Why Pastors Need a Seminary Education

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I find lacking in most seminaries is practical hands on practice.

People go through 4 years of Bible school, 4 years of seminary and then feel called as a missionary and come out and have no idea what to do or how to work with others. I actually prefer working with folks that did another degree besides bible as their bachelors before seminary or had some sort of real-life job before entering the ministry, these people tend to be more hardy and more able to be flexible and deal with adversity.

Sir, I wish I knew more about you. I do not know if you have attended seminary, are in the ministry, are Baptist or Presbyterian. So far, I can only gather that either you yourself or some people you know have been disappointed by seminary education or a seminary-educated pastor.

I believe that ministerial training is more than seminary training. If there is a perceived lack in training, especially on the practical side, we must ask whether the local church did not fulfill its end of responsibility.

However, my experience is that both Bible colleges and seminaries provide ample opportunities for practical learning experience. What I am about to say, I do not say to exalt myself but to defend the institutions I love, as well as give weight to my words.

I am 21 years old. My churches, Bible college, and seminaries have given me wonderful opportunities (and great responsibility) to advance in my ministerial training. Not only have I had theology classes that have covered every genre and systematic category of the Bible, I am also fluent in Greek and rapidly becoming so in Hebrew. I developed and implemented an expository Bible study in my high school. I have had the opportunity to participate in short-term missions in New York, Chicago, Ireland, Nassau Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Nova Scotia. I was able to work an entire summer as a children's evangelist. I have counseled at church camps. I have been an assistant to a pastor (not assistant pastor), where I taught adult Sunday School, formed an evangelism class and community outreach program, and directed a teen and children's Saturday evangelistic outreach. I have preached in churches, youth groups, women's shelters, rescue missions, on streets, in buses, and in jungles - totalling over 200 times. I have personally been a tool in bringing several people to Christ and discipling them.

I understand if you feel that my "hands on experience" is lacking, but I still have several more years before my formal training is complete.

Charlie,

I almost had the same resume at 21 as you do. However, I can tell you that I would trade all of the experience I had at 21 with all the experience I've gained in the last 10 years. I really did believe I was ready, but I know now that I wasn't. God had other plans for me and providentially hindered me from the current paradigm. I'm not saying that has to be a rule for everyone. As I said, there are exceptions. If M'Cheyne had waited until 30 to start his ministry, we'd never have known the great man of God he was. But again, that is an exception that can and should be made for certain individuals. Perhaps that is an exception the church should make for you.

However, on the whole, we can see that history is not necessarily on your side. God in His providence and sovereignty make men like M'Cheyne, but He also makes quite a few men who fail utterly due in part to their own pride and churches who rush men into the gospel ministry. There is a pattern to successful church leaders and that pattern is discipleship. In my own case (as I can see now), I was discipling people before I was really discipled.

In the end, an elder of the church is not necessarily made by the passage of time, but there is a reason why Paul says elders should not be new converts and should not be novices. What did he mean by "new", I think there is a general rule behind that, but there are also exceptions to those rules. And I think it is fair to talk about other countries than just America. We shouldn't push rules on all societies and "westernize" elder training. But the church needs to be prudent and wise in this manner. In the west, I think churches have bowed too much to letting the seminaries train men primarily, instead of the church primarily. And that is the reason for most of our woes, theologically and spiritually speaking.

Charlie, I'm not saying you need to quit GPTS and wait awhile. But, I would tell you, based on my experience, that I'm glad I was hindered from doing it at your age. With training for the gospel ministry, it is better to take the long view. Don't let your eagerness get in the way of really being seasoned for your flock. The Bride of Christ deserves a well-seasoned and educated eldership. And theological education will never be the remedy for what ails the church. Only good and godly trained men will give her what she needs and deserves.

In Christ,

KC
 
The bottom line for me, and i believe the biblical way of looking at it, is simply testing that the man who feels called to the Gospel ministry is well trained for that ministry. That is the job of Sessions and Presbyteries.

If a man with nothing but a High School education proved himself to be well trained for the Gospel ministry, then I would hope that his training would be accepted, even though it wasn't formal.

Suggesting that simply because someone has a formal education he is more qualified to minister hints to an elitist attitude and to legalism as it is not biblically mandated. The Bible is clear that we need well-trained men, but it does not stipulate the only correct way to train them...anyone that tries to claim there is only one way to train them is speaking outside of Scripture.

I would not deny William Jay a ministerial position because of his lack of formal education.
 
Sirs,

This has been a very good discussion, and many great posts already entered. I would only add that the responsibility for ordination is with the Presbytery. (Obviously I am speaking as a Presbyterian) That being said, the model of 2 Timothy 2.2 is to be implemented by the Presbytery, and the collected wisdom of the Presbytery ought to decide on the best means available for its circumstances when it comes to training its ministers.

However, I believe any presbytery to act unwisely by simply accepting a seminary degree as a "bona fide" of orthodoxy, competency, etc. The seminary must always be, and only be, one tool which the presbytery has in its bag for training and ordaining its men for ministry. As one said above, the papers and work of the seminary student ought also to be reviewed by the presbytery often, and the presbytery is responsible before the King of the Church to "lay hands on no man suddenly".

That being said, I believe that a Presbytery may make use of a seminary, either by way of correspondence, or by sending a man there. Or, a Presbytery may have its own "in house" training program, taught by its own membership, locally. She also has the responsibility to judge the man's life and character, prescribe an internship, and to examine and evaluate all along the way, at every step. This is one of the most important functions of a presbytery, and she must not "contract out" these, her own labors, to the seminary. When we, as members of a presbytery, stand before the King of the Church at the end of days, if hirelings, heretics, errorists, and wolves have come into the Church on our watch, we will not be able to use the seminary and its deficiencies as an excuse. The Lord has vested the Presbytery with that authority, and it is she that must administer that function.
 
Suggesting that simply because someone has a formal education he is more qualified to minister hints to an elitist attitude and to legalism as it is not biblically mandated.
I think it is humbling for me to admit that I am not born with qualifications, but need training. It is humbling to discipline myself to study. It is humbling to commit myself to a calling (or one of the professions) seriously to set my life aside and be trained.

I have worked for a long time as a school teacher. I toughed it out to get the best training I could get. But nowadays, it is the custom to hire unqualified people because they do not have to be on the salary scale and because that allows the administrator to hire personal friends and connections. These people come to work, do not know their subjects, cannot get along with young people, but arrogantly tell everyone that they are better than the others who took the time and the expense to get it right.

That's elitist.
 
The medical analogy doesn't work.

In medicine you try to keep alive people alive through physical means; in ministry you try to raise the dead through supernatural means.


Speaking a 30 minute sermon is not the same as brain surgery.


A medical doctor can be a good man or an evil man; and yet his handiwork can be the same. Know the technique and the hard facts and the patient lives.


For a pastor or evangelist most of it is not about doing, but first knowing, and then even before that BEING. The qualifications for elders are not so much cognitive as they are life-fruits!

Local church involement and alternate forms of education often allow a pastor formative years of character formation that will help him 10 times more than geographical relocation for the sake of sitting in a class.


Again, I am all for education, but there are many competing factors involved that make is prohibitive and unwise for all to go to seminary.
 
In the end, an elder of the church is not necessarily made by the passage of time, but there is a reason why Paul says elders should not be new converts and should not be novices. What did he mean by "new", I think there is a general rule behind that, but there are also exceptions to those rules. And I think it is fair to talk about other countries than just America. We shouldn't push rules on all societies and "westernize" elder training. But the church needs to be prudent and wise in this manner. In the west, I think churches have bowed too much to letting the seminaries train men primarily, instead of the church primarily. And that is the reason for most of our woes, theologically and spiritually speaking.

Thanks, KC. I appreciate your concern and your admonition. The only reason for my post was Pergamum's suggestion that seminary graduates don't have "hands on experience." I think this is entirely untrue. If it is true in a particular case, it is the fault of the church not being serious about training that person. As you said, seminary is not the whole of ministerial training and if the church relies to heavily on the seminary, it is the church's fault.

If someone without proper Christian character comes to seminary, whose fault is that? The church's. At least at GPTS, the church's approval is required for training.

If someone comes into seminary with no hands on experience, whose fault is that? The church's. What has it been doing for the last 20-30 years of that person's life?


I think most doctrinally sound seminaries do a good job on their end, and most churches do a bad job on theirs'. But it's easier to blame the seminary.
 
I think most doctrinally sound seminaries do a good job on their end, and most churches do a bad job on theirs'. But it's easier to blame the seminary.

This statement is excellent. What's missing is the fact that there are far more doctrinally sound churches than doctrinally sound seminaries. And even among the doctrinally sound churches, most "do a bad job" in regard to training men for the ministry. For this the church must take full responsibility. Seminaries are generally blamed by churches who fail in their responsibility, or men who are a result of such churches.

As one who was not sent by a church, I praise God that I was able to attend a good seminary. Much of my pride was dashed in my face through that experience. I learned more from the experience than from the education; and probably more in the two years after graduation than the three years in classes.

On a final note, a man is never "ready" for pastoral ministry. He is equipped, sent, ordained, etc., but if he thinks he's truly ready then pride is likely lurking. I was never "less ready" for pastoral ministry than when I was called here. I am still not ready. But I am also compelled and know that my readiness is not because of my sufficiency, education or life experience, but because Christ is made strong in my weakness. May I rest and trust in His strength and not my own.
 
Being a Baptist

Sirs,

This has been a very good discussion, and many great posts already entered. I would only add that the responsibility for ordination is with the Presbytery. (Obviously I am speaking as a Presbyterian) That being said, the model of 2 Timothy 2.2 is to be implemented by the Presbytery, and the collected wisdom of the Presbytery ought to decide on the best means available for its circumstances when it comes to training its ministers.

However, I believe any presbytery to act unwisely by simply accepting a seminary degree as a "bona fide" of orthodoxy, competency, etc. The seminary must always be, and only be, one tool which the presbytery has in its bag for training and ordaining its men for ministry. As one said above, the papers and work of the seminary student ought also to be reviewed by the presbytery often, and the presbytery is responsible before the King of the Church to "lay hands on no man suddenly".

That being said, I believe that a Presbytery may make use of a seminary, either by way of correspondence, or by sending a man there. Or, a Presbytery may have its own "in house" training program, taught by its own membership, locally. She also has the responsibility to judge the man's life and character, prescribe an internship, and to examine and evaluate all along the way, at every step. This is one of the most important functions of a presbytery, and she must not "contract out" these, her own labors, to the seminary. When we, as members of a presbytery, stand before the King of the Church at the end of days, if hirelings, heretics, errorists, and wolves have come into the Church on our watch, we will not be able to use the seminary and its deficiencies as an excuse. The Lord has vested the Presbytery with that authority, and it is she that must administer that function.

I agree with the post wholeheartedly.

I originally come from an IFB background. One of the good things they did with their members who went off to Bible College was to have them preach Sunday nights or Wednesday nights during the summer. The sermons had to be new, not something they preached at college, and the outline had to be submitted to the pastor for approval. Based upon their summer preaching, evangelism, leading Sunday school, ministry involvement, etc. the pastor would recommend re-admittance to the Bible college.

Now if we could get IFB churches to go Reformed.
 
2. Jesus ripped 12 men from their local lives for a three-year seminary education; was He disrupting the church?
Seminaries and churches are not producing apostles.

3. Samuel established a "school of the prophets" also called a "college" in Isaiah; if prophets needed to be trained, how much more pastors?
Seminaries and churches don't produce prophets.

Since apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church, and we are discussing ministers who are not the foundation, i just don't think it's a fair comparison.


The form of argumentation is from the greater to the lesser. If the Holy-Spirit-inspired prophets and apostles required seminary educaiton how much more so those who are not inspired? If there were anyone who did not require a formal training, you would think that it would be those inspired by God; yet even they had the wisdom to see the need for formal education. It is a valid form of argument.

Cheers,
 
All this can best be done by not ripping Third World Pastors out of their local ministry contexts to attend a classroom, but in finding ways to educate them while they continue their present ministries.

This is an excellent point, and in line with the earlier discussion of Paul's missionary method. Bring the seminary to them!

Adam
 
It is a valid form of argument.
It can be argued both ways though. Since prophets and Apostles were given inspiration from God, they were equipped to pass on that information to others. And, though there was a school for prophets, there was no school for Apostles (other than the one time event of being personally trained by Jesus). Jesus, pophets and Apostles are not available to us today to lead our seminaries, except by their words in God's Word and the Spirit of God.
 
While seminary is useful, I don't think seminary is the best place to train pastors. The local Church is. Seminary is better for the world of academia. A MDIV is nice but the tutorship of a elder is better.
 
"Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth."

I have a friend who is a United Methodist and he is currently going through what they call Licensing School to become a Licensed Local Pastor. This is a program for men (and of course women, because it is the UMC after all) with some or little college education to become pastors. Imagine what is going to happen to a congregation when they receive a man with some or little college education and all he has is this licensing school for a theological education. Now he will do this school for a week and it is possible for him to be given a church as early as next year.

Even though I am a seminarian and I believe that my training will better prepare me for the pastorate; I am fearful of programs like the one above. My opinion of distance learning is that it is good for certain things, but theology is not one of them.

I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my :2cents: in.
 
I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my :2cents: in.

The pastorate is not a place where one needs to know how to physically deal with people as doctors do. Rather, it's a place where one learns how to spiritually deal with people. And what better place to do that than at the local church where what they learn can be immediately applied?
 
"Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth."

I have a friend who is a United Methodist and he is currently going through what they call Licensing School to become a Licensed Local Pastor. This is a program for men (and of course women, because it is the UMC after all) with some or little college education to become pastors. Imagine what is going to happen to a congregation when they receive a man with some or little college education and all he has is this licensing school for a theological education. Now he will do this school for a week and it is possible for him to be given a church as early as next year.

Even though I am a seminarian and I believe that my training will better prepare me for the pastorate; I am fearful of programs like the one above. My opinion of distance learning is that it is good for certain things, but theology is not one of them.

I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my :2cents: in.

Jeff,

This is along the lines of what Dr. Clark has posited, and it frankly, as others have said, does not compare apples to oranges. Physicians do not answer to God for men's souls. Physicians are held accountable for what they do themselves and do not answer to a judicatory over which they may be censured or defrocked. In other words,, there is nothing like a Presbytery or a Synod who will answer for why a Dr messed up a diagnosis. There is no body or committee charged with the training of doctors and held accountable if the Dr does not receive the right kind of training. And frankly, the minister before God has more responsibility than the Dr will ever have. This causes Dr. Clark to conclude that the training of ministers is more crucial and therefore should be left up to professionals - experts and methods that are largely academic and man-made.

But we see a very different example from Scripture and a very different mandate. Elders of the church are charged with pouring themselves into the lives of those who will take up the mantle for the next generation. It is not seminaries that are charged with this, but elders - elders who are accountable to the church for their actions. To my knowledge and with all of the mess that has gone on in seminaries in the past several years, has there ever been one professor defrocked for errors in teaching? No doubt they have been villified in writing and railed against in public, but they have not been stripped of their office within the church. Even if there have been cases of this, they simply go to another denomination willing to accept them. The fault of this lies with the church for not keeping control over godly education, and the seminaries for not submitting themselves to the collective wisdom of the church. Dr. Clark has said that the average minister could not train a man the way that he needs to be trained. Even with the help of distance ed, the pastor is woefully inadequate. And he uses the same argument you just used. The only problem with that is that this is the way God intended it. Seminaries are not charged with training up a man for the ministry. They are helps towards that end, but are not the ones responsible for it. Has a medical college ever been cited in a lawsuit against a doctor? How about the American College of Surgeons? The AMA? If they have, there is no way to win that lawsuit. Yet, how many seminaries SHOULD be held accountable for the way they have trained a man? How many churches SHOULD be held accountable as well?

Therefore, it is the primary responsibility of the church and secondarily of the seminary. The keys have been given to the church, the pillar and ground of the truth. The seminary may help, but they are not the organization that the Lord commissioned for the making of disciples. Physicians have no mandate from on high to disciple, therefore the ministry is the more important. And that, from Jesus command, is to be done under the auspices and supervision of the church. So there is no reason why a distance education under the supervision of the church is not a viable method for training men for the gospel ministry.

In Christ,

KC
 
2. Jesus ripped 12 men from their local lives for a three-year seminary education; was He disrupting the church?
Seminaries and churches are not producing apostles.

3. Samuel established a "school of the prophets" also called a "college" in Isaiah; if prophets needed to be trained, how much more pastors?
Seminaries and churches don't produce prophets.

Since apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church, and we are discussing ministers who are not the foundation, i just don't think it's a fair comparison.


The form of argumentation is from the greater to the lesser. If the Holy-Spirit-inspired prophets and apostles required seminary educaiton how much more so those who are not inspired? If there were anyone who did not require a formal training, you would think that it would be those inspired by God; yet even they had the wisdom to see the need for formal education. It is a valid form of argument.

Cheers,

What are the exact passages that refer to a college or school of prophets so that i can look at the context a bit closer?
 
"Ignorant ministers lead to ignorant congregations. Ignorant congregations lead to a powerless church: my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and so forth."

I have a friend who is a United Methodist and he is currently going through what they call Licensing School to become a Licensed Local Pastor. This is a program for men (and of course women, because it is the UMC after all) with some or little college education to become pastors. Imagine what is going to happen to a congregation when they receive a man with some or little college education and all he has is this licensing school for a theological education. Now he will do this school for a week and it is possible for him to be given a church as early as next year.

Even though I am a seminarian and I believe that my training will better prepare me for the pastorate; I am fearful of programs like the one above. My opinion of distance learning is that it is good for certain things, but theology is not one of them.

I will leave you all with this question; would you want to see a physician that graduated from a distance-medical school? Why would you then accept a pastor from a distance-seminary? Thanks for letting me get my :2cents: in.



Who ever said we wanted ignorant pastors?

You are just assuming a brick and mortar seminary, often far, far from one's home church is the only way to do it.

TEE (theological education by extension) and distance education and modular intensives can be the answer so as not to wrench pastors away from needy flocks.

In many parts of the Third World a requirement for all pastors to go to seminary would create a village brain drain and deprive the sheep of their shephards where they need them the most - in their local contexts.

It is a sloppy argument to say: You believe that seminary should not be a requirement, therefore you must want stupid pastors.
 
What do you think of local churches having their own seminaries? Do you think a seminary has to be a ministry of a particular local church?
 
One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages. I would not have had the discipline to troll through two years of Hebrew. I could easily do that with reading and listening to lectures on the web or the ipod. I favor studying in the context of the local church. Specifically the one that took you under care. Most reformed seminaries with DE require that you have a mentor, and that you be a member of a church. I believe they assume that you are taken under care and work in the context of your home church.

I was at a Career Fair where Covenant, RTS, WTS, WSC, MARS, and others were, and I entered into a discussion with the admissions guy at WSC. He said something along the lines that Covenant and RTS giving away their lecture content for free (itunes U) seemingly cheapened their education. While I agree with him, they are doing a great service to the mission field and aiding current ministers who have not had further training in the word. It is kingdom work they are engaged in. Seminaries walk the careful line of being an academic institution and being a ministry for the church - to produce men with scholarship and men who are able to preach effectively to their sheep.

The current trend of ministerial study from the context you were raised in, or the context you want to minister in, along with the fact that it is your home church with your shepherds, is a winner not a loser. But you must know the languages for the gospel ministry. So enroll at a local Christian college or fly to a seminary for modular training.
 
What are the exact passages that refer to a college or school of prophets so that i can look at the context a bit closer?

2 Kings 22:11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, 13 Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. 14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college) and they communed with her.

Note, when men don't obey God, women run the seminaries. But the context is clear; you want to know what God's word means, go and ask the seminary professor.

The school of the prophets is referred to as the "sons of the prophets", and can be found in several places: 1 Kings 20:35, 2 Kings 2:1-15, 2 Kings 4 - 6. Basically, they were a group of men who lived in the same place, and (as I read it) learned how to be prophets. I believe that Samuel established this school (see 1 Sam 19:20). Amos specifically disclaims that he had a seminary education (Amos 7:14-15) but rather followed a simple life as a herdman.

I may be misreading these, but I don't think I am. Christ followed this same pattern, as did Paul with the students he took along with him. How do you think Luke learned so much?

Cheers,

Adam
 
Last edited:
I was at a Career Fair where Covenant, RTS, WTS, WSC, MARS, and others were, and I entered into a discussion with the admissions guy at WSC. He said something along the lines that Covenant and RTS giving away their lecture content for free (itunes U) seemingly cheapened their education.

:eek::eek::eek:

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard!

They actually think it better to block or hinder folks from gaining access to solid theology?
 
One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages.
Why? I am going to challenge this supposition. Are you speaking for all preachers everywhere? I assume you are because you made a dogmatic statement. You didn't say, "It would be helpful if preachers of the word knew the biblical langagues." Or, "Those preachers with access to instruction to biblical languages should know them." What counsel should be given to preachers without the resources to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Missionaries labor to bring the gospel to unreached people groups and yearn to train local pastors to lead indigenous churches. Language training of local pastors is not the highest priority. There are preachers in western countries who lack the means necessary to pay for language instruction. Is it preferable for a preacher to have language training? Of course. More than preferable, it should be pursued. But only ignorance or arrogance would suggest that biblical languages are a requisite for preaching.

I've been rather quiet on the PB of late and this thread is no exception. I have a real problem with elitism in the church. I am sure some will use that statement to charge me with being against seminary training. I'm not against it. I think it can be valuable. But In my humble opinion seminary can never do what the local church should be doing, at least not as long as seminaries operate independent of the local church.
 
One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages.
Why? I am going to challenge this supposition. Are you speaking for all preachers everywhere? I assume you are because you made a dogmatic statement. You didn't say, "It would be helpful if preachers of the word knew the biblical langagues." Or, "Those preachers with access to instruction to biblical languages should know them." What counsel should be given to preachers without the resources to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Missionaries labor to bring the gospel to unreached people groups and yearn to train local pastors to lead indigenous churches. Language training of local pastors is not the highest priority. There are preachers in western countries who lack the means necessary to pay for language instruction. Is it preferable for a preacher to have language training? Of course. More than preferable, it should be pursued. But only ignorance or arrogance would suggest that biblical languages are a requisite for preaching.

I've been rather quiet on the PB of late and this thread is no exception. I have a real problem with elitism in the church. I am sure some will use that statement to charge me with being against seminary training. I'm not against it. I think it can be valuable. But In my humble opinion seminary can never do what the local church should be doing, at least not as long as seminaries operate independent of the local church.


From the WCF chapter 1:8

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.


I think a properly trained pastor needs to be able to make an appeal to the original language. I believe that this is in accordance to the WCF.
:2cents:
 
Again, we are dealing with ideals versus reality:

It would be FABULOUS if every preacher had a doctorate, and knew Hebrew, Greek and Latin!


But aren't there many other competing factors as well?



I rigidly reject even the requirement of seminary for pastors - especially Third World pastors whom need to stay put in their local contexts as much as possible. Otherwise sometimes they leave their towns, their districts, their provinces and even their countries to enter a classroom setting of 4-5 years.

I have seen and heard of local congregations being left like sheep without a shepherd due to some academician making these local faithful pastors feel inferior and unsuited for their task.

If the training is to enhance the task of being a pastor, why does it have to destroy it!



Again, there are good ways to "bring the seminary to them" through TEE, mail-in, distance, and modular courses. If US professors had more of a global vision I am sure more of them would go as "missionary professors" long term or at least for modular units in many locales. There is always a lack of missionaries that teach at Bible schools here and just a few more would make a HUGE impact.
 
One thing preachers of the word must know are the biblical languages.
Why? I am going to challenge this supposition. Are you speaking for all preachers everywhere? I assume you are because you made a dogmatic statement. You didn't say, "It would be helpful if preachers of the word knew the biblical langagues." Or, "Those preachers with access to instruction to biblical languages should know them." What counsel should be given to preachers without the resources to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Missionaries labor to bring the gospel to unreached people groups and yearn to train local pastors to lead indigenous churches. Language training of local pastors is not the highest priority. There are preachers in western countries who lack the means necessary to pay for language instruction. Is it preferable for a preacher to have language training? Of course. More than preferable, it should be pursued. But only ignorance or arrogance would suggest that biblical languages are a requisite for preaching.

I've been rather quiet on the PB of late and this thread is no exception. I have a real problem with elitism in the church. I am sure some will use that statement to charge me with being against seminary training. I'm not against it. I think it can be valuable. But In my humble opinion seminary can never do what the local church should be doing, at least not as long as seminaries operate independent of the local church.



Here again, it appears that we're talking about fundamental differences between baptists and Presbyterians. This is a fundamental divide over the nature of the church, and the need for an educated ministry. Perhaps we can have a debate about seminaries in the debate forum. It would be interesting to see a baptist, local-church man, vs. a presbyterian, seminary man.

Cheers,

Adam
 
I will defend my dogmatic statement. :2cents:

As it was said we are discussing ideals not reality. In places like South Africa I would already be a preacher. (I am 23 and with a religion degree in my pocket... just walking around before the seminary plunge. Life experience is more important and beneficial than being lectured at, even with the one on one interaction with Profs.)

But here in the states and the very nature of our reformed and presbyterian denominations being licensed to preach at my age is unheard of (by me at least). But even if I were in South Africa I would contend that regular preachers of the word must know the Biblical languages.

God gave us stories. And if you do not even know the original author's word choice, and instead rely on a translation, you miss out-period. Greek and Hebrew are both dead languages and we do not have good English parallels for certain words. Dan. 1 and 2 recounts how David and his friends were taken into exile and given new names. Reeducation we may call it. But the new names glorify the pagan gods, while their true names exalted Yahweh.

It is a necessity when debating Jehovah's False Witnesses and the Mormons who have their twisted and manmade words in hand. "That is not what the Greek says" they claim. OK- Pull off the Greek NT and show them Col. 1:9. Even when they claim that Jehovah comes from Yahweh is wrong. But unless a teacher told you this, or look at the Hebrew itself, one would not know this.

Martin Lloyd Jones contended that the languages were extracurricular activities for the ministry. Machen said they were indispensible. Two years ago I started studying the Hebrew language and it takes a lot of work for me to do. For the sake of my own laziness and leisure I would love to say the languages are extracurricular, but they aren't. And in saying all these things- I think and believe they are essential to the preacher, but God obviously blesses the ministries of men who do not know the languages.

PS. I argue for this in the context of the local church.
 
Adam: I don't understand you. What difference are these and why would baptists and Presbyterians differ here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top