Differences Between MARS and PRTS?

[Redeemed Ronin]

Hi all,

Out of curiousity, are there any notable differences between Mid-America Reformed Seminary (MARS) and Puritian Reformed Theological Seminary (PRTS)? I know they are both confessionally Reformed. Is there a reason to choose one over the other, location notwithstanding?

Thank you.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Hi all,

Out of curiousity, are there any notable differences between Mid-America Reformed Seminary (MARS) and Puritian Reformed Theological Seminary (PRTS)? I know they are both confessionally Reformed. Is there a reason to choose one over the other, location notwithstanding?

Thank you.

Both are good seminaries. I considered and visited both before deciding. I went with MARS and never looked back. the Ministerial Apprenticeship Program is priceless (almost literally since nobody graduates with debt from the school). I took what I learned in the classroom and put it to practical use. I got a well-balanced diet of Presbyterian and Continental Reformed theology. Not only did knowledge grow and was tested by experience, I grew as a husband and as a father. I cherish every one-on-one conversation I had.

Let me add this, too. The theological focus overlaps but I believe MARS engages with more contemporary theological developments in addition to Puritans. We've had transfer students from PRTS mention similar things.

Also, the senior interview at MARS helps you get ready for ecclesiastical examinations.

 

[Redeemed Ronin]

Both are good seminaries. I considered and visited both before deciding. I went with MARS and never looked back. the Ministerial Apprenticeship Program is priceless (almost literally since nobody graduates with debt from the school). I took what I learned in the classroom and put it to practical use. I got a well-balanced diet of Presbyterian and Continental Reformed theology. Not only did knowledge grow and was tested by experience, I grew as a husband and as a father. I cherish every one-on-one conversation I had.

Let me add this, too. The theological focus overlaps but I believe MARS engages with more contemporary theological developments in addition to Puritans. We've had transfer students from PRTS mention similar things.

Also, the senior interview at MARS helps you get ready for ecclesiastical examinations.

That's quite fascinating. Thank you! I know of one cherished minister that graduated from MARS, and one of my friends is going to MARS. It sounds like a fantastic inistitution for raising the next generation of ministers.

 

[J.L. Allen]

That's quite fascinating. Thank you! I know of one cherished minister that graduated from MARS, and one of my friends is going to MARS. It sounds like a fantastic inistitution for raising the next generation of ministers.

Oh nice! If your friend is a current student, then I'd for sure know him. Which pastor? It's a great place. I hope to see you there!

 

[Ploutos]

I'd also be interested in hearing more about how the two compare. A lot of the seminary threads on here are somewhat old, and things do change. My perception - borne of ignorance with a sprinkling of word-of-mouth - is that PRTS is a bit more academically-oriented; I'm not aware of how heavily it engages (or doesn't) with contemporary theological developments, or at least I wasn't prior to this thread. Also of interest would be what denominations each seminary is able to prepare one for. Do MARS graduates ever end up in the PCA, for instance?

With some of the flagship personalities at each institution (Beeke and Venema, mainly) approaching the ends of their respective careers, I'd also be interested in hearing about any more recent additions to the faculty of each place.

 

[Polanus1561]

PRTS has Fesko and Waters as part time professors who take some courses. There is a PHD program at PRTS which means you see Richard Muller walking around school. The international community at PRTS is very heavenly.

I think it boils down to denominations. PCA and OPC would find more connections at MARS (Dr Strange!)

Cost should be a huge factor especially to see which fits your family more to move.

Grand Rapids cost of living is very much high.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I'd also be interested in hearing more about how the two compare. A lot of the seminary threads on here are somewhat old, and things do change. My perception - borne of ignorance with a sprinkling of word-of-mouth - is that PRTS is a bit more academically-oriented; I'm not aware of how heavily it engages (or doesn't) with contemporary theological developments, or at least I wasn't prior to this thread. Also of interest would be what denominations each seminary is able to prepare one for. Do MARS graduates ever end up in the PCA, for instance?

With some of the flagship personalities at each institution (Beeke and Venema, mainly) approaching the ends of their respective careers, I'd also be interested in hearing about any more recent additions to the faculty of each place.

This has more to do with the ThM and PhD programs.

I should add that I'd highly recommend the ThM and PhD through PRTS.

 

[Ploutos]

This has more to do with the ThM and PhD programs.

I should add that I'd highly recommend the ThM and PhD through PRTS.

What is the campus devotional life like at MARS?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

. I went with MARS

Jae Kim passed his Presbtry exams and now is available for a call in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

The experimental emphasis. PRTS, as a whole, churns out men far more concerned with preaching experimentally and discriminatorily because of their Puritan and Nadere Reformatie heritage and concerns.

 

[Ploutos]

The experimental emphasis. PRTS, as a whole, churns out men far more concerned with preaching experimentally and discriminatorily because of their Puritan and Nadere Reformatie heritage and concerns.

What sort of preaching is emphasized at MARS?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

What sort of preaching is emphasized at MARS?

Our basic approach seeks to account for the eternal (pactum salutis), the redemptive (historia salutis), and the existential/experimental (ordo salutis) in any given passage. As we do pericope delimitation and textual determination, working in the original language(s) of the Scripture(s) under consideration, we seek to employ the full range of disciplines (exegetical, biblical, historical, systematic, and pastoral theologies) in handling the text. We use a textual-reconstructive method that develops a single, clear theme from each preaching passage, teased out in (hopefully) memorable points. We think this approach is best calculated to help the hearer grasp and come to terms with the meaning of the text, yielding good expository (textually-based) preaching.

This is also referred to (there are several varieties) as redemptive-historical preaching because while we seek a balanced treatment, especially of a Christ-centered focus and heart application, we always put a primary accent on the person and work of Christ. Our lives, as believers, are hidden with Christ in God; all our application is from this redemptive-historical perspective. This is because the call of the imperative is always based on the reality of the indicative: "Be who you are in Jesus Christ." All outside of Christ are invited and challenged to come to him. And those in Christ are exhorted to live as new men and women in Christ, dying to sin (the works of the flesh) and living to righteousness (the fruit of the Spirit).

Thus, we aim at a balanced approach that vigorously preaches Christ (in all his redemptive-historical glory) in every text, and that applies the redemptive Word to every area of life, seeking to make applications as they arise organically from the text, and are not some moralistic preacher add-on. We firmly believe that the Word calls us to gratitude, to live transformed lives by the power of the Spirit, not to be accepted by God, but because, in Christ, we already are accepted by God. We believe that if what Christ did does not purchase acceptance with a holy and righteous God, we can do nothing to attain it. The good news is that we are accepted in the Beloved, and our lives are to be lived out in that light as an expression of gratitude to God for such a great salvation.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ploutos]

Thank you for those insights. At the risk of asking a question that seems to improperly beg for an oversimplified answer, are there certain theologians in the history of the church who are particularly prized and emphasized at MARS?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

are there certain theologians in the history of the church who are particularly prized and emphasized at MARS?

A perfectly legitimate question! I would say that since Drs. Venema, Beach, and Strange did PhD work on Calvin, Turretin, and Hodge, respectively, those men would receive their due. In historical studies, many great theologians would receive due prizing and use. Herman Bavinck is especially appreciated as a more modern (but not contemporary) theologian, as is Geerhardus Vos, an outstanding biblical theologian. There are contemporary figures as well as older ones used in the various departments, but I would say that those few I mentioned are particularly regarded.

That being said, I named but a few quite purposely: To drive home what we most identify with and seek to live by, other than Scripture--always our primary guide--is not the teaching of one man, even Calvin. No, we are committed to the church's Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms as properly summarizing what God's Word teaches in the main. We've always been careful not to overly identify with particularly earthly authors but with God's Word and the church's apprehension of that as given expression in the Ecumenical Creeds and the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms. There are many fine theologians to help us in this task, but they all are subservient to the Word and the Standards of the church.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Deleted member 9611]

What sort of preaching is emphasized at MARS?

I am not sure if there was anything in Dr Strange's post that I, or the folks at PRTS, would disagree with (though I do not presume to speak for them).

If the two seminaries are represented by the federation their faculty most identifies with, which I think is a fair assumption, then I think you could compare them in this way:

MARS (URCNA, OPC, RCUS):
Exegetical
Redemptive-Historical
Doctrinal
Experimental

PRTS (HRC, FRCNA - and by extension the PRC and FCC in ethos and graduates):
Exegetical
Redemptive-Historical
Doctrinal
Experimental

There are different historical backgrounds and practical concerns in the two groups and that changes the emphases. Other than in the extreme examples, I would not say that one side completely 'leaves out' anything. That being said, I do think there are real and important differences on what is emphasized, and very noticeable differences in how the theory comes across in practice. The experimental denominations (FRCNA, HRC, PRC, FCC) tend to preach far longer and far more pointedly. For lack of a better term, the neo-calvinist/heirs of the CRC type of tradition before it went haywire, tend to follow Vos and Bavinck a lot closer and are more concerned with anti-moralistic preaching; if the two ends of the spectrum are 'find Christ under every rock' and 'put yourself in X's shoes' they lean far closer to the former. I'd suggest listening to this by John Carrick if you want to see the differences between the two schools of thought played out (FYI Carrick is far closer to PRTS on these types of things).

Redemptive Historical Preaching - A Critique | SermonAudio

Dr. John Carrick | Taylors, South Carolina

www.sermonaudio.com

EDIT:

As I read back over Dr Strange's post, there is one more thing I would like to point out. Redemptive historical preaching (when done right) tends to follow the indicative-imperative formula. Experimental preaching tends to put a question somewhere in the midst of the sermon: 'are the indicatives true for you?' Experimental folk are vehemently anti-presumptive.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Preaching involves the objective (what Christ has done) and the subjective (what you must do). The objective work of Christ (in his active and passive obedience) will do us no good without a subjective appropriation of it on our part, i.e., we must exercise faith (knowledge, assent, and trust) in response to the gospel (and its accompanying grace: evangelical repentance).

However, seeking to schematize and minutely examine our subjective appropriation of Christ (the sort of thing that certain "experimental" preachers do, ending up pointing you to yourself and your experience of Christ rather than to Christ himself), primarily focusing people on whether this has "really happened to them," i.e., they've had some particular sort of religious experience that yields assurance, is not fruitful. I grew up under such preaching, which was counter-productive in every way I can enumerate. When I learned many years ago that it was Christ, not my experience of him, that saved me, such involved a significant advance in my understanding of spiritual things; I realized how utterly rooted all my experience was in his person and work.

You may say something about "under every rock," but God's Word holds forth Christ as the only remedy for sin and as the only one in whom we are to place all our hope and trust. Preaching Christ is the call and privilege of the minister and is the very thing, and the only thing, calculated to move God's people to follow after him in all their ways. "We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord," said Paul (II Cor. 4:5).

I had to leave this and post without seeing your edit, @MChase, about "Are the indicative true about you?" I heartily agree that there's a proper place to challenge auditors ("Do you have faith, its accompanying graces, and its fruit in your life?"), but never in a way that ends up preaching them and not Christ! This is something that I challenge experimental preaching appropriately to take on board (even as they do redemptive-historical preaching to challenge hearers). Our challenge of hearers is never to break the bruised reed and never to leave people looking at themselves rather than looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:1-2).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Deleted member 9611]

Our challenge of hearers is never to break the bruised reed and never to leave people looking at themselves rather than looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:1-2).

Peace,
Alan

Amen.

As for preaching Christ under every rock, that was meant to be extravagant; it’s one pole for a reason. And I do agree that experimentalism is a real danger; a rather weird and pernicious one that can completely rob one of their assurance.

One thing I like to rib my RH friends of is that they say they are very committed to finding Christ. I say amen; find him in the SoS then .

 

[cthorn14]

However, seeking to schematize and minutely examine our subjective appropriation of Christ (the sort of thing that certain "experimental" preachers do, ending up pointing you to yourself and your experience of Christ rather than to Christ himself), primarily focusing people on whether this has "really happened to them," i.e., they've had some particular sort of religious experience that yields assurance, is not fruitful. I grew up under such preaching, which was counter-productive in every way I can enumerate. When I learned many years ago that it was Christ, not my experience of him, that saved me, such involved a significant advance in my understanding of spiritual things; I realized how utterly rooted all my experience was in his person and work.

Dr. Strange,

Thank you for these posts and your great work at MARS.

Do you think the level of emphasis placed on objective vs subjective aspects of the faith should vary depending on the maturity level and circumstances of the congregation? What some consider "morbidly introspective" others may find to be a wake-up call.

 

[Polanus1561]

As a PRTS student, I will affirm that RH preaching is welcomed (some of us do like our Vos). Experiential emphasis and RH are not mutually exclusive (what a danger that would be!)

Dr. Michael Barrett is our OT professor. He has written books (Beginning with Moses) on RH.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

find him in the SoS then .

As I know you know, dear brother, marriage and sexuality point to something beyond themselves, to a love that is the greatest we've ever seen, beyond what we could ever conceive. So, yes, those who speak of it respecting marriage are correct proximately, as is someone else, like Bernard of Clairvaux, ultimately.

Do you think the level of emphasis placed on objective vs subjective aspects of the faith should vary depending on the maturity level and circumstances of the congregation? What some consider "morbidly introspective" others may find to be a wake-up call.

And, yes, good preachers know their congregation and how to apply the Word with skill. Some people could use introspection and self-awareness, which they seem to lack. Others deeply need a word of encouragement, which may serve as apples of gold in pictures of silver.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ploutos]

However, seeking to schematize and minutely examine our subjective appropriation of Christ (the sort of thing that certain "experimental" preachers do, ending up pointing you to yourself and your experience of Christ rather than to Christ himself), primarily focusing people on whether this has "really happened to them," i.e., they've had some particular sort of religious experience that yields assurance, is not fruitful. I grew up under such preaching, which was counter-productive in every way I can enumerate. When I learned many years ago that it was Christ, not my experience of him, that saved me, such involved a significant advance in my understanding of spiritual things; I realized how utterly rooted all my experience was in his person and work.

Although this is a thread about seminaries and preaching, I have to say that this is a really helpful insight to me as a parent of young children. I have a bit of an anti-presumptive streak myself, partly because of my upbringing in a professing but non-believing (and deeply troubled) household, partly from years of listening to accusations, often justified even in my own observation, that we Presbyterians are quick to assume we're saved and quick to ignore discipleship and spiritual formation. I will have to think about this further and take it up in a separate thread. Thank you, Dr. Strange.