# RTS versus Covenant



## Breadloaf

Okay, hi all. After a year and a half at Gordon Conwell I finally decided that as a Westminster guy, I have had enough of the "general evangelical" flavor of GCTS. Yes, I know that every Christian is not reformed or Presbyterian, and now it's time to move on. I'm all defence but no offence.

SO:

It has come down to : 

RTS in Orlando or Jackson
Covenant.

Anything else I should be considering? Can anyone contrast the three seminaries?

We are looking for a (biblical) counseling program that my wife can be a part of, and we are looking for a local PCA church that is interested in being involved with their member's training in ministry.

Thanks. I know that I'm kind of  on this one.

God moves, we move.

Yours,


JK
PCA
Boston MA


----------



## fredtgreco

JK,

I would be remiss if I did not advise you to come to RTS Jackson. Jackson does have a very well known counselling program (Marriage & Family Therapy Program), although in all honesty I can't endorse it. It is sort of the center of Anti-Nouthetic counselling in the US.

But what I can do is suggest a visit!


----------



## wsw201

Wouldn't recommend Covenant for anything.


----------



## luvroftheWord

I don't think you can make a bad decision, personally. I would recommend any of the three. But like Fred said, RTS Jackson, and Orlando as well, are anti-Nouthetic counseling. If you're not a Nouthetic counselor, then that won't matter to you (and I wouldn't hate you for it) Just keep in mind that no seminary is perfect and that wherever you go you will encounter things you don't like. RTS Orlando gets a lot of criticism, but I think you'd get a great education here.


----------



## Me Died Blue

You also might consider one of the Westminster locations, or Greenville, even though the latter is not accredited.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Wouldn't recommend Covenant for anything.



Why is that?


----------



## luvroftheWord

I think Covenant is a great school, myself, but a bit pricey. Oh wait. So is RTS.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Wouldn't recommend Covenant for anything.



Why?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Covenant is where you go if you're an evangelical-who-happens-to-baptize-babies kind of presbyterian.
RTS Orlando is where you go if you're a pretty-boy, avante guarde type of guy.
RTS Jackson is where you go if you're angry and bitter at everyone else for being "less faithful" to the WCF than you.
GPTS is where you go if you if you're an RTS Jackson type of guy who additionally doesn't care if he can get a job upon graduation.
WTS PA is where you go if you've got a thing for "has beens."

Just my humble opinion. 

Please note: the above analysis is meant to be taken as at least slightly humorous. No serious offense is intended.

[Edited on 30-12-2004 by SolaScriptura]

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Covenant is where you go if you're an evangelical-who-happens-to-baptize-babies kind of presbyterian.
> RTS Orlando is where you go if you're a pretty-boy, avante guarde type of guy.
> RTS Jackson is where you go if you're angry and bitter at everyone else for being "less faithful" to the WCF than you.
> GPTS is where you go if you if you're an RTS Jackson type of guy who additionally doesn't care if he can get a job upon graduation.
> WTS PA is where you go if you've got a thing for "has beens."
> 
> Just my humble opinion.



Hey, I'm not angry and bitter. 
At least not _very_ angry and bitter.

I don't hate the player, I hate the game.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Could you go into more detail about the WTS PA description? And what happened to WTS CA?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> I don't hate the player, I hate the game.



Keep it real dog........

............................................................


----------



## RamistThomist

What is GPTS?


----------



## luvroftheWord

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Could you go into more detail about the WTS PA description? And what happened to WTS CA?



About WTS PA - All I mean is that their glory days have long since past. 

About WTS CA - That is where you go if you would like to have "Westminster Theological Seminary" on your resume but you take too soft a stand on the regulative principle to stomach the PA campus.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

If you came to the Greenville, SC area, you could go to church with Jay Adams (retired), maybe get to know him, and pick his brain. But Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary itself is primarily a preacher's school (MDiv), and hasn't broadened out into counseling degrees, etc.

A school can have a lot more bells & whistles, but its not always a better place. And all great institutions have to start somewhere. GPTS was begun less than 20 years ago, and has been slowly growing, without accumulating a lot of debt. All depends on what you're looking for. Greenville is the least-expensive of the schools, without sacrificing quality or academics.

At the church Adams is a member at, you can get a two-year certificate in biblical (nouthetic) couseling, and be almost completely set for a NANC certification. This Institute doesn't (as yet) have a _program_ of mentor-monitored counseling (NANC cert requires 10 or 20 hours), but those can be picked up through a good local church setting (there are quite a number of good churches in the area). NANC gives it's own cert. tests (but you probably already knew that).

Happy hunting...

p.s. for Ben "smarty-pants" Duncan :bigsmile:
Most Greenville grads are pastoring today, even if I'm not


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Wouldn't recommend Covenant for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Covenant has over the years become more broadly evangelical even though it is the official Seminary of the PCA. The President of the Seminary is one of the biggest proponents of "good faith" subscription there is. A friend of mine who graduated from Covenant 30+ years ago has kept up with what is going on there and does not recommend it to any prospective Seminary student.


----------



## luvroftheWord

SBTS is where you go when you want to be imitation Reformed. :bigsmile:

[Edited on 30-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Breadloaf

Greenville sounds well supported but I'm on the Montgomery GI Bill so I have to go to an accreddited seminary. Even though I can't spell "accreddited". I just look for long words that begin with the letter "A."

Thanks for the replies. What exactly is the "good faith" subscription, and why do you find it so negative?

I looked into some distance programs, but (#1) my church is not particularly able to be involved in training at this time (I don't really agree with that on principal but I can't force anybody's hand)
and I have done both already - I much prefer the classroom interaction.

I did have a class with Dr. Richard Lovelace on the theology of Jonathan Edwards, and for that I have to give GCTS its due. But that's about all I'll give it at this time.

Thanks all - any other seminaries I ought to consider that I have not? Westminster simply doesn't hold appeal for a reason or two that I don't need to get into now.

Yours,

JK
PCA
Boston MA
Accreddited


----------



## fredtgreco

Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyers, Indiana
Puritan Reformed Seminary (Joel Beeke's)

But I'd still come to Jackson.

(Still hatin' the game, not tha playa)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

For what it's worth,
I used the GI Bill while at Greenville. But, as I mentioned, the school has no counselor training program, beyond ordinary preparation for the ministry. Basic course offered is thoroughly nouthetic.


----------



## Ivan

Well, I'm sorry to hear about Covenant. I'm from the St. Louis area and back in the '70's is sounded like a very good school. In fact, I was thinking that if I ever got back to the St. Louis area, I'd take some classes there.

Maybe not.

I'd still like to get the MA/PhD in counseling from Whitefield, but time and money are too big a factor at the moment. Maybe the Lord will open things up for me later.


----------



## Ivan

BTW, I believe it was a Dr. Mains who said he'd be my mentor if I enrolled.


----------



## wsw201

> Thanks for the replies. What exactly is the "good faith" subscription, and why do you find it so negative?



Good faith subscription is the position of the PCA regarding the ordination vows (specifically the vows concerning subscription to the Westminster Standards) a Teaching Elder makes. Basically its a "loose" subscription position. Loose subscription allows for a number of exceptions to the Standards and historically has lead to aberrant theology coming into the Church.


----------



## Robin

I have to say Westminster Seminary in San Diego is outstanding....Mike Horton, Scott Clark, Meredith Kline, Ed Clowney are all there.....the apologetics, history and eschatology are superb. The "two-age" model by G. Vos is emphasized...but more important....

Their focus is to train pastors to "preach Christ" -- the style of preaching in Scripture.

Also there: David Powlison; Jay Adams (Retired); Peter Jacobs are among the top nouethetic counselors....from a Reformed perspective.

[Edited on 12-31-2004 by Robin]


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I have to say Westminster Seminary in San Diego is outstanding....Mike Horton, Scott Clark, Meredith Kline, Ed Clowney are all there.....the apologetics, history and eschatology are superb. The "two-age" model by G. Vos is emphasized...but more important....
> 
> Their focus is to train pastors to "preach Christ" -- the style of preaching in Scripture.
> 
> Also there: David Powlison; Jay Adams (Retired); Peter Jacobs are among the top nouethetic counselors....from a Reformed perspective.
> 
> [Edited on 12-31-2004 by Robin]



Hey, if you see him... please tell Meredith Kline to get on the ball with republishing "By Oath Consigned." I've been looking for it for quite awhile.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Paul - is it in new or good condition? If so... you better believe it, brother!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Done!


----------



## jtbosch

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyers, Indiana
> Puritan Reformed Seminary (Joel Beeke's)
> 
> But I'd still come to Jackson.
> 
> (Still hatin' the game, not tha playa)




Does anyone know anything more about Puritan Reformed Seminary?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by jtbosch_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyers, Indiana
> Puritan Reformed Seminary (Joel Beeke's)
> 
> But I'd still come to Jackson.
> 
> (Still hatin' the game, not tha playa)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know anything more about Puritan Reformed Seminary?
Click to expand...


From all I have heard, it is the best seminary around in the US today.

http://www.hnrc.org/gr/Ministries/PRTS/prts.html


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What is "By Oath Consigned" about?



Covenant and Baptism. WEbmaster has some stuff on Kline on his website.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What is "By Oath Consigned" about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's about... time I got rid of it. Glad there was someone to take Kline out of my house
Click to expand...


 99%


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What is "By Oath Consigned" about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's about... time I got rid of it. Glad there was someone to take Kline out of my house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 99%
Click to expand...


Speaking of that, out of curiosity, what ever came of that exclusive discussion between you two on the second commandment? I don't want to bring it here, but I had to ask upon your mention of the percentage.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Gotcha.


----------



## ARStager

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Wouldn't recommend Covenant for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the professor of philosophy, Meek, wrote a HORRID book on epistemology that I must force myself to go through.
Click to expand...


Paul,

I'm new (Hi everyone). I'm curious what you detest about Meek's book. I've been skimming it over break - and don't know any better. 

As a side note, I think WTS California is really cool, and I think I'll end up there if God also thinks so. And, if my wife thinks so...but not in a conditional sense...nevermind.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> it died down and then got picked up in the poll thread on immages (6 pages). I think we just have to agree to disagree... at this point.



Yeah. But that's OK.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Wouldn't recommend Covenant for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the professor of philosophy, Meek, wrote a HORRID book on epistemology that I must force myself to go through.
Click to expand...



Dr Meek is not at Covenant Seminary.


----------



## openairboy

As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area. Men like Jack Collins, Hans Byer, and, in a sense, Jarrem Barrs are worth their weight in gold.

Two, I believe the students are thoroughly confused. For starters, they come from all different back grounds, but most seem to be from parachurch ministries or, at least, RUF (myself not an exception). I think this is what Dr Chapell and others are after, however, to their fault, I believe. They are way too accomodating. The students due to the professors, I believe, are becoming more and more seeker sensitive in a "culturally relevant" sort of way. This is due to Jerram's influence (and "grace centered" ministry). I think he is a very, very godly man, but his philosophy and wanna-be-Schaeffer approach isn't very helpful and will be hurtful in the long run. The students do not learn how to do apologetics in his "apologetics and outreach" class, but become consumned with "engaging the culture", which I have interpreted as basically saying, "there is a lot of good in your Buddhism, Atheism, etc., but the real fulfillment of that is in Jesus." Schaeffer would "take the roof off", but the students never seek or learn to do that.

Third, the students are kind of loose (at least many of hte single students). I wasn't an exception to this. I'm sure it may be the experience of some or many, but I think I "desanctified" during my time there. I don't blame the school per se, but there is a general aura of looseness. Part of it, I believe, was the work of Satan, and it came in the suttle words of "grace". There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth. Chapell is way, way, way too influenced by Sonship and that is damaging to sanctification.

Fourth, I did learn quite a bit while I was there, and enjoyed St Louis. There are ample PCA churches to choose from and the community on the campus is very, very good. If you have a family, I couldn't recommend a better school and city.

If you would like more info, please u2u me, and can give more information.

openairboy

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## ARStager

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den [of] vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area.
> 
> ...I "desanctified" during my time there... There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth.



First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment? I'm new to South Carolina and only a Freshman -- okay, a Sophomore -- Presbyterian. There are 3 pastors at my church that have graduated from Covenant, and while RTS Charlotte is geographically closer, and while DeWitt has more ties with Jackson than anywhere, Covenant doesn't get a bad rap, at least at my church. 

Second, I'm sorry to hear about the "desanctifying" effect of your time at CTS. But I will say this: If I don't find some classmates and even professors at the seminary I end up at who will go to the pub and talk about sanctification and culture and church over Guiness and a stogey, I'm going to be very disappointed.


----------



## ARStager

From the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary main page:


> Several seminaries in North America today teach Reformed doctrine, but few such institutions have a deep respect for Reformed, experiential preaching. By experiential preaching, we mean Christ-centered preaching which stresses that, for salvation, sinners must have a personal, experiential, Spirit-worked knowledge of Christ (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 1:30), and, by extension, of all the great truths of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Thus we stress, as the Puritans did, that the Holy Spirit causes the objective truths about Christ and His work to be experienced in the heart of sinners.


I can't exactly put my finger on why, but this description makes me a bit nervous, and seems to smack of revivalistic pietism in some sort of way. Of course our religion is something we _experience_ and not simply reflect upon -- Vos makes the point that to have a faith in abstract reality is to be Hellenistic, not Hebrew, in your understanding of knowledge. I just wonder if the method (and that word, of course, brings a lot of pietistic thoughts to mind) focuses on holiness as such an IMMEDIATE end that it might eschew the ONLY means to that end, namely, the objective fact of the gospel.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by openairboy_ I did learn quite a bit while I was there, and enjoyed St Louis. If you have a family, I couldn't recommend a better school and city.



I think St. Louis is a wonderful city. I lived near the city for many years, have relatives and friends there, and, of course, have been there many times. 

I'd LOVE to move back to the area!


----------



## ARStager

I would love to live in St. Louis---that way I'd be sure to have Lutheran friends to pub with.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> I would love to live in St. Louis---that way I'd be sure to have Lutheran friends to pub with.



Not too much into pubs myself, but I know Lutherans in St. Louis who are! Some are relatives!


----------



## ARStager

Regardless of whether you KNOW Lutherans in St. Louis who like to pub, I'm sure they're ubiquitous.

"Excuse me sir, are you Lutheran?"

"Yes"

"Shall we?"


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> Regardless of whether you KNOW Lutherans in St. Louis who like to pub, I'm sure they're ubiquitous.
> 
> "Excuse me sir, are you Lutheran?"
> 
> "Yes"
> 
> "Shall we?"



"Of course, there's a nice one just down the street."


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment?



It's a Greenville reference.


----------



## ARStager

Right. Thanks. 

Would you guys think me a fool for being <2 hrs. from Greenville and carting my wife off to Southern California for Seminary? 

Also, someone please tell me what they thought of the PRTS quote above and my comments on it.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> From the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary main page:
> 
> 
> 
> Several seminaries in North America today teach Reformed doctrine, but few such institutions have a deep respect for Reformed, experiential preaching. By experiential preaching, we mean Christ-centered preaching which stresses that, for salvation, sinners must have a personal, experiential, Spirit-worked knowledge of Christ (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 1:30), and, by extension, of all the great truths of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Thus we stress, as the Puritans did, that the Holy Spirit causes the objective truths about Christ and His work to be experienced in the heart of sinners.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't exactly put my finger on why, but this description makes me a bit nervous, and seems to smack of revivalistic pietism in some sort of way. Of course our religion is something we _experience_ and not simply reflect upon -- Vos makes the point that to have a faith in abstract reality is to be Hellenistic, not Hebrew, in your understanding of knowledge. I just wonder if the method (and that word, of course, brings a lot of pietistic thoughts to mind) focuses on holiness as such an IMMEDIATE end that it might eschew the ONLY means to that end, namely, the objective fact of the gospel.
Click to expand...


Andrew,

You could not be more wrong. This is not pietism. It is Biblical Christianity. It is not friendly to the revisionistic, name-calling objectivists who seek to make baptism a converting ordinance and the lack of egregious sin the sign of a Christian.

Also, I believe if Vos were alive today and knew how his comment has been taken to extremes by the "Hebrew, good! Greek bad!" (think sheep from Animal Farm) crowd, he would never have made it.


----------



## Ivan

quote] Several seminaries in North America today teach Reformed doctrine, but few such institutions have a deep respect for Reformed, experiential preaching. By experiential preaching, we mean Christ-centered preaching which stresses that, for salvation, sinners must have a personal, experiential, Spirit-worked knowledge of Christ (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 1:30), and, by extension, of all the great truths of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Thus we stress, as the Puritans did, that the Holy Spirit causes the objective truths about Christ and His work to be experienced in the heart of sinners. [/quote]

Whatever the statement may be, it sounds wonderful to me.


----------



## ARStager

> It is not friendly to the revisionistic, name-calling objectivists who seek to make baptism a converting ordinance and the lack of egregious sin the sign of a Christian.



Fred-

Thanks for your comments. Could you restate this so I can understand it?


----------



## ARStager

I agree with your comment about Vos and the abuse of his statement, by the way.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> 
> 
> 
> It is not friendly to the revisionistic, name-calling objectivists who seek to make baptism a converting ordinance and the lack of egregious sin the sign of a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred-
> 
> Thanks for your comments. Could you restate this so I can understand it?
Click to expand...


Andrew,

It has become a sport in certain "Reformed" circles - namely those at Reformed Catholicism and in those involved in the so called Auburn 4 (although I don't think I have heard Steve Wilkins make any such comments - to his credit), especially Wilson and Schlissel, and in pro-Norman Shepherd circles to criticize the Puritans in general and their experimental (experiential) approach to theology and Scripture as "pietistic," "Gnostic," "baptistic," etc. as if such comments were a silver bullet.

You can get more information on this (I believe) from John DeWitt (your pastor, I believe) who is a solid stalwart of the faith. I know this not because I know John, but I am good friends with a disciple of his (and former intern/assistant pastor), Ken Pierce.


----------



## ARStager

Fred:

Thanks a lot for elaborating. I have lots of Lutheran friends, and, as I'm learning, they tend to recoil at nearly any mention of "experience" being the mark of true piety. I was LCMS for 10yrs. This board will be good for me in that it might help to distill out my crypto-Lutheranism. Or maybe this scepticism on experiential preaching (this is admittedly the first time I've heard the phrase proper) isn't precicely a rub-off of Lutheranism. 

I had no idea that those Auburn and related folk were raising similar suspicions . 

I'll take your advice and flag down Dr. DeWitt for some perspective on this.


----------



## Breadloaf

What does anyone know about Knox Seminary in Florida?

-JK


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> From the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary main page:
> 
> 
> 
> Several seminaries in North America today teach Reformed doctrine, but few such institutions have a deep respect for Reformed, experiential preaching. By experiential preaching, we mean Christ-centered preaching which stresses that, for salvation, sinners must have a personal, experiential, Spirit-worked knowledge of Christ (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 1:30), and, by extension, of all the great truths of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Thus we stress, as the Puritans did, that the Holy Spirit causes the objective truths about Christ and His work to be experienced in the heart of sinners.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't exactly put my finger on why, but this description makes me a bit nervous, and seems to smack of revivalistic pietism in some sort of way. Of course our religion is something we _experience_ and not simply reflect upon -- Vos makes the point that to have a faith in abstract reality is to be Hellenistic, not Hebrew, in your understanding of knowledge. I just wonder if the method (and that word, of course, brings a lot of pietistic thoughts to mind) focuses on holiness as such an IMMEDIATE end that it might eschew the ONLY means to that end, namely, the objective fact of the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> You could not be more wrong. This is not pietism. It is Biblical Christianity.
Click to expand...


Some may put me in the "objective-esque" camp, but I bit my tongue when I initially read Andrew's words, b/c I wanted to think about them. It was this aspect of Christianity that I think I was essentially missing at CTS. There is a type of sanctification promoted, but it is way to Sonshippy and soft, in my opinion. Ryle is far from everyone's mind as are the Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Thomas Manton, Thomas Goodwin, etc.

I was thinking about it today and saying to myself, "If we practically take the Puritans seriously (experiential religion and actively pursueing the Lord), not just 'theologically', then Covenant isn't the place to attend." Yet, I thoroughly enjoyed the people and my time, despite my sins, so it is a mixed review. Maybe it is a lot like a family. I can call out my brother or sister, but if anyone else says something about them, then I get irritated and ticked off.

Honestly, I couldn't have imagined going anywhere else, and I ironically keep recommending it to others.

openairboy


----------



## Puritanhead

RTS Virtual is where you go if you are loaded up with student loans and have to work full-time and goto seminary part-time


----------



## ARStager

Speaking of "virtual" seminaries.

What do you folks think of this as an educational innovation? Good or harmful? Or not necessarily either? 

I know that WSC folks are highly critical of anything that smells like minister-degree-by-mail-order. No cariactures from me. Just curiosities.

I tend to think that a traditional residency is ideal, for theology is supposed to happen within the context of the church rather than individually. Obviously no degree is essentially "individual", virtually-earned or not.


----------



## Myshkin

wsw201 and openairboy-

I have stumbled a bit over the statements on Covenant Seminary. I live in the area and have desired to attend there ever since I came to calvinistic persuasions. I have heard some of the professors preach a couple of times, read some of their books, and do not understand the criticisms. I have not had much personal interaction with these men and am just starting to make connections in the PCA world in this area, but the preaching of some of these men has brought me out of a "reformed"/antinomian environment I unknowingly got into as an overreaction to the arminian/moralism/legalism I was converted out of. In my experience, albeit limited, the criticisms don't stick. But I am more than willing to be further informed if it is in the best interest of my further education and sanctification. I would like some more specific examples and evidence as to what exactly is "going wrong"with the seminary, doctrinally and practically, not just personal experiences. For any information that should remain private/unposted, please u2u me. This has caused a slight struggle for me now, as I am confused about what to think. Again, I am open to learning the truth so that I may make the most informed decision I can in seeking God's will in this matter.

Thank you.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by RAS]

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by RAS]

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by RAS]


----------



## JOwen

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> GPTS is where you go if you if you're an RTS Jackson type of guy who additionally doesn't care if he can get a job upon graduation.
> [Edited on 30-12-2004 by SolaScriptura]



What a strange comment. I know more grads from this school WITH jobs in the ministry than without.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen

> _Originally posted by jtbosch_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyers, Indiana
> Puritan Reformed Seminary (Joel Beeke's)
> 
> But I'd still come to Jackson.
> 
> (Still hatin' the game, not tha playa)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know anything more about Puritan Reformed Seminary?
Click to expand...


yep. What would you like to know?

Jerrold


----------



## Myshkin

wsw201?
openairboy?


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> Speaking of "virtual" seminaries.
> 
> What do you folks think of this as an educational innovation? Good or harmful? Or not necessarily either?
> 
> I know that WSC folks are highly critical of anything that smells like minister-degree-by-mail-order. No cariactures from me. Just curiosities.
> 
> I tend to think that a traditional residency is ideal, for theology is supposed to happen within the context of the church rather than individually. Obviously no degree is essentially "individual", virtually-earned or not.



I am having a hard time dealing with this subject myself. On the one hand, I really do see the point that brick and mortar seminaries are making. They can't really evaluate you, nor do you get the kind of one on one teaching that really helps. They are also right when they make the claim that some men take advantage of the distance model so that they can get their degree easy and without much work on their part.

However, I am working hard. I study just as much as the resident students. I work a 40 hour a week job to provide for my family, which some of them may or may not do. I have opportunities with my home church to minister and apply what I learn. Some residents have very limited opportunity in that area. I am being mentored by, In my humble opinion, two of the best ministers in the OPC, whereas if I moved to residency, I would not have these men as guides.

For me, I am torn between two philosophies. I know I am losing out on the personal experiences that only residency can provide. But on the same token, if I moved to residency, I may lose out on a very rich experience in my local church.

I exhorted last night for the first time, surrounded by my brothers and sisters who love me and want to help me in this endeavor, and I must say, I would lose something very valuable if I had to move to SC. Or perhaps, I could still remain in this type of relationship, only from a distance. I know it is feasible for me to come back and do monthly exhortations, but I would still miss out on the day to day ministry experiences.

Even as I type this, I know that I may have to move. My family and I are making plans so that if the time comes, we will do it. Part of the reason for this is because I keep hitting roadblocks and feel that I am very much "outside looking in" at most of what happens at GPTS.

I wish I could have both.

However, God trains the man, not the seminary. He does indeed use means, and the seminary and professors are part of that. But I trust in Him to do what is best for me. Only He knows what He has called me to do. So I will wait on Him.

I think there is value that may not be measured in training a man in the local church. I hope that brick and mortar seminaries will never lose sight of this.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## smallbeans

I've read with interest the comments here on Covenant Seminary. I graduated from there in 99 and had a great experience. I had to work a lot during my seminary training, so I wasn't quite as much a part of the on-campus life as I would have liked, but still I was very impressed. Here are some of the high points:

1. The faculty is very mature - I never heard a teacher say an ill thing about another teacher in class or out of class.
2. The emphasis on Christ, salvation by grace through faith, humility, etc. was very inspiring and convicting.
3. The focus is on the Bible - systematic theology classes are very exegetically focused; where things can't be known for certain, the professors are humble, and where they can be certain, you can bet you'll be seeing detailed exegesis on why that is the case.
4. It is the official seminary of the PCA, and so if you are headed to minister in the PCA, it is nice to contribute to the official channel for ministry training. We have so many cultures of belief in the PCA; it probably promotes the unity of the church when its pastors are formed in a common educational environment. Of course, the training other seminaries provide, and their geographical locations, makes them important too. But in general, it would seem to me that someone training for ministry in the PCA would want to go to the official seminary that answers to the denomination.
5. St. Louis has a wonderful variety of PCA churches - some with formal liturgy, church plants, contemporary sorts of services, multi-lingual churches, etc. It is really an amazing place that allows you to get exposure to many different ministries and see a lot of gifts that the PCA has. I, of course, wish there could be greater sharing of those gifts across all the churches, but that's where we are, and St. Louis is a great place to experience this. 
6. St. Louis has a wonderful variety of educational resources - throught he "inter-university" program you can take classes at all the universities in town for Covenant credit. In seminary, I took a course on Anselm from Eleanore Stump over at St. Louis University. She is a famous philosopher of religion and the course was very helpful to me in deciding whether to pursue philosophy or theology for my Ph.D. work.
7. St. Louis is the Midwest - it has the best of all worlds - south, east, west, north. I am from Mississippi, and though I visited and liked RTS-Jackson, I thought it would be good to get out to another region of the country for a while and it has been a real blessing.

A few responses to concerns expressed here

Someone mentioned the maturity of the students and how a Ryle kind of piety is not emphasized. I would point to several resources on this issue - go to covenantseminary.edu and search the audio resources for Bryan Chapell's lecture "Profile of Today's Evangelical Church". It is a wonderful analysis of the state of evangelicalism and especially interesting here because he discusses the kinds of students they are seeing these days - many are converted in college, have very little understanding of traditional piety, but have a heart to serve others. The challenge is there, as is the promise, and so it shows that he is very aware of the potential dangers with license.

Apologetics classes. It is true that Jerram Barrs does not focus on methodology, but given that so little time in seminary can be devoted to apologetics - there is a whole bible to learn, theology to learn, languages to learn, preaching to learn, etc. - I think he takes a very helpful approach of trying to tame the inner Bahnsens that a lot of young men come to seminary with. Most of us will be in communities, ministering one-to-one with very mixed-up individuals. With them, apologetics will look more like "counseling for unbelief" than it will some kind of staged apologetical encounter. And so I don't fault Covenant for the approach it takes. And the library is full of books by Van Til 

Anyway, I loved my time at covenant and think that anyone considering seminary should visit and take a hard look at it. It is a great place to learn the nature of a servant's heart and grow into a helpful and effective minister of God's word. If you are simply interested in taking extension courses, a lot of the community does this, and Covenant has had a great impact on ministers in other denominations who come for extra training (usually their denominations do not require as much education as the PCA does) and who know Covenant is a place where, even if they disagree with the PCA, the bible is honored and taught faithfully. So in some of my classes, there were local Methodist ministers, Baptist ministers, etc. who were edging closer to Calvinism with every course they took. Pretty neat, really.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Breadloaf_
> Okay, hi all. After a year and a half at Gordon Conwell I finally decided that as a Westminster guy, I have had enough of the "general evangelical" flavor of GCTS. Yes, I know that every Christian is not reformed or Presbyterian, and now it's time to move on. I'm all defence but no offence.
> 
> SO:
> 
> It has come down to :
> 
> RTS in Orlando or Jackson
> Covenant.
> 
> Anything else I should be considering? Can anyone contrast the three seminaries?
> 
> We are looking for a (biblical) counseling program that my wife can be a part of, and we are looking for a local PCA church that is interested in being involved with their member's training in ministry.
> 
> Thanks. I know that I'm kind of  on this one.
> 
> God moves, we move.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> 
> JK
> PCA
> Boston MA



My arguments against Covenant can be summed up in two words: St. Louis. 'Nuff said.

On the RTS side of the ball, the school has a very good counseling program (at the Jackson campus). RTS also sports the recently beatified Fred Greco.  (Inside joke--he was recently featured in an RTS quarterly.)

Jackson also offers you First Pres. Ligon Duncan is one of the finest Presbyterian ministers in the nation (and adjunct faculty!) and the church readily uses seminarians in various ministry capacities.

RTS also has very good student housing in Jackson.

Jackson has a high crime rate, but its still liveable, especially in the suburbs.

Covenant...hmmm...I can't get beyond the St. Louis thing.

Seriously though, be prepared. RTS does NOT participate in the student loan program (Covenant does). There are scholarship funds available, but you might want to consider it.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> JK,
> 
> I would be remiss if I did not advise you to come to RTS Jackson. Jackson does have a very well known counselling program (Marriage & Family Therapy Program), although in all honesty I can't endorse it. It is sort of the center of Anti-Nouthetic counselling in the US.
> 
> But what I can do is suggest a visit!



90% of pastoral counseling can be handled by pointing out that a person's (unrepented of) sin is lying at the heart of the issue.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Covenant is where you go if you're an evangelical-who-happens-to-baptize-babies kind of presbyterian.
> RTS Orlando is where you go if you're a pretty-boy, avante guarde type of guy.
> RTS Jackson is where you go if you're angry and bitter at everyone else for being "less faithful" to the WCF than you.
> GPTS is where you go if you if you're an RTS Jackson type of guy who additionally doesn't care if he can get a job upon graduation.
> WTS PA is where you go if you've got a thing for "has beens."
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> Please note: the above analysis is meant to be taken as at least slightly humorous. No serious offense is intended.
> 
> [Edited on 30-12-2004 by SolaScriptura]



Ben,

This must be why I am burned in effigy here on a weekly basis!


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> What is GPTS?



Isn't that gadget that helps keep you from getting lost?


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the replies. What exactly is the "good faith" subscription, and why do you find it so negative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good faith subscription is the position of the PCA regarding the ordination vows (specifically the vows concerning subscription to the Westminster Standards) a Teaching Elder makes. Basically its a "loose" subscription position. Loose subscription allows for a number of exceptions to the Standards and historically has lead to aberrant theology coming into the Church.
Click to expand...


In your opinion...


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den [of] vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area.
> 
> ...I "desanctified" during my time there... There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment? I'm new to South Carolina and only a Freshman -- okay, a Sophomore -- Presbyterian. There are 3 pastors at my church that have graduated from Covenant, and while RTS Charlotte is geographically closer, and while DeWitt has more ties with Jackson than anywhere, Covenant doesn't get a bad rap, at least at my church.
> 
> Second, I'm sorry to hear about the "desanctifying" effect of your time at CTS. But I will say this: If I don't find some classmates and even professors at the seminary I end up at who will go to the pub and talk about sanctification and culture and church over Guiness and a stogey, I'm going to be very disappointed.
Click to expand...


Jackson has a good Irish pub that is an RTS haunt. Pipes are in vogue here. 

But a good point was raised it is not unique to Covenant. One's walk with Christ can truly suffer in seminary. It's ironic and sad.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> RTS Virtual is where you go if you are loaded up with student loans and have to work full-time and goto seminary part-time



AND you don't mind that you can't get a degree out of your efforts (and dollars)!


----------



## refbaptdude

[[/quote] AND you don't mind that you can't get a degree out of your efforts (and dollars)! [/quote]

Now that is not true

I am only about 6 classes away from having my MA from virtual.

I am currently finishing Christian History II with Dr. Richard Gamble and it was an online course. I see and hear the professor and the class is able to respond over the net with mics and cameras on their computers. In fact it is real cool!

I can take a live online class and then go downstairs and have dinner with my family. 

For His Supremacy,
Steve Clevenger


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> wsw201?
> openairboy?



RAS,

I can only go on what I know from people I know who attended Covenant. The comments they have made about the status of Covenant are along the lines that Keith mentioned. Covenant appeals to a more broadly Reformed cirriculum.


----------



## smallbeans

RAS - the only thing I'd point out is that Covenant is the official seminary of the denomination you're pursuing membership in. The fact that it is not "sectarian" (as in choosing one stream of the Reformed tradition to emphasize over others) is really a virtue and not a problem. The Westminster Confession itself was a kind of summation and aggregation of a wide stream of reformed thought and has been embraced by a wide variety of reformed folks. The PCA itself is a fairly big tent, I think we'd all agree. Plus, most students really need the basics and these are not as easily subject to narrowness. I mean, if you do an M.Div in three or four years, you've still only scratched the surface of the huge field of doctrine, scripture, church history, etc. One should hardly feel like a confident, competent controversialist after an M.Div. So the fact that your professors at Covenant will shy away from intramural debates and focus on the material at hand will really be a virtue for those seeking to minister to others. Sometimes I think young men (pot kettle black here), especially are prone to get interested in theology *via* controversy. But that is a kind of backwards way of getting at divine things. I think the more one learns, the humbler one should become (because now you know how much there is to learn and how much you really have no nope of mastering) and that should result in one being more reticent to seek a narrower expression of Reformational thought. There are non-negotiables, surely, and you'll get those at Covenant without a doubt. But there are easily three if not more years of essentials to cover in an M.Div. curriculum before one should really think about devoting significant time to controversy over the things that distinguish one stream of reformed thought from another. In summary, if you're not concerned about joining the PCA, then it would stand to reason that you shouldn't be concerned about taking a few classes here and there from its official seminary. The denomination and the seminary mirror each other in many ways, and you of course would need to be a Berean at any seminary.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> [


 AND you don't mind that you can't get a degree out of your efforts (and dollars)! [/quote]

Now that is not true

I am only about 6 classes away from having my MA from virtual.

I am currently finishing Christian History II with Dr. Richard Gamble and it was an online course. I see and hear the professor and the class is able to respond over the net with mics and cameras on their computers. In fact it is real cool!

I can take a live online class and then go downstairs and have dinner with my family. 

For His Supremacy,
Steve Clevenger [/quote]

If that's the case, then I was unaware of it. Let me assure you, one cannot get the MDiv virutally. We have plenty of students who take the occaional onlince course to dodge certain professors but that will be changing next academic year. The shcool has decided that scholarship dollars cannot be spent on virtual classes nor do virtual classes count towards needed hours for financial assistance. One gets the idea that the school is *discouraging* virtual seminary, which from a marketing perspective, is a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## fredtgreco

You can get an MA from RTS Virtual.

You cannot get an MDiv from RTS Virtual.

Almost every Presbytery in the PCA (and OPC) will require an MDiv, and an MA is not enough.

You can, however, get the MA Virtually, and then complete the rest of the work toward an MDiv on campus.

RTS is discouraging Virtual work by resident MDiv students. They are still encouraging those who cannot come to a campus to do work virtually.


----------



## refbaptdude

Fred,

You are correct

The MA degree is what I am working toward not the MDiv. And I am not presbyterian but Reformed Baptist

The Washington DC satellite in the future hopes to offer the MDiv and I might be able to transfer my hours.

Grace to You,
Steve


----------



## Archlute

JK,

Here's my take on WTS/CA.

1. As far as the biblical counseling practice goes, you'll have a solid exposure to it here. George Scipione directs the local counseling scene and gives instruction at the seminary every winter and summer semester. There are three main courses offered, which can be taken during your three successive winter terms: Intro to Biblical Counseling, Marriage and Family Counseling, and Advanced Counseling Issues. Along with this, you can sign up to be an observer at live counseling sessions for a semester. These are run through the local IBCD program (Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship), and if you show up to all of them and engage in the weekly post counseling discussion (including critiquing the method of the counselor!) you can gain a couple of credits, I believe. You may also study and test for a certificate/license (or something of that nature) from the National Association of Nuothetic Counselors. His wife, and other trained women, have seminars during the year aimed specifically at training pastor's wives and women in the church. They run seminars during the year in local OPC/PCA congregations as well.

They focus heavily on critiquing non-biblical approaches to pastoral counseling (i.e. the mix of humanistic-naturalism and pop-psychology that is found in so many of the evangelical churches that we've attended in the past), yet are much more balanced in this than their critics would paint them. The authors read and discussed are Jay Adams, Wayne Mack, Ted Tripp, Ed Welch, and David Powlison. Very Christ centered, very biblically based, and very practical for real world application. They don't mince words about the nature of sin either, which is why so many compromised "Christian counselors" wince at their writings. Look into it. You can probably write IBCD for more info.

2. I admit that the school is not as strictly confessional as I would like, it does however smack WTS/PA in most areas where the latter has become more broadly evangelical, and loose in its theological formulation regarding evangelistic methods, etc. The reason for the confessional down playing which occurs at times at WTS/CA is due to, in my opinion, the fact that although it sets itself forth as a strongly confessional seminary it contains a mixed faculty. By this I mean that there is a sizeable proportion of faculty from Dutch churches (URCNA) that hold to the Three Forms of Unity as their standards. This creates a tension, because although in theory they are compatible reformed documents, you start focusing on the Westminster Standards exclusively and the other side feels slighted. Because of this there is not as systematic a study of these documents as you might find at Greenville. Although they do offer a confessional study of the WFC/3FU in alternate years.

3. Notable Faculty:

Hywel Jones - absolutely outstanding preaching courses, right-hand man of the late Lloyd-Jones.
David Van Drunen - a monster Systematician
Brian Estelle - studied Ancient Semitic Languages with one of the world's top Hebraists.
Dennis Johnson - one of the most humble men I've met; excellent exegete an teacher of pastoral theology 
Scott Clark - excellent historical theologian (I think he knows his Vulgate better than his Greek and Hebrew); a man of convictions who does not step down when he has an axe to grind (although occassionally this gets ground on wayward students)
Robert Godfrey - I've heard several other reformed seminary presidents/faculty say that he is the best church historian you can get a seminary institution.

There are others of note, but my time is short.

By the way, don't get too hyped over Mike Horton. He may know his stuff in certain areas, but his theology is suspect to me. He is way too enamored with Barthians and "post-liberal" writers, and this comes out in his critique of certain reformed theologians. His views on the inerrancy and infallability of the Scriptures are at times very fuzzy, and a cause of concern to a number of students. And when you get a prof at an otherwise conservative school insisting that you must incorporate "gender-inclusive" style into your papers and essay exams (yes, we had no small debate over this) in order to be understood and have your writings accepted, well, you get my point. Put your head in liberal academic circles for too long, and you'll come out smelling like your friends.

I would say that if an accredited degree is important to you and you like rigorous academics, take WTS/CA. If you desire a more Old School Presbyterian school that values its history, the Westminster Standards, and has more biblical views on what the role of seminary education is in regards to the church (and what is allowed of women who may study there) take Greenville; although I don't know if they have a biblical counseling program. We came within a hair's breadth of going to Greenville, but the doors opened to WTS/CA instead. It's a great school, just very expensive to live down here. 

Also, the languages are stressed here. You must pass all of your first year Greek and Hebrew courses, because they incorporate the languages heavily into the subsequent biblical studies. Very nicely integrated - and you can take Aramaic and Latin while you're at it! 



[Edited on 4-18-2005 by Archlute]


----------



## Myshkin

I am gaining an understanding of the practical concerns with Covenant. It seems to me that the practical concerns are subjective, seeing as schooling is alot about what you make of it and whther you are a determined hard-working student who is responsible for his holiness and education before God. And it seems to me that the primary source of sanctifying fellowship is in the context of the local church, to be supported by the seminary, not vice versa. If one's spirituality falls during seminary, is that the seminarys fault, the persons fault, or the local church's fault? Or maybe the better option is God in his providence is working in one's life in a way to bring them more and more to him and less and less to their own efforts. I know in my own life, I go through spiritual downs, and usually realize it was due to me depending on my own efforts or the efforts of others in some corner of my heart. Again and again I am reminded that my motivation for holiness is Christ, not for social standing or simply just to be holy as an end in itself. (I'm not attacking anyone in this paragraph, just personally sharing my thoughts)


But what are the supposed doctrinal deficiencies? I know that they came out last year against the NPP teachings. This is my biggest question, because of those who I have engaged in personal face-to-face conversations with on this, they have told me that Covenant is implicitly apostate. But this criticism came from people who thought independency from the entire church at large was "reformed", and that a church wasn't reformed unless it held to supralapsarian calvinism and the philosophy and theology of Gordon Clark, so understandably I have a tendency to take criticism of Covenant with a grain of salt. Specifically what doctrines do they deny that renders them broadly reformed, or broadly evangelical as others I think have said. If easier, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most doctrinally pure and 1 being apsotate, where would you rank Covenant? The other seminaries like RTS, WTS, and GPTS?


----------



## smallbeans

Sadly, RAS, I think that sometimes when an institution gets criticized for not being reformed enough, the upshot is that they are not banging the reformed gong loudly enough. In other words, they may believe all the right things, but they are not as strident as they should be.

Further, it is always wise to think "by what standard?" when someone criticizes Covenant. By the standards of an exclusive psalmist, strict subscriptionist, nouthetic-only counseling perspective, yes, Covenant might be deficient. But by the standards of the PCA and the concerns for the fundamentals - inerrancy, justification by faith, etc. - Covenant is great and very reformed. The professors at Covenant have so much to offer - each having strengths in various areas. The bottom line is that seminary training is packed full of content and there simply isn't time in your average M.Div. curriculum to do more than equip a student to be a lifelong learner in the reformed tradition. The M.Div. is at its heart a professional degree, more akin to a Law Degree or a Medical Degree than a Ph.D. 

I also would recommend thinking hard about the nature of the big concerns that the more conservative members of the PCA have. Consider nouthetic counseling, for example. I was just sure, before going to seminary, that it was the only way to go. And then I read a debate between the counseling prof from RTS, Hurley, the new-nouthetic guy from WTS, Powlison, and perhaps Crabb on the issue of Sola Scriptura and the methodology of counseling. It was an eye opening exchange, illustrating to me that Hurley, who is eclectic in his methodology of counseling, was very epistemologically aware of the issues, and very well equipped to defend his reasoning. Often times the "movements" in our circles are just over-corrections to very real problems. The church had something to learn from Jay Adams, no doubt. But I think in the end, these movements have to be tempered and appropriated wisely as one goes forward and isn't forced to be so dichotomous and "us and them" about the issue in question. So I don't think that criticism is always on target; most of the time it is an overreaction.

Look at the comments above criticizing Horton for requiring gender neutral language in papers. It isn't as if Horton is requiring gender neutral language for God the Father! So little things like that tend to get magnified. It is a phenomenon now that some students are more conservative than their reformed professors, and I think a lot of that has to do with the zeal of youth, the allure of easy answers, and allure of surety in a very fragmented world. I don't think everyone who nuances his or her answers or uses a more modern approach to the generic pronoun is comprising the faith.


----------



## Archlute

Jonathan,

The things that folk such as yourself belittle are very often the indicators of things to come. I have seen enough slippery slope action begun in this manner, which then blossom into larger problems, to not be timid about calling these things on the floor from the get go. For the same reason, my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for. By the way, papers in seminary should be judged by their form and argumentation, not on whether or not their style offends some segment of academic elites.

AJM


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for



You sound like you have a problem with your session that needs to be addressed by Presbytery. Trust me when I say the PCA is not heading in the direction you just mentioned.

And going to the OPC might get you obsorbed into the PCA again. Heheheh.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like you have a problem with your session that needs to be addressed by Presbytery. Trust me when I say the PCA is not heading in the direction you just mentioned.
> 
> And going to the OPC might get you obsorbed into the PCA again. Heheheh.
Click to expand...


Sadly Kevin,

Your PCA experience is a bit limited, and limited to its most conservative area - Mississippi. The things described above are happening.


----------



## smallbeans

I do think women reading scripture, liturgically, and women serving communion is a problem. I also think, though, that women in the PCA often have real trouble trying to figure out their role in the church. So it is a challenge to figure out what to do to encourage them, use their gifts, etc. while maintaining the right kind of scripturally guided liturgical role for women. I have a feeling that churches that experiment with this are not trying to actively promote a feminist agenda, but are groping toward trying to figure out how to model a view of the church that draws *a* line somewhere with women not being pastors, but that doesn't draw the line in such a way as to exclude women. Very few PCA churches, I would guess, are trying to violate the prohibition of women preaching or admonishing the congregation. My guess is that their view of the ministry is such that they don't see the scripture readings as being the ministry of the word. I do, of course. I remember talking to Dr. Paul Helm about this - he was surprised when I mentioned that it was a controversy in the PCA over whether women may perform the scripture readings. He himself is a very conservative person, but owing to his particular reformed baptist type of context in England could not immediately have sympathy for the view that the reading of the word of God publicly *is* a ministry of the word. And I think the BCO even goes farther, perhaps confining the reading to the pastor, not necessarily just to any male, but that is fuzzy in the text there.

In the churches I grew up in in Mississippi, the service was essentially a few hymns, an extemporaneous pastoral prayer, and the climax or center was a big sermon that usually concluded with something approaching an evangelistic call. There was no real overarching redemptive "story" to the service. Many churches are returning to the more classical pattern of having a call to worship, praise, confession of sins, confession of faith, reading of the scriptures, sermon, offering, communion, etc. In this kind of service, it is more coherently a redemptive story and the pastor's leading the congregation (rather than assorted laypeople) through the story makes more sense. In the more "elements" approach to the service, I can see why even a pious woman might think - hey, in this big unorganized string of unrelated events, what would be so bad about women helping out?

So, to my mind, the problem isn't so much a matter of what women vs. men should be doing in the service - it is a problem of what the pastor or pastors vs. laypeople should be doing in the service and what kind of service is it - a string of required events, or a redemptive story moving from call, through repentance, through instruction, through reconciliation and peace.

Now, to bring it back to slippery slopes, we have to ask ourselves whether it was really some decision made hundreds of years ago - about the place of the sermon, the structure of the service, the nature of the pastoral office, that isn't the real first step on that slope. In that light, having a woman serve communion may be a natural application of some step taken much earlier that no one envisioned being a problem.

Now, my own ecumenical disposition would be tested pretty heartily if my church were to have women leading worship, and so I don't blame you for joining an OPC church if the local PCA church was really violating your conscience. But at the same time, I think things like this often happen because of deeper deficiencies in our theology of worship or in our theology of the pastoral office, and not because PCA men are suddenly abandoning complementarianism and becoming egalitarian feminists. I would hope that we could work together on these issues rather than split too quickly.

In that vein (and to bring this back to the topic of seminaries), Covenant held a conference on women in ministry and there is an eight part recording of it you can download for free from covenantseminary.edu. Just go to their resources thing and type "women" in the title search and you'll find them. I would especially commend Dan Doriani's excellent work on this issue. His book "Women in the Church" is really phenomenal. He has thought through this so thorougly. A little background - his mother is an ordained minister and one time at Covenant, she sat in on one of his classes in which he was arguing against women ministers. It was really a tough test of his convictions, I'm sure. But wow, he knows the exegetical issues well, and his approach is very winsome and helpful. So right there is another good reason to go to Covenant - getting to know Doriani.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den [of] vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area.
> 
> ...I "desanctified" during my time there... There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment? I'm new to South Carolina and only a Freshman -- okay, a Sophomore -- Presbyterian. There are 3 pastors at my church that have graduated from Covenant, and while RTS Charlotte is geographically closer, and while DeWitt has more ties with Jackson than anywhere, Covenant doesn't get a bad rap, at least at my church.
> 
> Second, I'm sorry to hear about the "desanctifying" effect of your time at CTS. But I will say this: If I don't find some classmates and even professors at the seminary I end up at who will go to the pub and talk about sanctification and culture and church over Guiness and a stogey, I'm going to be very disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jackson has a good Irish pub that is an RTS haunt. Pipes are in vogue here.
> 
> But a good point was raised it is not unique to Covenant. One's walk with Christ can truly suffer in seminary. It's ironic and sad.
Click to expand...


On Campus, the ghetto as is known to most of us (on campus living residents) is our Pub and Pipes are definitly slim to none, I am the only one that smokes a pipe in the ghetto. Most others here smoke cigarettes, few cigars. 

P.S. The Ghetto is where none of the women, are so if you are single and don't care what women think...this is the place for you. In my case, I am happily dating someone, yet they don't live near hear.


----------



## fredtgreco

The main problem with the role of women in the Church in the PCA context is the patently absurd dictum that finds its genesis in St Louis:

"A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Archlute

Just to make things clear. Our decision to transition was based much more on our conservative theology of worship and covenantal education (esp. the use of catechising), and how those convictions work themselves out in the practice of the church. While appreciating much about the PCA, my family and I felt that our convictions were more in line, overall, with the tenor of the OPC (where we had been attenders for some time before coming to study here) and we made this move to preserve the peace of the churches, in addition to the well-being of our own consciences. I realize that this discussion diverges from the subject of the thread, but I wanted to make sure that nobody would take my comments as intending to slander fellow bretheren. Just divergent theological convictions in an area of great importance to us.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The main problem with the role of women in the Church in the PCA context is the patently absurd dictum that finds its genesis in St Louis:
> 
> "A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."



I dont originate from the PCA and have never been a part of one really. Is that really true? That scares me and makes me thankful that I am part of the MVP. Ah, if God would reveal to men and women their roles.


----------



## smallbeans

Yes, but look closer at the dictum:

"A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."

On its own, I don't see how you could really object to it so stridently - after all, it is a "slogan" and thus always says some things but can't say everything. Think of "sola scriptura" - it doesn't really stand on its own without explaining that we mean that the Bible is the norm of norms - it trumps all other authorities, not that there aren't other subordinate authorities.

So what does the dictum "a woman may do anything that an unordained man may do" actually mean when it is fleshed out?

a. The dictum is probably with respect to Sunday morning worship - Lord's day worship, a time when unordained people can't do too much on any Presbyterian interpretation of the scriptures.
b. A lot of the impact of the dictum depends upon what you believe that an unordained man may do in worship!
c. etc. - we'd have to think through this carefully

I just think that we should be slow to judge on the basis of slogans. After all, from what I've heard, RTS actually allows women in preaching classes and allows women to get M.Div. degrees, if I'm not mistaken. Covenant requires that women receive a non-ordination-route M.Div., and they take a substitute course for the preaching curiculum that instructs them in how to lead studies, etc.

Further, even that dictum itself may be okay as far as it goes, but could be criticized for not wisely portraying male headship in the church's liturgical contexts. In other words, you might think that the dictum is unwise, but calling it "absurd" is probably an overreaction.

I also would urge you to listen to the tapes from the conference. Listen to Doriani even speak about the wisdom of not allowing a woman to teach an informal bible study regularly if it means that she begins to acquire a spiritual authority in the church that could be disruptive.

Anyway, surely this is something we can have a peaceful disagreement about - some people have a very low view of the pastoral office, and thus obviously they are going to see places in worship where laypeople can contribute. The PCA does not require people to have a position on whether or not a woman can read the scriptures in church. I think it is unwise in a Sunday morning liturgical context, but I would hardly want to criticize another church for doing it.

I also think that women have a lot of room to criticize the PCA; we seem to know a lot more about what women shoudln't do in corporate worship than we do about what they should do at every other time. At least the Covenant conference took on this question in a biblical way - the best way to counter feminism is to be sure that women are encouraged to do what God has designed them to do, not to only harp on what God has not designed them to do. Right?


----------



## fredtgreco

Jonathan,

Let me cut to the chase:

Our standards (specifically the BCO here), which should be very familiar to those who espouse the slogan, specifically allow for an unordained man to preach. That is certain. In fact, we have an entire chapter in the BCO that touches on it: Licensure. Licensure is required for those men who *regularly* preach in a Presbytery. Every Presbytery has a threashold beneath which a man need not be licensed. And the semantic dodge of preach vs. exhort does not solve the problem; for otherwise it be a license to exhort regularly.

That is just one of the major issues in the PCA. As far as women reading Scripture, I would advise you to review the actions of the GA regarding the censure of a Presbytery (S. Florida, I believe) for having a woman read Scripture. But of course those who espouse this (not by any stretch limited to seminaries) ignore that action of the Church, as well as our practice for 500+ years.

I think I won't go any further than saying that there are a great many good men at Covenant (on the faculty and in the student body), and that there is much to be thankful for, but Covenant's general stand on men's and women's issues is not one of them. I know too much and am privy to too much to be persuaded otherwise at this point.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jonathan,
> 
> Let me cut to the chase:
> 
> Our standards (specifically the BCO here), which should be very familiar to those who espouse the slogan, specifically allow for an unordained man to preach. That is certain. In fact, we have an entire chapter in the BCO that touches on it: Licensure. Licensure is required for those men who *regularly* preach in a Presbytery. Every Presbytery has a threashold beneath which a man need not be licensed. And the semantic dodge of preach vs. exhort does not solve the problem; for otherwise it be a license to exhort regularly.
> 
> That is just one of the major issues in the PCA. As far as women reading Scripture, I would advise you to review the actions of the GA regarding the censure of a Presbytery (S. Florida, I believe) for having a woman read Scripture. But of course those who espouse this (not by any stretch limited to seminaries) ignore that action of the Church, as well as our practice for 500+ years.
> 
> I think I won't go any further than saying that there are a great many good men at Covenant (on the faculty and in the student body), and that there is much to be thankful for, but Covenant's general stand on men's and women's issues is not one of them. I know too much and am privy to too much to be persuaded otherwise at this point.



I'm scared! Does that make me effeminate? (Note: This post has no bearing on conversation, please disregard).


----------



## nobigdeal

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jonathan,
> 
> Let me cut to the chase:
> 
> Our standards (specifically the BCO here), which should be very familiar to those who espouse the slogan, specifically allow for an unordained man to preach. That is certain. In fact, we have an entire chapter in the BCO that touches on it: Licensure. Licensure is required for those men who *regularly* preach in a Presbytery. Every Presbytery has a threashold beneath which a man need not be licensed. And the semantic dodge of preach vs. exhort does not solve the problem; for otherwise it be a license to exhort regularly.
> 
> That is just one of the major issues in the PCA. As far as women reading Scripture, I would advise you to review the actions of the GA regarding the censure of a Presbytery (S. Florida, I believe) for having a woman read Scripture. But of course those who espouse this (not by any stretch limited to seminaries) ignore that action of the Church, as well as our practice for 500+ years.
> 
> I think I won't go any further than saying that there are a great many good men at Covenant (on the faculty and in the student body), and that there is much to be thankful for, but Covenant's general stand on men's and women's issues is not one of them. I know too much and am privy to too much to be persuaded otherwise at this point.



Hmmm... As one who has sat and listened to professors insist on this point, it is hard for me to believe reports that they are soft on the issue. (Beside, I thought Tim Keller was the source of the dictum so Westminster East, not Covenant, would be the "villian" if there is one.

My own experience with well-meaning, and godly, but I think mistaken "neo-patriarchialist" movements within the Reformed sub-culture tend to attract me to the dictum, Fred. I have been in situations where the only real office seemed to be that of a male, and the Pastor was supposed to organize rotating teaching opportunities for these men and over see this teaching. Typically, (not in my direct experience) one finds a great deal of denigration of the ordained ministry in some of these circles, in the name of "the priesthood of all believers" where the actual creed is the priesthood of all male believers. Any "clericalism" is seen as an ursurpation.

My attraction to the dictum is this: men will be more plausible in expecting submission from their wives if they themselves will show some submission to God's gifts to the Church: pastors and teachers. I like pointing out that most men have to submit as well.

For what it is worth:


----------



## smallbeans

Hi, Fred. I'm pretty sure Keller, or whoever espoused that dictum, probably didn't have in mind the idea to allow women to be licensed to preach, per BCO. In a kind of real way, an "unordained" man licensed to preach has some subspecies of ordination anyway - a calling to do a certain task that a woman may not be called to do.

As for your knowledge of behind the scenes matters, it is hard to discuss an issue if your evidence for a certain position can't be revealed. It is a bit like a "trust me, if you knew what I knew, you would agree." But the problem is that I don't apparently know what you know, so I have to go on publicly verifiable information. Plus, I was a student at Covenant for three years, so I got to know the faculty pretty well and was impressed with their stand on these issues. The people who teach on this issue are Doriani and Jones - NT and ethics, respectively. That's what's important - that the men who teach the issue have it right.

As for women reading scripture on Sunday Morning, you know I agree with the idea that this constitutes ministering the word and should not be done. But at the same time, the BCO says "or other qualified person" (or something like that) so it isn't as clear as it needs to be to cut off the practice for those who don't view it as ministering the word. I'll go check out the South Florida case.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> my family and I are currently leaving the PCA and transitioning to the OPC due to the push in many churches for women reading scripture and serving communion, a trend that many men in both denominations see as a harbinger of ills to come. This is a blurring of the ministerial office that, frankly, my session had no exegetical defense for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like you have a problem with your session that needs to be addressed by Presbytery. Trust me when I say the PCA is not heading in the direction you just mentioned.
> 
> And going to the OPC might get you obsorbed into the PCA again. Heheheh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly Kevin,
> 
> Your PCA experience is a bit limited, and limited to its most conservative area - Mississippi. The things described above are happening.
Click to expand...


Well, not just Mississippi...Colorado too . But I stand (sadly) corrected.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The main problem with the role of women in the Church in the PCA context is the patently absurd dictum that finds its genesis in St Louis:
> 
> "A woman may do anything that an unordained man may do."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont originate from the PCA and have never been a part of one really. Is that really true? That scares me and makes me thankful that I am part of the MVP. Ah, if God would reveal to men and women their roles.
Click to expand...


He has!


----------



## Romans922

O, then let those who have ears let them hear


----------



## Myshkin

just my ranting  :

It seems to me that it is being implied that the PCA is apostate or very close to it, without anyone wanting to explicitly say this. In other words it seems to be deep down feelings that are afraid to be directly stated in clear yes or no fashion. (just guessing) By others leaving I take this as an explicit form of saying "yes, the PCA IS apostate."

As a young reformed believer this leaves me in quite a dilemma. The only reformed churches in the area are PCA. Do I not join because the leaven of liberalism is spreading? This leaves me with the only other option of having "church" by myself in my own home. Obviously not a legitimate option.

It has been my experience in my short life as a reformed believer, that from the moment I came to this theology/circle, there has been little if any emphasis on discipling, making learners and followers of Christ, growing in teaching and application, experimental piety, etc. Rather, I am being thrown into the newest debate, or heresy discovery, or critique of a movement and then having to report whose side I am on, usually with issues that are so philosophical and nuanced it would take me years to understand, but feel like I have to decide on now so that I may have assurance of my salvation through finding acceptance with those who are on the "right" side. This is not to say that these things aren't immensely important, but it seems to me that as the liberals have tried to keep Christ while denying his truth, my reformed experience has shown me that others are so focused on Christ's teachings that they forget Him whose teachings they are. I want Christ's truth because I want Christ Himself. To divorce these two, or to reverse this order seems to me to be the heart of many errors today. 

As for the women thing, it's really confusing. I see women like JE Tada speaking to men at a Ligonier conference. And that's acceptable because it wasn't a sermon and it wasn't during Sunday worship. Yet others think, I assume, that even this is unacceptable. Liberalism at Ligonier than too. In my limited experience, the criticism about this women participation issue and the PCA seems to be misconstrued. I am all for excommunicating those who allow women to preach from the pulpit or lead a church in worship, etc. Out with liberalism, completely, please. But the criticism seems to go further than this. ANY women's roles are seen as liberalism by those I have talked with. The irony in this for me is that those who have personally said this to me were on the domineering/chauvinistic extreme right. I consider myself a complemetarian as do well known solidly reformed leaders in the Council for Biblical Man and Womanhood. In my experience even complementarians are considered liberals and therefore Covenant Seminary is liberal. If there are true egalitarians in the PCA, then lets correct them in discipline or move them out. In the PCA churches I have been in, there isn't even a hint of egalitarianism. Yet my old church, which was heavily on the domineering extreme right considers them to be so. I see this as the equivalent a hyper-calvinist saying we shouldn't evagelize at all, because if we do then it is a slippery slope towards arminianism. God's truth is thus confused with those who blur the truth, and thereby denied altogether. I think the art of distinguishing the truth of an issue from the abuse or misapplication of that truth, has been lost in so much of our thinking, mine included. When we settle this on a number of issues, I believe who is truly an apostate liberal, who is truly an apostate ultra-conservative pharisee, and who is balanced biblically and sytematically in God's entire counsel of His truth will be made more clear.

I have been labled non-reformed because I am not a presuppositionalist, Clarkian, or supralapsarian. My being a classicist, and infralapsarian is considered liberal/arminian/hypo-calvinist. It seems some would consider those who aren't psalms only singers to be flirting with liberalism, while I would disagree, and believe the contemporary "worship and praise" choruses to be liberal worldliness. I don't bring up these points for debate, but simply to express how the terms liberal and conservative seem to get thrown about without any solid and objective definitions, depending on who you talk to. And the changing meanings of words for each individual is postmodern liberalism. So maybe we could come up with an agreed upon unchanging definition of liberalism, and thereby avoid our own liberalism when accusing everyone else of liberalism.

So again, if it would help for the sake of clarity I would like to know on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being complete purity in doctrine, 1 being apostate, where would everyone rank Covenant Seminary? RTS, GPTS, WTSPA, WTSCA, etc.? THE PCA, OPC, URCNA, SBC, etc.? (if need be, maybe this would be an interesting anonymous poll)


[None of the above is meant as a challenge to anyone, just a general fleshing out of some of my thoughts and observations in personally trying to understand God's truth for my life and decisions I have to make relatively soon]






> [Fred said]_
> Your PCA experience is a bit limited, and limited to its most conservative area - Mississippi. The things described above are happening. _


_

My PCA experience is limited also. What about the St. Louis area and the PCA? Where are they on the liberal-conservative chart?



I'm feeling intellectually 


*disregard any comments in this post that have just previously been answered in above posts;they were posted during my writing of this post.

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by RAS]

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by RAS]_


----------



## wsw201

RAS,

I for one don't believe that the PCA is apostate. Does the PCA have its problems? you betcha! So does the OPC, URC and SBC. As Matthew Henry said "Where God builds His Church, the devil builds his chapel". I have been in the Presbyerian Church all my life and controversy and Reformed theology seem to go hand in hand. They don't call Presbyterians the "split P's" for nothing!

I think the negative reaction to the role of women in the church revolves around what happened to the PCUSA at the turn of the 20th century when liberalism came into the Church. As a part of that intrusion was what would be the role of women. They first started out as deacons then pastors. FYI, there are PCA churches who have "commissioned" deaconesses. Its a way of letting women have a bigger role in the Church but not ordaining them (like anyone would really know the difference). 

If you want a definition of liberalism, I would go with Machen's definition in his excellent book "Christianity & Liberalism" (a must read!). Also for some perspective you might want to read about the history of the Presbyterian Church in the US. History does often repeat itself.


----------



## fredtgreco

RAS,

I agree with Wayne. It is a far cry to say that one's Church is not perfect and to say it is apostate. While very disconcerting to me, some of the trends on men's & women's issues in the PCA are just that - trends. They aren't the official position of the denomination, and there are many PCA churches that are precisely on the Biblical side of the issue. Even having said that, this issue is not nearly of the magnitude that justification, inerrancy, and the Trinity are.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> RAS,
> 
> I for one don't believe that the PCA is apostate. Does the PCA have its problems? you betcha! So does the OPC, URC and SBC. As Matthew Henry said "Where God builds His Church, the devil builds his chapel".  I have been in the Presbyerian Church all my life and controversy and Reformed theology seem to go hand in hand. They don't call Presbyterians the "split P's" for nothing!



I never heard the split "p's" thing before, but it makes sense and I find it both funny and sad.

The Henry quote is in a weird way comforting. I say that because it reminds me of what I have forgot about the visble/invisble church distinction and Christ's teaching on the wheat and the tares existing side by side, and see how easy it is to revert back into the baptist belief I was once taught that visible membership is only for the regenerate and how this actually works against those intentions. I was beginning to sense some of this all-or-nothing thinking in regards to purity, but now think I see that I was falsely portraying that onto your criticisms.

I guess maybe there should be a warning given to all those who become newly reformed: "Welcome to the reformed community, where your theology of God and His grace and sovereignty will humble you to the dust and cause you to want to Glorify Him alone in all you do; but welcome also to a very controversial community where none of us have fully learned in our hearts what we have been persuaded of in our heads." 
Just a side-bar opinion here: the failure to maybe mention this warning reminds me of two things, the failure of the psuedo-evangelical world to mention to new believers that struggles come with following Christ, and Christ's mention of counting the cost before following Him. Healthy realism and honesty is a good thing for those who are new, lest they commit too soon and only afterward consider their vows (Proverbs?) I can see how the weariness of all the controversy would cloud our real purpose of knowing Christ, growing in Christ, sharing Christ with others, and glorifying Christ and thereby cause many to stumble and leave the reformed community wrongly. I hope our gifted leaders/elders that us weaker sheep need and desire, keep this in mind as they fight the righteous battles for doctrinal purity.




> _Originally posted by Fred_
> RAS,
> I agree with Wayne. It is a far cry to say that one's Church is not perfect and to say it is apostate. While very disconcerting to me, some of the trends on men's & women's issues in the PCA are just that - trends. They aren't the official position of the denomination, and there are many PCA churches that are precisely on the Biblical side of the issue. Even having said that, this issue is not nearly of the magnitude that justification, inerrancy, and the Trinity are.



Thank you for this clarification:

not perfect does not = apsotate
trends do not = official positions
controversial issues are not all of the same magnitude.





Besides the lesser men and women issue, what are the more serious doctrinal (not practical or experiential) concerns
that make Covenant Seminary questionable for some? I assume if Covenant we're that bad, then my christian brothers would come straight out and say "don't go there".

And what seminary would everyone recommend for the best MA degrees in a historical theology and/or systematic theology focus?
At this point I'm not looking for the M.Div. route or anything higher than that.

[Edited on 4-22-2005 by RAS]


----------

