The Reasons Why I See No Need for Formal Minstry Education?!

Perhaps an aversion for sarcasm and a desire to follow instructions from the author of a discussion?

 

{SNIP}

[ January 31, 2006, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{SNIP}

[ January 31, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Would these be the established rules you're talking about?

 

Yes, go2church, IF you will read that in the context of the first five posts on this thread. And, no, Rhet and the rest of us (moderators and administrators excluded) cannot make you follow Rhetorician's "rules". I suppose you may post freely until a moderator decides to shut down the thread. Of course, if we act like Christian gentlemen, we could respect what the original poster wanted to discuss. Further, if you'd not like to do that, why not at least address what has been discussed instead of making up your own straw men to attack? Thanks.

 

No one has even hinted that "it ain't important." No one has condoned illiteracy in the ministry. No one has suggested that God will miraculously confer knowledge.

All that has been argued is that:

A. College, Seminary, or Bible Institute training should not be made a condition of being in the ministry.

B. Men can be educated in the word of God apart from College, Seminary and Bible Institute training.

C. The local church is the insitution established by God for the teaching of His word.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Are you suggesting:

1. That all men who do not go to seminary or college are lazy?

2. That all men whodo not go to seminary or college are incapable of defending their doctrinal positions or incapable of changing their doctrine when it is proved to be wrong?

3. That Jesus is not the supreme example for Christians to follow?

4. That all who do not go to college or seminary are Scofieldites?

If you are nor arguing for these things, then I fail to seen any point to your post.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I thought I did address the topic, pretty clear where I stand don't you think, sarcastic as it was? Not taking advantage of any opportunity to further your education is at best ignorant at worst lazy. There are simply too many ways nowadays to further your education to make it optional.

 

go2church, I doubt anyone misunderstands where you stand. But, no, you did not "address the topic". You made up an answer to the question at the heading of this thread. But if you will go back, read and understand the intent of the originator of this thread, but you will see that you did not address the topic.

I'm sure we've all at some time come into the middle of a thread and made off-topic comments. But once that it pointed out, we should consider the topic and adjust our comments. If we are unwilling to do so, we might open ourselves up to the charge of being "at best ignorant at worst lazy." But I am persuaded the average poster on the Baptist Board is capable of better things.

I would further contend that your argument is both "straw man" -- that you are creating a position that has not been espoused in this thread -- and "ad hominem" -- that you are asserting that the position is wrong because of some disreputable persons you've cited rather than addressing arguments. Can we find someone who fits the caricature in your post and the end of page four? I'm sure! Could we not also find some lazy educated persons who savor the Scofield Bible and have a dozen other things wrong with them? Probably so. But that doesn't prove the argument for the other side. There is more on the table than that.

Also read Rhetorician's post right above yours on page four. Thanks.

 

This is strange! I can't seem to find in the stated purpose and rules of this thread the discussing of one's "spin on rules and personal attacks." Seems a mite off topic to me.

Didn't Jesus make some comment about condemning in others what we do ourselves?

As for being good in personal attacks, are you boasting or confessing?

As for ignorance, it is a relative state. Everyone's ignorance exceeds their knowledge. After all, when you got to grad school, you found what you learned in freshman chemistry was a lie. One of these days you'll find that grad school was a lie too. IMHO, the worst state is the sophomore--one who knows not that he knows not. Some things are better observed than stated.

[ January 31, 2006, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

I don't think any of us would dispute that there are some fine preachers out there who have no formal education.

My father in law is an example of a man who never attended a day of seminary but is a phenomenal preacher.

But he didn't choose not to attend seminary in order to avoid those humanistic liberal professors. He didn't go because he had neither the time nor the money. Many times he has said that he would have loved to have done it and still will ever God ever opens the door for him to do so.

I am not wary of the preacher who wasn't able to go to seminary - rather I am wary of the preacher who thinks he has nothing to learn from seminary.

It's easy for some of us to say that there is no excuse for not going to seminary or for not at least getting a correspondence degree. But that assumes too much. Some people simply do NOT have the money, or they are not able to drop ministry or necessary family time to do so.

What I think raises a red flag is the man who refuses to go. This usually reflects the fact that he holds positions contrary to true biblical doctrine and knows he will be challenged on these.

I recall sitting in church one Sunday evening (not my church) under a preacher who began to rail against "those syrupy sweet seminary preachers" who talk about God's love. He said, "I've got to preach hay-ull (hell)"
He proceeded to rant for 45 minutes about things that he was "against", tripping himself up theologically about 5 times.

This man has no business in a pulpit!!!

But let us not let this type of individual (who of course shunned the prospect of seminary) reflect badly on Godly men who would give anything for the chance to go to seminary but have not been able to do so.

 

OK, so I can offer anything I want, but not that, is that what your saying?

My comments weren't off topic, you just didn't like them, there is a difference. Anyone who has the opportunity but then refuses to go to bible college or seminary is ignorant and needs to be informed or lazy and should repent.

For those pounding the church is the answer, how about this

B.H. Carroll Theological Institute

The excuses for avoiding formal education are quickly fading away, praise the Lord!

 

Charles,

You nailed it.

 

Charles, I think you have made a good post that shows reflection and moderation, but I can't agree with Paul that you nailed it. It seems that, carried to its logical conclusion, the standard becomes going to seminary, or at least wanting to go to seminary if one was able to, could afford it, etc. Unfortunately, that leaves out the one who chooses not to go in order to pursue their studies in a different manner. There are other reasons that persons may choose not to go to seminary, which may have nothing to do with the fact that they are lazy, are afraid to have their views challenged, or that they think no one there can teach them anything.

 

RL,

Fair enough. I don't think that education must be accomplished in seminary. I choose to read extensively on my own since I cannot drop my job and go to seminary.

But I remained very suspicious of the individual who is "anti-booklearning", shunning seminary, and by extension any sort of "theology" books.

How's that?

 

go2church, you've already made the point that you will post anywhere and everywhere you wish, regardless of an author's intentions. Yes, this is a "public" board. As far as what you want to offer, I suppose you can post on how to skin a rabbit or anything else as long as the owner and moderators allow you to do so. So I doubt that there is any point in discussing that any further.

As to liking your points, it is not a matter of liking them or not. Anyone can create a straw man to argue against. But there are points already made in this thread that have been avoided. No one has argued that a preacher should be lazy, should not study, or should NOT be able to teach. I agree with anyone on either side of this theological divide that someone who is not apt/able to teach IS NOT qualified to be a pastor/elder/bishop. I cannot agree with any church that makes an "artificial" unbiblical standard on how one gets that way. I would like to see local churches take charge of their own often poor and failing teaching and bring up the standard for ALL members of the church -- not just preachers. I oppose any church which WILL NOT ordain a seminary educated man (yes, there are some that take this position). But there I stop; there I stand. I cannot see how I can require more or accept less than God's qualifications -- able to teach.

 

In this -- concerning "booklearning", etc. -- I am in agreement with Charles Spurgeon: "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." As far as seminary, there might be some reasons for shunning seminary that are suspect, while others that I find understandable. Obviously, I find my reasons for recommending otherwise to be based on Biblical grounds. But you must also understand that I am setting forth what I believe in principle -- practically, I think a lot of churches need to get there own house in order before criticizing.

 

I agree with the comment on the artifical standard from a denomination. My thoughts are directed more toward the individual. There should be a healthy attitude toward learning and being challenged for those in ministry. There are many (most) in the "no fancy book learning" crowd that under the guise of "just leaning on Jesus" or "trusting the Holy Spirit" are doing great harm to others because of the aforementioned laziness, fear or ignorance.

BTW ignorance is defined as unawareness of something, often of something important

 

rl,

I agree. Seminary isn't the only route. But what Charles "nailed" was the guy who is proud that he doesn't know!

 

As for your framed question, the answer is neither. I never attacked you personally. I simply told you it was God's right, not yours, to tell individual pastors what level of formal education they should pursue.

As for the comments about chemistry, I don't have a clue what they mean. Perhaps you could share your wisdom in this matter with me?

{Snipped due to violation of Baptist Board rules}

[ January 31, 2006, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]