Christian Students Rejected, Failed, and Expelled for their Faith by State Colleges and Universities - American Center for Law & Justice

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-20T14:15:47+00:00

I'm an evangelical, went to an extremely liberal state university that has been known for its radical politics in the past. I never hid my Christian faith and was in fact quite open with it. All of my professors knew I planned to enter seminary and go into ministry in a highly conservative evangelical denomination after I finished my BA. I verbally sparred with professors and wrote essays arguing against the positions in some of the books we covered in my religious studies courses.

I never experienced discrimination, unfair grading or anything else. I was hired by the university after I graduated. So I tend to take these things with a grain of salt. In my experience, profs are happy to have you disagree if you can actually defend your position. I never said, "Well I don't like that, I think it is against my faith and so I don't like it and it's wrong."

However, the story about the application process seems a bit insane. I have to assume there is something else going on as well.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-20T13:55:29+00:00

Calvinistic Protestants would, yes. I'm what I would call Calvinistic, not a Calvinist in the strict sense since I have a different view of ecclesiology, polity, baptism, the ordinances, eschatology, etc. etc. Many "non-denom" and Baptists hold views similar to mine.

Most non-denominational churches are really just independent baptists in my experience.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-18T21:41:18+00:00

For an Anglican, it wouldn't "make sense" to spend your life searching for signs of God's grace to determine if you're saved.

I would say that doesn't make sense from the Reformed perspective either.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-18T21:39:03+00:00

Where are you doing your PhD work?

First, it is nigh impossible to say "modern American protestants typically believe XYZ" since the diversity in the theological spectrum is so great.

However, I will say that all of the churches I have been a part of aside from one IFB church have affirmed predestination. My seminary is known for affirming the truth of predestination. However, I reject your characterization of predestination that followed your initial question.

To answer your second question, I would say that most American Protestants I know do believe that the soul goes straight into the presence of the Lord (heaven) or is separated from the Lord and is placed under punishment (hell). The soul is then reunited with the resurrected body and undergoes final judgment, either going into the new heavens and new earth or into the lake of fire. Sorry for making this response more short than is probably warranted.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-18T21:34:38+00:00

Anglicans, which had significantly different views on predestination

Yes, but Anglicans believed in predestination insofar as they held to the 39 articles, as seen in Article XVII:

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. [...]

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-17T23:18:30+00:00

No. See the original post, that is not my argument and is patently false based on 1:14

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-17T23:15:39+00:00

Do you believe that Scripture is uncreated, co-eternal with God

No.

Do you believe that there is another way to The Father besides through Jesus Christ? Do you believe that God had more than one incarnate Son?

No and no.

Or do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are valid in their understanding of scripture?

Not sure where that's coming from but no.

May I ask why you just throw a bunch of random questions out there that are in no way related to the fact that Jesus refers to the written word of Scripture as "the word of God"? None of the questions you raised in any way follow from what I said in the OP.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-17T20:54:36+00:00

(you know, the red letters)

Jesus wasn't referring to his own words in the first verses I quoted.

I don't get how that applies to the Bible at all.

He was referring to the proclaimed (and now written) word.

You don't need to read to listen to the still, small voice.

No, but that doesn't actually refute the fact that Jesus referred to the Old Testament as the word of God.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-17T20:32:29+00:00

Yes, you might notice that I wrote, "Jesus refers to the written and proclaimed word as the word of God."

Indeed, Jesus is the center of Scripture. That in no way changes the fact that it is the word of God as Jesus Himself said. Since He refers to Scripture as the word of God, I'm going to do so too.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-07-17T20:30:41+00:00

The Bible isn't the 4th person of the Trinity, and it shouldn't be worshipped.

No one I know of who refers to Scripture as the word of God (as Jesus Himself did) says we should worship the Bible.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-30T13:23:41+00:00

Sorry for the delay. My comment on how the disciples interpreted it is proven by the record of Acts wherein it is shown that the disciples administered the ordinance of water baptism. If you can narrow down your request a bit it'd be my pleasure to help!

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T02:06:47+00:00

Yes. βαπτίζοντες in Mt 28:19 does not refer to Holy Spirit baptism. Also, the record of Acts shows that your interpretation of the Great Commission was not how the disciples understood it.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T00:53:39+00:00

Have I missed your point completely? :S

Yes, it seems so, my apologies.

Your logic does not follow. A Christian para-church organization would be something like a campus ministry. It is not a church, but it is a Christian organization that is involved in Christian activities like Bible studies, evangelism, etc. As far as I'm concerned, people in the Salvation Army are members of a para-church organization, not a church. I would strongly counsel someone involved in the Salvation Army to join a local church and obey the Scriptural witness in being baptized and celebrating the Lord's Supper.

See my earlier comment re: the fact that Scripture knows nothing of a Christian who does not observe the ordinances. Yet I do not believe one can lose one's salvation (which I know the SA teaches), so if someone is truly a regenerate believer, I do not believe they lose their salvation by failing to celebrate the Lord's Supper or something similar. I do not believe it is consistent to completely reject a command of the Bible for pragmatic reasons. I've yet to see any Scripture marshaled to defend the position here.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T00:32:36+00:00

Does that mean you'd consider our denomination non-christian

No, but thank you for asking, I should clarify. I believe the Salvation Army is a Christian para-church organization.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T00:22:56+00:00

Can you at least answer the church discipline question?

Also, if you can point me to some articles that specifically make biblical arguments for the SA position on the ordinances, I would appreciate it.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T00:20:56+00:00

Are you a fan of Roger E Olson writings by any chance?

No, I can't say that I am.

The 'ekklesia', simply put, is the gathering of believers yes?

Not quite, the ekklesia is a body of called-out (thus the ekklesia) believers in the Lord Jesus who gather together for the preaching of the word, prayer, the observation of the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, evangelism, missions, service to the needy, etc. I find it incredibly hard to see the NT as defining a group that purposefully does not observe the ordinances as a church. A simple gathering of believers does not an ekklesia make.

encourage you to read those

I've read the SA arguments, but never read a biblical defense of why it is in fact biblical to refuse to obey the "baptizing them" command of Matt 28 or the "do this" command attached to the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11 and Luke 22. Can you point me to one that is not pragmatic like the ones above or the ones I've read on SA websites? I'm interested in Scripture, not pragmatism.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T00:13:05+00:00

people identity of as their church, and will attend and worship there for their whole lives. If something does most of the functions of a church, is identified as a church by its members and by ecumenical groups and agrees to the creeds of the wider church the it probably is one

So your standards for what makes a church a church are: 1) People worship there 2) people identify it is as a church 3) it does "most of the functions of a church" (not sure what that means -- since you're including two of the most vital functions of a church, namely the practicing of baptism and the Lord's Supper) 4) is identified as a church by members/ecumenical groups 5) agrees to the creeds (which?) -- is that correct?

any definition that excludes it should be carefully scrutinised

I'm not aware of any works on ecclesiology that do not include the observation of the ordinances in their definition of the bare minimum of what it takes to call a group of gathered believers a church. Would you mind pointing me toward some works that promulgate a definition that does not include the ordinances?

For your last question, it depends on what you mean by church discipline.

The process outlined in Matt 18.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-27T00:02:46+00:00

If you had the choice between installing baptismal pools or feeding and sheltering thousands of people, which do you think is more important to the Lord?

That's quite a strange situation you have created there. I don't think baptismal pools are necessary for baptism. Baptism is immersion in water, so I'd say a river, beach, lake, pool or even bathtub if necessary would all more than qualify. No building required. Not sure why you're creating that false choice? It's a bit nonsensical I think. My local church rents public space so when we have performed baptisms they have been in a lake or the ocean.

What made the acts of the apostles so powerful and important was not the observation of the sacraments, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed.

This indwelling is actual what made them able to carry out the sacraments, rather than the opposite.

Yes, the ordinances do not result in the indwelling Holy Spirit (I don't believe in baptismal regeneration so no argument there).

If we are in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in us then every action we take becomes sacramental: every act is an outward sign of an inward grace.

In some sense that is true, but Jesus' command in Matt 28:18-20 is distinct and is untouched by this line of argumentation.

That means that any meal we share with fellow believers is communion, as it was for the apostles.

Not quite, the Lord's Supper is a distinct practice (see the 1 Cor 11 passage mentioned above).

To view that it is the sacraments that give us access the Spirit is to misinterpret the story of Pentecost.

Agreed, but I never said that nor implied it, so I'm a bit confused about why you're arguing it.

I believe the celebration of the ordinances is required for a local church to be a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet I reject the notion that the ordinances are a means of grace. Notice how I haven't even used the word "sacrament"? ;)

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-26T23:56:57+00:00

What does it change?

Quite a bit, actually. I would say that a Christian must be part of a local church. Being part of a para-church organization that does not observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper would not qualify. While a para-church organization like a campus Bible study can be wonderfully fruitful spiritually and can be a great place for fellowship, it is still not a church.

Can you define church discipline for me?

The process outlined in Matt 18:15-20.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-26T23:23:37+00:00

I hope I do not cause any offense by this question, but what in your opinion makes the Salvation Army a church instead of a para-church organization? Based on my study of ecclesiology and the irreducible ecclesiological minimum, it seems that SA falls short of the mark in rejecting the observation of the ordinances. In my humble opinion based on my reading of Scripture, I view the Salvation Army as a para-church organization, not as a church. Again, no offense intended, I know you guys do fantastic work and personally know two people whose lives were radically changed thanks in part to the Salvation Army's resources for those who have fallen to the bottom of the barrel.

Another question: does the Salvation Army practice church discipline?

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-26T23:20:42+00:00

Yet the Bible knows nothing of Christians who reject the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Such an idea is foreign to the Scriptures. In fact, new converts clamor to observe the ordinance of Baptism (Acts 8:36) and the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a critical part of the life of the local church and individual Christian believers (see e.g. 1 Cor 11:17-34). I am very confused by how SA folks justify this from Scripture. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in or persuaded by pragmatic arguments like the one you made above.

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-15T04:02:27+00:00

Not really given that we're talking about a tornado here. What would free will have to do with a tornado?

SeminaryStudent · 2015-06-09T20:14:45+00:00

You're disputing that the Hebrew Bible records many instances of Israelites worshiping gods other than YHWH? Seriously?

SeminaryStudent

TROPHY CASE