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.

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!

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.

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.

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.