# WTS PA... Overrated?



## SolaScriptura (Feb 10, 2006)

Today I met a guy who transferred to SBTS after attending WTS for a year. I asked him why he made the switch... the number one reason was finances. 
But then he went on to say something that really surprised me: that the academic quality at WTS PA is way overrated and that they seem to be sailing on the winds of past glory. 
He said in his experience that the academic rigor of the classes at SBTS - specifically in theology - was much greater than at WTS PA. 
He did go on to say that WTS CA (or however they refer to themselves) is probably much more academically rigorous than WTS PA...

But I was just shocked that I had this image of WTS PA as being some _uber_intense academic stronghold... only to have that image busted by someone who has first hand experience.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 10, 2006)

I've heard that too from a fellow student here who attended Westminster east before.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 10, 2006)

I was also a bit surprised at the severe evaluation by T. David Gordon and David C. Lachman of R. J. Gore´s doctrinal thesis awarded by WTS PA, cited in the Lachman´s review of the thesis in the 2005 _Confessional Presbyterian._ Dr. Lachman puts a lot of the blame on the review committee for letting Dr. Gore get so far with such a flawed thesis. The thesis was edited down for the book _Covenantal Worship,_ reviewed in the same piece by Dr. Frank J. Smith. Copies still available at the link below in my sig.



> It should be said plainly that the caliber of Gore´s scholarship in "œPursuit of Plainness" does not rise above that ordinarily expected in a simple "˜term´ paper; consequently it completely fails to make a credible case against the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is indeed almost incredible that this paper was found acceptable for any degree whatever, and we must agree with the conclusion of one, familiar with both it and the later book based upon it, that the Westminster Seminary "œcommittee should never have approved the dissertation, because the methodology was so seriously flawed."{34} But yet more seriously, it should never have been accepted because of the inadequacy of Gore´s research, both in his misrepresentations of Calvin and others and in his almost complete failure so much as to look into what the Puritans actually had to say on the subject.
> 
> 34.	Personal Correspondence, Dr. T. David Gordon, Professor of Religion and Greek, Grove City College, to Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D., February 28, 2005. See also, "œReview of Gore," 346.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

That is shocking to me. If it is true, then the Westminster campus in Dallas must be far different from the Westminster campus in PA.

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson is _outstanding_ as a professor of systematics. He truly blows me away.

Dr. John Hannah is _phenominal_ in the church history department. He amazes me.

I haven't taken languages yet, but I have heard really good reports about WTS-Dallas from others on this point. In fact, while WTS permits students to transfer language-study from other institutions, a number of students *choose* WTS for their Hebrew & Greek studies because of how extremely well languages are taught at WTS.


So what I have heard and experienced at WTS-Dallas does NOT fit with what has been suggested above. So either there is some misinformation there, or WTS-Dallas is very different from WTS-PA (which I doubt).


As a sidenote, I happen to know that Dr. Vern Poythress teaches at Westminster PA in the NT dept. And it is _very_ hard for me to believe that he does a second-rate job. If the rest of the WTS-PA faculty is even half as qualified as Poythress, then it would be really hard for me to believe such a negative report.

I believe Westminster Theological Seminary is one of _the_ premiere seminaries in the country. My own attendance at the seminary has greatly reinforced that belief, rather than weaken it. I think WTS is top-notch.



Dr. Ferguson: 

His class:

     
     
     
     
     

(I'm one of the the students on the front-row.)







[Edited on 2-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 10, 2006)

Joseph,
No school is perfectly consistent I guess. Interestingly enough, Dr. Ferguson was on Gore's thesis review committee, along with Will Barker and Bob Knudsen.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> That is shocking to me. If it is true, then the Westminster campus in Dallas must be far different from the Westminster campus in PA.
> 
> Dr. Sinclair Ferguson is _outstanding_ as a professor of systematics. He truly blows me away.
> ...



Well... maybe that's because you (or students who have transferred in to WTS) haven't been exposed to a _really_ good school. (Sort of like how an athlete may be a star in college... but once you get him around the pros you find he's just mediocre.)

Or...
Perhaps the guy I talked to, and the guy Patrick talked to, just had the unhappy coincidence of getting really easy professors.
But then there's the issue about them granting PhDs to subpar candidates... Sounds like a trend!

Keep in mind that the guy wasn't commenting on the quality of what was being said by the professor... He was just saying that the academic rigor of what is expected of the students was way below what he has experienced at SBTS.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> Keep in mind that the guy wasn't commenting on the quality of what was being said by the professor... He was just saying that the academic rigor of what is expected of the students was way below what he has experienced at SBTS.



OK . . . I understand now.

And I frankly have to admit I just don't know how stringent the academic rigor is at SBTS, compared to WTS-Dallas.

I have studied my tail off at WTS, definitely unlike any secular college or university I've ever attended. And I plan to get a great education, regardless of whether WTS should be tougher or not. The teaching itself is definitely SUPERB, the reading list is LONG, and I am learning a great deal.

In any case, I think I am getting my money's worth. And it costs a lot of money!





[Edited on 2-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Archlute (Feb 10, 2006)

The teaching at WSC is quite superior to my former seminary. In fact, after having completed the language requirements at my previous institution, I took them again at WSC, and then realized that here I was actually learning how to read them! Of course, the repetition between schools did help, I'm sure, but the intensiveness and detail of the language studies at WSC is really quite commendable.

More in line with the topic, I once spoke with a student who has since graduated from WSC, who had formerly lived next door to WTS/PA. He said that even though it cost him a cross country move, he would not have attended anywhere else than here, and while not exclusively seeking to knock WTS/PA, in his opinion it did not come close to matching up. Hence the cross country move.


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 10, 2006)

> Dr. Ferguson:
> 
> His class:
> 
> ...



Joseph,

So when the professor is lecturing, all of the students are facing the opposite direction reading books??


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> So when the professor is lecturing, all of the students are facing the opposite direction reading books??





Yeah, that's why he's obviously getting after them . . .


Seriously, that was just about the best I could do with the smiley faces we have available.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> More in line with the topic, I once spoke with a student who has since graduated from WSC, who had formerly lived next door to WTS/PA. He said that even though it cost him a cross country move, he would not have attended anywhere else than here, and while not exclusively seeking to knock WTS/PA, in his opinion it did not come close to matching up. Hence the cross country move.



This is consistent with what that guy said to me as well. He told me that on the campus of WTS PA, they actually criticize WSC for being too academic.


----------



## crhoades (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Archlute_
> ...



I've spoke with a couple of guys from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis that transferred from WTS PA for being too academic!


----------



## crhoades (Feb 10, 2006)

I'm actually visiting WTS PA again in March on a prospective student day. Does anyone have anything nice to say about them?

From what I can tell they have a great if not the best counseling program (if you're into Nouthie stuff). Edgar and Oliphint are outstanding when it comes to Van Tillian apologetics - not to mention they have the most robust apologetics offering of any seminary. Poythress, McCartney, Enns, Groves, Green are all note-worthy biblical scholars. Carl Trueman, Richard Gaffin, Lane Tipton, Peter Lillback are no slouches either!


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I'm actually visiting WTS PA again in March on a prospective student day. Does anyone have anything nice to say about them?
> 
> From what I can tell they have a great if not the best counseling program (if you're into Nouthie stuff). Edgar and Oliphint are outstanding when it comes to Van Tillian apologetics - not to mention they have the most robust apologetics offering of any seminary. Poythress, McCartney, Enns, Groves, Green are all note-worthy biblical scholars. Carl Trueman, Richard Gaffin, Lane Tipton, Peter Lillback are no slouches either!



If I had the money and a different life-goal, I would go to WTSPA solely for Peter Lillback's church history alone.


----------



## Scott (Feb 10, 2006)

"I'm actually visiting WTS PA again in March on a prospective student day. Does anyone have anything nice to say about them?"

Machen started it. Van Til taught there. Bahnsen graduated from there.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Scott]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "I'm actually visiting WTS PA again in March on a prospective student day. Does anyone have anything nice to say about them?"
> 
> Machen started it. Van Til taught there. Bahnsen graduated from there.
> ...



Anybody find it amusing/sad that given the choice to hire Bahnsen (a guy with a real PhD in philosophy from an accredited university) or David Clowney (MA degree), they went for Clowney? I wonder why....


----------



## crhoades (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "I'm actually visiting WTS PA again in March on a prospective student day. Does anyone have anything nice to say about them?"
> 
> Machen started it. Van Til taught there. Bahnsen graduated from there.



Oh yeah...THAT! But of course it could be retorted that all of those men are no longer with us...

My pastor is working on his PHD there. I think he wouldn't say that it has been a breeze...


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "I'm actually visiting WTS PA again in March on a prospective student day. Does anyone have anything nice to say about them?"
> 
> Machen started it. Van Til taught there. Bahnsen graduated from there.
> ...



Don't forget Norman Shepherd.

And since Gordon Clark did not teach there....



Do they require any logic courses?

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## crhoades (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...



The only seminary that I'm aware of that requires/offers a logic course is Greenville Pres. {I'm hoping you weren't taking a Clarkian swipe at a Van Tillian seminary...}


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 10, 2006)

You know, it doesn't matter where you go, every place is going to have a breakdown: about 20% will love it for one reason or another, and praise it to the sky--the next bad thing they said about their school would be the first, ever.

About 20% will transfer away, for one reason or another. Maybe it was $$. Maybe it was too hard. Maybe it was too soft. Maybe the faculty rubbed them the wrong way, or the staff. Whatever.

And the other 60% will support their school to varying degrees. If I'd gone to WTS-P, or -C, or -D, or RTS-J, or -O, or -C, or -DC, or... I would probably boost my school for something they did right.

A major factor in liking a place is checking it out ahead of time. Find out who is teaching. Are they worthy of your respect? Have you ever read anything they wrote? Who went there in the past? What kind of experience did they have? What kind of reputation does the place have today? WHY DOES THIS SCHOOL EXIST? Is that purpose compatible with your goals?

Many newer schools came into existence, not because there is a glut of teaching candidates, but because something was missing (according to somebody) in the places that already exist. This is why WTS-P was founded. This is why RTS-J was founded. And why -C, -D, -E, -F, and -G were founded. This is why GPTS (my school) was founded.

I seriously doubt that anyone here has the clout or the credentials to _publicly_ judge a whole insititution like WTS-P. Anecdotes are worthless. As is one guy's "term-paper quality" dissertation, or the language department, or the systematic theology department, etc.

Maybe, generally in terms of academic rigor, the school isn't what it was. *Maybe that's by design?!* I don't know, I never went there. When it came time for me to choose a seminary, I turned away from a WTS pursuit in part because of the "academic training" reputation of the school. And I was HS valedictorian, college magna cum laude honors dept. grad. I chose GPTS because it had the alternative reputation of being a "preacher" training ground (and also "presbyterian" and "confessional"). *Maybe WTS-P is trying to get more guys like me to come there instead of heading off to GPTS, or RTS Jackson, etc.*

If any school is not serving the church (and today's conservative churches do NOT rubber stamp denominational grads) they are going to go out of business. At the same time, schools need to distinguish themselves from each other to attract students.

So quit knocking WTS-P.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...



Most people who sat under Shepherd, from what they have told me firsthand (and btw, many hated Call of Grace), said he was a _brilliant_ systematician. 

Civ, this isn't a swipe against you, but I am going to use it as a launching pad.
Bahnsen taught a course on logic. As for one unnamed theologian who said that Van Tillians depreciate systematics and logic, may I suggest a few:

Frame teaches systematic theology and is writing a multi volume systematic.
Bahnsen got an advanced master's degree in systematic theology and has taught numerous courses on logic.
Van Til wrote an intro to systematics. Kind of odd for a guy whose system is against systematics to write an intro/apology for systematics.

Off of the rabbit trail...


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Frame is probably more "systematic" than Van Til, and he made gave some devastating criticisms of Van Til's apologetics. 

Bahnsen is a great apologist - but his review of Clark's views was painfully flawed. For someone who seemed to understand logic, he presented several blatant straw man arguments. 

One should not be too impressed with degrees and credentials - there are doctors of philosophy and science who are still spiritual morons (although we call them atheist). These men are brilliant - mental giants - and yet they still consider Christianity as absurd. I can only give so much weight to academic credentials. A child who believes the Gospel has more wisdom that the most esteemed doctor of science who is an atheist.

I'm sure many students of Shepherd found him to be brilliant. But his brilliant mind blurred the distinction between faith a works.

(P.S. I did not take it as a swipe against me - no offense was taken. The import of these issues is greater than anyone's egos.)

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 11, 2006)

Yeah, I believe it. Oh the coveted, illustrious Westminster! Big surprise there!

The prestigious Harvard has some lackluster programs in some areas given the resources it has and they have a considerable amount of grade inflation too. Surprise! Suprise! Because Harvard wants to keep its #1 spot in all of the college rankings  The hard part of course is getting into Harvard. You've accomplished something if you do that-- and finance it.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> So quit knocking WTS-P.





Discussing the academic _reputation_ of a school compared to firsthand accounts of what is actually expected of students is not "knocking."

How about this: Quit making critical discussions of educational institutions appear to be off limits. 

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## DanielC (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



Ben - 
Do you think this sort of language is really edifying to the Body of Christ? I am saddened by what I take to be the lack of humility and respect you have shown towards a minister of the gospel - on a public forum. Your attitude comes across (in my opinion) as arrogant and juvenile, and certainly not worthy of the calling to which you have been called. Regardless of where Southern Baptist Theological Seminary stands in terms of academic rigor, I do hope you will also learn before you graduate that a man who aspires to the office of overseer must be temperate, prudent, and uncontentious.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 13, 2006)

Daniel,

There is no "hands off" status that may be accorded to a minister in regards to his opinion on the viability of one's public critique of an educational institution. We don't worship the office, we respect it, but that does not mean that a minister may never be critiqued, especially when he is speaking on subjects outside the boundaries of the pulpit. Pastor Buchanan is a sharp fellow, I'm sure that he can defend his own reputation, if indeed he felt that it was placed on the line by Ben's comments.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DanielC_
> I am saddened by what I take to be the lack of humility and respect you have shown towards a minister of the gospel - on a public forum.



Just because I don't cow before someone who happens to be a minister when he touts his own opinions does not mean that I have a lack of respect and humility. Did I call him a name? Did I accuse him of anything? No... all I did was respond to his opinion with my own.
He is not my minister. _He in no way has any authority over me._ In fact, when he posts on a board that is not affiliated with his church, his ordination may influence our estimation of his credibility, but it doesn't give him authority over _any_ of us. Just because he is a minister does not mean that when he speaks we must be silent... especially when the topic is about the quality of an academic institution.



> Your attitude comes across (in my opinion) as arrogant and juvenile, and certainly not worthy of the calling to which you have been called.



Again, I was commenting on the reputation of an accredited academic institution, not an individual or an ecclesiastical body.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 13, 2006)

Well, Ben, Rev. Buchanan is an ordained minister of the PCA, of which you are a member. All ordained ministers of the gospel deserve our honor and respect, but we don't always have to agree with them.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, Ben, Rev. Buchanan is an ordained minister of the PCA, of which you are a member. All ordained ministers of the gospel deserve our honor and respect, but we don't always have to agree with them.



He's not in my church or in my presbytery, so he has no authority over me.

I agree that ministers (in general) deserve respect, but of the same type that every person is owed. 

If Bruce was offended by my opinionated response to his opinionated response, then I invite him to let me know. 



To bring the discussion back to the topic of this thread:
Can it be that WTS-PA is overrated?

I think it is at least possible that their "glory days" are behind them.


[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

Is the overall tenor thus, or is it just like this in a few subjects? Like, could they speciallize in one area and be weak in another? I don't know. Just curious.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Is the overall tenor thus, or is it just like this in a few subjects? Like, could they speciallize in one area and be weak in another? I don't know. Just curious.



I think that is entirely probable.
Also, it is also likely that at a given school you have professors that are "tougher" and "more demanding" than other professors in their same department.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Following that line of thought, what is the primary emphasis at SBTS?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Following that line of thought, what is the primary emphasis at SBTS?



It is a little harder with SBTS than with WTS (any campus) or RTS (any campus) or GPTS... the reason is that SBTS is so huge that we have different schools within the seminary. (Think a university...)
Each school has different emphases. However, the overarching emphasis of SBTS is to prepare graduates to effectively engage culture with the historic Christian message.


----------



## DanielC (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Ben,
My point was that I was offended, and as a fellow believer, somewhat embarrassed. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and you have a right to discuss. Since my point wasn't clear, just go back and replace "minister of the gospel" with "a brother in Christ" and my point remains. "Minister of the gospel" was for emphasis.

I think it would've been better to phrase yourself like this:
"It wasn't my intention to knock WTS-PA. I merely meant to have a critical discussion about a seminary's academic reputation."
rather than:
"how about this: quit trying to..."

For another example, rather than saying:
"these subterfuge posts have attempted to divert attention..."
you could have said:
"these posts have diverted attention..."
or
"these posts have gotten us off track"
or
"but to get back to the topic at hand..."

In the first, by syndoche, you have accused me of deceptive motives, as if I, as a fellow member of the Body, were not really concerned about your well-being, but was merely interested in getting everyone's attention off of WTS-PA. Once again, this is offensive, and not what I would consider to be temperate or uncontentious. In this new case, an apology to me would be appropriate. Ben, a word to the wise should be sufficient, and should be welcomed.

But to get back to the topic at hand, yes, I agree with you. Westminster Philly is not what it used to be, in my opinion. I still think it's a good school, but doesn't have quite the monopoly that it used to have, now that a WTS grad started RTS and WTS started WSC. Machen, Van Til, Murray, and Stonehouse were all top scholars. EJ Young could read in over 30 languages. It would be hard for any seminary to compete with that, in terms of the aptitude of their professors.
On the other hand, I don't know that much about what other seminaries require of their students, though I have seen some reading lists for CTS that I thought looked pretty easy. Your new contact only spent one year at WTS, and if he was taking his languages, he wouldn't have even met the prereqs for the exegetical and most systematic classes (that is, the hard classes). I've taken some of those via videoconference, and not all classes are equal, but most have been pretty demanding. Last month I took a two hour practical theology class on the preaching of John Calvin - and was required to read 2100 pages for it. Maybe I am a slacker, but that was pretty heavy (I thought) for a two hour practical theology class. Typically, a three hour exegetical class at WTS requires a paper, a couple exams, a few hundred verses of translation with quizzes, and around 2000 pages of reading. That might be less difficult than other schools, but I just don't know. I'd be interested in hearing what typical classes at other seminaries require.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DanielC_
> I think it would've been better to phrase yourself like this:
> "It wasn't my intention to knock WTS-PA. I merely meant to have a critical discussion about a seminary's academic reputation."
> rather than:
> ...



Ok. I see your point. I can see how my choice of words were not conducive to cordiality.



> In this new case, an apology to me would be appropriate.


Actually, the "subterfuge" language was in response to both you and Gabe. So: Gabe and Daniel, I apologize for using inflammatory rhetoric to give the impression that you were intentionally attempting to change the subject.
I'll go back and erase the line from my original post.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## DanielC (Feb 13, 2006)

Thanks Ben. I appreciate your perspectives and contributions to the board. Now I'm curious - those of you at various seminaries - what are the typical requirements for your classes?


----------

