What Seminary 'Produces' the Best Preachers?

What Seminary "Produces" the best Preachers?


  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.
To get the right answers, we need to ask the right questions.

What makes a preacher rise above others to be distinguished and considered among the 'best?'

Mike
 
I just noticed that Princeton was on the list. I recently heard Bart Ehrman debate a Baptist apologist on the whether or not your can prove historically that Jesus rose from the dead. Sadly, Ehrman ate the baptist for lunch, he started to feel bad and so made some of the points the baptist should have been making. He is a very intelligent, well informed person it is to bad he went to Princeton he would be a valuable asset if he now, after knowing what he does, would come back to the truth. I think if he had discovered reformed theology things might have gone differently the problem is so many people are taught to hate Calvinism and never take the time to read about it for themselves.

Now at Princeton they have the likes of Elaine Pagels as a professor and teach mostly on the Gnostic Gospels and why everything the bible teaches is false and cannot be trusted :(
 
You may want to first list them all before the vote. There are a few you are missing - like Whitefield?

Also, I don't know what "best" preachers mean. What does best mean? I would have quite a few qualifications in there - i.e. question on worship, whether they hold to Westminster or not, or a revised version, etc. You may want to revise things because even Joel Osteen is a good "speaker" and has great "speaking ability" to "affect people" emotionally and spiritually. So "best" can't mean that.
 
You may want to first list them all before the vote. There are a few you are missing - like Whitefield?

Also, I don't know what "best" preachers mean. What does best mean? I would have quite a few qualifications in there - i.e. question on worship, whether they hold to Westminster or not, or a revised version, etc. You may want to revise things because even Joel Osteen is a good "speaker" and has great "speaking ability" to "affect people" emotionally and spiritually. So "best" can't mean that.

Yikes, Matthew! Yech, ech, ouch, oooo, nooo, man, what in the world . . . using the category of "good preacher" and Joel Osteen in the same sentence just kind of creeps me out. Mesmerizing manipulator, maybe? Good preacher, never! :duh:
 
Ehrman ate the baptist for lunch...
I doubt he'll have the same victory with James White next year.

I pray not. Ehrman is the worst kind of critic, one who was "one of us" and knows all the moves. After Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton, and Princeton, his current professed agnosticism is a bitter blow. With his smarts, language skills, and string of bestsellers, it would be so sweet to see him with the truth.
 
Bart D. Ehrman

This guy is a sad story, He interned at the PCA church I was a member at in Princeton.

My pastor said, "He entered seminary as a brittle Fundamentalist and left seminary as a brittle Liberal. Towards the end of his internship I had to ask him to stop teaching at PPC."
 
Reformed Theological College, Knockbracken, Belfast produces the best preachers. Well, its the only answer I can give since its students are the only preachers I regularly hear.
 
To get the right answers, we need to ask the right questions.

What makes a preacher rise above others to be distinguished and considered among the 'best?'

Mike

I am going to go out on a limb here and say a few things about what I think makes a good preacher. Firstly, he can take what is complicated and make it simple. This is the basic task of the scholar. I do not believe that a pastor can be a great preacher unless he is a scholar. Of course, this does not imply schooling, necessarily. Scholarship does not have to be by way of schooling.

Secondly, he makes the text understandable. This is similar to the first point, although slightly different. He knows his audience and their tendencies well enough to know how to communicate the same old doctrine in new ways.

Thirdly, he preaches nothing but Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended. Anyone preaching on the OT, for instance, without preaching Christ, could just as well be a Jew (John 5 and Luke 24 come to mind here).

Fourthly, he must be doctrinal-practical. The reason I hyphenated these two words is because so many separate doctrine and practice. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Doctrine without practice is not doctrine! Practice without doctrine is wrong-headed and empty!

Fifthly, he himself must be holy. As Robert M'Cheyne says, "A holy minister is an awful weapon in the hands of Almighty God." This does not mean sinless. But it does mean that he exegetes his own heart, and practices what he preaches.

Sixthly, he must love those sheep committed to his care. It is all about caring for the sheep for the glory of God.
 
Pittsburgh, Protestant Reformed, Canadian Reformed

Pittsburgh used to produce excellent preachers back when Addison Leitch, and John H. Gerstner were on the faculty.
In my experience, Protestant Reformed grads and Canadian Reformed grads do an excellent job of showing how the text appointed for that day relates to core doctrines of the faith.
Reformed Episcopal used to produce excellent preachers.
 
Pittsburgh used to produce excellent preachers back when Addison Leitch, and John H. Gerstner were on the faculty.
In my experience, Protestant Reformed grads and Canadian Reformed grads do an excellent job of showing how the text appointed for that day relates to core doctrines of the faith.
Reformed Episcopal used to produce excellent preachers.

Well I know one preacher coming out of Pittsburgh that is not too shabby...


:graduate::lol:
 
Name one good preacher from WTS-PA. I cannot recall one of recent vintage.

Andrew Webb, Lane Keister and Jim Cassidy (OPC minister) are some other recent WTS-Pa grads.

That is awfully kind of you. However, I think that Phil Ryken and Rick Phillips deserve this distinction far more than I, and they are both WTS-PA grads.

They are certainly very good preachers. I was thinking of more "recent vintage" i.e. men who graduated from WTS within the last 10 years or less.
 
I think Westminster, PA gets it's recognition for the pastors it has graduated in the past, not the ones it currently graduates. I voted for it for that reason.

Covenant scares me a little because it's more Broadly Evangelical than Truly Reformed, or so it seems to me.

If I were to attend a seminary, I would attend one of the RTS campuses, hands-down, but then I would not be going to seminary to be a pastor anyway.

I think I get what "truly reformed" is, but what are you saying "broadly evangelical" is? To me, broadly evangelical means semi-pelagian. Covenant certainly is not that. If I had it to do over, I'd go to Covenant again, no doubt. I'm definitely not "broadly evangelical".
 
Lately I been reading and hearing some good stuff coming from WTS (east), like from Carl Trueman, Lane G. Tipton, Mark A. Garcia, K. Scott Oliphint, etc.

Is that seminary making its way to a truly reformed comeback?
 
I think Westminster, PA gets it's recognition for the pastors it has graduated in the past, not the ones it currently graduates. I voted for it for that reason.

Covenant scares me a little because it's more Broadly Evangelical than Truly Reformed, or so it seems to me.

If I were to attend a seminary, I would attend one of the RTS campuses, hands-down, but then I would not be going to seminary to be a pastor anyway.

I think I get what "truly reformed" is, but what are you saying "broadly evangelical" is? To me, broadly evangelical means semi-pelagian. Covenant certainly is not that. If I had it to do over, I'd go to Covenant again, no doubt. I'm definitely not "broadly evangelical".

Not to speak for Zenas but I think what he means by "Broadly Evangelical" in a PCA context is that Covenant is producing Pastors who are weak theologically and also (I think as a result) tend to be more open to Broad styles of Worship, deaconesses, etc...
 
I think Westminster, PA gets it's recognition for the pastors it has graduated in the past, not the ones it currently graduates. I voted for it for that reason.

Covenant scares me a little because it's more Broadly Evangelical than Truly Reformed, or so it seems to me.

If I were to attend a seminary, I would attend one of the RTS campuses, hands-down, but then I would not be going to seminary to be a pastor anyway.

I think I get what "truly reformed" is, but what are you saying "broadly evangelical" is? To me, broadly evangelical means semi-pelagian. Covenant certainly is not that. If I had it to do over, I'd go to Covenant again, no doubt. I'm definitely not "broadly evangelical".

Not to speak for Zenas but I think what he means by "Broadly Evangelical" in a PCA context is that Covenant is producing Pastors who are weak theologically and also (I think as a result) tend to be more open to Broad styles of Worship, deaconesses, etc...

That's a pretty strong charge that would demand considerable referencing.

Obviously as a graduate and member of my presbytery's candidates/credentials committee I would disagree with a sweeping statement like "Covenant is producing Pastors who are weak theologically..."

As for the preaching method taught at Covenant, it is classic expositional preaching with a uniquely redemptive focus. Bryan Chapell's book "Christ Centered Preaching" is the basis for the training one receives at Covenant.

If there are Covenant grads who are pro-deaconnesses, it's not because of the preaching curriculum.
 
Whoa! Hang on a minute there.

I think Westminster, PA gets it's recognition for the pastors it has graduated in the past, not the ones it currently graduates. I voted for it for that reason.

Covenant scares me a little because it's more Broadly Evangelical than Truly Reformed, or so it seems to me.

If I were to attend a seminary, I would attend one of the RTS campuses, hands-down, but then I would not be going to seminary to be a pastor anyway.

I think I get what "truly reformed" is, but what are you saying "broadly evangelical" is? To me, broadly evangelical means semi-pelagian. Covenant certainly is not that. If I had it to do over, I'd go to Covenant again, no doubt. I'm definitely not "broadly evangelical".

Not to speak for Zenas but I think what he means by "Broadly Evangelical" in a PCA context is that Covenant is producing Pastors who are weak theologically and also (I think as a result) tend to be more open to Broad styles of Worship, deaconesses, etc...

This is a most ridiculous assertion. In casting your unsubstantiated aspersions on Covenant you are in breach of the ninth commandment. I urge you to rethink what you are saying.
After you have attended classes at Covenant, spoken with the faculty, read some of their books, etc, come back here and then make these claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top