Last week nearly 10,000 people invaded the French Quarter of New Orleans for a three-day conference. It wasn’t a convention of Mardi Gras mask-makers, a congregation of Bourbon Street miscreants, or an assembly of Hustler devotees. No, this was the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. This is a collective of the world’s religious scholars. SBL is the largest society of biblical scholars on the planet. The program of lectures and meetings is the size of a phone book for a mid-sized city. Too many choices! So many great biblical scholars were there: N. T. Wright, Jon Dominic Crossan, D. A. Carson, Bart Ehrman, Stanley Porter, Frederick Danker, Alan Culpepper, Craig Evans, Robert Stein, Joel Marcus, April Deconick, Elaine Pagels, John Kloppenborg, R. B. Hays, Peter Enns, Buist Fanning, Harold Attridge, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter Davids, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington, Rikki Watts, Robert Gundry, Emanuel Tov, Walter Brueggemann, Eric Myers, Eugene Boring, J. K. Elliott—that’s just a small sampling of the names. Liberals and evangelicals, theists and atheists, those who are open and those who are hostile to the Christian faith—all were there.

Overall, the Society of Biblical Literature is comprised of professors who teach religion, humanities, biblical studies, history, ethics, English literature, and theology at virtually all the schools in the nation that offer such subjects. Not just the United States, but a multitude of other countries are represented (although because of the long distances and short conference, many scholars did not come). Private schools, public schools, elite schools, and unknown schools—all were represented. Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Tübingen, Chicago, Duke, Dallas Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Seminary, Princeton, Yale, Biola, Claremont, Manchester, Durham, St Andrews, Westminster Seminary, Wheaton, Gordon-Conwell, Emory, TCU’s Brite Divinity School, SMU, University of Texas, Northwestern University, Rice, Brandeis, London School of Theology, Münster University, Notre Dame, community colleges, even unaccredited schools were represented.

As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.

The annual SBL conference is a place where young scholars can present their papers, meet senior scholars, and talk to publishers about book projects. Great opportunities are at SBL! Master’s students meet with professors whom they’d like to study with for their PhDs. They make appointments, go out for coffee, or just happen to bump into them at the conference.

Now, what I’ve said about SBL so far sounds like an exciting, positive event in which a good exchange of ideas occurs, and people grapple with what the Bible is all about. To a degree that is true, but a darker underbelly to the conference, never far from the surface, shows up often enough. It has to do with the posture of many liberal scholars toward evangelicals.

One of my interns, a very bright student who is preparing for doctoral studies, met with one scholar to discuss the possibility of studying under him for his doctorate. The scholar was cordial, friendly, and a fine Christian man. He encouraged James to pursue the doctorate at his non-confessional school in the UK. (We have found the UK schools to be far more open to evangelical students, since they are more concerned that a student make a plausible defense of his views than that he or she holds the party line.) Later, James met a world-class scholar of early Christian literature and engaged him in conversation. James demonstrated deep awareness of the professor’s field, asking intelligent questions and showing great interest in the subject. Then, the professor asked him where he was earning his master’s degree. “Dallas Seminary” was the response. The conversation immediately went south. The scholar no longer was interested in this young man. James was, to this professor, an evangelical and therefore a poorly educated Neanderthal, a narrow-minded bigot, an uncouth doctrinaire neophyte—or worse.

This was no isolated case. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. There is an assumption that students from an evangelical school—especially a dispensational school—only get a second-class education and are blissfully ignorant of the historical-critical issues of biblical scholarship. Many of the mainline liberal schools routinely reject applications to their doctoral programs from evangelical students who are more qualified than their liberal counterparts—solely because they’re evangelicals. And Dallas Seminary students especially have a tough time getting into primo institutes because of the stigma of coming from, yes, I’ll say it again—a dispensational school. One of my interns was earning his second master’s degree at a mainline school, even taking doctoral courses. He was head and shoulders above most of the doctoral students there. But when he applied for the PhD at the same school, he was rejected. His Dallas Seminary degree eliminated him.

The prejudice runs deep—almost as deep as the ignorance. Yes, Dallas Seminary is a dispensational school. But it’s not your father’s dispensational school. Progressive dispensationalism, engineered by Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, et alii, about twenty-five years ago has tied a dispensational hermeneutic to a more nuanced appreciation of the biblical covenants. Gone are the days of seeing two New Covenants, of distinguishing the ‘kingdom of God’ from the ‘kingdom of heaven’ in Matthew, and of seeing eschatology as not-yet but not already. The differences between other hermeneutical systems and the dispensationalism of today are not nearly as great as they used to be. But much of liberal scholarship has simply not kept up. There is widespread ignorance about what dispensationalists believe along with what seems to be an unwillingness to find out.

Further, the great irony is that so many liberal scholars don’t even realize that Dallas Seminary not only has only one unit on dispensationalism, but it has never required its students to adhere to this system of interpretation. So much more could be said here; I would simply invite those who are interested in learning more to read Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising.

I can speak to issues in New Testament studies at Dallas Seminary, which I know best. Our NT faculty have degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dallas Seminary, and Glasgow. We teach a historical-critical method of interpretation, tempered by our presuppositions that the universe is not a closed-system but one in which God has been active. Our students are trained extensively in exegesis of the New and Old Testament, are conversant with the secondary literature, and are able to interact with various viewpoints. Something like 80% of our doctoral dissertations are now getting published—and in prestigious, world-class series no less. (The same, by the way, is true of our master’s students who earn their doctorates elsewhere.) When Harold Hoehner was alive, there were three members in the department who were members of the prestigious Society of New Testament Studies. Now, down to two, we are anticipating several others getting voted in, in due time.

What irritates me is that so many so-called liberal scholars have already predetermined that DTS students get an unacceptable education. They are closed-minded themselves, thinking they know what is taught at the seminary. A genuine liberal used to be someone who was open to all the evidence and examined all the plausible viewpoints. Now, “liberal” has become a hollow term, invested only with the relic of yesteryear’s justifiably proud designation. Today, all too often, “liberal” means no more than left-wing fundamentalist, for the prejudices that guide a liberal’s viewpoints are not to be tampered with, not to be challenged. Doors have been shut in the students’ faces, opportunities denied. Spending $100 on an application is too frequently a waste of time and money, since applications coming from DTS students are routinely chucked into the round file. 

If we’re to judge liberal vs. conservative by one’s method, then the new liberal is the evangelical and neo-evangelical who is willing to engage the evidence, examine all sides, and wrestle with the primary data through the various prisms of secondary literature. He’s open. I tell my students every year, “I will respect you far more if you pursue truth and change your views than if you protect your presuppositions and don’t.” And they know my mantra, “Go where the evidence leads.” Sadly, some of the most brilliant scholars in biblical studies have become radically intolerant of conservatives. When conservative professors have that same attitude, they’re usually afraid of having their ideas challenged because they’re insecure in their beliefs. And they’re labeled as fundamentalists. When many “liberal” scholars are just as intolerant, what should we call them?

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    583 replies to "Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism"

    • Truth Unites... and Divides

      Dan Wallace, main post: “When many “liberal” scholars are just as intolerant, what should we call them?

      Dan Wallace, #543: “That’s why I spoke of the myth of theological liberalism today in the first place—because on many occasions it blocks a line of questioning and is therefore inherently anti-liberal. There are fundamentalists on both sides of the theological aisle.

      Comment #4: “How about Liberal Fundamentalists.”

    • paulf

      Lisa, I know what Wallace says, but I don’t really believe he means it in practice. If a student at DTS studied and decided that Jesus wasn’t a god or the savior, would he say it was unfair for that student to be kicked out of the school?

      gov, facts are facts. How many students from DTS apply to liberal schools for graduate degrees and what is their rate of acceptance versus comparable non-fundy institutons? Sounds like the acceptance rate into elite graduate programs is low, so why would DTS grads be any different?

      And a prejudice against someone who signs a statement of faith while pretending to study is in fact rational. People who do that are starting with a premise and working backwards, exactly the opposite of true scholarship. They shouldn’t be taken seriously in the scholarly world.

    • CD-Host

      Michael T (#541) —

      what I am wondering is at what point this became a belief of the Church. Did the earliest writings of the Church support this? … I have become increasingly convinced through reading many of the Anti-Nicean Fathers that a number of our doctrines in both Protestantism and Catholicism it seems there is a split in the thinking of the Church as things moved from a Eastern to a Western center.

      Well that radicalized 10x is the New School discussion we were having above. So let me answer this question in a more roundabout way. As you backwards in time you see stronger and stronger evidence for precisely that.

      You have 3 views of how Christianity progressed:

      Traditional view (DTS for example):
      Hasidean Judaism
      Palestinian Judaism
      Jewish Christianity
      Orthodox Christianity
      Christian Gnosticism

      Liberal Christian view
      Hasidean Judaism
      Pharisaic and/or Essene Judaism
      Jewish Christianity
      Pauline Christianity
      Orthodox Christianity & Christian Gnosticism

      New School:
      Hellenized Judaism
      Hellenistic Judaism
      Gnosticising Jews
      Christian Gnosticism
      Orthodox Christianity

      If you are coming to believe that some key aspects of Orthodox Christianity weren’t 1st century but rather 4th then the real question becomes, which ones and how did they develop? Or to rephrase this, how radical were people like Paul if you actually read them in isolation and not read into them later orthodox Christianity?

      Let me throw out some questions, which raise this point:

      When you read 1Cor 15 Paul makes a complex theological argument that resurrection is possible. Why? Where’s Lazarus? Worse yet it seems that Paul is arguing that believing in Jesus’s resurrection is a matter of faith and he rhetorically denies it 4 times. Why this very odd way to treat a historical event?

      Interesting thing about Baptism for Paul. Paul considers it the primary ritual by which men die to sin and our reborn. He talks about it Romans 6-8 for 3 chapters. Where is Jesus’s baptism? Why didn’t he mention it?

      In 1Cor 12:28 Paul talks about how God appointed apostles. 1Col 1:25 he makes a similar comment about himself. Eph 1:1, Eph 3:7, Cor 1:1, 1 Thes 2:4, 2 Cor 3:6, Gal 2:8 its God who appointed Paul (not Jesus). Worse yet in Gal 1:16 its God who told Paul about Jesus. Why wouldn’t he have mentioned the road to Damascus?

      And I could keep going. So my answer to your question regarding that list is, are you so sure what these early Christians believed at all? Yes I agree with the flow you see, in fact I happen to think that it is part of a much larger flow that starts around 200 BCE.

      IMHO the creeds were a method of forcing a consensus on the Christian community, as the Catholics freely admit. They didn’t represent a pre-existing consensus. What Christianity looked like in 120 CE was very different than what it looked like in 320 CE.

    • D Bock


      Appreciate the feedback. I have no problem interacting with your claims here (no need to worry about being harsh). You do not get to what you call Pagel’s core thesis if she is wrong on the date. So there are two issues here. I focus on one because we do not even get to her other argument if she is wrong there.

      On Marcion: I now wonder how closely you read my second chapter on God and creation. The texts I selected there were texts that people regard as proto-orthodox to see if there is a line that runs consistently through those texts on creation. Marcion is not a proto-orthodox text.

      As for Judaism and Gnosticism: I myself stated the origin was from a disgruntled Judaism in the early second century. Did you see that discussion?

      My point, and I could cite Ehrman as in agreement here, is that early Christianity accepted the Hebrew Scripture as their theological base. If that is so, then the Gnostic story of creation cannot go back to sources that accepted this base for obvious reasons. The argument I make is nuanced and linked. It is not a mere general claim of certain all encompassing Jewish views. I am not claiming all Jews said this, as I noted the Jewish roots of Gnosticism, but that earliest Christianity was not in this kind of protest mode on this kind of a topic, as people on all sides acknowledge. Virtually all who work with Jesus and his historical roots know he worked to call Israel back to faithfulness in light of prophetic and scriptural promises from the Hebrew Scripture reaching into Genesis and Abraham. So I think the case I make here is sound and is a real problem for those claiming otherwise. This is historical argument, not apologetics in the condescending sense you are using the term in this discussion.

    • CD-Host

      Dr Bock —

      ou do not get to what you call Pagel’s core thesis if she is wrong on the date. So there are two issues here. I focus on one because we do not even get to her other argument if she is wrong there.

      I understand what you are saying and agree that an early date for Thomas is a necessary condition for Pagels thesis, I said as much in my response. The problem I have though is that Pagels doesn’t really argue for early date except for providing additional evidence (i.e. if John is a response to Thomas than Thomas is certainly early). There are other authors besides Pagels who focus on early dating of Thomas….

      Remember the context was that I was arguing there are charges against your book which have nothing to do with your conclusions. I’m not sure what to add here. If you want to argue for a late dating I’d pick one of the authors who focuses on early dating Stevan Davies (1996) or April DeConick. Pagels puts forth a much stronger claim.

      So lets skip the logical issue, why did you choose to critique Pagels on a claim that Pagels doesn’t really focus on?


      As for God and Creation 2 I’m not sure you followed the thrust of the argument.

      You argue that the Pauline materials disagree with a evil creator.

      My counter is people who rejected the “good creator” freely used the Pauline materials, and arguably were the ones who popularized them. Hence they couldn’t unequivocally take that position. In other words it is reasonable to assume that Marcion read and understood Paul. As an aside Pagel’s, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters is a classic in how Paul can be read this way.

      My point, and I could cite Ehrman as in agreement here, is that early Christianity accepted the Hebrew Scripture as their theological base. If that is so, then the Gnostic story of creation cannot go back to sources that accepted this base for obvious reasons.

      I’m not exactly sure you are reading that the right way. Let me give you a more modern analogy. 19th century Black Mass has Anglicanism/Episcopalianism as its theological basis. Almost the entire religion / ritual is a response to the Anglican Church. In a rejectionist faith like Jewish gnosticism accepting the Hebrew Scriptures doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the friendly reading of the Christian scriptures. Your book mentions, The Hypostasis of the Archons several times. That work clearly has the Hebrew Scriptures as its theological base yet completely rejects Yahweh as the point of worship.

      (con part 2)

    • CD-Host


      Virtually all who work with Jesus and his historical roots know he worked to call Israel back to faithfulness in light of prophetic and scriptural promises from the Hebrew Scripture reaching into Genesis and Abraham. So I think the case I make here is sound and is a real problem for those claiming otherwise.

      I’d offer Cerinthus as a quick counter example here. It is entirely possible to accept Jewish ritual and reject Yahweh as the supreme deity. Great Declaration of Simon Magus offers another counter example.

      I wouldn’t consider Morton Smith a New School writer, but his works offer the possibility that Jesus movement in Palestine was essentially, a Jewish magic cult, which would have had Gnostic elements as per the magical papyri.

      My basic take though is that this argument, even if true is more of a problem for liberals not New School advocates. In general the New School rejects the hypothesis that the events in Palestine in the 30s were the main formative events of early Christianity. Different writers, place different emphasis on how much importance they attribute to to these events but across the board they tie Christianity to Alexandrian Judaism.

      Not that I’m a big published writer on this but for example my position is that the Q material may very well have come out of Palestinian messianic sects but these only got tied to Pauline proto-Christianity in the 2nd century. The Jesus of Paul is not an abstraction of the Jesus of Q (as per liberal Christianity) but is an entirely different entity. I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if one of the Jesus of 2Cor 11:4 was the Cynical Philosopher Jesus of Q1. Pearson argues how you can see the merging in documents like The Sophia of Jesus Christ.

      So I understand your argument but I think it essentially begs the question. Let me make what is implicit explicit:

      1) Jesus accepted the Jewish religion as his basis in a direct way
      2) Jesus formed a historical church
      3) This historical church was the basis of Christianity
      C) Early Christian accepted the Jewish religion as its basis in a direct way

      New Schoolers would all reject (3), and some would reject (2) and some would make (1) vastly more nuanced.

      That’s my broad overview I’d have to pick particular New School writers to be more detailed.

      Anyway thank you for the thoughtful response to my comments.

    • KR Hughes

      Echoing #547, I would like to hear from Dr Wallace or Dr Bock on the issue of whether those of us coming up through seminary now and are looking to do serious scholarship down the road would be better off in seeking to teach in prestigious secular schools or helping raise the academic standard for institutions like DTS much like you two have done. And does getting a degree from DTS necessarily force you down the latter path? Thanks for the most interesting posts, everyone.

    • Michael T

      You might find this interesting, but it appear that Greg Boyd is currently working on a multi-volume book that appears to argue against the New School in the extreme on the other side. He appears to be intending to argue that Hellenistic philosophy corrupted Christianity and not the other way around. Of course this is highly related to his assertions in the area of open theism, but interesting nonetheless. Not sure if that makes any sense, but a quick blurb (nice technical term there) on the books is here.

    • Steve T.

      Well, this comment is buried way too far down to get read but here goes.

      Dr. Wallace, I greatly respect you. You are an amazing scholar. However, I believe you have missed in identifying the problem as DTS being dispensational. The problem is that DTS (in general) does not encourage thinking – processing and wrestling – which is necessary to be an academic.

      You stated, “I tell my students every year, ‘I will respect you far more if you pursue truth and change your views than if you protect your presuppositions and don’t.'”

      Unfortunately, this is not the official position at DTS. The official position is more like, change your views and don’t graduate. I was once told by a DTS professor, “DTS is not a place to wrestle with your beliefs, it is a place to learn how to articulate the beliefs you already confess you hold.” This may be useful in ministry fields, but it is not helpful for academic fields. We need to be able to wrestle and question and take true ownership of what we believe – and DTS does not allow this to happen. Everything is learned within a box.

      With that ranting out of the way, I think the newer crop of DTS professors are great. However, even with them I can sense an underlying frustration with the DTS system.

      Thanks for your post. I hope to pursue a Ph.D. – but I’ve accepted that I will most likely need to “prove” myself by first getting another Master’s degree.

    • C Michael Patton

      Steve, good points. I do think that it comes down to the philosophy of each dept at DTS (and probably other schools as well). As I said before, there was evident difference when I was there in the late ninties and early 2000s between the NT and OT dept and the others. The NT and OT did not mearly encourage critical thinking, but required it.

      The other dept were more ministry oriented, equipping students to give a defense for what is already presumed. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Neither philosophy is superior to the other. It is the difference between scholarship oriented critical thinking and apologetic oriented ministry prepareation. They have some overlap, but start with different goals.

      At The Theology Program, on of our philosophies is to “give people a chance not to believe so that they might truly believe.” Therefore, we must necessarily be more broad in our approach. But even then, we are limiting the studies to “Christian” theology, not comparative religions. And even then, we are broadly Evangelical.

      I would say that DTS is pretty clear that it is a confessional school and seeks to produce a certian type of believer (i.e. Christian), and a certian type of Christian (i.e. conservative Evangelical).

      This comes from the school philosophy which the professors did not create and are not responsible for.

      It will always be different with NT and OT dept because they are first level academics, even at DTS. Therefore, they can be much more critical knowing tha thtey other dept will further shape the students.

      Maybe things have changed. But from my conversations with you Steve, (I think it was concerning inerrancy)…I don’t think they have.

      While I would desire the theology dept to be more broad (and I think most of the weight of this entire issue will fall on the theology dept), they have every right and probably good reason (of their own) to continue in the direction they are going even if some of us would like things to change.

      But I don’t know of any theology depts anywhere that are ideal for every purpose.

    • C Michael Patton

      In fact, If I were the boss, I think it would be great if DTS would follow a doctrinal taxonomy such as I have laid out here:

      In the chart, they would only cover the first three inner circles and not move into the “denominational” circle.

      But that would take some major changes (i.e. loosening their explicit committments to dispensationalism, issues of the extent of the atonement, eschatology, etc.). I would also let go of the term “inerrancy”, while keeping a strong stance on the truthfulness and authority of the Scripture. “Inerrancy” carries too much baggage presupposing a certian hermeneutic that is not necessary.

    • Steve T.

      Hey Michael! You’re fast!! I really love what you are doing. And for the record, I greatly value my time at DTS. I have been forever changed. Thanks for starting me out with TTP.

    • C Michael Patton



      I agree with you. And I think it needs to be said that I still think that DTS is the best seminary there is. If I knew then what I know now, do you know where I would go: DTS!

      In fact, if DTS had a football team (not only would I have been their greatest player ever), I might even root for them above my Sooners (did you get the MIGHT?)

      But I am bias and my preconceptions bind me here. 😉

    • Susan

      ….or at least you might have been the greatest break-dancer ever….if DTS had a dance team that is. 😉

    • C Michael Patton

      Oh how right you are Susan!

    • micaias rodriguez

      Five stars! This is an accurate description of the NT academic world today. I agree with you Dr. Wallace that the prejudice against evangelicals has closed many minds to all the evidence.

    • Glenn Shrom

      I’ve just caught up on most of the new posts since I last posted. The topic of the Holy Spirit being female or male definitely looks relevant to me as an example of an issue and its development, not as a question to answer here.

      Sue was “taken aback” when she realized that the the choice of “he” did not have the textual evidence she had assumed from her training. If a secular university is looking for people who have already had many of these basic assumptions questioned, they can move on and educate to the next level. If people in the doctorate program are still being surprised by their own assumptions such as these, then maybe the student should be doing a masters somewhere where they can go through the shock and surprise (“taken aback”) on the masters level, and then come back for the doctoral level afterwards.

      Hopefully there will still be some surprises in the doctoral level of education, or we would question the value of the education, but it as a matter of which surprises one comes across and when. Too many surprises altogether create an overload of stress which does not make for a good education. They should be introduced and addressed gradually with time to adjust, assimilate and accommodate along the way – a manageable level of cognitive dissonance perhaps and ways to explore and reconcile that dissonance. Education is a very human experience, and it deals with real people, not just data to input.

      The assumption a doctoral program should not make is that graduates from X seminary will not allow their assumptions to be questioned. Every student is different.

      Also, a seminary’s conclusions are not the same as a seminary’s assumptions. The doctoral program may jump to conclusions and accuse the seminary of setting the paradigm as limits from the start, of using faith as the base from which to build knowledge, just because the doctoral program sees faith there. But it is just as possible that the paradigm is a conclusion arrived at through the same process as what the secular institution uses, just coming to different conclusions. Knowledge could be the base on which to build faith.

    • Glenn Shrom

      I see no hypocrisy in an institution saying “We will respect you most for coming to your own conclusions and pursuing that path”, while also saying “If you go down this path you will no longer be able to attend classes here.” That may be what is happening in a segment of DTS, or in the whole of DTS.

      I think that in the world’s eyes this is viewed as hypocrisy, but the Christian way is that both: the individual is free and should follow his or her conscience; the institution is free and should follow its own conscience.

      I’m assuming that there is no claim from DTS that everyone must or should attend DTS, and probably no condemnation from DTS towards those who leave. Leaving DTS can be a step in faith just as attending there can be. God can use either and all paths to accomplish what He wants in each person’s life.

    • Glenn Shrom

      Holding a belief does not mean that you’ve never questioned that belief … we shouldn’t be equating “belief” with “assumption”. If we do equate belief with assumption, it cuts both ways whether your belief is extra-evangelical or mainstream evangelical.

      A secular university should allow for the experience of a student who has had a belief, was confronted with new evidence, changed that belief, and then with different or more evidence later on, came back to the original belief anyway. Or perhaps a belief is a third option having gone in two other directions prior.

      Holding a belief now does not mean that it’s simply what you’ve assumed or have been taught. If a seminary is teaching about the strengths and weaknesses of many different ideas … abrupt end.

    • North escort

      It is certainly interesting for me to read this article. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.

    • Jay V

      “We teach a historical-critical method of interpretation, tempered by our presuppositions that the universe is not a closed-system but one in which God has been active.”

      This is an oxymoron! Without liberal thinking, formed from anti-supernatural presuppositions, deism, Enlightenment thought, and a few other philosophies, you would not have historical-criticism. The fact that you teach it, should indicate to the liberal that your on the same page!!!!! I would be frustrated too!

    • Tarot cards

      Hmm Well I was just searching on Google for some Tarot readings of some Tarot reader
      and just came across your blog, generally I just only visit blogs and retrieve my required
      information but this time the useful information that you posted in this post compelled me
      to reply here and appreciate your good work. I just bookmarked your blog

    • Brett

      I think that originally, liberalism asked for the freedom to consider many unconventional, unpopular ideas. But then, having considered them in great detail, it decided that after all, the unconventional ideas were correct. Liberalism, became Leftism.

      This might indeed be the abandonment of Liberalism per se. But after all, don’t we ask for freedom to consider many ideas, so that we can finally settle on the best one? Liberalism is one stage, of a larger process.

      Granted, we might hope to always be open to many opinions. But the opinions of Fundamentalists are by now all too well known; they have been heard endlessly, everywhere, for literally thousands of years. And finally, they don’t deserve further hearing. At some point, we have had enough, and simply decide, no or yes. Down or up.

    • […] with this situation.  I could, as some have done, explain how Dallas Seminary is no longer your your fathers seminary.  I could talk about some of the different theological arguments that are floating around and how […]

    • […] fear against metamorphizing into liberalism is also unwarranted.  In one of his comments on his Myth of Liberalism post, Dan Wallace proposes that liberals have much to teach in the way of evaluating the Biblical […]

    • […] the Theologically ConservativeCritical of Criticism?: A Plea to the Theologically Conservative on Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological LiberalismScottL on Why Women Cannot Be Head PastorsDan Wallace on learning biblical languages | The Library […]

    • […] the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism | Parchment and Pen Jason Baptist Ontario, Canada Feileadh Mor YouTube "…all men until they be quickened by […]

    • Guz

      Come on now.
      How does rejecting KOG = KOH & the 2 New Cov theory make the New DTS superior? Neither of those POV’s is basic to Dispensationalism or even important to Classical Dispensationalism. They were not held when I went thru a Disp school in the 1960’s. And how does being “Progressive Dispensational” make one superior as a scholar and worthy of more respect?

      Isn’t a Prog Disper likely to be a prof at a Disp school who really doesn’t believe in Dispism, but wants to keep his job there; so it is convenient to use a term for himself that incorporates Dispensational?

      If a man believed everything exactly as Chafer’s Syst Theology says, would that make him a lower class scholar? Or if his POV re women’s ministry were the same as DTS in 1950, would that make him an inferior scholar?


    • […] himself and in his ability to discern the New Testament canon anew for every generation. Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical […]

    • […] Bibles is based on at least 2 pieces of evidence: Who decides what constitutes evidence? Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert in ancient biblical Greek […]

    • […] getting into this discussion a bit late, but I can’t resist. Dan Wallace’s post about a widespread bias against Evangelical students (specifically Dallas Theological Seminary students) and scholars has stirred the waters of […]

    • […] so what…who cares. Our Magisterium of scholars know better then we do, even if most deny the essentials of the Christian faith, we just need to have faith in their ability to discern the word for us. Yes, there is an element […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.