Is seminary important?

RL,

My point about the laity not needing these things deals with the topics I listed. Your church people do not need to know Hebrew and Greek. It is fine if they do but they do not need to. IMO, a pastor is very illequipped if he does not because he won't be able to understand why translations differ and making intelligent decisions one which one is best. Your church congregation would not benefit much from homiletics (except being better able to critique you). Nor would in depth systematic theology complete with reading 1500-2000 pages a semester help them much. They do not need to know how Barth and Brunner and Wellhausen affect modern theology. But you do. I learned a lot in seminary that I would not, at this point, preach to my congregation. But it greatly increases my depth of knowledge and makes my task easier. In reading a commentary, I can draw on my mental background for a broad base of criteria by which to judge its validity. I know men in the ministry (as is evidenced on this board) who don't even know what the issues are, much less how to address them. We can agree to disagree on this and still be friends. I think our emphases are just different.

 

Pastor Larry, I'm finding it hard to bow out of a discussion in which I claimed I would. Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that things that I would see as relating specifically to pulpit ministry are not necessary or needful to the church as a whole (though it would not hurt them). But some things I see as relating to interpreting and understanding the Bible, such as Greek & Hebrew, I would definitely encourage for the "laity" as well as the "clergy", not making a difference between the two. Depth of knowledge in the congregation also makes the pastor's task easier. Finally, our disagreement on this issue in no way affects my perception of your pastoral care and concern, which I believe to be true and sincere.

 

Here are two quotes posted in the "Church History" forum that are somewhat related to our discussion, and therefore might be interesting to each of you. One is by Francis Wayland, who was a Baptist educator, and the other is by Daniel Parker, who opposed seminaries as an unscriptural innovation.

 

rlvaughn wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To Tom:
Some of the "SBC" seminaries certainly proved they were not only not accountable to the churches, but also not accountable to the Convention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God that has now changed. The seminaries are once again accountable to the churches that support them, which comprise the convention.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Thank God that has now changed. The seminaries are once again accountable to the churches that support them, which comprise the convention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, I'm glad of this as well. I think the new baptist seminaries (with the exception of Truett) are much freer places than the six SBC seminaries were even when under the auspices of the moderates/liberals.

Unfortunately, I don't think our churches are as aware of the changes and distinctions as our seminaries are. I know what to expect when I set foot in a CBF partner school or an SBC seminary. That is not the case in an SBC church (there are still some moderate/liberal ones) or a CBF church (there are plenty of very conservative ones - sadly ).

This tells me that the denominational fallout is almost over in education, but just really beginning in the churches. An SBC church might still be pretty surprised about what's taught in the seminaries they support, and likewise for a CBF church.

Joshua

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

Hi.

Haven't read the entire thread, but thought I'd plug my two cents.

Seminary is a man-made institution based on man's wisdom.

The things of the Scriptures are understood spiritually, not naturally, and only those who are obedient and submissive to the will of God can know and discern whether a certain doctrine being preached is really coming from God.

There is only one school mentioned in the Scriptures, the school of the prophets, and what a sorry lot they were. It is evident they lacked God's provision in that the tools they used were borrowed.

And it should caution us that Christ chose no doctor of the law to be His Apostle. The most prolific preacher of modern times (C. H. Spurgeon) had no formal training. The early church father that is most well known and most widely read (St. Augustine) was the least educated, and his apologetic "The City God," though fraught with weaknesses through and through, remains the unrivaled world case for Christianity.

Seminary?? No, just give me a man called of God with an S.S. degree (Sinner Saved). He is the one who can point me the way to the Celestial City.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Too bad you didn't read the whole thread. It looks like it would be worth your time.

The old spiritual understanding argument does not carry much weight really. No matter how spiritual you get, you are not going to learn to read Greek and Hebrew without a boatload of hardwork. And all the spiritual enlightenment of the world won't tell you a thing about church history. It won't tell you which books are worth your time and which are a waste of time. It won't teach you to exegete Scripture in the historical grammatical method. It won't give you any background on introduction to the OT and NT. Having said all that, education without the Spirit becomes liberalism.

And rmeember that the most profilic preacher of modern times who was uneducated had a school for preachers. I would not be so quick to discount it.

 

Since you listed Spurgeon on the side of spiritual enlightment instead of education, I just thought I would post one of his own quotes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't gone to Seminary, but I am sure some have so they could learn Hebrew and Greek and translate the Bible for me. I had a professor who once put it this way. "You think the Spirit will reveal the meaning of scripture to you. Well go get all the Greek manuscripts (around 5000), pile them up and pray over them for the spirit's guidance, and then see what you can read." Many men dedicated their lives to make the scripture plain to me in my own language, dedicated themselves to years of education and study so they would know what an subjective genetive was.

 

God has given the church teachers. I never said a man did not need teaching, but seminaries are not God's chosen vessels.

I have shelves full of commentaries which I regularly consult. The most helpful and spiritual of the commentators are so not because of their knowledge of church history and ancient languages, but because of their knowledge of the Bible itself. Indeed rarely will Matthew Henry or John Calvin or Martin Luther appeal to the original languages to make a point, but it is rare for those with two semesters of Greek or Hebrew not to.

I am in seminary now. Many of you may be familiar with Gleason L. Archer's book on Old Testament Introduction. Here is a conservative, learned man well versed in languages and archaeology and history, yet the most persuasive arguments he posed against the Documentary Hypothesis were not archaeological, linguistic or historical, but from the English translation of the texts themselves.

As far as discernment is concerned, that only comes through obedience, not education, John 7:17; Hebrews 5:14.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
God has given the church teachers. I never said a man did not need teaching, but seminaries are not God's chosen vessels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree that it doesn't matter how a man gets his teaching, as long as he gets good solid Biblical teaching. I think many seminaries can provide that, and for some, seminary might be the only place to get it (my church has about 35 people in it and unfortuanly there is no one to teach much more then I have already learned. I am a laymen by the way.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I have shelves full of commentaries which I regularly consult. The most helpful and spiritual of the commentators are so not because of their knowledge of church history and ancient languages, but because of their knowledge of the Bible itself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I building shelves as we speak and I love what I have. About half use the Greek text directly (in the NT) and the other half refer to them when nessisary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Indeed rarely will Matthew Henry or John Calvin or Martin Luther appeal to the original languages to make a point, but it is rare for those with two semesters of Greek or Hebrew not to.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if Luther would agree with you on this one. Check out a couple of his own quotes,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture….
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did learn Hebrew by the way, yet never to the level of John Calvin.

Another Luther quote,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
"In the Christian Church all teaching must be judged. For this a knowledge of the language is needed above all else. The preacher(s) or teacher(s) can expound the Bible from beginning to end as [they] please, accurately or inaccurately, if there is no one there to judge whether [they are] doing it right or wrong. But in order to judge, one must have a knowledge of the languages; it cannot be done in any other way. Therefore, although faith and the gospel may indeed be proclaimed by simple preachers without a knowledge of the languages, such preaching is flat and tame; people finally become weary and bored with it, and it falls to the ground. But where the preacher is versed in the languages, there is a freshness and vigor in preaching, Scripture is treated in its entirety, and faith finds itself constantly renewed by a continual variety of words and illustrations."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid I can't find the quote I'm really looking for. I will keep looking and if I find it I'll post it. Basically, Luther says, (but not is so few words) every serious man who wants to preach the word should learn the original languages).

 

By the way, as much as I respect Luther for the godly man that he is, I am not writing his qoutes as if they are scripture and prove my point. He is just one more opinion, albeit a very godly one. I was only responding to your statement about Luther not using the original languages.

 

I can only speak from a Primitive Baptist point of view and none of our ministers go to any seminary. To say that all need to go is to miss the point especially those that are called of God in a different way. All our ministers are self taught of God and called by him according to scripture. Did any of the Apostles attend any seminary? No they were called out by God from among men to preach should it be any different today. The only one I know of that had any religious training was the Apostle Paul and he was very intelligent in the tradition of the Fathers. He had to be because he had to fight against those traditions when he preached the doctrine of Jesus Christ. We know according to scriptures that the ones he called his friends in the religion of the Jews tried to kill him?

What men do they will always do and if they feel they have to have a set curriculum to learn the scriptures they will set up colleges and seminaries to do so. Most Gods ministers in the past were simple and unlearned men and I believe God chose those kind because he does the learning. Its his doctrine, his college and he's the professor.

I know this is foreign to a lot of you and I am just expressing my opinion as I know a lot of you here have various degrees in theology. I'm self taught myself over 33 years of God, me and the KJV Bible. After reading all the post I must agree with Brother Robert with his Illustrations of Paul and Timothy. God will instruct and has always instructed those he has called to his ministry without help from man. Brother Glen

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Did any of the Apostles attend any seminary?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted, if you spent three years walking with Jesus on earth, you probably won't need any more training.

I am very happy that you taught yourself the Bible and to love and know God. Indeed, God was the one who educated you. I would have it everyone went to the Bible daily and seriously and learned the what the sciptures teaches us. I myself have never had a day of seminary education (I did take an NT class in college, but all we did was read it). However, if some wish to go to seminary to have a consentrated time of learning and preparation to teach others, why is this bad? Tell me, do you go to church and listen to your minister/pastor/leader/elder or who ever speaks, or do you close your ears, less you learn from someone apart from God and the Bible? Of course not, because you know that he is faithfully teaching you the things of God and God is using him to teach you. So what is wrong with going to a school were God is doing the same thing, albeit every day istead of once a week.

If any Church demands you have some degree, that is their perogative. I hope every true Church of God is concerned more about the character of their leader, and his relationship with God then his degree. But many many seminaries train and teach Godly men to understand the Bible better and more lucidly. I have read the Bible most of my life, and I still daily learn from others who are more Godly then me (my father in law, books from Godly men, and sermons from my church, Luther, and Calvin). I listen critically, and test everything they say with the scripture themselves, but I accept teaching when it is the truth.

 

I just answered this question from my own understanding of scriptures. What others do is between God and them and I was just presenting my views. There are many views as there are many perspectives of doctrine but to each his own. I just presented what I and my church believes and we don't all believe the same thing.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life... Lets just use this scripture as an example... Seminary will teach you God loves the whole and he sent his Son to die for you and you can either accept him or reject him and its up to you. The way I see it the world spoken of is the world of his elect and he sent his Son to die for them and its an ironclad contract between God and the Son and none can be lost.
You may not believe the way I see it but as I allow everyone else there biblical perspective allow me mine... Brother Glen

 

(actually I do believe the way you see it)

I hope you didn't feel I was attacking you. If you knew me in real life, I'm a big push over who doesn't know how to speak harshly.

You posted a good example. Intuitivly, I would think the opposite. I would think that seminaries would be more likely to teach predestination while laymen who read themselves would take the more simple meaning. But it probably just depends on your denomination / background.

 

Nine hours to go and I will have an M.Div. I pastored briefly straight out of Bible college and I don't think I would have survived in the pastorate with that level of education. I'm very greatful for the opportunity to go to seminary and, as I am now working in a small local church, I can see God using me more effectively because I have a better grasp of the word. BTW, Pastor Larry, you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And rmeember that the most profilic preacher of modern times who was uneducated had a school for preachers. I would not be so quick to discount it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who are you referring to or did I miss a previous reference in an earlier post?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
...Who are you referring to or did I miss a previous reference in an earlier post?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pastor Larry was referring to C. H. Spurgeon, mentioned in Aaron's previous post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...I don't think I would have survived in the pastorate with that level of education.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>swaimj, I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of all who are reading - you also will not survive in the pastorate with your present level of education. It cannot be static, but is a lifelong ongoing process.

 

I'm sure I read a quote of Luther's that said quite the opposite.

Searching . . .

 

To say that seminary is incapable of being effective in preparing men for ministry is just as wrong as saying that men are incapable of being prepared by their own study. To discount a man prepared at a seminary just because he was prepared at a seminary is not judging a man by his character or heart, but judging a man by external means only and is hardly Scriptural. I'd say the same thing about discounting a man who was prepared but not necessarily at a Bible college or seminary.