# Do believe a Pastor "needs" or "should" go to seminary?



## T.A.G.

If one has an undergrad from a very solid college in biblical studies (including a yr of greek and hebrew) do you believe that person should still go to seminary if he as well as others feel he is ready to pastor now? 

I am finding that if you have a ba that means youth pastor in the sbc and mdiv means pastor or ass. pastor. And oh how I can stand the "youth pastor" job.


----------



## Notthemama1984

It is a little different for Presbyterian denoms vs. SBC. If you were in a Presbyterian denom I would say as long as you can pass the exams, I don't really care what your educational background is. 

Also I grew up in the SBC and none of my pastors had an MDiv. I would imagine the MDiv is a given for larger congregations, but most of the smaller ones would love for you to have a BA.


----------



## JML

To be a pastor, one needs the knowledge necessary to be apt to teach and convince the gainsayers. Is Seminary necessary for this? Maybe, maybe not. If it helps you gain the necessary knowledge, go for it. If you can be mentored by another elder or group of elders who can teach that knowledge, go for it. The "Degree" is not what is important, it is the knowledge. The "degree" has become a safety net for churches and in some senses a bad one. Sometimes, it overrides the need of a man to prove himself. Because they say there is no need, after all, he has a seminary degree. It is unfortunate that a seminary degree has become a prerequisite to the pastorate in a lot of places. This, in my opinion, is unbiblical. Nowhere in the Scriptures is is required for a pastor to have a "formal" education from a Seminary. Instead, the example we have are elders training up other elders within the context of the local church. Is it therefore wrong to go to seminary? To me it depends on the motive. If you are going just as a help to gain knowledge, it is a good thing. A lot of men, however, go out of pride (not saying you are). After all, it looks really cool to have a ton of initials after your name. Unfortunately, churches have become good at requiring certain things out of a potential pastor that are completely unbiblical to require (MDIV, PHD, DD, married, X years of experience, etc.) 

So, to answer your question. Do whatever you can to gain the knowledge necessary for the pastorate. If you feel like you need to go get an MDIV to do that, go right ahead. But I would not feel required to do so.


----------



## Jack K

"Needs to"? "Should"? Depends on the situation. But if you're still young and able to go to seminary, and especially if your calling to be a pastor is confirmed by people who say you're ready now, then I think you'd be wise to go to seminary.

Pick a good one where the training will truly be supurb and will give you more training than you have already, and take this opportunity to go. It will open up many more opportunities in the future, and makes you better prepared for yet unknown situations.


----------



## MLCOPE2

yes.


----------



## Herald

More and more I'm gravitating to non-traditional education as a means of preparing for pastoral ministry. I like how MWCTS operates; distance learning in theological studies while being mentored by the pastor/elders. The student is gaining academic and real ministry experience at the same time. Also, the education is under the authority and guidance of the local church. I'm not saying this is the _only _method of educating. Situations do occur where it is better for the student to attend a brick and mortar school. There is no _best _option, although I believe it is preferable for the local church to have involvement in training of ministers.


----------



## seajayrice

Do you think a medical doctor should go to medical school?


----------



## Herald

seajayrice said:


> Do you think a medical doctor should go to medical school?



And what does this question have to do with training for the ministry? Apples and oranges.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Herald said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a medical doctor should go to medical school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does this question have to do with training for the ministry? Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

 
Quite. We do not find guidance as to the training of doctors in the Word of God, but we DO for pastors/elders.

My answer to this (oft asked) question is - From my perspective, if I could, I would. I have done a part time seminary course but I would have loved to have had some full time, and especially language, study. But no, it is not neccessary. A presbyterian pastor friend of mine who has an M.Div and is also doing an M.Th now, advises me that apart from the languages, given my current level of practical experience and knowledge, I would be very bored on large parts of an M.Div course. (He attended one of the seminaries most recommended on the PB).


----------



## Rich Koster

The whole of the issue is having reliable, Biblically qualified and gifted men. If a man is trained up in the local church, a long term mission or a seminary, he is qualified by who he is, not what a piece of paper states. I believe the best ones to determine who is called, gifted and ready are those already serving as pastors. One thing that I find troubling is seeing a young pastor struggling financially because of the debt they racked up by going to seminary. I also believe that a pastor should be paid according to a formula based on the congregation's income, not some pay scale according to degrees. A friend of mine in the SBC was basically treated like dirt because he didn't have a MDiv. degree. If the committees that interviewed him actually knew the man, they may have had bidding wars to see who could get him. This is just a rant by someone who has seen problems with some of the policies and practices of American Christians, so take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It depends. I think I believed I had a pretty good grasp of many things before I took seminary classes but seminary has taken me to some depths I had not expected as well as a time of reflection.

I really think the "get a degree and then get a call" model is flawed. Leadership, piety, and prudence take some time to develop. The reason I would wince at the idea of a BA only approach is mainly because I wince at the idea of a 22 year old Pastor (extraordinary exceptions aside). Frankly, a man in his mid-twenties doesn't make me much more comfortable. It's not a hard and fast rule but education is but one aspect of a minister's call (an important one) but I wouldn't want to be taking any shortcuts to get men in Pastorates any faster than some get into them today.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Herald said:


> I believe it is preferable for the local church to have involvement in training of ministers.





Yes, I believe I've read about this approach some where.


----------



## lynnie

My pastor went to WTS, but what really appeals to me is not what he studied years ago, but the fact that he is constantly reading now, and listening to good CDs. He also has a strong, steady, personal devotional life ( as does his wife). He has been in situations recently with many very discouraged and burned out pastors, and they want to know why he has joy and is still going strong, and he says he tells them it comes back to the basics- read the bible and pray, every day; seek God all the time. I want a pastor that has a lifetime habit of bible, prayer, and reading good books. I could care less if he got a BA or an MDiv or a ThM.


----------



## Andres

Joshua said:


> A pastor should be well-trained, well-educated, and well-vetted by a well-trained, well-educated, and godly Presbytery. That doesn't necessarily always mean seminary _proper_, but often does. What's more important is that a Presbytery well vets men coming out of seminary for good doctrine, godly piety, etc.


----------



## SolaScriptura

In principle, I suppose I am compelled to say that it is not necessary for a man to have successfully completed academic preparation for the ministry at a Seminary.

In practice, I think that only a seminary can realistically bring together the group of instructors with the breadth and depth and diversity of thought (within confessional conformity) necessary to properly provide a man with the academic training needed.


----------



## KMK

seajayrice said:


> Do you think a medical doctor should go to medical school?


 
If seminaries were under reliable guidelines and accountability like medical schools are, then I would say pastors should go to seminary. Unfortunately, statistics show that more than have of seminary students do not even believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.


----------



## SolaScriptura

KMK said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a medical doctor should go to medical school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If seminaries were under reliable guidelines and accountability like medical schools are, then I would say pastors should go to seminary. Unfortunately, statistics show that more than have of seminary students do not even believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Click to expand...

 
... and according to an article cited in a recent thread... some seminarians don't even write their own papers!


----------



## JOwen

Did Luke?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think a medical doctor should go to medical school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If seminaries were under reliable guidelines and accountability like medical schools are, then I would say pastors should go to seminary. Unfortunately, statistics show that more than have of seminary students do not even believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Click to expand...


Hence, the oversight of the local church. One aspect of ministerial preparation is observing whether a man is called to such office. A student can go through seminary and graduate with a 4.0 and be no more qualified to shepherd a flock than a blind man is qualified to drive a car. Pastoral gifts are _as _important as mastering Greek declensions. After all, pastoring is shepherding. If a pastoral candidate is under the observation of his elders and demonstrates proper pastoral skills, fine. But if he is short of temper, overly sarcastic, unreliable, undisciplined etc., then he may not be a worthy candidate for pastoral ministry. Seminaries are not necessarily the best judges of Christian character. Again, this doesn't mean seminaries don't serve a purpose or that each local church is set up to provide the necessary training. If local churches took their responsibility seriously there would be more men being trained locally. There is much work to be done in this area.


----------



## KMK

SolaScriptura said:


> In principle, I suppose I am compelled to say that it is not necessary for a man to have successfully completed academic preparation for the ministry at a Seminary.
> 
> In practice, I think that *only* a seminary can realistically bring together the group of instructors with the breadth and depth and diversity of thought (within confessional conformity) necessary to properly provide a man with the academic training needed.


 
I think 'ordinarily in our society' would be more precise word than 'only'. There were no seminaries in the early church and there are many places in the world where seminaries do not and could not exist.


----------



## AThornquist

Herald said:


> More and more I'm gravitating to non-traditional education as a means of preparing for pastoral ministry. I like how MWCTS operates; distance learning in theological studies while being mentored by the pastor/elders. The student is gaining academic and real ministry experience at the same time. Also, the education is under the authority and guidance of the local church. I'm not saying this is the _only _method of educating. Situations do occur where it is better for the student to attend a brick and mortar school. There is no _best _option, although I believe it is preferable for the local church to have involvement in training of ministers.


 

MCTS is the real deal. It offers both distance and on-site education. I've been here since August and have grown tremendously, both from classes and from personal interaction with the pastors. For example, every 1st and 3rd Saturday there is scheduled pastoral mentoring (though there is spontaneous mentoring throughout the week), where students have the opportunity to preach and receive constructive criticism, outline passages with a view to future preaching, receive instruction on pastoral ministry, and consider matters of the church. Today we dealt with music in the church: it's purpose, the consideration of instrumentation, etc. There are also Table Talks scheduled each month in which the pastors teach the men of the church, though primarily the MCTS students, about pressing issues within our faith; for instance, next weekend is Table Talk and Pastor Sam will discuss the Family Integrated Church movement. Opportunities like this abound, and are beside the actual classes. It's been a wonderful experience so far, and a real answer to prayer. And of course, that is only the MCTS portion, whereas our church (Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY) is a true blessing in itself; it is extremely conducive to growth in the things of and love for the Lord.

So, "should" a pastor go to seminary? Not necessarily. However, a seminary out of the local church is a biblical and helpful model for pastoral education. I am extremely grateful to be a part of it. There is accountability here that is simply not possible in many circumstances, and the pastors won't recommend a student to be a minister unless he is qualified. Praise God.


----------



## Damon Rambo

A person needs to either go to a Seminary, or be in a very in-depth discipleship program with a very knowledgeable, well trained Pastor, for a minimum of three years. If you had a Bachelor of Divinity or Theology that might be different, but just a BA degree (of which much has nothing to do with the Bible, I am sure)? Definitely need more training.


----------



## Herald

Damon Rambo said:


> A person needs to either go to a Seminary, or be in a very in-depth discipleship program with a very knowledgeable, well trained Pastor, for a minimum of three years.



How about 2.96 years, or does it need to be the full three?


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person needs to either go to a Seminary, or be in a very in-depth discipleship program with a very knowledgeable, well trained Pastor, for a minimum of three years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about 2.96 years, or does it need to be the full three?
Click to expand...


Depends on the pastor.

---------- Post added at 07:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------




lynnie said:


> I want a pastor that has a lifetime habit of bible, prayer, and reading good books. I could care less if he got a BA or an MDiv or a ThM.


 
I'd take (and want) both.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Originally Posted by Herald
> Originally Posted by Damon Rambo
> A person needs to either go to a Seminary, or be in a very in-depth discipleship program with a very knowledgeable, well trained Pastor, for a minimum of three years.
> How about 2.96 years, or does it need to be the full three?
> Depends on the pastor.



Well, since we're grading on a curve why not 2.4 years or 1.8?


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Well, since we're grading on a curve why not 2.4 years or 1.8?


 
I'm not talking about a period of time. I'm talking about a person being formally trained and who has a rich devotional life AND is still interested in learning. Not just in the Bible or theology, but about everything in life. What is read and studied by such an individual will depend on interest and intellect.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we're grading on a curve why not 2.4 years or 1.8?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about a period of time. I'm talking about a person being formally trained and who has a rich devotional life AND is still interested in learning. Not just in the Bible or theology, but about everything in life. What is read and studied by such an individual will depend on interest and intellect.
Click to expand...

 
Ivan, I agree. I was just taking the opportunity to poke holes in the argument that a certain period of time is needed to determine whether a person is properly qualified to be a minister of the Gospel. I mean, if it's going to be three years, why not four? Five? Eight?


----------



## jawyman

According to the OPC BOC, CHAPTER XXI

LICENSING CANDIDATES TO PREACH THE GOSPEL

3. It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. *The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary.*

Based on our BOC, a man does not need to have an M.Div, but it is certainly desirable for him to have one.


----------



## JML

jawyman said:


> According to the OPC BOC, CHAPTER XXI
> 
> LICENSING CANDIDATES TO PREACH THE GOSPEL
> 
> 3. It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. *The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary.*
> 
> Based on our BOC, a man does not need to have an M.Div, but it is certainly desirable for him to have one.


 
I understand why they have this, because they don't want a "weak or ignorant man" but, respectfully, it is completely unbiblical to *REQUIRE* 1 year and a half of seminary much less a BA. Otherwise, every preacher in the Bible was unqualified. God has given us the requirements for a pastor. This also would be almost impossible for a man in a 3rd world country. I know that you did not make the rule, so I am not directing any of this toward you but the OPC is wrong.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since we're grading on a curve why not 2.4 years or 1.8?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about a period of time. I'm talking about a person being formally trained and who has a rich devotional life AND is still interested in learning. Not just in the Bible or theology, but about everything in life. What is read and studied by such an individual will depend on interest and intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ivan, I agree. I was just taking the opportunity to poke holes in the argument that a certain period of time is needed to determine whether a person is properly qualified to be a minister of the Gospel. I mean, if it's going to be three years, why not four? Five? Eight?
Click to expand...


I've been ordained for 27 years and I hope I never stop learning.


----------



## Andres

John Lanier said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the OPC BOC, CHAPTER XXI
> 
> LICENSING CANDIDATES TO PREACH THE GOSPEL
> 
> 3. It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. *The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary.*
> 
> Based on our BOC, a man does not need to have an M.Div, but it is certainly desirable for him to have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why they have this, because they don't want a "weak or ignorant man" but, respectfully, *it is completely unbiblical to REQUIRE 1 year and a half of seminary much less a BA. Otherwise, every preacher in the Bible was unqualified.* God has given us the requirements for a pastor. This also would be almost impossible for a man in a 3rd world country. I know that you did not make the rule, so I am not directing any of this toward you but the OPC is wrong.
Click to expand...

 
Isn't that argument that nobody in the bible went to seminary kinda flawed? I mean, there were no seminaries, so it was impossible for anyone to go. On the other hand, I do find verses like this:

"_And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions._" Luke 2:43-46

Sounds like Jesus received a formal education to me. 

And here is what Paul says about himself in Acts 22:3 "_I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers_..." 

If that ain't seminary brother, I don't know what is.


----------



## Damon Rambo

John Lanier said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the OPC BOC, CHAPTER XXI
> 
> LICENSING CANDIDATES TO PREACH THE GOSPEL
> 
> 3. It is highly reproachful to religion and dangerous to the church to entrust the preaching of the gospel to weak and ignorant men. *The presbytery shall therefore license a candidate only if he has received a bachelor of arts degree, or its academic equivalent, from a college or university of reputable academic standing, and has completed an adequate course of study lasting at least one year and a half in a theological seminary.*
> 
> Based on our BOC, a man does not need to have an M.Div, but it is certainly desirable for him to have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why they have this, because they don't want a "weak or ignorant man" but, respectfully, it is completely unbiblical to *REQUIRE* 1 year and a half of seminary much less a BA. Otherwise, every preacher in the Bible was unqualified. God has given us the requirements for a pastor. This also would be almost impossible for a man in a 3rd world country. I know that you did not make the rule, so I am not directing any of this toward you but the OPC is wrong.
Click to expand...

 
I beg to differ. All of the preachers in the New Testament underwent extensive years of training. But the training method at this time was an apprenticeship program. Jesus' apostles followed him around and learned from Him for three years before He turned them loose. And before you try to equate that to just serving along a pastor at a local church, remember that this was intense discipleship. They ate, slept, and talked with each 24/7 (other than short excursions Jesus took, or "assignments" that He gave them). These guys, all of them underwent intense theological training.

That is not how we instruct people anymore. If you found a pastor who was willing to have you follow him around 24/7, talking and learning about the scriptures, ministry, etc., for the next three years, then that wouldd be sufficient. Otherwise, multiple teachers are needed, in an environment where you undergo intense periods of learning...i.e. Seminary.


----------



## AThornquist

Andres said:


> Isn't that argument that nobody in the bible went to seminary kinda flawed? I mean, there were no seminaries, so it was impossible for anyone to go. On the other hand, I do find verses like this:
> 
> "_And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions._" Luke 2:43-46
> 
> Sounds like Jesus received a formal education to me.
> 
> And here is what Paul says about himself in Acts 22:3 "_I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers_..."
> 
> If that ain't seminary brother, I don't know what is.


 

The example of Christ sitting with the elders is much more equivalent to training within the local church, not sending men out to some outside institution. And Paul's education under Gamaliel was to be a _Pharisee_. There might be a parallel in that case depending on the institution, but I'm not sure if that's a good example for training men for the Christian ministry. It's an awful stretch.

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> That is not how we instruct people anymore. If you found a pastor who was willing to have you follow him around 24/7, talking and learning about the scriptures, ministry, etc., for the next three years, then that wouldd be sufficient. Otherwise, multiple teachers are needed, in an environment where you undergo intense periods of learning...i.e. Seminary.


 

Wow. People in seminary follow their professors around 24/7 to be trained for the ministry? And if not, how do you make the leap from following a pastor 24/7 to going to a brick and mortar school where you learn from men you may hardly know personally? Find me in Scripture where one must have this "intense period of learning" and I will gladly grant the point. The fact of the matter is that Scripture _does say_ what is required of an elder, so if a men is qualified by _those_ standards, he ought not have more required of him. Did he go to seminary to be qualified? Great. Was he trained in the local church to be qualified? Wonderful. Is he qualified because of years of personal study and being active in serving the local body? Praise God. 

So often people talk about how the church is not a business, but this non-biblical "requirement" sure doesn't demonstrate that we all heed that sentiment; surely, we don't need to add our own standards when God has clearly communicated what he desires for leaders of _His_ church.


----------



## Andres

AThornquist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that argument that nobody in the bible went to seminary kinda flawed? I mean, there were no seminaries, so it was impossible for anyone to go. On the other hand, I do find verses like this:
> 
> "_And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions._" Luke 2:43-46
> 
> Sounds like Jesus received a formal education to me.
> 
> And here is what Paul says about himself in Acts 22:3 "_I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers_..."
> 
> If that ain't seminary brother, I don't know what is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The example of Christ sitting with the elders is much more equivalent to training within the local church, not sending men out to some outside institution. And Paul's education under Gamaliel was to be a _Pharisee_. There might be a parallel in that case depending on the institution, but I'm not sure if that's a good example for training men for the Christian ministry. It's an awful stretch.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how we instruct people anymore. If you found a pastor who was willing to have you follow him around 24/7, talking and learning about the scriptures, ministry, etc., for the next three years, then that wouldd be sufficient. Otherwise, multiple teachers are needed, in an environment where you undergo intense periods of learning...i.e. Seminary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. People in seminary follow their professors around 24/7 to be trained for the ministry? And if not, how do you make the leap from following a pastor 24/7 to going to a brick and mortar school where you learn from men you may hardly know personally? Find me in Scripture where one must have this "intense period of learning" and I will gladly grant the point. The fact of the matter is that Scripture _does say_ what is required of an elder, so if a men is qualified by _those_ standards, he ought not have more required of him. Did he go to seminary to be qualified? Great. Was he trained in the local church to be qualified? Wonderful. Is he qualified because of years of personal study and being active in serving the local body? Praise God.
> 
> So often people talk about how the church is not a business, but this non-biblical "requirement" sure doesn't demonstrate that we all heed that sentiment; surely, we don't need to add our own standards when God has clearly communicated what he desires for leaders of _His_ church.
Click to expand...

 
Good points, but isn't it a bit ironic that all this from a man away at seminary?


----------



## AThornquist

Andres said:


> Good points, but isn't it a bit ironic that all this from a man away at seminary?


 

Actually, it's a seminary _under the oversight of a local church_, which I am a member of. The pastoral mentoring is direct and in living color, which is in agreement with the statements I made. This is by no means a "requirement" in my pursuit of the ministry, but this model of discipleship is exactly what I want to be trained under and what is most conducive to my spiritual growth. If this were not the case, I would certainly agree that my statements would be quite ironic. 

And I hope you are having a delightful Lord's day, brother.


----------



## Andres

AThornquist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points, but isn't it a bit ironic that all this from a man away at seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's a seminary _under the oversight of a local church_, which I am a member of. The pastoral mentoring is direct and in living color, which is in agreement with the statements I made. This is by no means a "requirement" in my pursuit of the ministry, but this model of discipleship is exactly what I want to be trained under and what is most conducive to my spiritual growth. If this were not the case, I would certainly agree that my statements would be quite ironic.
> 
> And I hope you are having a delightful Lord's day, brother.
Click to expand...

 
I am indeed and it brings me great joy to hear of your training and preparation for the gospel ministry.


----------



## TomVols

Get all the formal education/preparation you can from a solid seminary. I know D.Min grads who are bivocational right now. It is what it is. I am similar to you in that I had a seminary education on the undergraduate level. But I still went on. It's just expected. Remember that in the old days, the pastor was the most educated person in town. Why has this standard gotten lower as we've gotten more modern?

Get all you can while you can. It gets harder as you get older and the responsibilities of life and ministry get deeper. Get the best you can get, and get the most of it you can.


----------



## Herald

AThornquist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points, but isn't it a bit ironic that all this from a man away at seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's a seminary _under the oversight of a local church_, which I am a member of. The pastoral mentoring is direct and in living color, which is in agreement with the statements I made. This is by no means a "requirement" in my pursuit of the ministry, but this model of discipleship is exactly what I want to be trained under and what is most conducive to my spiritual growth. If this were not the case, I would certainly agree that my statements would be quite ironic.
> 
> And I hope you are having a delightful Lord's day, brother.
Click to expand...


Andrew, from what I know of MWCTS you are attending a wonderful school that is committed to the local church.


----------



## Damon Rambo

AThornquist said:


> Wow. People in seminary follow their professors around 24/7 to be trained for the ministry? And if not, how do you make the leap from following a pastor 24/7 to going to a brick and mortar school where you learn from men you may hardly know personally? Find me in Scripture where one must have this "intense period of learning" and I will gladly grant the point. The fact of the matter is that Scripture _does say_ what is required of an elder, so if a men is qualified by _those_ standards, he ought not have more required of him. Did he go to seminary to be qualified? Great. Was he trained in the local church to be qualified? Wonderful. Is he qualified because of years of personal study and being active in serving the local body? Praise God.
> 
> So often people talk about how the church is not a business, but this non-biblical "requirement" sure doesn't demonstrate that we all heed that sentiment; surely, we don't need to add our own standards when God has clearly communicated what he desires for leaders of _His_ church.


 
You obviously did not actually engage with what I read. In the first century, with a single instructor, the disciples did indeed spend almost all of their time with their instructor. There is no way hanging out with your pastor/elder for a few hours a week can match that.

Seminary, however, can approach this same level of intensity, since various men of God are all investing time and energy into your training. Talking with your pastor at IHOP over pancakes, does not equate to the same level of study as having to write a 40 page paper defending the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, or the virgin birth, etc. 

The Biblical requirements for eldership includes that they are able to teach. This demands knowledge. One cannot teach, without first receiving knowledge. Moreover, in order for a teacher to teach someone (on a regular basis), that person must presumably know less than the person giving instruction. Else the teacher/student rolls should be reversed.

The idea that a person is qualified because of "years of self study" is a quite unbiblical idea. It is gifted teachers and elders that instruct in Christ's church. Instruction requires discussion, debate, correction, and a host of other things one cannot and does not get through "self study." The views you have expressed here sound more like something from the modern Charismatic movement, than what would come from the mouth a reformed individual.

As far as the Biblical requirement goes, we see that, again, a person must be able to teach, and therefore must be more knowledgeable on the subject being taught than the ones being instructed. The bible may be _somewhat_ silent on exact methodology, but it is by no means silent on intensity. All of the disciples received the equivalent of a seminary level education. They were instructed, directly, by the King of Kings for 3 plus years. And this was AFTER they had already undergone training as Jewish young men, and knew the Old Testament. It should not even be considered, then, that any man be an elder that has not engaged at least 3 years of intense study from SOMEBODY (not self study), whether that be a seminary, or an extremely aggressive and intense apprenticeship program through a local church (not just hanging out at coffee shops, and talking about football!).


----------



## passingpilgrim

When possible I think seminary is the best option. My experience there taught me two valuable things: 1. What I do believe 2. What I don't believe. Seminary was an important time of reflection and grounding for me. But that may not always be the case for others. I have heard some refer to their time in seminary as "cemetery" meaning how it was spiritually draining and void of life for them. For me, I learned the value of true biblical teaching and mentoring. I think choosing the right seminary and making sure that this is something that God wants you to do (prayer and lots of it) is crucial.


----------



## AThornquist

Damon Rambo said:


> You obviously did not actually engage with what I read. In the first century, with a single instructor, the disciples did indeed spend almost all of their time with their instructor. There is no way hanging out with your pastor/elder for a few hours a week can match that.
> 
> Seminary, however, can approach this same level of intensity, since various men of God are all investing time and energy into your training. Talking with your pastor at IHOP over pancakes, does not equate to the same level of study as having to write a 40 page paper defending the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, or the virgin birth, etc.
> 
> The Biblical requirements for eldership includes that they are able to teach. This demands knowledge. One cannot teach, without first receiving knowledge. Moreover, in order for a teacher to teach someone (on a regular basis), that person must presumably know less than the person giving instruction. Else the teacher/student rolls should be reversed.
> 
> The idea that a person is qualified because of "years of self study" is a quite unbiblical idea. It is gifted teachers and elders that instruct in Christ's church. Instruction requires discussion, debate, correction, and a host of other things one cannot and does not get through "self study." The views you have expressed here sound more like something from the modern Charismatic movement, than what would come from the mouth a reformed individual.
> 
> As far as the Biblical requirement goes, we see that, again, a person must be able to teach, and therefore must be more knowledgeable on the subject being taught than the ones being instructed. The bible may be _somewhat_ silent on exact methodology, but it is by no means silent on intensity. All of the disciples received the equivalent of a seminary level education. They were instructed, directly, by the King of Kings for 3 plus years. And this was AFTER they had already undergone training as Jewish young men, and knew the Old Testament. It should not even be considered, then, that any man be an elder that has not engaged at least 3 years of intense study from SOMEBODY (not self study), whether that be a seminary, or an extremely aggressive and intense apprenticeship program through a local church (not just hanging out at coffee shops, and talking about football!).




Let me preface this post by reiterating what I have already said: I am not against seminaries. What I am against is requiring a seminary degree on top of the biblical requirements for a pastor. With that said, saying that going to seminary is practically equivalent to spending three years with Jesus is hilarious, Damon.

Here are a few responses with bullet-points for ease of response.

1) You degrade the purpose and potential of the local church by equating training from one's pastor with merely going to IHOP for pancakes (of course, you state in your last paragraph that an "extremely aggressive and intense apprenticeship program" through a church might suffice, although that in itself is a fallacy. See #5).

2) You imply that one can only write a thorough "40 page paper defending the Doctrine of Substitutionary atone or the virgin birth" if he is in seminary. There are obviously more ways to do that than just going to seminary.

3) You imply that seminary is a requirement because "the teacher must know more than the student." You apparently don't think one can find much wisdom from books and other material, even when guided by one's pastor. Do you really think Paul had *seminary* in mind when he said that an elder "must be able to teach"? The biblical requirement is one of _ability_, not a specific form of training _in order_ to be able to teach.

4) You take issue with the fact that I said that a man can have adequate knowledge from years of self-study but conveniently left out where I included involvement in the local church. Besides, you are denying that one is able to learn adequately from studying the Word and the writings from men of God, which is really quite strange considering that people in seminary learn much from their _reading_ and virtually anything that can be lectured on in seminary can be written in a book or provided in another format. The influence of godly men on your life is vital, but if we have to send people to seminary to get that, there is something hideously wrong with our local churches.

5) You are drawing your argument for "intense study" from passages that are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Scripture _never_ says that a potential pastor's training must be as intense as walking with Jesus for three years. How about we add some more rules from the descriptions, like only tax-collectors and fishermen and future apostates can be pastoral students? And if you extended a discipleship program out to 6 years instead of 3, it wouldn't be nearly as aggressive or intense. Would that make it inadequate? 

Let a man be considered qualified if he squares with _Scripture alone_, whether he went to seminary or was trained in the local church.


----------



## Damon Rambo

AThornquist said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously did not actually engage with what I read. In the first century, with a single instructor, the disciples did indeed spend almost all of their time with their instructor. There is no way hanging out with your pastor/elder for a few hours a week can match that.
> 
> Seminary, however, can approach this same level of intensity, since various men of God are all investing time and energy into your training. Talking with your pastor at IHOP over pancakes, does not equate to the same level of study as having to write a 40 page paper defending the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, or the virgin birth, etc.
> 
> The Biblical requirements for eldership includes that they are able to teach. This demands knowledge. One cannot teach, without first receiving knowledge. Moreover, in order for a teacher to teach someone (on a regular basis), that person must presumably know less than the person giving instruction. Else the teacher/student rolls should be reversed.
> 
> The idea that a person is qualified because of "years of self study" is a quite unbiblical idea. It is gifted teachers and elders that instruct in Christ's church. Instruction requires discussion, debate, correction, and a host of other things one cannot and does not get through "self study." The views you have expressed here sound more like something from the modern Charismatic movement, than what would come from the mouth a reformed individual.
> 
> As far as the Biblical requirement goes, we see that, again, a person must be able to teach, and therefore must be more knowledgeable on the subject being taught than the ones being instructed. The bible may be _somewhat_ silent on exact methodology, but it is by no means silent on intensity. All of the disciples received the equivalent of a seminary level education. They were instructed, directly, by the King of Kings for 3 plus years. And this was AFTER they had already undergone training as Jewish young men, and knew the Old Testament. It should not even be considered, then, that any man be an elder that has not engaged at least 3 years of intense study from SOMEBODY (not self study), whether that be a seminary, or an extremely aggressive and intense apprenticeship program through a local church (not just hanging out at coffee shops, and talking about football!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me preface this post by reiterating what I have already said: I am not against seminaries. What I am against is requiring a seminary degree on top of the biblical requirements for a pastor. With that said, saying that going to seminary is practically equivalent to spending three years with Jesus is hilarious, Damon.
> 
> Here are a few responses with bullet-points for ease of response.
> 
> 1) You degrade the purpose and potential of the local church by equating training from one's pastor with merely going to IHOP for pancakes (of course, you state in your last paragraph that an "extremely aggressive and intense apprenticeship program" through a church might suffice, although that in itself is a fallacy. See #5).
> 
> 2) You imply that one can only write a thorough "40 page paper defending the Doctrine of Substitutionary atone or the virgin birth" if he is in seminary. There are obviously more ways to do that than just going to seminary.
> 
> 3) You imply that seminary is a requirement because "the teacher must know more than the student." You apparently don't think one can find much wisdom from books and other material, even when guided by one's pastor. Do you really think Paul had *seminary* in mind when he said that an elder "must be able to teach"? The biblical requirement is one of _ability_, not a specific form of training _in order_ to be able to teach.
> 
> 4) You take issue with the fact that I said that a man can have adequate knowledge from years of self-study but conveniently left out where I included involvement in the local church. Besides, you are denying that one is able to learn adequately from studying the Word and the writings from men of God, which is really quite strange considering that people in seminary learn much from their _reading_ and virtually anything that can be lectured on in seminary can be written in a book or provided in another format. The influence of godly men on your life is vital, but if we have to send people to seminary to get that, there is something hideously wrong with our local churches.
> 
> 5) You are drawing your argument for "intense study" from passages that are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Scripture _never_ says that a potential pastor's training must be as intense as walking with Jesus for three years. How about we add some more rules from the descriptions, like only tax-collectors and fishermen and future apostates can be pastoral students? And if you extended a discipleship program out to 6 years instead of 3, it wouldn't be nearly as aggressive or intense. Would that make it inadequate?
> 
> Let a man be considered qualified if he squares with _Scripture alone_, whether he went to seminary or was trained in the local church.
Click to expand...

 
First,

No, I do not think Seminary equates to spending three years with Jesus. No amount of training could equate to that level of instruction, which just goes to show how high the bar is set.

Second, are you advocating NO knowledge and NO training for the person going into ministry? If not, then might I suggest that the Biblical examples we see in the New Testament, are a much better guide to what should be the requirement than what you or I THINK it should be. The only information we have to pull from, is what Jesus, the apostles and the early church actually did, which in my mind, is a pretty good guide.

Third,

Whether "able to teach" refers to innate ability or instruction and preparation, is answered by the other set of instructions regarding pastors from Titus...

Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 

Notice three things. It says the trustworthy word "as taught." He must be trained, in order to give instruction in sound doctrine and have the ability to rebuke those who contradict it. These are skills and knowledge that is to be imparted by the men of God over you.

As far as reading and such, I have no problem, of course, with self study. But that is far and away different than saying self, uninstructed, unguided training is sufficient for the ministry.


----------



## AThornquist

If we are to go by the example of the New Testament, then training for the ministry ought to be done in the local church, not a seminary. And as a matter of fact, that is _exactly_ what I think ought to happen (and count myself extraordinarily blessed to be a part of at MCTS). Unfortunately, the state of our churches often make that unrealistic, which is a shame. Even so, I have never suggested that a man should not be prepared for the ministry; my firm position has been that requiring an unbiblical standard for an otherwise qualified man is wrong (i.e. requiring a degree of some kind).


----------



## Damon Rambo

AThornquist said:


> If we are to go by the example of the New Testament, then training for the ministry ought to be done in the local church, not a seminary. And as a matter of fact, that is _exactly_ what I think ought to happen (and count myself extraordinarily blessed to be a part of at MCTS). Unfortunately, the state of our churches often make that unrealistic, which is a shame. Even so, I have never suggested that a man should not be prepared for the ministry; my firm position has been that requiring an unbiblical standard for an otherwise qualified man is wrong (i.e. requiring a degree of some kind).


 
But there is a Biblical standard. He must be thoroughly and unquestionably educated in the scriptures, sound doctrine, practical ecclesiology, etc. 

My problem with the "apprentice" model in the modern church, is that I have seen its results. In 90 percent of the cases (that is a number from personal experience, not a hard and fast number found by gathering hard data), the person is thoroughly unprepared for the ministry, and very ignorant of biblical doctrine. Most of the time such apprenticeships involve little more than that the aspiring pastor play errand boy for the Teaching Elder/Pastor. There is no real implantation of knowledge (with the exception of a pointer here and there), no disciplined daily routine of instruction and discussion, etc. Without these things, the preparation of the man by the local church is completely inadequate. It is why there are so many Pastors today with no Seminary training, that have 10 or 20 years of experience, that are imparting HORRIBLE heresy into the church.


----------



## AThornquist

I agree that there is a biblical standard. A seminary degree, while it may be helpful in some circumstances, isn't required to achieve it. 

By the way, while I believe anecdotal evidence has its place, it is kind of funny that you would use it to evaluate an "apprentice" model in the church (whatever that is) while being so on fire for seminaries. How many seminary grads have likewise led the church into heresy? How many _seminaries_ have left orthodoxy? How many people have degrees out the whazoo and reject the historicity, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture? And if not outright, then in practice? Surely there is a better tool for evaluation than anecdote and inductive reasoning. Besides, I'm confused how you say the New Testament provides a model for the training of men for the ministry when the local church isn't central to the education model you are proposing. Were Timothy and Titus more like apprentices of Paul or two promising young men that Paul shipped off to a theological school?


----------



## Pergamum

What do we do for new church plants or preaching points in unevangelized parts of the world? 

Especially among poor illliterates in remote regions who could not go to school and would fail due to lack of ability to read if they went? 

Is there a place for local illiterate pastors who are guided by a regional advisor or missionary...or should Western missionaries (the only educated ministers in some areas) do all the leading or else leave vast areas with no religious wokers at all?

I would prefer an educated clergy, but how should we accommodate for remote regions and for the urgency of the task? 

Example: On the US frontier, the Baptists and Methodists outraced the Presbyterians because the Presbyterians could not keep pace with the westward expansion in early America. Also in remote areas of the world and minority areas in the US the greater priority seems to be the urgency of the task over a rigid educational requirement. 



Minorities and the Reformed Churches


----------



## TomVols

An awful lot of people with numerous degrees are indeed orthodox and Reformed, so the two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, not all seminaries have strayed from orthodoxy and some have come home. Remember, too, that in the SB model, the seminaries are under the governance of trustees elected by the churches and are largely funded by the churches. 

We must be careful that we do not paint with too broad a brush. Seminary education can be mentored and church-based, just as self-prepared people can also be of high quality. Churches need to do more training and stop farming it out to the seminaries, and thankfully this is happening. Also, I'm thankful that nowhere near the number of seminaries are ivory-towered islands like some would have us believe.

Speaking of thankful...Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## War_Eagle

T.A.G. said:


> If one has an undergrad from a very solid college in biblical studies (including a yr of greek and hebrew) do you believe that person should still go to seminary if he as well as others feel he is ready to pastor now?
> 
> I am finding that if you have a ba that means youth pastor in the sbc and mdiv means pastor or ass. pastor. And oh how I can stand the "youth pastor" job.


 
One of the finest pastors I ever knew had no formal education. In fact, he barely passed the eight grade. But if you're able to go to seminary, then I think taking advantage of the education, training, accountability, and fellowship with Godly men is a very wise thing to do.

(Please pardon my spelling mistakes. My keyboard isn't working.)


----------



## Gforce9

While it may not be absolutely required, and many factors may come into play, I want someone instructing my family and me _knowledgeably_. I want someone who is well versed in the languages, Hermeneutics, and church history. Speaking as one who has not had the benefit (and pleasure) of being in a sound, confessional and covenantal church, the problems that can come up are staggering. I see it in some of the threads here on the PB. I offer this sad example: In all of the churches I've attended since I was 20 (I'm 40 now), I can count on one hand how many church officers knew/know who Pelagius was or what 'Original Sin' was/is. As a result, the spectre and heresy of Pelagius runs free and is embraced in American evangelicalism. In His mercy, may God grant another Puritan era on this planet.


----------



## chaplee

Tyler: I think you've seen that an intense time of directed study is critical for the mature pastoring our churches need - no matter what denomination. Another consideration is that an MDiv is a required degree for other kinds of American ministries (military chaplaincy, federal and many state prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, hospice, market place ministries, etc). I've known plenty of men who delayed graduate education because "they really didn't need it for what they wanted to do" only to discover they were very short-sighted. You have no guarantee you'll find THE place for the ministry of your dreams. Education helps prepare you for a variety of ministries. If God has called you to Gospel Ministry get all the education you can. A young many has no idea what "Sovereign Surprises" are in store for him. Remember, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps." Pr. 16:9


----------



## Herald

AThornquist said:


> I agree that there is a biblical standard. A seminary degree, while it may be helpful in some circumstances, isn't required to achieve it.
> 
> By the way, while I believe anecdotal evidence has its place, it is kind of funny that you would use it to evaluate an "apprentice" model in the church (whatever that is) while being so on fire for seminaries. How many seminary grads have likewise led the church into heresy? How many _seminaries_ have left orthodoxy? How many people have degrees out the whazoo and reject the historicity, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture? And if not outright, then in practice? Surely there is a better tool for evaluation than anecdote and inductive reasoning. Besides, I'm confused how you say the New Testament provides a model for the training of men for the ministry when the local church isn't central to the education model you are proposing. Were Timothy and Titus more like apprentices of Paul or two promising young men that Paul shipped off to a theological school?



Andrew, out of curiosity, what are you missing at MWCTS that you would get at a seminary like, lets say, RTS?


----------



## greenbaggins

Moderator Caution: the temperature seems to me to be a bit high here. Let's cool off a bit.

My personal opinion is that a seminary education or the equivalent is invaluable to a pastor. I believe it to be a necessary component, though not a sufficient component. All the arguments I have seen so far concerning the dangers of seminary are actually off the point: abuse doesn't negate use. There are plenty of outstanding seminaries out there with very few or none of the dangers mentioned. What seminary (or the equivalent) offers is a focused time of theological, biblical, historical, practical reflection. It allows for extensive reading (input) without a corresponding stream of output necessary at the same time. One's pump does have to be primed before one can have a steady stream of water coming out for the benefit of others. Further, it offers the beginnings of networking with other pastors, which is actually vital to a pastor's well-being. Being a pastor is a very lonely job. The pastor needs the friends he meets at seminary. Of course it must be acknowledged that many fine pastors have not had seminary education. They are the exception, in my opinion. Only a person who is very confident that he has been well-trained can afford to neglect further theological studies, and even then, he must never stop reading. I am not all that confident that very many of those exist today. Yes, other qualifications than education are needed to be a pastor. That does not mean that education can be neglected. The pastorate needs to be an educated pastorate, however that happens. At the present time, seminary offers probably the best way of getting the education part. Other parts come through internships, etc. But to downgrade education for a pastor is despicable in my opinion.


----------



## Herald

Lane,

I'm not taking your post personally, but I'm not downgrading education. It's essential for a minister of the Gospel. What I'm advocating is an alternate track to traditional brick and mortar *only *seminaries. A school, like the one Andrew attends, combines brick and mortar (or distance learning) academics with local church mentoring and accountability. Students graduate having both academic and practical ministry experience. The graduate of this type of institution may very well go on to further schooling, but even if they don't they are aptly qualified (from an academic standpoint) for ministry. This alternate track is far different than being self-taught and the risks that so often accompany lack of ministerial preparation.


----------



## greenbaggins

Herald said:


> Lane,
> 
> I'm not taking your post personally, but I'm not downgrading education. It's essential for a minister of the Gospel. What I'm advocating is an alternate track to traditional brick and mortar *only *seminaries. A school, like the one Andrew attends, combines brick and mortar (or distance learning) academics with local church mentoring and accountability. Students graduate having both academic and practical ministry experience. The graduate of this type of institution may very well go on to further schooling, but even if they don't they are aptly qualified (from an academic standpoint) for ministry. This alternate track is far different than being self-taught and the risks that so often accompany lack of ministerial preparation.


 
I didn't have you as a target in mind, dear brother Bill. That's one of the reasons I qualified my statements with "or the equivalent." I am not opposed to the alternative methods you propose. However, I think that the traditional way of seminary and then internships is still quite a good way to go. That's all I'm saying. There are pluses and minuses to either method which would need to be supplemented by something else. For instance, in the traditional method of seminary, practical experience is non-existent. Hence, the student will need some internship afterwards in order to get his feet wet. The method you advocate leaves the student without a network of friends that will help sustain him in the ministry. That in turn could be supplied with active networking on the part of the student elsewhere. So each method has drawbacks that would need to be rectified for the student to be prepared. Either way will work well. Personally, I am very glad I went to Westminster and not an alternative method. I think it was better for me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I've pointed the following out on other occasions. And I realize that we each bring certain presuppositions with us to the text, so what I begin with colors my perceptions.

But note, Acts 19:8-10. Paul settled into ministry in Ephesus, and here on this third missionary journey (set out upon, in Acts 18:23) he undertakes his most thorough, localized campaign up to this time. It isn't as though he didn't spend much time, for instance, in Corinth. However, we need to recall that Paul himself developed in his ministry over the years. It is naiive to say otherwise, and the Acts record shows not simply his trips, but alternative methodologies. Corinth was still something of a "base" in Achaia, over the Aegean Sea. But the development of the ministry there went differently.

In Ephesus, we read of the *daily* conduct of education in a lecture hall (Tyrannus'), a meeting place for "dialegomenos". The term is variously given as "disputing" or dialog, but the present context plainly favors the scholastic-flavor of the Greek word. Compare with Heb.12:5 "And have you forgotten the exhortation that *addresses * (dialegetai) you as sons?" fatherly/superior instruction.

This was not simply a "church meeting" or worship. This was a *2-year* course of Christian instruction. And note the *result* mentioned in v10. "So that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus." How? Did everyone in the region, _both Jews and Greeks,_ stop in to hear a lecture? No, the idea is preposterous. However, if Paul was training _pastor-evangelists_ to go out into the surrounding region to plant churches, then these words make perfect sense. And the term, "word of the Lord Jesus" (τὸν λόγον τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ) can be nothing less than the preached Word.

I have conjectured as well, that the Epaphras, of Col.1:7 and 4:12, the putative pastor of the Lycus Valley church, is very likely to have been a pupil of Paul's. As we modern seminary grads often do, we consult with our mentors. And apparently, Epaphras took journey of hundreds of miles (perhaps he was multitasking) and visited Paul (in prison!) in Rome, and discussed the issues he was dealing with back in Asia. And the result was encouragement, advice, and the letter he took back with him. There is no indication that Paul personally spent any time in Colossi, or knew many there "by face" (2:1). But he was connected to them through their minister.

I say all this to offer at least one, friendly but firm, contrary-view (a dispute) with the claim that the NT or the early church knows nothing of something that even hints at a "seminary" of sorts. Jesus' *3-year* program is another already mentioned. Obviously, there are _different ways_ that future church ministers can be trained. I will refrain from claiming that "coming apart" and intense discipleship is the only method; or that a course of formal study is the only way. Hey, I think we see both of them in the NT. And there is probably the method of solo-pastor-to-successor model, and other ways.

But, not every good student or even good pastor makes a good teacher of the breadth of subject-matter a future minister needs. We are not all curriculum experts, or masters to the equal degree of all the necessary subjects. The pastor is a "generalist" and most of us have strengths and weaknesses. Do you want the next man in the pulpit to have all the same faults as the last guy? If the people need a break, and their deficits made up, they might just need a man trained elsewhere.


----------



## Damon Rambo

greenbaggins said:


> Further, it offers the beginnings of networking with other pastors, which is actually vital to a pastor's well-being. Being a pastor is a very lonely job. The pastor needs the friends he meets at seminary.


 
This is a VERY important point. Currently, I am serving as a Student Minister, and up until very recently the only fellowship that I have had with other like minded ministers, has been my own Senior Pastor, and online. You literally feel like you are withering up on a vine! Thankfully, I have recently located peers from the only three other reformed churches in our area, and have made a couple of good friends. Yes, the "island" situation is spiritually debilitating!


----------



## Herald

greenbaggins said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane,
> 
> I'm not taking your post personally, but I'm not downgrading education. It's essential for a minister of the Gospel. What I'm advocating is an alternate track to traditional brick and mortar *only *seminaries. A school, like the one Andrew attends, combines brick and mortar (or distance learning) academics with local church mentoring and accountability. Students graduate having both academic and practical ministry experience. The graduate of this type of institution may very well go on to further schooling, but even if they don't they are aptly qualified (from an academic standpoint) for ministry. This alternate track is far different than being self-taught and the risks that so often accompany lack of ministerial preparation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have you as a target in mind, dear brother Bill. That's one of the reasons I qualified my statements with "or the equivalent." I am not opposed to the alternative methods you propose. However, I think that the traditional way of seminary and then internships is still quite a good way to go. That's all I'm saying. There are pluses and minuses to either method which would need to be supplemented by something else. For instance, in the traditional method of seminary, practical experience is non-existent. Hence, the student will need some internship afterwards in order to get his feet wet. The method you advocate leaves the student without a network of friends that will help sustain him in the ministry. That in turn could be supplied with active networking on the part of the student elsewhere. So each method has drawbacks that would need to be rectified for the student to be prepared. Either way will work well. Personally, I am very glad I went to Westminster and not an alternative method. I think it was better for me.
Click to expand...


Lane, thanks for clarifying. You're right about the inherent drawbacks of both models. No approach is perfect. The networking issue has the potential to become much like the anti-homeschool argument. "What does your child do for social interaction?" We must have been asked that a few dozen times by non-homeschoolers. Lane, you wrote:





greenbaggins said:


> The method you advocate leaves the student without a network of friends that will help sustain him in the ministry.



This is not necessarily so. The school that I mentioned, MWCTS, requires some course work to be completed on campus. Additionally, you intercepted a possible fly in the ointment when you said, "That in turn could be supplied with active networking on the part of the student elsewhere." I concur. There may be an internship in another church which would provide exposure and networking opportunities to the pastoral candidate. Speaking only for Reformed Baptists, I believe ARBCA encourages this sort of cooperation between member churches. But, in the end, the responsibility for training remains with the local church. Understand that nowhere, in any of my posts, did I say a pastoral candidate should _never _attend seminary. Many local churches are not prepared to supervise the training of ministers. I think that should change. More churches should play an active role in the training and placement of pastoral candidates. Yes, be eclectic in the use of resources (ministerial academies, traditional seminaries, distance learning etc.) but do so under the authority and accountability of the local church.


----------



## Pergamum

The center of Christianity has shifted to the "Global South" - but I find these posts addressing mostly education in the US.

What solutions are there for the lack of seminaries and means of education among "Third World" churches?


----------



## Damon Rambo

Pergamum said:


> The center of Christianity has shifted to the "Global South" - but I find these posts addressing mostly education in the US.
> 
> What solutions are there for the lack of seminaries and means of education among "Third World" churches?


 
Many Institutions are working to fill this gap. I know Nations University (A decidedly NON reformed online school!) has made this there major thrust, providing extensive free classes for those overseas. I am not aware of an equivalent reformed institution (whose emphasis is primarily in third world countries), but we certainly could use one!!


----------



## Wannabee

Wannabee found Andrew's posts helpful.  (still no button for me)

Perhaps it's being taken for granted, but let us keep to the forefront of our minds the fact that the overwhelming requirements for a pastor are character based. The knowledge one gains in developing this character should be enough to be able to pass on to others. This brings us to what this thread focuses more on, apparently, and that's ability. Is the man able to pass on the knowledge he's gained effectively? If so, then he's apt to teach. We tend to over complicate this.
We also have the pastoral mantle, or baton, to be passed down according to
2 Timothy 2:22 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 
It is a travesty that so many pastors see this as an option and not a mandate. It's not that we CAN do this. It is that we MUST. There is no choice in this if we are to be faithful pastors. The verses following v.2 help us to gain perspective on the loneliness and challenges pastors face.
So, we have two clear mandates (multifaceted to be sure). One, he must possess the character and be apt to teach. Two, pastors are to train pastors. This places the training of pastors under the direct oversight of the church.
Does that mean that seminaries cannot be a means by which this is done? Of course not. But it does mean that the seminary must be subservient to the church and seen as a tool. All too often the seminary becomes the expert in regard to knowledge and the church is to bow before it. However, it is in academia that a hoard of heresies develop as men bend their minds too fully into doctrinal possibilities and begin to see their studies, and passing on their "knowledge," as the goal. Often these professors are not elders in churches and sometimes they have no pastoral experience whatsoever. Yet we bow before such men quite often as the experts who are to train the next generation of pastors.
Training is good. Extensive training is good. But I'll take a man with a passionate love for Christ and a strong grasp of Scripture who understands the truth, whether he can use the right theological term or not, over any man who thinks his education is some sort of credential for pastoral work. That's a lie that too many churches have embraced. We send a man to seminary, he gets a degree, and the next thing you know he's qualified to pastor the flock of God? What rubbish. Nobody here advocated that as far as I know. But it happens. Most of us have seen it.
Let's slow down and consider what Scripture says. For some men it may take only a few years because of their amazing humility coupled with incredible intellect. For some it may take a decade or more. But let it be because of their character and the fact that they are teaching what they know already be the criteria by which we recognize God's calling in their lives or not before any institution. Then, if we think using the seminary to prepare him better would be best, walk him through it with due diligence in caring for his soul as he embarks on what can be one of the most pride inducing accomplishments of his life.
This also addresses what Pergy has brought forward. Some men simply cannot attend seminary. But they can be qualified biblically without one. Scripture alone is needed to bring about the qualifications that Scripture alone is authorized to dictate. I praise God for the work you're doing Pergy, and for the faithful who come along side in that work.


----------



## JML

Wannabee said:


> Often these professors are not elders in churches and sometimes they have no pastoral experience whatsoever. Yet we bow before such men quite often as the experts who are to train the next generation of pastors.



To add to this, there are some seminary presidents, who are the head of a place of training for pastors, who are not pastors and some have never been pastors. How they can be in charge of a seminary whose main goal is (or should be) to provide training for pastors is baffling.

P.S. Great post Joe.


----------



## KMK

Great post, Joe.

As a professional educator for 20+ years, my experience, as well as all of the research, teaches me that modeling is the primary tool for teaching. The reason character is the primary criterion for an elder is because it is by modeling the faith that he is teaching that the sheep are edified.


----------



## jwithnell

From a pew-dwellers perspective: some of the best pastors I've seen I've had an unrelated undergraduate degree, have gained a lot of "life experiences" often through the jobs they worked to get through undergraduate and seminary schooling, have drawn on the knowledge and experience of multiple professors, and actively pursued ministering while completing their education. From the few years I had in a church with a pastor who had only a Bible BA, I don't think he was well prepared to address much more than what he had been taught. In other words, he didn't have _tools_ to work through the passages he was preaching from or the ability to address issues as they arose.


----------



## Damon Rambo

KMK said:


> Great post, Joe.
> 
> As a professional educator for 20+ years, my experience, as well as all of the research, teaches me that modeling is the primary tool for teaching. The reason character is the primary criterion for an elder is because it is by modeling the faith that he is teaching that the sheep are edified.


 
Yeah, I definitely disagree with this. It is the preached and taught Word of God that changes people, from the inside out, through the power of the Holy Spirit; not modeling another believer's outward "spirituality." Sactification, i.e. spiritual growth, only comes from the work of God, and scripture is pretty clear that God's means to accomplish this is his spoken (audible) Word.


----------



## Pergamum

JWithnell:

I have noticed this as well, especially when folks go cross-cultural. Farming families, families made of up MKs (missionary kids...those already having a wide experience across cultures), and ex-military folks often do best in connecting with locals.


----------



## kodos

I will only say - from my perspective, I have known teaching elders with Seminary degrees that (apparently) knew less than the laymen I hang around with. Just sayin'.

And of course some come brainwashed with Left Behind theology from some "conservative" seminaries. 

All that said, I want to go - badly, but not at the right life situation at this point (just had our fourth kid). I'd prefer my pastor to have a seminary degree, especially one from a Reformed institution.

I've also seen the 'get trained by your pastor' model fail. I've seen a lot of cloned pastors come out of models like that who aren't exposed to very much critical thinking.


----------



## Wannabee

Here's an excellent article on AOM that can be helpful in helping us think in regard to the ministry of the church.


> On the one side you have [the person] who mocks all study of the original languages... He represents the reprehensible attack upon serious study of the biblical text that is so common in certain elements of evangelicalism.
> On the other hand you have the attitude ... which elevates the academy above the church, makes "peer review" the standard rather than the expression of the mind of the church in the wisdom of those men called as elders whose duty it is to actually teach and preach the Word of God, so that the edification of the body and training in godliness and truth becomes a mere "by-product" of the all-important intellectual activity of the academy. Hebrew and Greek are vital, but if you become so focused upon the languages so as to lose the balance and harmony of all of Scripture, well...you are not helping yourself or anyone else


----------



## Wannabee

Interestingly, it seems that this highly esteemed pastor, who incidentally had no formal training and was never ordained, had much to say on this exact same subject. Enjoy.

Pyromaniacs: A Warning about Academic Hubris


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great post, Joe.
> 
> As a professional educator for 20+ years, my experience, as well as all of the research, teaches me that modeling is the primary tool for teaching. The reason character is the primary criterion for an elder is because it is by modeling the faith that he is teaching that the sheep are edified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I definitely disagree with this. It is the preached and taught Word of God that changes people, from the inside out, through the power of the Holy Spirit; not modeling another believer's outward "spirituality." Sactification, i.e. spiritual growth, only comes from the work of God, and scripture is pretty clear that* God's means to accomplish this is his spoken (audible) Word.*
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but his spoken Word must be understood. That is why we translate the Scriptures into vulgar tongues. The Word of God in Latin may indeed be the Word of God, but it has no effect on my congregation because they don't understand it. (LBC 1:8)



> 1 Pet 5:2,3 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, *but being ensamples to the flock*. *



Being an example to the flock helps the flock, not to _hear_ the preached word, but to _understand_ the preached word, which is the whole point.



> Peter told the elders that they should prove to be "examples to the flock". *This is the most important leadership function that an elder exhibits*. Failure here sabotages the rest. This begins by being an example of Christlike character so that you can confidently say with Paul, "follow me as I follow Christ" (see 1 Cor 11:1). Timothy Witmer; _The Shepherd Leader_; pg. 160





> An elder must be an example of Christian living that others will want to follow. Peter reminds the Asian elders "to be examples to the flock".* If a man is not a godly model for others to follow, he cannot be an elder even if he is a good teacher and manager*. Alexander Strauch; _Biblical Eldership_; pg. 78





> A practical doctrine must be practically preached. We must study as hard how to live well as how to preach well. We must think, and think again*, how to compose our lives (as well as our sermons) as may best lead to men's salvation*. Richard Baxter; _The Reformed Pastor_; Part 1, Chapter 3





> Secondly, ministers are taught to be holy, sanctified and reconciled themselves. Can it be your duty to declare to others their righteousness, yet not declare your own righteousness to yourself? How can you be a true witness to testify between God and sinners, if you yourself neither know nor feel the truth of your testimony?
> 
> David says to the sinner, 'I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go' (Ps 32:8). But in the same psalm he first of all sets down his own experience in an extended description of his repentance and of God's mercy on himself. William Perkins; _The Calling of the Ministry_; Section I, Chapter 3





> *Merely proclaiming the Word is not enough, however; the pastor must live out its truths in his life*...The pastor who wants his words taken to heart by his congregation must first take them to heart himself. John MacArthur; _Pastoral Ministry: How to Shepherd Biblically_; pgs. 19 and 21


----------



## Wannabee

Excellent post Ken. Indeed, the verses pointing out the fruit of the heart being evident in the life, manner and speech of the believer are plentiful throughout the New Testament. God can be, and often is, exalted and His Word is clearly taught by men who fail to walk in a manner consistent with the character of our Savior, in spite of themselves. Whether in pretense or truth the Gospel is proclaimed to the glory of God. But it is also abundantly clear from God's Word that the heart and character of men are the preeminent qualifications for the elders and that the integration and interdependence of the saints is a primary means of mutual edification. Any other goals must bow before the pursuit of personal faithfulness to God.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> Excellent post Ken. Indeed, the verses pointing out the fruit of the heart being evident in the life, manner and speech of the believer are plentiful throughout the New Testament. *God can be, and often is, exalted and His Word is clearly taught by men who fail to walk in a manner consistent with the character of our Savior, in spite of themselves.* Whether in pretense or truth the Gospel is proclaimed to the glory of God. But it is also abundantly clear from God's Word that the heart and character of men are the preeminent qualifications for the elders and that the integration and interdependence of the saints is a primary means of mutual edification. Any other goals must bow before the pursuit of personal faithfulness to God.


 
Perkins, in fact, continues...



> God sometimes does satisfy and save a poor distressed sinner by the testimony of such men,* to teach us that the power to do so lies in the truth of his covenant and not in the man*. There are all too few to teach us how much it pleases God when a minister declares the righteousness of others which he possesses first himself and witnesses to others about a truth which he first knows in his own experience.


----------

