# RTS Orlando opinions



## roller6012 (Jan 14, 2015)

Does anyone have any current experience or reflection on RTS Orlando? I know that a while back there were several concerns raised, but what about now? I'm asking about quality of education and faculty. I am reformed baptist and I see that they are starting to offer some reformed baptist courses through the Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 14, 2015)

roller6012 said:


> Does anyone have any current experience or reflection on RTS Orlando? I know that a while back there were several concerns raised, but what about now? I'm asking about quality of education and faculty. I am reformed baptist and I see that they are starting to offer some reformed baptist courses through the Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies.


I confess I do not know a lot about Orlando. Seeing how you are in Florida you can take it or leave it but, Have ypu checked into Westminster in California? They have the Institute for Reformed Baptist studies and they are good.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2015)

Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.


----------



## KMK (Jan 14, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.



Yes, but are they thinking of Christ existentially, teleologically, or deontologically?


----------



## roller6012 (Jan 14, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.



I'm sorry, I think I should understand this but I don't. Could you please clarify what you mean?


----------



## roller6012 (Jan 14, 2015)

arap said:


> roller6012 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any current experience or reflection on RTS Orlando? I know that a while back there were several concerns raised, but what about now? I'm asking about quality of education and faculty. I am reformed baptist and I see that they are starting to offer some reformed baptist courses through the Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies.
> ...



arap thanks for the reply and suggestion, but California will not work. I should have given some context to my question. I am already planning to attend another seminary but am second guessing moving my whole family 800 miles away. For this reason I am curious about RTS Orlando because it is much closer to home.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2015)

roller6012 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.
> ...



It's an argument against one of the clauses in the WLC that John Frame proposes and I hear repeated by many who graduate having studied under him. I just find it interesting that it's usually the one thing I consistently find from those graduates.

The conversation usually goes something like this:

Candidate: "I take exception to the WLC on the forbidding of making mental images of the Son of God because I don't think it's possible to think of Jesus without having a mental image of a man in your mind."

Me: "I don't think I imagine a man in my mind when I think of Jesus but maybe I lack an imagination. Let me ask you a question: Is it because you think you're able keep the other commandments that you're not taking exception to them? Is it because you think you otherwise obey the 2nd commandment that you object to this clause?"

Candidate: "Oh, I never thought about that...."

I think I've had at least 2-3 folks rescind that objection.

Sorry to derail. RTS Orlando is a fine school but that's just what comes to mind.


----------



## roller6012 (Jan 14, 2015)

Thank you for clarifying Rich. It makes sense now. Unfortunately it is common to hear people spout or parrot arguments and explanations of strange things they heard in seminary or elsewhere. Usually only when challenged to defend said arguments do they realize they don't really hold that belief themselves.

If nothing else two extra credit points to you. You got a baptist to pull up the WLC today!


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 14, 2015)

roller6012 said:


> If nothing else two extra credit points to you. You got a baptist to pull up the WLC today!



Priceless


----------



## roller6012 (Jan 15, 2015)

Anyone else have any experience or input to offer?


----------



## Jack K (Jan 15, 2015)

roller6012 said:


> Anyone else have any experience or input to offer?



Only that what's good for your family is a valid consideration. You're wise not to automatically move them across the country in search of the perfect seminary (which does not exist). If you make that move, be sure you know why that seminary is better for you than the solid choice you already have near home.


----------



## nicnap (Jan 15, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.



 I'm on our candidates and exams committee, and there seems to be some coaching & "canned" responses that men have accepted without thinking through.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> roller6012 said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



I *think* I understand what they're *trying* to say... but their inability to articulate it themselves is indicative of their thoughtless parroting of others' ideas... I *think* the objection would be that WLC Q109 creates an impossible situation for us constitutionally because we can't - constitutionally - think about a man walking on water without having the mental "image" of a man walking on water in our minds. (Humans think in words and images. And God accommodates this constitutional fact in history for the recollection of subsequent generations.) So the objection *I think* would be that in the Divines' attempt to show how wretched and sinful we are, Q109 actually sets a bar higher than God's word, a bar that makes it impossible to think about Jesus (at all) without sinning. In other words: In WLC Q109, the divines hold us to a standard God does not and so they object. Is that what they're saying? 

Frankly, call me unfaithful or ignorant or whatever, but I don't believe that merely having our brain synapses generate a mental picture of the scene of a humanoid form walking on water as I think of the story of Jesus walking across the sea is what is referenced by the Divines as "making a representation of God... inwardly in the mind" in Q109. (Now, I do believe that if I drill down and focus my mind and start trying to bring the humanoid form into "sharp focus," then I think this might be more what is in view.) 

To me, their (the RTS grads') objection (or at least the objection as, ahem, _framed_ by the one who taught it to them) reflects an immature attempt at trying to poke those whom they believe are overly scrupulous.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 15, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.



Or CTS.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.
> ...



Speaking of CTS... the two men I know who went there as presbyterians BOTH became Anglican priests. Weird.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> I *think* I understand what they're *trying* to say... but their inability to articulate it themselves is indicative of their thoughtless parroting of others' ideas... I *think* the objection would be that WLC Q109 creates an impossible situation for us constitutionally because we can't - constitutionally - think about a man walking on water without having the mental "image" of a man walking on water in our minds. (Humans think in words and images. And God accommodates this constitutional fact in history for the recollection of subsequent generations.) So the objection *I think* would be that in the Divines' attempt to show how wretched and sinful we are, Q109 actually sets a bar higher than God's word, a bar that makes it impossible to think about Jesus (at all) without sinning. In other words: In WLC Q109, the divines hold us to a standard God does not and so they object. Is that what they're saying?
> 
> Frankly, call me unfaithful or ignorant or whatever, but I don't believe that merely having our brain synapses generate a mental picture of the scene of a humanoid form walking on water as I think of the story of Jesus walking across the sea is what is referenced by the Divines as "making a representation of God... inwardly in the mind" in Q109. (Now, I do believe that if I drill down and focus my mind and start trying to bring the humanoid form into "sharp focus," then I think this might be more what is in view.)
> 
> To me, their (the RTS grads') objection (or at least the objection as, ahem, framed by the one who taught it to them) reflects an immature attempt at trying to poke those whom they believe are overly scrupulous.



Well, as I said, I don't generally think in images so I don't find it "impossible" to read the story of Jesus walking on the water without seeing, in my mind's eye, Jesus walking on water. That doesn't make me pious, it just doesn't really happen to me (and I read that passage yesterday BTW). 

This is just an observation but I've noted that Frame (and some others) seem to particularly focus on the 2nd and 4th Commandments. I've joked with some people that most people think they regularly break most commandments in their hearts _except_ the 2nd and 4th Commandments. It's when the requirements of those commandments are spelled out that people usually bring out the "legalism" card (hence the point that nobody ever seems to think they break them because they seem to measure whether something is commanded and forbidden by a standard that is relatively easy to keep). 

Thus, if the only argument is that it is really impossible for men to not imagine a human form when we read of Jesus (Pert hair, flowing robe) then it would not, in itself, be an objection to this clause. It would only mean that we're sinners and incapable of not being idolatrous when we read about Jesus. We have to come up with some argument other than "...that can't be the standard because I can't obey that standard....." I'm willing to accept an argument that it's not Biblical but not the "It's too hard" argument and I want them to think it through more deeply.

That said, I'm not so hard on them as to not to vote to allow certain exceptions or reservations but I still find the main argument very weak.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> imagine a human form when we read of Jesus (Pert hair, flowing robe)


 you've equivocated. thinking of a vague human form is different than thinking of the specifics of "pert hair" and "flowing robe."




Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't generally think in images so I don't find it "impossible" to read the story of Jesus walking on the water without seeing, in my mind's eye, Jesus walking on water.


Pardon me while I point out the difference: it isn't impossible to avoid thinking in images while you - as you point out - _read_ the story, because your mind is preoccupied with the words. But take the words away and _think_ of the story, and unless you intentionally choose to think of the text, you'll think of the story as a scene. Unless you're a different sort of human. And I doubt you are. Now, maybe your mind is so sharp, and your will so steeled, that you can imagine a scene involving Jesus and you just delete him from the scene so that people are looking up at an EMPTY cross, or that the disciples are in the boat looking out in terror at NOTHING walking across the water... Hmm...


Again, I don't take the exception, and I think their exception is born more of disdain for what they believe to be overly scrupulous interpretation/adherence to the Standards than of a serious attempt to understand and apply the Standard. However, to be clear, for me there's a HUGE difference between saying "WLC Q109 accurately conveys God's standards concerning the 2nd Commandment, but I find them too hard, so I object to them" and saying "I believe WLC Q109 creates a standard higher than God's standard, and I object to that." The former is a personal problem, the second is a genuine exception.


----------



## KMK (Jan 15, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> To me, their (the RTS grads') objection (or at least the objection as, ahem, framed by the one who taught it to them) reflects an immature attempt at trying to poke those whom they believe are overly scrupulous.



You all are overly scrupulous. I think these poor candidates have been _framed_.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 15, 2015)

I'm with Ben. I never took that exception because I never understood the Standards to mean that we may not imagine a human form present in those Bible scenes. It seems it would be an even worse misrepresentation of Christ to imagine those happenings without any human form present. He _is_ human, after all. He _was_ there.

I take the Standards to mean that we ought not imagine "This is what he looks like; doesn't he look wonderful" the way an artist or one carving an idol would have to do. This seems to fit what the Catechism is addressing at that point. I've never quite understood why some are convinced that imagining a vague human form present in the Bible scene is what the Catechism is concerned about. If I were ever in a position of being examined on this issue specifically, I would take no exception to the "inwardly in our mind" phrase and would explain it as I just did if questioned in more detail. I wonder why those candidates even bring it up, unless it is to make a point about overreaching, as Ben suggested, or more likely just because it somehow got on someone's list of objections to consider.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 15, 2015)

As has been noted, these guys have been coached to take this explicit exception. 

In cases I have had the opportunity to see in my Presbytery it became very evident that the candidate had never even actually read the Larger Catechism at all, let alone well enough to take exception to specific clauses buried deep in one of the long, flowing answers in the Ten Commandments part of the Catechism (which are a part of our Standards).


----------



## BGF (Jan 15, 2015)

Now can someone please remove the Pert hair and flowing robes image from my mind!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 15, 2015)

Outside of places like PB, and maybe long long ago on the old Knox Ring email list (1996-98) I don't recall WLC 109 discussed in any depth, so I cannot imagine how the whole question of mental images is being framed for those so taught and taking exception. But I've thought ever since the discussion on Knox Ring, that the Westminster Assembly was not addressing how we think but that our minds are idol factories and before one can create a physical idol one imagines it and once deprived of one's physical idols one seeks refuge in imagining them; we discipline our minds regarding what we do with mental pictures regarding the three persons of the Trinity per the second commandment just as we do regarding Bathsheba on the rooftop per the seventh. In my experience it was those having a negative view of the proscriptions of pictures of Christ period by LC 109, in trying to discredit the Assembly's view, who raised how we think to show the absurdity of the divines.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2015)

roller6012 said:


> Does anyone have any current experience or reflection on RTS Orlando? I know that a while back there were several concerns raised, but what about now? I'm asking about quality of education and faculty. I am reformed baptist and I see that they are starting to offer some reformed baptist courses through the Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies.



If you are looking for a solidly evangelical education with a Reformed _accent,_ RTS Orlando will be right up your ally. But if you are looking for a School that is _self-consciously Confessional_ in its doctrine and philosophy of education, RTS Orlando will likely frustrate and disappoint you.

I might recommend: 

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary 
Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary 
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary 
RTS Charlotte


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> you've equivocated. thinking of a vague human form is different than thinking of the specifics of "pert hair" and "flowing robe."


It wasn't equivocation, it was a joke.

I'm not trying to say I have a steel will, I just don't think of people in my mind at all when I read or hear things as a general rule. I'm not picturing any kind of human form or a body of water. I wasn't joking when I said I might lack some imagination. It's not that I can't conjure up that image right now but when I'm hearing stories or reading books my mind just doesn't work that way. 

I understood the scrupulous part but the argument is not presented as a scruple but in the form I've given it. It's an argument to prove that the standard cannot be to prohibit making mental images of Jesus humanity because it's (ultimately) impossible not to (as you argued it must be). My only point is that arguing for the virtual impossibility of keeping the Law is not a sound argument.

As for the fact that others are over-scrupulous that's not an argument because one must first establish that the Law doesn't (by GNC) forbid the thing to argue that it's a matter of scruple. To argue against the GNC, one must first investigate _why_ the WCF reasoned that it was against the Law and then demonstrate that it is not.

I'm not arguing with you Ben, I'm just explaining why I have trouble with learned men who present what amount to weak arguments agasints clauses in the WLC. Frame has an entire series online on the WLC and I was shocked at how he barely (if at all) took the time in his class to unpack why a certain clause was in the WLC. He repeatedly presented strawmen arguments against several clauses that he easily tore down. I found myself surprised after a while when he actually _agreed_ with the Standards on any given point because it got to be the exception to the rule.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jan 16, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's just say that whenever I examine a man and ask him if he has any exceptions to the 2nd Commandment and he says that he takes an exception to the WLC on the 2nd Commandment that forbids mental images of the Son of God because he can't think of Jesus without thinking of seeing a man then I know that I've likely just encountered a fellow who graduated from RTS Orldando.



Though to be fair, in our presbytery, very few if any went to RTS-O, and most of them take that exception. And when I was at RTS-O, I had several friends who didn't take that exception. But you're probably right that RTS-O generally attracts those that are less conservative on issues such as this.

I attended for one year and did really enjoy my time there. As with most places, I think a lot of it is what you make of it. We read Calvin and Bavinck as primary texts for the ST classes, so there was plenty of good stuff there.

There is some offered for the Reformed Baptists there, but I don't know too much about it. My classes were fairly diverse, with PCA, OPC, Anglican, Baptist, non-denoms, etc. Other campuses might not be as diverse theologically.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 16, 2015)

Covenant Joel said:


> I attended for one year and did really enjoy my time there.



Out of curiosity, if it isn't too personal, would you mind saying what led you to leave after 1 year?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jan 16, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> > I attended for one year and did really enjoy my time there.
> ...



I decided to move overseas for a year (Middle East). When I moved back, I was to be married shortly and decided I needed to work full-time, so I ended up finishing my RTS degree through the distance program.


----------



## psycheives (Jan 16, 2015)

The others have added much good advice. When deciding on a seminary, I strongly considered a few additional things (in no particular order):

1) Confessionalism. How strongly confessional were the teachers? Do they hold to the LBC? 3 forms? WStandards? Or all 6? Do they really emphasize confessions or is it just kind of something in the background? It makes a world of difference to sit under teachers who know their confessions and can answer questions by the confessions. I have learned to appreciate the value of knowledge in our confessions so much more through this.

2) I researched the major teachers to find the "plus" and "minuses" of their individual theology. This is sooo essential. You should know WHO you will be learning from and WHAT their theology is? What will they be teaching you (positively & negatively) that another teacher might not teach? What do the critics say about the teachers? Investigate their books on Amazon and read the thoughtful negative reviews. Google their books to find bloggers who have reviewed these books and make note of the blogger's theology (Reformed? Lutheran?) and his criticisms of the work. Remember, they will be teaching you this same worldview. And many seminaries have some significant differences that are not at all apparent from a surface glance. Seminary professors often differ over issues like Covenant Theology views (Murray, Robertson, Kline or Old Dead Guys); Law/Gospel Distinction (this is pretty huge issue with some calling others "Antinomian" or "Legalists" depending on where they fall); sanctification (3rd use of the law; Is it not just taught but emphasized and practiced?); Preaching style taught (Experiential and/or Redemptive Historical); Federal Vision/New Perspectives on Paul heresy (some professors may be warmer to these than others); Church and State views (Old Two Kingdoms; Kuyperian; Neo-Kuyperian; Neo-Two Kingdoms, Theonomy etc); 

If going to RTS, consider:
Charles E. Hill has an excellent reputation on early church fathers.
Simon J. Kistemaker is a big name. Written a lot. So you should be able to read up on his theology.
John Frame has taken a lot of criticism over the years. Gets accused of being "warm" to Federal Vision heresy founder Norman Shepherd. Wrote an affirming chapter about Shepherd (where he defends Shepherd; any criticisms are almost non-existent) in his new Systematic Theology book. Personally, this really bothered me that Frame never mentions that Shepherd teaches what all the majority of Reformed Denominations have called a heresy.

If going to Nicole Institute, become very familiar with the theology of:
http://rts.edu/site/rtsnearyou/orlando/nibs/faculty.aspx
Tom Ascol
Michael Haykin - much focus on Andrew Fuller's theology
Thomas Nettles
Samuel Waldron
And compare their theology to what you might learn from the Institute for Reformed Baptists Studies at WSCAL. Make sure you choose the program that fits the theology you want to learn. They may be very different. I did notice that two of the above Professors are teachers at SBTS, so they may have a distinct theology. Do they teach the LBC's version of the sacraments as "a means of grace"? (See bottom comments)

3) When visiting, watch very carefully for the warmth of the seminary. Seminaries can have completely different atmospheres. Some places are more friendly to other nationalities and women, some are colder. Some are more cliquish, some are more welcoming to all. Some foreigners can have a really bad experience where they graduate having made zero friends.

4) Check out the free ITunesU (I Tunes University) section in ITunes Store to get a feel for how much you will learn in their classes. You can compare a History course from one seminary with another. Some teachers pack their courses with a lot of data; some will teach you less material. RTS Orlando has MANY courses on ItunesU that you can download for free.

5) Emphasis on languages. Some seminaries have a stronger/weaker language requirement.

6) Emphasis on reading ORIGINAL primary sources. It is shocking how many "scholars" have written articles quoting someone who claimed Calvin said so-and-so. But they never actually read Calvin to discover that he did NOT say so-and-so. Some seminaries will only accept papers that emphasize the original authors/sources. So you will read Augustine. You will read the early church fathers. You will also read what people claim about them, but you will have the opportunity to make up your own mind. 

7) Grading and scholarships. Some professors are very hard graders and this has nothing directly to do with the amount/value of what you learn. Be careful not to pick a school that grades so difficult that you will quit after the first year. Unless you think this steep learning curve is effectively weeding out those who can't pass?  Also find out what sort of financial support they offer.

8) Make sure they have good churches you'd like to join nearby. Visit the churches when you visit the seminary. You will be living here for 3-4 years. A good church makes a difference.

9) Are the professors Totally/Confessionally Reformed? Or are they only 5-pt Calvinists with a mixed/confused rest of their theology? Or Arminian? Or Lutheran? Or mixed/confused? This has to make such a huge difference! I can't imagine going to a seminary where one professor contradicts another constantly and you come out with a mixed, messed up, confused theology. Many seminaries that people consider "Reformed" actually have professors that are not. Example: I've been told by several Masters Seminary guys that the seminary is/was almost all 4-Pt Calvinist professors.

10) Will the professors teach you Covenant Theology (and which version is important!) or Dispensationalism?

11) I saw that it was already ruled out, but from my experience with my Baptist brothers in the "Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies" here at WSCAL, their program provides a very solid education. You will be reading the original writings of early Particular Baptists (before their views got "tainted"). Guys like Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach. You will learn their original Covenant Theology and not the later modified "corrupted" view. Not sure if you will find such a careful and specialized education elsewhere. http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/index.php?s=keach From what I gather talking to them, there are different strands of Particular Baptists and the majority can be quite different in theology.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 16, 2015)

Hello Psyche,

I see you go to my old church . I hope that Rev. Gordon is well.

One thing that I would also add is ministerial experience. It is one thing to have someone who is taught at different universities, and is a great scholar, etc. However, it is something totally different when you have a scholar who is/was a minister for some time. You have to remember that most people are not going to seminary for academic exercise but for the spiritual betterment and equipping of the saints. Shepherding is less academic and more strengthen the souls of your congregation.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 16, 2015)

SolamVeritatem said:


> Pastor Sheffield,
> 
> No disrespect intended, but on what basis can you make the above statements? Have you attended RTS Orlando?



One need not graduate from a school in order to know something of its character. If you disagree with my assessment, then state where you believe I am wrong. I do not believe I was uncharitable in my characterization. I believe they are a solidly evangelical school. I do not however believe they are solidly confessional school. And I am hardly alone in that assessment.


----------



## psycheives (Jan 16, 2015)

Hi Andrew!  Rev. Gordon is very kind and does a great job preaching - very blessed to have him move here. But I couldn't fit into the 500+ person church. Ended up at Oceanside with Pastor Danny Hyde. It's nice to have a number of URC churches in the area to choose from. 

Good suggestion. Pastoral experience. But not just pastoral experience, but pastors that know how to live the life and teach and practice practical theology is very important. A pastor who knows how to preach the 3rd use of the law is essential. I think without such guidance, it can be easy to fall into accumulating knowledge and getting puffed-up. Young guys can easily fall into bragging rights - comparing grades and ranking each other on "intellectual" abilities. Sadly, I think some of these will make the poorest pastors.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 16, 2015)

SolamVeritatem said:


> Pastor Sheffield,
> 
> No disrespect intended, but on what basis can you make the above statements? Have you attended RTS Orlando? Please keep in mind that Aaron is asking about "quality of education and faculty".
> 
> Unless there is graduate study you haven't indicated, the bio listed at your church's website states that you earned your Bachelor of Biblical Studies from Moody, hardly a bastion of reformed confessionalism. Yet, I think it is safe to assume by your signature that you are "self-consciously confessional". How did that happen?


This seems uncharitable to me, bordering on the genetic fallacy of logic, given your infelicitous "hardly a bastion of reformed confessionalism."

As an extreme example--especially when compared to Moody--I attended a Roman Catholic Seminary for seven years before coming out of Romanism and am confident I am well within my rights to weigh in on the teachings I have observed coming out of other seminaries even if I have not attended them based upon careful analysis of the writings of those representative of said institutions. After all, I need not have to burn myself to know from the evidence of others that fire will do so.

Your post seems to latch on to one's alma mater and assume that no refinement of one's views is possible in a walk of faith. One need only look to one of PB's esteemed graduates of Fuller to see how such an assumption is littered with pot holes.  If you will pardon the metaphorical ditch I am stuck within, thanks be to God that men who have sat under teachers in various seminaries were able by the grace of God to separate the wheat from the chaff versus swallowing the whole camel.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 16, 2015)

SolamVeritatem said:


> Pastor Sheffield,
> 
> I think my issue is not so much whether you're wrong or right, but it's that you do seem to complicate the issue when you do not answer the question or provide meaningful help. If you read his post, Aaron is not asking for recommendations of confessional schools, and although what you say might have slight merit, you cannot possibly authoritatively make your assertions unless you have first hand knowledge. As I said in my earlier post, aspiring seminarians have to make the best decision for themselves and their families, and your post seems to miss that entirely. Not only do your statements not address Aaron's issues, but you felt the need also to offer information based on admittedly second hand sources at best and tertiary sources at worst. Now, if within your realm of association you so happen to have current and former students, current and former staff and professors and the like, I apologize and will loudly profess that I am as wrong as two left shoes. However, In order for you to offer any assessment of RTS-O that carries substantial weight in the discussion, you would at least have to have the experience of someone such as, oh I don't know, Joel possibly? After all, he did actually attend. As far as the confessional thing, I mean, you didn't even qualify that with something like, "you know I've read" or "I've heard". You just boldly stated it. You might disagree, but in my humble opinion (which may not be worth much), that, sir, is uncharitable.



The OP asked for opinions of RTS Orlando. That's what I offered. You seem to be adding limitations to the OP that are not present. You are the one in fact complicating things.

You have wrongly assumed that I have no first-hand knowledge of or experience with RTS Orlando because I did not graduate from there. But I did not elaborate on that knowledge because, as I stated earlier, it really is irrelevant to my comments which can bear the weight of scrutiny without my detailing my dealings with the school, its professors, or its graduates. But I'll spare you the trouble of having you loudly profess that you are as wrong as two left shoes. 

As to the charge of being uncharitable; it is not uncharitable to say that a school is not self-consciously confessional if that is the case. That is only an observation. If it were uncharitable to make such an observation, anyone choosing not to attend a seminary for that reason would be guilty of sin. That is of course absurd.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 16, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Candidate: "I take exception to the WLC on the forbidding of making mental images of the Son of God because I don't think it's possible to think of Jesus without having a mental image of a man in your mind."



Perhaps you should ask the candidate how many minds of other people he has actually been in? How does he know that it is impossible for someone, indeed anyone in the entire universe, to think of Christ without constructing a mental image in their head?


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Jan 17, 2015)

Pastor Sheffield,

I want to express my sincerest apologies to you. I am very sorry to have responded to you in the way that I did, and I hope you will forgive me. I think I jumped to an inappropriate conclusion and made some assumptions about your particular experiences that were unfounded. In addition, I can see where my tone contained a level of harshness and edginess that lacked compassion for not only a fellow brother in the Lord, but also a minister of the word. I ask for your pardon and continued prayers. 

Patrick,

I also want to apologize to you, since you did address me directly. I'm quite certain i overstepped my bounds with Pastor Sheffield, and you were right to correct me. I receive your rebuke with gladness, and will be sure to guard from committing the fallacy you mentioned, as well as others, in the future. 

I've removed all of the posts I authored in this thread except this one. I believe sister Psyche's advice, and others, was much more helpful anyway. 

Pastor Sheffield, grace, peace, the love of the Father and his Son Jesus Christ be with you, your family and those you serve in ministry. 

With all sincerity,

Craig


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 17, 2015)

Craig, 

I appreciate your apology. It is very easy to get worked up when discussing things on a board. It has happened to me on more than one occasion. The medium of the written word is rather one dimensional and removes us from the people with whom we are talking so that we communicate differently than if we were speaking face to face. It takes grace and humility to step back from things, admit when one is wrong and to apologize. Thank you and may God bless us all with the same grace and humility in our conversations with one another.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 17, 2015)

Aaron,

If you haven't noticed, Frame is a rather central figure at RTS Orlando. Some of the major problems with his theology are:
1. Shepherdism--He approves of Norman Shepherd's denial of justification by faith alone.
2. He is warm toward the Federal Vision. See #1.
3. The issues regarding mental images of Christ, as noted by Rich above.
4. His denial of, and war against, the regulative principle of worship.
5. His defense of charismatic worship.

It must be pointed out that Frame is looked upon by broadly evangelical Presbyterians and such as one of the greatest theologians of our time. He has written prolifically, and his Theology of Lordship series (his _magnum opus_, I would think) takes up more than 3000 pages. So, he is no academic lightweight. He is an extremely influential theologian. In my opinion, this should cause more (not less) caution. He is winsome, and siding with him is the popular thing to do right now. So, if you study under him, just know that you will have to be on your toes and ready to critique the potentially dangerous views of one of the greatest minds in broad-evangelical/broadly-reformed thought.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 17, 2015)

Craig,

Thank you for your excellent example of humility and openness to correction.


----------

