# Redeemer Theological Seminary



## cbryant

Redeemer Seminary

Formerly Westminster Theological Seminary, Dallas Campus


----------



## Semper Fidelis

And...is there more to this post. What's the story behind their move to a new name? Did they break off for any reason?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do we really need _another_ Reformed Seminary? 



But how many Reformed Seminaries are there?


----------



## Zenas

Can't we combine some of them?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Aside from the Denominational Seminaries (RPTS, both PRTS, etc...) what function do the other seminaries serve?


----------



## fredtgreco

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Aside from the Denominational Seminaries (RPTS, both PRTS, etc...) what function do the other seminaries serve?



To train ministers.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Obviously, but do we need so many?


----------



## Kevin

Cool. 

I see that they share space with Southwest Church Planting Network. This is a joint project of 4 PCA presbyteries. I think that linking hands-on church planting & evangelism with a seminary is THE best idea I have heard in a long time.

-----Added 1/29/2009 at 06:00:27 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Obviously, but do we need so many?



Geography, history, denominational distinctives, theological emphasis, budget, facilities, faculty, etc., etc.,...


----------



## westminken

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do we really need _another_ Reformed Seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> But how many Reformed Seminaries are there?



I would have to say yes in this case. Redeemer formerly Westminster Dallas was formed with the intent of training pastors, church planters, etc for kingdom work in this part of the country. 

As for the number of seminaries, I do not know but it seems that there is an awful lot out there. That is if you count RTS and all of their campuses, Erskine, Covenant, WTS Philly, WSC, and all of their other various small seminaries. However, overall the amount of Reformed seminaries out there are not as many as the mainline denominations and the more broader evangelical schools. I say bring more quality Reformed schools on so there will be more Reformed pastors and church workers out there in the country and the world. 

Just my two cents. 

One more thing, if there was not a Redeemer in Dallas, then some students would not be able to go to a Reformed seminary based on reasons such as family situations, etc. I do not mean this in a negative way if it comes across that way.


----------



## Poimen

Yes, absolutely, the more Reformed seminaries the better. Why should someone have to travel across the country to get a great education when it is possible to receive it in their backyard? 

And we could use some more in Canada too.


----------



## larryjf

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do we really need _another_ Reformed Seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> But how many Reformed Seminaries are there?



Better than another charismatic dispensational seminary


----------



## Theoretical

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do we really need _another_ Reformed Seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> But how many Reformed Seminaries are there?


Yes, because Texas, especially, North Texas is completely dominated by DTS's influence and pastoral training. We have a lot of PCAs, but the pastors either went to DTS, maybe Southwestern if they started as Baptists, or way out of state to go to seminary.

If we could get a Reformed seminary in every major city and even in many not-so-major cities training pastors, I think that would be a wonderful thing.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> And...is there more to this post. What's the story behind their move to a new name? Did they break off for any reason?



From what I understand, it is part of the the Enns removal backlash.

CT

-----Added 1/29/2009 at 06:35:32 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do we really need _another_ Reformed Seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> But how many Reformed Seminaries are there?



It is not a "new" seminary it is a "rebranded" seminary.

CT


----------



## Archlute

ChristianTrader said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And...is there more to this post. What's the story behind their move to a new name? Did they break off for any reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, it is part of the the Enns removal backlash.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


What is your source for that info?


----------



## PresbyDane

What do you guys think about the online seminary like TNARS?


----------



## charliejunfan

I think it's great, I'm planning to apply soon.


----------



## matthew11v25

Semper Fidelis said:


> And...is there more to this post. What's the story behind their move to a new name? Did they break off for any reason?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As an aside just to be clear I was asking a probing question for effect, not necessarily because I believe there are too many seminaries...


----------



## ReformedChapin

Anyone know if they are accredited?

It's weird because Redeemer still seems to have ties with WTS. Was it just a change of name or something?


----------



## matt01

ReformedChapin said:


> Anyone know if they are accredited?
> 
> It's weird because Redeemer still seems to have ties with WTS. Was it just a change of name or something?



Same thing; different name. The change of name is in order to differentiate itself as distinct from Westminster PA.



> In 2009, Westminster Theological Seminary launched its Texas Campus as an independent seminary which is now called Redeemer Seminary.





> As Westminster and its campus in Texas have developed since 1999, the board and faculty of Westminster have recognized it is strategic for the mission of the seminary that Westminster and the campus in Texas pursue the mission as two distinct institutions which share in the theological commitments upon which Westminster was founded. *In order for the daughter campus in Texas to be distinguished from its mother seminary, the campus in Texas is now established as Redeemer Theological Seminary and is governed by its own board of trustees. *





> Redeemer Seminary offers the M.Div., M.A.R., M.A., and Certificate in Christians Studies programs. M.Div. and M.A.R. programs offered in cooperation with Westminster Theological Seminary are *accredited by the Association of Theological Schools and Middle States Association*.


----------



## ADKing

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Obviously, but do we need so many?



The problem in my opinion is not the number of seminaries but the wide diversity in teaching at them. The more schools we have that teach the faith once delivered to the saints and promote a uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline, the better! However, the multiplication of schools for any other purpose (such as teaching peculiar views, centering around the personality of men) is a bad thing for the church, in my opinion. As an outside observer, it seems like too many schools these days fit into the latter category.


----------



## fredtgreco

ADKing said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, but do we need so many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem in my opinion is not the number of seminaries but the wide diversity in teaching at them. The more schools we have that teach the faith once delivered to the saints and promote a uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline, the better! However, the multiplication of schools for any other purpose (such as teaching peculiar views, centering around the personality of men) is a bad thing for the church, in my opinion. As an outside observer, it seems like too many schools these days fit into the latter category.
Click to expand...


Pastor King,

I somewhat agree, but I don't think the problem is so easily solved. For example, one could take your statement above and use it against your denominational seminary, which clearly teaches RPCNA disctinctives (and in some sense exists to perpetuate such distinctives) that are not shared by the overwhelming majority of Presbyterians.

Does that mean that the RPCNA seminary should not exist or not teach its distinctives? I don't think that is the answer. I think it certainly is proper for them to do so.

I also think that we are a bit off if we talk about the multiplicity of seminaries, as opposed to the paucity of _good Reformed_ seminaries. There are like 10 in the whole United States that I would even give a moments notice to, and only like 4-5 that I would even consider recommending. (And as I think of them, they are all in different regions of the nation).

Blessings,


----------



## ADKing

fredtgreco said:


> I somewhat agree, but I don't think the problem is so easily solved. For example, one could take your statement above and use it against your denominational seminary, which clearly teaches RPCNA disctinctives (and in some sense exists to perpetuate such distinctives) that are not shared by the overwhelming majority of Presbyterians.
> 
> Does that mean that the RPCNA seminary should not exist or not teach its distinctives? I don't think that is the answer. I think it certainly is proper for them to do so.
> 
> I also think that we are a bit off if we talk about the multiplicity of seminaries, as opposed to the paucity of _good Reformed_ seminaries. There are like 10 in the whole United States that I would even give a moments notice to, and only like 4-5 that I would even consider recommending. (And as I think of them, they are all in different regions of the nation).
> 
> Blessings,



I wholeheartedly agree that there are not enough good seminaries! It would be great if they would grace our country from coast to coast! And my comment was not intended to be directed at Redeemer Seminary in particular since I really don't know very much about it. 

I guess from your perspective since you do not hold to RPCNA distinctives I can see how the application you draw would be correct. Why would you want a seminary to propogate distinctives you believe are wrong? However, since I receive the RPCNA distinctives, I think it should exist 

My point was more to the effect that it would be desireable (in my opinion) if one could go to a reformed seminary across the country and have some assurance that he would receive an education similar to elsewhere (factoring in that some professors are always different in style and ability etc). What seems problematic is many different schools exist offering different approaches to the reformed faith. As it stands, many students, not having a good grounding in reformed theology before seminary, don't often know about or understand the particular version they will be getting at the school they choose. This, to me, just seems like one more application of the desire for a uniformity in religion. But since we do not have that in our churches (oftentimes not even within our own denominations) it isn't to be expected in the seminaries. Sorry for the  rambling.


----------



## lynnie

I hope somebody with much more ties and facts weighs in here, and my comments should be taken as possibly partly incorrect or incomplete.

The Enns thing is not the reason at all.

It has more to do with the current vision of the Prez Lillback and Carl Trueman from all accounts we've heard.

They would like to see a return to a heavy emphasis on Machen's vision at the end of his life to train pastors to preach sound doctrine.

Now, WTS has always wanted to teach sound doctrine and train pastors. But over the years it has become broader, with many non pastors and women getting MARs and MDivs. It has ties to CCEF and some students do the whole CCEF training. Previous people like Sam Logan had a broader vision, and many folks currently appreciate guys like Tim Keller and ( the late) Jack Miller who had a big vision to impact the lost and engage with the culture.

The current WTS mindset is seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a thrust to go back to training preachers almost exclusively.

Some WTS grads have complained that they didn't get enough practical ministry experience and they wished they had more counseling background, evangelism, administrative training, etc, not less. But IF a pastor is to primarily preach- and the pulpit is where impact on the depressed and fearful etc is to take place, as well as where evangelism happens- then it is all about preaching sound doctrine and WTS wants to go back to focusing on that.

Some pastors do not agree and want a broader vision of ministry and training for ministry.

I am speaking of the board's vision here, and will not presume to know what the current thinking of the faculty is.

I have been told by a very reputable source that the faculty vote in favor of Enns was not a vote for his book or doctrine (which admittedly has some real problems) but a reflection that the board never let him speak to them and he was denied due process. It is felt strongly that he should have had at least one hearing before the board dumped him. 

If anybody disagrees with my perception, let me just say that it comes from people who are very close to the current WTS situation, and so this is how some people do see it.

It goes way back, many many years...what kind of seminary with WTS be? The last years of Machen before he died, or something more? Dallas wants to be the more and WTS looks to be heading back to Machen.


----------



## ReformedChapin

sans nom said:


> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know if they are accredited?
> 
> It's weird because Redeemer still seems to have ties with WTS. Was it just a change of name or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing; different name. The change of name is in order to differentiate itself as distinct from Westminster PA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, Westminster Theological Seminary launched its Texas Campus as an independent seminary which is now called Redeemer Seminary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Westminster and its campus in Texas have developed since 1999, the board and faculty of Westminster have recognized it is strategic for the mission of the seminary that Westminster and the campus in Texas pursue the mission as two distinct institutions which share in the theological commitments upon which Westminster was founded. *In order for the daughter campus in Texas to be distinguished from its mother seminary, the campus in Texas is now established as Redeemer Theological Seminary and is governed by its own board of trustees. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redeemer Seminary offers the M.Div., M.A.R., M.A., and Certificate in Christians Studies programs. M.Div. and M.A.R. programs offered in cooperation with Westminster Theological Seminary are *accredited by the Association of Theological Schools and Middle States Association*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


ahh

Thank you. I was looking through their website and I couldn't find it.


----------



## Archlute

lynnie said:


> I hope somebody with much more ties and facts weighs in here, and my comments should be taken as possibly partly incorrect or incomplete.
> 
> The Enns thing is not the reason at all.
> 
> It has more to do with the current vision of the Prez Lillback and Carl Trueman from all accounts we've heard.
> 
> They would like to see a return to a heavy emphasis on Machen's vision at the end of his life to train pastors to preach sound doctrine.
> 
> Now, WTS has always wanted to teach sound doctrine and train pastors. But over the years it has become broader, with many non pastors and women getting MARs and MDivs. It has ties to CCEF and some students do the whole CCEF training. Previous people like Sam Logan had a broader vision, and many folks currently appreciate guys like Tim Keller and ( the late) Jack Miller who had a big vision to impact the lost and engage with the culture.
> 
> The current WTS mindset is seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a thrust to go back to training preachers almost exclusively.
> 
> Some WTS grads have complained that they didn't get enough practical ministry experience and they wished they had more counseling background, evangelism, administrative training, etc, not less. But IF a pastor is to primarily preach- and the pulpit is where impact on the depressed and fearful etc is to take place, as well as where evangelism happens- then it is all about preaching sound doctrine and WTS wants to go back to focusing on that.
> 
> Some pastors do not agree and want a broader vision of ministry and training for ministry.
> 
> I am speaking of the board's vision here, and will not presume to know what the current thinking of the faculty is.
> 
> I have been told by a very reputable source that the faculty vote in favor of Enns was not a vote for his book or doctrine (which admittedly has some real problems) but a reflection that the board never let him speak to them and he was denied due process. It is felt strongly that he should have had at least one hearing before the board dumped him.
> 
> If anybody disagrees with my perception, let me just say that it comes from people who are very close to the current WTS situation, and so this is how some people do see it.
> 
> It goes way back, many many years...what kind of seminary with WTS be? The last years of Machen before he died, or something more? Dallas wants to be the more and WTS looks to be heading back to Machen.



In stating things as you have, you give the impression that somehow Keller and Miller's "more" is desireable, and that Machen, Trueman, and the rest are by inference holding a "lesser" or "smaller" vision. 

I attended a seminary where much of the focus was on the "more" of admin, counseling, etc, etc, before attending WSC. I consider that training to have been fluff, and next to worthless, primarily because courses such as that can only present to the student the _current thinking by those who are the movers and shakers in those realms_, and therefore when those ideas or methods become dated, the pastor has to find something else to pick up where those materials have ceased being relevant.

On the other hand, when a pastor is taught how to study the Scriptures, how to think through problems according to them, and to learn a Christian mindset that will help him in evaluating books, methods, and priorities for future use, when he is taught the history of the Church, the study of theology, and has been steeped in a reading list that (while most assuredly not relevant to others) will put him where he needs to be as a thinking pastor, then the "big vision" and the "more" is really possible, because it is according to God's plan for His church as guided by the Scriptures.

I can tell you that the practical theology course notes to which I return for review are those that were grounded in exegetical discussion. A fair amount of the other PT work that I did sits unused, in as much as it came out of some of the broader elements of WTS to WSC, and was grounded in the trendy practice of name dropping the culturally relevant thinkers and philosophers of the university crowd. Those books are in a box somewhere in storage. Trueman's stuff (although, admittedly, his output is not overwhelmingly large) is still on my shelf, and I still find it relevant and applicable for current pastoral labors.


----------



## lynnie

Adam....

I am neither a pastor or preacher or elder and never will be. ( thank you Lord for making me female  )

I love John Piper who will be the first to tell you that he has had congregants going through terrible things like incest of kids, and what got them through was preaching about God. God's holiness, greatness, goodness. 

I LOVE good preaching and theology. 

The question was asked if the Dallas change was about Enns and I attempted to explain what I have heard of it, and that no, Enns is not the reason, and I reported what I have heard of the differences.

The fact is that those people who we know from WTS who are not happy with the current direction have said that the imput they got from Tripp and Welch and the rest of CCEF has proven to be invaluable to them in their pastoral (or asst pastoral or church staff) ministry. They do not think they would have been adequately equipped to work with parents or marriages or various other people (self mutilating "cutters", deep depression, sex addicts) without the sort of biblical counseling teaching they got at WTS in the classes that may-or may not- be deemed in the future to be valued at WTS.

I honestly do not know for certain what exactly Trueman has in mind but he put out a lead WTS article about dumping non PhDs.....which at the time implied dumping Tripp and even saying a guy like John Frame wasn't fit to teach there. This is all public, not private. So yeah, there was a fuss. And it wasn't about Enns.

I personally think that scholarly studious pastors who are devoted to sound doctrine and good preaching do not in any way betray or minimize a calling to study the "extras". I am sorry if I implied that one is lesser, but they ARE different. And therefore WTS and Dallas ARE heading different directions from what I know.

I took three years of Univ in the USA and one year overseas. Here it was 4 or 5 classes each semester, 9-10 a year. Over there it was TWO classes for one entire year. One is broader liberal arts and one is more intense in one thing. As a science major I preferred the overseas but the fact is the other IS more well rounded. The debate between broader education and specializing is one that has been going on for so many hundreds or thousands of years that Machen's vision versus a more broad one is nothing new.

So, maybe WTS will be the doctrine scientists with a narrow specialized focus on preaching. If I need a surgeon I'd rather have specialist than a general surgeon, there is nothing wrong with specialists. On the other hand, if a guy works on brain tumors all day and never does the general stuff he might not as good as the ER general trauma guy if I end up in the ER with a burst appendix.

Maybe the body of Christ can use all the callings? Senior teaching pastors from WTS type schools who devote themselves to preaching, but some associate pastors who work more with counseling and the lost, who want the CCEF classes and other extras? Can't we have them all?

Just my take on it. You are obviously called as a senior pastor to preach and I apologize if in any way my post appeared to imply that is a lesser calling. It is not. But I am not sure the Dallas direction is lesser either, and there have been some arrogant attitudes expressed towards the Dallas types up this way. Maybe we should all try and appreciate all the different approaches to education, the broader schools and the specializing ones.


----------



## dsmith

Maybe a good way of seeing the Redeemer/WTS Philly Relationship is different Branches of the same Tree. Both are committed to Reformed Doctrine, both seek to train students for the pastorate. All current faculty of both institutions were approved by the same board. Both institutions share the same heritage, that of Vos, Van Til, and Machen, Harvie Conn, and Jay Adams. Both institutions now stand at a watershed moment...what will they do with that heritage? 

Redeemer is serious about church planting. Redeemer will join hands with CCEF in training men and women to minister to the hurting from the Word. The faculty and the Board take seriously their commitment to shape not just the doctrine of the students there, but their hearts and lives. We have deep roots at Westminster, but we will no longer be one and the same. Sinclair Ferguson is currently teaching a class on the WCF, Biblical Theology is alive and well with Elliott Greene, Doug Gropp and Adrian Smith, all of whom have deep roots in the Westminster Tradition. Recent additions of Skip Ryan, Dan McCartney and Clair Davis, not only further testify to Redeemer's deep WTS roots, but also add breadth and depth to the course offerings.

D Smith
Dallas, TX


----------



## lynnie

Hi D Smith and welcome to the PB.

I liked your post.......but will point out that you said this:

"training men and women to minister to the hurting from the Word."

And this is precisely the big debate as I understand it from the talk around here. 

One camp says that the ministry the hurting needs- as the primary and most significant means of grace- is the preached word and sound doctrine from the pulpit (and the sacraments). And that preaching is seen as so central and primary for the flock that WTS wants to focus in on that almost exclusively (so rumor from my reputable sources has it). And depending on what theologians you are into, the preaching is the primary place for evangelism as well. 


Your camp sees the means of grace God uses in sanctification as including of much value things like one on one counseling and perhaps the fellowship of small groups where members open up and pray for one another. Things like parenting classes with Tripp materials, seminars on various subjects (inc women only), etc. And I would assume that classes about talking one on one to unbelievers and how to approach the common mindsets out there (your religion is exclusive and intolerant) are also seen as important for evangelism. 

I would guess you and Dallas encourage good preaching of sound doctrine, while seeing many other things as a significant means of grace God uses to reach the lost and help the saved who are sinning. And a focus on those other things seems to be on the way out at WTS if certain people get their way. (or as they would put it, Machen's way and God's way and the truly Reformed way)

We have been through the wringer washer about this, and I've seen so much garbage in so many evangelical churches that I am sympathetic to the "word and sacrament, go back to Machen" WTS gang, and I can understand their burden. But to be honest I can't read the book of Acts or the epistles and end up in any other place than where Dallas is going. Scripture has such a focus on fellowship and loving one another, and speaking about Christ to one another, and prayer!!!.....so much more to the Christian life than just listening to a great sermon on Sunday. Anyway, please do pray about all this, and may the Lord help us all to see more clearly. 

And again, please take any of my comments as possibly very incomplete or distorted and as second hand. It is best to read the WTS site articles themselves for the most accurate understanding of what is going on there. It's really nice to see a Dallas person weigh on on how they see it, so again, welcome. And if anybody thinks I have misrepresented WTS I would welcome your corrections.


----------



## tcalbrecht

lynnie said:


> It has more to do with the current vision of the Prez Lillback and Carl Trueman from all accounts we've heard.
> 
> They would like to see a return to a heavy emphasis on Machen's vision at the end of his life to train pastors to preach sound doctrine.



I understand from a member that Dr. Lillback recently announced his resignation from Proclamation PCA and a congregation meeting was held to accept the resignation.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

dsmith said:


> Maybe a good way of seeing the Redeemer/WTS Philly Relationship is different Branches of the same Tree. Both are committed to Reformed Doctrine, both seek to train students for the pastorate. All current faculty of both institutions were approved by the same board. Both institutions share the same heritage, that of Vos, Van Til, and Machen, Harvie Conn, and Jay Adams. Both institutions now stand at a watershed moment...what will they do with that heritage?
> 
> Redeemer is serious about church planting. Redeemer will join hands with CCEF in training men and women to minister to the hurting from the Word. The faculty and the Board take seriously their commitment to shape not just the doctrine of the students there, but their hearts and lives. We have deep roots at Westminster, but we will no longer be one and the same. Sinclair Ferguson is currently teaching a class on the WCF, Biblical Theology is alive and well with Elliott Greene, Doug Gropp and Adrian Smith, all of whom have deep roots in the Westminster Tradition. Recent additions of Skip Ryan, Dan McCartney and Clair Davis, not only further testify to Redeemer's deep WTS roots, but also add breadth and depth to the course offerings.
> 
> D Smith
> Dallas, TX


 
Welcome to the Puritan Board, DSmith! (aha! another Texan! soon we will be strong enough to take over the world! whahahaha!)


----------



## Ivan

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> (aha! another Texan! soon we will be strong enough to take over the world! whahahaha!)



Hmmm...when I lived in Texas they told me that they had already taken over the world.


----------



## dsmith

Thanks to everyone for the warm welcome. 

Lynnie,

I think that you have spoken well. The Word and Sacraments are vital to Christian growth as the Confession teaches. But when I read Acts and Paul, there does seem to be more to the life of the Body of Christ, the Confession seems to point to this also in Chapter 26.1 and 26.2. From what I know, Redeemer is not choosing one or the other, but both. We are praying that we would be a blessing to the Body of Christ in all that we do. 

DSmith


----------

