Seminary and the bible
- Thread starter bobtheman
- Start date
- Status
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Richard,
Certainly, a good Seminary will teach one the languages, proper interpretive method, the historical context for the letters,.... These will not be taught directly from Scripture, save for maybe a little self-revealing history. I'm sure there is much more.
Equally important is the proving ones self to be a workman approved and a faithful handler of Scripture. I can't tell you how many times a good minister (including the great minister God has provided Westminster with three years ago) has exegeted a text and I was shocked at what all was in the text, the historical background of the passage,......I would have never extracted that out myself.
Seminary is not for everyone, but I think it is for every minister of the gospel. In my pop-evangelical days, I was under several non-seminaried men. Looking back, they either turned the Scripture into a "guide for life" or just plain made stuff up.....
Certainly, a good Seminary will teach one the languages, proper interpretive method, the historical context for the letters,.... These will not be taught directly from Scripture, save for maybe a little self-revealing history. I'm sure there is much more.
Equally important is the proving ones self to be a workman approved and a faithful handler of Scripture. I can't tell you how many times a good minister (including the great minister God has provided Westminster with three years ago) has exegeted a text and I was shocked at what all was in the text, the historical background of the passage,......I would have never extracted that out myself.
Seminary is not for everyone, but I think it is for every minister of the gospel. In my pop-evangelical days, I was under several non-seminaried men. Looking back, they either turned the Scripture into a "guide for life" or just plain made stuff up.....
Last edited:
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
I don't think seminary always has to look like going to a brick and mortar institution for 3-6 years.
Paul had several years of time for training between conversion and ministry.
Likewise, one of the qualifications he gives for eldership: "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." (I Timothy 3:6)
Paul had several years of time for training between conversion and ministry.
Likewise, one of the qualifications he gives for eldership: "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." (I Timothy 3:6)
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes but Paul makes it clear that he was taught by the Lord himself. Most of us don't have access to such training, and so seminary is the best way to go.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Well I have yet to find warrant from Scripture that the popular notion of "Just Me and My Bible" is a proper view. The popularized view is usually masking self-righteousness and a lurking disdain for formal learning. It is also chronological snobbery in that it assumes those that have come before us are somehow less indwelled and enlightened by the same Holy Spirit than we are today. Ignoring the time-tested, old paths well-trodden by others is often a sure way to wind up beyond the bounds of the paths taken by others. The current inclination of not a few to pursue theological novelties, new perspectives or new interpretations, usually in order to be noticed leaves me cold.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
2 Tim. 4:13:
Calvin makes a really interesting observation in his commentary:
In short, books and study are necessary because we benefit from many lifetimes of study from those much more intelligent than us (or at least myself). Seminary is helpful in this regard.
I am so incredibly grateful for the education seminary provides. I work hard to be "self feeding," but am forever running up against questions that require knowledge of the original languages, cultural context, literary structure of ancient texts, etc. My pastor's education and continued scholarship are incredibly important in my growing knowledge of, and love for, God.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
1. Greek
2. Hebrew
3. Aramaic
4. How to deal with people (though you can learn this on the job)
5. How to think of plans to pay off debt.
On other issues, it depends. I learned more about Christology reading the Fathers and listening to Bruce McCormack than I did in the week-long (!) Christology course at RTS. And Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms is worth about 8 seminary classes.
But I'm different. I've been reading 3-5 fairly intensive philosophy/theology/church history books every 10 days for the past seven years. I've learned more that way than in seminary, languages aside.
2. Hebrew
3. Aramaic
4. How to deal with people (though you can learn this on the job)
5. How to think of plans to pay off debt.
On other issues, it depends. I learned more about Christology reading the Fathers and listening to Bruce McCormack than I did in the week-long (!) Christology course at RTS. And Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms is worth about 8 seminary classes.
But I'm different. I've been reading 3-5 fairly intensive philosophy/theology/church history books every 10 days for the past seven years. I've learned more that way than in seminary, languages aside.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, but you can develop those same connection through a presbytery, synod, council, or federation of like minded churches without the possible debt that may go with a seminary education.
True, but it will take a lot more time and effort.
I understand the concerns behind this--debt is serious and the church needs to do better at supporting seminarians both for their sake and its own. However, the seminary remains the primary training ground. In fact, I am of the opinion that MDiv programs should probably transition to a four-year model to compensate for the remedial education that they so often have to do, particularly in languages.
Yes, you can self-study without structure. You can also find a kit to write your own will or find a book on how to take out your own appendix. None of these are recommended.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
When people reject seminary education as being unbiblical I do not think it is necessarily due to a "just me and my bible" mentality or a form of intellectual snobbery. But instead may be in relation to the church's responsibility to train men for the ministry for the next generation, which is biblical. And seminaries as I am sure you are aware can be a driving force for "theological novelties, new perspectives or new interpretations" as it relates to scripture. And that snobbery can develop from those that are seminary trained.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have my issues with self-study as well, but of course the issue arises if men for the ministry need the MDiv biblically. We cannot deny that scripture itself does not require the MDiv as a requirement to be a pastor. And I think scripture is clear that the church is the driving force for Christian education. We must also recognize the historical development of Christian degrees and its relation to modern ministry. We should not want to necessarily be confined to the modern tradition that requires a certain degree, but instead be confined to what scripture actually says and try to apply wisdom biblically as it relates to the churches' needs and the candidacy of certain men in ministry.
I wouldn't say that it's a Biblical requirement, but practically speaking, what is the alternative? To be a pastor today, one has to have skills in administration, counselling, Biblical scholarship, homiletics, theology, etc., and these are best learned from those who have specialized in these areas. The typical pastor has no time to specialize in order to teach because the demands on his time are so general. The church is almost forced to outsource the task of training pastors in these areas.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
The alternative is have men of the church do the training. If teaching elders cannot train the men of the church for future ministry then I think they are neglecting one of their callings in ministry. If a seminary trained man can not train others then he has had a terrible training and probably is not called to the ministry based on 1 Timothy 3:2. I also think in every age of the church we have needed men with skills in "administration, counselling, Biblical scholarship, homiletics," and "theology."
Call it what you will, the Twelve (would be) Apostles had a 3-year frame of instruction in the "School of Jesus." Paul also, "as one untimely born," received the same period of instruction (Gal.1:18) from none other than Jesus himself, as he witnesses he was not instructed in the gospel by the apostles (vv 1 & 12; cf. 2Cor.12:2-3).
I'm not alleging that there is no other form of instruction than a seminary "house of instruction." The seminary has proved its worth to the church, in spite of the criticisms leveled at it, some legitimate, some whining. Specialization (division of labor) and concentration on the training-task, plus the ability to train many men at once--these are the main benefits for the church of a seminary. If only there was an alternative, equally efficient means. Mentorship is ordinarily demanding beyond the gifts of the typical pastor, and beyond many single-congregation's resources to support it adequately. We're talking about a long-term prospect, resulting in (maybe) one productive man? Not every man who goes through the process of training ends up called to the ministry!
"But Jesus...!" Sure, and every pastor has the full gifts of Jesus? No. Besides, those who suggest this idea conveniently ignore the reality that Jesus concentrated (especially in the final half of the training period) on his Disciples. Newsflash: Jesus wasn't pastoring a congregation; he was (to borrow A.B. Bruce's title) [The] Training [of] the Twelwe.
Paul's mature missionary effort in Ephesus saw "daily dialegomai" in a lecture hall, which intensive preparations were a prelude to a wave of evangelization through the Lycus River valley, and no doubt beyond (Colosse was one place his probable student, Epaphras, went to plant a church; Paul himself those Colossian Christians had never seen, Col.2:1).
2Ki.2 and ssq. chs. refer to a group known as "sons of the prophets," and the most apparent intent of the designation is something like a group of disciples, or a seminary of sorts.
Bottom line: men need training and preparation for ministry--this was apparently recognized down through church history, even from OT and NT evidence. It's the church's responsibility to determine what it sees as the minimum requirements for that training, and see to it that her qualified sons (at least one for the next generation!) are offered that opportunity to study. This church and that may decide a bit differently, that's OK. Seminary works, generally. Mentorships have also worked, just not as efficiently.
But the idea that the whole matter is just left up to whoever gets privately motivated (by whatever he claims stimulated his desire), and he's anointed with penetrating insights into the Bible (so ya'll listen up!)--that's an invitation to confusion. Have there been self-taught, self-promoted success stories? Sure, but why should we think that the norm, rather than exceptional?
I'm not alleging that there is no other form of instruction than a seminary "house of instruction." The seminary has proved its worth to the church, in spite of the criticisms leveled at it, some legitimate, some whining. Specialization (division of labor) and concentration on the training-task, plus the ability to train many men at once--these are the main benefits for the church of a seminary. If only there was an alternative, equally efficient means. Mentorship is ordinarily demanding beyond the gifts of the typical pastor, and beyond many single-congregation's resources to support it adequately. We're talking about a long-term prospect, resulting in (maybe) one productive man? Not every man who goes through the process of training ends up called to the ministry!
"But Jesus...!" Sure, and every pastor has the full gifts of Jesus? No. Besides, those who suggest this idea conveniently ignore the reality that Jesus concentrated (especially in the final half of the training period) on his Disciples. Newsflash: Jesus wasn't pastoring a congregation; he was (to borrow A.B. Bruce's title) [The] Training [of] the Twelwe.
Paul's mature missionary effort in Ephesus saw "daily dialegomai" in a lecture hall, which intensive preparations were a prelude to a wave of evangelization through the Lycus River valley, and no doubt beyond (Colosse was one place his probable student, Epaphras, went to plant a church; Paul himself those Colossian Christians had never seen, Col.2:1).
2Ki.2 and ssq. chs. refer to a group known as "sons of the prophets," and the most apparent intent of the designation is something like a group of disciples, or a seminary of sorts.
Bottom line: men need training and preparation for ministry--this was apparently recognized down through church history, even from OT and NT evidence. It's the church's responsibility to determine what it sees as the minimum requirements for that training, and see to it that her qualified sons (at least one for the next generation!) are offered that opportunity to study. This church and that may decide a bit differently, that's OK. Seminary works, generally. Mentorships have also worked, just not as efficiently.
But the idea that the whole matter is just left up to whoever gets privately motivated (by whatever he claims stimulated his desire), and he's anointed with penetrating insights into the Bible (so ya'll listen up!)--that's an invitation to confusion. Have there been self-taught, self-promoted success stories? Sure, but why should we think that the norm, rather than exceptional?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
You are correct in observing that some of what I spoke about has its origins in the seminary. That is no reason to assume the seminary is the font of all such of my observations. Moreover, there are seminaries that come along side the local church and work closely with them for the training of those under the church's spiritual care. Is not the local church or denomination within its warrant to look to the seminary in such things?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
These are the wrong questions. The real questions are these: What can seminary teach you that your own reading of the Bible (in an English translation) cannot? Is modern evangelical biblicism (me and my Bible alone) biblical?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Ideally, I am for the idea of seminary. That said, not all seminaries and seminary classes are created equally. I have been in Christology courses (only a week long; reflect on that one if you will) where the professor yelled at us about theonomy and message boards in Ireland and on how great the Government was and the like. Even in some good classes a lot of the material was simply an outline from Carson/Moo/Morris.
Church History classes were good, as were the philosophy classes. And of course the languages.
Church History classes were good, as were the philosophy classes. And of course the languages.
I had the opportunity to spend time with a few men (post seminary) under care in the ARP and was really impressed. In addition to seminary, I suspect the denomination (or at least that presbytery in the deep south) really prepared these guys to be churchmen. What stood out to me are the way they handled themselves in the pulpit, mingled with the congregation, had an ability to set a course for the future (both were preparing to plant churches), and understood the preciousness of the church. These skills often are lacking in the guys I've met between seminary and their first call. (Though this is by no means always the case.) Their care was truly presbytery-wide and they continued study under two TE advisers.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I am a supporter of the seminary of my denomination in our town. It eschews higher criticism, holds to an inerrant Word of God, teaches a biblical view of creation, denies abortion, upholds the biblical view of marriage, and requires pastors to spend a year in full time ministry after the second year and before the final year of seminary. From what you can observe, it does a pretty fair job on all scores - technical and pastoral education.
But, where else would crazy ideas come from if not from the seminary/graduate school? In the history of the American experience, how many "progressive" notions have originated anywhere else but from the seminary? Certainly some of the wild eyed cults and heterodox groups were born in ignorance (e.g. Kenneth Hagin and the Faith Teachers). But, practically all of the heresies prevalent in the mainline denoms began in the seminary and were exported to the churches.
The Old Adam clings to us like glue. And, in the context of the work of the mind (as opposed to the common sins of the flesh), it excels in replicating Satan's question, "Has God really said?" One of my classmates from seminary later went on to teach in the institution. Later, a seminarian field worker with me remembers being taught that Jesus did not know he was God until after the resurrection, to which he replied to my classmate teaching the course: "Didn't Peter like 'tip him off' at Caesarea Philippi?"
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Your scratching your head presupposes that there was a logical connection in the adjunct professor's statement, especially as it relates to the Christology curriculum. That is a mistake. There was no logic.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I have to say every time I see this thread I swear it says Seminary and the bubble. Must be engrained in my mind that there is a college bubble....
Hebrew and Greek.
The historical and cultural background of the Bible.
Any kind of church history or historical data that is not mentioned in the Bible.
A critique of your own teaching and preaching.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Was he yelling for theonomy? or against? LOL
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He was screaming against it. Now, I am no longer a theonomist and would probably agree with--well, I can't call them criticisms because criticisms imply a logical chain of reasoning, which was absent--his concerns but we wasted valuable time on Christology (time which we really didn't have).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Regardless of the conclusion of "Seminary" or "Autodidactism," we can hopefully agree with the following:
*Even graduating from seminary, one ought to engage and maintain a rigorous reading and study schedule, for many of the "intro" or "survey" classes in seminary are woefully inadequate.
*Even graduating from seminary, one ought to engage and maintain a rigorous reading and study schedule, for many of the "intro" or "survey" classes in seminary are woefully inadequate.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
Amen. One of the most fruitful things I've found is to revisit my syllabi from seminary and begin to work through the professor's suggested/supplemental reading. That has been very helpful for me.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
