Degree- worth the paper?

...and there is no argument because it is all relative.

Now you are spinning it into ministry and leadership when that was not the initial point.

 

I was 3 courses (and a few gen eds on top of that) from finishing my bachelors at a Christian University. Obviously I didn't go that next step for Masters/Doctorate, but I honestly don't feel because I was 9 credit hours short of a Pastoral Studies degree that I'm more qualified than someone who didn't attend college. Nor do I feel that some of my classmates who did finish their degrees (and have moved on) arem ore qualified than me.

I will agree to a certain extent that at that level, you have more opportunities given to you and more is expected out of you. You are challenged, and corrected by those above you when wrong (or at least debated). Those who don't take that next step (for whatever reason) and choose to do so on their own don't have the advantage of a classroom setting, but I still believe are being led by the Holy Spirit. And with today's age of technology and more and more things being obtainable than before, I don't know that it is the rule any longer.

The doctor example...it's too definitive. There are uncountable ways to minister to others from the word. To preach and lead people to Christ and to lead. A degree is not required. But if you need to have a heart transplant, well, you're pretty limited. Aside from an uneducated decision to let some guy do it from the back of their car. To be a surgeon you learn by doing, but you have to have the degree/license to legally do it (or at least in the US anyways). Not so with preaching/leading/mentoring from the word.

If the OP actually says "average layman" vs "college degree" then I'll tend to agree with you. But please define "average" layman. Maybe the OP was in a hole from the start? Average by definition is already limited.

 

A case can be made for Paul's seminary education. He was tutored by Gamaliel, one of Israel's finest teachers. The same can be said for the other Apostles, who attended the Master's seminary (and I don't mean John McArthur's place) for 3 years before they went out into ministry.

 

What did Paul say about his qualifications?

Philippians 3:4-7 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has reasons he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

 

That has kind of been my point in this entire discussion. If you are speaking in general about large numbers of people it stand to reason those who spent years in school to learn the bible will have a better overall knowledge of the bible then the average person who hasn't.

However when someone concludes they must have a superior knowledge than another person just because they have a degree it is wrong. They can't possibly know how much knowledge that other person might have about that topic.

 

What? A Pharisee? Pharisees had to be educated as they were "experts" in the Law.

ALL Jews knew the Law. It was read in the Temple and the Synagogues.
I'll bet the precious little widow that put all she had in the treasury even knew the Law.



But you are sidetracking the issue.

 

Wow, Romans 7 has nothing to do with his theological education!

 

Yes. Exactly. Especially when it is used to "prove" your pet doctrine by saying that "my" doctrine is correct and I know it because I am a scholar and have a better understanding of scripture than you do.

 

Like I said, that text is not saying that.

He learned the Law as a jewish boy before his Bar Mitzvah. He learned to be a Pharisee under Gamaliel.