that his parents will allow it. He comes picks you up in a limo, gives you some nice flowers, and treats you like a princess. Once you get to the prom, Jesus leaves you at the punch bowl to go dance with the cheerleader. The cheerleader and Jesus fall in love and go on to get married and have a wonderful life together.



Wow! I've heard the Dispensational vs. Covenant thing put a lotta ways, but this is downright hilarious!  (and, sadly, a plausible analogy of the Dispensational position).

Andrew - I see we were on the same page here, although you beat me to it!


----------



## Notthemama1984

In fairness to DTS, they adhere to the doctrines of grace (granted they waffle on limited atonement, but far from Arminian for sure), are dispensational of course, but the school does have a binding confession. All profs have to hold to the DTS statement of faith and anyone not teaching to that confession can be removed. Now the problem with the confession is that it is dispensational to the core, but they still have one.


----------



## toddpedlar

greenbaggins said:


> I would not recommend DTS, but would recommend RTS Charlotte. However, I am not certain that your concerns for church planting help are the way to go. People often put a huge gap in between church planting and regular pastor positions. I question that gap. Church planters need to be pastors. Learn to be a pastor, and God can use you to plant a church.


 
Quite honestly I think pursuing the idea of church planting as a brand new MDiv is a grave mistake. As Lane said, LEARN FIRST to be a pastor. THEN if the Lord calls you to plant a church, do so. Extremely, extremely rare (I think) is the brand new MDiv who can effectively plant and shepherd a new church.


----------



## Scott1

Chaplainintraining said:


> In fairness to DTS, they adhere to the doctrines of grace (granted they waffle on limited atonement, but far from Arminian for sure), are dispensational of course, but the school does have a binding confession. All profs have to hold to the DTS statement of faith and anyone not teaching to that confession can be removed. Now the problem with the confession is that it is dispensational to the core, but they still have one.


 
I have heard Dr. Sproul's books are a "hot" item in the bookstore, along with some other reformed writers. And there are certainly reformed leaning, at least, students there.

But here's the problem we must come to terms with.

We live in a time where people imagine themselves "three" point Calvinist, even some referring to themselves 3.167894 point, 4 point etc. The difficulty is, they don't understand the system, that is how the doctrines of grace ALL (five) doctrines necessarily, logically and biblically fit together. So there is no such thing as someone who is reformed, but has trouble with say, limited atonement and unconditional election. 

They may be leaning "Calvinist," or "doctrines of grace," or "five points," but they are not truly there yet.

Even farther down the line, one discovers there is a relationship between the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. Cf, _Wrongly Diving the Truth_ by John Gerstner.

Someone seeking life's vocation as a Pastor, teacher, elder, needs, above others even, to understand this, and not fall pray to hybrid- a mixture of truth and error, to some extent.

All this to say, and to emphasize, there are many brothers and sisters attending there, even a segment of reformed leaning or trending. Likely some who have discovered reformed theology and are now out of place, too.

But we cannot redefine what reformed theology is.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I was not attempting to redefine "reformed." I was just pointing out that they are not Arminian and are confessional. 

I will be the first to say that the OP should go to RTS before DTS. DTS approaches things from a completely different way than the reformed community does. If one is reformed and desires to work in reformed churches, go to a reformed seminary.


----------



## toddpedlar

Chaplainintraining said:


> I was not attempting to redefine "reformed." I was just pointing out that they are not Arminian and are confessional.
> 
> I will be the first to say that the OP should go to RTS before DTS. DTS approaches things from a completely different way than the reformed community does. If one is reformed and desires to work in reformed churches, go to a reformed seminary.


 
In what respect is DTS at all "confessional"? They subscribe to no confession that I know of. I know certainly they don't subscribe to any reformed confessional standard. Are you calling them confessional simply because they have a Doctrinal Statement?


----------



## Scott1

Chaplainintraining said:


> I was not attempting to redefine "reformed." I was just pointing out that they are not Arminian and are confessional.
> 
> I will be the first to say that the OP should go to RTS before DTS. DTS approaches things from a completely different way than the reformed community does. If one is reformed and desires to work in reformed churches, go to a reformed seminary.


 
Perhaps it is most accurate to describe most as Arminian influenced, e.g. they would say they believe in T..IP, having a little trouble with U, more trouble with L. Yet, that most often means they do not fully understand or apply total depravity.


----------



## Notthemama1984

toddpedlar said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not attempting to redefine "reformed." I was just pointing out that they are not Arminian and are confessional.
> 
> I will be the first to say that the OP should go to RTS before DTS. DTS approaches things from a completely different way than the reformed community does. If one is reformed and desires to work in reformed churches, go to a reformed seminary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what respect is DTS at all "confessional"? They subscribe to no confession that I know of. I know certainly they don't subscribe to any reformed confessional standard. Are you calling them confessional simply because they have a Doctrinal Statement?
Click to expand...

 
Doctrinal Statement | Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS)

DTS requires all of their profs to subscribe and teach according to this statement of faith. If they don't, they can be removed. This is what I mean by confessional. They do not subscribe to any reformed confession by any stretch, but they do have a confession of faith that is their guide and they must teach and follow it.

Also Scott,

I have never heard a prof waffle on unconditional election. In fact, I have heard it taught numerous times. They will waffle on limited atonement though. 

At the risk of going down a rabbit trail, could you explain how waffling on L shows that do not truly understand T? I am not saying the connection is not there, simply I am not seeing it. I understand that if they waffle on U how that shows a deficient understanding of T, just not the L connection.


----------



## Scott1

Chaplainintraining said:


> Also Scott,
> 
> I have never heard a prof waffle on unconditional election. In fact, I have heard it taught numerous times. They will waffle on limited atonement though.
> 
> At the risk of going down a rabbit trail, could you explain how waffling on L shows that do not truly understand T? I am not saying the connection is not there, simply I am not seeing it. I understand that if they waffle on U how that shows a deficient understanding of T, just not the L connection.



Basically, total depravity means that there is no part of man unaffected by the fall. Therefore, man is incapable of responding with saving faith. Therefore, God must do something first, and that first thing is changing the nature of a sinner, giving a faith that can be rested upon alone for salvation, and appropriating the perfect life and death of Christ which actually secured the forgiveness of sins for the elect.

_What is Reformed Theology?_ by Dr. RC Sproul explains this well as does _The Five Points of Calvinism_ by Edwin H. Palmer. The latter book is available here:
The Five Points of Calvinism: Edwin Palmer: 9780801069260: Christianbook.com

The former is still free on-line video course:Lecture 7, Total Depravity (Part 1) from What Is Reformed Theology? Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul from Ligonier Ministries (there are two chapter lessons on the "T", one for each for U, L, I, and P- all six will be most helpful understanding how one cannot hold to "T" without "L" and vice versa.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I understand the T. I am just not seeing how a deficient L shows an underlying deficient view of T. 

How would the view, "Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectually for some" show a wrong understanding of T?

PS. I am in no way advocating an unlimited atonement, just curious about the link.


----------



## au5t1n

From DTS's Doctrinal Statement:



> Article VIII—The Extent of Salvation
> We believe that when *an unregenerate person exercises that faith in Christ* which is illustrated and described as such in the New Testament, he passes immediately out of spiritual death into spiritual life....


----------



## Notthemama1984

Yeah, the ordo salutis is wrong.

So this does show that they have a deficient view of T.


----------



## au5t1n

Chaplainintraining said:


> Yeah, the ordo salutis is wrong.
> 
> So this does show that they have a deficient view of T.


 
I guess it never occurred to me that someone might believe in unconditional election and yet hold to a non-monergistic ordo salutis at the same time. Interesting.


----------



## Notthemama1984

austinww said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the ordo salutis is wrong.
> 
> So this does show that they have a deficient view of T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it never occurred to me that someone might believe in unconditional election and yet hold to a non-monergistic ordo salutis at the same time. Interesting.
Click to expand...

 
This is one of the reasons why I appreciate Reformed theology so much. It fits together like a perfect puzzle. Dispensationalism on the other hand has places that simply do not fit, but they attempt exegetical gymnastics to prove that it does.

I am now curious how I works with that statement. If one is doing the exercising of faith, could one choose to resist and not exercise?


----------



## toddpedlar

Chaplainintraining said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the ordo salutis is wrong.
> 
> So this does show that they have a deficient view of T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it never occurred to me that someone might believe in unconditional election and yet hold to a non-monergistic ordo salutis at the same time. Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I appreciate Reformed theology so much. It fits together like a perfect puzzle. Dispensationalism on the other hand has places that simply do not fit, but they attempt exegetical gymnastics to prove that it does.
> 
> I am now curious how I works with that statement. If one is doing the exercising of faith, could one choose to resist and not exercise?
Click to expand...

 
It's very simple. They don't hold to "I".


----------



## Edward

I'd recommend DTS to any dispensationalist who felt called to pastor a Bible Church. For Reformed folks, I'd recommend that they run the other way. I acknowledge that there are some fine Reformed men who have graduated from DTS, and that there are some fine men on the faculty there, but going there will be a lifetime burden for a reformed pastor.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Dr Douglas Kelly teaches Systematics @ RTS Charlotte. Enough said!


----------



## Bookmeister

I spent two years at RTS Jackson and am now finishing online and would highly recommend Jackson over Charlotte. Miles Van Pelt and Derek Thomas are worth the price of admission.


----------



## N. Eshelman

When I was in college one of my professors asked the class (pre-seminary class), "Where is the worst place that you could be in four years?" I blurted out, "Dallas Theological Seminary!" And the whole class burst into laughter.


----------



## nicnap

I spent two years at RTS Charlotte and am now at GPTS. I would recommend RTS Charlotte over Jackson. Dr. Douglas Kelly and Bob Cara are worth the price. 

---------- Post added at 07:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 AM ----------

Of course I would recommend GPTS above the other two ... I just wanted to play 'one up' with Alan.


----------



## toddpedlar

Another thought. If you're really seeking to be ordained in the EV Free churches, rather than a reformed denomination, why not Trinity Evangelical Divinity School? As evangelical schools (as opposed to reformed seminaries) go, they are quite good.


----------



## Grace Alone

Bob Cara has preached at our church before, and there are many other very fine teachers at RTS Charlotte.


----------

