# Seminaries and Student Loan Debt



## C. M. Sheffield

> "The borrower is the slave of the lender." - Proverbs 22:7



​
Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations? 

Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt? 

Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?

And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?


----------



## Nathan Riese

i noticed when I was researching which seminary to go to that lots of seminaries only allow their students to borrow up to a certain amount and no further. I believe that if one is going to allow students to take any loans that this is a good practice. So, I don't know exactly which seminaries you are referring to, but I agree with you, that those seminaries who do not put a limit on the amount of loans should enforce some limitation.

However, should seminaries allow students to go into _any_ debt whatsoever?

Has modern theological education become such a product that it is something to be bought? If I'm not mistaken, the church or presbytery of the one called to ministry should be taking more initiative in actually training that individual, and if not, provide the finances for it. Ministerial education should not be something that any person can reach on the shelf at the seminary store and purchase, but that's more and more what it is becoming--a business.

If you ask me for my personal opinion, no seminary should allow debt, because every ministerial student should be trained by his own session/presbytery or, at the very least, financially supported by the presbytery, otherwise, like i said, it becomes a purchased product by any person.


----------



## SolaSaint

Nate,

I like what you say, this is a good point. If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.


----------



## carlgobelman

SolaSaint said:


> If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, *but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.*



We're not generalizing too much, are we? Is that a fair statement to make?


----------



## DMcFadden

My tenure on my denomination's ordination committee is now nearing 30 years which amounts to almost 500 ordination candidates. Of late, it has been my observation that students are coming to be ordained with debts between $50,000 and $100,000. I'm sure you Reformed brethren pay much better than my Baptist buds, but it is VERY difficult to get out from under that kind of load!


----------



## MamaArcher

We ended up taking out loans when hubby went. Still paying on them too after many, many years. The seminary told us the practice they encouraged was for the wife to go to work and support the hubby during his training. We already had 3 preschoolers and firmly believe I was stay home to teach and train them. Not two very good options to choose from at the time but I still believe staying home was the better.


----------



## SolaScriptura

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?
> 
> Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?
> 
> Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?
> 
> And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?



I am not a "big brother" socialist. I believe in the free market and in personal responsibility for one's financial situation. It is rank communism to say that the school should "protect" the person from their own decisions. If the person wants to borrow up to the hilt, then that is their decision... even if it seems financially silly to you given the amount of income they can reasonably anticipate upon graduation. 

Schools can provide as much or as little as they want. It is the student's job to be responsible and decide if they can afford the price of the school.

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 06:30:45 EST-----



carlgobelman said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, *but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not generalizing too much, are we? Is that a fair statement to make?
Click to expand...


I think it is.


----------



## Grillsy

Ben, 

You make a good point, people can make their own decisions.

But I think you miss the point of the question. Is it right to force someone to go into debt simply by going to seminary in order for them to be ordained?

You would be hard pressed to find any minister who didn't have to borrow something in order to afford seminary.

Certainly there was a time when there were ministers before the expensive seminary. Please do not take that as an insult or aversion to seminary education. I certainly believe in it, it is just that the cost of this required education is outrageous. I realize that seminaries as the exist now can under no circumstances be free. But as a person, who certainly feels called to the ministry, but who took on a lot of loan debt to get his first Bachelor's degrees form a private Christian university, there is no way that I will be able to afford seminary and therefore no hope of ordination.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> But I think you miss the point of the question. Is it right to force someone to go into debt simply by going to seminary in order for them to be ordained?



No one is forcing anyone to go to seminary. And as far as those who believe that God wants them to go to seminary... ok, go. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Too many people want world class educations on community college tuition levels. Don't get me wrong, churches should be supporting the men they send to seminary... but that issue isn't the seminary's concern.



> You would be hard pressed to find any minister who did have to borrow something in order to afford seminary.



I believe you meant to say hard pressed to find someone who DIDN'T have to borrow... well, I'm one of these rare ministers. I didn't borrow a cent. I went slower because I had to work full-time in college, I intentionally sought out what I believed to be the best balance between cost and quality... in short, I did my homework and I made HUGE sacrifices. But we did it debt free.

There are options. Granted, they're options most aren't willing to consider... but I have little sympathy for people who claim to not be able to make it when they COULD make it if they were actually willing to exhaust the options before them... too many are actually saying, "I'm only willing to go so far and then if it doesn't happen, I'm not willing to go any further..." Pride, laziness, or something else... but I just wish more people would truly exhaust every possible means.


----------



## LeeJUk

Well I can only speak for my own country,

but here the practice is that 

(church of scotland)

the church pays for your first 2 years at seminary (total of 4 years)

as for the other 2 years, as far as I know all British people are given a government grant from SAAS that will be good for about half or more of the fee's of your education whether it be college or university - depending I think on your income and past uses of this grant.

As for the rest, we get student loans that we dont start paying until we get a job and our salaries reach a certain point e.g. start your church of scotland ministry.
and our government does pretty well on things like this so it shouldnt' be too steep, nothing in the region of 50,000 or 100,000 dollars like someone said above.


----------



## matt01

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?
> 
> Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?
> 
> Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?
> 
> And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?



Students and potential students are not forced to go into debt to further their educations. There are many non-traditional programs that allow the potential elder to gain the necessary education. Students must choose if they are willing to pay for the name on the diploma.

Schools are selling a product. There is no issue of morality, with the cost being outside of the range of some students. They need to exercise wise judgment, and realize that not everyone need attend Westminster or one of the higher priced seminaries.

No. The tuition is based on what the market will bear. If you want to study at a particular school, you are going to have to find funding for it. This may be loans, or maybe local churches supporting their aspirants, or maybe the realization that not everyone who goes to seminary belongs there.

I don't understand why it is the seminaries responsibility to ensure a low cost education. The tuition is higher than some would estimate appropriate based on the reality of higher quality faculty, desiring to have needed resources, etc...If people don't need/desire these things, there are schools which charge much less. Of course those schools come with less of a distinction in regard to name, faculty, and accreditation.


----------



## Christusregnat

This is what City Seminary is seeking to avoid:

City Seminary of Sacramento

Cheers,


----------



## SolaSaint

carlgobelman said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a certain church body feels a man is called to the ministry then they should help in the finances, *but they will probably rather spend it on a better sound system instead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not generalizing too much, are we? Is that a fair statement to make?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, that was my opinion, I should have stated so.


----------



## Edward

Grillsy said:


> But as a person, who certainly feels called to the ministry, but who took on a lot of loan debt to get his first Bachelor's degrees form a private Christian university, there is no way that I will be able to afford seminary and therefore no hope of ordination.



That isn't the seminary's fault, is it?


----------



## William Price

I would love to attend seminary, but I cannot afford it. I only make slightly above 26,000/year as a Head Custodian.


----------



## The Mexican Puritan

Going to one of those expensive, ATS-accredited seminaries doesn't mean anything. I know of one WTS graduate who holds that the universe and everything in it was NOT created in six literal days. All that money and time was wasted in his case. The elders need to get busy and start training their own. Each Reformed denomination ought to set up its own seminary, taking a percentage of a man's wages that won't break him. Or pastors ought to have some sort of apprenticeship program set up.


----------



## Grillsy

Edward said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as a person, who certainly feels called to the ministry, but who took on a lot of loan debt to get his first Bachelor's degrees form a private Christian university, there is no way that I will be able to afford seminary and therefore no hope of ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the seminary's fault, is it?
Click to expand...


Nope, and the problem isn't the seminaries at all.

All I am trying to do is echo the original question about whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> All I am trying to do is echo the original question about *whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.*



It costs money to operate a seminary. I don't know of any seminary professors or administrators that are rich. It simply costs money. Larger schools with larger endowments and revenue streams from their denominations (ie, my alma mater, Southern Seminary) are able to charge less than schools that want to retain "big name" professors and yet don't have the income to offset that cost.


The market is the best method for controlling cost. Let the market work.


----------



## Christusregnat

Perhaps a breakoff from this thread could be the office of doctor as an ecclesiastical office, as generally believed by the earlier Reformers and by the Westminster Assembly.


----------



## Nathan Riese

Some people commenting here sound like they believe that seminary = ordination.

Why is that the generally acceptable view of our culture? Even in the presbyteries doing the ordination, that is the the most preferable route. Why? How is purchasing a $40,000 M.Div. a qualification for the pastorate?

Sorry, just not finding that in the Bible. I agree with the view that seminary education is beneficial and _secondary_. Education for the pastorate should be education _from _the pastorate.

Sure, it might not be wrong for a seminary to offer a product such as the M.Div., but let's face it, the M.Div. is meant for the pastorate, and seminaries are now selling pastorate qualification certificates, leaving the student in debt. Doesn't sound preferable to me.


----------



## lynnie

_I know of one WTS graduate who holds that the universe and everything in it was NOT created in six literal days._

One? Try hundreds. Not to knock WTS (hub went there) but you can't fight BB Warfield.

Going back to the OP, my church is not too far from Princeton and we get quite a few Princeton Seminary students, who as far as I know are all truly saved. For some, they actually want to go there because the Princeton degree is the best ticket to a teaching job afterwards. But for some, the almost free degree, due to all the plush endowments, is just too attractive compared to Reformed seminary debt. The bottom line is money, and they don't want the debt, even if they are in a sewer of liberalism. 

The people here condemning the debt are unwittingly supporting the decision to get a nearly free MDiv from a spiritual cesspool like Princeton. I offended two students in the past three years asking them how they handle the doctrine as a believer; it is obviously a touchy subject. I think men who choose to make a great financial sacrifice to soak their mind in great theology, instead of applying to liberal divinity schools offering big scholarships, should be honored. 

R Scott Clark had a post here a while back about ways to lessen the cost at WSC at least, if anybody is interested in that Seminary. Maybe you can find what he said if you search.


----------



## Grillsy

SolaScriptura said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I am trying to do is echo the original question about *whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It costs money to operate a seminary. I don't know of any seminary professors or administrators that are rich. It simply costs money. Larger schools with larger endowments and revenue streams from their denominations (ie, my alma mater, Southern Seminary) are able to charge less than schools that want to retain "big name" professors and yet don't have the income to offset that cost.
> 
> 
> The market is the best method for controlling cost. Let the market work.
Click to expand...


I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.



Yes, it is ethical. 

Perhaps you think that just because someone - or a group of men - thinks that a person is called to ministry that they are therefore entitled to an "inexpensive" education, and that therefore other men are obligated to make a pittance living so that this man who thinks he's called can get a cheap education?

Again, the cost is only "huge" if you make it that way. There are ways to make it managable.


----------



## Brian Withnell

C. M. Sheffield said:


> "The borrower is the slave of the lender." - Proverbs 22:7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Should sound Evangelical seminaries be allowing their students to go deep into debt in order to pay for their educations?
> 
> Isn't there some immorality or impropriety in letting their students barrow to the hilt?
> 
> Should these institutions reform their practices in this regard?
> 
> And if they do, what alternatives can they offer to students lacking the funds to attend?
Click to expand...


A seminary ought to be a ministry of a denomination. It ought not be a "break even" business, but ought to have a continual infusion of cash from the denomination that oversees their teaching (and yes, every seminary ought to be overseen by a denomination for multiple reasons). If a seminary has no choice but to make enough money to cover their costs, then they very well might not be able to support the future training of pastors for the denomination they serve without factoring money into the mix. In the long run, it makes a seminary beholding not to pure teaching of the word, but to a bottom line of having income meet expense. That can only lead to looking at including those that ought be weeded out, and looking for money from those that cannot afford it.

I would rather see a seminary loosing money every year knowing they keep their standards high than have them breaking even by lowering standards so more students will pay tuition.


----------



## Michael Doyle

There are certainly a slew of options for those who are called to the ministry. The PCA has LAMP Seminary, which provides the necessary load for ordination at a very reasonable cost and works through the local church elders. 

I am relatively sure there are other programs available as well. Is this as effective as an WSC or RTS, perhaps not, perhaps not by a long shot, that I am not sure of. What I do know is that God has provided a means for training for his called at least within the context of the PCA.

I agree with Ben. The free market will inevitably work itself out. If people choose wisely and are incapable of reasonably affording the major seminaries then eventually other avenues will inevitably come to light. My


----------



## SolaSaint

Unless one wants a brick and mortar institution check out Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology. It's a tuition free online graduate school offering Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral diplomas. Its accredited by ICAATS out of India. They are conservative but not beholden to any denomination.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

By the grace of God, I worked 45 hrs a week as a server. It was a good restaurant, therefore I made over 1,000 a week. I went to school, and I wife stayed home. We didn't borrow any money. I had two goals, one was not going on welfare because I went to seminary and the other was not going into debt.


----------



## Grillsy

SolaScriptura said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is ethical.
> 
> Perhaps you think that just because someone - or a group of men - thinks that a person is called to ministry that they are therefore entitled to an "inexpensive" education, and that therefore other men are obligated to make a pittance living so that this man who thinks he's called can get a cheap education?
> 
> Again, the cost is only "huge" if you make it that way. There are ways to make it managable.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if my tone is coming across as harsh or something but I really don't mean to sound that way.

I am only trying to ask honest questions that I have.
I will ask this question now. Does the Bible require those who are ordained ministers to attend such institutions? I want to qualify that question with the fact, that I believe in an educated clergy, but I want to know if the Bible requires it be done in the typical seminary fashion.

I am not trying to be a smartaleck. Please, no more needlessly polemic responses. There is far too much of that on this board.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Westminster Seminary California faculty


----------



## charliejunfan

How about more of the godly men(I hope to be one day ) on this board talk to Larry Bray about becoming mentors for The North American Reformed Seminary(TNARS.net) so that men who are called to the ministry can have a free but effective seminary education.


----------



## LeeJUk

Maybe many seminaries have started viewing themselves as an end rather than a means?
Thus very little help financially for students is made available.


----------



## JOwen

In our federation, the Free Reformed Churches of North America, we send our students to PRTS, and we pay for it as a federation.


----------



## Jim Peet

*Save before going*

I went to seminary back in 1978. My wife and I saved for the expenses before going. I graduated debt free.


----------



## DMcFadden

R. Scott Clark said:


> Westminster Seminary California faculty





Considering the commercial running on White Horse Inn ("would you allow a surgeon to operate on you who got his medical training by mail order?"), I can only assume that Scott's particularly laconic post means . . . 

"You get what you pay for."

[Actually, Scott's post is not to a listing of WSCAL faculty and their credentials, but a thoughtful piece on the value of a quality seminary education. Still, the "answer" to the question with a hyperlink "Westminster Seminary California Faculty" is still hilarious!]

Engaging the subject more substantively, while it is the responsibility of the student to determine what he can reasonably afford, a few points should be considered:

* Many/most college grads seeking seminary training do not know squat about money. They have a disconnect between the money they spend on school and their library and the remuneration they will likely receive in their denominational congregations (bitter lesson I lived through by making all of the wrong choices myself).

* Some young seminariars seem more impressed with the prestige of the name of the seminary, than with the value actually provided. WSCAL is one of the FEW places I would be willing to go into debt to attend. Some of the "name" seminaries (a little discretion here since the president of "that" seminary e-mailed me a few weeks ago complaining of my harsh tone and I want to avoid a Google hit by mentioning the name) are in my opinion NOT worth the money, especially the high debt load.

* Dr. Clark has already made helpful suggestions in the PB about some of the ways students can approach seminary to mitigate the possibility of debt. Spreading the 3 years out to 4 or 5 to allow work is one of them. 

Bottom line, life is about choices, some of them less than ideal. If you plan on having children while in seminary, homeschool your kids, etc. DON'T attend an expensive seminary on a 3 year plan without significant financial aid or savings. A wife working to "put hubby through" is one way to avoid decades of financial slavery.

Considering the stupid financial decisions my wife and I made (got married during private college, both went to seminary together so that neither of us worked full time, built a huge library at considerable cost, began having the first of our 5 kids during seminary, started serving in two small Baptist churches that paid poorly before going to a large one that was cheap, stayed in uber-expensive Southern California my whole ministry), God has been unusually gracious to us. Had the opportunity to move into an executive position not been available (even a non-profit is more generous than an average Baptist church), my kids would have been up the proverbial creek with college. I STRONGLY plead with you young ones to count the cost and get solid financial advice BEFORE you embark on seminary preparation.

Yes, there are some less expensive options for schooling. But, one should not eschew a quality education (e.g., WSCAL) because of cost IF you plan, prepare, and take advantage of the financial options mentioned.


----------



## Nathan Riese

That WSC article by Dr. Clark is pretty interesting. Many good and agreeable points were brought up. However, one can use little sayings here and there which accumulate to stimulate a negative outlook on its opposition.

It showed why internet seminary is insufficient (based on assumptions) then separately showed why it is insufficient for a pastor to train men for the ministry (also based on assumptions).


> how could even the most skilled and industrious pastor fulfill all his parish responsibilities and do the sort of reading which would prepare him to train men for ministry full-time? Clearly this is highly unlikely.



Really? Is this _clear_? This is based on the assumption that it is not an overseer's duty to train one to be an overseer as being _included in the parish responsibilities._

The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).

The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.


> Thus, even in the distance-education scheme, one has made a substantial investment, but there are less tangible costs as well. When, in this scenario, will the stay-at-home seminarian study his Greek and Hebrew? Who will evaluate his sermons? With whom will he compare notes? [Will he really memorize his Greek and Hebrew vocabulary or will that also be too much bother? Will he really spend the late hours necessary to do the reading and writing for class? A computer terminal or video screen is wonderful, but it is not the kind of human fellowship or genuine community that is so vital to the adequate preparation of pastors.




The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in _conjunction with _internet seminary, is that not easily answerable? 

It's relatively simple to argue against internet seminary v. on-campus seminary using pro-on-campus seminary aspects and con-internet seminary aspects.

It's easy to shrug off pastoral training as a sufficient ministerial training by saying that pastors aren't current and don't have as much time.

Sidenote: the medical analogy is not truly analogous to ministerial training.


> Ask yourself this question: Would you choose a heart surgeon who learned his skills via satellite and video tapes? Even with the assistance of a seasoned physician nearby, such training would clearly be inadequate.


Is that really the same thing? If a car mechanic learned via video he might not be that great of a mechanic either, but, if a speech teacher learned speech via video he might be a great speech teacher from that education. A counselor in training might learn well via video as well as actually doing counseling sessions with an experienced counselor in the room supervising and mentoring. The medical analogy is insufficient.

But the _real_ issues weren't answered in this Westminster Writing. How do pro-internet and mentorship aspects line up with the pro-on-campus aspects? THEN a sufficient conclusion can be made.

There was obvious prejudice. Internet students are lazy. Pastors don't have time. It's not a pastor's parish responsibility to train a member for future ministry. Greek can't be adaquately taught via internet. Reflection can't be adaquately done at home when doing internet seminary, etc.

I don't know these things for sure. The things stated above are only my impressions and opinions, not authority or a thorough rebuttal. I am young. I haven't studied this issue long enough. I'm not a Doctor. 
Dr. Clark could very well be right. All I know is that his article doesn't exactly give seminary mentorship programs any positive remarks, only negatives. Why is that? 

All I know is that if I were to write an article only about the negatives about on-campus seminary and then write about only positives of distance mentorship programs, I'm sure my article would look pretty good in my favor too.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Grillsy said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I am trying to do is echo the original question about *whether or not the huge cost of seminary is ethical.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It costs money to operate a seminary. I don't know of any seminary professors or administrators that are rich. It simply costs money. Larger schools with larger endowments and revenue streams from their denominations (ie, my alma mater, Southern Seminary) are able to charge less than schools that want to retain "big name" professors and yet don't have the income to offset that cost.
> 
> 
> The market is the best method for controlling cost. Let the market work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.
Click to expand...


Actually, seminary is not _required_ for ordination, only highly recommended. Ordination is approved by the Presbytery after examining your knowledge and gifts. Seminary is the most "convenient" and common way at this time to prepare you for those exams and qualifications. But if you can pass the scrutiny of the Presbytery by some other means of education, then go for it.


----------



## ClayPot

JOwen said:


> In our federation, the Free Reformed Churches of North America, we send our students to PRTS, and we pay for it as a federation.



To quote Napolean Dynamite, "Lucky!"


----------



## Grillsy

Puritan Sailor said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> It costs money to operate a seminary. I don't know of any seminary professors or administrators that are rich. It simply costs money. Larger schools with larger endowments and revenue streams from their denominations (ie, my alma mater, Southern Seminary) are able to charge less than schools that want to retain "big name" professors and yet don't have the income to offset that cost.
> 
> 
> The market is the best method for controlling cost. Let the market work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, seminary is not _required_ for ordination, only highly recommended. Ordination is approved by the Presbytery after examining your knowledge and gifts. Seminary is the most "convenient" and common way at this time to prepare you for those exams and qualifications. But if you can pass the scrutiny of the Presbytery by some other means of education, then go for it.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? The Book of Church Order says 

"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."

So you have to have at least a little seminary training.


----------



## Archlute

Yes, some seminary is required by just about every Presbyterian/Reformed denomination. There is usually a clause by which men lacking an undergrad may be allowed ordination with just a seminary degree, but I have never heard of a man who had neither an undergrad nor seminary work being ordained (although it may have happened somewhere, at some time).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Grillsy said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it costs money. I have acknowledged that. But the question is whether or not it is ethical to require this for ordination considering the huge monetary cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, seminary is not _required_ for ordination, only highly recommended. Ordination is approved by the Presbytery after examining your knowledge and gifts. Seminary is the most "convenient" and common way at this time to prepare you for those exams and qualifications. But if you can pass the scrutiny of the Presbytery by some other means of education, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure? The Book of Church Order says
> 
> "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."
> 
> So you have to have at least a little seminary training.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. You are correct, it is required. But also note #6, there is a channel for exceptions to the requirements, though not an easy one.


----------



## Scottish Lass

The ARP used to cover all of the cost of seminary for ARP students at Erskine. Several financial factors/events/issues later, they still pay 80% of the cost of seminary. 

Tim didn't borrow any money. We had no children yet, so I worked 1.5 jobs, and Tim worked part-time as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura

For the record, the very title of this thread is biased and inaccurate.

The seminaries aren't enslaving anyone. 

You would do well to restate the title as "Students going off to seminary without the ability to pay for it." That would be more accurate.

A couple things: 

1. I agree that denominations and churches, in a perfect world, would pay for or at least subsidize the education of potential ministers. However, we don't live in a perfect world. Instead we live in a world in which churches and presbyteries frequently rubber stamp anyone who "feels" called to the ministry with the end result being that our seminaries are filled with people who really have no sense of definite call to anything other than studying God's word. I personally know many men who went off to school only to graduate and decide that they weren't called to vocational ministry after all. Now, most denominations and churches have very limited resources. I'm guessing most would go broke if they subsidized even a fraction of the men they supposedly endorse for entry into seminary. Perhaps the answer is that denominations and presbyteries and churches should really clamp down and put some really strict perimeters around who they'll endorse... but even then, the problem is with the church or presbytery, NOT the seminary.

2. It keeps coming down to the question of "why does it cost so much to get a degree?" It needs to be stated and restated that the belief that a perceived calling to ministry means that one should be able to go off and get an MDiv without much hardship, and that if it is "too expensive" it is a sign of sinful greed on the part of the seminary rather than perhaps a sign that God has NOT called you at this point in time... that belief in fact amounts to a proletariatian entitlement mindset. The schools are not rich. The professors are not fat cats busy applauding themselves as they watch their portfolios swell at the expense of the poor seminarian. On the contrary, most are barely making it themselves. 

So I pose that would-be seminarians consider their financial state of affairs and consider that maybe, just maybe, if God has called you to the ministry, then He's called you to meet the requirements for ordination, and if He's done that then He can be counted on to make a way. And if "a way" has not been made, and if you cannot get a seminary education without financial ruin, then perhaps, just perhaps, God has not called you at this time. Is there anyone really prepared to even consider such a prospect?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree Ben.

It's interesting that I was just reading _Idols for Destruction_ the other day and one of the points that the author was making about a non-Christian humanitarianism is this condescending custodial attitude toward people. People are too stupid or helpless to care for themselves so let us make decisions for them.

It must be the Marine Officer in me but I would find it a personal affront to my maturity as a leader if someone had to ask me very simple questions that are expected out of a Marine leader. The time for checking my mettle as a leader has long since passed. My maturity is assumed and every time I check into a new unit my personal integrity and maturity are presumed to be excellent. Why, because well before I was commissioned those kinds of things were being observed. Nobody has to tell me how to balance my checkbook, to get a good night's sleep, or a number of other things we expect out of adults.

If Seminaries have to check up on all these details as the Nannies for grown men who are being trained to be leaders in the Church then it says more about the men who are going to be leaders in the Church and the Churches who are calling them then it does about the Seminaries themselves.

The title is inappropriate. One might as well title the same: "When are Seminarians going to stop forcing grown men to sin?"


----------



## toddpedlar

I actually was thoroughly offended by the title of this thread, and thought to re-title it myself. A man is responsible for his own actions, and Seminaries are in NO WAY responsible for "enslaving" men by charging tuition. If a man cannot afford to go, then he should not. If he can afford to go but can only do so by borrowing money to do it, then that is his call. Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging (for good reason - tuition is perfectly reasonable for any institution of higher education to charge its students). I think some folks need simply to back off and consider who the real target of their criticism ought to be, rather than make slanderous remarks and inappropriate accusations.


----------



## Grillsy

The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.

I know that some of you (Ben). Are going to respond back and call me and others immature or selfish for making this statement or asking a question.

Everytime we have asked a question about the cost of seminary and the requirement of seminary you have insulted us. If that is how they taught you to defend your position in Seminary then I don't believe I would want to attend. 

You refuse to show the biblical mandate for the requirement of a minister going through the modern-day seminary system. The fact is, it is not required biblically but the charge that it is is continually made. Saying that if God has called someone to the ministry they should have to meet the requirements is true...but adding something other than God requires and forcing someone to come up with payment and calling them weak if they cannot is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least as I understand it, it's not the seminaries that actually lend the money, but other private lending institutions.


----------



## Grillsy

Puritan Sailor said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least as I understand it, it's not the seminaries that actually lend the money, but other private lending institutions.



That actually is a great point.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grillsy said:


> The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.


You may want to spend some time thinking about this:


> VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that *there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.*


There is no specific Scriptural requirement to teach children how to read either.


----------



## Grillsy

Semper Fidelis said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to spend some time thinking about this:
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that *there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no specific Scriptural requirement to teach children how to read either.
Click to expand...


I know, but there are strict Scriptural requirements for ministers and their qualifications. And please don't take my remarks to mean that I do not want an educated clergy


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grillsy said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to spend some time thinking about this:
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that *there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no specific Scriptural requirement to teach children how to read either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but there are strict Scriptural requirements for ministers and their qualifications. And please don't take my remarks to mean that I do not want an educated clergy
Click to expand...


Yes, but I am responding to your contention that what a Church considers to be prudent in its Christian government must be "proof-texted" in order to be valid. The "Chapter and Verse" requirement you have laid out is no more valid than a child contending with his father to prove to him that he must go to school to learn arithmetic because there is no verse supporting his father's requirement.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.
> 
> I know that some of you (Ben). Are going to respond back and call me and others immature or selfish for making this statement or asking a question.
> 
> Everytime we have asked a question about the cost of seminary and the requirement of seminary you have insulted us. If that is how they taught you to defend your position in Seminary then I don't believe I would want to attend.
> 
> You refuse to show the biblical mandate for the requirement of a minister going through the modern-day seminary system. The fact is, it is not required biblically but the charge that it is is continually made. Saying that if God has called someone to the ministry they should have to meet the requirements is true...but adding something other than God requires and forcing someone to come up with payment and calling them weak if they cannot is absolutely ridiculous.



Willie, you are correct that there is no chapter and verse requiring an MDiv for the ministry. But the Bible does require a teacher to be able to accurately handle God's Word and the doctrines therein. Though some disagree, this pretty much requires a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Additionally, the studies of theology and history which are expositions of God's Word and work in history respectively, need to be done. 

While it is certainly possible, however improbable, that someone can attain the level of competency required to satisfy an ordaining body's understanding of what it means to be academically prepared without going off to seminary, the sheer improbability of it happening without a formal classroom environment provides warrant for ordaining bodies to require, as a condition of ordination in their fellowship, a formal theological education. Further warrant is found in the fact that self-study or study under one man often leads to "lop-sided" or stunted growth. Ordaining bodies want mature men who have been prepared to intellectually interpret, process, and apply God's word in an environment where their ideas are subject to the scrutiny of others who have both different perspectives as well as a more thorough knowledge of the material. Again, academic preparation can possibly occur in an informal way... and as such I think ordaining bodies would be wise to leave open the possibility that someone can be academically prepared without ever stepping foot in a classroom... but those would be the exceptions rather than the rule. And you make normative policies around the rule, not the exceptions. 

In my opinion, when it comes to the prepatory process for ordination, it is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate is holy. (Of course, if they notice anything egregious, they should report it.) It is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate has a robust devotional life. It is my opinion that in those areas, the church should be overseeing their candidates. In my opinion, the seminary should almost exclusively focus on the area of academic preparedness. Seminary is a place to buckle down and get the knowledge one needs to accurately interact with God's word, not a place to try to deal with some besetting sin. 

So, a presbytery or church has grounds for believing it is most prudent to trust that a seminary education will do the academic preparation.... the preparation that IS required if one is to have a faithful ministry. The church is to be faulted if it vests more responsibility or trust in a seminary to do anything other than it's job of academic training, particuarly if what they're divesting is their own pastoral responsibility. But as far as the academic part goes, the ordaining bodies have far better reason to presume competence in someone who has undergone the trials of a respectable seminary than a man who says he is self educated.


----------



## Grillsy

SolaScriptura said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argumentation is that you're ignoring that fact that a seminary degree is not a Bibilical requirement for the ministry but it is something required by most Reformed denominations.
> 
> I know that some of you (Ben). Are going to respond back and call me and others immature or selfish for making this statement or asking a question.
> 
> Everytime we have asked a question about the cost of seminary and the requirement of seminary you have insulted us. If that is how they taught you to defend your position in Seminary then I don't believe I would want to attend.
> 
> You refuse to show the biblical mandate for the requirement of a minister going through the modern-day seminary system. The fact is, it is not required biblically but the charge that it is is continually made. Saying that if God has called someone to the ministry they should have to meet the requirements is true...but adding something other than God requires and forcing someone to come up with payment and calling them weak if they cannot is absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willie, you are correct that there is no chapter and verse requiring an MDiv for the ministry. But the Bible does require a teacher to be able to accurately handle God's Word and the doctrines therein. Though some disagree, this pretty much requires a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. Additionally, the studies of theology and history which are expositions of God's Word and work in history respectively, need to be done.
> 
> While it is certainly possible, however improbable, that someone can attain the level of competency required to satisfy an ordaining body's understanding of what it means to be academically prepared without going off to seminary, the sheer improbability of it happening without a formal classroom environment provides warrant for ordaining bodies to require, as a condition of ordination in their fellowship, a formal theological education. Further warrant is found in the fact that self-study or study under one man often leads to "lop-sided" or stunted growth. Ordaining bodies want mature men who have been prepared to intellectually interpret, process, and apply God's word in an environment where their ideas are subject to the scrutiny of others who have both different perspectives as well as a more thorough knowledge of the material. Again, academic preparation can possibly occur in an informal way... and as such I think ordaining bodies would be wise to leave open the possibility that someone can be academically prepared without ever stepping foot in a classroom... but those would be the exceptions rather than the rule. And you make normative policies around the rule, not the exceptions.
> 
> In my opinion, when it comes to the prepatory process for ordination, it is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate is holy. (Of course, if they notice anything egregious, they should report it.) It is not the seminary's job to ensure that the candidate has a robust devotional life. It is my opinion that in those areas, the church should be overseeing their candidates. In my opinion, the seminary should almost exclusively focus on the area of academic preparedness. Seminary is a place to buckle down and get the knowledge one needs to accurately interact with God's word, not a place to try to deal with some besetting sin.
> 
> So, a presbytery or church has grounds for believing that a seminary education will do the academic preparation.... the preparation that IS required if one is to have a faithful ministry. The church is to be faulted if it vests more responsibility or trust in a seminary to do anything other than it's job of academic training, particuarly if what they're divesting is their own pastoral responsibility. But as far as the academic part goes, the ordaining bodies have far better reason to presume competence in someone who has undergone the trials of a respectable seminary than a man who says he is self educated.
Click to expand...


Excellent answer. Thank you very very much. That is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Your observations are very helpful.

I appreciate your clear and thought out response and your are aboslutly correct In my humble opinion.

Please, don't take any of my previous posts as overly polemical or anything of sort. I was just really trying to press for an answer is all.

Again I cannot thank you enough for your response.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> Excellent answer. Thank you very very much. That is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Your observations are very helpful.



No problem! Just trying to help.


----------



## lynnie

Depends on the person.....

_The arguments about personal relationship against internet seminary could possibly be fulfilled in part by receiving pastoral training in conjunction with the internet seminary (such as with GPTS mentor program).

The arguments against academic discipline are a false assumption that internet students are automatically lazy. That is an argument against individual students, not against internet seminary and is an insufficient argument to make.

The argument against "pastor training the student" type of education is that it lacks sufficient academics. Again, if pastoral training is in conjunction with internet seminary, is that not easily answerable? _

We have a married guy with two kids in our church going to online seminary. A brilliant Chinese man working in biochemical research. He is doing all kinds of stuff at church and is mentored by the pastor and relates to the elders and staff. I can't imagine that it would be better for him/his family living at a school.

Now if one of my kids wanted to go to online seminary I would tie them up and drop them on the doorstep of a good school, and go throw the circuit breaker in the basement that feeds juice to their computer. A lot depends on the person!


----------



## Damon Rambo

I guess I am going to have to disagree with most of you. I think loans for seminary can be a great thing, in the right circumstances, and in moderation.

Tell me, all of the people on this forum, who are unwilling to take a loan for seminary education: how many of you are driving a reasonably nice car, that you make payments on? How many of you have a nice house, that you are making payments on?

It would be absolutely hypocritical, for a person to denounce taking out a loan for Godly education, while making loan payments on _material_ things. How much more valuable is the education in theology and scripture?

I will tell you what I did. Me and my wife got rid of our expensive truck. We bought a cheap one for cash. We now have two bills, that equal less than 600 dollars per month. I work part time as a youth Minister, which covers our bills. My wife will start working next year: she is finishing up some medical assistant training. I utilize subsidized federal loans to go to seminary, presently, and when our income gets high enough, we will stop using loans.
Of course, I attained my Bachelor's debt free, and my tuition at seminary, after discounts, is only about 2500 dollars per semester (including books); I am taking the max of 15 CH's per semester.


Considering that my seminary loans will cost far less, in the end, than the car most of you are probably driving (And the Seminary education will last long after your car is a pile of rust), I do not consider this a bad deal. 

What I think is a shame, is that so many Seminaries do not participate in title IV loans, which are interest free until graduation, but will offer students private loans that accrue interest immediately, and at much higher rates, at that. This is absolutely unconscionable, in my opinion.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Damon Rambo said:


> I guess I am going to have to disagree with most of you. I think loans for seminary can be a great thing, in the right circumstances, and in moderation.
> 
> Tell me, all of the people on this forum, who are unwilling to take a loan for seminary education: how many of you are driving a reasonably nice car, that you make payments on? How many of you have a nice house, that you are making payments on?
> 
> It would be absolutely hypocritical, for a person to denounce taking out a loan for Godly education, while making loan payments on _material_ things. How much more valuable is the education in theology and scripture?
> 
> I will tell you what I did. Me and my wife got rid of our expensive truck. We bought a cheap one for cash. We now have two bills, that equal less than 600 dollars per month. I work part time as a youth Minister, which covers our bills. My wife will start working next year: she is finishing up some medical assistant training. I utilize subsidized federal loans to go to seminary, presently, and when our income gets high enough, we will stop using loans.
> Of course, I attained my Bachelor's debt free, and my tuition at seminary, after discounts, is only about 2500 dollars per semester (including books); I am taking the max of 15 CH's per semester.
> 
> 
> Considering that my seminary loans will cost far less, in the end, than the car most of you are probably driving (And the Seminary education will last long after your car is a pile of rust), I do not consider this a bad deal.
> 
> What I think is a shame, is that so many Seminaries do not participate in title IV loans, which are interest free until graduation, but will offer students private loans that accrue interest immediately, and at much higher rates, at that. This is absolutely unconscionable, in my opinion.



Damon, 

I think that what some of the people are objecting to is the amount of indebtedness incured by some (many?) seminarians. For example, I know one guy who decided that he didn't want to have to work (!) during seminary, so he took out almost 30k per year in loans... graduating with almost 100k in seminary debt (and who knows how much he owed for his bachelors degree). (As an aside: I lay all the blame for his indebtedness at his feet. His priorities and choices resulted in his debt load. It wasn't like the school prohibited him from working...)

I believe that those to whom you're responding would argue that taking out 100k for advanced education is an acceptably investment for, let's say an MD is fine because the career towards which the education is headed is one that pays enough to recoup the cost and then some. 100k for a degree that leads to a career paying 40 or 50k suddenly doesn't seem so prudent because this creates a level of income which can not be met by many churches.

While I agree with you - that some indebtedness is not necessarily bad and that there is a degree to which your seminary debt is an investment - and while I agree with those who are opposed to "excessive" indebtedness in ministerial candidates because it DOES create a very heavy burden, I want to make it clear that I think this matter is one that needs to be addressed by the prospective student.


----------



## Nathan Riese

lynnie said:


> Depends on the person.....
> 
> Now if one of my kids wanted to go to online seminary I would tie them up and drop them on the doorstep of a good school, and go throw the circuit breaker in the basement that feeds juice to their computer. A lot depends on the person!



Good point. My argument was just a rebuttal against the generalization arguments of Dr. Clark. It really does depend on the person. It would be wise for a session or a presbytery to say "no, I don't think your doing online seminary is the most beneficial" to those people, because, like you said, it does depend on the person.


----------



## Edward

SolaScriptura said:


> For example, I know one guy who decided that he didn't want to have to work (!) during seminary, so he took out almost 30k per year in loans... graduating with almost 100k in seminary debt (and who knows how much he owed for his bachelors degree). (As an aside: I lay all the blame for his indebtedness at his feet. His priorities and choices resulted in his debt load. It wasn't like the school prohibited him from working...)



Do you think such a man meets the Biblical qualifications for ordination as an elder? It seems that there would be stewardship as well as household management issues. And looking at Scripture again, perhaps even 'good testimony'.


----------



## turmeric

titlw changed.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

SolaScriptura said:


> For the record, the very title of this thread is biased and inaccurate.
> 
> The seminaries aren't enslaving anyone.
> 
> You would do well to restate the title as "Students going off to seminary without the ability to pay for it." That would be more accurate.




First, It isn't "communism" for a school to refuse to heavily indebt a student. Your earlier statement describing this as "communism" bears no resemblance to what communism is. Especially given the fact that government coercion is nowhere involved. 

Now more to the point, I would agree that seminary students _are_ responsible for their actions but I would also hold that an evangelical school is also accountable for theirs. 

Consider Nehemiah 5. The chapter begins with the "cry" of three different Jewish groups going into debt to their Jewish nobles (and brethren) for various reasons. The nobles were sharply rebuked by Nehemiah. He charged _"You are exacting interest, each from his brother"_ (v. 7). He doesn't say how much interest they were charging, simply that they were. And he intimates that heinousness of their sin proceeded more from their relationship to the borrowers than from the deed itself. Through the lending of money and the charging of interest, they were bringing their _brethren_ into bondage! 

There are some real parallels in this instance to the question presently under consideration. For one, we are discussing the propriety of godly schools (overseen by our brethren in Christ) "exacting interest" upon their students (& brethren) and in many cases bringing them under an excessive financial burden. Now it isn't my intention to absolve the borrower of all responsibility for their financial dealings, but to simply say that these otherwise godly schools are not free from any impropriety, and do indeed bear a certain amount of responsibility for their brethren's hardships. 

In the judgment of God, both the borrower and the lender must stand to account for their dealings.

-----Added 10/31/2009 at 09:24:52 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> I actually was thoroughly offended by the title of this thread, and thought to re-title it myself. A man is responsible for his own actions, and Seminaries are in NO WAY responsible for "enslaving" men by charging tuition. If a man cannot afford to go, then he should not. If he can afford to go but can only do so by borrowing money to do it, then that is his call. Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging (for good reason - tuition is perfectly reasonable for any institution of higher education to charge its students). I think some folks need simply to back off and consider who the real target of their criticism ought to be, rather than make slanderous remarks and inappropriate accusations.



_"Thoroughly offended"_ - Really? Would you perhaps agree that this an overstatement? This charge would be unkind to the original poster (myself) unless you were genuinely and thoroughly offended.

However, if you were genuinely offended, then please accept my sincerest apologies. It was not my intention to offend anyone and did not consider the title of the post to contain anything offensive. What's more, I had hoped that the body of the post as a whole would be taken into consideration with the title thereby clarifying any confusion. 

Additionally, I must take issue with a misunderstanding you have regarding my original post. You stated _"Never could it be argued that a seminary has any responsibility whatsoever for a man's choice to attend and pay the tuition that they are charging"_ I never charged any impropriety for a school _charging tuition_. That would be ludicrous! My original post dealt with student _loans and the interest attached to them,_ not paying tuition.

As I finish this post I have realized that the thread was retitled. Have you retitled it? 

Regardless of what moderator renamed the thread, it manifests a hyper-sensitivity on their part and a lack of it toward myself. There was simply no grounds or justification for such an action.


----------



## Damon Rambo

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Consider Nehemiah 5. The chapter begins with the "cry" of three different Jewish groups going into debt to their Jewish nobles (and brethren) for various reasons. The nobles were sharply rebuked by Nehemiah. He charged _"You are exacting interest, each from his brother"_ (v. 7). He doesn't say how much interest they were charging, simply that they were. And he intimates that heinousness of their sin proceeded more from their relationship to the borrowers than from the deed itself. Through the lending of money and the charging of interest, they were bringing their _brethren_ into bondage!



Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...

Neh 5:4 And there were those who said, "We have borrowed money for the king's tax on our fields and our vineyards. 
Neh 5:5 Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children are as their children. Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved, 


Then in verse 7, it says they are exacting interest (demanding) and when the people can't pay it, they are literally selling them as slaves. This is not some kind of euphemism for placing a heavy burden of debt on them. 

Also, if this WERE true, this would be one more strike against the seminaries which do not participate in title IV (interest free) federal loans.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Damon Rambo said:


> Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...



You are incorrect. I would encourage you to study this text in more detail.

He _is indeed_ rebuking the lenders. The "Nobles" are _Jewish nobles_ lending their Jewish brethren the money to pay taxes to the _Persian King._ The whole rebuilding process is undertaken under the auspices of the king of Persia to whom they were still in bondage and still owed tribute! Certain Jews, unable to pay the kings tax, were borrowing from _their own Jewish nobles to pay their taxes_. Nehemiah rebukes these _Jewish nobles_ for taking advantage of their _brethren_ by charging them interest.


----------



## Damon Rambo

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh uh, friend. He is NOT attacking the people who are lending the money. He is attacking the nobles who are heavily taxing the people, causing them to HAVE to borrow money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. I would encourage you to study this text in more detail.
> 
> He _is indeed_ rebuking the lenders. The "Nobles" are _Jewish nobles_ lending their Jewish brethren the money to pay taxes to the _Persian King._ The whole rebuilding process is undertaken under the auspices of the king of Persia to whom they were still in bondage and still owed tribute! Certain Jews, unable to pay the kings tax, were borrowing from _their own Jewish nobles to pay their taxes_. Nehemiah rebukes these _Jewish nobles_ for taking advantage of their _brethren_ by charging them interest.
Click to expand...


Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Damon Rambo said:


> Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.



I never said that slavery in _this passage_ was a euphemism for debt. I was using that language from the start of this thread based on passages like Proverbs 22:7.



> The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. - Prov. 22:7



So whether or not its used here in Neh. 5 that way, it is elsewhere and is an appropriate and biblical description of financial debt.


----------



## Damon Rambo

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you are correct, the context is them demanding the interest, and causing their brethren to go into literal slavery. It is not the actual charging of interest, nor desiring for the money to be paid back. Slavery in this passage, is not a euphemism for "debt" the way you are trying to make it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that slavery in _this passage_ was a euphemism for debt. I was using that language from the start of this thread based on passages like Proverbs 22:7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. - Prov. 22:7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whether or not its used here in Neh. 5 that way, it is elsewhere and is an appropriate and biblical description of financial debt.
Click to expand...


As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.

Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money. 

Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Damon Rambo said:


> As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.
> 
> Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money.
> 
> Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?



In scripture, slavery is not the real issue. The issue is to what or whom one is enslaved to. If Christ, then great! If sin, then woe unto you! If the lender, then woe unto you as well. 

But again your argument is with things I haven't necessarily said. But I get the feeling that you'd rather disagree on semantics than frame the conversation around the questions I originally posted. 

At this point, I feel its necessary to clarify my position. 


> *I am not making the argument that all debt is sinful. *


Interpreting my statements in that manner will only serve to sidetrack the discussion. So I would ask others not to characterize my position in that way. No one has, but I feel it could quickly go in that direction.


----------



## Damon Rambo

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as proverbs 22:7 goes, the same thing can be said of any obligation. This is not necessarily a bad arrangement. Wives and husbands are said to be servants or slaves of each other. This is not negative. Nor is it negative that we are slaves of Christ.
> 
> Yes, when we take out a loan, we are obliged to the person lending the money.
> 
> Again: is your car paid for? Your house? Do you have credit cards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In scripture, slavery is not the real issue. The issue is to what or whom one is enslaved to. If Christ, then great! If sin, then woe unto you! If the lender, then woe unto you as well.
> 
> But again your argument is with things I haven't necessarily said. But I get the feeling that you'd rather disagree on semantics than frame the conversation around the questions I originally posted.
> 
> At this point, I feel its necessary to clarify my position.
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not making the argument that all debt is sinful. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interpreting my statements in that manner will only serve to sidetrack the discussion. So I would ask others not to characterize my position in that way. No one has, but I feel it could quickly go in that direction.
Click to expand...


Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?

I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Damon Rambo said:


> Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?
> 
> I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.



Well, I'm not sure I have a real clear position on this issue. My opening post consisted entirely of questions for that reason. I'm interested in what others think. In hindsight the only thing I would have changed in the title, "Seminaries Enslaving their Students" would have been to put a question mark (?) at the end of it. 

There are two things that I feel pretty sure of however. First, that its sinful for someone to shackle themselves with inordinate debt to pay for their schooling. An expensive seminary education is not a necessity. If someone is in a denomination that requires an M.Div. to be a teaching elder, they should either look for less expensive options (e.g. Whitefield Theological Seminary is very cheap and accepted by the OPC & PCA, _I think_). Or if that's not an option they should consider serving somewhere that doesn't see an M.Div. as equal to a real, spiritual, and divine understanding of the Word and doctrine. Bottom line, going into deep debt to pay for school will seriously encumber one's ministerial efforts and possibly bring harm upon the church.

Second, it is sinful for seminaries to allow and even encourage a student to strap himself with heavy debt to pay for their educations. I now know that some schools do not do this. But for the one's that do, I believe they too are bringing harm upon these young men, their ministries, and the Church. 

The real thing I'd like to discuss is alternatives to debt for someone gifted for the ministry and desiring to enter the ministry but lacking the financial resources. Like cheaper programs, church or denominational support, &c. 

I think this is an area of conversation that would be helpful for schools, students and churches alike.


----------



## Damon Rambo

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, fair enough. I am certainly not trying to mis-characterize you. Could you clarify, in a better way, what you ARE saying in regards to student loans? Certainly you are not saying that it is O.K. to have loans for material goods, but it is not O.K. to get a much more valuable education in God's Word?
> 
> I am honestly trying to understand your position. Seminaries cannot afford to run for free: scripture is very clear that teachers are to be paid. I would say some are exorbitantly overpriced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not sure I have a real clear position on this issue. My opening post consisted entirely of questions for that reason. I'm interested in what others think. In hindsight the only thing I would have changed in the title, "Seminaries Enslaving their Students" would have been to put a question mark (?) at the end of it.
> 
> There are two things that I feel pretty sure of however. First, that its sinful for someone to shackle themselves with inordinate debt to pay for their schooling. An expensive seminary education is not a necessity. If someone is in a denomination that requires an M.Div. to be a teaching elder, they should either look for less expensive options (e.g. Whitefield Theological Seminary is very cheap and accepted by the OPC & PCA, _I think_). Or if that's not an option they should consider serving somewhere that doesn't see an M.Div. as equal to a real, spiritual, and divine understanding of the Word and doctrine. Bottom line, going into deep debt to pay for school will seriously encumber one's ministerial efforts and possibly bring harm upon the church.
> 
> Second, it is sinful for seminaries to allow and even encourage a student to strap himself with heavy debt to pay for their educations. I now know that some schools do not do this. But for the one's that do, I believe they too are bringing harm upon these young men, their ministries, and the Church.
> 
> The real thing I'd like to discuss is alternatives to debt for someone gifted for the ministry and desiring to enter the ministry but lacking the financial resources. Like cheaper programs, church or denominational support, &c.
> 
> I think this is an area of conversation that would be helpful for schools, students and churches alike.
Click to expand...


O.K. You are going to have to define what "inordinate" debt is. In my mind, you should be willing to spend more on your seminary education than your car. I would go so far as to say if someone is driving a 30k dollar car, and skimps on seminary education, this would effectively be breaking the first and second commandments. 

Another problem with what you are saying, is that it is nearly impossible to find a cheap education, that is as rigorous as a more expensive one. There are exceptions to this (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary comes to mind, at least for us reformed Baptists), but not many.

I think RTS is a great example of what you are talking about. While RTS is a great school, the tuition is a bit outrageous (360-450 CH I believe). Westminster too: (400 to 700 per credit hour). 

I think the problem is the amount Seminaries are charging. It is amazing to me that Reformed Seminaries, which place such an emphasis on the importance of theological education, are so expensive. While schools like Liberty Seminary, New Orleans Baptist, and Southwestern, are so inexpensive. Liberty for instance, has a tuition cap of 1750 per semester (for residential students), for 15 CH's. That means your M.Div, total including books, end up costing you about 12 thousand dollars. Very manageable.

But I do not think it is the Seminaries job to limit loans. It is the individuals, and the home church which is recommending them. I would be all for a maximum loan amount, to be included on the Pastor recommendation form (which nearly every seminary requires.) This would force the pastor, and the individual, to sit down and discuss the issue.


----------

