Talk:Criswell College

Editing by the Criswell College
The edits are almost all made from an IP originating at the Criswell College. It sounds like an Advertisement because it is. Hungus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

sooo, unaccredited? 75.191.151.75 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is SACS accredited but it is on a warning: "Criswell College is accredited by the Commission on Colleges; however, the institution was denied reaffirmation of accreditation and placed on Warning for twelve months following its comprehensive decennial review. The Commission’s accreditation includes all components of the institution—all programs, branch campuses, off-campus sites, and distance learning programs as reported to the Commission; thus, the Warning status applies to the entire institution. Prior to the institution’s next review by the Commission’s Board in December 2011, a Special Committee will conduct an on-site evaluation of its compliance with the Principles of Accreditation—the accreditation standards of the Commission." - from http://www.sacscoc.org/2010%20December%20Actions%20and%20Disclosure%20Statements/Criswell%20College.pdf Downloaded 05/19/2011 Hungus (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not certain why users at Criswell College keep deleting the fact that the school is Dispensational, Dr. James Bryant, founding Dean of the school and writer of the Statement of Faith for the school always made it a point to let students know Dr. Criswell wanted it to be a Dispensational school when Dr. Bryant taught or spoke on the founding of the school. Hungus (talk • contribs) 10:28, 02 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrewhebert86 An Employee of the institution, continues to edit the institutional page in an effort to remove relevant sourced data about it. Hungus (talk • contribs) 14:02, 07 January 2012 (UTC)

There continues to be vandalism attempting to remove the Dispensational aspect of Criswell College, despite the evidence to the contrary as has been linked on the actual page. Interesting because one of the longest serving members of the faculty is quoted as saying "Every true exegete of Scripture is a dispensationalist" - Already linked on the main page. So why do other members of Criswell want to remove this important part of Criswell's founding and continued contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungus (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A user, Hungus, continues to falsely claim that the college is Dispensationalist in contradiction to the college's Articles of Faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelichordesummoner (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Angelichordesummoner is attempting to institute an edit fight. Evidence, as already linked, show that the institution was founded by a dispensational preacher, requires its staff be either dispensational or premillenial, and that its older faculty have clearly stated that they are dispensational. The description clearly states that the school is Premillenial / Dispensational, not Dispensational only. Further James Bryant, writer of the Criswell Articles of Faith, on a number of occasions has made statements that he wrote the articles to support dispensational belief, a position that both he and Dr. Criswell fully uphold. Hungus (talk)

A number of changes have been added by various editors over the past few days: Urban or Suburban There is obviously some dispute as to weither Criswell College is Urban or Suburban, the simple fact is that it is on the border. Criswell College editors in the past have claimed it as both and looking at arial maps shows it on the edge of urban environments and normal housing.

The issue of the validity of the Baptist as a source. It Should be noted that it is the denominational newsletter and a primary source for Baptist news.

The Schools Dispensational Nature: Congregation and Campus: Baptists in Higher Education by William H. Brackney p 373 "Our church should establish an institute for intensive Bible study, based on conservative evangelical Christianity as preached and practiced in our church" Criswell is noted for having taught Dispensationalism from the pulpit.

Further from the Southern Baptist Texan Online (the newsletter of the organization that helps sponsor The Criswell College) http://texanonline.net/news/qa-ot-scholar-responds-to-questions-on-premillennial-dispensationalism Q: Is dispensationalism the dominant view at Criswell College? A: Most of our younger faculty members have never really worked through this issue perhaps because of the lack of knowledge about it, so they have not embraced it. The older faculty?Leroy Metts, James Bryant and myself?hold various views, but would generally affirm some form of dispensational thought.

Mentioning that First Baptist Dallas passed a resolution to not separate the School for a minimum of 5 years was removed, even though that resolution was violated when the school separated in 2010. comment added by Hungus (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Further, Someone keeps removing the Dr. from Dr. James Bryant's name. While it is true that he did not hold a doctorate at the time of the Criswell College's founding, he does currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungus (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:CREDENTIAL for why the Dr. should not be there, regardless of whether the person has a doctorate. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispensationalist
I requested a better source for this with an inline tag. The only source now is to an interview with Lamar E. Cooper. He does not identify the college as Dispensationalist, though he does mention that he personally holds that view. See WP:SYNTH for a discussion on why extending that to the college on the basis of this reference is inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The question Cooper is asked is specifically about the school, he responds that he and the older faculty are dispensational, the others are premill, thus it is not synthesis. You can say it is a primary source, but not synthesis. Synthesis would be citing the school founding documents stating that the church would set up a school teaching christianity as christianity was taught by the church then citing the church was known as a dispensationalist church. --Hungus (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The question is "Is dispensationalism the dominant view at Criswell College?" This is a question about the views of the people associated with the college. Calling the college dispensational implies that it is an official view of the organization and is not supported by this reference. VQuakr (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So since you have deemed the schools statement of faith to require synthesis, the founding documents to be synthesis, the school president's comments to be non supporting I have to ask what would you like to see in the statement that the school is both Historic PreMil and Dispensational's place? Further, why have you not contested its Historic PreMil position? --Hungus (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Q: Is dispensationalism the dominant view at Criswell College? A: Most of our younger faculty members have never really worked through this issue perhaps because of the lack of knowledge about it, so they have not embraced it. The older faculty -- Leroy Metts, James Bryant and myself -- hold various views but would generally affirm some form of dispensational thought." note: at the time Cooper was the interim president at Criswell College.

Would you consider "Darby’s teachings, ubiquitous in his voluminous writings and through his many discourses, influenced some who would later prove instrumental in the founding of institutions of theological higher education. Philadelphia College of the Bible, Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, The Master’s Seminary, Chafer Theological Seminary, The Criswell College, and Emmaus Bible College—to mention only a few of the better known schools—all have theological roots in Darby." sufficiently clear as a secondary source for Criswell College being dispensational?

Why, if the sources for The Criswell College's dispensational side are being challenged, why is the Premillennial side not also being challenged? --Hungus (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hungus, the reason the Premillennial side is not being challenged is because Premillennialism is the officially stated position in the school's statement of faith. As you know, according to Premillennialism, Jesus will return to earth before the establishing of his millennial kingdom. As such, Premillennialism encompasses Dispensationalism but the two are not identical. I like to think about it in terms of two concentric circles. Dispensationalism is a smaller circle within the bigger circle of Premillenialism. Criswell's statement of faith states that the school's official position encompasses the larger circle. Some professors may fall within the smaller Dispensationalist circle but other professors may fall within another category of the larger circle of Premillenialism. In other words, labeling the school as Dispensationalist on the page is defining it two narrowly. The official position cannot be defined that narrowly based on the statement of faith. The statement of faith leaves it broad enough to encompass forms of Premillenialism that are not Dispensational. Angelichordesummoner (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Angelichordesummoner I know the schools SOF, I have studied it, I have spoken with its writer, heck I have even sat in on his class going through the SOF. The schools SOF has been ruled as requiring Synthesis and thus cannot be used to Show Historic Pre-mil either. The description as it currently states on the main page says that the school is BOTH Pre Mil and Dispensational, thus a union of the two. Not just Dispensational, and not Just Pre-mill. It might be better worded to say Historic Premill and Dispensational, you in your ignorance of the school have challenged its dispensational nature and thus likely thrown out its pre-mil side as well. Further Dispensationalism is not in the circle of Premillennialism it is a separate eschatological system entirely. It does share some items but there are substantial differences as do Amill and PostMill. To say Dispensationalism is a subset of PreMil would be to commit the same error as saying Amil is a subset of PostMil. Premil is Covenantal, Dispensationalism is well Dispensational. The school was established to teach christianity as was taught by First Baptist Dallas. Christianity taught by First Baptist Dallas under Dr. Criswell and later pastors was Dispensational. Hungus (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I need to point out to both of you that the only proper purpose of editing Wikipedia is to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not to grind an axe about a topic of particular interest to you. The talk page rule says, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." How we improve articles is to artfully include relevant material which is supported by publicly-available reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia. Either there are publicly-available reliable sources which say, without synthesis or original research, that the school is dispensational, premillennial, or — for all I know — anyotheral or there are not. If there are, find them and include the corresponding assertions and the citations which prove them, if there are not, then the assertions cannot be included here no matter how true or how necessary to a proper depiction of the school those assertions may be. That's the way Wikipedia is, and for you to continue to argue or edit war about whether it is or is not dispensational or premillennial is irrelevant and inappropriate.


 * As I was writing the foregoing, I found Hungus' most recent posting on my talk page, which says:"It is not unsourced, and the information is true. It may not be sourced to the point where the discussion is ended but that is unfortunately do to the available public sources an the inability to cite archival information because it has been blocked by the president's office at The Criswell College. Hungus (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)"It is unsourced for Wikipedia purposes (which are all that count here), unless there is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which can be cited. It does not make any difference whatsoever why no such source currently exists, if that is the case. That's because the standard to include information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth and it cannot be included until it can be verified with a Wikipedia-acceptable reliable source, . (While it is true that it does not have to be verifiable online, it does have to be verifiable in a publicly-available source somewhere that can be identified and accessed; see the verifiability policy for more detail on that question.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan First a bit of context your blockquote did not provide. It was specifically in relation to your closing of the discussion on the dispute resolution page without looking to the christianity noticeboard where another editor had requested support before the dispute board post had been opened. Yes, I know wikipedia is not about the truth. There are noted issues that we historians have noted in the language used by Dr Criswell and FBC Dallas in describing things. For example:  “Our church should establish an institute for intensive Bible study, based on conservative evangelical Christianity as preached and practiced in our church,” (Report of “Bible Institute” Committee, 1970, p. 2)." Now the position of FBC Dallas at the time is acknowledged as Dispensationalism, but that quote from the report does not say "we will found a dispensational school" so even though 'as preached and practiced refers to Dispensationalism' super editors have deemed that to be synthesis. Both can be sourced to the same organization (First Baptist Dallas) and the second is used to remove an inherent fuzziness in the first. So are you saying that the clarification of the first statement by the second is synthesis because the statement of the churches position is about the church and not the school even though it is the church's position which is the defining position in the establishment of the school? I know wikipedia says this about synthesis""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." or am I misreading this and what it is really saying is A&B ->C only if reported the same by a different source. I of course simply see it as "we shall create X to do things in our fashion." What is our fashion? "Y" so the new sentence becomes "We shall create X to do things in Y fashion" Is that synthesis by your reading? I am not trying to argue here, I am trying to sort things out --Hungus (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After writing a wall-o-text to answer your question, I re-read your question and realized that I could answer it in just a few words: Yes, you are misreading it and that is indeed synthesis (and it's not just my reading). However, having written the following exhaustive explanation, I am going to go ahead and leave it here for what it's worth, though I'm going to collapse it to save space.


 * Let's presume for the purpose of this discussion that it can be proven through publicly-available Wikipedia-defined reliable sources that FBCD is a dispensationalist church, that FBCD established CC to teach Christianity as practiced by FBCD, and that CC is now independent from FBCD. It is not permissible from those premises to assert that CC is now or was ever a dispensationalist institution. Why?
 * First, just because FBCD is a dispensationalist church, that does not necessarily mean that dispensationalism was one of the specific elements of Christianity that FBCD wanted CC to teach in particular. I'm sure that FBCD wanted CC to teach that Jesus was born of a virgin, too (as opposed to, for example, some Bible scholars who cast doubt on the historicity of the infancy narratives), but that's not an important enough element of their Christian beliefs to label CC a "virgin birthian" institution. Even if it could be shown through such sources that dispensationalism was an extremely important part of FBCD's elements of faith, you would still have to presume that it was important enough to be one of the things that CC was to teach in order to say that CC was a dispensationalist institution. Such presumptions are prohibited by Wikipedia's policy. Indeed, for that same reason (and also for reasons of undue weight, a different Wikipedia policy) it would not even be permissible to assert in the article that "CC was originally founded by FBCD, a dispensationalist church, to teach Christianity as practiced by FBCD."
 * Second, just because someone intends something to happen doesn't mean that it does; a person may want, intend, and strive towards their child to become a Christian, but that doesn't mean that it will happen either while their child is a minor or an adult.
 * Third (at least for the "is now" part), even if CC was established as a dispensationalist institution, now that it is independent of its parent it may no longer be such, so to label it as such is impermissible.
 * At the end of the day, if any logic, reasoning, or combining of facts is needed to prove an assertion, or presumptions must be made to fill in missing facts, then that is prohibited original research or synthesis. When Wikipedia says that "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" it does not mean that if there is a reliable source which says A and a reliable source which says B that you can say 'A and B, therefore C'; the rule at the beginning of that paragraph still applies: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." All the language that you're quoting is intended to mean is that if there is a single reliable source which argues 'A and B, therefore C' that it is acceptable to use that single reliable source to assert that the argument has been made.


 * Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Progressively negative
I am worried that the page is becoming progressively negative. I would more than welcome Dr. Jerry Johnson to appoint someone from the College to work with me to help correct this. The school has done some enormously good things over the years and such should be included but will likely only be able to be sourced from the schools archives. Examples include: For years students spent their Friday nights in Deep Elum evangelizing and answering questions on the streets. Further, I know that there have been a number of other organizations that have been assisted by Criswell students such as a suicide prevention hotline and the homeless shelter that is run by First Baptist Dallas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungus (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the talk page, or the article itself? No special appointments are needed to change the tone of a talk page - just be cordially invite others to communicate civilly and set a strong example if the behavior you want to see. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean the page, not the talk page. Had I mean the talk page I would have said 'this' page. Regardless, given that the only factual edits to the Criswell College page over the past few years have originated from either myself or members of Dr. Johnson's staff and given that Dr. Johnson has access to the Criswell archives and school documents that could be used to source improvements I feel the request that his office appoint someone to assist is appropriate. --Hungus (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criswell College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113093247/http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=24520 to http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=24520

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)