This is in response to the "Diploma Mill" thread. I didn't want to further add to the de-railment of the thread. It seems to me that what happened on that thread is that one person called another person out on the fact that he received "life credits". Then the person who was called out got overly defensive, and started saying that education was worthless when compared to experience, saying things like, "The average graduate today can't get up and preach a message without study." "The men of old didn't have formal education, and they were way better preachers than the graduates of today." Experience is invaluable. It takes experience to reach your fullest potential. However it also takes education. Education does not prepare you for the hardships of ministry. But experience does not broaden your horizons on the different aspects of God's word, or teach you anything about church polity. You can be a great preacher without any education. You can be a great preacher without any experience in a leadership role. But it takes both to round out the man; having one and not the other leaves a hole. The great men of God that were cited in the last thread were no less educated. It was stated time and time again that they were taught on the job, and that they also spent countless hours studying commentaries, etc. This is still education. Now, today's world does not place any more emphasis on education than the world did in the past. However, they place a greater emphasis on a degree. This is simply an accountability issue. In the past, someone could say, "I was taught by <insert great preacher>, or I studied the works of <insert great preacher>, and they would have been accepted. Nowadays, people want the proof that you have studied, as it is too easy to say that you've been taught, but harder to lie about it if you have a degree showing you've been taught. Thoughts?