Trinity College of the Bible Theological Seminary?

No, it is not boring at all. It is very interesting and very well written. It is cohesive and flows very well. It is saturated with research that is simply fascinating.

Good work! I hope you get it published! It is one of the best readings I have come across on trinal relationships and subordination.

 

Gosh! I just tried a search on "Walston" and it did go all the way back to 2001. I haven't yet determined which one was on Walston's dissertation.

 

Oh! And Dr. Walston also had a third dissertation - the one Villareal lost for him!

 

Okay. I got the part about Clark Kerr standing up against the McCarthy Era loyalty oaths. I also got the part about Clark Kerr establishing California's system of a few Universities of California, many California State Universities, and a whole lot of CCs. But how did this guy die for MY sins?

 

Jimmy:

thanks for the gracious evaluation of the dissertation.


Ted:

Thanks for trying.

I think your data is incomplete. I'm sure that Rick also has a doc from Bethany of Dothan in addition to the one from NW Grad school. But the criticism that Ed K. (ThM DTS) and I in that infamous thread here at DI make was in regard to Rick's PhD in NT dissertation at, I think, the SA university of Potch.

Really IMO the fault was in Potch not in Rick. I think there was fault because: (1) the dissertation in NT did not exegete NT passages from the Greek even though the introductory chap said it would, (2) the dissertation on speaking in tongues did not seem to add anything to the many existing discussions of that subject, besides Rick already had written at least one dissertation, maybe two, on that subject, (3) the Bibliography used simple resources suitable for Sunday school teachers instead of the better tools , (4) the literature review did not include the most recent and scholarly contributions to that area of knowledge as , eg, Grudem's dissertation on prophecy.

Ed and I were soundly rebuked by several persons on this board for expressing our concerns. It was repeatedly pointed out to us that if the University accepted it , it must be OK. And further, who were we to pass judgment on a doc dissertation as neither Ed or I ( "I", right Jimmy?? ) had not written a dissertation (Ed btw showed the work to a prof of NT in an RA seminary who supported our assessment and ED posted that reaction here).

But NOW I have finished a dissertation , and my opinion is the same about that one. IF the dissertation had been in Ministry for a DMin, then I'd have fewer problems with it. But it was in NT FOR A PHD!!!

Again, I am not faulting Rick so much as the school. I suppose students are prone to do only what is required.

I referenced that discussion to evidence that my position here at DI regularly has been that accreditation is not the issue (with me) in regard to grad theological instruction: the issue is rigor. I do not think that grad theological education should require less than secular learning. I think we should strive to give it our best, not our least!

I think the area of study is so broad that a very wide foundation of learning is necessary to do research at the doc level well: the many faceted issues are so very complex and have been discussed so very often that we have to be quite thorough in research and in evidence gathering when making our premises. THat is why IMO the TTS 82 unit MA/DA in Bible combo without languages ,and without a concentration in either NT or OT, is so very impractical. It simply is insufficient IMO to handle the mass of material and ideas at a doctoral level. And if those ideas are left untouched, how can the TTS grad teach them? How can he even know what the questions are, much less be equipped to attempt to answer them?

In accredited, evangelical USA seminaries the M Div or the ThM (not the MA) are fairly standard prerequite degrees for entering doc work in Bible or Theology. The MDiv is three years of grad study and the ThM is a year beyond that. BUT the TTS DA can be entered with a one year MA. That sets the bar too low IMO.

But it can be answered, if the accreditor accepts it , who am I to complain? This is just as it was said in that thread that if Potch accepts the dissertation in NT without work in the language of the NT, without a real literature review, without a substantial Bibliography etc., etc. , then who am I ( "I', right Jimmy ) to judge?

But , I think, I am not the judge ; the Discipline is.

 

You're more than welcome!

He does.

Ha! Yes. But it's "neither nor" and "either or."

 

===

just seeing if you were watching.. (believe that, and I'll tell you another )

 

Ha! Ha! I was only clowning around, Bill. You're always interesting and a challenge. Enjoy your weekend and now I am going to have to be careful or the spelling, grammar, and punctuation police will get even for you, ha!

 

The thread on Dr. Walston's dissertation was http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4743

 

So, in other words, it's still not working, Mr. Doesn't Have Much Stuff Around Here Older Than That!

 

Before I make my closing statement, I should note that I have not read this entire thread - merely the first of several posts on the first page. Frankly, I don't consider Trinity significant enough to warrant my reading time.

Nonetheless, there is a rule that I believe holds water in regard to questionable schools. Generally speaking:

Once a mill, always a mill.

 

I seem to remember a similar evaluation regarding a particular accrediting agency. IIRC, a booklet was written about this agency stating that it somehow stopped short of any meaningful utility. Ironically, rather than stopping short, this agency became a bona fide member of the USDoE family. What was the name of the agency? Oh, now I remember, it was TRACS.

 

But you certainly thought it was significant enough to warrant a large-typefont criticism... someting I respect, but would respect alot more if you had bothered to read the entire thread and see how, and into what, it has evolved.

So, then, Trinity's a mill? I'm not sure we anyone here (besides you, maybe) believes that, do they? I mean... a bona fide mill? Please clarify and, if the answer is, "yes, I think it's a mill," please explain.

 

We now have four additional pages of free publicity for Trinity. Shall we try for five? Royalties anyone?

 

==

yep, that's the main one. My opinion is the same about that dissertation. Rick is a fine fellow. His product has practical value. But it is not IMO what should be required for a PhD in New Testament. Accreditation is not the issue with me whether TTS or Potch is being discussed ; rigor is.

 

Firstly, that's the kind of attitude that helps to earn this place the kind of criticism it sometimes gets. Discussing an issue, working it through, getting to the bottom of something... those endeavors leave marks. Sorry this endeavor isn't tidy enough for you.

Secondly, I hardly think that the kind of infirmities in Trinity's programs, questions about its rigor, issues with its sense of ethics, and generally negative stuff that's been either recounted or linked-to here casts Trinity in the kind of good light that most people would agree is required in order for it to be anything even close to "free publicity."

And, thirdly, that "royalties" remark better not be aimed at me.

 

Gee, you've posted so much you've lost your cents of humor!

 

I would be willing to submit every single doctoral dissertation ever written on any subject has had its critics and has been castigated for not being soundly and/or throughly researched.

Any takers?