denominations not requiring the Mdiv

Dear board members, would you be so kind as to lend your knowledge regarding denominations not requiring the Mdiv for ordination.
As we try to work are way thru the quagmire-info greatfully appreciated.
many thanks

 

Reply

You need to find out what denomination you would be interested in pursuing. An M.Div. is not required in many non-denominational or independent churches. However, most of your main line denominations require that you earn a degree from a school that represents that denomination. To just generally say that this denomination requires an M.Div. and this one is not would be rather hard to answer. Particularly, when you are determining the population of the congregation, what the needs are of the denomination, and also what you as an individual person are looking for. How far along in education are you? Do you have a degree in religion or theology? What areas of ministry are you interested in? What are your denominational beliefs -- where do you tend to agree with as far as philosophy of denomination and/or belief? There is so much for you to answer -- that I think you need to determine what you are looking for first, and then you can get this question answered more clearly. You need to put more pieces of the puzzle together. Otherwise, it is just to vague of a question. Please answer these for us. This might be helpful.

Perhaps, Will, can talk with you sometime about all of this.

Best wishes.

 

Universal Life Church. But you're probably asking the wrong question.

 

As far as I know, there are no educational requirements for ordination among many Baptist denominations.

 

One of your other posts mentioned Episcopalian or Lutheran. I am a Lutheran cleric. If you would like to discuss anything with me, please send me a private message ("PM" function at lower left of post screen). Best wishes, Janko.

 

===

I think that you could answer this question with your own research fairly easily.

But I also am puzzled by your question. Is it your plan to choose a denomination because it fits the particularities of your belief system or because it has light academic requirements for ordination? If your belief system is undeveloped, why be ordained?

Still, your approach may have some value. In my experience the more I learn the less I am content with any denomination. Of course I'm prideful and pig headed.

 

Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

But also the implementarian of Groverian Christology............

 

Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

Aren't you learning from denominational scholars?

Oh, come on now, not you?, ha!

Hi Bill. Hope this finds you well.

How many chapters do you have left?

 

That's funny. The more I learn, the happier I am with mine.
(Oink?)

 

Which flavor? (LCMS, ELCA, WELS, other?)

 

The same holds true for me. Although not officially a denomination, the more I read, study, and learn the happier I am with the Christian churches/churches of Christ.

 

Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

===

Yes, but I find that I can accept only pieces from each. I will be wrong in some points too. We have to do the best we can.

So, eg, with apologies for speaking as a Trinitarian now, I like what the Conservative Baptist, Erickson, says about role equality in immanent trinal relationships, but think what he says about the Son losing the use of some divine attributes in the kenosis to be bunk. I like what Strong says about attributes residing in essence, but I think he is off track when he affirms three wills in God. I like the sovereignty that the Westminster Confession ascribes to God, but IMO it is wrong when it affirms the the eternal generation of the Son.

I have 1 1/2 chaps left to do by Nov and possibly some hurried revisions from Nov to Feb , after the SA profs evaluate it, so that I can graduate in May, 05.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

Of the five traditional theories of Kenosis, which do you like the best?

1. Christ emptied Himself of: divine consciousness
2. the eternity form of being
3. the relative attrributes
4. integrity of infinite divine existence
5. the divine activity

Do you subscribe to any sub-Kenotic theories?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

==

As usual I have to be pigheaded and reject all of these.

IMO The Son, as God, lost nothing because the Son as God is immutable. Any change in activity would be a change in attributes, and any change in attributes would effect a change in essence. One trinal Person cannot change in divine activity, divine attributes, or divine essence without a change in the ontic nature of God. Therefore, there can be no kenosis of these.

"Sub-kenotic" ?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

Couldn't put it any better myself.


At a graduation ceremony John A. MacDonald, Canada's first prime minister, spoke after someone who gave a long-winded speech in Greek. John A. stated it was some of the finest Greek he had ever heard spoken. Of course John A. understood no Greek.

 

Strong's Concordance?

Strong's Concordance?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

I can't remember all the sub-kenotic theories but three of them state Christ emptied Himself:

1. of the use of divine attributes
2. of the independent exercise of the divine attributes
3. of the insignia of majesty (r something like that)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

===

Probably any body of knowledge involves terminology and concepts which require some diligent effort to understand. Sorry if I don't feel compelled, when speaking about Theology, to always explain everything so that every reader gets it without employing such effort.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: denominations not requiring the Mdiv

===

I just have not come across in the literature the term of "sub" kenotic to categorize these. Sorry.

 

Re: Strong's Concordance?

==

Augustus Hopkins