# Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education



## brandonadams

I just read an article from R. Scott Clark called "Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education" where he argues against distance learning options. I find his tone to be rather frustrating, but I would love to hear some thoughts from people who have spent some time considering this.

Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education


----------



## JohnGill

*They're Pastors already*

It seems that he is addressing those that are already Pastors and not those who are considering the pastoral field. I agree and disagree with him. 

I think pastors should 'go off to seminary.' This allows them to focus on the work at hand. Being a Pastor is busy and is not just a 9-5 job. Seminary would provide the proper environment for learning and fellowship for the further study of God's word.

I disagree with him where those not already pastor's are concerned. I believe part of the role of the local church is to prepare ministers. Internet seminary would be very useful for this. Men who wish to receive ministerial training could do so through the auspices of their local church. The local church could set up class schedules and help provide the seminary materials. The individuals do the work and it is turned in collectively by the church to the seminary. This allows for men who due to other obligations do not have the freedom to go off to seminary, to stay at home and under their local church receive quality training. Of course I may disagree with him simply because I am setting up a program like this at my church. 

Just my


----------



## larryjf

I disagree with Dr. Clark's ideas regarding online schools.
There is no biblical warrant to pull someone away from his family and local church in order to study for the ministry.

I believe that seminaries have taken over a function that rightly belongs to the Church, training its members to minister in Christ's name. In my estimation the Church is the God-ordained tool that God uses for education, not the seminary.


----------



## JohnGill

joshua said:


> Brandon, here are some relevant discussions (including back and forth between Rev. Lewis and Dr. Clark.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/thoughts-distance-education-ministry-3577/?highlight=brick
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/distance-reformed-colleges-not-seminaries-10674/
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/distance-ed-accreditation-6462/?highlight=brick
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/my-responce-dr-r-scott-clark-19695/?highlight=brick




Found this quote in the first article:



> Frame goes on to remind the reader that seminaries are a convention of the church, created to fill in the gap created by *churches that are not fulfilling their Biblical mandate of discipleship*. He sites "œold" Princeton Seminary board member Rev. Gardiner Spring who contends that in his day the parish-trained minister far surpassed the seminary trained scholar. That is quite a statement from both Frame and Spring - two seminarians (p.11).



Concerning pastor's going off to seminary, if they haven't before they are pastors will they have the time while serving as pastors? Or would it be better for him to step down from the pastorate and continue serving in the church? This way he would have time and still be a part of the church. Or maybe some other compromise?


----------



## Pergamum

Also, can Dr Clark generalize his views to apply to the whole world or are his opinions merely "Western?" To "go off" to seminary in some places without online training is to totally kill all Gospel witness in some areas when the pastor leaves the country in some cases to add largely useless credentials to his wall - in order to come back and do the same things he was doing before (which, in many cases, he never comes back). For the 3rd world pastor, first world education often wrecks their effective ministries in poor corners of the world.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

With all due respect to Professor Clark, I would like to see the argument made from Scripture.

I think a more Biblical argument would be to say that future pastors need godly pastors/elders to sit under and learn the faith which accords with godliness.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

An historical problem with Prof. Clark's argument can be seen in the hundreds of Methodist churches in the South that began as 19th Century Presbyterian Church plants but quickly turned Methodist when supply could not be found.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, his view would basically slow the spread of Christianity in parts of SE Asia and China where groups are popping up quicker than the supply of educated men to lead them. 

A slower sustained growth with more depth would be the desired approach I guess, but God's movements cannot be counted on to last the 4-5 years of lapse when the most effective workers are removed from the field and placed in an ivory tower.

There are good ways for workers to continue ministry, even while feeding their educational needs. Distance learning is one of those as well as modular courses and TEE.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I incline toward RSC's position, although I allow for some room in my views for "distance" or "parish" training where these seem fit to the circumstances. But the question seems to be "what is the best way to do things?"

I am convinced that missionary work and church-planting is inseparable from pastor/elder training, and I think this pattern (along with the institution of "seminary") is biblical.

BTW, I see comments along the line that "Dr. Clark needs to offer a Scriptural argument," but no one has put forward their own "Scriptural" argument in favor of something else, and why it might be superior in one, or in many cases. Appealing to anecdote or pragmatism is insufficient.

As for the amount of time it takes to train pastors well, if the materials are weak, they much be improved, and if the foundation is built on weak materials, and the building falls over, what has been gained? Paul started his "Ephesian Seminary" in the context of a literate, Greek culture. And he trained a class of students for 2 solid years without a break. If it takes an illiterate culture 4-5 years, because their beginning students have to be raised first to be able to handle the material, so be it. Will not God provide?


----------



## Pergamum

Ideally every pastor would have 5 years of solid education and a masters or a doctorate even. But these ideals compete with many other factors. 

The "best" way under ideal circumstances often gets in the way of the best feasible option, all other things considered, when engaged in many other things.


----------



## brandonadams

Just a thought, what about the Apostle Paul's model where he went to the churches to train them, not the other way around?


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> I disagree with Dr. Clark's ideas regarding online schools.
> There is no biblical warrant to pull someone away from his family and local church in order to study for the ministry.
> 
> I believe that seminaries have taken over a function that rightly belongs to the Church, training its members to minister in Christ's name. In my estimation the Church is the God-ordained tool that God uses for education, not the seminary.



I will not argue against seminary, nor will I argue against alternative pastoral preparation. I believe there is room for both. I am very wary of elitism within the church. It exists and is to be opposed at every opportunity. Seminaries are not a function of the local church, even if a particular seminary is supported by a church or churches. That said, not every local church is capable of training qualified men. We have to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater on either end of the discussion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

brandonadams said:


> Just a thought, what about the Apostle Paul's model where he went to the churches to train them, not the other way around?



I'm curious to know where Paul did this?

I know he planted churches in many places, and most often he established them in places where he preached the gospel first in Synagogues, and out of them came the ready-made (already biblically knowledgable) eldership for the infant church.

I know he set himself up in Ephesus in the hall of Tyrannus, and for two solid years (besides regular worships, and church duties where he taught publicly and from house to house) he trained future ministers for the Asia territory--like Epaphras, who apparently later went to Colosse. We're told that "all Asia" heard the gospel message because Paul taught daily in one place for 2 years.

But I'm just wondering what texts specifically one would appeal to to demonstrate that Paul "went to churches" (didn't he like to go where no one else had laid a foundation?) to train men to be future ministers? Can you lay out the argument?


----------



## larryjf

Contra_Mundum said:


> BTW, I see comments along the line that "Dr. Clark needs to offer a Scriptural argument," but no one has put forward their own "Scriptural" argument in favor of something else, and why it might be superior in one, or in many cases. Appealing to anecdote or pragmatism is insufficient.



I would suggest that since the Scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) that would be a good place to learn the truth.

I would further suggest that since the Bible prescribes the office of Elder for teaching the Church, there is sufficient evidence that God's way is to have the Church through its Elders educate its people.


----------



## larryjf

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I will not argue against seminary, nor will I argue against alternative pastoral preparation. I believe there is room for both. I am very wary of elitism within the church. It exists and is to be opposed at every opportunity. Seminaries are not a function of the local church, even if a particular seminary is supported by a church or churches. That said, not every local church is capable of training qualified men. We have to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater on either end of the discussion.



Don't get me wrong, i'm not against seminaries per say. I simply think that they need to work alongside the local church since I believe that's scriptural.

Just look at my signature and you will see that i'm actually involved with a seminary (it's an online one). But we have constant contact with the student's local church while he goes through the program because we believe it's their role to have spiritual oversight of their members.


----------



## brandonadams

Bruce,

My comment was a general statement without any in-depth study behind it. It just seems to me that the second generation of church leaders did not all go to specified places to learn from Paul, rather, he went to them. Your explanation of his methods in Ephesus appears to be a good counter to that idea. Thanks.


----------



## Christusregnat

brandonadams said:


> Just a thought, what about the Apostle Paul's model where he went to the churches to train them, not the other way around?



I don't this this is a fair assessment:

1. Paul took some of his students with him on tour, such as Timothy, Luke, John-Mark, etc.

2. Jesus ripped 12 men from their local lives for a three-year seminary education; was He disrupting the church?

3. Samuel established a "school of the prophets" also called a "college" in Isaiah; if prophets needed to be trained, how much more pastors?


Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brandon,
I don't mind the comment. I just want us to conduct the discussion with appeals to the biblical data. There is a tendency today to blame seminaries for modern church troubles, and a facile assumption that the NT church is both radically different from us, and even opposed to many of our methods. E.g. some say we should "go back" to the house-church, as if it were the way the church is supposed to meet in every age. The way I read the NT, frequently there were meeting places patterned after the synagogue, not just home gatherings. And the homes would have to be the commodious dwellings of a few fairly wealthy, and not the average tenement. I mention this because the "new wisdom" challenging the "received wisdom" isn't always as full of brilliant new insight as is claimed for it.

I do agree that there is progression in means and methodology even in the early church. I think different situations call for sober assessment. The Mediterranean milieu of the 1st century was a part of the "fullness of time" and the scattered Jewish people served as the ideal "starter dough" for the new lump to get rising all over the place in a short period of time. The basic biblical literacy was there already, it only needed apostolic improvement. Apollos is just one example that we know of.

What Paul's time spent in Ephesus shows us is how the mature missionary Paul used even what he had probably learned in his first two missionary journeys when he instituted a "program" for minister training and church planting. The Apostles weren't going to live forever, and a new "ordinary" ministry was going to have to take its place. Ultimately, Timothy was given the oversight of the Ephesus work in all its pastoral and educational facets. I would have felt overwhelmed too, given all the responsibility of being "Sr. pastor" in that situation.

The OPC is engaged in various forms of missionary endeavor around the world. In Uganda, a significant part of the labor is focused on pastor-training. This is due to our belief that our work has a goal, and that goal involves leaving a mission field--when the job is done. "Finished" means a church that is self-sustaining and self-propagating and committed to the Reformed Faith.

The important thing, I think, is to stay principially driven. Missions isn't always going to look exactly the same from place to place. No doubt there will be places and occasions where "distance" and "mentorship" training are practically the only options. I'm OK with making those judgments.

But we shouldn't scoff at seminaries, as though they are just a "cultural" thing, a dispensable thing, maybe even a detriment to the church, or to church-planting. The feasibility of creating a pastor-training institute early on in a missionary endeavor should be considered at least as much as any other aspects of the mission. Certainly, if Apostle Paul is any guide.


----------



## brandonadams

Thanks for your thoughts Bruce, I appreciate it.


----------



## Pergamum

This isn't a matter of some of us wanting dumb preachers. We all want pastors to be trained. But some of us would say more than one way is permissible and think that to demand seminaries is, in fact, elitist. 

In many parts of the world a man has to leave his province and maybe his country and leave struggling sheep in order to get credentials on the wall in order to come back and do what he was doing before.

Distance learning, TEE and modular courses (intensive 2 weeks courses 3 times per year, plus independent study) are ways to keep workers in the frontlines, which is where we want them, right? 

I have seen and heard of many local evangelists who have left a struggling flock in rural areas in order to go to the bible school or seminary in the city and then never returning because, after all, "there are needs everywhere."
For Americans maybe every pastor could go to a seminary, but in some places alternate methods of training can work better.


----------



## larryjf

Christusregnat said:


> 2. Jesus ripped 12 men from their local lives for a three-year seminary education; was He disrupting the church?


Seminaries and churches are not producing apostles.



Christusregnat said:


> 3. Samuel established a "school of the prophets" also called a "college" in Isaiah; if prophets needed to be trained, how much more pastors?


Seminaries and churches don't produce prophets.

Since apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church, and we are discussing ministers who are not the foundation, i just don't think it's a fair comparison.


----------



## py3ak

[KJV]2 Timothy 2:2[/KJV] is a didactic expression of a minister's duty towards the church in future generations, is it not? I should think, unless I am overlooking something, that this would be the basic text from which discussion of acceptable permutations would start.


----------



## panta dokimazete

"Train the trainer" 

I think that either/or is not the answer - more a matter of both/and - particularly in the day and age we live in. Scripture does not demand seminary - it does demand seeking out sound teaching. And developing *that* capability should begin at home. That is - the church home and within the home.


----------



## kceaster

I read somewhere once that the wine we now have, is much better tasting and much better quality than it has ever been. Perhaps it's the grapes, perhaps it is the process. The grapes of today are processed quicker than in older methods, so the wine can be produced with greater speed and come out tasting better, too. We can now drink a wine that has aged about a year and have a better quality wine than one aged 10 or 12 years under older methods. Of course, there is no way of empirically proving this since none of us knows what a wine tasted like 400 years ago that had been aged only 10 or 12 years.

I bring this up to say that the way pastors are trained today is much different than 400 years ago, or even the way they were trained 2000 years ago. The travesty in my thinking is that we must rush young men through in 3 to 5 years only to throw them into waters in which they may quickly drown.

I've argued against Dr. Clark on this issue. I think this is a man-made institution that has long since needed an overhaul and a paradigm shift. I am greatly in favor of an educated eldership. In fact, I really believe Paul thought so, too. But it is high time that not only the teaching elders and pastors be able to be highly educated, but all elders be highly educated. Now, the only way I can see that happening is through local training. Do we really believe Paul told Timothy that only teaching elders and those who preach should receive special and intensive training? That's ridiculous. And I know that seminaries today have programs specifically for "ruling" elders. But I believe that the basic problem is that of selling the wine before its time, to use Paul Masson's mantra. 

While a young man may be able to run circles around this soon to be 40 year old, he does not have the benefit of spiritual training that has happened over my years. I'm not saying that I know more spiritually than a 24 year old. But, as Prof. Shaw likes to put it, there are rules and exceptions to those rules. Those young men that can endure intensive seminary training and come out the other side ready to care for God's flock are the exception to the rule in my opinion. Most are not ready to be able to have the experience to lead well.

Therefore, I'm in favor of brick and mortar seminaries, but only if they lengthen training to about 10 years, and they make a rule (of which there may be exceptions) that a man be 30 years old before he begins. I think that would help greatly enhance the education and experience of teaching elders and pastors before they begin their ministry.

That would mean that I am also in favor, again with the same type of rules, of a distance education program for this same subset to include also the ruling elders. Brothers, what is the harm in taking a very long time to make this wine? What is the harm in returning to older ways of making sure that a man is mature enough to be an elder in the church? Why would it be wrong to make a general rule that a man should be about 35 to 40 years old before he is an elder, teaching or ruling? Why do we think that it is so very important to ensure that a man learn early and intensive so that he can have, Lord willing, 40 to 50 years in the ministry?

I personally think we are asking too much of young men, too much of professors, and too much of seminaries to do this work for the church. And I think it is high time for the church to retain this work primarily asking the seminaries for help where needed. That will mean that education is DEVELOPED at the church level. Churches need to tell seminaries how a minister should be trained, not the other way around. And this is where Dr. Clark has got it wrong. He's of the mind that Dr's know best (his analogy of medicine and lawyering) and that the church must rely on their expertise. I believe that is just what got the Pharisees in trouble. The church needs to take back the reins of eduction and tell the seminaries how to train men.

I've gone on too long, sorry. Pastors need a seminary type education, but that education can and frankly, should, come from other places besides seminaries.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Great thread and the info on distance education is much appreciated. There might be a difference from the way Presbyterian churches view this subject that might be different from Baptist chuches. I am not 100% certain about that. I have recently been accepted to RTS Virtual, but my study there is not for the purpose of entering the office of an elder. My purpose is to grow in my knowledge for the sake of my family and benefit of my church as God wills. 

For this reason I enrolled in the certificate program in theological studies. However, should the Lord lay it upon me to serve in a greater capacity, would it not be proper to see what one's respective demonation requires? If I were seeking ordination as pastor in a Presbyterian church, and that demonation was a "bricks and mortar" advocate, then I would expect the Lord to send me to a bricks and mortar seminary. 

I see the work at seminary, at least at this point, as an equipping for the service of God's people. Therefore, in whatever way seems best and pleasing to God to serve them, that's what I would do.


----------



## Pergamum

What I find lacking in most seminaries is practical hands on practice.

People go through 4 years of Bible school, 4 years of seminary and then feel called as a missionary and come out and have no idea what to do or how to work with others. I actually prefer working with folks that did another degree besides bible as their bachelors before seminary or had some sort of real-life job before entering the ministry, these people tend to be more hardy and more able to be flexible and deal with adversity.


This shows that something is wrong. The NT model seems a lot more practice-oriented and informal. Jesus gave his fair share of sermons, but I do see a lot of hands on practice, visual aids used in lessons and even "homework" and increasingly complex tasks given. All this can best be done by not ripping Third World Pastors out of their local ministry contexts to attend a classroom, but in finding ways to educate them while they continue their present ministries.


----------



## Wannabee

I appreciate Bruce's comments. They bring a certain clarity. But, at the same time I find myself in line with Pergy's and Kevin's comments.


Contra_Mundum said:


> But we shouldn't scoff at seminaries, as though they are just a "cultural" thing, a dispensable thing, maybe even a detriment to the church, or to church-planting. The feasibility of creating a pastor-training institute early on in a missionary endeavor should be considered at least as much as any other aspects of the mission. Certainly, if Apostle Paul is any guide.


I agree that the training of indigenous pastors should be an early missionary goal. But we must be careful even in this. Are the men training these pastors qualified? Have they actually served as pastors? Are they simply passing on their "education" or academic expertise? Much of the time the men doing the training simply train up erudite experts without providing true shepherds for God's flock.
Part of the problem is the seminaries became "the experts" somewhere along the line. Not that this is the issue across the board, but many churches bow before the seminary altar, as through the scholars and academia know the truth and other such popery. But it is also evident that the vast majority of false teaching arises within institutes of higher education. Much of the problem lies in the fact that a huge percentage of professors, with doctorates, either have never pastored a church, or haven't done much of it. This leads to an elitist mentality and an authoritative attitude that insists on credentials rather than resting in the verity of Scripture. This is not a sweeping comment, but it is a generalization, and is proven by the fact that very few seminaries remain true to Scripture for a long period of time. It's not a matter of "if" a seminary will slip off into some sort of apostasy, but "when."
As Ruben pointed out, the mandate is found in 2 Timothy 2:2. The church is indispensable. Seminaries are not. Seminaries should be a tool in the hands of the church, not the other way around. But most churches fail to even send men to seminary, not to mention training up men within their ranks. Simply put, the seminary should be a finishing school, of sorts. It should be the icing on the cake, not the whole meal. But most churches simply tell an aspiring young man, "You should go to seminary."
Ideally, the man would be trained by his leadership and brought up in the ministry. From here, the church would send him to seminary and walk him through it. He should return between semesters and serve in his home church. His elders should be watching over and evaluating his progress. Summers should be spent serving his home church. Papers should be sent to his home church to help them see what he's learning and watch for dangers.
Perhaps Kevin's post said it better. His comments keep the focus where in needs to be, the local church. 
His comments, along with Pergy's above, lead to one thing that's missing in this thread (or I missed it). While knowledge is indispensable for pastors, the qualifications given in 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1 are not based on knowledge or ability, other than "not a novice" and "apt to teach." Neither of these require an excellent orator. Neither requires a doctorate. They require biblical knowledge, wisdom and maturity. But the rest of the qualifications are character based. The overwhelming necessity of elders, (preaching, lay, ruling or whatever) is their character. Preaching deficiencies can be overcome with godliness. But no amount of excellent preaching can overcome a failure to meet these qualifications.
And, to spin of Kevin's comments, we have to remember that Timothy was pushing 40 when Paul admonished him to not "let them despise your youth." As was noted, the exception is exceptional.


----------



## CharlieJ

It may be helpful in this discussion to evaluate the role of seminaries in one culture. I'm sure it's legitimate to discuss other things, but it's hard to follow this thread while some people are speaking to an American context and others are bringing up third-world countries and so forth. Maybe a separate thread on the wisdom of seminaries in missions contexts?


----------



## CharlieJ

Pergamum said:


> What I find lacking in most seminaries is practical hands on practice.
> 
> People go through 4 years of Bible school, 4 years of seminary and then feel called as a missionary and come out and have no idea what to do or how to work with others. I actually prefer working with folks that did another degree besides bible as their bachelors before seminary or had some sort of real-life job before entering the ministry, these people tend to be more hardy and more able to be flexible and deal with adversity.



Sir, I wish I knew more about you. I do not know if you have attended seminary, are in the ministry, are Baptist or Presbyterian. So far, I can only gather that either you yourself or some people you know have been disappointed by seminary education or a seminary-educated pastor.

I believe that ministerial training is more than seminary training. If there is a perceived lack in training, especially on the practical side, we must ask whether the local church did not fulfill its end of responsibility.

However, my experience is that both Bible colleges and seminaries provide ample opportunities for practical learning experience. What I am about to say, I do not say to exalt myself but to defend the institutions I love, as well as give weight to my words.

I am 21 years old. My churches, Bible college, and seminaries have given me wonderful opportunities (and great responsibility) to advance in my ministerial training. Not only have I had theology classes that have covered every genre and systematic category of the Bible, I am also fluent in Greek and rapidly becoming so in Hebrew. I developed and implemented an expository Bible study in my high school. I have had the opportunity to participate in short-term missions in New York, Chicago, Ireland, Nassau Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Nova Scotia. I was able to work an entire summer as a children's evangelist. I have counseled at church camps. I have been an assistant to a pastor (not assistant pastor), where I taught adult Sunday School, formed an evangelism class and community outreach program, and directed a teen and children's Saturday evangelistic outreach. I have preached in churches, youth groups, women's shelters, rescue missions, on streets, in buses, and in jungles - totalling over 200 times. I have personally been a tool in bringing several people to Christ and discipling them. 

I understand if you feel that my "hands on experience" is lacking, but I still have several more years before my formal training is complete.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

From a layman's perspective, I must disagree in general with Dr. Clark. Since he brought up medical training as an analogy, let me take comparison a step further. In medical school, there are two distinct phases of training: didactic, or "basic sciences" training for 2 years, and then clinical or "hands on" training for the final two years. It seems that training for pastors and elders has a similar (though not as formal) pattern, where pastors/elders go to seminary for the basic didactic/knowledge aspect, and then learn on the job how to actually be a good minister (ideally under the guidance of more experiences pastors and elders). 

In med school, only about 20 people of 150 attended class (yes, I was one of the attenders). Lectures were available on online in audio format, transcriptions of the lectures were available, and all audiovisuals were online. So the only thing gained by attending class was actually seeing the professor, which of course is unnecessary. People who didn't attend class did just as well on tests and boards as those of us who did. I don't see why seminary should be any different. Make all the materials and lectures available online, and as long as any required work is accomplished (papers, tests, etc), it shouldn't be any different than being physically present at the school. 

After accomplishing the didactic work online, the aspiring minister can then be guided and counseled by qualified elders in the local community as he learns how to be a leader in the church (as many have alluded to in previous posts). 

So I would contend an aspiring pastor can be fully qualified with a great seminary education without physically setting foot in a classroom.


----------



## kceaster

CharlieJ said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find lacking in most seminaries is practical hands on practice.
> 
> People go through 4 years of Bible school, 4 years of seminary and then feel called as a missionary and come out and have no idea what to do or how to work with others. I actually prefer working with folks that did another degree besides bible as their bachelors before seminary or had some sort of real-life job before entering the ministry, these people tend to be more hardy and more able to be flexible and deal with adversity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I wish I knew more about you. I do not know if you have attended seminary, are in the ministry, are Baptist or Presbyterian. So far, I can only gather that either you yourself or some people you know have been disappointed by seminary education or a seminary-educated pastor.
> 
> I believe that ministerial training is more than seminary training. If there is a perceived lack in training, especially on the practical side, we must ask whether the local church did not fulfill its end of responsibility.
> 
> However, my experience is that both Bible colleges and seminaries provide ample opportunities for practical learning experience. What I am about to say, I do not say to exalt myself but to defend the institutions I love, as well as give weight to my words.
> 
> I am 21 years old. My churches, Bible college, and seminaries have given me wonderful opportunities (and great responsibility) to advance in my ministerial training. Not only have I had theology classes that have covered every genre and systematic category of the Bible, I am also fluent in Greek and rapidly becoming so in Hebrew. I developed and implemented an expository Bible study in my high school. I have had the opportunity to participate in short-term missions in New York, Chicago, Ireland, Nassau Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Nova Scotia. I was able to work an entire summer as a children's evangelist. I have counseled at church camps. I have been an assistant to a pastor (not assistant pastor), where I taught adult Sunday School, formed an evangelism class and community outreach program, and directed a teen and children's Saturday evangelistic outreach. I have preached in churches, youth groups, women's shelters, rescue missions, on streets, in buses, and in jungles - totalling over 200 times. I have personally been a tool in bringing several people to Christ and discipling them.
> 
> I understand if you feel that my "hands on experience" is lacking, but I still have several more years before my formal training is complete.
Click to expand...


Charlie,

I almost had the same resume at 21 as you do. However, I can tell you that I would trade all of the experience I had at 21 with all the experience I've gained in the last 10 years. I really did believe I was ready, but I know now that I wasn't. God had other plans for me and providentially hindered me from the current paradigm. I'm not saying that has to be a rule for everyone. As I said, there are exceptions. If M'Cheyne had waited until 30 to start his ministry, we'd never have known the great man of God he was. But again, that is an exception that can and should be made for certain individuals. Perhaps that is an exception the church should make for you.

However, on the whole, we can see that history is not necessarily on your side. God in His providence and sovereignty make men like M'Cheyne, but He also makes quite a few men who fail utterly due in part to their own pride and churches who rush men into the gospel ministry. There is a pattern to successful church leaders and that pattern is discipleship. In my own case (as I can see now), I was discipling people before I was really discipled.

In the end, an elder of the church is not necessarily made by the passage of time, but there is a reason why Paul says elders should not be new converts and should not be novices. What did he mean by "new", I think there is a general rule behind that, but there are also exceptions to those rules. And I think it is fair to talk about other countries than just America. We shouldn't push rules on all societies and "westernize" elder training. But the church needs to be prudent and wise in this manner. In the west, I think churches have bowed too much to letting the seminaries train men primarily, instead of the church primarily. And that is the reason for most of our woes, theologically and spiritually speaking.

Charlie, I'm not saying you need to quit GPTS and wait awhile. But, I would tell you, based on my experience, that I'm glad I was hindered from doing it at your age. With training for the gospel ministry, it is better to take the long view. Don't let your eagerness get in the way of really being seasoned for your flock. The Bride of Christ deserves a well-seasoned and educated eldership. And theological education will never be the remedy for what ails the church. Only good and godly trained men will give her what she needs and deserves.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## larryjf

The bottom line for me, and i believe the biblical way of looking at it, is simply testing that the man who feels called to the Gospel ministry is well trained for that ministry. That is the job of Sessions and Presbyteries.

If a man with nothing but a High School education proved himself to be well trained for the Gospel ministry, then I would hope that his training would be accepted, even though it wasn't formal.

Suggesting that simply because someone has a formal education he is more qualified to minister hints to an elitist attitude and to legalism as it is not biblically mandated. The Bible is clear that we need well-trained men, but it does not stipulate the only correct way to train them...anyone that tries to claim there is only one way to train them is speaking outside of Scripture.

I would not deny William Jay a ministerial position because of his lack of formal education.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Sirs, 

This has been a very good discussion, and many great posts already entered. I would only add that the responsibility for ordination is with the Presbytery. (Obviously I am speaking as a Presbyterian) That being said, the model of 2 Timothy 2.2 is to be implemented by the Presbytery, and the collected wisdom of the Presbytery ought to decide on the best means available for its circumstances when it comes to training its ministers. 

However, I believe any presbytery to act unwisely by simply accepting a seminary degree as a "bona fide" of orthodoxy, competency, etc. The seminary must always be, and only be, one tool which the presbytery has in its bag for training and ordaining its men for ministry. As one said above, the papers and work of the seminary student ought also to be reviewed by the presbytery often, and the presbytery is responsible before the King of the Church to "lay hands on no man suddenly". 

That being said, I believe that a Presbytery may make use of a seminary, either by way of correspondence, or by sending a man there. Or, a Presbytery may have its own "in house" training program, taught by its own membership, locally. She also has the responsibility to judge the man's life and character, prescribe an internship, and to examine and evaluate all along the way, at every step. This is one of the most important functions of a presbytery, and she must not "contract out" these, her own labors, to the seminary. When we, as members of a presbytery, stand before the King of the Church at the end of days, if hirelings, heretics, errorists, and wolves have come into the Church on our watch, we will not be able to use the seminary and its deficiencies as an excuse. The Lord has vested the Presbytery with that authority, and it is she that must administer that function.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

larryjf said:


> Suggesting that simply because someone has a formal education he is more qualified to minister hints to an elitist attitude and to legalism as it is not biblically mandated.


I think it is humbling for me to admit that I am not born with qualifications, but need training. It is humbling to discipline myself to study. It is humbling to commit myself to a calling (or one of the professions) seriously to set my life aside and be trained.

I have worked for a long time as a school teacher. I toughed it out to get the best training I could get. But nowadays, it is the custom to hire unqualified people because they do not have to be on the salary scale and because that allows the administrator to hire personal friends and connections. These people come to work, do not know their subjects, cannot get along with young people, but arrogantly tell everyone that they are better than the others who took the time and the expense to get it right.

_That's_ elitist.


----------



## Pergamum

*The medical analogy doesn't work.* 

In medicine you try to keep alive people alive through physical means; in ministry you try to raise the dead through supernatural means.


Speaking a 30 minute sermon is not the same as brain surgery.


A medical doctor can be a good man or an evil man; and yet his handiwork can be the same. Know the technique and the hard facts and the patient lives.


For a pastor or evangelist most of it is not about doing, but first knowing, and then even before that BEING. The qualifications for elders are not so much cognitive as they are life-fruits!

Local church involement and alternate forms of education often allow a pastor formative years of character formation that will help him 10 times more than geographical relocation for the sake of sitting in a class.


Again, I am all for education, but there are many competing factors involved that make is prohibitive and unwise for all to go to seminary.


----------



## CharlieJ

kceaster said:


> In the end, an elder of the church is not necessarily made by the passage of time, but there is a reason why Paul says elders should not be new converts and should not be novices. What did he mean by "new", I think there is a general rule behind that, but there are also exceptions to those rules. And I think it is fair to talk about other countries than just America. We shouldn't push rules on all societies and "westernize" elder training. But the church needs to be prudent and wise in this manner. In the west, I think churches have bowed too much to letting the seminaries train men primarily, instead of the church primarily. And that is the reason for most of our woes, theologically and spiritually speaking.



Thanks, KC. I appreciate your concern and your admonition. The only reason for my post was Pergamum's suggestion that seminary graduates don't have "hands on experience." I think this is entirely untrue. If it is true in a particular case, it is the fault of the church not being serious about training that person. As you said, seminary is not the whole of ministerial training and if the church relies to heavily on the seminary, it is the church's fault. 

If someone without proper Christian character comes to seminary, whose fault is that? The church's. At least at GPTS, the church's approval is required for training.

If someone comes into seminary with no hands on experience, whose fault is that? The church's. What has it been doing for the last 20-30 years of that person's life?


I think most doctrinally sound seminaries do a good job on their end, and most churches do a bad job on theirs'. But it's easier to blame the seminary.


----------



## Wannabee

CharlieJ said:


> I think most doctrinally sound seminaries do a good job on their end, and most churches do a bad job on theirs'. But it's easier to blame the seminary.



This statement is excellent. What's missing is the fact that there are far more doctrinally sound churches than doctrinally sound seminaries. And even among the doctrinally sound churches, most "do a bad job" in regard to training men for the ministry. For this *the church must take full responsibility*. Seminaries are generally blamed by churches who fail in their responsibility, or men who are a result of such churches. 

As one who was not sent by a church, I praise God that I was able to attend a good seminary. Much of my pride was dashed in my face through that experience. I learned more from the experience than from the education; and probably more in the two years after graduation than the three years in classes.

On a final note, a man is never "ready" for pastoral ministry. He is equipped, sent, ordained, etc., but if he thinks he's truly ready then pride is likely lurking. I was never "less ready" for pastoral ministry than when I was called here. I am still not ready. But I am also compelled and know that my readiness is not because of my sufficiency, education or life experience, but because Christ is made strong in my weakness. May I rest and trust in His strength and not my own.


----------



## JohnGill

*Being a Baptist*



Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Sirs,
> 
> This has been a very good discussion, and many great posts already entered. I would only add that the responsibility for ordination is with the Presbytery. (Obviously I am speaking as a Presbyterian) That being said, the model of 2 Timothy 2.2 is to be implemented by the Presbytery, and the collected wisdom of the Presbytery ought to decide on the best means available for its circumstances when it comes to training its ministers.
> 
> However, I believe any presbytery to act unwisely by simply accepting a seminary degree as a "bona fide" of orthodoxy, competency, etc. The seminary must always be, and only be, one tool which the presbytery has in its bag for training and ordaining its men for ministry. As one said above, the papers and work of the seminary student ought also to be reviewed by the presbytery often, and the presbytery is responsible before the King of the Church to "lay hands on no man suddenly".
> 
> That being said, I believe that a Presbytery may make use of a seminary, either by way of correspondence, or by sending a man there. Or, a Presbytery may have its own "in house" training program, taught by its own membership, locally. She also has the responsibility to judge the man's life and character, prescribe an internship, and to examine and evaluate all along the way, at every step. This is one of the most important functions of a presbytery, and she must not "contract out" these, her own labors, to the seminary. When we, as members of a presbytery, stand before the King of the Church at the end of days, if hirelings, heretics, errorists, and wolves have come into the Church on our watch, we will not be able to use the seminary and its deficiencies as an excuse. The Lord has vested the Presbytery with that authority, and it is she that must administer that function.



I agree with the post wholeheartedly. 

I originally come from an IFB background. One of the good things they did with their members who went off to Bible College was to have them preach Sunday nights or Wednesday nights during the summer. The sermons had to be new, not something they preached at college, and the outline had to be submitted to the pastor for approval. Based upon their summer preaching, evangelism, leading Sunday school, ministry involvement, etc. the pastor would recommend re-admittance to the Bible college.

Now if we could get IFB churches to go Reformed.


----------



## Christusregnat

larryjf said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Jesus ripped 12 men from their local lives for a three-year seminary education; was He disrupting the church?
> 
> 
> 
> Seminaries and churches are not producing apostles.
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Samuel established a "school of the prophets" also called a "college" in Isaiah; if prophets needed to be trained, how much more pastors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seminaries and churches don't produce prophets.
> 
> Since apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church, and we are discussing ministers who are not the foundation, i just don't think it's a fair comparison.
Click to expand...



The form of argumentation is *from the greater to the lesser*. If the Holy-Spirit-inspired prophets and apostles required seminary educaiton *how much more* so those who are not inspired? If there were anyone who did not require a formal training, you would think that it would be those inspired by God; yet even they had the wisdom to see the need for formal education. It is a valid form of argument.

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> All this can best be done by not ripping Third World Pastors out of their local ministry contexts to attend a classroom, but in finding ways to educate them while they continue their present ministries.



This is an excellent point, and in line with the earlier discussion of Paul's missionary method. Bring the seminary to them!

Adam


----------



## Wannabee

> It is a valid form of argument.


It can be argued both ways though. Since prophets and Apostles were given inspiration from God, they were equipped to pass on that information to others. And, though there was a school for prophets, there was no school for Apostles (other than the one time event of being personally trained by Jesus). Jesus, pophets and Apostles are not available to us today to lead our seminaries, except by their words in God's Word and the Spirit of God.


----------



## jogri17

While seminary is useful, I don't think seminary is the best place to train pastors. The local Church is. Seminary is better for the world of academia. A MDIV is nice but the tutorship of a elder is better.


----------



## jawyman

"Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth."

I have a friend who is a United Methodist and he is currently going through what they call Licensing School to become a Licensed Local Pastor. This is a program for men (and of course women, because it is the UMC after all) with some or little college education to become pastors. Imagine what is going to happen to a congregation when they receive a man with some or little college education and all he has is this licensing school for a theological education. Now he will do this school for a week and it is possible for him to be given a church as early as next year.

Even though I am a seminarian and I believe that my training will better prepare me for the pastorate; I am fearful of programs like the one above. My opinion of distance learning is that it is good for certain things, but theology is not one of them.

I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my  in.


----------



## larryjf

jawyman said:


> I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my  in.



The pastorate is not a place where one needs to know how to physically deal with people as doctors do. Rather, it's a place where one learns how to spiritually deal with people. And what better place to do that than at the local church where what they learn can be immediately applied?


----------



## kceaster

jawyman said:


> "Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth."
> 
> I have a friend who is a United Methodist and he is currently going through what they call Licensing School to become a Licensed Local Pastor. This is a program for men (and of course women, because it is the UMC after all) with some or little college education to become pastors. Imagine what is going to happen to a congregation when they receive a man with some or little college education and all he has is this licensing school for a theological education. Now he will do this school for a week and it is possible for him to be given a church as early as next year.
> 
> Even though I am a seminarian and I believe that my training will better prepare me for the pastorate; I am fearful of programs like the one above. My opinion of distance learning is that it is good for certain things, but theology is not one of them.
> 
> I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my  in.



Jeff,

This is along the lines of what Dr. Clark has posited, and it frankly, as others have said, does not compare apples to oranges. Physicians do not answer to God for men's souls. Physicians are held accountable for what they do themselves and do not answer to a judicatory over which they may be censured or defrocked. In other words,, there is nothing like a Presbytery or a Synod who will answer for why a Dr messed up a diagnosis. There is no body or committee charged with the training of doctors and held accountable if the Dr does not receive the right kind of training. And frankly, the minister before God has more responsibility than the Dr will ever have. This causes Dr. Clark to conclude that the training of ministers is more crucial and therefore should be left up to professionals - experts and methods that are largely academic and man-made.

But we see a very different example from Scripture and a very different mandate. Elders of the church are charged with pouring themselves into the lives of those who will take up the mantle for the next generation. It is not seminaries that are charged with this, but elders - elders who are accountable to the church for their actions. To my knowledge and with all of the mess that has gone on in seminaries in the past several years, has there ever been one professor defrocked for errors in teaching? No doubt they have been villified in writing and railed against in public, but they have not been stripped of their office within the church. Even if there have been cases of this, they simply go to another denomination willing to accept them. The fault of this lies with the church for not keeping control over godly education, and the seminaries for not submitting themselves to the collective wisdom of the church. Dr. Clark has said that the average minister could not train a man the way that he needs to be trained. Even with the help of distance ed, the pastor is woefully inadequate. And he uses the same argument you just used. The only problem with that is that this is the way God intended it. Seminaries are not charged with training up a man for the ministry. They are helps towards that end, but are not the ones responsible for it. Has a medical college ever been cited in a lawsuit against a doctor? How about the American College of Surgeons? The AMA? If they have, there is no way to win that lawsuit. Yet, how many seminaries SHOULD be held accountable for the way they have trained a man? How many churches SHOULD be held accountable as well?

Therefore, it is the primary responsibility of the church and secondarily of the seminary. The keys have been given to the church, the pillar and ground of the truth. The seminary may help, but they are not the organization that the Lord commissioned for the making of disciples. Physicians have no mandate from on high to disciple, therefore the ministry is the more important. And that, from Jesus command, is to be done under the auspices and supervision of the church. So there is no reason why a distance education under the supervision of the church is not a viable method for training men for the gospel ministry.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## larryjf

Christusregnat said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Jesus ripped 12 men from their local lives for a three-year seminary education; was He disrupting the church?
> 
> 
> 
> Seminaries and churches are not producing apostles.
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Samuel established a "school of the prophets" also called a "college" in Isaiah; if prophets needed to be trained, how much more pastors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seminaries and churches don't produce prophets.
> 
> Since apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church, and we are discussing ministers who are not the foundation, i just don't think it's a fair comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The form of argumentation is *from the greater to the lesser*. If the Holy-Spirit-inspired prophets and apostles required seminary educaiton *how much more* so those who are not inspired? If there were anyone who did not require a formal training, you would think that it would be those inspired by God; yet even they had the wisdom to see the need for formal education. It is a valid form of argument.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


What are the exact passages that refer to a college or school of prophets so that i can look at the context a bit closer?


----------



## Pergamum

jawyman said:


> "Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth."
> 
> I have a friend who is a United Methodist and he is currently going through what they call Licensing School to become a Licensed Local Pastor. This is a program for men (and of course women, because it is the UMC after all) with some or little college education to become pastors. Imagine what is going to happen to a congregation when they receive a man with some or little college education and all he has is this licensing school for a theological education. Now he will do this school for a week and it is possible for him to be given a church as early as next year.
> 
> Even though I am a seminarian and I believe that my training will better prepare me for the pastorate; I am fearful of programs like the one above. My opinion of distance learning is that it is good for certain things, but theology is not one of them.
> 
> I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my  in.





Who ever said we wanted ignorant pastors? 

You are just assuming a brick and mortar seminary, often far, far from one's home church is the only way to do it. 

TEE (theological education by extension) and distance education and modular intensives can be the answer so as not to wrench pastors away from needy flocks.

In many parts of the Third World a requirement for all pastors to go to seminary would create a village brain drain and deprive the sheep of their shephards where they need them the most - in their local contexts.

It is a sloppy argument to say: You believe that seminary should not be a requirement, therefore you must want stupid pastors.


----------



## Pergamum

Again, the medical analogy is a silly one. Find another one that fits.


----------



## cih1355

What do you think of local churches having their own seminaries? Do you think a seminary has to be a ministry of a particular local church?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this can best be done by not ripping Third World Pastors out of their local ministry contexts to attend a classroom, but in finding ways to educate them while they continue their present ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excellent point, and in line with the earlier discussion of Paul's missionary method. Bring the seminary to them!
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Look what these guys are doing Reformed Baptist Seminary


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages. I would not have had the discipline to troll through two years of Hebrew. I could easily do that with reading and listening to lectures on the web or the ipod. I favor studying in the context of the local church. Specifically the one that took you under care. Most reformed seminaries with DE require that you have a mentor, and that you be a member of a church. I believe they assume that you are taken under care and work in the context of your home church. 

I was at a Career Fair where Covenant, RTS, WTS, WSC, MARS, and others were, and I entered into a discussion with the admissions guy at WSC. He said something along the lines that Covenant and RTS giving away their lecture content for free (itunes U) seemingly cheapened their education. While I agree with him, they are doing a great service to the mission field and aiding current ministers who have not had further training in the word. It is kingdom work they are engaged in. Seminaries walk the careful line of being an academic institution and being a ministry for the church - to produce men with scholarship and men who are able to preach effectively to their sheep. 

The current trend of ministerial study from the context you were raised in, or the context you want to minister in, along with the fact that it is your home church with your shepherds, is a winner not a loser. But you must know the languages for the gospel ministry. So enroll at a local Christian college or fly to a seminary for modular training.


----------



## Christusregnat

larryjf said:


> What are the exact passages that refer to a college or school of prophets so that i can look at the context a bit closer?



2 Kings 22:11 And it came to pass, when the king had *heard the words of the book of the law*, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, 13 Go ye, *enquire of the LORD for me*, and for the people, and for all Judah, *concerning the words of this book* that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. 14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto *Huldah the prophetess*, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem *in the college*) and *they communed with her*.

Note, when men don't obey God, women run the seminaries. But the context is clear; you want to know what God's word means, go and ask the seminary professor.

The school of the prophets is referred to as the "sons of the prophets", and can be found in several places: 1 Kings 20:35, 2 Kings 2:1-15, 2 Kings 4 - 6. Basically, they were a group of men who lived in the same place, and (as I read it) learned how to be prophets. I believe that Samuel established this school (see 1 Sam 19:20). Amos specifically disclaims that he had a seminary education (Amos 7:14-15) but rather followed a simple life as a herdman.

I may be misreading these, but I don't think I am. Christ followed this same pattern, as did Paul with the students he took along with him. How do you think Luke learned so much? 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> I was at a Career Fair where Covenant, RTS, WTS, WSC, MARS, and others were, and I entered into a discussion with the admissions guy at WSC. He said something along the lines that Covenant and RTS giving away their lecture content for free (itunes U) seemingly cheapened their education.





That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard!

They actually think it better to block or hinder folks from gaining access to solid theology?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I wish Covenant would offer Hebrew lectures as part of their free courses. I am ashamedly poor in Hebrew and need all the help I can get.


----------



## Herald

> One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages.


Why? I am going to challenge this supposition. Are you speaking for all preachers everywhere? I assume you are because you made a dogmatic statement. You didn't say, "It would be helpful if preachers of the word knew the biblical langagues." Or, "Those preachers with access to instruction to biblical languages should know them." What counsel should be given to preachers without the resources to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Missionaries labor to bring the gospel to unreached people groups and yearn to train local pastors to lead indigenous churches. Language training of local pastors is not the highest priority. There are preachers in western countries who lack the means necessary to pay for language instruction. Is it preferable for a preacher to have language training? Of course. More than preferable, it should be pursued. But only ignorance or arrogance would suggest that biblical languages are a requisite for preaching. 

I've been rather quiet on the PB of late and this thread is no exception. I have a real problem with elitism in the church. I am sure some will use that statement to charge me with being against seminary training. I'm not against it. I think it can be valuable. But In my humble opinion seminary can never do what the local church should be doing, at least not as long as seminaries operate independent of the local church.


----------



## gene_mingo

North Jersey Baptist said:


> One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? I am going to challenge this supposition. Are you speaking for all preachers everywhere? I assume you are because you made a dogmatic statement. You didn't say, "It would be helpful if preachers of the word knew the biblical langagues." Or, "Those preachers with access to instruction to biblical languages should know them." What counsel should be given to preachers without the resources to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Missionaries labor to bring the gospel to unreached people groups and yearn to train local pastors to lead indigenous churches. Language training of local pastors is not the highest priority. There are preachers in western countries who lack the means necessary to pay for language instruction. Is it preferable for a preacher to have language training? Of course. More than preferable, it should be pursued. But only ignorance or arrogance would suggest that biblical languages are a requisite for preaching.
> 
> I've been rather quiet on the PB of late and this thread is no exception. I have a real problem with elitism in the church. I am sure some will use that statement to charge me with being against seminary training. I'm not against it. I think it can be valuable. But In my humble opinion seminary can never do what the local church should be doing, at least not as long as seminaries operate independent of the local church.
Click to expand...



From the WCF chapter 1:8

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.


I think a properly trained pastor needs to be able to make an appeal to the original language. I believe that this is in accordance to the WCF.


----------



## Pergamum

Again, we are dealing with ideals versus reality:

It would be FABULOUS if every preacher had a doctorate, and knew Hebrew, Greek and Latin! 


But aren't there many other competing factors as well?



I rigidly reject even the requirement of seminary for pastors - especially Third World pastors whom need to stay put in their local contexts as much as possible. Otherwise sometimes they leave their towns, their districts, their provinces and even their countries to enter a classroom setting of 4-5 years. 

I have seen and heard of local congregations being left like sheep without a shepherd due to some academician making these local faithful pastors feel inferior and unsuited for their task. 

If the training is to enhance the task of being a pastor, why does it have to destroy it!



Again, there are good ways to "bring the seminary to them" through TEE, mail-in, distance, and modular courses. If US professors had more of a global vision I am sure more of them would go as "missionary professors" long term or at least for modular units in many locales. There is always a lack of missionaries that teach at Bible schools here and just a few more would make a HUGE impact.


----------



## Christusregnat

North Jersey Baptist said:


> One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? I am going to challenge this supposition. Are you speaking for all preachers everywhere? I assume you are because you made a dogmatic statement. You didn't say, "It would be helpful if preachers of the word knew the biblical langagues." Or, "Those preachers with access to instruction to biblical languages should know them." What counsel should be given to preachers without the resources to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Missionaries labor to bring the gospel to unreached people groups and yearn to train local pastors to lead indigenous churches. Language training of local pastors is not the highest priority. There are preachers in western countries who lack the means necessary to pay for language instruction. Is it preferable for a preacher to have language training? Of course. More than preferable, it should be pursued. But only ignorance or arrogance would suggest that biblical languages are a requisite for preaching.
> 
> I've been rather quiet on the PB of late and this thread is no exception. I have a real problem with elitism in the church. I am sure some will use that statement to charge me with being against seminary training. I'm not against it. I think it can be valuable. But In my humble opinion seminary can never do what the local church should be doing, at least not as long as seminaries operate independent of the local church.
Click to expand...




Here again, it appears that we're talking about fundamental differences between baptists and Presbyterians. This is a fundamental divide over the nature of the church, and the need for an educated ministry. Perhaps we can have a debate about seminaries in the debate forum. It would be interesting to see a baptist, local-church man, vs. a presbyterian, seminary man.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

I will defend my dogmatic statement. 

As it was said we are discussing ideals not reality. In places like South Africa I would already be a preacher. (I am 23 and with a religion degree in my pocket... just walking around before the seminary plunge. Life experience is more important and beneficial than being lectured at, even with the one on one interaction with Profs.) 

But here in the states and the very nature of our reformed and presbyterian denominations being licensed to preach at my age is unheard of (by me at least). But even if I were in South Africa I would contend that regular preachers of the word must know the Biblical languages. 

God gave us stories. And if you do not even know the original author's word choice, and instead rely on a translation, you miss out-period. Greek and Hebrew are both dead languages and we do not have good English parallels for certain words. Dan. 1 and 2 recounts how David and his friends were taken into exile and given new names. Reeducation we may call it. But the new names glorify the pagan gods, while their true names exalted Yahweh. 

It is a necessity when debating Jehovah's False Witnesses and the Mormons who have their twisted and manmade words in hand. "That is not what the Greek says" they claim. OK- Pull off the Greek NT and show them Col. 1:9. Even when they claim that Jehovah comes from Yahweh is wrong. But unless a teacher told you this, or look at the Hebrew itself, one would not know this. 

Martin Lloyd Jones contended that the languages were extracurricular activities for the ministry. Machen said they were indispensible. Two years ago I started studying the Hebrew language and it takes a lot of work for me to do. For the sake of my own laziness and leisure I would love to say the languages are extracurricular, but they aren't. And in saying all these things- I think and believe they are essential to the preacher, but God obviously blesses the ministries of men who do not know the languages.

PS. I argue for this in the context of the local church.


----------



## Pergamum

Adam: I don't understand you. What difference are these and why would baptists and Presbyterians differ here?


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> Adam: I don't understand you. What difference are these and why would baptists and Presbyterians differ here?



Pergamum, you're not alone.....

I used to be a staunch sovereign grace baptist, and (in general) the more "baptist" someone becomes, the less they are willing to believe in a catholic/universal church. The church is defined as local only. In such a mode of thought, there is no place for any body beyond the local congregation, thus making a Presbytery or G.A. controlled seminary a "Romish" hangover.

Prebies believe in a catholic church, which includes the unity of the whole body. This has historically meant no lone-ranger or unconnected churches. Synods, councils, G.A.s and presbyteries are seen to have authoritative decision making power, as per Acts 15. Pure baptist theology does not allow for anything beyond the local church's power, and will therefore deny the legitimacy of anyone outside of the local church training pastors. For more on this, you may want to look up my old pastor, Dr. William R. Downing. A staunch baptist who does not believe in a catholic church.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

Adam:

Yes, I come from Sovereign Grace Baptist circles and many of my supporting churches are SGB churches. Ironically, they bash parachurches and yet find it in their hearts to support me, on odd duck I guess, who partnered with a mission society.

The flavor of some of the Sovereign Grace Baptists almost seems Landmarkish does it not? 

I do think a greater sense of cooperation and also connectionalism (if I understand this word correctly) needs to be fostered. I also think that missionary societies and seminaries for that matter - which are outside the direct oversight of a local church - are permissible means of meeting needs in evangelism and education.



So....in short...your statement clicked for me and I agree totally with your observation - many Baptists mistake a doctrine of independency for a doctrine of isolationism. That is a good observation. 

I see no problems with local churches working together for the greater good - even across denominational lines.




Now, I want to ask you - just how many little sects, schisms and spasms are among prebyterians? 

They don't seem to be much better by way of unity than the baptists do. And the unified groups have largely uniformly slid into apostasy. So, I will take my calvinistic soteriology and my baptistic ecclesiology any day.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Pergamum said:


> Now, I want to ask you - just how many little sects, schisms and spasms are among prebyterians?



Quite a few, but they are very unified within themselves...


----------



## Pergamum

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I want to ask you - just how many little sects, schisms and spasms are among prebyterians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few, but they are very unified within themselves...
Click to expand...


What does that mean?


----------



## DMcFadden

I have been sitting out this thread because of my respect for Dr. Clark and desire not to be too contentious. 

After participating in 450-500 ordination exams over the past 27 years, I think that some of us are missing the point. The issue is not an "educated" clergy vs. a non-educated one. If the standards identify outcomes and remain the same, then the question should be about delivery systems.

People who have invested 9-12 years in college, seminary, and graduate school classrooms (with the tens of thousands of dollars of debt that go with it) have an understandable prejudice in favor of traditional tracks. Also, some of us who spent our years and dollars on that approach have a defensiveness for it as well (it was good enough for me . . . ). Unfortunately, since all educational delivery options carry unintended consequences, we must also weigh the negative effects that go with them.

Traditional academic preparation delivers all of the values identified in this thread. It excels at teaching biblical languages, allows for good give-and-take between learners and instructors, and looks on paper like the ideal model. Yet it also tends to abstract people frm their original context, socialize them in ways that often makes them less effective with the people who sent them off to get a theological education, and frequently feeds their pride. I have seen third world nationals come to America to get their education, and finish seminary less able to return to their people. Some of them become so habituated to American culture that they don't go back at all! 

I have commented on this thread before that in my own circles, I have observed ministers graduate from seminary demonstrably LESS competent to minister than they were before matriculating. 

If your goal is competence "outcomes," you can identify various objective standards and hold the line on quality without prescribing a one-size-fits-all delivery system. How can anyone say that a person who completes a M.Div. (for instance) by distance education is any less "academically" prepared? Frankly, some of the empirical data on DE suggests that tests scores and actual proficiencies are higher for those who complete a DE degree than one who does it through bricks and mortar. 

And, when ministerial preparation is the goal, I would much rather see a person who has been mentored by a competent pastor over one who has merely sat in a classroom lecture hall with 150 other students (actually some of my bricks and mortar seminary classes were larger than this!). You Presbyterians seem to do a better job of having PhDs who are also Godly and effective pastors doing the seminary teaching. Most of my profs were either utterly inexperienced in pastoral ministry or failures at it who retreated to the academy in response.

In a world of MP3s distributed for free on the internet, streaming video, and free (or practically free) books and Bible software online, the game has changed. One need not quit his job, travel to Philadelphia, Dallas, Greenville, Pasadena, or Grand Rapids, and rack up gazillions of dollars in debt in order to receive quality instruction. Church based models utilizing readily available lectures, innovative online instructional techniques, and patoral mentoring structures show great promise for delivering the SAME level of theological and biblical education at a fraction of the current cost. 

In my view, the "best" theological education would combine top rate content (e.g., many of the BEST Reformed teachers have courses available for free that include EVERY word spoken by the professor to the class including mention of when the course projects are due!) + unyielding academic accountability for learning the "content" of the discipline + adequate mentorship in the practice of ministry + provision for a "community of learners." 

How do you find this formula in the real world? _Some_ of our seminaries do a very capable job of delivery. Many do not. The innovative programs being proposed today take advantage of computers and the internet to produce other delivery systems equal in quality but without some of the unintended consequences of traditonal bricks and mortar seminaries.

One of my sons was privileged to complete his theological education using a hybrid model that I find quite attractive. He completed a traditional B.A. with 60+ units of Bible/theology (including a year of Greek). Then, during seminary, he used a modular program. Several times each year he took courses on the bricks and mortar campus. Preparation involved reading the same number of books/pages prior to class, being on campus for the same number of lecture hours (10 per unit) compressed into a single week, and have a month to complete the written work following the course lectures. Courses were team taught by a traditional seminary prof (PhD etc.) AND a proven ministerial practitioner. This model allowed my son to be in full time ministry under the mentorship of an experienced pastor, continue learning and serving on an effective ministry team, AND finish an accredited bricks and mortar degree.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Pergamum said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I want to ask you - just how many little sects, schisms and spasms are among prebyterians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few, but they are very unified within themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
Click to expand...


Just making a joke - apparently not a very good one - that the different presbyterian groups are unified within their individual "sect." PCAers are unified within the PCA, OPCers are unified within the OPC, etc...


----------



## Pergamum

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few, but they are very unified within themselves...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just making a joke - apparently not a very good one - that the different presbyterian groups are unified within their individual "sect." PCAers are unified within the PCA, OPCers are unified within the OPC, etc...
Click to expand...


Oh, every single sect I guess if then unified....until right before a split happens...then they get unified again.


----------



## Pergamum

DMcFadden said:


> I have been sitting out this thread because of my respect for Dr. Clark and desire not to be too contentious.
> 
> After participating in 450-500 ordination exams over the past 27 years, I think that some of us are missing the point. The issue is not an "educated" clergy vs. a non-educated one. If the standards identify outcomes and remain the same, then the question should be about delivery systems.
> 
> People who have invested 9-12 years in college, seminary, and graduate school classrooms (with the tens of thousands of dollars of debt that go with it) have an understandable prejudice in favor of traditional tracks. Also, some of us who spent our years and dollars on that approach have a defensiveness for it as well (it was good enough for me . . . ). Unfortunately, since all educational delivery options carry unintended consequences, we must also weigh the negative effects that go with them.
> 
> Traditional academic preparation delivers all of the values identified in this thread. It excels at teaching biblical languages, allows for good give-and-take between learners and instructors, and looks on paper like the ideal model. Yet it also tends to abstract people frm their original context, socialize them in ways that often makes them less effective with the people who sent them off to get a theological education, and frequently feeds their pride. I have seen third world nationals come to America to get their education, and finish seminary less able to return to their people. Some of them become so habituated to American culture that they don't go back at all!
> 
> I have commented on this thread before that in my own circles, I have observed ministers graduate from seminary demonstrably LESS competent to minister than they were before matriculating.
> 
> If your goal is competence "outcomes," you can identify various objective standards and hold the line on quality without prescribing a one-size-fits-all delivery system. How can anyone say that a person who completes a M.Div. (for instance) by distance education is any less "academically" prepared? Frankly, some of the empirical data on DE suggests that tests scores and actual proficiencies are higher for those who complete a DE degree than one who does it through bricks and mortar.
> 
> And, when ministerial preparation is the goal, I would much rather see a person who has been mentored by a competenet pastor over one who has merely sat in a classroom lecture hall with 150 other students (actually some of my bricks and mortar seminary classes were larger than this!). You Presbyterians seem to do a better job of having PhDs who are also Godly and effective pastors doing the seminary teaching. Most of my profs were either utterly inexperienced in pastoral ministry or failures at it who retreated to the academy in response.
> 
> In a world of MP3s distributed for free on the internet, streaming video, and free (or practically free) books and Bible software online, the game has changed. One need not quit his job, travel to Philadelphia, Dallas, Greenville, Pasadena, or Grand Rapids, and rack up gazillions of dollars in debt in order to receive quality instruction. Church based models utilizing readily available lectures, innovative online instructional techniques, and patoral mentoring structures show great promise for delivering the SAME level of theological and biblical education at a fraction of the current cost.
> 
> In my view, the "best" theological education would combine top rate content (e.g., many of the BEST Reformed teachers have courses available for free that include EVERY word spoken by the professor to the class including mention of when the course projects are due!) + unyielding academic accountability for learning the "content" of the discipline + adequate mentorship in the practice of ministry + provision for a "community of learners."
> 
> How do you find this formula in the real world? _Some_ of our seminaries do a very capable job of delivery. Many do not. The innovative programs being proposed today take advantage of computers and the internet to produce other delivery systems equal in quality but without some of the unintended consequences of traditonal bricks and mortar seminaries.
> 
> One of my sons was privileged to complete his theological education using a hybrid model that I find quite attractive. He completed a traditional B.A. with 60+ units of Bible/theology (including a year of Greek). Then, during seminary, he used a modular program. Several times each year he took courses on the bricks and mortar campus. Preparation involved reading the same number of books/pages prior to class, being on campus for the same number of lecture hours (10 per unit) compressed into a single week, and have a month to complete the written work following the course lectures. Courses were team taught by a traditional seminary prof (PhD etc.) AND a proven ministerial practitioner. This model allowed my son to be in full time ministry under the mentorship of an experienced pastor, continue learning and serving on an effective ministry team, AND finish an accredited bricks and mortar degree.



Hmmmm.....delivery systems.........


Thanks for that perspective!


----------



## DMcFadden

Pergy, I was primarily dealing with the context I know best here in the U.S. When you add the grinding reality of poverty in some third world settings, my comments about DE and innovative delivery packages would be even stronger. 

I have been impressed with the mission of Third Millennium ministries. They say:



> Our goal is to provide Christian education to hundreds of thousands of pastors around the world who lack sufficient training for ministry. We are meeting this goal by publishing and globally distributing a free multilingual, multimedia, digital seminary curriculum in English, Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), Russian and Spanish. The curriculum is designed to be used in support of existing schools, as well as by groups and individuals. It consists of three central elements: graphic-driven videos, printed instruction and internet resources.



Very ambitious agenda with great promise. And, they are REFORMED!!! "Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM) is an Evangelical Christian parachurch ministry in the Reformed tradition."


----------



## wmc1982

I would say generally, but not absolutely.

(I desire so much to go to seminary now but it doesn't seem possible for a good while, I pray a door opens!)


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> Ironically, they bash parachurches and yet find it in their hearts to support me, on odd duck I guess, who partnered with a mission society.



What can I say, you're a likable guy 



Pergamum said:


> The flavor of some of the Sovereign Grace Baptists almost seems Landmarkish does it not?



My former pastor was brought up on Landmarkism, and when I met some of his LM friends, they were rather zealous fellows, although most of them seemed to be lacking in a commensurate level of knowledge. I had to be "rebaptized" by the SG pastor, even though the Ref Baps had already rebaptized me from the Nazarene baptism I got as a kid. I've been three times baptized, and the third was so that I could fellowship with the LMs who would think I wasn't a christian for receiving RB baptism.



Pergamum said:


> So....in short...your statement clicked for me and I agree totally with your observation - many Baptists mistake a doctrine of independency for a doctrine of isolationism.



Indeed. Although the ideas of independency/autonomy is not inseparably connected with isolationism, I think that the more consistent a man is with autonomy, the more isolationist he will become. 



Pergamum said:


> Now, I want to ask you - just how many little sects, schisms and spasms are among prebyterians?



Ahhh, too true. I think, particularly in America, we all tend to think like baptists in this regard. We don't like one little thing about a G.A., and therefore we separate into a smaller Presbyterian. This is why the liberals gain foothold: we lose conservatives over Psalm-singing. This is why, as you observe, the larger denominations tend to "slide into apostasy". First wind of error, and someone goes packing. I'd prefer them to stick around and work for reform; but they have to do as they think God directs.

Cheers,

Adam


----------

