To Expand Knowledge or Expound Knowledge?

I would say it is their responsiblity to try and do both.

 

"indoctrination" or "investigation"

I would prefer ... That the Word of God be taught: Orthodoxy & Orthopraxis

Seminary at all levels should teach the Bible. That is the Word of God as revealed to mankind. Anything else is to substitute weakness for strength ...

 

===


I agree that the written Word of God (as correctly interpreted) should be taught as the inerrant authority (in the originals) over belief and practice. The difficulty as I see it is that we conservatives cannot agree even about central points as to what that "Word" is saying.

We cannot even agree about Christ Himself!!! Does the Father essentiate the Son or is the Son also autotheos? Is the Father eternally role subordinate over the Son or only temporally so? Did the Son give up the use of divine attributes in incarnating or is God changeless in that regard? Is the incarnation just God using human qualities or is Christ a genuine man with a human mind and will which function in distinction from His divine mind and will ? Was Christ tempted in the sense that He could have sinned or did the deity in Him make that impossible? Is His "active" obedience salvific and imputed to us or is only His death efficacious? Which of these views so central to our Faith are the "Word of God" and which are the creation of men?

IMO the ideal would be that at the seminary level the student would know not just the particulars of his or her denomination and the opinions of his/her profs and how to teach those particulars, but would be exposed as well to the wide array of positions on important doctrines ; ie, he/she would be equipped to effectively evaluate any position including those within conservatism and even those of his/her seminary profs.

I understand that the average minister is often not regarded as an exegetical theologian but as "just" a preacher/teacher. But how else would it be determined that what is being preached is actually the Bible unless the acquiring of investigative/evaluative skills were part of the seminary outcomes?

We have enough Protestant popery already.

 

In the words of one preacher:

Ecclesiastes 1

1] The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
[2] Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
[3] What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
[4] One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
[5] The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
[6] The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
[7] All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
[8] All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
[10] Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
[11] There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
[12] I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
[13] And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

Yep! Maybe we should concentrate on remembering the former things more.

 

So, what exactly are the "former things" you say should be remembered according to this text in seminary training? How does this text clearly connect to this thread? What *particular* outcomes do you think this text is saying that seminary training should have, and why do you think this text is saying that? Help me to understand your citation by convincingly explicating the passage and exponding on its lucid relevancy to the topic being discussed.

Thanks,

Bill G.

 

Wow, Bill. Do you speak to everyone like that outside the classroom? Sounds like a final exam question. Brought back memories--some of which are not fond ones.

I was responding to EL_G's post, which I believe was in respond to Rhetorician's previous "indoctrination" and "investigation" post. From Rhetoician's post, I got that doctorate-level seminary training was not really required for churches that did not want teaching in "some new thing". My response bascially presented 'is there anything wrong with doctorate-level seminary training addressing the old/former things?'.

I know, I know. You do not have to tell me. I got a C, didn't I? Oh, well. Just like the not-so-fond memories of Freshman Calculus.

 

Wow, Bill. Do you speak to everyone like that outside the classroom? Sounds like a final exam question. Brought back memories--some of which are not fond ones.

I was responding to EL_G's post, which I believe was in respond to Rhetorician's previous "indoctrination" and "investigation" post. From Rhetoician's post, I got that doctorate-level seminary training was not really required for churches that did not want teaching in "some new thing". My response bascially presented 'is there anything wrong with doctorate-level seminary training addressing the old/former things?'.

I know, I know. You do not have to tell me. I got a C, didn't I? Oh, well. Just like the not-so-fond memories of Freshman Calculus. </font>[/QUOTE]===

Sorry if I came across improperly professorial. In my usual density I just didn't see any explicit connection which might be easily made by a grammatico/historical exposition and was asking for clarification as to how that might be done. sorry.

 

===

I do basically agree with this. But I might qualify my take on your second paragraph with two observations:

1) re: "not much of anything in particular"--

some seminaries, as "my" Western, allow the MDiv student to concentrate in an area as Missiology or New Testament and not only have a concentration of coursework in that but also do a thesis as well on a cognate topic. So, there WOULD BE something in particular.

2) re: 20 years in service to get what is learned in the MDiv.

I am a former Special Education school teacher (35 years doing that) with a teaching degree in English and a second one in Special Ed.from two universities (and two states). These certifications included courses in student teaching experience at the secondary level and grad teaching assistant experience at the university level. I also finished 1/2 of the EdD coursework. So, probably my education courses are equivalent or better in number than the praxis courses of an MDiv program.

However, IMO, 60 semester hours of coursework in Education fail by far to teach the student what even five years of actual teaching does.

Therefore I have some doubt that one coming directly out of an MDiv program on the average would have learned what a pastor learns in 20 years of pastoral experience. Or conversely, I question that It would take a pastor 20 years to learn what a seminarian learns in three!

!

 

The only reason of which I'm aware for the length of the MDiv is that it is not typically built upon a baccalaureate in a religious field of study. In other words, one's bachelor degree is irrelevant. Consequently, persons with all sorts of bachelor majors are accepted into MDiv programs. Were they to have earned a master's in the field of their bachelor's, the master's would typically have been some 32 to 45 hours instead of the 90+ of the typical MDiv.

Blessings,
Bill