Clarify some things about Seminary School.

[kharisym]

Me and a friend recently had a discussion, and we came to the conclusion that neither of us had enough knowledge about seminary colleges to come to a conclusion. I hate not knowing stuff, so I've been looking into the common themes of seminary classes.

1) What kind of breadth of sacred scripture does seminary cover? For single denomination colleges, does it only cover the holy texts of that denomination? Do multi-denominational colleges divide out each denomination or might you find multiple denominations in a single class?

2) What's the basis of proof in Christology? Is it purely an exercise in rationalism or does it attempt to use an amount of empiricism toassert its claims? (keeping in mind that the bible's claims on the divinity of Jesus remain unproven, and are therefore the basis for a rationalist argument, not an empiricist argument.)

3) How does Mariology get taught to protestants, if at all?

4) I could sit here and read about Seminary School all day long, but that won't tell me the 'unspoken' lessons of such an education. For instance, a liberal arts education is generally accepted as promoting critical thinking and creativity, something often lost in environments that rely heavily on rote memorization (such as many Chinese schools). What are some of the less obvious lessons of seminary school?


Rationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ebia]

Me and a friend recently had a discussion, and we came to the conclusion that neither of us had enough knowledge about seminary colleges to come to a conclusion. I hate not knowing stuff, so I've been looking into the common themes of seminary classes.

1) What kind of breadth of sacred scripture does seminary cover? For single denomination colleges, does it only cover the holy texts of that denomination? Do multi-denominational colleges divide out each denomination or might you find multiple denominations in a single class?

The sacred texts of Christian denominations are more or less the same - the bible.

2) What's the basis of proof in Christology? Is it purely an exercise in rationalism or does it attempt to use an amount of empiricism toassert its claims? (keeping in mind that the bible's claims on the divinity of Jesus remain unproven, and are therefore the basis for a rationalist argument, not an empiricist argument.)

I would have thought that most seminaries would take Christology as something assumed to be explored, rather than something to prove.

3) How does Mariology get taught to protestants, if at all?

Virtually none in most I would imagine.

4) I could sit here and read about Seminary School all day long, but that won't tell me the 'unspoken' lessons of such an education. For instance, a liberal arts education is generally accepted as promoting critical thinking and creativity, something often lost in environments that rely heavily on rote memorization (such as many Chinese schools). What are some of the less obvious lessons of seminary school?

There are very few ordained posters in Exploring Christianity so don't expect many posts from people who have actually been to Seminary.

 

[kharisym]

The sacred texts of Christian denominations are more or less the same - the bible.

But they don't all interpret it the same way. If they did, then we wouldn't have so many different types of Christians.

I would have thought that most seminaries would take Christology as something assumed to be explored, rather than something to prove.

Good point, but Christology is making more claims than jesus being a demi (or whole) god. Christology if I understand it is making more specific claims about Jesus` divinity.

 

[drich0150]

But they don't all interpret it the same way. If they did, then we wouldn't have so many different types of Christians.

I would think that is why one would seek out a denominationally specific seminary. So that they would be recognized or accepted by the institutions within the specific faiths they are seeking to be apart of shepherding.

I can't speak for all faiths but ours would look at a general theology degree like a art/history degree from a business school. (You'd probably be the guy who gets everyone else coffee.)

 

[ebia]

But they don't all interpret it the same way. If they did, then we wouldn't have so many different types of Christians.

Hopefully what one is doing during a degree unit on Scripture is learning about the various textual approaches to interpreting Scripture, not memorizing various interpretations, done by looking at some selected texts (eg Mark as one of the gospels, 1 Cor. as an example epistle, etc).

But close up to the text there is less difference than you might think within the mainstream denominations - hence the huge cross-over in scholarship and the use of commentaries.

Most of the denominational differences lie in areas that scripture leaves ambiguous or seems uninterested in, or are in very fine detail, or are left-overs from the Reformation. Decent theological scholarship has converged a lot since then. I'm reading Benedict XVI's book on Jesus of Nazareth, and if you took out the odd comment about Mary and tweaked a handful of places where the language gives it away the book could have been written by a first-class theologian from any denomination. What mostly separates denominations now isn't the bible, but assumptions and practical questions about how one runs the church.

Good point, but Christology is making more claims than jesus being a demi (or whole) god. Christology if I understand it is making more specific claims about Jesus` divinity.

Your questions are rather vague. A study of Christology would hopefully look at most or all of:

• 2nd Temple understandings of monotheism, especially the role of the Spirit, and the evolving personification of the Wisdom of God in the Jewish wisdom literature.
• The Gospels
• Christology in Paul's epistles
• The evolving historic understanding of Christology in the early church literature
• Major thoughts on Christology since (eg in Aquinas, the Reformers, etc).
• Recent and current thinking on the topic in the main streams of scholarship, particularly on the historical Jesus compared to the "Christ of Faith"

 

[Van]

Hi Kharisym, I sat on a jury a while ago. In the court, we observed the evidence presented and then pondered with others whether the evidence was compelling, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had violated the law as demonstrated by the evidence. I concluded that the evidence was sufficient and voted "guilty." As it happened, the other eleven came to the same conclusion and so the defendant was "proven" guilty.

Concerning whether Christ is God, the evidence is presented in the Bible. Now if you accept what it says about Jesus, then it provides evidence that Jesus is God. A large number of folks have similarly concluded Jesus is God and so that is what we believe. But others having seen at least some of the evidence have concluded that the witness (the Bible) is unreliable, or the evidence presented does not make the case, and so they conclude Jesus might be God but maybe not.

Bible schools like BIOLA include in their courses information not only about what they believe is the correct understanding of scripture, but also information about what others believe. For example, Biola does not believe Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born, but Catholics do. Biola does not believe Mary was sinless but Catholics do. Biola does not believe we should pray to Mary or other "saints" asking for intercession, but Catholics do.

 

[kharisym]

I would think that is why one would seek out a denominationally specific seminary. So that they would be recognized or accepted by the institutions within the specific faiths they are seeking to be apart of shepherding.

Seminaries often exist as multi-denominational institutions.

 

[kharisym]

But close up to the text there is less difference than you might think within the mainstream denominations - hence the huge cross-over in scholarship and the use of commentaries.

Most of the denominational differences lie in areas that scripture leaves ambiguous or seems uninterested in, or are in very fine detail, or are left-overs from the Reformation. Decent theological scholarship has converged a lot since then. I'm reading Benedict XVI's book on Jesus of Nazareth, and if you took out the odd comment about Mary and tweaked a handful of places where the language gives it away the book could have been written by a first-class theologian from any denomination. What mostly separates denominations now isn't the bible, but assumptions and practical questions about how one runs the church.

Very good point.

 

[kharisym]

Bible schools like BIOLA include in their courses information not only about what they believe is the correct understanding of scripture, but also information about what others believe. For example, Biola does not believe Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born, but Catholics do. Biola does not believe Mary was sinless but Catholics do. Biola does not believe we should pray to Mary or other "saints" asking for intercession, but Catholics do.

This is interesting to me. Before I start probing, mind if I ask if you attended BIOLA, and if there's any information for them online such as an expected curriculum, description of courses, etc?

 

[drich0150]

Seminaries often exist as multi-denominational institutions.

I didn't say they didn't, I was saying that just like an art degree they may produce a less than marketable graduate, for a denominationaly specific role.

 

[Van]

Hi Kharisym, no I do not mind if you ask. Biola is a local school - about 35 miles from my house - and no I did not attend the school or any Bible school. I have been on campus and several of the Professors also have spoken (Sunday sermon) at our church. Our Pastor has a degree from Biola and so he has several connections with some on their staff. My bible training is all if you will second hand, i.e taught by folks with degrees from Biola or other schools.

Yes there is on-line information, that is where I gleamed the information about Mary which I presented in my prior post.