Louisiana Baptist University

JUST CHANGE NOMENCLATURE???

===


Could much substance be brought to the LBU PhD in Bible by just changing the name of the program? IMO no!

My friend Tony cannot be reasonably accused of allowing his own theology to influence this comment about this Louisiana Baptist University MA in Bible grad/PhD student. At the time of this thread "Jason" said Dr., Dr. (Dr?) Wallace was his PhD advisor. Wallace is the Dean of the LBU school of Biblical Studies. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Jason was in the PhD program at LBU in Biblical Studies and that he was doing work acceptable to LBU.

It might be well argued that one cannot draw a general conclusion about the rigor of the LBU grad studies in Bible by this one example of Jason. However, if the LBU curricula allows a Jason to go on uncorrected, then is the LBU curricula not somewhat at fault? After all, LBU claims to require "necessary research skills" and "excellence in scholarship" for its doctoral students. What does that mean? A reader should weigh Jason's remarks to see .

As an individual can complete the MA and the PhD "rigorously" in Bible at LBU without any work in the Biblical languages, why would Jason be expected to attach the learning of those languages and the use of them in doctoral studies to rigor?

LBU (01 Catalogue) lists as a doctoral course "Advanced Studies in John." But how can a study of John be "advanced" enough to be a doctoral level course if it it done only in English? Does the Colwell Rule apply to the predicate noun in 1:1 or not and with what effect on the meaning? Is the preposition there with a static verb really indicating interaction?

Here's a CHALLENGE: Provide one RA seminary professor with an accredited PhD or ThD in New Testament who would say that at the "advanced" doctoral level the writings of John can be done without using Greek.

I wonder if it is not an inditement of the lackluster rigor of LBU grad studies in Bible that one who finished at LBU the MA in Bible and who now is in the LBU PhD in Bible thinks that Strong's Concordance is adequate for "advanced" lexical research.

But moving away from the issue of languages consider this: A six unit , two "semester" course is offered at the doctoral level in Bible in Christology. Is this a rigorous "advanced" course? Christology concerns the Person of Christ. So, would a LBU doc student who finished this course learn to differentiate the views of Lutheranism from Reformed , and Chemnitz from Pieper (Unk ?) on the communication of attributes or be able to contrast the Damascene from Cyril re the properties of hypostasis or ousia or Leonitius from Gordon Clark re the personality of the human nature or trace Dahm's Septuagintal evidence on monogenes or Walvoord's on prototkos or Hodge from Buswell as to whether the humanity of Christ is an entity or merely is a complex of behavior patterns used by divinity or Grudem from Erickson as to whether the kenosis caused a loss of omniscience and omnipresence or Shedd from Appolinarius regarding two centers of consciousness would such a student be able to evaluate Warfield's treatise on Tertullian as to whether to that father taught that the prolated Logos equals the immanent?

Here's a CHALLENGE: Provide one RA seminary professor with an accredited PhD or ThD who would say that a two semester doctoral "advanced" course in Christology should not prepare the student to deal with these an dozens and dozens of other equally difficult issues. My hunch is that the LBU course does little to prepare a doc student to deal with such issues.

It may be that no prof is there at LBU who really is capable of adavanced studies in John in Greek or supervising research in advanced Christology in these necessary areas of that study.

If so, that why IMO just changing nomenclature will not solve the issue of the LBU PhD studies in Bible. What should LBU do?

DROP THE PHD IN BIBLE! Do only what you are capable of doing!

If a school does not produce rigor in doctoral students of Bible, then the rigor of that school's doctoral program should be questioned.

I'm sorry if all of this appears to be self-aggrandisement. IMO a seminary need not be accredited to be good, but its programs need to be rigorous to be good.

[these comments are not intended to indicate that LBU folks are insincere nor are these comments intended to be applicable to pure ministerial subjects as preaching or church planting]

 

Re: JUST CHANGE NOMENCLATURE???

Your point is well taken, Bill, one with which I agree. Any school, accredited or not, should be rigorous in its requirements.

 

DOCTORAL level? Heck, we require every Jewish THIRTEEN YEAR OLD to DEMONSTRATE the ability to read Torah in Hebrew (at least to some extent). And these folks are trying to say that DOCTORAL scholars can function without a THOROUGH knowledge of ancient languages?

You can't get a crummy Bachelor's degree in Jewish Studies from the University of London without demonstrating a decent reading command of Hebrew.

These people should be ashamed.

 

There are several RA/GAAP MDiv and PhD programs which DO NOT require language studies.

 

In BIBLE?

 

For many years I had numerous problems and concerns with what I read and heard regarding LDS beliefs. Finally I thought how what I read and heard was just not reasonable and seemed too ridiculous to be true.

So, while living in Richmond, IN, I contacted the local branch of the LDS and two men came to my house. They were wonderfully warm, friendly, engaging, well-mannered, polite, and respectful. We had a wonderful time of about two hours discussing LDS beliefs and what was written and reported by critics.

Jason would do well to "go to the source."

 

Re Gastric Reflux: Let sleeping twits lie.

 

One of the nicest things about attending a university affiliated with a religious tradition other than my own was the many opportunities that I had to "go to the source" when I had questions about Seventh-day Adventism and the opportunities that I had to answer sincere questions about my LDS faith.

In my church, a common saying goes, "One does not obtain an accurate picture of Jewish doctrine, practice and history by speaking only to Nazis." People like Jimmy Clifton, Bill Grover and many others on Degreeinfo are notable for their willingness to "go to the source". This is a trait that distinguishes the scholar from the fool.

As someone who possesses only a rudimentary knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, I would find it unthinkable to begin doctoral studies in Old and New Testament without a working knowledge of ancient languages, suchas Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Coptic. How else can you deal with the ancient manuscripts and fragments? Through someone else's translation? How can you determine which of several possible translations is the most preferred? How do you deal with the many writings that are contemporary to the Bible and provide valuable context (the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lachish Letters, Amarna Letters, etc.) and those writings that came after (e.g. writings of the early Christian fathers, the Nag Hammadi, the Didache, etc.)? How do you come up with original research if you can't interact with the source material in its original language?

LBU might be better off to focus on areas that do not require the tools necessary for Biblical study, such as practical pastoral studies or Bible-based counseling. These can be taught with rigor and typically do not require ancient languages.

Just my 1 1/2 cents...

Tony

 

Given the current faculty/administration, IMO, LBU would indeed be better served at the doctoral level to focus primarily on practics.

 

Interesting you mentioned the SDA. Two year's ago I attended SDA services for most of the summer. The SDA church is only about 10 miles down the road from me.

The people were wonderful and the messages were very interesting. The minister lived in Indianapolis so he only preached every other Saturday.

Lay ministers would speak on alternating Saturday's or they would run a live feed to other SDA church services. This is where I became aware of Dwight Nelson, a truly gifted preacher.

 

I'm not sure I would view LBU based on Jason's posts. My friend, Craig Hargis, earned his Th.D. from LBU and I am sure one will see a man of great knowledge and scholarship from his many posts on here.

 

In my five years as a student and, later, adjunct faculty at La Sierra University, I gained a deep abiding respect and admiration for the faculty, administration and staff of the University and for the Seventh-day Adventist faith. By their fruits I did know them.

Tony

 

Nor would I.

 

Interestingly there is also a Mormon congregation about 10 miles from my house in the opposite direction of the SDA congregation. I may visit them one of these Sunday's.

 

Bill,

Hope you had a very Merry Christmas!

I have seen you post a few times that you are aware of some RA M.Div. programs not requiring Biblical languages.

So far as I can remember you have not taken any of these to task.

Are you only attacking unaccredited schools that do not require Biblical languages? Don't you think if you're going to castigate LBU, write NCA about Trinity, etc., you should also be equally persistent in your attacks and letter writing campaigns?

Should SATS award the Th.M. without a Biblical language requrement? They do.

Fair is fair, Bill.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO MY FRIEND, DR. BILL GROVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

===



DING DING DING

See there folks??????? As soon as I spread the ropes to leave the contest, someone rings the bell yet again and wants to argue for the virtue and rigor of LBU's PhD in Bible.



Jimmy's Counter: Because SATS offers what it calls a ThM (which in reality is a little masters now -not the ATS four year program) AND because some RA seminaries offer ministers MDivs without the Biblical languages, THEREFORE, it is OK for LBU to give an ***ACADEMIC DOCTORATE IN BIBLE***---WITHOUT the Biblical languages, WITHOUT supervision by "accredited" faculty, WITHOUT research using the recognized scholarly tools, and, WITHOUT requiring doctoral students to be scholarly.


Jimmy, my friend, your logic is just too...um... overwhelming for me to assemble a proper reply.

While you're on such a roll, would you respond to my points above??

Best wishes from your pal,

 

This is faulty logic. I never implied any such thing. I merely asked why you are not consistent in your criticisms, that's all.

I actually agree that Biblical languages should be taught in all Bible colleges, seminaries, schools of divinity, etc.

I would like to see all such schools include all Biblical languages, (Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Coptic) not just Hebrew and Greek.

 

Ding Ding

 

===

In this and other threads where I criticise LBU I think that my criticism is focused on LBU's PhD in Bible. The SATS ThM or the RA MDiv are not PhDs in Bible, Jimmy. That is "faulty logic."

See if one has a PhD , that is a degree associated often with a high level of scholarship and/or the ability to teach grad studies. The SATS ThM or the RA MDiv are not so regarded! Does that make any sense to you???

My heading of the 8 points in the post above is " Let's judge Lbu's DOC IN BIBLE by LBU.

So in your opinion a Bible college giving a BA in Bible should require its students to learn SEVEN ancient languages?

That ought to show Nosborne that we Christians are rigorous He was beginning to doubt our rigor as a result of the Jasons and the schools that allow the Jasons.

I think you should start some letter writing to these Bible colleges, AABC, TRACS, and ATS about this very thing.