# Bahsen or Whitefield?



## Canadian _Shawn (Apr 16, 2005)

Hey all!

Just wondering if someone could recommend either Bahnsen Theological Seminary or Whitefield Theological Seminary to me. I'm currently pursuing more or less academic and secular degrees in theology and wouldn't mind doing some unnacredited studies on the side to bolster my orthodoxy.

In Him,
Shawn


----------



## Preach (Apr 16, 2005)

Shawn,




I have a unique insight into this question. I am a former student of Bahnsen Theological Seminary (graduate studies in aplogetics) and am presently working on a Ph.D. at Whitefield.

Here is the way I see it. BTW, I'v asked myself the same question regarding recommending a seminary to someone. So, here goes:

The curriculum in the M.DIV. and M.A. in apologetics or philosophy prgrams at Bahnsen are top flight. The focus is on critical thinking, apologetics, philosophy, and historic Reformed theology (emphasis on Calvin's Institutes), and some history. Obviously there is a heavy emphasis of Bahnsen and Van Til. Mike Butler teaches the apologetics classes. The way it works is you listen to tapes, read articles and books, type summary reports of those, prepare a position paper, and take an open book test (this was the method for the M.A.). There are also two phone interviews with the professor. This gives you the opportunity to interact and he sees where you are in your studies through a phone tutorial. He asks questions, etc.

Whitefileld (at least the Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual Thought) focuses 100 % on reading. This is to say there is no tapes. Though I believe that the M.Div is different. So, you'll have to check it out. I think you listen to tapes, read the assigned books, then write chapter summaries or book summaries. You will have a paper to write per class,. But I'm not sure how the tests work. The focus (at least in my program, is more on historic Reformed thought and historical theology). In other words, the emphasis seems to be a bit different. 

If you are looking to be steeped in the historic Reformed thought, history and theology, Whitefield seems to focus more on that. If you are interested in Historic Reformed theology, critical thinking, and the apologetical and philosophical skills, Bahnsen wins hands down.

My one critique of Whitefield is a lack of interaction with the professors. At Bahnsen, I was able to have two hours of phone tutorials per class. I'm not sure how that would be for Whitefield. Another thought is the work load. You would have to compare the individual programs you are looking at. It just seems that the amount of reading, and the work load was heavier at Whitefield. Yet, this does not necessarily imply anything. I personally likes the way Bahnsen Seminary arranged the classes.

Moreover, if you go Bahnsen, your primary professor will be Greg Bahnsen. The seminary is built around his tapes and books. That said, they have a staff that you would take classes from. Mike Butler may be the greatest living Christian apologist (Bahnsen's disciple).

For me, all things considered, I personally would like to recommend Bahnsen. Though pleases note the following. I follow Van Til and Bahnsen in their apologetical method. 

But then again, it has been a very refreshing experience to read some of the great works in Reformed thought that I have been assigned at Whitefield. I have learned so much. It is good to have a breadth of authors to learn from.

I thoroughly love both schools. I rate them as two of the top schools in the world today. Moreover, if accreditation is not an issue, they would probably be my number one and number two choices of any schools anywhere in the world.

Of the two, I would probably go with (for me personally )Bahnsen. I say this because I want to be steeped in the thought of Van Til and Bahnsen (and especially Bahnsen's exposition of historic Reformed theology). Whitefield emphasizes the apologetic and philosophic view of Gordon Clark. But that was just for one class. I appreciated Clark, but since I want to focus on Van Til and Bahnsen, I recommend that school. Moreover, Bahnsen Semianry is Christian reconstruction (they adhere to Van Tillian apologetics, postmillenialism, and theonomy).

A WORD OF CAUTION: I took a course about three years ago. I'm not sure in what way the faculty has changed, and what books they assign. My reservation (and this is only a caution) is that Covenant Media Foundation (Randy Booth) carries a lot of the Auburn Theology tapes and books. Booth was a disciple of Bahnsen. I am not saying Randy Booth agrees with the Auburn theology, but he carries their work at the web site. I raise this issue because CMF is connected with Bahnsen Seminary and the SCCCS (Southern California Center For Christian Studies). Bahnsen's tapes and books used to be at the center of the CMF web site. They are not now. So, my concern (though this is just a possibility) is that maybe some of the faculty might have leanings to assigning some of the Auburn theology books and tapes because they are friends with those men.

But one way to find out is to request a catalog and see the courses assigned in the program you want to take, and see what is assigned. If most of your classes are listening, reading, and studying John Calvin, Corneliues Van Ti,. Greg Bahnsen, and Mike Butler, then for me that would be the choice. Mike Butler's father is the registrar and is a very nice person. You could call and talk to him.

Either school is top rate. Feel free to u2u me if you would like.

"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Apr 16, 2005)

*Thanks for insight*

Thanks for the insight, Bobby. I think I will definetly go with Bahnsen. I mean, there's no reason why I can't do both down the line, right? MA at Bansen, DAR at Whitefield?

Its interesting that they taught Clark at Whitefield. I guess that's because Gary Crampton teaches there? I'm a Clark fan myself... though I know Bahnsen fairly well, I don't know Van Til first-hand. Currently, I'm concentrating on learning Dooyeweerd. I think Bahnsen is the place, because I really want to sharpen my ethical and apologetic skills. So thanks for the advice!

In Him,
Shawn


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 16, 2005)

Welcome to the board, Shawn! I wish you the best in your pursuits and study at seminary. Also, please see the "Signature Requirements" at the bottom of my signature.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Apr 16, 2005)

*Got it*

I think I got that signature thing down now. Thanks, Chris.

In Him,
Shawn


----------



## JOwen (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hey all!
> 
> Just wondering if someone could recommend either Bahnsen Theological Seminary or Whitefield Theological Seminary to me. I'm currently pursuing more or less academic and secular degrees in theology and wouldn't mind doing some unaccredited studies on the side to bolster my orthodoxy.
> ...



Hello Shawn,

When you are chosing a non-accredited distance Ed Seminary you might also wish to consider a few things:

1. Which school has the more reputable grads?
When you see men such as R.C Sproul and George Grant, not to mention Dr. Francis Nigel Lee as grads endorsing Whitefield Sem, that will work in your favour (as it has mine) when (or if in your case) you are looking for ministry opportunity in the future.

2. Which school is more well rounded? 
As it has ben pointed out earlier, Bahnsen concentrates on two main thinkers (Bahnsen and Van Til). However gifted tese men are, you will immediately pigeon hole yourself as a "recon" Bahnsenite after graduation.
Do you intend to run in non recon Reformed and Presbyterian circles.

3. Are you in favour of the Federal Vision and Shepherd?
SCCCS and BTS are moving closer and closer toward the FV movement worth each passing year. Is this an association you wish to have as a grad of BTS?


These are just a few things I would think about before I made a choice. I'm a grad of Whitefield so take what I have said for what it is worth.

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Apr 17, 2005)

*Stigma: Nigel Lee vs. Bahnsen*

Hi Jerrold,

You raise several good points. I guess you could easily get a certain stigma attached to your name because of a seminary affiliation, couldn't you? And, sadly, Christians can be the most unforgiving of people sometimes.

That being said, in the end, I guess it would be like being between a rock and a hard place. Just as many people would be afraid of seeing Francis Nigel Lee on a reference as they would Bahnsen! And isn't Gentry at BOTH schools? I get the feeling, though, that I would probably benefit from studying at either school.

One point of clarification, though. I can't say I'm up on what you mean by "Federal Vision and Shepherd." Does that have something to do with the New Perspective on Paul?

In Him,
Shawn


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2005)

Keep in mind that any association of Greg Bahnsen with AAPC is merely Auburn-people reading back into Bahnsen's quotes something Bahnsen would not have meant (I know, I verified the one on Shepherd. Listening before and after the quote would make that clear). Bahnsen has powerfully affirmed the imputation of Christ's righteousness in Theonomy and Christian Ethics, has denied paedocommunion, and was a sworn enemy of Rome (those are his words, not mine). So, the association with Auburn is purely anachronistic. That being said, some competent Christian Reconstructionists have come out of Whitefield, so pick your poison.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Keep in mind that any association of Greg Bahnsen with AAPC is merely Auburn-people reading back into Bahnsen's quotes something Bahnsen would not have meant (I know, I verified the one on Shepherd. Listening before and after the quote would make that clear). Bahnsen has powerfully affirmed the imputation of Christ's righteousness in Theonomy and Christian Ethics, has denied paedocommunion, and was a sworn enemy of Rome (those are his words, not mine). So, the association with Auburn is purely anachronistic. That being said, some competent Christian Reconstructionists have come out of Whitefield, so pick your poison.




Brother,

His son David completely disagrees with you stating on more than one occasion that his father would indeed support both Shepherd and the FV.

Kind regards,

Jerrold lewis


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2005)

I know Davey Bahnsen disagrees with me. However, D. Bahnsen, and I can't pull these up now, has come close to rejecting a lot of his father's disctions. He wrote those articles in response--and I have dealt wiht this--to justify some friends of his. But to do so he has had to read _back into statements_ that Dr Bahnsen said several decades ago, when many people did not know quite what to make of Shepherd. It is a historical fallacy to say that Greg Bahnsen supported the modern day views of Shepherd, one that CMF and D. Bahnsen are making. I have checked his sources (and what Randy Booth has said) and Greg Bahnsen does not say things that would justify AAPC.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> But to do so he has had to read _back into statements_ that Dr Bahnsen said several decades ago, when many people did not know quite what to make of Shepherd. It is a historical fallacy to say that Greg Bahnsen supported the modern day views of Shepherd, one that CMF and D. Bahnsen are making. I have checked his sources (and what Randy Booth has said) and Greg Bahnsen does not say things that would justify AAPC.



First, Shepherd is not saying anything different today than he was saying at Westminster, so Bahnsen and Van Til knew exactly what he was saying. At least everyone else knew what he was saying (Godfrey, Murray, Lloyd-Jones, Sproul etc). (Read O. P Robertson's book on The Justification Controversy to see what people knew and when they knew it).

Second, I am not claiming that Bahnsen supported a modern day view of Shepherd. I'm saying that the source material from his own mouth and his son's pen prove that he supported the only Shepherd VIEW. The same view expressed which caused for the request of no renewal on his tenure at Westminster. It was for the EXACT reasons mentioned in O. P Robertson's book being the same problems we are facing today. Believe me, Bahnsen knew what the facts were in thew 1980's, probably better than we do. Shepherd has brought nothing substantial to the table of his heresy that is new. Same rubbish, different decade.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------

