It’s been a while since I have done one of these, but I thought you might be interested in the happenings of what I believe to be the best seminary in the world. 🙂
* The new chapel service schedule has just been released (you can subscribe to the podcast here). This morning, Dr. Mohler gave his convocation address entitled “Determined to Know Nothing Except Jesus Christ and Him Crucified? A Crucial Question for Christian Ministry.” The lineup is interesting to say the least. Probably the most striking aspect is Jerry Vines preaching twice immediately followed by John Piper who will be preaching twice. The former is a one-point Calvinist; the latter is a seven-point Calvinist. The former believes that if you are not an abstentionist, you are headed down the road of apostasy; the latter made it one of his first ministerial goals to change the church’s stance on abstentionism. Don’t think you could get a better juxtaposition. 🙂 My thoughts? I tried that two years ago with Jack Graham (see here and here) and was deemed a “trouble maker” from that moment on. Let’s just say that I hope this doesn’t create another “baptist battle.” Lest we forget, it must be said that Piper is a bad man. See what I mean . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-GxkAJ1OBU]
* A couple of new book releases on baptism have recently been released. The first one is entitled Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ edited by Drs. Tom Schreiner and Shawn Wright. Schreiner addresses Baptism in the Epistles, Wright tackles the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists, and Dr. Stephen Wellum explains Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants. All of the contributions look great, but you know, this is Southern Seminary news . . .
* The second book is an addition to Zondervan’s Counterpoint Series, entitled Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Dr. Tom Nettles provides “The Baptist view: Baptism as a Symbol of Christ’s Saving Work.” The other three views include the Reformed view, the Lutheran view, and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view.
* A great website that you might not be aware of is The Archives and Special Collection website of SBTS which shares a wealth of history and exclusive archives here at the Boyce Centennial Library (my second home). Here is a link providing you a portal to the history of SBTS. Also, here is the page dedicated to Dr. Dockery with whom I had the privilege of recently interviewing.
* Finally, though not really school related, it looks like I’ve been given the shaft at the popular SBTS metablog. It is a site that carries the feed of fellow SBTS bloggers and refreshes it every hour. Since last week, they have removed my feed from their site. There are some other good blogs there, so check it out anyway.
Could your absence from their list be a result of the change of rss address change?
Timmy,
I would guess it was anything personal. Mine got “removed” a while back soon after I changed some things at my blog. I have a feeling it has to do with changing rss. But I didn’t bother to email anybody and find out.
I am not sure. I emailed them at the beginning of the month with the new feed, and they changed it then. The new feed was working up until last Thursday (I think). I emailed them again, asking what might have happened and have not received a reply. An interesting thing to note, however, is that there are posts which date back to Dec. 3 on the front page (nearly two months old). In any case, I am not bothered by it. I inquired about it because I knew that it was an easy way for many of my friends to access the blog as well as others. Maybe I will hear back from the webmaster in the future.
Timmy, this happened to me not long after I moved the blog as well. They told me it was a problem with the RSS, and usually how it gets fixed is you either look at your RSS feed and fix the offending post(s), OR you can just simply wait around until the offending posts leave the front page. That’s why I started keeping my front page limited to 7-10 posts, so it would go away on its own. Trying to pore over your RSS feed is headache-inducing. I did it once and refuse to do it again.
Thanks Stephen. Man, I know absolutely nothing about the ins and outs of feeds. I could see how some of my posts could be taken as offensive, though. 😉
I’m glad you and Mark mentioned that this has happened to you guys as well. I thought they were picking on me because I looked like Ahmedinejad – or because as Joe said, I am wearing Gore-Tex underwear on my head. I feel better now.
Haha! It’s actually pretty easy, just open a window with your RSS feed, and usually there is a flag of some sort that tells you what is wrong with the feed. Then all you gotta do is open the post in your editor and fix whatever is wonky. That usually settles the problem, and when the SBTS metablog picks up your feed again it will load your post.
But like I said, staring at lines of code is headache-inducing.
the best seminary in the world
Hmmmm….
Search your feelings, Ched. You know it to be true.
Stephen said, Search your feelings, Ched. You know it to be true.
So, the way to discern truth is to rely on my feelings? My “experiential feelings” will be what determines my concept of truth? Is this the kind of experiential religiosity that one can expect to find at this “world’s greatest Seminary”? 🙂
Nah, we use Scripture for that. I’m talkin’ The Force, baby. 😉
Well, I stand corrected, as it appears that the dark side of The Force has spoken…
Timmy,
I love Dr. Mohler but I can’t understand why he is bringing Dr. Vines to preach at Southern. Dr. Akin also has Dr. Hunt scheduled at SEBTS. Both these men are a one pointer. To me it does not make any sense when you have a seminary that has a confession but does not use it for chapel speakers. The confession at a seminary ought to be used just like one at a local church. This is my opinion and I would love to others on my comments. We might as well throw out any confessions in the SBC because they don’t seem to matter.
Both of these men could not have been even ordained or preached at any of the GA Baptist Association churches during the 1800’s and very early 1900″s . I have a great CD entitled The Baptist History Collection and Mercer gives us clear evidence in the GA Baptist minutes that these men would not even be recognized in the pulpits and churches. A typical answer that I have heard from some SBTS is that the seminary is not a local church. Think about that answer for a minute. The place where we are training men ought to be an example in this so when men go off and pastor they will have theological integrity. Again, shoot holes in what I’m saying.
Ched,
I think it is important to note that I said *what I believe* to be the best seminary in the world. I contend that such belief is warranted.
While I suppose that I could delve into any number of matters, I will simply speak selectively for the sake of time. First, SBTS has quickly become one of the largest seminaries in the world. Second, SBTS has amassed on of the most prestigious and prolific faculty of professors around, hands down. Third, SBTS has a rich history, including its founders in Boyce, Broadus, and Manly, and continuing with Robertson, Henry, Stein, etc. Fourth, SBTS has continually led all schools in papers presented at the annual ETS meetings, denoting the continued excellence in scholarship. Fifith, we have a solid theological and confessional framework which we hold fast to. Sixth, for all that our seminary offers, it is really affordable (compared to TEDS for example). Seventh, SBTS has a great network and relationship with other leading organizations, such as IX Marks, Desiring God, Sovereign Grace, etc. Eighth, regarding some disciplines, we have the most prominent scholars around (for instance, Ware on Open Theism, Trinity, Providence; Gentry on linguistics, Greek/Hebrew, Hexapla; Schreiner on NT, Exegesis; Pennington on Greek; Mohler on culture; Nettles on Baptist history; Whitney on Spiritual Formation/Disciplines; Fuller on Hebrew; Scott on Biblical Counseling; Parker on Apologetics, etc.). Ninth, SBTS exists as a servant to the Church and to advance the Kingdom of God, thus making it a means to an end, not an end of itself. Tenth, three words: Boyce Centennial Library.
I guess that’s a few reasons why I believe SBTS is the best all-around seminary. But alas, your retort is welcome.
Scott,
I hear your frustrations man. If you read my previous articles regarding Jack Graham, you know that I think being a confessional seminary is important. There’s no question that Vines does not accept the A of P. The question and frustration I had then (and still do now) is that we are promoting being inconsistent with what we believe. I am not the person to answer the rationale or whether our confession applies to chapel speakers. But if it didn’t, why not bring Roger Olson or Clark Pinnock or Brian McLaren? The question then comes where you draw the line and how you do that. Do you draw the line by our stated confession or by some arbitrary standard? It appears that the answer is the latter.
When I wrote that then, I made it a habit to attend chapel as did many others. Since then, I have been only once (when Frank Page came). I hope to attend when Piper comes. It is not that it bothers me any less, but simply that I have stated my conviction on the matter, and will be consistent with my belief by not attending chapel. There are other issues I hope to focus more on, such as the gospel and how we as SBCers can work together in the future.
I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if this did not become a bigger issue this time around . . .
Timmy,
If all chapel speakers had to adhere to the A and P eliminate the possiblity of R.C. Sproul and Lig Duncan speaking in chapel. Do we really want that to happen?
On serious note, when you are in seminary (I am a recent Southeastern grad) no one expects you to agree with every thing presented in chapel. I remember several instances when profs were in fact critical (in the good sense) of messages in chapel. So, why I do not agree with the theology of Vines (that is an understatment), I would not be opposed to having him in chapel for that reason. Seminary chapel is not the same thing as having someone in the pulpit of your church…but that is another issue altogether.
David,
I read R.C. and have heard Lig preach a few times. I love these brothers however, I could not let these men join our church because of their baptism and because Scripture does not recognize their baptism then we would not serve the Lord’s Supper to them. I believe these men love God but all men who took the Lord’s Supper were baptized in Scripture and the order of Acts 2 speaks clearly as well.
To be consistent with the A and P they should not preach in chapel. Could a professor teach at Southern who was Paedobaptist ? I hope not because it carries alot of weight to other things. Please don’t misunderstand me that I’m saying that I have not learned things from these men. Remember to shoot holes in my comments where I am wrong. Thanks!
I guess that’s a few reasons why I believe SBTS is the best all-around seminary.
Alas, I electronically repent into dust and ashes…
I don’t think Sproul or Duncan can or should teach at Southern. I am comfortable with them speaking in chapel. I’m also very comfortable with Jerry Vines or Jack Graham. I am much more concerned that the faculty at Southern (the best seminary!) affirm the A and P and not teach contrary to it.
Hey Timmy,
Sorry to burst in on the party. I have a question though: has anyone here ever asked Dr. Vines what he thought of the AP or are you assuming you know the answer?
With that, I am…
Peter
David,
You make a good point, brother. I don’t think we should have the same standard with chapel speakers as seminary profs. However, I think the whole McKissic debauckle really puts a new spin on the issue. SWBTS did not approve of his chapel message and would not allow it to be heard by the public.
I take it that Vines, Graham, Hunt, etc. are all good friends of Dr. Mohler (and I presume our school). If that is the case, I do not understand why they would say and do things which put great strain on that relationship. When I wrote about Graham the first time, I made it my point that he I believed he forfeited his right to speak when he became so outspoken about what our school believes. Had there not been an agenda, I do not think there ever would have been an issue with him coming. The same is with Vines, who, under the inspiration of Hunt, just recently completed a series of sermons called “Baptist Battles”–the first being his treatment of Calvinism. When there is an agenda involved, I think the majority of folks dismiss them as they have suffered greatly regarding their credibility.
So to clarify, I am not saying that they must agree with the A of P to speak in chapel. I am saying that when preachers/teachers speak out against what our school believes (especially if their presentation is faulty), I have a real problem.
Peter,
I don’t know if you could call it a party, but welcome. Regarding what Vines believes, he has been unambiguous regarding what he believes about the doctrines of grace. Simply reviewing his statements would tell you where he stands regarding the A of P. I fear that you think I may be making a baseless assumption. I am quite comfortable with it as I have read both Vines’ treatment of the doctrines of grace as well as the A of P. And no, I do not think they are consonant.
Thanks for the comment.
Timmy,
Thanks for responding. Actually, I did not realize Vines had dealt anywhere with the Doctrines of Grace, per se. What work are you refering to where he deals with either the DG or AP?
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Are you aware of his sermons at First Woodstock? I never said he dealt with the A of P. I simply said that his comments reflect that he is not in agreement with the doctrines stated therein. I hope to address a portion of his sermon in the future (that is if I can get a handle on translating the letter to Diognetes for my Greek class). At this point, I neither have the time or the desire to expound further on Vines, only to say that he stands at odds with our school’s stated confession. I do not think anyone would argue with that.
Timmy,
I respect your time. But did you not wrtie “reviewing his statements would tell you where he stands regarding the A of P…I have read both Vines’ treatment of the doctrines of grace as well as the A of P. ” How you now can say “I never said he dealt with the A of P. I simply said that his comments reflect that he is not in agreement with the doctrines stated therein.” Seems a bit of backpeddleing to me.
Thus, I ask again in what work has Vines dealt with the DGs or AP that lead you to believe he does not embrace either–specifically the AP, if you would be so kind.
Thanks Timmy. I trust your Greek goes well. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
No backpeddling here my friend. I stand by my statement.
Peter, I have followed you since you first entered the blogosphere. I know the game(s)you play on people’s blogs, and I don’t care to play that game here. If you are interested in what Dr. Vines believes, listen for yourself. I fear that you are more interested in trying to catch me contradicting myself than actually having a genuine interest in the purpose of this post. Everyone who reads and comments on my blogs knows that I respect differing views and welcome critical feedback. Say what you wish about me making another assumption, but I cannot dialogue or spend my time commenting with someone I am convinced in my mind has an agenda. I’m sorry, my friend, but that is where you stand with me. I wish this were not the case, but that is simply how I feel and what I believe.
Dear Timmy,
I appreciate your desiring to talk about me, my Brother Timmy. That’s very flattering. However, my wife instructs me to not talk so much about myself thus I must decline the temptation.
Keeping focus, then: You wrote of Vines “I have read both Vines’ treatment of the doctrines of grace as well as the A of P.” Do you have a reference for those treatments?
Thanks again. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I’m not going to answer for Timmy, but I can tell you how I read him. Let me paraphrase, “I have read both Vines’ treatment of the doctrines of grace and I have also read the A of P.” That is what I took him to mean which is that he (Timmy) has read the A of P, and based on Vines recent sermons at Woodstock on the Doctrines of Grace, Vines would not agree with the A of P.
Now, I don’t know what Timmy means as far as reading Vines treatment of the Doctrines of Grace. However, given the above context I would guess that he read some quotes from Vines on the DOG and maybe he even transcribed some of Vines’ sermon.
Okay, that’s all I’ve got. Hope you are enjoying your coffee.
Mark
Timmy,
Earlier I said that I don’t understand why Dr. Mohler is bringing Dr. Vines to preach in chapel at SBTS and can’t understand why Dr. Akin is bringing Dr. Hunt to SEBTS for chapel. I still stand by those words however I’m thankful that both of these men are leading seminaries. They have done alot of good things however would you consider doing an interview with Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin on why they sometimes bring men into chapel to speak knowing that they don’t line up with every point of the A and P. Also I would love for you to ask them what is the best Baptist Confession of faith that has been written? I would be curious to hear what they would say. I think I’m going to email Dr. Akin and ask him that .