Would somebody tell me what happened to the principle that Christ laid for us?
SNIPPED
Out of the original twelve who walked and talked with Christ, only one would have been considered an educated man.
===
Perhaps we do not lay sufficient emphasis here on a man's or woman's heart for God. But, after all, Colleges / Seminaries is the subject of this forum.
Nevertheless, let's all agree , right now, from the most formally educated of us to the least, we all should daily, totally submit ourselves to God lest we confuse busyness with spirituality. Let's agree too that higher education may not be required of all of God's servants!
A prerequisite to a calling may not be education but it probably is surrender.
Our love should not just be for service but for the One served!
We serve the One who calls not the calling.
But it should be remembered that teaching is an office and a spiritual gift to the Church. And certain sorts of good teaching may require seminary learning...or should it?
Look at the apostle John. Which seminary did he attend? Huh? Doesn't that prove seminary is not needed...I don't think so.
Yet his writing reaches the highest pinnacle of Christology does it not? Still John went to no Liberty or TEDS or DTS did he! So there!
Hmmm...what does the fact that John never went to seminary yet wrote such fine Christology really prove?
Does it evidence the lack of a necessity for seminary or does it rather evidence the efficiency of inspiration? But inspiration stopped with the canon completed ...not so?
How could it do the former when even to understand some of John's points and to inhere that understanding into in a Christological belief system requires a learning generally best done in seminary or even in further graduate school?
If John (only) uses "monogenes" to describe Christ, in such as 1:14;1:18;3:16, even to grasp and evidence our understanding of that adjective to be correct might require the ability to research,.
Just eg, we might review Septuagintal (including it a translation only of yahid) , Apocryphal, Lukan, and Patristic usage, as well the textual issue in 1:18 and the exegetical/theological issue of whether the verb is used of Christ 1 John, and if so, with what intent [ ie, is the Son eternally essentiated ; is the Father the Source of the Trinity as Nicaea says or not?].
Or, of course, instead of doing our own research we could just look at what others have written. But, then, unless we are narrow, we still have to decide what view is right : Dahms in JNTS and Buchsell in TDNT that monogenes means begotten, and that eternally, or others as Erickson in God in Three Persons or Morris in his commentary that monogenes means instead unique.
Of course, many preachers/teachers will not burden auditors or even be burdened themselves by such ponderous issues as to what John means. Who cares???
All is application. Or if some is interpretation, then it is as in Alice in Wonderland when a character said to her, "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean."
If we are dependent on what others as in TDNT or Morris say, then, of course, we are being dependent on their seminary education.
Then,how is it then logical to say seminary is not needed if we rely on , in fact, or even parrot, those who went?
IMO even to understand a Dahms or a Buchsell on monogenes requires the skills hopefully honed in seminary.
But are those skills really necessary to preach or to teach adult SS?
Well No! NOT if one confines his/her preaching or teaching to matters that do not require such learning and intentionally avoids more complex issues.
Most pastors have studies, but what happens there varies greatly.
Why labor over the difficult in Scripture when the Gospel is easy to understand?
Because we are not to live on milk forever?
Fortunately or unfortunately I do not see myself able to preach or teach in a manner or on a content I think suitable without a constant attention to some of the understandings and skills acquired in seminary.
Just my cross, I guess. Sigh
But , then, how is the Apostle John able but not Bill ? Why doesn't old Bill's aptitude equal John's?
Well, because, you see, old Bill does not produce inspired literature which is inerrant...but John did
!
So, old Bill works at understanding the apostles;he does not presume himself to equal them in calling, purpose, or endowment.
Whereas the Spirit in an instant moved John to effortlessly , I suppose, write monogenes huios or monogenes theos , Bill exerts much effort to understand that writing.
This one effort over monogenes is duplicated scores even hundreds of times over other many other issues.
But I suppose I could avoid that effort by thinking either that:
a) I am always right, or
b) Such issues do not matter, even if the Spirit did inspire them, or,
c) since the writer who wrote monogenes did not go to seminary, neither do I need to go.
But , somehow, these options do not seem efficient to'/for me. So, I suggest seminary as a viable option for many.
I hope that recommendation shows the need to be taught by Christ!
Blessings,
Bill
