Dr. Paul Chappell and Lancaster Baptist Church introduce a new resource website called Ministry127 (based upon Philippians 1:27).
[Chappell] In the reproductive process, a woman does not provide the seed which is the source of the bloodline. So it is from the father that the bloodline comes. Yet the Bible says that God would redeem the world and conquer Satan through the seed of a woman. How could that be?
As we come to the New Testament, we begin to understand. The seed of the woman was a prophecy concerning the Holy Ghost’s placing the seed into the woman Mary, who, as the Virgin Mary, brought forth the Saviour of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why the angel said to Mary in Luke 1:35:
“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
My friend, the blood of Christ did not originate from this earth or from some corruptible manner or relationship of this earth. The blood of Christ originated from the seed of the Holy Spirit, which was placed into the woman miraculously by God. That is why the blood of Jesus Christ is magnificent in its virtue.
Much is not clear here but “did not originate from this earth or from some corruptible manner or relationship to this earth” seems to suggest he believes the blood was created without any involvement from Mary (which seems to be the point of the “bloodline” observation as well). It’s an odd view oddly supported, but does he mean the Spirit created completely human, though incorruptible, blood?
I think the only way to know would be to ask him.
Taking it to the conclusion that he means Jesus’ blood was not human might be assuming too much internal consistency to his views on the subject.
Chip…
“Required” vs. “forced”? If you like. In any case, people who believe these things go to schools that teach these things and are probably not surprised to be required to embrace them. I think we all get the fact that this is a big deal to them.
“Heresy”… well, let me ask this, are all errors heresies? What would make one error a heresy and another just an error or even serious error? (I’m the sure the right answer is not that “heresy” is the error that irritates me the most ;) )
It’s surreal that I’m defending KJV preservationists and “literal blood in heaven” adherents! Is it April 1 yet?
I’m not for any of these things, just trying to criticize fairly.
[Chip] We have every legitimate reason to hold them accountable to thier own self-proclaimed positions.
No argument from me there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
…the word heresy as used in Scripture means “dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims” (Thayer). Luke uses the term to refer to the “sects” of the Pharisees & Sadducees” (Acts 5:17, 15:5), and Paul used the term in reference to the factions in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:19). Yet the term was also used of false teachers who denied the Lord Jesus in some way (2 Peter 2:1). In its broad use, then, a “heresy” would be a particular teaching the ends up being so dominant that it divides one group or faction from another. It seems that the term was not used originally in the same way it’s commonly used today, that is, to refer only to the denial of some cardinal doctrine by means of espousing a false doctrine. As ISBE states, “The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into common usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament, except as implied in one passage.”
So, KJVOism and Chappell’s views on the blood technically could be construed as “heresy” insofar as these opinions of men (as opposed to clear teaching of Scripture) are elevated to the status of “doctrine” and result in unwarranted dissension in the body of Christ. In the interest of precision and common understanding, though, it probably would be best to limit the label “heresy” to those teachings that are “ ‘the open espousal of fundamental error’” (Ellicott on Tit_3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders.” [ISBE]
So, KJVOism and Chappell’s views on the blood technically could be construed as “heresy” insofar as these opinions of men (as opposed to clear teaching of Scripture) are elevated to the status of “doctrine” and result in unwarranted dissension in the body of Christ. In the interest of precision and common understanding, though, it probably would be best to limit the label “heresy” to those teachings that are “ ‘the open espousal of fundamental error’” (Ellicott on Tit_3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders.” [ISBE]
[BryanBice]…the word heresy as used in Scripture means “dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims” (Thayer). Luke uses the term to refer to the “sects” of the Pharisees & Sadducees” (Acts 5:17, 15:5), and Paul used the term in reference to the factions in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:19). Yet the term was also used of false teachers who denied the Lord Jesus in some way (2 Peter 2:1). In its broad use, then, a “heresy” would be a particular teaching the ends up being so dominant that it divides one group or faction from another. It seems that the term was not used originally in the same way it’s commonly used today, that is, to refer only to the denial of some cardinal doctrine by means of espousing a false doctrine. As ISBE states, “The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into common usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament, except as implied in one passage.”The only place in the NT where “heretic” [αιρετικον—as translated in the KJV] is used is in Titus 3:10, and Paul’s exhortation to Titus & the Cretan churches is that such an one is to be rejected from the fellowship after he’s been admonished twice. The ESV translates it, “have nothing more to do with him.” In the preceding verse, Paul lists some of the things that, in the first century Church, gave rise to “heresy”: “foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law” which are “unprofitable and worthless.” These seem to be areas of speculative opinion concerning which the text of Scripture is largely silent, at least in terms of providing a basis for sound interpretation and definitive conclusion. The “heretic”—a person within the local church—would set forth his speculative opinion, elevating it to the level of divine revelation, and insist that others must accept his speculation as divine truth. The reason the ESV translates αιρετικον as “a person who stirs up division” is that the root meaning of the word is “to make a choice”: through his speculative-opinion-as-doctrinal-truth teaching, the αιρετικον was compelling people to choose whether or not to accept his views & be “in the right camp” or reject his views and be “in the camp of error.” In other words, he was creating division.
So, KJVOism and Chappell’s views on the blood technically could be construed as “heresy” insofar as these opinions of men (as opposed to clear teaching of Scripture) are elevated to the status of “doctrine” and result in unwarranted dissension in the body of Christ. In the interest of precision and common understanding, though, it probably would be best to limit the label “heresy” to those teachings that are “ ‘the open espousal of fundamental error’” (Ellicott on Tit_3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders.” [ISBE]
I would suggest that those who promote KJVOism, Chappell’s twist on the blood of our Lord, and similar speculative opinions rise to the level of αιρετικον when they frequently proclaim those opinions and almost by default, if not intentionally, make those issues a test of whether one is orthodox or a “fundamentalist.”
I think the disconnect here is whether or not such things are promoted as doctrine, or if they are qualified as things the Scriptures seem to suggest. I agree that Jesus’ blood was human, because there are 4 different maternal blood types and 4 different paternal blood types possible, which means that there are 16 different combinations possible. What is interesting is that genetic characteristics are either dominant or recessive…. soooo maybe God’s ‘DNA’ was dominant. I personally think that Jesus’ blood was supernatural in some way… but we don’t and CAN’T know how the Divine and human were combined to result in Almighty God manifest in the flesh… and then the transformation from a corruptible body into an incorruptible one… we can speculate and suggest, but that is one that I don’t believe anyone can nail down and declare as an unassailable doctrine.
I’m a KJV preservationist, but I don’t think folks who prefer the NASV or ESV are heretics. They’ve simply drawn different conclusions from the information they’ve examined. I don’t make it a basis of fellowship/separation, and there are some that do, I’ll grant you that. And ditto the other way around- there are folks who think I should be wearing a nice white coat with buckles in the back for simply suggesting such an idea as preservation, and won’t give me the time of day. I can’t do anything about it, so I’m not going to fret over it.
If there are serious doctrinal problems with Chappell, then that’s a fair discussion, and I think clear supportive documentation should be provided to expose those problems. But I agree with Aaron that we should be just a bit more careful about throwing the ‘H’ word around. Charity doesn’t rejoice in iniquity, it is patient and humble, and isn’t in a hurry to believe the worst.
I’m a KJV preservationist, but I don’t think folks who prefer the NASV or ESV are heretics. They’ve simply drawn different conclusions from the information they’ve examined. I don’t make it a basis of fellowship/separation, and there are some that do, I’ll grant you that. And ditto the other way around- there are folks who think I should be wearing a nice white coat with buckles in the back for simply suggesting such an idea as preservation, and won’t give me the time of day. I can’t do anything about it, so I’m not going to fret over it.
If there are serious doctrinal problems with Chappell, then that’s a fair discussion, and I think clear supportive documentation should be provided to expose those problems. But I agree with Aaron that we should be just a bit more careful about throwing the ‘H’ word around. Charity doesn’t rejoice in iniquity, it is patient and humble, and isn’t in a hurry to believe the worst.
Larry has shown how this blood teaching might lead to heresy (perhaps a kind of docetism).
The definition of “heresy” is tough. It literally means “sectarian.” Acts calls the Christianity a heresy of Judaism.
It seems like we often think of it as referring to errant teachings that misrepresent the character of God or salvation.
Over time, it became a term for any teaching that means you’re outside the church. As the church refined its understanding of doctrine and church leadership patterns, the reasons for excommunication broadened to include less substantial doctrines and practices. And as the Roman church became more powerful, political motivations might have played a part.
I think that schismatic might be a better word than heresy for this discussion. These people are teaching things that might or might not be the case. Is the blood of Christ literally incorruptible? Is it in a cup in heaven? In any case, the way that God provides salvation isn’t altered by it. I wouldn’t separate over this, but they do - schism.
The definition of “heresy” is tough. It literally means “sectarian.” Acts calls the Christianity a heresy of Judaism.
It seems like we often think of it as referring to errant teachings that misrepresent the character of God or salvation.
Over time, it became a term for any teaching that means you’re outside the church. As the church refined its understanding of doctrine and church leadership patterns, the reasons for excommunication broadened to include less substantial doctrines and practices. And as the Roman church became more powerful, political motivations might have played a part.
I think that schismatic might be a better word than heresy for this discussion. These people are teaching things that might or might not be the case. Is the blood of Christ literally incorruptible? Is it in a cup in heaven? In any case, the way that God provides salvation isn’t altered by it. I wouldn’t separate over this, but they do - schism.
This quote reminded me of something that I perceive to be a strong flavor within conservative independent fundamentalism.
But it reminds me of the huge huge emphasis placed on those things in the IFB circles I’ve been in. The attitude seemed to be that a good Christian is one who does church right. Not that the rest of one’s life is ignored. It just seemed like… well, you get the idea.
[The site] Top 10 Questions Pastors Are Never AskedAll those things deal with enjoying or appreciating various aspects of the church service, especially the preaching. Now, yes, that is good and we should appreciate good preaching and worship services.
Pastoring is the greatest profession in all the world, in my opinion. If we don’t learn to laugh with and at ourselves, we will undoubtedly suffer burnout. Whether you are a pastor or not, I hope that these “top 10″ lists will bring a smile to your face. The list below is offered lightheartedly, realizing that many dear Christians defy the stereotypes that these questions imply.
How early should I arrive in order to save seats on one of the front three rows?
Would it be too much to ask if you’d add ten minutes to your sermons? The time passes by much too quickly.
Pastor, I know it’s the Super Bowl tonight, but would it be possible to add the Lord’s Supper to the end of the service?
It’s been awhile since you’ve preached on tithing, Pastor. Would you consider doing a series in the near future?
Thank you for taking time to counsel me, Pastor. Now could you help me identify the ways by which I might be part of the problem in this situation?
I heard that Bro. Janitor is sick, have you found anyone yet to clean the toilets, because I’m available?
Isn’t the temperature in the auditorium always just right?
Would you pray for safety on the roads as we travel back from our vacation this *Saturday*?
I’m having trouble hearing you preach, could you turn the volume up?
Would you put me on the nursery schedule for Mother’s Day?
But it reminds me of the huge huge emphasis placed on those things in the IFB circles I’ve been in. The attitude seemed to be that a good Christian is one who does church right. Not that the rest of one’s life is ignored. It just seemed like… well, you get the idea.
where did Chappell earn his doctorate?
[Matthew Richards] where did Chappell earn his doctorate?BA—Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College
MA—Louisiana Baptist University
DD—Trinity Baptist College
From the school’s website - http://wcbc.edu/academics/faculty
Heresy is a term that was derived from the greek word and the meaning is derived from the NT usage. However, as derived it has a broader meaning as used in Christianity through the centuries. In the NT it meant sectarian or schismatic. It came to be used of false doctrine that involved Christ or salvation as well as other doctrines. One can be a heretic but not an apostate. That is is you go beyond scripture and teach false doctrine that does not effect a truth regarding salvation and be saved. If what you teach goes beyond scripture and teaches major error and involves the rejection of what is accepted as normative and biblical and acceptance of that not taught in scripture you can be involved in Heresy but not apostasy. You have not fallen away from an essential to be saved. You may still be adhering to false teaching not supported by scripture thus supporting or promoting heresy but are saved and not apostate.
So far as its use regarding the King James Only position, the issue is preservation. This is acknowledged as so by those holding to the KJVO position or a Greek textual textual preservation position. James price nicely shows why there is no real difference between the KJVO position, the Greek textual preservation position, and the King James preferred position that seeks to exclude other translations. He was head of the NKJV translation executive review committee. He speaks from experience of interaction with these various groups and their rejection of the NKJV translation. The NKJV endeavored to translate using the exact same text and sources as known to be used by the KJV translators. Yet it was rejected by those claiming to not be KJVO but advocating the acceptance of the KJV Greek and Hebrew texts as having divine preservation. I highly recommend that every person involved in or looking at the KJVO position read ” King James Onlyism: A New SeCT, by James Price. From what I have seen it is the best book on the subject and by an able scholar.
From my own personal testimony, I have studied Greek for two years in college, three in seminary, and 2 at the post graduate level. I taught beginning Greek for 2 years. Took a class in textual criticism under Harry Sturz, who was influential in getting scholars to take a more careful look at the Byzantine family manuscript as part of textual criticism. I took another class in textual criticism at the post graduate level. However, not only am I not a Greek scholar, I am a novice at textual criticism. To be a language or textual scholar (or both as most are), you need to teach the subject for several (or many ) years at an advanced level and be active at some point in translating. I am a novice on these subjects compared to being a scholar. However, I can read and interact with scholars and scholarly writings with some understanding and recognition of possible errors worth researching. Yet I find Pastors and laymen with little or no (most often no) making dogmatic statements regarding this subject. Since the KJCO and textual preservation position has just emerged at about 1970, going against the orthodoxy of traditional Bibliology, they should speak to this subject with only the most stringent of credentials. What exists are mostly Pastors and laymen with no background or credentials speaking dogmatically with arguments that often lack normal common sense. Some totally uneducated on the subject read a book and become dogmatic scholars.
The subject of this thread is a Website of Lancaster Baptist Church here in my neighborhood. It was good and proper to call attention to the website. I have attempted to call attention to the peculiar doctrines of the church and the character of its ministry. This was done as a warning. As a result some have questioned whether it is proper to use the word heresy. I cannot remember if I used it but another poster did also. The purpose of this post was to enter into dialogue with others on this subject and to give reasons why it may be proper to use such a word and to contrast that to apostasy. In so doing I briefly summarized some of the KJVO issues. David Doran of Detroit Baptist seminary has called for separation from the KJVO position. So have some other Fundamentalist leaders.
The acknowledged issue is preservation. most all arguments on this matter are external to scripture. The preservation scriptures cited by the KJVO have been clearly refuted by many competent interpreters. However, if they were to stand, they appear in all translations with the same clear meaning. Therefore perfect divine preservation could be claimed for all. The clear common sense conclusion is that no one can point to scripture to gain authentic authority for the King James or any Greek textual sources. All claimed authority must therefore come from extra biblical evidence based on the input of vast human research and reasoning. To claim divine authority for this human process would necessitate Apostles being present to authenticate the outcome or, in the alternative the ability of anyone to authentic a process divinely superintended by God in such a way to be the same as that experienced by the writers of scripture. This then opens the door for a continuing process as used to authenticate the book of Mormon and the revelations of some founders of cults. the basis of what Is have endeavored to set forth, those who hold to the KJVO or Greek textual preservation of certain sources are schismatic, not in accordance with traditional doctrine (even as has existed in non creedal evangelicalism) is based on arguments external to scripture, involve rejection of the orthodox and advocating the heterodox, and is therefore heresy but does not necessarily involve apostasy. It is fair to call these positions as held by heretics but most all do not deny the doctrines essential to salvation so are not apostates.
So far as its use regarding the King James Only position, the issue is preservation. This is acknowledged as so by those holding to the KJVO position or a Greek textual textual preservation position. James price nicely shows why there is no real difference between the KJVO position, the Greek textual preservation position, and the King James preferred position that seeks to exclude other translations. He was head of the NKJV translation executive review committee. He speaks from experience of interaction with these various groups and their rejection of the NKJV translation. The NKJV endeavored to translate using the exact same text and sources as known to be used by the KJV translators. Yet it was rejected by those claiming to not be KJVO but advocating the acceptance of the KJV Greek and Hebrew texts as having divine preservation. I highly recommend that every person involved in or looking at the KJVO position read ” King James Onlyism: A New SeCT, by James Price. From what I have seen it is the best book on the subject and by an able scholar.
From my own personal testimony, I have studied Greek for two years in college, three in seminary, and 2 at the post graduate level. I taught beginning Greek for 2 years. Took a class in textual criticism under Harry Sturz, who was influential in getting scholars to take a more careful look at the Byzantine family manuscript as part of textual criticism. I took another class in textual criticism at the post graduate level. However, not only am I not a Greek scholar, I am a novice at textual criticism. To be a language or textual scholar (or both as most are), you need to teach the subject for several (or many ) years at an advanced level and be active at some point in translating. I am a novice on these subjects compared to being a scholar. However, I can read and interact with scholars and scholarly writings with some understanding and recognition of possible errors worth researching. Yet I find Pastors and laymen with little or no (most often no) making dogmatic statements regarding this subject. Since the KJCO and textual preservation position has just emerged at about 1970, going against the orthodoxy of traditional Bibliology, they should speak to this subject with only the most stringent of credentials. What exists are mostly Pastors and laymen with no background or credentials speaking dogmatically with arguments that often lack normal common sense. Some totally uneducated on the subject read a book and become dogmatic scholars.
The subject of this thread is a Website of Lancaster Baptist Church here in my neighborhood. It was good and proper to call attention to the website. I have attempted to call attention to the peculiar doctrines of the church and the character of its ministry. This was done as a warning. As a result some have questioned whether it is proper to use the word heresy. I cannot remember if I used it but another poster did also. The purpose of this post was to enter into dialogue with others on this subject and to give reasons why it may be proper to use such a word and to contrast that to apostasy. In so doing I briefly summarized some of the KJVO issues. David Doran of Detroit Baptist seminary has called for separation from the KJVO position. So have some other Fundamentalist leaders.
The acknowledged issue is preservation. most all arguments on this matter are external to scripture. The preservation scriptures cited by the KJVO have been clearly refuted by many competent interpreters. However, if they were to stand, they appear in all translations with the same clear meaning. Therefore perfect divine preservation could be claimed for all. The clear common sense conclusion is that no one can point to scripture to gain authentic authority for the King James or any Greek textual sources. All claimed authority must therefore come from extra biblical evidence based on the input of vast human research and reasoning. To claim divine authority for this human process would necessitate Apostles being present to authenticate the outcome or, in the alternative the ability of anyone to authentic a process divinely superintended by God in such a way to be the same as that experienced by the writers of scripture. This then opens the door for a continuing process as used to authenticate the book of Mormon and the revelations of some founders of cults. the basis of what Is have endeavored to set forth, those who hold to the KJVO or Greek textual preservation of certain sources are schismatic, not in accordance with traditional doctrine (even as has existed in non creedal evangelicalism) is based on arguments external to scripture, involve rejection of the orthodox and advocating the heterodox, and is therefore heresy but does not necessarily involve apostasy. It is fair to call these positions as held by heretics but most all do not deny the doctrines essential to salvation so are not apostates.
If we emphasize the “schismatic” aspect of heresy, it can certainly go both ways.
That is, someone who has an unusual teaching about Bible preservation and declares those who disagree to be non-fundamentalists (or even nonChristians, enemies of Christ, etc. in some cases) can certainly be described as schismatic. But, by the same token, someone who looks at those who believe a particular translation has been miraculously preserved (in a way unique to that translation) and declares that they are false fundamentalists or some other term that implies something along the lines of “slightly less admirable than what’s stuck to the bottom of my shoe after I stroll through the dog’s yard” is also being schismatic.
I think we all have a couple of mental pigeon holes something like these:
a- people who are wrong but in a way worthy of respect
b- people who are wrong in a way worthy only of contempt
But being over-quick to put folks in category b- doesn’t seem like a virtue to me, especially when you can argue against the perceived error just as effectively if you view it as a case of category a. (Usually more effectively because you will be slower to go ad hominem)
I’m just kind of musing here, but what if we were to interact with everybody we disagree with as though they were in category a, even if we feel they are in category b? What would that hurt? …especially where fellow believers are involved.
(We should not suffer fools gladly [2 Cor. somewhere] , but we also shouldn’t be quick to class our brethren as fools [in the sermon on the mount somehwere] )
That is, someone who has an unusual teaching about Bible preservation and declares those who disagree to be non-fundamentalists (or even nonChristians, enemies of Christ, etc. in some cases) can certainly be described as schismatic. But, by the same token, someone who looks at those who believe a particular translation has been miraculously preserved (in a way unique to that translation) and declares that they are false fundamentalists or some other term that implies something along the lines of “slightly less admirable than what’s stuck to the bottom of my shoe after I stroll through the dog’s yard” is also being schismatic.
I think we all have a couple of mental pigeon holes something like these:
a- people who are wrong but in a way worthy of respect
b- people who are wrong in a way worthy only of contempt
But being over-quick to put folks in category b- doesn’t seem like a virtue to me, especially when you can argue against the perceived error just as effectively if you view it as a case of category a. (Usually more effectively because you will be slower to go ad hominem)
I’m just kind of musing here, but what if we were to interact with everybody we disagree with as though they were in category a, even if we feel they are in category b? What would that hurt? …especially where fellow believers are involved.
(We should not suffer fools gladly [2 Cor. somewhere] , but we also shouldn’t be quick to class our brethren as fools [in the sermon on the mount somehwere] )
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jim Peet][Matthew Richards] where did Chappell earn his doctorate?BA—Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College
MA—Louisiana Baptist University
DD—Trinity Baptist College
From the school’s website - http://wcbc.edu/academics/faculty
There’s actually nothing to indicate whether Brother Chappell’s degree from Trinity was earned or honorary. I know that some schools in that branch of fundamentalism make no distinction. However, I was pleasantly surprised a few years ago when I saw a catalog from one such school that did.
Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39
[Rick Franklin][Jim Peet][Matthew Richards] where did Chappell earn his doctorate?BA—Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College
MA—Louisiana Baptist University
DD—Trinity Baptist College
From the school’s website - http://wcbc.edu/academics/faculty
There’s actually nothing to indicate whether Brother Chappell’s degree from Trinity was earned or honorary. I know that some schools in that branch of fundamentalism make no distinction. However, I was pleasantly surprised a few years ago when I saw a catalog from one such school that did.
[URL=http://www.dailyintheword.org/dr-paul-chappell] About Dr. Paul Chappell[/URL]
Sensing God’s call to ministry, Pastor Paul Chappell enrolled at the Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Pastoral Theology in 1983. While attending college, he founded and pastored the Seaside Baptist Church near Indio, California. He received a Master of Arts degree from the Baptist Christian University in Shreveport, Louisiana, and was later honored with a Doctor of Divinity Degree from Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1995.
The word ‘received’ seems a bit vague, but I’d say it’s safe to assume that his DD was honorary. I wonder… what criteria is normally used to give honorary degrees? I’ve looked into colleges myself that allow credit for life experience- ie my years as a homeschooling mom actually count at some colleges for credit towards the courses I’d need for re-certification… so I don’t object wholesale to honorary degrees, but I understand the concern about whether a degree is earned or proffered.
[Rick Franklin]Is there even such a thing as an earned Doctor of Divinity program?
There’s actually nothing to indicate whether Brother Chappell’s degree from Trinity was earned or honorary. I know that some schools in that branch of fundamentalism make no distinction. However, I was pleasantly surprised a few years ago when I saw a catalog from one such school that did.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Rick Franklin] There’s actually nothing to indicate whether Brother Chappell’s degree from Trinity was earned or honorary.Just checked [URL=http://www.tbc.edu/uploads/GradCatalog08-09.pdf] Trinity’s catalog[/URL] (2008-09 is what they have posted) and the only graduate degrees offered at that time were M. Ed. and M. Min.
Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39
I believer that by the very nature of the degree, a Doctor of Divinity (DD) is honorary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Divinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Divinity
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion