Pug, Jimmy, Or? on Golden State School of Theology

GSST Catalog

The following items are taken from pages 6 and 7 from the GSST catalog:

"In addition to the academic standards, Golden State also requires appropriately high spiritual standards for our students, who must provide evidence of having received the Lord Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior, are expected to be affiliated with a local assembly of Believers, and be willingly compliant
with the regulations of the school in all matters."

"All members of the faculty and administration, as well as the curricular and other programs of Golden State School of Theology, adhere to the following statement of convictions."

4. THE TRINITY
The trinity is the triune Godhead existing as One, yet in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit and the Son share the same nature with the Father who is eternal, transcendent, and
sovereign, yet personal, immanent, loving, and faithful.
5. THE FATHER
God the Father, the first person of the Holy Trinity, is eternal, Creator of all things, unchangeable in
all His attributes and sovereign Lord of the universe. He is worthy of praise, adoration, and
obedience.
6 THE SON
Jesus Christ is fully God and was fully man, becoming one sinless, perfect, divine-human person
through incarnation, miraculous conception, and virgin birth.
7. THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead who convicts, regenerates, indwells, seals, guides
and empowers. The Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts and fills those persons who yield to Him and
enables them to bear much fruit."

I guess it comes down to whether the doctrinal statement is considered a regulation of the school. The catalog never actually comes right out to say that adherence to the doctrinal statement is a requirement of admission. What is says is that the school and all of its faculty adhere to the statement, and that a student must provide evidence of having received Jesus Christ as a personal savior.


Pug

 

Pug

Thankyou .

I *promise* you that Graves wrote to me: "Our catalogue states that all faculty, staff, and STUDENTS (his own caps) must subscribe to our tenets of faith." I suppose a pres would know what is in his school's catalogue.

I *promise* you that when provided with Jimmy's name and when asked how that could be , Graves said that GSST required no polygraph. He did not say that he gave Jimmy an exemption.

I don't care if GSST gives such exemptions. I'm not bothered if a Unitarian graduates from GSST. That's fine! . I graduated from a Catholic and a secular school. I'm glad that they allowed me to graduate.

The issue to me is the inconsistencies which are apparent in these two stories br Graves and Clifton. Perhaps it is just another misunderstanding as Barry hypothesises about the DETC issue.. I don't know.

Would you ask Graves? He probably is upset with me by now. And apparently Graves tells Jimmy that ignoring such issues as are raised here is the best policy.

Too bad. Perhaps our correspondence is over. Another place of service I did not find, mea culpa, I guess

 

As a sidebar here, I truly appreciate that at least in this thread we are able to disseminate the difference between the man (Graves) and his ministry per se (GSST)

That Graves has received accolades as to his christian charector despite questions some have as to the quality of his school is refreshing. It is hard to intellectually question the motivation of a man and why he starts/runs an unaccredited institution without personally talking to him. Not to agree mind you but to understand...it is not always about making money IMO. To simply assume because of what others have done wrong or illegially did not sit well with me for there are some sincere if not academically misguided efforts out there.

 

===


Absolutely.

From the very first I attempted to make such a distinction. In my very post I said that I was not discussing character. Certainly Dr. Graves' character is not my subject. Neither, in fact, despite some running yet again to Jimmy's rescue, is Jimmy's character my target. I have at least twice in this thread admitted the possibilty of some confusion on Graves' part or that Jimmy may be being absolutely truthful!. Still by some I am perceived as attacking Jimmy. I am not! Yet Jimmy goes from collegehints where he said what a fine fellow I am to the other place to say what a wretch I am. What capriciousness. [Search there, Russell].

Even if Jimmy and I significantly disagree about Theology, I have no doubt that Jimmy accomplishes good works. That is not the point!

Here the thread concerns GSST --its requirements, its programs , and its faculty. I really don't see how a graduate's Theology has notrhing to do with a Theological school. But I agree that GSST has every right to accept one as a student who denies the GSST Creed and such a student has every right to go to GSST.

The issue is not general character or particular rights. I confess here that I have no solid reason to deny the basic morality of any graduates or staff of GSST . The issue is not morality per se , but what is correct about the worth of a school, or the details of how a school is run, or how regulations in a catalogue are applied, or how trustworthy are statements by a school's president or graduate?

If such issues as these are not important, then how can there be certainty and consistency in any academic endeavor?

 

I thought I saw a wink.

Bill, perhaps the perfection you seek in education is only available in South Africa.

 

==

You saw a wink? More divining, eh? Better go complain!



Well let's see perfection, no, far from it, but not too bad:


First, I have standard and specialist teaching credentials from two RA universities, a MA from a third RA university, and from a fourth RA school the MDiv (equiv) and a 128 grad unit (this is cumulative) ThM. OK so far?

Second, and here the point starts, BEFORE that South African University would accept me as a doc student, I had to prove that my degrees were in fact accredited AND had to have completed a "scientific" (they call it) research thesis in order to demonstate that I was up to the rigors of the program. OK so far?

Third, that university IS a state university and IS deemed GAAP. OK so far?

Fourth, when the dissertation is done, (if, that is) then four SA profs with accredited or GAAP docs in the field, from three different universities, in addition to the two local profs reading it, will evaluated it. OK so far?

Perfection no. But OK, IMO, yes.

If you deem it not OK,--Oh well.

 

Bill,

I believe you are relaying accurate information from your emails with Dr. Graves.

I went back to the GSST catalog and discovered something I missed the first time. On page 10 under Entrance Requirements:

"SPIRITUAL QUALIFICATIONS. Each applicant must give evidence of having received the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her own personal savior. They must have an approved Christian character and a demonstrated desire to know and do God's will in vocational, private, and social conduct. Each student is expected to be
affiliated with a local assembly of believers, and be willing to comply with the regulations of GSST."

I think it is obvious from this paragraph (listed under Entrance Requirements) that compliance with the regulations of GSST involves its tenets of faith. The catalog states this twice in the first 10 pages.

Pug

 

I no longer have the GSST catalog and can't really remember whether I did or did not have to agree with their doctrinal statement. While the school could be described as evangelical, I don't think they push any particular strand of evangelicalism, but definitely do focus on the fundamentals we hold in common.

The one thing I always appreciated about GSST that was different from most unaccredited schools is that they freely admitted they were unaccredited and did not claim some fake accreditation from ACI or some other bogus outfit. The very first time I wrote to Paul I asked about accreditation. He stated that they were not accredited, hope to be someday but could not make any promises, and that they refused to claim accreditation that they did not have.

BLD

 

<<While the school could be described as evangelical, I don't think they push any particular strand of evangelicalism, but definitely do focus on the fundamentals we hold in common.>>

Agreed. They allow a lot of variation with regard to specific belief and doctrine as long as it remains within the scope of orthodoxy. I remember submitting a writing assignment that involved my opinion that we, as human beings, are prohibited from eating blood. I got the feeling that my mentor disagreed with my opinion, but my argument was made from scripture, was well thought out, and was systematically presented.

<<The one thing I always appreciated about GSST that was different from most unaccredited schools is that they freely admitted they were unaccredited and did not claim some fake accreditation from ACI or some other bogus outfit.>>

Agreed.

<<The very first time I wrote to Paul I asked about accreditation. He stated that they were not accredited, hope to be someday but could not make any promises, and that they refused to claim accreditation that they did not have.>>

I share this exact experience.


Pug

 

===

So, how is Jimmy's assertion of having an exemption to be evaluated? That is why I would like Jimmy to post that exemption which both here and elsewhere it is claimed that Jimmy has.

Again, could you ask Dr. Graves directly? As said, I already have.

Graves said that he appreciates you . I know he doesn't wish to post here, himself, but perhaps if you get from him what I got, that would be more decisive in the eyes of some.

 

===

Quite so. But the deity of Christ is a fundamental in Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, Reformation Theology, and in the GSST belief statement. Would you ask Dr Graves if he accepts as applicants those who cannot affirm those common fundamentals?

And yes, it is good that GSST makes no claims about accreditation.

 

<<Quite so. But the deity of Christ is a fundamental in Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, Reformation Theology, and in the GSST belief statement. Would you ask Dr Graves if he accepts as applicants those who cannot affirm those common fundamentals?>>

I think it is obvious from the catalog that by making application to the school one is expected to adhere to the common fundamentals outlined in the tenets of faith.


<<So, how is Jimmy's assertion of having an exemption to be evaluated? That is why I would like Jimmy to post that exemption which both here and elsewhere it is claimed that Jimmy has.

Again, could you ask Dr. Graves directly? As said, I already have.>>

With no disrespect intended, I would rather not. Let people draw their own conclusions or decide not to draw them at all. I don't see how this particular aspect of the conversation has anything to do with present and future improvements to GSST.


Pug

 

The last couple of times I wrote Paul he did not write back. I'm not sure why.

I remember Jimmy saying something about an exception with regards to Bethany...did he say that about GSST?

BLD

 

===

Well if Paul does not answer you sometimes, then perhaps his not responding to my last note does not mean that he is upset with me. Still, as you have time, I'd appreciate you attempting that . Too many things here are just forgotten.

Yes, Jimmy on onlinecollege in art 1933 says that Bethany, GSST, and TTS know of his position on Christ and nevertheless accept him as a student. At least I think that's the article number. It is in or near the one where Jimmy calls alan an idiot and another a fool. In this thread here, Dennis above refers to an email exemption from Graves to Jimmy.

 

Naw, Barry and Pug, on reflection, best stay out of it.

Asking Dr Graves for the truth will get you cooked at onlinecollege with names such as imbecile, fool, and idiot , Jimmy's new vocabulary.

Best keep your good reputations in tact and not bother about what really actually happens at GSST or in Jimmy's backyard. Jimmy will not I suppose post the actual exemption he claims to have received, so unless Graves replies to you, I cannot prove my point.

That is, unless I can show my own emails from Graves about Jimmy and the GSST requirement which I have saved in my file cabinet . I will do that if someone will explain how.

While there is one topic I cannot share Paul's comment on, I can on the others. Sorry I'm stupid about computer usage.

 

I'm not familar with onlinecollege. Do you have a link?

BLD

 

===


www.online-college.info

scroll to busybodies and nov imbecillus for Jimmy's comments. There also one devoted to me inspirationally entitled, "Bill Grover"

 

===


No disrespect taken. This your school (in that you are helping), and Jimmy's and Barry's school in that they are graduates. It is not my school. But I will leave, then, this thread with some confusion as it comes to a close. But if I were helping this school, what would I do?

If I ever commit my time and energy to a school with the intent to help better it, then I would want to clearly understand and rely on the practices and regulations of that school as defined in the catalogue. I would take the catalogue as an agreement the school makes. The catalogue should be trustworthy. People have a right to believe, I would think, what a school's catalogue says.


So, if someone were saying the practices and regulations stipulated in the catalogue were not being followed as I understood them, then I would wish as precise a clarification of that as I could get. On the one hand I would want assurance that my own understanding was correct. On the other, I would not wish it left unclear in any reasonable person's mind as to whether that agreement was actually being broken or not. To leave such an issue unsettled, deeming it somehow unrelated to a school's improvement , would not be my modus operandi in this case at all.

But then, would I be opening myself to respond to any and all who raise issues about my school? Not at all! Who could keep up? But one must decide which issues and who raises them are significant. In this case, you see, what makes it worthy of attention is, it is a graduate of that school who is saying something happened in that school which you are saying just would not happen according to the catalogue. It is not someone unfamiliar or uninvolved with the school . That precise part of the circumstance is what would embolden me to ask the school's administration to solve the dilemma by expressing the truth of the event to me.

I would take it that I would be bettering my school by showing that what my school says in its catalogue can be trusted.

 

Bill, your mailbox is full. I tried to PM you.

Pug

 

Dear hearts:

Millists, shills, and trolls would like nothing better than to shut down this thread or get posts removed by alleging "personal attacks". The historical track record of one such has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. This thread is not about that person, nor about his defender. Let's concentrate on GSST. So far, I have seen no credible challenge to any of Bill or Pug's findings.

Flipkid, welcome to you. I think you are quite correct in saying that the motives behind the establishment of what turns out to be a substandard school may not necessarily be folie de grandeur or filthy lucre. Naivete, overestimation of resources, or excessive theological enthusiasm outrunning plain common sense may well be the well-intentioned if hapless-resulted starting points.

It is good that Dr Graves has been willing to enter into dialogue with Bill, and it is also good that Bill is carefully respecting the privacy of that dialogue. Certainly we all hope for the best in regard to GSST, and would like them to be an honest and decent contributor to distance learning on *whatever* academic level they happen to operate. We also hope that deficiencies will be made good and the substandard brought up to par. But institutional integrity comes first--without it, how can you ever trust that anything is fixed or improved? On this basis, moderate hopes for GSST are eminently reasonable, based on Pug's and Bill's research--not guaranteed of happy issue, but eminently reasonable.