Originally posted by Paul manata
it's about... time I got rid of it. Glad there was someone to take Kline out of my house
99%
RTS versus Covenant
- Thread starter Breadloaf
- Start date
- Status
99%
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
it's about... time I got rid of it. Glad there was someone to take Kline out of my house
Speaking of that, out of curiosity, what ever came of that exclusive discussion between you two on the second commandment? I don't want to bring it here, but I had to ask upon your mention of the percentage.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Gotcha.
Originally posted by Paul manata
and the professor of philosophy, Meek, wrote a HORRID book on epistemology that I must force myself to go through.
Paul,
I'm new (Hi everyone). I'm curious what you detest about Meek's book. I've been skimming it over break - and don't know any better.
As a side note, I think WTS California is really cool, and I think I'll end up there if God also thinks so. And, if my wife thinks so...but not in a conditional sense...nevermind.
Yeah. But that's OK.
openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Paul manata
and the professor of philosophy, Meek, wrote a HORRID book on epistemology that I must force myself to go through.
Dr Meek is not at Covenant Seminary.
openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
As a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary, I give it mixed reviews. One, it isn't the den vipers that many a person paint, especially in the South Carolina area. Men like Jack Collins, Hans Byer, and, in a sense, Jarrem Barrs are worth their weight in gold.
Two, I believe the students are thoroughly confused. For starters, they come from all different back grounds, but most seem to be from parachurch ministries or, at least, RUF (myself not an exception). I think this is what Dr Chapell and others are after, however, to their fault, I believe. They are way too accomodating. The students due to the professors, I believe, are becoming more and more seeker sensitive in a "culturally relevant" sort of way. This is due to Jerram's influence (and "grace centered" ministry). I think he is a very, very godly man, but his philosophy and wanna-be-Schaeffer approach isn't very helpful and will be hurtful in the long run. The students do not learn how to do apologetics in his "apologetics and outreach" class, but become consumned with "engaging the culture", which I have interpreted as basically saying, "there is a lot of good in your Buddhism, Atheism, etc., but the real fulfillment of that is in Jesus." Schaeffer would "take the roof off", but the students never seek or learn to do that.
Third, the students are kind of loose (at least many of hte single students). I wasn't an exception to this. I'm sure it may be the experience of some or many, but I think I "desanctified" during my time there. I don't blame the school per se, but there is a general aura of looseness. Part of it, I believe, was the work of Satan, and it came in the suttle words of "grace". There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth. Chapell is way, way, way too influenced by Sonship and that is damaging to sanctification.
Fourth, I did learn quite a bit while I was there, and enjoyed St Louis. There are ample PCA churches to choose from and the community on the campus is very, very good. If you have a family, I couldn't recommend a better school and city.
If you would like more info, please u2u me, and can give more information.
openairboy
[Edited on 7-1-2005 by openairboy]
Two, I believe the students are thoroughly confused. For starters, they come from all different back grounds, but most seem to be from parachurch ministries or, at least, RUF (myself not an exception). I think this is what Dr Chapell and others are after, however, to their fault, I believe. They are way too accomodating. The students due to the professors, I believe, are becoming more and more seeker sensitive in a "culturally relevant" sort of way. This is due to Jerram's influence (and "grace centered" ministry). I think he is a very, very godly man, but his philosophy and wanna-be-Schaeffer approach isn't very helpful and will be hurtful in the long run. The students do not learn how to do apologetics in his "apologetics and outreach" class, but become consumned with "engaging the culture", which I have interpreted as basically saying, "there is a lot of good in your Buddhism, Atheism, etc., but the real fulfillment of that is in Jesus." Schaeffer would "take the roof off", but the students never seek or learn to do that.
Third, the students are kind of loose (at least many of hte single students). I wasn't an exception to this. I'm sure it may be the experience of some or many, but I think I "desanctified" during my time there. I don't blame the school per se, but there is a general aura of looseness. Part of it, I believe, was the work of Satan, and it came in the suttle words of "grace". There is no emphasis on mortifying the flesh. The constant, "Oh, you don't want to be a legalist do you", which means, watch movies, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, don't talk about "quiet times", devotion, holiness, etc., but just say "grace" a lot and you have your shibboleth. Chapell is way, way, way too influenced by Sonship and that is damaging to sanctification.
Fourth, I did learn quite a bit while I was there, and enjoyed St Louis. There are ample PCA churches to choose from and the community on the campus is very, very good. If you have a family, I couldn't recommend a better school and city.
If you would like more info, please u2u me, and can give more information.
openairboy
[Edited on 7-1-2005 by openairboy]
First, can you elaborate on your South Carolina comment? I'm new to South Carolina and only a Freshman -- okay, a Sophomore -- Presbyterian. There are 3 pastors at my church that have graduated from Covenant, and while RTS Charlotte is geographically closer, and while DeWitt has more ties with Jackson than anywhere, Covenant doesn't get a bad rap, at least at my church.
Second, I'm sorry to hear about the "desanctifying" effect of your time at CTS. But I will say this: If I don't find some classmates and even professors at the seminary I end up at who will go to the pub and talk about sanctification and culture and church over Guiness and a stogey, I'm going to be very disappointed.
From the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary main page:
I can't exactly put my finger on why, but this description makes me a bit nervous, and seems to smack of revivalistic pietism in some sort of way. Of course our religion is something we experience and not simply reflect upon -- Vos makes the point that to have a faith in abstract reality is to be Hellenistic, not Hebrew, in your understanding of knowledge. I just wonder if the method (and that word, of course, brings a lot of pietistic thoughts to mind) focuses on holiness as such an IMMEDIATE end that it might eschew the ONLY means to that end, namely, the objective fact of the gospel.
openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
It's a Greenville reference.
Andrew,
You could not be more wrong. This is not pietism. It is Biblical Christianity. It is not friendly to the revisionistic, name-calling objectivists who seek to make baptism a converting ordinance and the lack of egregious sin the sign of a Christian.
Also, I believe if Vos were alive today and knew how his comment has been taken to extremes by the "Hebrew, good! Greek bad!" (think sheep from Animal Farm) crowd, he would never have made it.
Ivan
Pastor
quote] Several seminaries in North America today teach Reformed doctrine, but few such institutions have a deep respect for Reformed, experiential preaching. By experiential preaching, we mean Christ-centered preaching which stresses that, for salvation, sinners must have a personal, experiential, Spirit-worked knowledge of Christ (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 1:30), and, by extension, of all the great truths of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Thus we stress, as the Puritans did, that the Holy Spirit causes the objective truths about Christ and His work to be experienced in the heart of sinners. [/quote]
Whatever the statement may be, it sounds wonderful to me.
Whatever the statement may be, it sounds wonderful to me.
Andrew,
It has become a sport in certain "Reformed" circles - namely those at Reformed Catholicism and in those involved in the so called Auburn 4 (although I don't think I have heard Steve Wilkins make any such comments - to his credit), especially Wilson and Schlissel, and in pro-Norman Shepherd circles to criticize the Puritans in general and their experimental (experiential) approach to theology and Scripture as "pietistic," "Gnostic," "baptistic," etc. as if such comments were a silver bullet.
You can get more information on this (I believe) from John DeWitt (your pastor, I believe) who is a solid stalwart of the faith. I know this not because I know John, but I am good friends with a disciple of his (and former intern/assistant pastor), Ken Pierce.
Fred:
Thanks a lot for elaborating. I have lots of Lutheran friends, and, as I'm learning, they tend to recoil at nearly any mention of "experience" being the mark of true piety. I was LCMS for 10yrs. This board will be good for me in that it might help to distill out my crypto-Lutheranism. Or maybe this scepticism on experiential preaching (this is admittedly the first time I've heard the phrase proper) isn't precicely a rub-off of Lutheranism.
I had no idea that those Auburn and related folk were raising similar suspicions .
I'll take your advice and flag down Dr. DeWitt for some perspective on this.
Thanks a lot for elaborating. I have lots of Lutheran friends, and, as I'm learning, they tend to recoil at nearly any mention of "experience" being the mark of true piety. I was LCMS for 10yrs. This board will be good for me in that it might help to distill out my crypto-Lutheranism. Or maybe this scepticism on experiential preaching (this is admittedly the first time I've heard the phrase proper) isn't precicely a rub-off of Lutheranism.
I had no idea that those Auburn and related folk were raising similar suspicions .
I'll take your advice and flag down Dr. DeWitt for some perspective on this.
openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
Some may put me in the "objective-esque" camp, but I bit my tongue when I initially read Andrew's words, b/c I wanted to think about them. It was this aspect of Christianity that I think I was essentially missing at CTS. There is a type of sanctification promoted, but it is way to Sonshippy and soft, in my opinion. Ryle is far from everyone's mind as are the Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Thomas Manton, Thomas Goodwin, etc.
I was thinking about it today and saying to myself, "If we practically take the Puritans seriously (experiential religion and actively pursueing the Lord), not just 'theologically', then Covenant isn't the place to attend." Yet, I thoroughly enjoyed the people and my time, despite my sins, so it is a mixed review. Maybe it is a lot like a family. I can call out my brother or sister, but if anyone else says something about them, then I get irritated and ticked off.
Honestly, I couldn't have imagined going anywhere else, and I ironically keep recommending it to others.
openairboy
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
RTS Virtual is where you go if you are loaded up with student loans and have to work full-time and goto seminary part-time
Speaking of "virtual" seminaries.
What do you folks think of this as an educational innovation? Good or harmful? Or not necessarily either?
I know that WSC folks are highly critical of anything that smells like minister-degree-by-mail-order. No cariactures from me. Just curiosities.
I tend to think that a traditional residency is ideal, for theology is supposed to happen within the context of the church rather than individually. Obviously no degree is essentially "individual", virtually-earned or not.
What do you folks think of this as an educational innovation? Good or harmful? Or not necessarily either?
I know that WSC folks are highly critical of anything that smells like minister-degree-by-mail-order. No cariactures from me. Just curiosities.
I tend to think that a traditional residency is ideal, for theology is supposed to happen within the context of the church rather than individually. Obviously no degree is essentially "individual", virtually-earned or not.
wsw201 and openairboy-
I have stumbled a bit over the statements on Covenant Seminary. I live in the area and have desired to attend there ever since I came to calvinistic persuasions. I have heard some of the professors preach a couple of times, read some of their books, and do not understand the criticisms. I have not had much personal interaction with these men and am just starting to make connections in the PCA world in this area, but the preaching of some of these men has brought me out of a "reformed"/antinomian environment I unknowingly got into as an overreaction to the arminian/moralism/legalism I was converted out of. In my experience, albeit limited, the criticisms don't stick. But I am more than willing to be further informed if it is in the best interest of my further education and sanctification. I would like some more specific examples and evidence as to what exactly is "going wrong"with the seminary, doctrinally and practically, not just personal experiences. For any information that should remain private/unposted, please u2u me. This has caused a slight struggle for me now, as I am confused about what to think. Again, I am open to learning the truth so that I may make the most informed decision I can in seeking God's will in this matter.
Thank you.
[Edited on 4-15-2005 by RAS]
[Edited on 4-18-2005 by RAS]
[Edited on 4-18-2005 by RAS]
I have stumbled a bit over the statements on Covenant Seminary. I live in the area and have desired to attend there ever since I came to calvinistic persuasions. I have heard some of the professors preach a couple of times, read some of their books, and do not understand the criticisms. I have not had much personal interaction with these men and am just starting to make connections in the PCA world in this area, but the preaching of some of these men has brought me out of a "reformed"/antinomian environment I unknowingly got into as an overreaction to the arminian/moralism/legalism I was converted out of. In my experience, albeit limited, the criticisms don't stick. But I am more than willing to be further informed if it is in the best interest of my further education and sanctification. I would like some more specific examples and evidence as to what exactly is "going wrong"with the seminary, doctrinally and practically, not just personal experiences. For any information that should remain private/unposted, please u2u me. This has caused a slight struggle for me now, as I am confused about what to think. Again, I am open to learning the truth so that I may make the most informed decision I can in seeking God's will in this matter.
Thank you.
[Edited on 4-15-2005 by RAS]
[Edited on 4-18-2005 by RAS]
[Edited on 4-18-2005 by RAS]
- Status
