Franciscan University of Steubenville unbiblical

This has to do with the problems there concerning heresies of americanism,capitalism, jansenism and lots of tradition

 

Princeton University/Divinity School Slave History

The Princeton & Slavery Project investigates the University’s involvement with the institution of slavery. It explores the slave-holding practices of Princeton’s early trustees and faculty members, considers the impact of donations derived from the profits of slave labor, and looks at the broader culture of slavery in the state of New Jersey, which did not fully abolish slavery until 1865.

The first 9 president's owned slave's and sold them on campus to finance it's development as with all Ivy League Universities. www.slavery.princeton.edu/

 

Accredited Seminaries from Yale, Interfaith seminary to Cambridge heresy

Most of the accredited seminaries do not teach biblical Christianity. It is interfaith and filled with athiest professor's that do not believe in the word.

 

Degreeinfo is established by elite founders about accreditation

As I was scrolling through the website today all I see confrontation about accreditation which is governed by the state and federal government to have funding for financial aid. The gospel message should be proclaimed. Does accreditation really matter when a person becomes the pastor of a church?⛪.

 

Fakescholars, here are two questions for you:
1. What is your definition of a Christian?
2. What is your definition of a Biblical institution?

 

Fakescholars, are you suggesting that the wheat and the tares are growing together? Please see Matthew 13:24-30 as a Biblical reference. What is your solution?

 

Is this shaping up to be an anti-accreditation argument in favor of non-accredited seminaries?

The regional accreditors certainly try to be a big-tent and are willing to accredit schools of religion with all manner of theological views. They accredit a wide variety of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian programs. The regional accreditors happily accredit non-Christian religious programs as well, along with more secular Religious Studies and Philosophy of Religion programs of various sorts.

ATS restricts itself to ostensibly Christian and Jewish seminaries, but even ATS sees fit to accredit the two Unitarian Univeralist seminaries.

So if somebody is looking for a seminary with a particular theological position, he or she can't simply depend on accreditation. (Or lack of accreditation for that matter.) Accreditation is more about administrative (and hopefully academic) standards.

An inquirer will have to look at the seminary's denominational affiliation, statement of beliefs, faculty, program syllabi and class descriptions, and inquire into its reputation in the wider religious community.

TRACS is something of an outlier, since it does insist on a much more evangelical/fundamentalist religious stance (including a literal 6-day creation) that you might find more congruent with your own views. Look at the text beginning with page 1 here (following the Roman numeral pages):

http://tracs.org/documents/2013AccredManual_002.pdf

 

Heirophant, that's very perceptive of you.

 

It depends upon which denomination you serve.

 

Fakescholars, if you would like to receive federal or state dollars to spend on tuition, then you must obey state or federal rules and laws. Jesus said to, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar's." If you want Caesar's money for you tuition, then you must abide by Caesar's rules. No one is forcing you to accept Caesar's terms. Please see Matthew 22:15-22 for more information about Ceasar's terms.

Fakescholars, accreditation is moot when it comes to preaching the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the United States, you can legally start your own church from your own living room -- and no accreditation is required. Preach the Gospel from the housetops! Please don't let accreditation or 501c3 stop you!

By the way, how many threads are you going to start about accreditation for religious endeavors?

 

I am not a believer thanks to nonsense like this. Isn’t the Bible a creature of the Catholic Church ? then how can a catholic institution not be biblical?. I don’t understand why catholic are called none Christian by Protestants. I am now so happy not to dispense with rational thought anymore . Life is so much more enriching being a nonbeliever.

 

I am no sort of Bible scholar beyond what I've learned over the years studying the Hebrew texts and commentaries and I'm certainly no theologian nor expert on Christian thought. But I have learned that thoughout human history every major religion generates a multitude of expressions. The very concept of orthodoxy has only the meaning that the person claiming to be orthodox decides to assign to it. The VAST majority of the world's people who claim to be Christian are affiliated with the Catholic (1.3 billion) or Eastern Orthodox (250 million) Churches and it has been that way for about 2,000 years. These Churches established the the very bedrock doctrines of what Christianity is. Indeed, these Churches decided which of the ancient Jewish texts would comprise the so-called Old Testament and also selected which of the Common Era Greek writings would make up the New. I find the idea curious that some ninteenth century preacher can find in the King James version proof that the ancients got everything so totally wrong. I do not suggest that Christianity is itself true or false or that the preacher is wrong or right in any objective sense. What I am suggesting is that for that preacher to claim that his definition of Christianity is the sole correct one is rather silly.

 

Heck, you don't have to be so trolly about it. There are those of us out here who have advanced degrees and who teach a little logic here and there and produce peer-reviewed scholarship who do not think one need dispense with logic to believe that there is a God who created the universe and that indeed said God cared enough about his creation to come down here and live among us and then die for people just like our friend Phdtobe. I happen to be one of them.

Do you really mean to suggest that I've dispensed with rational thought and live a life less enriching because I'm a believer? Scratching head here, because I can think of some people, such as Descartes, Isaac Newton, J.S. Bach (brilliant mathematician as well as composer), C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Immanuel Kant, Wilberforce (whose faith influenced his passion for the abolition of slavery), Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King and my wife who would definitely fit the category of talented, brilliant, wonderful people who saw no conflict between faith and being a rational being--in fact, I think many of them would consider their faith to have made them more rational.

Heck, just sayin.

 

I do not know enough about this so everything you wrote may just be right. My understanding is that what we now call the bible was a selection of dispersed writing put together by a xxx council # of the catholic hierarchy. I am with you , I detest celebrity bs.

 

Well when you put it that way, it an argument I can't win. So, I got to take the easy way out. since I became a nonbeliever my life is more fulfilling. I find it much easier in my life to handle and explain life challenges.

 

I won't be shocked if the op doesn't return.