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

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the OPC BOC, CHAPTER XXI

LICENSING CANDIDATES TO PREACH THE GOSPEL

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like Jesus received a formal education to me.

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

If that ain't seminary brother, I don't know what is.
 
According to the OPC BOC, CHAPTER XXI

LICENSING CANDIDATES TO PREACH THE GOSPEL

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

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

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

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

That is not how we instruct people anymore. If you found a pastor who was willing to have you follow him around 24/7, talking and learning about the scriptures, ministry, etc., for the next three years, then that wouldd be sufficient. Otherwise, multiple teachers are needed, in an environment where you undergo intense periods of learning...i.e. Seminary.
 
Isn't that argument that nobody in the bible went to seminary kinda flawed? I mean, there were no seminaries, so it was impossible for anyone to go. On the other hand, I do find verses like this:

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

Sounds like Jesus received a formal education to me.

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

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


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

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

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


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

So often people talk about how the church is not a business, but this non-biblical "requirement" sure doesn't demonstrate that we all heed that sentiment; surely, we don't need to add our own standards when God has clearly communicated what he desires for leaders of His church.
 
Isn't that argument that nobody in the bible went to seminary kinda flawed? I mean, there were no seminaries, so it was impossible for anyone to go. On the other hand, I do find verses like this:

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

Sounds like Jesus received a formal education to me.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

And I hope you are having a delightful Lord's day, brother. :)
 
Good points, but isn't it a bit ironic that all this from a man away at seminary?


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

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

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

Get all you can while you can. It gets harder as you get older and the responsibilities of life and ministry get deeper. Get the best you can get, and get the most of it you can.
 
Good points, but isn't it a bit ironic that all this from a man away at seminary?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as the Biblical requirement goes, we see that, again, a person must be able to teach, and therefore must be more knowledgeable on the subject being taught than the ones being instructed. The bible may be somewhat silent on exact methodology, but it is by no means silent on intensity. All of the disciples received the equivalent of a seminary level education. They were instructed, directly, by the King of Kings for 3 plus years. And this was AFTER they had already undergone training as Jewish young men, and knew the Old Testament. It should not even be considered, then, that any man be an elder that has not engaged at least 3 years of intense study from SOMEBODY (not self study), whether that be a seminary, or an extremely aggressive and intense apprenticeship program through a local church (not just hanging out at coffee shops, and talking about football!).
 
When possible I think seminary is the best option. My experience there taught me two valuable things: 1. What I do believe 2. What I don't believe. Seminary was an important time of reflection and grounding for me. But that may not always be the case for others. I have heard some refer to their time in seminary as "cemetery" meaning how it was spiritually draining and void of life for them. For me, I learned the value of true biblical teaching and mentoring. I think choosing the right seminary and making sure that this is something that God wants you to do (prayer and lots of it) is crucial.
 
You obviously did not actually engage with what I read. In the first century, with a single instructor, the disciples did indeed spend almost all of their time with their instructor. There is no way hanging out with your pastor/elder for a few hours a week can match that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

5) You are drawing your argument for "intense study" from passages that are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Scripture never says that a potential pastor's training must be as intense as walking with Jesus for three years. How about we add some more rules from the descriptions, like only tax-collectors and fishermen and future apostates can be pastoral students? And if you extended a discipleship program out to 6 years instead of 3, it wouldn't be nearly as aggressive or intense. Would that make it inadequate? :think:

Let a man be considered qualified if he squares with Scripture alone, whether he went to seminary or was trained in the local church.
 
You obviously did not actually engage with what I read. In the first century, with a single instructor, the disciples did indeed spend almost all of their time with their instructor. There is no way hanging out with your pastor/elder for a few hours a week can match that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

5) You are drawing your argument for "intense study" from passages that are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Scripture never says that a potential pastor's training must be as intense as walking with Jesus for three years. How about we add some more rules from the descriptions, like only tax-collectors and fishermen and future apostates can be pastoral students? And if you extended a discipleship program out to 6 years instead of 3, it wouldn't be nearly as aggressive or intense. Would that make it inadequate? :think:

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

First,

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

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

Third,

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

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

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

As far as reading and such, I have no problem, of course, with self study. But that is far and away different than saying self, uninstructed, unguided training is sufficient for the ministry.
 
If we are to go by the example of the New Testament, then training for the ministry ought to be done in the local church, not a seminary. And as a matter of fact, that is exactly what I think ought to happen (and count myself extraordinarily blessed to be a part of at MCTS). Unfortunately, the state of our churches often make that unrealistic, which is a shame. Even so, I have never suggested that a man should not be prepared for the ministry; my firm position has been that requiring an unbiblical standard for an otherwise qualified man is wrong (i.e. requiring a degree of some kind).
 
If we are to go by the example of the New Testament, then training for the ministry ought to be done in the local church, not a seminary. And as a matter of fact, that is exactly what I think ought to happen (and count myself extraordinarily blessed to be a part of at MCTS). Unfortunately, the state of our churches often make that unrealistic, which is a shame. Even so, I have never suggested that a man should not be prepared for the ministry; my firm position has been that requiring an unbiblical standard for an otherwise qualified man is wrong (i.e. requiring a degree of some kind).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

(Please pardon my spelling mistakes. My keyboard isn't working.)
 
While it may not be absolutely required, and many factors may come into play, I want someone instructing my family and me knowledgeably. I want someone who is well versed in the languages, Hermeneutics, and church history. Speaking as one who has not had the benefit (and pleasure) of being in a sound, confessional and covenantal church, the problems that can come up are staggering. I see it in some of the threads here on the PB. I offer this sad example: In all of the churches I've attended since I was 20 (I'm 40 now), I can count on one hand how many church officers knew/know who Pelagius was or what 'Original Sin' was/is. As a result, the spectre and heresy of Pelagius runs free and is embraced in American evangelicalism. In His mercy, may God grant another Puritan era on this planet.
 
Tyler: I think you've seen that an intense time of directed study is critical for the mature pastoring our churches need - no matter what denomination. Another consideration is that an MDiv is a required degree for other kinds of American ministries (military chaplaincy, federal and many state prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, hospice, market place ministries, etc). I've known plenty of men who delayed graduate education because "they really didn't need it for what they wanted to do" only to discover they were very short-sighted. You have no guarantee you'll find THE place for the ministry of your dreams. Education helps prepare you for a variety of ministries. If God has called you to Gospel Ministry get all the education you can. A young many has no idea what "Sovereign Surprises" are in store for him. Remember, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps." Pr. 16:9
 
I agree that there is a biblical standard. A seminary degree, while it may be helpful in some circumstances, isn't required to achieve it.

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

Andrew, out of curiosity, what are you missing at MWCTS that you would get at a seminary like, lets say, RTS?
 
Moderator Caution: the temperature seems to me to be a bit high here. Let's cool off a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, not every good student or even good pastor makes a good teacher of the breadth of subject-matter a future minister needs. We are not all curriculum experts, or masters to the equal degree of all the necessary subjects. The pastor is a "generalist" and most of us have strengths and weaknesses. Do you want the next man in the pulpit to have all the same faults as the last guy? If the people need a break, and their deficits made up, they might just need a man trained elsewhere.
 
Further, it offers the beginnings of networking with other pastors, which is actually vital to a pastor's well-being. Being a pastor is a very lonely job. The pastor needs the friends he meets at seminary.

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

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

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

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



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

This is not necessarily so. The school that I mentioned, MWCTS, requires some course work to be completed on campus. Additionally, you intercepted a possible fly in the ointment when you said, "That in turn could be supplied with active networking on the part of the student elsewhere." I concur. There may be an internship in another church which would provide exposure and networking opportunities to the pastoral candidate. Speaking only for Reformed Baptists, I believe ARBCA encourages this sort of cooperation between member churches. But, in the end, the responsibility for training remains with the local church. Understand that nowhere, in any of my posts, did I say a pastoral candidate should never attend seminary. Many local churches are not prepared to supervise the training of ministers. I think that should change. More churches should play an active role in the training and placement of pastoral candidates. Yes, be eclectic in the use of resources (ministerial academies, traditional seminaries, distance learning etc.) but do so under the authority and accountability of the local church.
 
The center of Christianity has shifted to the "Global South" - but I find these posts addressing mostly education in the US.

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

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

Many Institutions are working to fill this gap. I know Nations University (A decidedly NON reformed online school!) has made this there major thrust, providing extensive free classes for those overseas. I am not aware of an equivalent reformed institution (whose emphasis is primarily in third world countries), but we certainly could use one!!
 
Wannabee found Andrew's posts helpful. :) (still no button for me)

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