• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Need to decide what to do about what school(s) to attend

Thank God I am making progress on my Thesis again.

I am fully convinced that Seminary Schools/ Bible Colleges are doing a horrible job.

The fact that polygyny is allowed is almost undeniably obvious to me, now that I have broken free of year's of bad hermeneutics that were taught to me. I suspected it was allowed almost immediately after reading Deutoronomy 21:15 and Exodus 21:10 but society helped sear my conscience and put me into a state of confusion, for several years, until I was almost kicked out of my Church for hermeneutic enlightenment in other areas, this enlightenment later enlightened me that polygyny is almost certainly acceptable, once I applied the new principles I learned (that nearly got me kicked out) to the area of polygyny months later.

I am thoroughly convinced that hermeneutics is being incorrectly taught. I have seen poor hermeneutics from nearly 100% of all Pastors I have met in real life, or seen on T.V. This makes me suspect that a Bible college degree is of little value.

I want to teach at a Bible college or Seminary, but I feel I need a good education in history (especially historiography) and linguistics. And I suspect the quality of education at even the top Bible colleges is very poor, else the Monogamy Only Position would not be so common. So I am thinking it might be better to study history and linguistics at a secular school and then get a Bible college degree just to gain a foothold in Bible college. This sounds like a very long path. But it is better to take a long path to the right place than to take a shortcut to the wrong place.

But I am really uncertain what to do, because of money and marriage. I do not want to be single for so long, but at the same time, I do not want to be married and be financially negligent.

I went for a secular degree to make money, so that I would not have to ask for money to do ministry (not because I am greedy, but because I do not want to manipulate a congregation for money.) But now I feel very clearly that I should be doing research and teaching, which would eventually mean abandoning the job path of my secular degree.

I have come to the conclusion more and more so lately that I need prayer help for a lot of things. Please pray that I have help in this area.
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
Thank God I am making progress on my Thesis again.
I am fully convinced that Seminary Schools/ Bible Colleges are doing a horrible job.
I am thoroughly convinced that hermeneutics is being incorrectly taught.

I want to teach at a Bible college or Seminary, but I feel I need a good education in history (especially historiography) and linguistics. And I suspect the quality of education at even the top Bible colleges is very poor, else the Monogamy Only Position would not be so common. So I am thinking it might be better to study history and linguistics at a secular school and then get a Bible college degree just to gain a foothold in Bible college. This sounds like a very long path. But it is better to take a long path to the right place than to take a shortcut to the wrong place.

But I am really uncertain what to do, because of money and marriage. I do not want to be single for so long, but at the same time, I do not want to be married and be financially negligent.

I went for a secular degree to make money, so that I would not have to ask for money to do ministry (not because I am greedy, but because I do not want to manipulate a congregation for money.) But now I feel very clearly that I should be doing research and teaching, which would eventually mean abandoning the job path of my secular degree.

I have come to the conclusion more and more so lately that I need prayer help for a lot of things. Please pray that I have help in this area.

I need to ask some questions . . . what level of education are you at? And where are you at?

I agree I think most Bible Colleges are well . . . how do I say this . . . have serious problems. Now I have a BA in Bible from a rather conservative Bible College and I went to Seminary at a mostly conservative seminary. Getting a teaching position at a BIble College is somewhat hard as there are lots of people who would love to teach there and very little turnover. I know where I went, the faculty had on average more than 15 years. You also have to have a degree from there (there is ONE exception).

You also need to have PhD to teach. Finding an ABD position is hard. If you push a Christian Poly position you will be kicked out. You may not even be able to earn an advanced degree as Master and above you have to have approval to graduate from the profs. If you have an odd theological position you want to keep your mouth shut tightly. Most of this assumes a private christian college/seminary that is at least somewhat conservative. IF you go to a state school or a big liberal seminary then you may be okay.

As one prof suggested if you are young remember that no one is going to take you seriously till you are at least 30. Get married and finish school, doctoral level and live life. Just be poor for awhile. If you get a doctor degree (PhD or D.Min.) then you will have something to say. Not to sure how I feel about it. BUt a traditional church will not you seriously till you are about 40 years old.

Last part: BEGIN WITH THE END IN MIND! That is from Covey and the 7 Habits. Know what you want to do and work backward.

Personally I gave up on the path. I am now teaching at a long term treatment facility (public type) and I am working on a MA in history/political science. I am hopefully going to pull an adjunct position in either History, Political Science, or Religion. I have lots and lots of graduate credits.
 
DTT,

I have attended now 4 different schools and have earned numerous degrees both at the graduate and post-graduate level.

Do you really want to know the key to any education? It has to do more with what you put into it than what they offer.

Sure, there will be books to read, papers to do, discussions with people and professors. But a dedicated person can take a bad class and still spend enough time doing research to actually learn much from the class itself.

If you go to just about any Evangelical or Fundamentalist Bible college or Seminary you can gain some of the greatest tools and training needed to increase your intelligence and brain power so long as you study hard and be diligent.

And by the way, I could get you into our seminary most likely and I promise you one thing: YOU WILL GET DRILLED AND GRILLED IN PROPER HERMENEUTICS. Our school does not play around when it comes to that. There is probably more emphasis on the languages and hermeneutics here than 90% of the other schools in this country and believe me we have looked and that is no guess on our part.

Of course, if you come to our seminary you will also get grilled on the classic doctrines of the faith and you'll have to deal with all of the major theological controversies in the land.

There is a doctrinal statement but it does not reference polygyny. But it does hold to some other essentials, like man's radical corruption, salvation by sovereign grace alone, and premillennialism, which are the natural results of applying a pure and proper hermeneutic to the whole Bible.

But again, college and seminaryt has more to do with what you out into it than anythinbg else.

Dr. Allen
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
DTT,

Of course, if you come to our seminary you will also get grilled on the classic doctrines of the faith and you'll have to deal with all of the major theological controversies in the land.

There is a doctrinal statement but it does not reference polygyny. But it does hold to some other essentials, like man's radical corruption, salvation by sovereign grace alone, and premillennialism, which are the natural results of applying a pure and proper hermeneutic to the whole Bible.

But again, college and seminaryt has more to do with what you out into it than anythinbg else.

Dr. Allen

Am I required to believe that God does not give people any choice as to if they are eternally punished in the lake of fire or eternally in a good place with God?

And that no matter what we do the same number of people will go to the lake of fire, because only some of them are given the ability to choose not to go to a lake of fire?

If I am to graduate from this seminary school?

By the way I did not know you had a seminary school. You own or are the top leader in the school?

Personally what I get out of school are methods to study on my own. And also other people's perspectives. The ability to debate opinions enables me to learn, sometimes I am wrong and learn when other people debate me and sometimes I am correct and I learn more reasons why I am correct from debating others. Sometimes I try to take the side I disagree with, in order to learn more also (although I do not do this by lying as some do.) The interaction with others is an important learning aspect of school that is, not available in self-study so readily.
 
macike said:
I need to ask some questions . . . what level of education are you at? And where are you at?

My degrees are in "science" fields. I have almost completed a master's degree in a science field.

I have found science without "religion" to be quite useless for the important things in life.

For instance it will not matter if people are cured of cancer or not, because either way they will die and have to face God on judgment day, unless all diseases and ways to die are stopped, and if people do not die they would suffer forever if their inner character is not changed.

I want to study history and linguistics, which is a different field.
 
I do not own a seminary or run one. I am a professor at a seminary.

You would be challenged in numerous areas theologically and exposed to various ideas.

In regard to the doctrine of sovereignty versus free-will you not be taught that Christ's death is limited to just the chosen. You would be taught that Christ's love andf death is for every single person but you would also be taught the proper view of unconditional elective love.

Dr. Allen
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
I do not own a seminary or run one. I am a professor at a seminary.

You would be challenged in numerous areas theologically and exposed to various ideas.

In regard to the doctrine of sovereignty versus free-will you not be taught that Christ's death is limited to just the chosen. You would be taught that Christ's love andf death is for every single person but you would also be taught the proper view of unconditional elective love.

Dr. Allen

So explain it to me like I am a twelve year old, who does not know who John Calvin is and does not understand big words and who does not understand any of the catchphrases in 5 point Calvinism? Can people choose where they go after they die, by their choices before they die? Does our choice to preach the gospel make it easier for people to be saved, or will only some of them get a choice? What do you think of John Mcarthur and RC Sproul's viewpoints in this matter?

Which seminary do you go to?

Can I disagree with professors in almost every area and still pass? (So long as I know the material)

What do I have to do to get expelled? Some Bible colleges have really ridiculous policies in my opinion, do you know Moody forbids much of the internet from what I have been told. Someone told me they had to fill out a special form to get access to their email.
 
DTT,

You have tons of questions, which are good! But too you also have some very good books already in your hands that if you read straight through you will get many of your questions answered. That's why we got those books, remember? So you could begin to build a theological foundation.

As far as Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul both are solid Evangelicals! Any person who would not recognize their scholarship and fidelity to the key doctrines of the bible are simpletons and terribly weak in their own spiritual maturity. Both men are strong teachers of the word, good men of character as it seems, and both are brilliant expositors of God's precious word. As for the fundamentals of the faith both men affirm the fundamentals of the faith without reservation.

But they do differ in a few areas even among themselves. Dr. MacArthur differs with Sproul in ecclesiology, Israelology, & eschatology. John and RC both affirm the doctrines of grace.

As for a simple explanation of the doctrines of grace:
1. Man is so in love with himself and sin that he will never seek God
2. God has chosen many in eternity past by unconditional elective love
3. Christ has provided a sacrifice for the world which is efficient for the elect and sufficient for all
4. God calls upon all to come to him and none do so he effectually draws his elect to him
5. Those who are the elect will remain in the faith until the end.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
As for a simple explanation of the doctrines of grace:
1. Man is so in love with himself and sin that he will never seek God
2. God has chosen many in eternity past by unconditional elective love
3. Christ has provided a sacrifice for the world which is efficient for the elect and sufficient for all
4. God calls upon all to come to him and none do so he effectually draws his elect to him
5. Those who are the elect will remain in the faith until the end.

So people can not decide if they go to a lake of burning fire or not because of points 1 and 4?

So there is no purpose to preach the gospel, love, God or live a moral life because, it will not effect anyone's eternal destiny because

1. Preaching the gospel is of no avail because of point 1

2. People who are going to be saved are going to be saved anyway because of point 4

Essentially such a belief promotes Jude 1:4 CEV "Christians" who are on their way to a lake of fire

Some godless people have sneaked in among us and are saying, "God treats us much better than we deserve, and so it is all right to be immoral." They even deny that we must obey Jesus Christ as our only Master and Lord. But long ago the Scriptures warned that these godless people were doomed.

Why would God give a book full of commands, and suggestions, and bridges toward a relationship if he did not want man to choose to have a relationship with him. And if he wanted to force some people to have a relationship with him against their will, and some not, there would be no purpose to even having a Bible. The Bible is completely ineffective to salvation because God chooses who will be saved anyway. Everything we ever do is meaningless, there is no more good in savings orphans from a burning building than there is to pushing orphans off a cliff because in the end after everyone dies the same number of people will be in the lake of fire and in the good eternal life either way. Every time in scripture God told people to choose the right over the wrong, it was irrelevant, because there is no right and wrong if we cannot determine are eternal destiny, this makes God out to be a liar of the worst sorts. Of course I guess I cannot prove lying to be wrong given that moral framework of assumptions.

Unless I am misunderstanding something you are saying and people are actually capable of choosing in such matters as their eternal destiny. I am not saying that people would be allowed to choose, if God had not given them the choice.
 
DTT,

As with most people you do not understand the position that those who hold to those five points affirm. You give the cookie cutter responses without really having read the theologians who affirm their particular view.

If you really want to study, and I mean really study DTT, then that can be done. First, get into the books you have already bought. You clearly have not or you would not be saying the things you are saying or if you have you have not understood several key chapters.

Second, if you were to really study this subject you would see there is a difference in something called libertarian free-will and compatibilist free-will. Many many many Calvinists affirm free-will. Point number one above is actually not about "cannot believe" but it centers on a person's "choice that they will not believe." One would do well to know how the modern Dr. Millard J. Erickson defines the terms, as he too has rigthly stated the position of "will not" within the sphere of human responsibility. Human responsibility is taught throughout the whole Bible and many of the basic Synod of Dort Calvinists, of which I am NOT, would not agree with what you have said about what they believe. And knowing what they do say in their own writings I would agree that you do not truly understand what they are saying. Which is again why you need to take the time to read the books you have purchased.

Granted, there are some high Calvinists who embrace the idea that man is caused to choose against Christ and thus go to hell. But that is not the majority of them and many Calvinists would argue only for a positive election and a single predstinarian view while allowing for all men to have a complete freedom in choice. But again, if we were going through the study as we originally discussed in our original plan to do the book studies then this would be naturally learned through the various phases of study in the various chapters as we progressed through the prior theological subjects.

Do you recall our agreement DTT? It stills stands. But I'm not going to get into a debate over something that is chronologically much deeper in the chronological sessions of educational development when you have not yet dealt with the preliminary subjects that one needs to learn before you get to these subjects. I'm not trying to be rude to you but you are wanting to discuss something that comes later in the maturation process and in knowing you there are some preliminary subjects that need to be studied first. One of those is the subject of the historical grammatical hermeneutic, which in seeing some of what you are posting above you clearly do not grasp nor apply to your gleanings of the text.

Additionally, for example, the whole discussion about election, the lapsarian decrees (supra, infra, sublapsarian, etc), the difference between foreknowledge and predestination, prescient foreknowledge versus pre-ordained foreknowledge, all of that before the study of some of these other subjects is like studying trigonometry before ever studying addition and subtraction, multiplication table, and division rules. It is like trying to be a translator of the Bible into a new tribal language before one has ever studied the Hebrew and Greek language to such a degree that the person is fluent in it.

Thus, I'll be glad to dive into all of this with you in proper time. If you would read the chapters as you agreed to do, then answer the study questions, and then we can talk either in email or by phone about any issues you have. But I'm not going to jump all around hopping from one point to another point like rabbits move across a lawn with no rhyme or reason. I've been teaching long enough in both church circles and in seminary circles to know that is like riding a merry-go-round, you never really make any forward progress, you just run or ride in circles.

So, if you want to dig into these lovely issues that have stretched and developed many minds into some of the most brillaint minds of the theological world, I'll be glad to do so but we will need to follow the proper order of study as we originally agreed.
 
I still have not yet found the book. I should complete reading my last assigned journal article tomorrow (hopefully) or hopefully at the latest Sunday. Then I will try to look for the book and hopefully read it by next Sunday, but I do not know what the future holds. After I finish the assigned articles I need to search for articles on my own and write an experiment which I should have done months ago, but..... I was just having a lot of troubles until very recently. Please pray that I can get this Thesis finished as a quality job ASAP and that professors may not be angry at me for my slowness. Thank you.

Anyway am I required to believe certain things or simply to know what other people believe about certain things to make it through the seminary? Can I ask what the name and location of the seminary is? If I am required to believe some modern form of Calvinism to get good grades it is not the seminary for me.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
As far as Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul both are solid Evangelicals! Any person who would not recognize their scholarship and fidelity to the key doctrines of the bible are simpletons and terribly weak in their own spiritual maturity.

What is their position on polygyny?
 
I went to seminary. I studied above and beyond the call of duty as I found seminary . . . to well not to sure what to say.

I have read the Calvin crunchers and here is my TULIP

1. Man no like-a G-d
2. G-d like-a some people.
3. Jesus died for the ones G-d a like-a-s.
4. G-d calls those he like-a-s.
5. If you are called you get free ticket to heaven.

I do find that Calvin's followers may have simplified it to much. But when one takes the TULIP it has long seemed to me . . .

1. G-d is capricious.
2. If you are not an elect there is nothing you can ever do to change
3. We are robots as nothing happens without G-d's specific and direct will.
4. All the preaching and all the missions are really for naught.
5. How will I know if I am elect? A special experience.
6. Why bother.

I know that this will be called a simplistic reduction of TULIP and that I miss the broader picture. The problem the real problem is: . . . wait . . . I am not sure I missed it. I am minimalist (despite my writing here) and I like to reduce as best as I can.
BTW I started off with a bunch of Calvin's followers. Needless to say I moved my tent.
 
Most people have not read all 22 volumes of Calvin's writings and his 2 volume systematic. Many people after Calvin said and taught things that even he did not teach.

I discovered that after reading most of his theological works, and now reading through his seven or so volumes of letters, that many have misunderstood him in several areas.

For example, some people think that Calvin taught Christ died only for the elect. But his actual writings and commentaries he takes a different view that is a view that Christ's death has some actual application to all people beyond the elect.

Also, some think that Calvin wrote mostly on the sovereignty of God. But he did not write and say as much as Dr. Martin Luther.

Also, some think that Luther and Calvin were the first to say what they did about God's sovereignty. They were not. Augustine wrote much about it as well.

And then we also know that Clement of Rome, one of Paul's disciples (led the church of Rome in the AD 70 to 90's), spoke about it as well as Lactantius who was around the 200's. So neither Luther nor Calvin invented their ideas.

My point?

Second hand writers who say so and so said or taught something, while good in many cases, is not as good as first hand study of the actual writings themselves.

The same is also true for Jacob Arminius' writings. Many people make him out to be something he was not either. The same is also true of Wesley's writings. He did not say or teach what many say he said and taught and he did teach and say some things that many do not realize.

But, of course, much of the time people do not have the time or interest to dig deep into the wells of the great teachers of church history to read the materials firsthand. But if possible it is best and it is always good to have someone who has who can take you to key sections to point out what they really did say on a particular subject.

But, in the end, whatever one thinks of Calvin all of us who are Evangelicals and loyal saints of the Word we deeply appreciate Calvin for what he did have right while recognizing that he too was human and certainly had some errors. God used Calvin to actually bring about one of the greater revivals in the entire course of church history and it was the writings and philosophy of Calvin that led to the birth of this great land as historians of all shades and stripes admit, even some Roman Catholic scholars teach that it was the mind and heart of Calvin that led to the birth of this very nation.

So whether we agree or not with all of Calvin's thought there is more to be thankful for than not to be thankful for. Sadly, too many today like to hone in on just the areas where they disagree while not seeing the broader picture of Calvin did for the overall body of Christ and world which honored the Savior. It is so silly for people to always look for the areas where they disagree first.

Think of if men did this to their ladies and children in the family. Instead of looking to find what is right they always harped on what is wrong and what they perceived to be negative. People do this with Calvin and others all the time. And some do this with their own wives and children too, and it is sad. Our goal ought to be to recall to our minds first and foremost what was good and right from the past teachers of the church instead of making our first focus on what we perceive to be wrong with someone.

For example, one excellent part of Calvin's life was that he was so heart broken over people being lost and going to hell that he would place his feet in ice water so he could stay up all night and write tracts, messages, and sermons so he could get the gospel spread throughout his land. He literally worked himself to death in order to get people saved from the clutches of eternal death.

So people can criticize Calvin all they want for his predestination views, but what I find interesting is that most of those who criticize him do not work as hard at getting the gospel out to lost people as Calvin did. Thus, if I had to choose Calvin, or many of the lazy people today who criticize and complain more than they actually evangelize and share the gospel, I'd choose Calvin any day of the week over those who talk much but do little in regard to seeking to get the gospel message out to the lost. Even with his predestination views he worked harder to get the gospel out than many today who oppose his view but still evangelize less.

And even in my own life, I do not stand anywhere near to the strength, vigor, and drive that Calvin had for the gospel. Most who are honest will admit that he did more than we are doing today to get the gospel out to the lost. Thus, I find it very sad that when people like to talk about all of what he had wrong those very people often are nowhere near having the heart of love and brokeness for the lost that he had. What a shame! I pray God would give us today more men with the love, character, and drive of Calvin! If we had more Calvin's in heart for the lost and for getting the gospel out we would likely have another revival of such the world has never seen.

So, even though I would not be a Calvinist in sytematic fashion, I find that those who are truly humble, Evangelically minded, and gospel centered with a true love for the lost that those people will have a deep respect and appreciation for the man, an appreciation that runs deep enough that they will speak more about what he did right than what they see in him that was wrong. Why? Because these people understand the great amount grace that Calvin spread to the world by his labors of love and they see in Calvin the spirit Christ at work in a very dark period of history and praise the Lord for him and his labors as we today are recipients of his love and labors.
 
macike said:
6. Why bother.

Has anyone ever looked into Roman Catholicism. Seriously I mean. I only saw the end of a journey home episode with this guy but he essentially destroyed the idea of scripture alone in less than 1 minute, by explaining how the idea of scripture alone is not in scripture. If I am wrong please correct me.
discussingthetopic said:
First you will have to define what you mean by scripture alone, using scripture alone
Good luck ;)

I put myself in quotes so you do not confuse my idea with the guy on the websites refutation.

http://calvin2catholic.com/Home.html

By the way I am not a Roman Catholic.
 
I had no original intention to debate "Calvinism," it is just that you said something that sounds a lot like it as a school policy in the school you suggest.

I am only interested in schools that let you have "free" academic thought, which is why I seriously wonder if I should just study linguistics or history at a secular college.

You never answered if I am required to accept Calvinism in order to graduate from your school.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Most people have not read all 22 volumes of Calvin's writings and his 2 volume systematic. Many people after Calvin said and taught things that even he did not teach.

I discovered that after reading most of his theological works, and now reading through his seven or so volumes of letters, that many have misunderstood him in several areas.

That is why i said Modern Calvinism instead of John Calvin's original teachings. Or said "Calvinism." Or Calvinism as commonly taught.
 
Discussingthe Topic wrote "Has anyone ever looked into Roman Catholicism. Seriously I mean. I only saw the end of a journey home episode with this guy but he essentially destroyed the idea of scripture alone in less than 1 minute, by explaining how the idea of scripture alone is not in scripture. If I am wrong please correct me."

My friend, I find it hard to imagine you meant what you wrote here. Am I missing the point? Are you actually asking if anyone has seriously looked into Roman Catholicism? Surely you are familiar with the protestant reformation. This was an effort to reform Roman Catholicism that failed, but resulted in the formation of several Protestant denominations. The first generation of all the protestant groups were from within the ranks of R/C. They knew the corruption that existed and found it unchangeable and so left it. Religious and secular history abound with the atrocities of of R/C oppression, violence and subterfuge.

Surely, you are not suggesting we lend creedence to some fraudulent R/C authority. Never! Never! Never! Never should Hell freeze over!
 
DTT,

Again, this is why I keep referring you back to the two books you have bought.

I'm not trying to be rude to you here. But your questions like the one posted about Scripture Alone reveal you do indeed lack in substantive education of basic theology. As I said you are talking a lot about a lot of things but you have not yet grasped the basic, foundational, elementary concepts of theology and doctrine. If so you would be clear on the issue of the doctrine, nature, and authenticity of Scripture.

Dolly Parton, the famous country singer and composer, had a coat she spoke about. It was called the coat of many colors. It was a patchwork of various pieces of cloth put together to make one jacket since her family was poor.

Your theology is a Dolly Parton coat of colored theology built because you are theologically poor.

Why do I say that? If you really understood the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration you would understand why this is the right concept of Scripture being the highest or ultimate authority. There would be no doubt in your mind. Your mind would be solid, convinced, and sure about this doctrine.

And again, this is something that you learn in the basics of an academic setting in an Evangelical Seminary or Bible College. And thus that is why it proves to me time and time again you are flopping all around with a real need to be educated in a coherent, logical, systematic fashion so that you can gain the needed skills and ideas to build a solid ideological structure to work with.

But if you just keep jumping all over the place, picking and choosing what to embrace and not embrace without having someone you submit yourself to as a mentor (or better yet several mentors who are the professors of the Seminary), which is often due to the sin pride and arrogance of one's heart wanting to be his own god and not humble to learn from one more mature than he is, then you'll continue to be confused and unsure and shallow in your mental and spiritual understanding.

And I'm not suggesting that you have to even do this in a seminary or college per se. Education can be gained outside of those circles. Some of the greatest minds in history were people who were well read and who digested the writings and ideas of other great thinkers. But there again is the issue, they were willing to submit themselves to the teachings of others through a rigorous reading of the people they wanted to learn from and study under as a disciple.

Until you decide that you want to be a disciple, one who is submitted to the instruction of another, you'll never advance very far in your theological education. This is one of the most serious epidemics in Christendom today. People are so full of pride, like Satan's heart which was filled with pride in himself, they think they do not need anyone but God and the Bible, which is so corrupt that anyone who says such understands nothing about Christ Jesus! The entire Christian life is based and built upon discipleship, the more mature educating and training the less mature so they grow up in the faith.

And again to make this truth applicable to the family, even the union of a man and woman is based upon discipleship. Any man who will not submit himself to the mature leaders Christ has given unto his church is a hypocrite if he thinks his lady in union with him ought to submit to him. How can a man, who is not submitted, ever expect his lady or ladies to be in submission to him if he does not model that type of lifestyle to the family? I find this too to be a problem among many homes. The man demands submission but he is about as ignorant as a rock, which is bad, but even worse he is not willing to do anything to overcome that ignorance and is content to be such with no desire to pursue Christ and the knowledge of Christ. And again this is why many men never find a godly woman either. A godly woman wants, desires, and is interested in a man who is full of the knowledge of Christ. A godly woman wants a man who knows and loves her Lord and has her Lord's head and heart.

Additionally, you continue to ask questions over and over that if you would take the time to read those two beginner books I suggested back to you months ago, instead of using your time to write over and over on these forums, and instead use that time you are writing to actually read from some men who are more advanced, more mature, and more knowledgable in both the word and life than you are then you would begin to grow and see many new truths, i.e. if of course you read with a mind seeking to learn instead of just reading to say one has read.

Again brother, I'm not trying to injure you here but I am being very direct that you need to get into those books and begin your theological educational journey by being a submitted disciple, i.e. if you really are serious about education and wanting to grow in grace. Without doing that you'll not have a good grasp of the major doctrines fo the Bible and how they apply to various things of life. You will bounce back and forth from one idea to another, one subject to another, and you will not be balanced. This is exactly why Apostle Paul said God gave the church teachers and other leaders (Eph. 4:11-12) so that "we may no longer be children. toosed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph.4:14).

Until you get serious about being a disciple, and serious about reading and examining the theological literature of the God-given teachers for the body of Christ, you will remain confused and unstable and you'll continue to shift from one idea to another because you will not have a stable base from which to build from.

I have made you a clear offer in the past. I know you are trying to get your thesis done and I understand that. But even so, if you are serious about wanting to grow in your faith then I strongly urge you once again to take the time to do some serious reading and instead of jumping from one topic to another, from one question to another, with this back and forth waves of the sea flow get into those books and begin to work your way through those doctrinal subjects in a systematic fashion. If you do things like your question of how do we know the Bible alone is the ultimate truth (the meaning of Scripture alone) will become so clear to you that you'll never doubt the reason for that idea ever again and you'll be firmly convinced of God's supernatural inspiration of that one solitary book (2 Tim. 3:16). without doing so you'll forever be doomed to a wishy washy faith. And for us to answer each and every question thoroughly is not a wise use of our time with so many other pressing needs. What it might take me 6 months to explain to you in a post here post there format could be achieve in one month if you were to dig deep into the books while reading in systematic fashion. And along the way as you had questions I will be glad more than you could ever imagine to answer any questions you have after you have done your part of reading. But it is unwise, a terrible use of my time in service to the Lord, to spin in circles with anyone who is not willing to show a submitted heart to the discipleship process, which at the minimum is verified by one's willingness to follow through with on what was originally agreed (as with you reading those books and me working with you as you read). I believe you have a serious desire to know and learn DTT, or else I would have never made you the offer I did about the books and my time to help you. But, the desire to learn and grow is only part of the story. There must be a desire to learn and grow through the proper path of being disciplined. Self-discipline is a part of the Fruit of the SPirit (see Gal. 5:22-23). If you are not disciplined enough to follow through and read what you have agreed to read then your desire for knowledge has met a block in your character and until you find within you a determination by the Spirit of grace to overcome that you will be stuck.

And yes, our Seminary is unashamed of certain doctrinal convictions. Though not per se a Calvinist school that requires you to believe the entire Covenant Calvinist scheme, there are certain elements to which Calvin, as all who are born again and Evangelical, would affirm and in some limited places one would have to sign a doctrinal agreement position. We are a school that believes in discipleship, not a school that believes in each student making their own theology up as they go. There are plenty of schools that will gladly take your money though and let you do just that. So if you want a school that will let you bifurcate the process of discipleship without any doctrinal standards then they are not hard to find as the world is full of them. But ours is certainly not one of those and at least in our view of things, we are thankful it is not as we cherish the fundamentals of the faith as essential to one's soul and eternal life. As Paul said to his disciple Timothy, "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Tim. 4:16). Right teaching is a means for the salvation of people and thus we do not and will never embrace the skewed and humanistic idea that whatever one believes is ok and just as good as what anyone else believes. We hammer out truth by careful, precise, and thorough study and when we arrive at solid conclusions which are essential and of utmost importance, especially in regard to things like salvation, we mince no words, give no room for difference if right-minded, and smile with the grace of God glowing and burning upon and in us as we teach it to others hoping that they too will embrace it lest they one day awake in eternal hell without Christ's grace!

Dr. Allen
 
John Whitten said:
Discussingthe Topic wrote "Has anyone ever looked into Roman Catholicism. Seriously I mean. I only saw the end of a journey home episode with this guy but he essentially destroyed the idea of scripture alone in less than 1 minute, by explaining how the idea of scripture alone is not in scripture. If I am wrong please correct me."

My friend, I find it hard to imagine you meant what you wrote here. Am I missing the point? Are you actually asking if anyone has seriously looked into Roman Catholicism? Surely you are familiar with the protestant reformation. This was an effort to reform Roman Catholicism that failed, but resulted in the formation of several Protestant denominations. The first generation of all the protestant groups were from within the ranks of R/C. They knew the corruption that existed and found it unchangeable and so left it. Religious and secular history abound with the atrocities of of R/C oppression, violence and subterfuge.

Surely, you are not suggesting we lend creedence to some fraudulent R/C authority. Never! Never! Never! Never should Hell freeze over!

No actually I just wish they took a look at Roman Catholicism, it is full of heresies but the reformers and protestants created new heresies when they tried to refute Roman Catholicism. But understanding some Roman Catholic teachings makes it easier to refute certain heresies that protestants commonly have.

This guy successfully refuted a lot of commonly believed heresies in mainline protestantism with great skill in the portion I watched. But I only saw the end of the episode.

http://calvin2catholic.com/Home.html

I am suggesting that Roman Catholicism is much more reasonable than the commonly taught do nothing version of *Calvinism. At least it gives you something to do. And if Roman Catholicism is more reasonable, that is a pretty sad state of things for the commonly taught version of *Calvinism.

* Not necessarily what Calvin taught
 
Back
Top