Trinity's Doctoral Programs

To BLD, Greetings,

First, let me say that I'm not promoting, nor discrediting Trinity. All I can say is that because of Trinity's pursuite of RA, they seem to be up grading all of their programs, especially at the Grad level, that was what I was told anyway.

What does this all mean? "Honestly, I do not know!"
We'll have to wait and see.

I know that I'm taking a bit of a chance with Trinity seeking RA. I'm hoping someday to come out of Trinity with at least one RA under Grad degree, then I will see what my options are and were the Lord leads me.

And as far as Trinity being a dead horse; you could be right!

However, after redemption comes a future resurrection from the dead!

God's blessings,

Rich Hartel
A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (Present)

 

I was somewhat confused by this statement. But after reading the post several times I think North is referring to my description of the TTS requirements for the DRS I was enrolled in.

 

===

Rich I'm not mad.

 

===


I don't think Jimmy was in both the ACCS and the Trinity doc programs. But I was.

In 2001 I completed three TTS courses in the PhD in Theology. In 2003 I completed three courses in the ACCS DMin in Bible/Theology---(NOT in Mininstry). Of course my TTS work is three years old. But TTS began in 1969 , it had many years to "get good" and as I recall, in 2001 TTS was claiming "unparalled excellence." So, I assume that in 2001 I got about the best TTS could offer.

Let me compare these two experiences. In both schools I took a course in "Systematic Theology" :


FACULTY--

As North says, there is no comparison as to the degrees of the faculty. MY ACCS prof had only a DMin. A DMin is not a qualification to teach doc level Theology. My TTS course was taught by first a PhD from (I think) Westminster , then by a PhD from Dallas. Both top schools!

But let me make the point that unless there is ongoing and significant interaction between the student and the teacher, unless the TTS prof by virtue of his better training over the ACCS prof , actually uses that advanced training to guide the student, actually leads the student into higher learning experiences , actually employs his good PhD to teach rigorously, then, if the student does not receive these benefits from the fine training his prof has, what practical difference does it make where the prof went to school or what degree he holds?

If the student is not well trained the training of the prof is of little consequence!!

Of course it is nice to think that the one scribbling a few meager notes on your submitted paper has a PhD, but if those professorial comments do not urge, indeed require, that the student stretch himself more and more in learning, then what difference does it really make what degree the prof has?

In my experience the TTS prof did not use his degree to teach! It might as well have been a MDiver from Dothan who wrote "nice job" on my papers!


MATERIEL

IN DL programs the textbooks and so forth much function as the arm of the instructor. Here it was my experience that both the Grudem text used by TTS and the Williams text used by ACCS were NOT written for doctoral studies. These both are survey texts suitable only for the MA/MDiv level of work! They are not doc level stuff. I was honestly in both contexts going over the same studies at the same, or really less, rigor that I experienced in my MDiv studies in 1990! I even taught the same stuff using Strong's at Linda Vista (now So Cal) in the 1960s or early 70s!

This is a basic concern of mine. It is my impression that both the TTS PhD and the ACCS DMin class were intended to be introductory courses. It was NOT assumed that if one is doing a doc, then it is time to dig much deeper!

That IMO is very serious deficit. But it was necessary as TTS had in 2001 no method in place, such as an accredited masters, entry exams, or prior thesis, to ascertain the genuine qualifications of the pool of doc students to actually do rigorous doc work--so, assume they're all unqualified and give them all simple survey courses!

Then additionally the TTS class required the student to listen to cassette tapes. These also were not at the doc level. Even BA students listened to the exact same tapes! They were introductory to Systematic Theology. They were surveys.

But IMO at the doc level whether that degree is called DMin or PhD **OR DA**, one no longer should be doing surveys!

Now , of course, in the case of TTS, it can be responded that as TTS is changing, the materiel may also be revised. I hope so. But here's the thing. TTS was giving an MA level introductory class for PhD credit. Surely the TTS profs knew this, and the TTS administrators knew this, but still they did it!

Both schools required additional reading which the student picked out for himself. The student's grasp of these readingswas not measured in any way.

In summary , IMO, it is not redemptive to that a PhD "teaches" the course if the prof does not actually employ his higher skills in instruction and if the materials of the course are actually not at doc level!


ASSIGNMENTS

Both ACCS and TTs required besides the readings several papers.

Here is where Barry is right on target: basic Hebrew and Greek grammar are prerequisites for Biblical studies at the doc level--not a part of the curricula! (It is true that Biblical Books may be suitably exegeted in the original languages at the doc level) .

But neither ACCS nor TTS required any use of the original languages for any class I took! I know that if one himself has not had exposure to the languages it might be difficult to appreciate their value in doing grad studies. But the value, even the necessity, is there.

So the expectations for the assignments in both schools we similar.


EXAMS

Here, IMO, TTS had the advantage. A cumulative exam was given. This had to be supervised and sent in by an approved proctor. ACCS gave me no exam for any course. That's bad!


SUMMARY


Based on my experience, the TTS doc coursework was somewhat more rigorous than ACCS , but was still not above the expectations suitable in a MA/Mdivv program. Because of the qualifications of the TTS profs it had the potential to be much more, but it chose not to be that. That it did not use the potential it had is IMO a sign of a commitment to substandard education not a goal to be rigorous.

What I am saying is that the TTS administrators and the TTS PhD profs in 2001 well knew that these courses and this instruction were not at PhD level--yet they granted PhD credit for them! They could have done the good by requiring doc level rigor but they did not then do the good.

As an experienced sinner myself, I might point out regarding the TTS fault in 2001 of knowingly giving PhD credit for insubstantial MA level work that,

"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (Jas 4:17-NIV)

Hopefully all of this is now changed. But MDS may suggest that it has not.


.

 

To Bill Grover, Greetings,

I didn't think you were, but again I do apologize if I did take your comments out of context!

Furthermore, I hope you don't mind if I ask questions?
Because, for some one like myself who very much wants to study the Bible and who is just starting to do so at the college level, I very much value your (as well as others on this forum) opions, comments and corrective criticisms.

Continued success on your Doc. degree!!

Rich Hartel
A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

===

I'm glad you didn't think I was mad. Please ask questions anytime. I'll try to answer truthfully. To me it is thrilling to see one who wishes to study Scripture. Best wishes in that wherever you "go."