RTS Orlando opinions

Status
Not open for further replies.

roller6012

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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?

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

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

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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


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

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.
 
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? :P 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top