Is Seminary Biblical?

[JML]

If someone were to ask you that question, how would you respond?

Their argument is threefold.

1. There is no example in Scripture. Instead we see men being trained by current elders in the church they are a part of.
2. Is it right to charge money for theological education? You are not giving to the church or a pastor but to another entity that is charging for the education of men seeking the office.
3. If a seminary is sponsored by a particular church or group of churches and has leadership, what are the Biblical qualifications for said leadership?

You can see that I am in Seminary so I am not arguing against it but these are some good objections that have been made. How would you answer them?

 

[Zenas]

Is high school biblical? Is playing monopoly biblical?

 

[JML]

Is high school biblical? Is playing monopoly biblical?

That seems like apples and oranges. High School and monopoly are not ministerial training. Maybe you are right but I think that would be the response.

 

[Marrow Man]

What sort of rabbinical training existed in the first century?

 

[Austin]

The original seminaries were the organs of the Church to train ministers. Today, even the unaffiliated seminaries (like my own RTS) are organs of the Church to train ministers. As for paying for an education, well, Scripture says that the worker is worthy of his wage. If a man labors to educate, then he ought to be paid. I paid for college. Why not pay for seminary?

As for the qualifications for seminaries, I would say that there is an informal structure in place to monitor these things. Christians have banded together to provide accreditation, and seminaries (largely) follow those rules. Also, most Reformed denominations have a formal or informal means of indicating which seminaries they endorse. The PCA & EPC, for instance, endorse certain schools, particularly Covenant (the 'official' PCA school), RTS (the unofficial PCA school), Westminster, etc.

The folks who question this (in our Reformed circles) are generally unwilling to submit to standardized educational requirements, have inflated senses of their own counsel, and are more eager to prove something than they are to live in submission. When I have been told (as I have) that RTS, Covenant, & Westminster are 'liberal' (or moving that way), I have to question the sanity of those making this assertion. What reason could there possibly be for saying such a thing? Covenant was described to me that way simply b/c one of its professors took an EPC pulpit (Central Presbyterian in St. Louis). Come on.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I believe it is biblical. As far as the cost someone needs to pay for the expenses. I am not sure that the cost is justified today espciallly by the standards. I just finished reading the Larger Catechism. Questions 140 - 142 are very relevant for that question.

 

[Steve Curtis]

The training is certainly biblical. The idea of paying for it, while necessary and not unbiblical, may at times "push the envelope" with the expenses being what they are these days.

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

Trinity is not a word, neither is seminary. Does that automatically make it unbiblical?

Keep in mind that formal education was INSANELY expensive during the times of the apostles. The great majority of people could not attend because the costs made it where only the elites could attend schooling.

Besides....why would there be a seminary in Israel and Rome, which at the time, were anti-Christ to the core?

 

[MMasztal]

To be honest, I have not heard comments like this from Reformed brothers, I have however, heard this from certain fundie types who view "cemetary" education as of the devil. Of course, they speak from ignorance having neither attended seminary or, in many cases, even Bible college yet they pastor churches and get little scrutiny from their congregants. Preaching, therefore, is usually theologically shallow with a heavy dose of legalism.

The first reason you listed is really an argument from silence, or proof by lack of evidence. Given the status of the church in the first few centuries, it wasn't practical for seminaries to form. So to use this as an argument is silly.

The second reason doesn't apply to a lot of today's clergy who are self-taught, self-appointed pastors or even bishop as we have in one local church. Their churches are often built on a cult of personality rather than sound biblical preaching.

The third reason might be the qualification can be whatever the sponsoring group wants. Some seminaries are academically quite demanding while others resemble a liberal arts program.

We know Paul was taught by Gamaliel likely in a seminary-type setting,soI don't think there is a good case against seminary education even if the case for it seems weak.

 

[SolaSaint]

I feel the idea of Seminary is biblical for we are taught to renew our minds and rightly divide the word and I feel we can justify seminary education in this context. We can get crazy with what we try to justify as biblical. Are parsonages biblical? Are pianos and power point presentations? Where does this lead?

 

[jwithnell]

If I'm not mistaken, in the first half of the 20th century there was a specific move within fundamentalist circles to make Bible College the only requirement. "We're only preaching Christ, not all this complicated stuff." I am so grateful for the level of knowledge within our congregation. I can keep growing, and thinking, and studying, and learning, and not be able to come close to exhausting the resources of our session.

 

[Marrow Man]

Is Seminary Biblical?

Depends on which Seminary, I suppose.

Like this one?

 

[Austin]

The Reformed guys who advocate not going to seminary in my experience are the Wilson-Wilkins brigade. A number of CREC & even PCA churches (e.g. the Bayly bros.) are anti-seminary. They start their own, which aren't accredited, have all in-house instruction, and deride with derision (a little hebraism there) the rest of us unwashed.

But then, if I'm not mistaken, the Wilson-Wilkins crowd are pretty much persona non grata around the PB, so...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I wouldn't say the Wilson/Leithart side are "anti-seminary" in that they are anti-education or anti-academic. They are just anti-established Reformed seminary.

 

[tlharvey7]

is going to medical school to perform heart surgery biblical? would you go to a surgeon/spurgeon who is not qualified?
my wife and I had this discussion the other day and that is the analogy that popped in my mind.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

is going to medical school to perform heart surgery biblical? would you go to a surgeon/spurgeon who is not qualified?
my wife and I had this discussion the other day and that is the analogy that popped in my mind.

Have you been listening to Westminster Seminary California ads?

 

[tlharvey7]

please tell me that the surgeon/spurgeon line belongs to me!?!?!

is going to medical school to perform heart surgery biblical? would you go to a surgeon/spurgeon who is not qualified?
my wife and I had this discussion the other day and that is the analogy that popped in my mind.

Have you been listening to Westminster Seminary California ads?

 

[Steve Curtis]

surgeon/spurgeon is all yours (to the best of my knowledge!) WSC frequently makes the case for a trained medical doctor as justification for education - I think that is what Benjamin was referring to!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

surgeon/spurgeon is all yours (to the best of my knowledge!) WSC frequently makes the case for a trained medical doctor as justification for education - I think that is what Benjamin was referring to!

Yep. WSC runs ads that ask if you would take medical care from a Doctor trained by Distance Education and tries (unsuccessfully in my mind and this has been discussed before on the PB) to make the comparison between training Doctors by Distance Ed and training Pastors by Distance Ed.


This is the best one. http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/westminster-seminary-california-white-horse-inn-ad-does-seminary-train-surgeons-50604/

Also See http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/why-pastors-need-seminary-education-35598/index2.html

 

[SemperEruditio]

Seminary is abiblical not unbiblical.

 

[raekwon]

I'd say this . . . training towards ordained ministry (and other non-ordained ministry work) is most certainly biblical, and while seminary isn't the only route to get that training, Scripture certainly gives no command against it. Discussion over. I win. ;-)

 

[SemperEruditio]

Seminary is abiblical not unbiblical.

But is it ubiblical?

As opposed to gbiblical? Not up on my physics anymore...

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

I'd say this . . . training towards ordained ministry (and other non-ordained ministry work) is most certainly biblical, and while seminary isn't the only route to get that training, Scripture certainly gives no command against it. Discussion over. I win. ;-)

That's arrogant.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Good comments throughout. I do think seminary is non-directly biblical. Men need to be qualified, first in character and in learning. I personally would not be too excited about a teacher who has not had a thorough training in the Scriptures, languages, et. But he may yet prove himself without such training. I am studying through hermeneutics right now. The work of teaching the word of God to feed the flock of God is a tremendous responsibility. Having the tools to do that seems foundational. Seminary puts the right tools (hopefully) in the hands of the minister. His skill in using them is a matter of patient and continual practice in rightly using them.