Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:57 am
That's actually something I'm seriously considering . . . my big concern is balance on my resume. Thus, the Ph.D's from both a conservative and liberal school. I know a Masters from DTS will help, so it may actually be a good idea to get onef rom Westminster as well. Unless I do the Princeton thing.Maybe you should put in a year at Westminster, just so you can have a better understanding of Covenant Theology before you make your blanket assertions.
Ah, the good news is that I have several years to decide exactly where I need to go
I'd agree that degrees aren't everything, and there certainly have been many a brilliant self-taught individuals. The majority of my theology is self-taught. The school I'm at is pretty easy, although the discussions I have with profs before and after classes are great. But, I think we'd all agree a degree, or a series of them, makes a person generally more qualified to speak on a subject. Not always, of course, but as a rule, this is the case. It's the same way in the secular world.As a husband and a father with a mortgage, I cannot just pack up and go to seminary. I already have a Physics and Engineering degree from a secular university. I am certainly no anti-intellectual, but also hold that seminary degrees do not add sway to the arguments. If that were the case, then everyone with a seminary degree would be in agreement. Furthermore, the self-taught CHarles Spurgeon was a theological genius, and I find the exegesis of one John Waalvord to be fatally flawed (Remember the Soviet Union as Gog and Magog? Whatever happened to them?)
As for Gog and Magog, I think I already said that I found Walvoord wrong about that. I'm not a Hal Lindsey dispensationalist, PL. Most people I know aren't. See, this is a good example of the kind of thing I have a problem with you about. I've already answered this argument, andyet you ignore my replies in this area. Why should I bother trying to dialogue with you, PL, if you aren't going to give my words due consideration?
And I've already said that I don't wish to engage in this debate. Of course I find your exegesis flawed. As a matter of fact, this past Saturday I was required to turn in a chart that references every single eschatological passage in the book of Matthew. Needless to say, both the Olivet Discourse and the Sermon on the Mount got extensive treatment!Uh Jac, Please read the first 6 posts on this thread. I have made a nearly conclusive case that the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled. You have yet to address any of my arguments. Your argument is that you have a "more literal" method of interpretation (which we have yet to see) and that you attend seminary. Listen to yourself Jac?
Now, if this were a debate I wanted to engage in, then I would be obligated to answer ALL of your exegesis with due consideration. Given the sheer volume of your words, that would be a lot of consideration! For my part, I would have to offer not only a counter exposition, but I would have to thoroughly take into account everything you said.
So why don't I? Because I don't want to. I don't want to engage in this debate. Do you know why that is? The reason is rooted strictly in the hermeneutical approach, and not the exegesis itself. If we can't even agree on HOW to interpret Scripture, why should we debate on what it means? That's the point of the paper I'll be posting in the next few weeks. Even Allis agrees with me here, saying: "The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset." (Prophecy and the Church, p. 17). So, what good is it for me to have this discussion with you, PL? And show me where I have EVER asserted that just because I got to seminary we should all listen to me. I made it very clear why I asked you about your education, and I'll be looking into your school. It should help me understand better where you are coming from.
Oh please, PL. Sarcasm is the last resort of fools. Again, I've not asserted my schooling above anyone else's. Just the opposite, in fact. But, AS ALWAYS, you don't take into account another person's position. You are, AGAIN, doing the same thing you ALWAYS do. Discard someone's position and attribute to them what you want to attribute to them, and then attack them for it.We shouldn't question you because of your superior knowledge. We underlings should bow down before the almighty Jac. Afterall, we couldn't even survive in a small seminary (even though many of us have). Jac, on the other hand, attends seminary. He studies works from the “prestigious” DTS, (where a bunch of dispensationalist get together and pat each other on the back, giving each other degrees once they are convinced that you have learned their system.) Maybe you would like to lock horns with Kenneth Gentry, J. Gresham Machen or John H. Gerstner, who attended a real “prestigious” seminary, called Princeton (when it was a real seminary; and later Westminster). Of course, Princeton has nothing on Dallas Theological, but I think that these men are pretty smart.
Funny, as much as I disagree with Westminster's theological stance, I haven't ridiculed that school. As much as I disagree with Princeton, I'm considering going there . . .
Probably a good idea.However, I'm not going to veer off on this "educational" road anymore.
Sure you are qualified to defend your statements, although I wouldn't put two cents on your understanding of dispensationalism. But, so far as puritanism, reformed theology, etc., you seem pretty well on the money. Your eschatology is a bit off, so far as terminology goes, but that isn't all that surprising, either.I feel pretty qualified to defend my statements (and if you honestly feel otherwise, then you, and a seminary student, should be able to shred my "strawman" arguments).
As far as "shredding" your strawmen, for the most part, I'm content to point them out. There's a big difference in you and me, PL. I know I'm not going to change your mind. I have no intention on trying. Let me ask you an honest question . . . why do you think I have these discussions with you?
It's a good thing, for your sake, I don't get into tit-for-tat debate. Any other personal attacks you'd like to throw my way? Any other false positions you would like to attribute to me? Any attitudes you'd like to tell me that I have? Would you like me to tell you a bit about my family life? It might open up a world of new material for you.recommend that I read a book (which I already have). You then refer to my objections as "strawman" arguments, which makes me wonder. Are you even able to answer the arguments? They are just basic scriptural arguments, nothing complicated. This is a copout Jac. You blow off the questions, acting like they are somehow beneath you. I seriously doubt your ability answer these "strawman" arguments. Now are you going to defend your views, or just continue to float above us commonfolk in your ethereal highness?
I've shown two strawmen in this thread. The Calvinism thread was a joke, as I repeatedly pointed them out. In that thread, I dealt with every Scripture you threw at me, and then some. You didn't feel the need to return the favor. I'm not sure why that is, but I suppose that's up to you.
edit: Actually, let's clarify something. You do have a pretty good strawman method. It's more subtle . . . I wonder now if you even know that you are doing it.
Technically, a strawman is a false argument you prop up to knock down. You don't often (although you have) done this in a very out and out manner. Usually, we get what we see in this thread. You totally ignore an argument, and then continue to apply a false position to a person, and then attack that false position as if it were what the other person held to. Now, I don't know if you just don't read my posts (which I really do wonder about), or if because of the length of some of them you forget, or if you skim them looking for something to argue against or what. Regardless, its a common thing for you, and something you may want to take note of.