# Plug for Northwest Theological Seminary.



## Augusta (Apr 24, 2005)

If you live in the Seattle area or greater NW area. I want you to know about our Seminary. 

Here is a short summary about it and the link to there website.

About NWTS

Northwest Theological Seminary is a graduate level academic institution that has as its main purpose the training of men for the Gospel ministry in the historic reformed tradition. NWTS offers two degree programs, the M.Div. and M.R.S., both of which place special emphasis throughout the curriculum on the unifying theme of the supernatural Scriptures, the centrality of Christ.

NWTS is somewhat unusual in comparison to most seminaries today. We do not own any buildings of our own, and we have no plans to build any. NWTS is not your standard "business model" institution. It is not our desire to be measured by the yardstick of secular accreditation. The pride and pomp of accreditation is not on our list of priorities. It is part of our endeavor to honor Christ in the pursuit of academic achievement and fiscal frugality beyond what building programs and accreditation allow. 

We delight in offering the broadest possible theological education within the bounds of reformed orthodoxy. Our limited enrollment provides an atmosphere where ministerial candidates can experience a "one on one" mentoring process with those who have decades of experience preaching and proclaiming the Gospel of Christ.

We believe you cannot find a superior preparatory program for the gospel ministry anywhere else. NWTS caters to a handful of conservative reformed denominations: OPC, PCA, URC, OCRC, and the Canadian Reformed. NWTS is a confessional institution, and as such we have friends in every denomination that subscribes to the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity (The Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort.)

NWTS is located in the Northwest United States, just fifteen miles North of Seattle. Classes are held in the facilities of the Lynnwood Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Lynnwood, Washington.

www.nwts.edu/


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2005)

I had looked into them earlier. It was tempting because then then I could move home and still go to seminary. But I think they tend to over-emphasize the modern redemptive historical stuff to the detrimet of traditional reformed theology in the Puritan flavor. And they're still working out their kinks since they are still young. But I will be keeping my eyes on them. It is important to have a reformed seminary up there.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 24, 2005)

Patrick, what do you mean by " modern redemptive historical?" Just wondering. I am still learning the vocabulary.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Patrick, what do you mean by " modern redemptive historical?" Just wondering. I am still learning the vocabulary.



I doubt you will ever study the Puritans in that seminary. They deliberatey chose Vos and VanTil to be the primary influences of their thought. Not that those guys are bad. But there's more to theology than what's developed in Westminster East the last 70 years. There's more to Reformed thinking than redemptive historical hermenuetics and presuppositionalism.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 24, 2005)

One more question.  Are there two camps generally on this board, one that leans more toward what you called "redemptive historical hermenuetics and presuppositionalism" and another of a more traditional sense. If so, do you mind explaining the differences. I seem to see two camps the more I read here. I am still learning all of this. Doesn't stop me from flapping my gums though does it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> One more question.  Are there two camps generally on this board, one that leans more toward what you called "redemptive historical hermenuetics and presuppositionalism" and another of a more traditional sense. If so, do you mind explaining the differences. I seem to see two camps the more I read here. I am still learning all of this. Doesn't stop me from flapping my gums though does it.



It's not really two camps necessarily, but a balance between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology (redemptive historical hermenuetics). NorthWest will most likely lean heavily to the Biblical theology extreme as does Westminster East. Where as the Puritan and Scottish influenced schools like RTS and Greenville will focus more on Systematic theology. Yet, we have several professors here who love Biblical Theology, and I love it too. The problem again is balance. Without the balance of systematic theology, you can end up in several errors (i.e. Sheperd, Federal Vision, etc.). It has also been my experience, and I certainly am open to correction in this, that those who overemphasize Biblical Theology tend to be either ignorant of or downplay the importance of traditional Reformed systematic theology as developed in the Presbyerian (and some Dutch) churches over the last 400 years.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 24, 2005)

That help a little Patrick, thanks. I have noticed some head butting on presuppositionalism, theonomy, etc. and I wasn't sure if these different issues cause people to gravitate to one side or another or if we just have a mixed bag.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2005)

I agree with Patrick, that as long as a school maintains some sort of balance, having different _emphases_ from other schools is just fine--"viva la difference" as they say. I pray God's blessing upon the faithful labors of NWTS.

Without denying in any way potential dangers (for example of extreme "pietism") to be found in a "Puritan" school, allow me an observation upon RH-orientation at it's "far end." I have seen the exegesis from RHers in their premiere publishing journal. And I won't pull any punches--there are few apparent controls on the limits of speculation to be made upon the text. This is from their "journal of thought"; this is editor-appoved material.

*It is my studied analysis that extreme RH exegesis is Alexandrine exegesis,* over against "Antiochine" exegesis, which our dear Reformers brought back to the church after centuries of neglect. What I'm saying is that the "Alexandrine" tendency in RH hermeneutics _*must be acknowledged and guarded against*_ by the proponents of RH hermeneutics, when RH is understood as the fundamental interpretive paradigm. And Alexandriainism is there for the reading today. Mark my words.

(As I acknowledged above, critical analysis would acknowledge other similarly important "guarding" factors needs to be present in those advocating a more "Puritan" exegetical approach.)


----------

