# Most "reformed" SBC seminary?



## Cmoore21 (May 31, 2012)

Here's the back story: 

I'm currently a student at MS State University and about to finish up and get my degree in Philosophy with a Religion concentration. I grew up Southern Baptist and am a member of a SBC church. So when looking to seminaries, it seems that the most affordable choice would be to go with one of the "big 6" SBC seminaries seeing that it cuts half the tuition cost for belonging to a Southern Bapt. church. While at MS State, my advisor, who is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, has exposed me to more of the Reformed doctrines, in particular, the Westminster Shorter Catechism and it's exposition. I feel to lean more with reformed doctrine than the traditional SB doctrines. In short, I prefer teachers over preachers. The bible over "cool/funny" stories. Growing up, I felt this way as well. I don't claim to be a Calvinist, only a Christian, but do hold the TULIP as the means by which salvation and grace happen. And only because I believe the Bible makes it clear and justifies it.

I have narrowed it down to Southeastern Bapt. and Southern Bapt. seminaries, by my own research.

So... Just wondering -- which of the two hold the more reformed view in your opinions? Best option? 

As well, I want to go somewhere whose main mission is to teach the word.

Thanks for any help and direction.


----------



## JML (May 31, 2012)

Of those two, definitely go with Southern. The dean of Southeastern is a Molinist.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 31, 2012)

Yeah definitely southern. Though I have heard there are a lot of calvinists at least 4 pointers at Southeastern.
Do define molinist please, I am unfamiliar with the term.


----------



## JML (May 31, 2012)

arap said:


> Yeah definitely southern. Though I have heard there are a lot of calvinists at least 4 pointers at Southeastern.
> Do define molinist please, I am unfamiliar with the term.



Monergism :: Molinism (Middle Knowledge)


----------



## Tyrese (May 31, 2012)

I think its sad that we have to make distinctions between teachers and preachers. Either you have teachers who are top heavy and conduct church in a academic fashion, or you have preachers who who are charismatic but empty of doctrinal substance. This is something my pastors have humbly addressed within themselves. Most Reformed brethren (including myself) tend to be top heavy, but lack passion and zeal to preach the gospel with passion. From listening to material from Southern Seminary it sounds like they are trying to stress balanced Biblical preaching/teaching. I think Dr Mohler is heading in the right direction. But thats just me.


----------



## rbcbob (May 31, 2012)

Cmoore21 said:


> Here's the back story:
> 
> I'm currently a student at MS State University and about to finish up and get my degree in Philosophy with a Religion concentration. I grew up Southern Baptist and am a member of a SBC church. So when looking to seminaries, it seems that the most affordable choice would be to go with one of the "big 6" SBC seminaries seeing that it cuts half the tuition cost for belonging to a Southern Bapt. church. While at MS State, my advisor, who is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, has exposed me to more of the Reformed doctrines, in particular, the Westminster Shorter Catechism and it's exposition. I feel to lean more with reformed doctrine than the traditional SB doctrines. In short, I prefer teachers over preachers. The bible over "cool/funny" stories. Growing up, I felt this way as well. I don't claim to be a Calvinist, only a Christian, but do hold the TULIP as the means by which salvation and grace happen. And only because I believe the Bible makes it clear and justifies it.
> 
> ...



Cj,
Please do not read any animosity into my comments. I do however find your introduction to be “all over the map” and in need of some measure of maturing before making your decision to choose a seminary. 
First of all you identify yourself as a Southern Baptist and yet you indicate your Confessional commitment as the Westminster, a decidedly Presbyterian and paedobaptist confession of faith. This suggests a very underdeveloped ecclesiology on your part.
I would suggest that among the several major components of theology which you need to sort out, there is none more vital and defining as to your convictions on baptism and church government.


----------



## Tyrese (May 31, 2012)

@ Elder Bob. I agree with you 100%. I was alittle confused here as well.


----------



## Kaalvenist (May 31, 2012)

Not that I would have a problem with a Baptist adopting the Westminster Standards , I would point out that Malcolm Watts did a series through the Westminster Shorter Catechism in his church, merely omitting the latter part of Question 95. I've known other Baptists who have admitted the general superiority of the Westminster Confession over the 1689 Confession, who merely objected to the Paedobaptistic/Presbyterian elements. I wouldn't be too quick to condemn him.


----------



## Edward (May 31, 2012)

Of the two you mentioned, Southern. 

But you probably ought to at least consider Reformed in Jackson.


----------



## Jack K (May 31, 2012)

Southern over Southeastern, by a wide margin. But do listen to Bob and take the time to sort out your views, and also to confirm your calling to ministry by having it affirmed by other wise, mature believers. This is a decision to be made in conjunction with leaders you respect in your church, not by yourself.


----------



## Tyrese (May 31, 2012)

Hi Sean. I agree that we shouldnt be so quick to condemn. But I dont think the problem is what the op said, but how he said it. For example I also think the WCF is alittle more clear in some areas than the LBCF. The problems dont arise until I get to baptism and church government (as you have already said). As Bob pointed out before, the op presented himself in a way that would lead you to think he hasnt thought through everything.


----------



## Cmoore21 (May 31, 2012)

Let me make myself more clear then. I'm not very concerned with labeling myself as Baptist/Reformed/Presbyterian or researching deeper into which doctrine I most agree with so I can claim to be one or the other. I'm just stating the reason I am being limited to these two seminaries -- my membership is with an SBC church which I am grateful to be a part of. I find no need in changing denominations just because I agree with most of what the Westminter confession states. Now, in my experience with the more "reformed" leaders, teachers, and preachers, the only thing that draws me more to a reformed type of education is that the emphasis, overall, is on the Bible. You need it. So I prefer to attend a seminary who's main focus is knowing the Bible; not teaching the best way to preach so that your church can grow.

I think it important to stress I am not committed to the Westminster confession as someone has stated. I like what the Westminster catechism teaches but only because it's foundation is biblical. I am all the more concerned with what the Bible teaches rather than a denominational confession. I am solely committed to Christ and his word.

I just want a biblically sound and foundational education and was asking of SEBTS and SBTS which would be better.


----------



## Edward (May 31, 2012)

Cmoore21 said:


> I'm not very concerned with labeling myself as Baptist/Reformed/Presbyterian or researching deeper into which doctrine I most agree with so I can claim to be one or the other.



And you probably aren't ready to think about leading a flock until you are ready to dig into key doctrines such as the sacraments and form of government. Southern would be a fine choice, but doctrine does matter.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 31, 2012)

Cmoore21, if you are not owning the Westminster you should not have chosen it on your application for membership. Please clear this up with one of the moderators via private message before continuing to post further on the board.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 1, 2012)

Cmoore21 said:


> I am all the more concerned with what the Bible teaches rather than a denominational confession. I am solely committed to Christ and his word.
> 
> I just want a biblically sound and foundational education and was asking of SEBTS and SBTS which would be better.



This post is sort of the "poster child" statement for the modern man. Truth is something that we autonomously find. We use the organ of our minds to sort the undifferentiated data and each of us makes up his own mind.

This is not Christian.

The Scriptures make clear that they are understandable (2 Tim 3:16-17) and they also make clear that God has given gifts to His Church that it may seek toward the _unity_ of the faith (Ephesians 4).

It is _because_ the Scriptures are persipicuous that a Church may confess _together_ what it is they understand the Scriptures to teach. We have been called into communion with other saints that we may strive _together_ for truth and not simply stand as individuals to say: I got Jesus and the Bible so don't disturb me with what the rest of you believe.

That's why we hold to Confessions. That's why we are Confessional. Because the Scriptures demand of us that we, as Churches, speak clearly as to what the Scriptures teach. Because the Scriptures demand that we don't hide what they teach. Because the Scriptures demand that we come to the unity of the faith.

Those that desire otherwise are disobeying the Lord and Savior and the Scriptures that they claim to

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 1, 2012)

Cmoore21 said:


> I am all the more concerned with what the Bible teaches rather than a denominational confession. I am solely committed to Christ and his word.
> 
> I just want a biblically sound and foundational education and was asking of SEBTS and SBTS which would be better.



This post is sort of the "poster child" statement for the modern man. Truth is something that we autonomously discover as each of us seeks it. We use the organ of our minds to sort the undifferentiated data and each of us makes up his own mind.

This is not Biblical.

The Scriptures make clear that they are understandable (2 Tim 3:16-17) and they also make clear that God has given gifts to His Church that it may seek toward the _unity_ of the faith (Ephesians 4).

It is _because_ the Scriptures are persipicuous that a Church may confess _together_ what it is they understand the Scriptures to teach. We have been called into communion with other saints that we may strive _together_ for truth and not simply stand as individuals to say: I got Jesus and the Bible so don't disturb me with what the rest of you believe.

That's why we hold to Confessions. That's why we are Confessional. Because the Scriptures demand of us that we, as Churches, speak clearly as to what the Scriptures teach. Because the Scriptures demand that we don't hide what they teach. Because the Scriptures demand that we come to the unity of the faith.

Those who desire otherwise are disobeying the Lord and Savior and the Scriptures that they claim to otherwise submit to.


----------

