What good is Seminary?

Interestingly, many seminaries who do require Bible as part of their curriculum are those that are scoffed at by some on these boards. Liberty is one example. So how are we supposed to know what schools are good, if Liberty is a conservative baptist school which requires Bible, yet it is still laughed at by those who think they know better? How have they determined that they know better? No doubt, their seminary professor told them what to think about things, and they listened.

Unless, of course, they DIDN'T listen to what their seminary professors said. In that case, they must be thinking on their own, and then what is the point of seminary, except for exposure, which can come without seminary?

A comment above even suggests that it is GOOD that churches are requiring an MDiv for pastoral applicants! As if an MDiv means anything, or as if the lack of MDiv means anything!

 

I am not assuming anything. I experienced it firsthand. How about you? Have you actually spent the years in study, or are you speaking about something that you do not know?

That is simply not true. You can MOST CERTAINLY teach someone to think critically, as our friend Rhetorician (Rhetoric....) will tell you, I am sure. Let me say, Seminary taught ME to think critically...and so you are just wrong.

Training for years under Godly men, in a structured way, is valuable in EVERY WAY. To forsake such training, to say "I can do it all by myself" is not only prideful, but flies in the face of clear Biblical commands.

Actually, the Pastors who fail to lead the church well, are most often those with NO seminary training. I cannot think of a single decent Pastor in the public sphere, on radio or T.V., that does not have at LEAST an undergraduate degree in Bible. Most have much more. John Macarthur, Aleister Begg, Chuck Swindohl, etc. etc.

However, almost NONE of the crackpots you see on, say, TBN have a degree from Seminary. Why did they go astray (at least the ones that are not deliberate hucksters...)? Because they thought they could do it themselves, even though scripture CLEARLY commands the older to train the younger.

 

Moderator's warning.

To all:

Just a gentle reminder. This is a fellowship forum and not a debate forum. Various opinions are posited. Disagreements will occur. That's healthy. But do it gently.

 

Before anyone assumes too much about Rorschach, remember that he has stated in other threads that he has a B.S. in Religion from Liberty and a Master's in theology from Fuller Seminary.

 

Now we know why he is so down on seminary!! :laugh::laugh:

 

I'm rather dismayed that some of you find that some seminaries do not use or teach the Bible. That is certainly not true of Southern. The first thing we did in most classes over the years was open our Bibles. We seldom carried the actual textbooks that we used to class -- that was homework -- but the Bible was mandatory, and often taught in the original languages as well.

I expect that there are some seminaries out there that do not major in the Bible, but I would hope that they are somewhat rare, or notably liberal, and in that case, buyer beware! Just like we must think critically about the stance of any particular author of any particular theological text, we must also think critically about the choice of higher educational institution.

But, to lump all together in one pot is ludicrous. Somewhere along the line seminary will ALWAYS factor in, even if one decides to stay at home and become self-educated. He would have no books to use without seminaries and seminary profs unless he chose to use the lightweight stuff (not always!) that often comes from the pens of pastors.