Think being the biggest, richest, hottest, coolest SBC seminary doesn’t matter? It does to a lot of people although I wouldn’t have any hesitation in recommending any of the SBC’s six plus that outstanding Seventh, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. No numbers on the latter in the SBC Book of Reports but plenty of the six.
Enrollment (Full-Time Equivalent, funded and unfunded; total credit hours divided by 24)
SBTS 2,294
NOBTS 1,309
SEBTS 1,278
SWBTS 1,249
MWBTS 931
GS 490
Increasing FTE (three year trend): Southern, Midwestern.
Decreasing FTE: Gateway, New Orleans, Southeastern, Southwestern.
As a group, seminary enrollment as measured by FTE has declined 2.4% over the past three years. Gateway has declined the most, 16.4% but then they went through the relocation. Southeastern is close behind, declining 15.8%. I’m guessing that one would need to look at a longer span of years to know exactly what is going on.
Actual FTEs approved by the Council of Seminary Presidents for CP Seminary Funding Formula
SBTS 2,294
SEBTS 1,278
SWBTS 1,249
NOBTS 1,120
MWBTS 931
GS 388
Some students don’t “count” when it comes to sharing in CP funding; that is, the numbers that are used to allocate the seminary’s share of the SBC CP allocation. Someone else can explain who counts and who doesn’t.
Basic Degrees awarded for the 2015-2016 academic year (MDiv + Th.M + M.A. & other 2-year)
SBTS 379
SWBTS 356
GS 341
SEBTS 328
NOBTS 240
MWBTS 105
Gateway needs far more sheepskins per dollar, since they awarded 237 “M.A. & other 2-year” degrees, more than any other seminary. The number of traditional degrees was much lower: 69 MDiv degrees and 35 ThM degrees. Someone can explain this. I had a conversation with a Gateway prof in Phoenix but cannot recall what exactly accounted for this. Edumacate me.
Cheapest and Most Expensive
Cheapest: SWBTS estimates the annual cost for a married SBC student on campus, tuition, books, fees, and housing is $10,220.
Most expensive: SBTS estimates the annual cost for a married SBC student on campus, tuition, books, fees, and housing is $17,740. That’s 74% higher than the cheapest.
Cheapest tuition per credit hour for an SBC student: SWBTS, $220.
Most expensive tuition per credit hour for an SBC student: SBTS, $280. That’s 27% higher than the cheapest.
New Orleans, Midwestern, and Southwestern are about the same in credit hour costs.
Assorted odd figures
- Midwestern awarded just 27 MDiv degrees for the 2015-2016 academic year. That’s less than 3% of their FTE. That’s way lower than the other five.
- Southern received more tuition revenue for 2016-2017 than GS, MWBTS, and NOBTS combined.
- The CP allocation formula is rather funky and I don’t know how it is figured but the per-SBC student allocation for SEBTS was $2,535. Gateway’s was more than three times that amount per student.
- Southern received 8.3% of their revenues from endowment income. Midwestern received only 0.6%. Southwestern had a negative $3.8 million in endowment income.
Someone has headaches over all this.
Things have changed quite a bit since the Conservative Resurgence days when SWBTS dwarfed everyone else. Does Paige need to move on for the sake of SWBTS?
ALSO, What are everyone’s thoughts about the 4 year undergrad degrees now offered by many if not all of our 6 seminaries? Is that a good idea given the number of great Baptists colleges and universities out there? Is the undergrad presence getting in the way of Graduate training…sure sounds like it is a factor at MWBTS…
SWBTS has low tuition and raises much more in donations than the other six.
Clearly, the undergrad business has changed the landscape. Now, state schools offer MDivs in competition with the seminaries. If we established seminaries as places where ministers would get the Gold Standard MDiv and other advanced degrees, then Midwestern is doing a poor job. The whole system is structured for duplications and inefficiencies. It’s tough to see how we can maintain the system for another few generations…but maybe I’m too skeptical. I’m not in the seminary culture.
William & Allen,
SWBTS faces by a long shot more competition that any other SBC seminary for students with evangelical and moderate-liberal seminaries and graduate schools within the DFW region and the state of Texas. That may explain why SWBTS no longer hold its lofty enrollment status compared to the other SBC seminaries. Students attracted to SWBTS may be equally or for various reasons, more so attracted to Dallas Theological Seminary, Criswell College, Dallas Baptist University, The Kings Universtiy, Truett Seminary(only 75 miles from DFW) or even more more moderate-liberal schools such as Brite Divinity School(TCU), Perkins School of Divinity(SMU), or graduate schools at Hardin-Simmons, or Baylor School of Religion. Probably no other SBC school comes anywhere close to facing that kind of stiff competition within a 100 mile radius of their campus.
Having said that though, SWBTS in my opinion hurt themselves in how they handled the Sherri Klouda case, my chapel sermon that addressed the IMB policies that now align perfectly with what I advocated in my sermon in 2006, and a deserved or undeserved reputation with some African Americans that the atmosphere there is not engaging or affirming, and the unabashed Republicanism is repulsive to many, not all. It appears to me to not be as appealing to Black students today, as it was 35 yrs ago, up until the Klouda incident.
I really would like to volunteer and help them increase the Black enrollment. But, I’d wish that they would be proactive in engaging and affirming Black students, Black church history, and the Black church. I wish that they would tone down the blatant Republican tweets and rhetoric, while toning up any issue with biblical support that may indeed align with Republican or conservative values. Yet, we have to stop way short, of making it appear that Republicans or President Trump are in any wise, more representative of the Kingdom than any other party or candidate. It’s very obvious that he’s not, and they’re not. So, to see professors and even Dr. Patterson at times to appear to be totally sold out to President Trump and the Republicans is sickening. I recently read a tweet from a SWBTS professor that made me rethink whether or not, I should continue recommending students there, because of his blind loyalty to Trump. It would be poisonous for an African American to be trained in that kind of influence and culture and then go to serve a Black Church where the thinking would be so radically different. The infamous gangsta photo picture suggests that the preaching professors may do a great job, training Black preachers in exegeting a text, but clearly, they were so disconnected from culture & the Black culture( based on that photo) I seriously question are they able to teach Black preachers how to apply and illustrate the text within the context of the Black preachers culture. All of these incidents at SWBTS had had an adverse affect on Black enrollment in my opinion. Three of my preacher boys, who are also serving as Senior Pastors recently enrolled in Truett Seminary at Baylor. They commute from the Metroplex. In all three cases they perceive SWBTS to be cessationist, hypercomplentarian as opposed to soft complementarian, and hardlined Republican. My three preacher boys would be the opposite of how they perceive SWBTS. During the Hemphill reign, SWBTS wasn’t percied in this manner. However, it’s largely perceived that way now, and it’s affecting enrollment. Don’t think SWBTS want to change that perception. But, if they did, enrollment I believe would increase. SWBTS doesn’t have to change her theology. But, just as Hemphill managed not to leave the perception of managing a seminary that’s hardline cessationist, hypercomplimentarian, and Republican, if SWBTS wanted to, they could return the school to a more balanced perspective and views, as was held during the Hemphill reign.
When it comes to minority representation among the faculty, Southwestern is doing better than anyone else in the SBC. We should not rest on our laurels, but when we do something well, a little appreciation can go a long way.
[link disabled by editor]
Rick, since Dwight has specifically asked about appeal to young black ministerial students, what is the percentage of black faculty at SWBTS? other seminaries? Do you have those numbers in your data?
Rick,
I hear rumors of one having recently being hired, but currently there is not one Black Professor in the School of Theology. Don’t think there’s been one since Dr. Raymond’s Spencer passed in ’bout 2003. Therefore, if a Black student wanted to take at least one theology course under one Black professor during his degree plan, that opportunity hadn’t presented itself in the past 14 yrs. Your wonderful and noteworthy statistics don’t contradict or refute what I’m saying here.
Mr. McKissic makes an excellent point about the competition faced by SWBTS in the greater DFW area, irrespective of Patterson’s influence or persona (full disclosure – I attended SEBTS while Patterson was president there).
Similar comparisons could be made at South Eastern, who is located only a short distance away from campuses of: Gordon- Conwell, Reformed Theological, Southern Evangelical (where Richard Land and Norman Geisler are faculty), Gardner Webb School of Divinity (NC Baptist College), Campbell University Divinity School (another NC Baptist College), Wake Forest University School of Divinity, Duke Divinity, and a little further north in Virginia, Union Theological Seminary and Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond.
These are all accredited and, while they cover the entire gamut of theological persuasion, would have to be considered ‘competition’ for SEBTS and may partially account for their declining enrollment/FTE numbers.
My topic here is pretty sterile. I don’t know enough to argue the point that SWBTS (or any of the others) is or is not “hardline cessationist, hypercomplementarian, and Republican.” If the evidence were laid out in a separate article I’d guess that it would be of interest.
I’ll offer an educated guess as to the lower than normal MDiv graduates at Midwestern.
That’s how bare the cupboard was when Dr. Allen got there. He’s only been there a short time. Not nearly long enough to graduate significant numbers of students who have to go through an 81-hour program. My guess is that number will skyrocket over the next 2-3 years once “his students” start finishing their degrees.
That’s a point worth considering. Everything I hear about MWBTS sounds like things are going well and trending upward.
(Notice how I fixed that acronym for them?) 😉
When I spoke there at chapel, I suggested they fixed their acronym and was met with a chilly reception. Come to think of it, I’ve not been asked back.
My perception is that each seminary has its own flavor, so to speak, and for me that is fine.
There are issues of regionalism, emphasis, and personality that affect all of these things.
SWBTS had really high enrollment numbers for years because of the perception that a student could attend there and not be awash in liberalism, which was stronger at Southern and SEBTS. New Orleans, GG, and MWBTS were seen as more regional, I suppose.
The founding of the seminary at Baylor had a big impact on SWBTS. Also, Reformed theology is the rage with young people, and SWBTS is decidedly not that.
I don’t believe the dust ups over hiring and “prayer languages” have really affected SW all that much. I have never met a young person who told me they chose Southern, MW, GG, or SE over SW because of that.
They may have chosen more liberal schools in TX over SW for different reasons. But if they did, I would want to know for certain why if I was ever going to hire any of them. The SBC churches should guard their doors very carefully to see that neoorthodoxy and/or some political emphasis that is exchanged for Gospel ministry do not creep back in. In my view, those dangers are very present.
Louis,
Great point ’bout the popularity of Reformed theology with the younger generations, and consequently choosing other seminaries. I personally know of at least eight students who enrolled in other schools because of SWBTS cessationist views, or didn’t enroll because of it, or in combination with their perception of how Dr. Klouda was unfairly dismissed at SWBTS. Others I don’t know personally, but have either emailed me, written to me, or spoken to me in passing and told me that they chose not to go to SWBTS because of their perceived cessationist views. The King’s University/Gateway Church had 700-800 students in Masters programs here in Southlake, TX. Many of those students would have attended SWBTS if they were not perceived to be cessationist. I know that to be a fact. That school just opened its doors here ’bout 3 yrs ago. Where do u think those 700 students came from, or what school they would have gone to, if Gateway Church(whose pastor attended Criswell College) had not opened up The King’s University? So, the affect of cessationism while maybe not, major, it ihas certainly been marginal, and impacted enrollment negatively.
Enrollment was higher during the Hemphill administration and none of these perceptions existed. That was my main point. SWBTS only has to be who they were, before they somehow managed to take on intentionally or unintentionally these other branding. That is, unless they are totally satisfied with these brandings, then, there’s no need to change.
Thanks for the info Dwight. You are obviously in contact with students who are aware of these things.
My own perception about cessationism in the SBC is that in practice the SBC is cessationist. I know lots of folks who are uncomfortable officially closing the door on some of the gifts, but in practice, I would say the vast majority of SBC Churches would not openly have charismatic practices. They would allow for private things, and there are always those seemingly unverifiable stories you hear about missionaries somewhere and this or that thing happened etc. People are uncomfortable ruling something out, i.e. God can’t do that. But functionally that’s how they seem to operate.
As to the Klouda matter, that story might be known in Texas (I’m sure Baylor enjoys telling it, if they think it will be helpful), but the seminary bound folks in this area know nothing of it. And I’m not sure Southern, MW, SE would be any different on the theology, though they have not gotten caught up in a negative story like that.
As to Hemphill, he wasn’t there that long, and he seemed sort of miscast to me as a seminary President. He is a great guy, but I think these institutions do better with leaders who really pitch a theological vision.
Are the young guys that you run into and mentor really enamored with Reformed theology? Seems to be the rage in our area, but regions and communities differ.
Hope you are well.
Louis,
Younger guys are intrigued with R C Sproul, John Piper, John MaCArthur, and many with Mark Driscoll…all reformed guy’s as u know. Matt Chandler, J D Grear, and David Platt have their fan clubs among the young, and they are considered to be reformed. Yes. I’m seeing the reformed movement gain traction even among young African Americans where it was strongly frowned upon. Guys like H B Charles, Thabiti Anyabwele and several young Black reformed fellowship groups have influenced the growth among young African Americans.
The Sherri Klouda story was a huge news story here in the DFW metroplex where SWBTS is located and was much talked about. For sure, for the following three years after the publicity, I’d hear a few seminary bound women say, that SWBTS would not be on their list because of Klouda. But in the past five years or so, you are correct: don’t hear her name mentioned. However, there may be a residual lingering effect here in Texas toward the school, based on how she was treated. And if memory serves me correctly, Dallas Theological Seminary and perhaps Golden Gate Seminary both had females teaching the Hebrew alphabet at the exact same time Klouda was fired for doing so. Remember it was a conservative/inerrantist President and trustee board that hired her to do so. That’s why her firing was inexplicable to many of us.
The over-arching issue driving enrollment is probably reformed theology. If you can’t go to Midwestern or Southern, or Southeastern and you are are reformed, you just sort of grin and bear it through the pot-shots and Traditionalist chapel speakers, remembering that these are brothers in Christ talking about a legitimate disagreement. Plenty of Reformed guys speak in chapel too. The education I received at Southwestern was excellent, but they are graduating more reformed pastors than they think. Around 2006 or 2007, I recall going to see Paul Washer speak at a little church in Aledo, TX. The crowd was full of Southwestern Students, even 10 years ago. So I think that accounts for much of the trends. Midwestern will be seen as an extension of Southern due to Allen having been mentored by Mohler. I think that is why it is growing in popularity with students. IMO, no other factor can explain the emergence of Southern and the decline of Southwestern among those students who would prefer or even who would only consider a SBC seminary.
I think (and hope) that prospective students are basing their decisions on more factors than that. No doubt it comes into consideration from both sides. But the educational experience, especially faculty considerations – who do you want to take classes, with, learn from, be mentored by… – should be the first thing students are considering.
I couldn’t be happier with my time at SBTS in that regard, I was there from 2003-2006. No doubt the other seminaries could have offered a good experience as well, but I think during that time SBTS was in a class by itself. The playing field is more level now than it was then, and I don’t second guess anyone for choosing some of the other schools, but I’m just saying soteriology isn’t really that big of a factor at the end of the day as far as what your seminary experience is like.
“But the educational experience, especially faculty considerations – who do you want to take classes, with, learn from, be mentored by… – should be the first thing students are considering.”
Exactly. They want to go to a place where people are generally like-minded, or at least not hostile to their theology. Most of the SBC seminary experience is going to be similar from school to school. I probably spoke to generally calling the reformed theology the over-arching issue. Location probably is the biggest issue, but it might be worth someone doing a study to ask current students why they chose one seminary over the other 5 SBC seminaries, or why they chose a SBC seminary over other options. I bet the theological brand of the place plays a huge factor. Leadership as well, of course.
Reformed theology, the SBC brand of it- which I think is a unique flavor of reformed theology, informs more than just soteriology. I would agree with you that soteriology wasn’t that big of a factor in the end regarding my seminary experience, but it was a factor and is an ongoing issue that should be considered.
“The over-arching issue driving enrollment is probably reformed theology … Midwestern or Southern, or Southeastern …”
As Al Mohler would say “Where else are they going to go?”
All the SBC seminaries are excellent. They are all conservative, and they offer much lower costs than do Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. When I was young (started MDiv in 1972), there were significant theological differences between the seminaries. At that time Southern and Southeastern were liberal, while Southwestern was conservative. Now, all the seminaries are conservative. The writer above is correct. Southern Seminary is Calvinistic in its bent, while SWBTS is not. Mid-America, where I teach now is smaller than the six convention owned seminaries. Mid-America offers lower costs, and it continues to emphasize personal evangelism. Gateway (formerly Golden Gate) has a wonderful program of home missions and assists the state conventions in the West in many ways. Southeastern emphasizes missions, while New Orleans has the most extensive extension program. Midwestern has turned things around and is surging now. I believe Dwight’s point about Southwestern Seminary’s competition is right on target. William, when I studied at SWBTS, we paid no tuition, only a matriculation fee of $100 per semester. That is not possible these days because the percentage of the seminaries’ budgets provided by the Cooperative Program has dropped significantly. Southern Seminary and SWBTS have the largest endowments.
Arlington Baptist College(founded by J Frank Norris, offers Bachelors, Masters, and soon will offer a D. Min, in ministry or theological education. They are an accredited institution here in DFW and also is a competitor to SWBTS. It’s a conservative school, but not quite as much as they once were. They have invited me to preach in chapel twice within the past ten years, and I haven’t been invited to SWBTS in over ten years. Arlington Baptist is where one of the Caner brothers landed after he left Liberty. My point is, SWBTS competition is incredible compared to other Southern Baptists Seminaries. Additionally, there are several small unaccredited Bible Scools in the area that have healthy enrollments also.
There is also a school called B.H. Carroll in Irving. I saw a friend post that they have recently received accreditation. So there is another competitor in the area.
BH Carroll was just approved for full ATS accreditation, moving from candidate status to full-member. So that completes their accreditation goals–Texas approval, ABHE, and ATS.
They compete, somewhat, with SWBTS but their distance-learning structure puts them in a somewhat different student market.
I went to Arlington Baptist College in the early 90’s. It has improved considerably since then.
William, I asked this once before but I can not tell by looking at the Book of Reports, does the FTE enrollment include the undergraduate students and the women’s program the Dorothy Patterson heard at SWBTS? Do we subsidize those programs with our CP funds the way we do the M. Div. students and other basic degrees?
It should be noted that it was not just during the Hemphill presidency that the enrollment at SWBTS was higher and students came there because of its theologically conservative reputation. That was true during the Naylor and Dilday eras also.
I encouraged a seminary professor from Taiwan to go to SWBTS to get his Ph.D. In the middle of his time there Patterson came in and forced out the faculty members in his specialty. I asked the Dean at SWBTS what he should do. He said he needed to go to another seminary to complete his degree. For this and other reasons it would be difficult for me to encourage a student to go to SWBTS even though it is my seminary.
I don’t know, Ron.
“the women’s program that Dorothy Patterson heads at SWBTS.”
Dwight,
As negative as you are about SWBTS, it is no surprise that your three preacher boys chose another school.
I remember when you made such an issue about the Baptist General Convention of Texas not standing for the inerrancy of the Bible. Now apparently you recommended your ministerial students to not attend a school that endorses biblical inerrancy and he Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (SWBTS); while you apparently are endorsing a school that stands for neither (Truett Seminary).
I also find it no surprise that some Charismatic / Pentecostal students choose another school than Southwestern, though I’m sure some do. The SBC has never been Charismatic / Pentecostal / Unknown Tongues Speaking (although I’m sure a few Baptists always have), therefore it is no surprise that an SBC institution is non-Charismatic. I imagine the same could be said for the other 5 SBC seminaries, that you do not criticize.
As many, many will attest, swbts.edu is a great seminary.
It is strong on inerrancy, personal evangelism, missions, expository preaching.
They have a great record with minorities that is getting better all the time.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
Our church has two students currently at SWBTS, we pay their tuition, and recently paid for one to go on a missions trip with SWBTS to England later this summer. I dare venture to say, that in addition to paying student tuitions of church members attending SWBTS, we periodically send financial gifts directly t to SWBTS….I’m going to step out on a limb and say, very few predominantly Black churches have given to SWBTS as generously as we have, even since I resigned as a trustee their. I’ve recommended other students to SWBTS who have attended or currently attending who are not apart of our church, and some yet contemplating attending this fall or January ’18. We’ve paid tuition of students to SWBTS who do not attend our church. I defended SWBTS on this very blog against attacks of racism based on the gangst twitter photo. And u David, say I’m negative toward SWBTS? What are u basing that accusation on?
David, the BGCT affirms missionaries who pray in tongues in private. To deny the biblical validity of this gift is to practically deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Ken Hemphill affirmed all the gifts of the Spirit, including praying/praising/giving thanks in tongues. He wrote a book affirming such, as did Billy Ghrahm. SWBTS was not Pentecostal when Hemphill was there, but neither did they deny the validity of Praying in tongues in private, as currently the official policy is…which is a direct contradiction of Scripture and IMB policies and NAMB(I think, unsure ’bout NAMB). Many Pentecostals attended SWBTS before the policy change at SWBTS, who refuse to attend there Now. My preacher boys made the decision on their own, and informed me. You are correct though, why would u want to attend seminary at a place that is hostile toward your convictions, and have memorialized and cemented their hostility, in writing and policy? Hemphill, Dilday, nor Naylor, did that.
In a practical sense, Truett on addressing Black Church issues, one class specifically designed to address Preaching and Pastoring in a Black Church Context; having a Annual Seminar named in honor of E K Bailey; Dr. RALPH West teaching each semester and Joel Gregory on faculty, and another professor whose name escapes me, has written a book on Early African Christianity from Truett, that will be released later this month…I believe has been proactive in reaching out to the Black Church community in ways SWBTS has not. Affirming various options of theological thought on the hypercomplimentarian-egalitarian spectrum is a good thing, although my preacher boys, are soft complimentarians as I am.
The theological convictions that u hold should determine the seminary that u attend. For those who indicate a bent toward hard complimentarianism and cessationism, I recommend SWBTS. For those who indicate a bent like mine, I recommend other schools. And yes, B H Carroll is another school that SWBTS competes with. Dr. Karen Bullock, dismissed early on because of the hard complimentarian recent policy at SWBTS taught at B H Carroll. Not sure if she’s still there.
So, David is sharing factual and comparisons observations negative? Now that u have more info, do u still consider me to me negative toward SWBTS? My purpose is to encourage change or to be who they were when enrollment was higher. My purpose is not to be negative. Please consider describing my observations with some other actions other than negative. Know that my intent is to increase enrollment, not decrease enrollment. But just as I wouldn’t attend a reformed seminary because of soteriological differences…surely u understand a continuationist not wanting to attend a school who is decidedly cessationist, or can u?
Dr. Bullock is still at BH Carroll.
Dwight,
I referred to you being negative toward Southwestern based on your own comments in this thread. Some of your comments are about competition; some are just negative.
On another point – Disagreeing with you over the biblical issue of speaking in tongues does not even get close to denying the inerrancy of the Bible. Big difference in disagreeing over an interpretation, and inerrancy.
David R. Brumbelow
Ive always thought it sad that the SBC is bot more diverse in leadership positions and at the seminary level.
I am hoping that this years Pastors Conference has awakened several to be conscious of minorities in all positions. Yes, at this stage, it has to be conscious.
The main factor in the SBC’s Cooperative funding formula for the seminaries is FTE. All the seminaries are struggling with a problem. They have more students, but those students are taking fewer courses and paying less tuition. Beyond that, taking fewer courses means the seminary gets less money from the Cooperative Program. That is why the head counts reported by the seminaries are almost double the FTE statistics cited by William. I remember a discussion in a faculty meeting at Southern Seminary in which the faculty discussed how we could encourage the students to take more courses. Of course, one factor is the tuition the students must pay. For sure, what they pay at an SBC seminary is less than others, but the students still struggle. If they only had to pay $100 a semester like I did 45 years ago, undoubtedly the FTE would rise.
I’d like to know exactly what counts for funding and what doesn’t. Gateway has 102 FTEs that don’t count for funding. NOBTS has 189 that don’t. The online stuff doesn’t count, so I’ve been told.
David B,
Factual and comparative observations regarding SWBTS and other theological institutions are not negative, they are truthful and factual. You still haven’t given any evidence to support your false assertion that I spoke negatively about SWBTS. Please be specific in framing in quotes exactly what I’ve written that was negative. Don’t expect u to do that because u can’t, do it with honesty.
Ken Hemphill and others have made the observation that u cannot the gift of speaking in tongues and simultaneously hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. I agree with Hemphill and it’s obvious that if I Corinthians 14: 2 & I Corinthians 12: 7, and actually all of 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14, don’t mean what they say they mean as written in English translations, as some inerrantist argue, then it’s obvious that those passages are not in inerrant. Cessationist can’t have it both ways, although u try hard to. Cessationist do to I Corinthians 12-14 what gay interpreters or gay friendly interpreters do to Romans 1: 21-32…and that is to deny the obvious, which is exactly what u are doing.
Dwight,
Frankly, you don’t know what I believe about speaking in tongues. It is different view than most.
You said, “Ken Hemphill and others have made the observation that u cannot the gift of speaking in tongues and simultaneously hold to the inerrancy of Scripture.”
I don’t know what that sentence means.
Again, there is a world of difference between someone disagreeing with you on a certain interpretation of Scripture, and on the other hand denying the truthfulness of Scripture.
A few years ago it was common for some to say if you are against beverage alcohol, you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That was also a false and strange statement.
I simply stand by what I said previously about your negative comments; you can reread them (mine and yours) for yourself.
David R. Brumbelow
Maybe I am misunderstanding the stats.
GS has 490 students (FTEs) but was able to award 341 graduate degrees in a year? That seems pretty impressive.
It would be impressive but the 341 degrees includes 104 graduate degrees (69, 3-year MDivs plus 35 M.Ths).
The remaining 237 degrees are “M.A. and other 2-year” basic degrees. The 237 in that category is more than any of the other five seminaries. I assume this is mostly their post-high school program and that most of the degrees are two year. I’m not clear on the M.A. degree (I suppose it is a grad program) but the school doesn’t have many enrolled in that program anyway.
Someone else can explain it more fully. I’m not all that familiar with Gateway. It’s old news that our seminaries, created for advanced theological education and training, are big into undergrad programs.
David B,
Ken Hemphill said you cannot the validity of the biblical gift of speaking in tongues and hold to inerrancy.
Labeling my comments “negative” is simply not being truthful.
David B,
Somehow I left the word “deny” out of the Hemphill paraphrase/quote. He said u cannot deny the validity of the biblical gift of speaking in tongues and hold to inerrancy simultaneously.
Maybe the FTE method is now antiquated?
Seems to me thats plausible
To say one who denies the validity of a private prayer language based upon biblical exegesis is the same way the homosexual misinterpret Romans 1 is offensive.
Greg,
The hermeneutical approach is the same is the point. They deny what’s written to conclude that Romans 1 is not addressing consensual homosexuality. The cessationist denies what’s written in 1 Corinthians 14: 2 and conclude that a believer praying in tongues in private has no biblical basis. The commonality is denial of the written infallible, inerranct Word of God to arrive at a conclusion not supported by a plain reading of the text. Why sir, would that be offensive?
Dr. McKissic,
Ist Corinthians 14:2 says:
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
That verse is not saying anything about a private prayer language.
In context:
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
First, if it is in private, why does it say: no one understands?
Second, Paul goes on to tell us [in v.5] that prophesying is greater than speaking in tongues unless interpretation is made so that the church may recieve edifying.
Thus the context of the passage, and thus v.2 is speaking about tongues in the church, not at all about private prayer.
Paul continues with THAT same theme:
6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? 7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? 8 For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. 11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. 12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
Thus the “no one” who understands are the people who hear the tongue. The people being the church people, the congregation.
From the first verse, Paul is contrasting prophesy and tongues-without-interpreatation as it relates to the congregation. There isn’t any sense of private language directly or indirectly mentioned in those verses.
So the truth is that one who seeks to seek private language in those verses is doing eisgesis even as those who distort Romans 1, not the other way around as you accuse.
Continuing in the chapter, we read:
13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Again, there is but the corporate worship in mind. Nothing so far in chapter 14 is speaking about praying in tongues in private or in a prayer closet, but corporate worship.
20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.
Very directly Paul is keeping this instruction centered in the corporate worship and explicitly so. He has not wavered from this point from verse 1, as we read:
1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
For no one prophesies in private. And the purpose of spiritual gifts has already been established by Paul in 12, as we read:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
And Paul, in chapter 14, is explaining how the gift of tongues edifies the body: through interpretation. And also whether is no reason to speak in tongues without interpretation since it edifies not the body and thus defeats the purpose for the gift in the first place.
Reading on in chapter 14:
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints
What is the where that Paul is speaking about? He continues to speak about the corporate worship service.
And it is only while here in the midst of the people that instruction is given to speak to oneself if there is no interpreter available. Only then is any mention of speaking to oneself and that is while he is in church and there is no interpreter. No mention made of speaking in a private prayer language at home or in one’s office or in any private prayer closet.
Since the whole chapter, except where wives need to ask their husbands later for meaning, is situated in the corporate setting, is instructing us on propriety and orderliness in the church service, there is not a single place where it is instructing anyone to speak tongues when alone. Speaking to yourself in church is not speaking to yourself at home in your prayer closet.
Thus seeking to squeeze from these verses a private prayer language is not reading the Word properly, and to accuse others who are reading this chapter properly of being like those who twist and distort Romans 1 to justify gay rights is simply and plainly wrong.
Parsonmike,
There are those who’ve argued that only in a witnessing or evangelistic context can tongues be legitimately used. There are those who’ve argued there is no legitimate biblical basis for praying in tongues in private. I Corinthians 14: 2 makes it clear that one gifted by the Holy Spirit can pray to God in tongues and God understands that person. According to a Lifeway Poll on the topic released in 2007, 51% of Southern Baptists believed what I just stated is biblically validated; praying/praising/thanksgiving/interceding in tongues to God is currently possible and sometimes happens in the life if the believer prompted and gifted by the Spirit of God in those who accept and extol Jesus as Lord. 49% of Southern Baptists according to the Lifeway Poll, rejected such a view. They’ve argued that 1 Corinthians 14: 2 is not a biblical basis for praying in tongues…period….or, praying in tongues in private. Parsonsmike, your explaininatioj obviously makes sense to you and is the final word in your thinking on the matter. But D A Carson, John Piper, Matt Chandler, David Platt, the late Jack McGorman…and a hosts of Baptist scholars and professors would not agree one iota with your line of argument presented here, and neither do I. Sounds as if your bottom line is, there is no valid biblical basis for praying in tongues in private. Is that true of you? If so, I repeat, to arrive at such a conclusion one has to engage in theological gymnastics and unorthodox hermeneutical practices to arrive at such a baseless, biblical conclusion. I rest my case on that. Suffice it to say, it baffles me how anybody can read Romans 1 and draw the conclusion that consensual homosexual activity is not being addressed in Romans 1, and therefore not forbidden in that passage. It also baffles me that one can read 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 and conclude that a believer praying/praising/giving thanks or interceding in tongues is not in continuation or keeping with a prayers approved by God, and practiced by Paul in I Corinthians 14: 2. And before we are flagged for hijacking this post, we may need to save this debate for another post, more central specifically to what you and I are now discussing.
Probably best to respect Dwight’s statement about moving on. We can re-argue speaking in tongues in another batch of posts.
Which we’ve done before and I’m certain we’ll do again.
His point is well-made, though he and I disagree on tongues (for example): one tends to recommend seminaries that track with your own beliefs and practices and experiences. So, seeing a seminary explicitly deny a belief that you hold and your church upbringing has reinforced would lead one to consider other options. Especially when it is on an issue that is open-ended as tongues tends to be–why would a preacher who holds that a private prayer language is Biblical attend a seminary where he will be greeted as if he is denying the Word of God by that belief?
This puts some into a major conundrum: SWBTS, for example, takes the text of Scripture seriously (as do all 6 SBC seminaries and MABTS in Memphis), but SWBTS tends to downplay that aspect of spiritual gifts. Same with SBTS and Reformed/Calvinist views—one would expect that a person who has studied Scripture thoroughly on those subjects and come to Bible-centered differing conclusions would give that weight in their choice of education.
One should hope to be challenged in school, but we also see the need to be strengthened. After all, that’s why we don’t just encourage all of our future missionaries to pop over to a liberal Catholic divinity school: there’s value in growing among like-minded folks.
Overall, the SBC 6 provide an opportunity for a great theological education. But some will choose other options, not because they do not take the text seriously but because of the additional issues of how the text of Scripture is understood.
I don’t think SWBTS or DTS downplays spiritual gifts ,they just don’t emphasize any particular ones. No one will every see a line form to receive the gift of helps or mercy. Peace to all and Thank the Lord for the freedoms we have .
I think the SBC seminaries would increase their enrollment if they lessened, or removed the extra fees that online students have to pay. I think an Internet Registration fee of $300 is absurdly expensive. I think this encourages students to consider schools like Liberty, Luther Rice and MABTS.
Doug,
Got it.
God bless.
From speaking with professors and administrators at our Southern Baptist seminaries, the consensus is that Liberty University’s huge online program has a negative effect on seminary enrollments. The exception to this is Southern Seminary. Its emphasis on Calvinism attracts students who favor that theology. Southern Baptists can be proud of all their seminaries, including Mid-America. They all provide excellent theological education. They are all conservative now. They all have fine faculties and great facilities. Someone suggested changing the formula for dividing the Cooperative Program money. That is probably overdue, but it will be quite difficult. Any change would benefit some seminary and hurt another. Thus, negotiations would be long and intense.
It has always puzzled me that the SBC officially (though indirectly) promotes the independent Liberty who sucks up considerable numbers of SBC students who likely would have chosen one of the six or mabts.