M. Div. With or Without Languages and Martin Luther

An improper understanding of the languages, is MUCH worse, than no knowledge at all. Some of the smartest people I have met and spoken to, have spoken of how much they struggled with languages. There are absolutely people incapable of learning them. If it is difficult for the very intelligent, it must be said that it is impossible for some.

This does not require 9 hours of Greek and Hebrew. A simple "Greek Tools" class, such as Liberty offers, is more than adequate. Especially with the tools available today. I was able to look into the languages, before I had ANY training, just by using lexicons, RMAC, etc.

I disagree VERY strongly. Plenty of liberal, Christ denying theologians, can read Greek and Hebrew. The most important classes in Seminary are Theology and Doctrine Classes, based on scripture. Next is specific Bible survey classes (Hebrews, Romans, etc.). I would equate Greek and Hebrew classes and Church History in importance.

Other than their doctrine. I would of course disagree with you, anyway: I would much rather have a pastor with an M.Div. from Southern Seminary (although, if they had a Th.M, all the better).

You should not set the bar so high, that only the super intelligent can accomplish it. This is certainly not what we see in the Scriptures. Those able to excel, can still do so.

This can be done without extensive language classes. For some, an M.Div. without languages IS pushing them!

Because you then eliminate everyone below a certain tier of intellectual ability, and that is not biblical. What do you do with people called late in life, like my Pastor, who was almost 40 when he started preaching? Personally, I would rather them ground themselves in Biblical doctrine, than spend the next 4 years of their lives learning languages.

 

Ah, I had forgotten to reply here...apologies...

Who said anything about the improper understanding of languages. I am simply talking about being trained with the tools. As I went through seminary I did not learn to read the stuff on spot, but received the tools and training to continue learning. That is a key point.

Your point about people not being able to learn is a poor one. Should we always appeal to the lowest common denominator? Should we always tell people it isn't in their best interest to push themselves? Why is defaulting to our weaknesses as excuses valid in academics?

Actually any decent program will require more than 9 hours. Mine required 15 of Greek and 9 of Hebrew. It was absolutely worth it and the tools I gained spoke into my other coursework.

I noticed you did nothing with my previous point about the subjective genitive. So how do you reconcile it? Textually?

Seriously? Come on man, you can do better than this. Nobody here as said the languages are a silver bullet. You still have to do the other coursework. There are other classes that help build the pastoral identity.

Here I disagree. The most important seminary class I took was pastoral ministry. It was a capstone class. The professor integrated how you do your work in the languages, doctrine, understanding of history, how to do hospital visits, how to create a weekly schedule, etc etc etc.

I don't know what seminary you have graduated from, or your particular calling, but if you are to be a pastor (at any level) your theology is one part and how to go about your ministry is another. The two integrate at so many points.

Doctrine is fine but most people in the pew don't care that much for it. If your academic head is so far above their everyday practice you never connect with them from the pulpit your ministry will be frustrated and difficult. I'm all for academics (I do have a PhD in theology afterall) but you need to reconcile your academic doctrinal studies with practical outworkings in everyday ministry. Most people in the pew don't know, and don't care to know, who in the world Karl Barth was or how he influenced things...but your obligation is to be able to understand him, read him, agree/disagree with him, and apply your position in the mercy of the Cross.

Profoundly shaped hermeneutical methods based in the languages make this possible.

Who is doing this? Besides, why should we default to the lowest common denominator?

A pastor without the grounding in the languages is like a doctor who never too anatomy class.

Why is age or intellect an excuse? Why are we saying pastors should be less than excellent in their disciplines and practice of ministry?

I've noticed you (and others) have avoided several questions above so I'll restate them and pray you answer them and a few others:

1. Do you expect a doctor/lawyer/auto mechanic to be thoroughly well trained to be able to analyze, understand, inspect, assess, provide answers, and then fix problems?

2. Are you comfortable having a doctor/lawyer/auto mechanic who has skipped foundational parts of their training?

3. Would you want your senior pastor (who you hear preach at least once a week) to know or not know the original languages? Why?

4. Should a pastor be relying on commentators, study notes, translators, or the inspired text for their foundational work as the prepare a message?

5. What is better the English translations of the Bible or the original languages for understanding the intent, meaning, and application of a passage?

btw: I teach a layman's Greek class every now and then and have had people from the local dog catcher, factory worker, a sanitation specialist, elementary school teacher, retail manager, executives, lawyers, doctors, professors, and so forth take the class and grow in their language understanding. There is no intellectual excuse, imho, for not pressing on and learning the languages.