Fear of Change ...

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]And in that sense, I would say the Bible is remarkably free from error.  All the errors I could point to are really just faulty or questionable translation (not in any one particular version; all versions have some of those), glosses added by copyists, or suboptimal choice of manuscripts, or popular misreadings of a text that really doesn't say what everyone supposes it says.[/quote]

But it's a lot harder to read the Bible if you treat it this way. You have to start thinking about things like authorial intent, the purpose for the particular writing, genre, outside influences on the text, and host of of things that makes it harder to get away with twisting Scripture to meet your own personal theology.

I think a lot of pastors (and Bible schools/seminaries) are actually terrified of a congregate (-ion) that approaches the Bible in this manner, even if only sub-consciously.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]And in that sense, I would say the Bible is remarkably free from error.  All the errors I could point to are really just faulty or questionable translation (not in any one particular version; all versions have some of those), glosses added by copyists, or suboptimal choice of manuscripts, or popular misreadings of a text that really doesn't say what everyone supposes it says.

But it's a lot harder to read the Bible if you treat it this way. You have to start thinking about things like authorial intent, the purpose for the particular writing, genre, outside influences on the text, and host of of things that makes it harder to get away with twisting Scripture to meet your own personal theology.

I think a lot of pastors (and Bible schools/seminaries) are actually terrified of a congregate (-ion) that approaches the Bible in this manner, even if only sub-consciously.
[/quote]

Well, that method is what my teachers (not in class or church, just in books) taught me. And chiefly, those teachers are N.T. Wright (Church of England), Gordon D. Fee (Assemblies of God) and Marcus J. Borg (Episcopalian, Jesus Seminar). The first two are conservative, but critical and independent. The third is liberal but reasonable.

 

[sword]

If I can't trust the Bible to be free of errors and accurate then how can I trust it’s message.  If it’s just a book then how can I trust my salvation & eternity to what it says. How do I know John 3 tell us the correct way to get to Heaven. If its just a book then I can question any part I don’t like. I can cut out the chapters I don’t like and add some I would prefer to follow. I believe it’s the gospel that saves but I prefer to have a book I can trust and the KJV seems to be the right one for me. 

 

[rsc2a]

If I can't trust the Bible to be free of errors and accurate then how can I trust it’s message.  If it’s just a book then how can I trust my salvation & eternity to what it says. How do I know John 3 tell us the correct way to get to Heaven. If its just a book then I can question any part I don’t like. I can cut out the chapters I don’t like and add some I would prefer to follow. I believe it’s the gospel that saves but I prefer to have a book I can trust and the KJV seems to be the right one for me. 

I don't trust in the Bible for my salvation and eternal destination. I don't believe "the gospel" is what saves.

I trust in Jesus. I believe He is what saves me.

 

[sword]

Agreed but where did you learn that. If the source of your salvation is Jesus where did you learn that?

 

[rsc2a]

Agreed but where did you learn that. If the source of your salvation is Jesus where did you learn that?

Post #46 and Post #50

 

[bgwilkinson]

[quote author=Izdaari]And in that sense, I would say the Bible is remarkably free from error.  All the errors I could point to are really just faulty or questionable translation (not in any one particular version; all versions have some of those), glosses added by copyists, or suboptimal choice of manuscripts, or popular misreadings of a text that really doesn't say what everyone supposes it says.

But it's a lot harder to read the Bible if you treat it this way. You have to start thinking about things like authorial intent, the purpose for the particular writing, genre, outside influences on the text, and host of of things that makes it harder to get away with twisting Scripture to meet your own personal theology.

I think a lot of pastors (and Bible schools/seminaries) are actually terrified of a congregate (-ion) that approaches the Bible in this manner, even if only sub-consciously.
[/quote]

Maybe, but you sure get a lot more real life changing value out of your Bible study.

 

[Ransom]

But it's a lot harder to read the Bible if you treat it this way. You have to start thinking about things like authorial intent, the purpose for the particular writing, genre, outside influences on the text, and host of of things that makes it harder to get away with twisting Scripture to meet your own personal theology.

I think a lot of pastors (and Bible schools/seminaries) are actually terrified of a congregate (-ion) that approaches the Bible in this manner, even if only sub-consciously.

Right. Because no Bible college or seminary would ever teach a hermeneutics class that instructed its students to think about authorial intent, the purpose of the writing, genre, and so forth.

Snort!

 

[Bruh]

If I can't trust the Bible to be free of errors and accurate then how can I trust it’s message.  If it’s just a book then how can I trust my salvation & eternity to what it says. How do I know John 3 tell us the correct way to get to Heaven. If its just a book then I can question any part I don’t like. I can cut out the chapters I don’t like and add some I would prefer to follow. I believe it’s the gospel that saves but I prefer to have a book I can trust and the KJV seems to be the right one for me. 

I don't trust in the Bible for my salvation and eternal destination. I don't believe "the gospel" is what saves.

I trust in Jesus. I believe He is what saves me.

Respectfully, I must say "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God".  But then I guess by your estimation, if I understand you correctly, the Bible can not be fully trusted. 

 

[rsc2a]

But it's a lot harder to read the Bible if you treat it this way. You have to start thinking about things like authorial intent, the purpose for the particular writing, genre, outside influences on the text, and host of of things that makes it harder to get away with twisting Scripture to meet your own personal theology.

I think a lot of pastors (and Bible schools/seminaries) are actually terrified of a congregate (-ion) that approaches the Bible in this manner, even if only sub-consciously.

Right. Because no Bible college or seminary would ever teach a hermeneutics class that instructed its students to think about authorial intent, the purpose of the writing, genre, and so forth.

Snort!

Did I say all?

But look at the curriculum of most Bible colleges. Are they more focused on the history of ____________ denomination or Ancient Near Eastern history? Are they more concerned with Jewish cultural practices during the second Temple period or "the art of being a pastor"? Why is it that so many seminary-trained pastors try to force modern cultural views onto the texts as the normative way the original authors were thinking?

I once did a quick check because I was curious...I randomly picked four or five Bible colleges/seminaries and not a single one required even a basic survey class on other major world religions. One on the other hand did require four classes on youth ministry! This is why seminary-trained pastors cannot even explain the most basic beliefs of Buddhists or even Muslims with any degree of knowledge at all.

 

[FSSL]

I randomly picked four or five Bible colleges/seminaries and not a single one required even a basic survey class on other major world religions. One on the other hand did require four classes on youth ministry! This is why seminary-trained pastors cannot even explain the most basic beliefs of Buddhists or even Muslims with any degree of knowledge at all.

I see the difficulty. I am not a fan of Bible College... ESPECIALLY the unaccredited ones. Comparative religions is typically at the college level as an elective.

Apologetics is introduced at the seminary level and concerns itself with presuppositionalism/evidentialism rather than the other religions.

The standard M.Div. focuses on a generic tract which includes Greek, Hebrew, History and Theology, Exegetical, Hermeneutics courses. All of the seminaries I know, focus on the grammatical/historical approach.

 

[rsc2a]

I randomly picked four or five Bible colleges/seminaries and not a single one required even a basic survey class on other major world religions. One on the other hand did require four classes on youth ministry! This is why seminary-trained pastors cannot even explain the most basic beliefs of Buddhists or even Muslims with any degree of knowledge at all.

I see the difficulty. I am not a fan of Bible College... ESPECIALLY the unaccredited ones. Comparative religions is typically at the college level as an elective.

Apologetics is introduced at the seminary level and concerns itself with presuppositionalism/evidentialism rather than the other religions.

The standard M.Div. focuses on a generic tract which includes Greek, Hebrew, History and Theology, Exegetical, Hermeneutics courses. All of the seminaries I know, focus on the grammatical/historical approach.

Wouldn't you say someone with an advanced degree in religion should at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the faith systems of 350M+ people?

 

[FSSL]

Wouldn't you say someone with an advanced degree in religion should at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the faith systems of 350M+ people?

Given that there are only 96 post-graduate credit hours for a M.Div., to divide among all of the subjects to equip a pastor in proper exegesis and theology, the extra-curricular subjects should get a small fraction of time. I wish I had more exposure to counseling during my M.Div. I didn't. So I got further education on that post-M.Div.

If someone wants to minister in Dearborn, Michigan, then they ought to have a working knowledge of Islamism. Is it necessary at the M.Div. level? No. I would say this is an extra-curricular to add on after the generic M.Div. studies.

 

[Izdaari]

I randomly picked four or five Bible colleges/seminaries and not a single one required even a basic survey class on other major world religions. One on the other hand did require four classes on youth ministry! This is why seminary-trained pastors cannot even explain the most basic beliefs of Buddhists or even Muslims with any degree of knowledge at all.

I see the difficulty. I am not a fan of Bible College... ESPECIALLY the unaccredited ones. Comparative religions is typically at the college level as an elective.

Apologetics is introduced at the seminary level and concerns itself with presuppositionalism/evidentialism rather than the other religions.

The standard M.Div. focuses on a generic tract which includes Greek, Hebrew, History and Theology, Exegetical, Hermeneutics courses. All of the seminaries I know, focus on the grammatical/historical approach.

I'm guessing then that your sample is limited to evangelical and fundamentalist schools?

 

[Izdaari]

Evangelical (inc some fund seminaries)

Ok, as I thought.  8)

 

[rsc2a]

Wouldn't you say someone with an advanced degree in religion should at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the faith systems of 350M+ people?

Given that there are only 96 post-graduate credit hours for a M.Div., to divide among all of the subjects to equip a pastor in proper exegesis and theology, the extra-curricular subjects should get a small fraction of time. I wish I had more exposure to counseling during my M.Div. I didn't. So I got further education on that post-M.Div.

But, as I stated, I saw one program that devoted 9 hrs to youth ministry...this for an individual who was presumably a youth at one time, most likely in a cultural environment remarkably similar to the one they are being trained for, who will at some point be raising their own youth...

...and they cannot devote a couple hours to religious practices of more than half the world's population? Such a narrowly focused study on what is supposed to be an advanced degree in religion shows a complete lack of awareness about how diverse our culture is becoming.

[quote author=FSSL]If someone wants to minister in Dearborn, Michigan, then they ought to have a working knowledge of Islamism. Is it necessary at the M.Div. level? No. I would say this is an extra-curricular to add on after the generic M.Div. studies.[/quote]

You don't have to go to Dearborn. You have a mosque in the heart of the Bible Belt. You had a major news story because some Muslims wanted to open a mosque 20 minutes outside of Nashville. I know several Mormons. Asians, particularly Indians, are the quickest growing demographic in regards to immigration.

A comparative religion class would show why Kirk Cameron's apologetics is the completely wrong approach to take with most of the Islamic and Asian cultures. It would allow those (theoretically) most equipped to explain Christian beliefs to actually be able to have an intelligent conversation with people of different faiths. It would allow those ministers to speak with authority and knowledge to their congregation when the group wants to start the mosque or when they ask how they should witness to their Hindu friends.

Not only that, you wouldn't hear preachers making completely ignorant comments like stating to their congregates that "Catholics are part of a cult because they don't believe Jesus is God*" or Hindus worship cattle.

* True story

 

[FSSL]

But, as I stated, I saw one program that devoted 9 hrs to youth ministry...this for an individual who was presumably a youth at one time, most likely in a cultural environment remarkably similar to the one they are being trained for, who will at some point be raising their own youth...

Was that at college or seminary level?

I can fuel your fire a bit more! I had friends at Bible college who chose the youth ministry tract instead of pastoral studies because they were able to get hired by churches and they did not have to take Greek.

I minored in Greek at Bible college so that when I got to seminary, I did not have to learn two languages at the same time. I tested out of the beginning Greek classes and excelled in the Syntax at Seminary. That way I could plow into Hebrew.

A comparative religion class would show why Kirk Cameron's apologetics is the completely wrong approach to take with most of the Islamic and Asian cultures.

I guess I am not familiar with Kirk's apologetics. I didn't know he got that deep!

I mention Dearborn because it is adjacent to Allen Park where I went to seminary. There is just way too much to stuff into a M.Div. level program to add a comparative religion course. I do not disagree that it is important. It is all a matter of equipping on the basics first.

There was a day when the M.Div. degree was the most basic degree for a pastor. Unfortunately, it is now viewed as a difficult degree to attain (and it is). It is FAR easier to get a D.Min. from any seminaries today than it is to get a M.Div.

 

[rsc2a]

But, as I stated, I saw one program that devoted 9 hrs to youth ministry...this for an individual who was presumably a youth at one time, most likely in a cultural environment remarkably similar to the one they are being trained for, who will at some point be raising their own youth...

Was that at college or seminary level?

I don't remember. Looking at Liberty U though:

- They offer 5 seminary level classes on youth ministry.
- 16(?) classes on music and "worship"
- 1 class on Islam (nothing on other major religions)
-  5 classes on "missions" (let's just hope it's not to India)

And with those five youth ministry classes offered and sixteen(?) music ones:

- 1 on hermeneutics
- 1 on ecclessiology
- 1 on eschatology

[quote author=FSSL]I can fuel your fire a bit more! I had friends at Bible college who chose the youth ministry tract instead of pastoral studies because they were able to get hired by churches and they did not have to take Greek.

I minored in Greek at Bible college so that when I got to seminary, I did not have to learn two languages at the same time. I tested out of the beginning Greek classes and excelled in the Syntax at Seminary. That way I could plow into Hebrew.[/quote]

I don't think someone has to know the original languages to be good students of the Bible, but I think if you are getting an advanced degree in Christian theology, it should be required.

As I told my wife once, these programs should be more focused on equipping their students with how to interpret properly and giving them the tools necessary to do this on their own, not so much on whether they can fill in the correct blanks on the college mission statement or have the business background/oratory training/network to make a great CEO hireling pastor.

A comparative religion class would show why Kirk Cameron's apologetics is the completely wrong approach to take with most of the Islamic and Asian cultures.

[quote author=FSSL]I guess I am not familiar with Kirk's apologetics. I didn't know he got that deep![/quote]

He is all focused on "These are the 10 commandments and you suck at them. Hell for you!" Very judicial.

Except some cultures aren't worried about justice. They are more worried about honor. You want to get their attention: tell them the parable of the two sons...with the emphasis on the parts the original hearers (also an honor-driven society) would have gasped at.

[quote author=FSSL]I mention Dearborn because it is adjacent to Allen Park where I went to seminary.[/quote]

Ah. It know it's just the go-to place for all things Muslim for many Christians.

[quote author=FSSL]There is just way too much to stuff into a M.Div. level program to add a comparative religion course. I do not disagree that it is important. It is all a matter of equipping on the basics first.[/quote]

This isn't the basics? I would consider it more basic than "History of Baptists" (especially in addition to two "History of Christianity" classes) - Liberty again

[quote author=FSSL]There was a day when the M.Div. degree was the most basic degree for a pastor. Unfortunately, it is now viewed as a difficult degree to attain (and it is). It is FAR easier to get a D.Min. from any seminaries today than it is to get a M.Div.[/quote]

I've considered getting one. However, my reading list often looks like the required reading for many of the class syllabi I've downloaded, I get a broader perspective when I study from more than one particular viewpoint, and I don't know if my primary motivation is getting those letters after my name...and that would be nothing more than an expensive way to practice pride.

For now, I'll just keep studying on my own and teaching when I can.

 

[rsc2a]

Yes. If that is the way it is with Liberty... then uggh!

Looking at my other two choices (Covenant Seminary and Trinity Evangelical), their programs look a lot more balanced.

TEDS has a particular focus one can choose that centers on cross-cultural ministries, and all students are required to get cross-cultural field experience (I don't know what this necessarily looks like.).

Covenant seems to be very heavily focused on in-depth study of very particular parts of the Bible (e.g. "Acts and Paul") as you pursue your degree with some Systematics thrown in and very little 'fluff' (e.g. "Ministry Leadership")



This is all based on me spending five minutes on their websites, so take what that into consideration.

 

[Ransom]

I once did a quick check because I was curious...I randomly picked four or five Bible colleges/seminaries

I find this hard to believe. I want to know your methodology.  How did you pick your "random" colleges, and which ones were they?