Are Bible Colleges, Seminaries And Universities Scriptural?

[tyndale1946]

I see that a lot on here have had their religious schooling from Bible Colleges and Universities and Seminaries. Among the Primitive Baptist to my knowledge being in the church 35 years our ordained ministers never came from a religious institution unless they came out of some other denomination and came to us. In the History of the Baptist are these institutions scriptural?... If so why and if not why?... And do we need preacher schools to turn out preachers?... If we do why didn't the Apostles come from one?... I am not pointing the finger just asking a question and if Stephen wants to transfer this to another forum he may but why do we need preacher bible colleges, seminaries and universities to turn out men who can preach the gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?... Brother Glen

 

[swaimj]

Are they found in the Bible? Perhaps not. However, as Christians, we have great freedom in Christ to take cultural forms and norms and use them in the service of Christ for the furtherence of the gospel. This is seen in the early church in Acts. When practical needs arose, godly leaders led the church to use practical methods to meet the needs. Not te be offensive my friend, but if the limited methods of the Primitive Baptists were followed by all Baptists, there'd be a lot less of us.

 

[tyndale1946]

Maybe so... Then maybe not!... Are we not limiting a limitless God by using religious institutions and traditions of Men?... Can not God train a man in his private study and meditations on what he wants him to preach and send him where he wants him to preach it?... Not saying that the Primitive Baptist are against education we are not and I know many that have gone to college to better their life but not religious college as God is the teacher for the preacher!... Just my thoughts!... Maybe some of the PB's on here will elaborate more on this question and I know it bothers those who have been to these religious colleges but then again it is just a question to generate discussion and nothing else!... Brother Glen

 

[swaimj]

If the scriptural precedent of the apostles is to use human and cultural means to advance the gospel (and it is), and we refuse to do it, then we are limiting the gospel in a way which God did not intend.

 

[Jim1999]

Why do we go to school to learn mathematics, English, history, and the list goes on? It just makes sense. We can learn all these things on our own, but schooling excelerates the learning process.

The apostles and early disciples learned at the best possible school available at the time, the Lord Jesus Christ. We only have that benefit by a collection of writings.

Schooling is a tool and not an end. It is the beginning of learning. Most of the unschooled men in the pulpits learned somewhere, if not formally, but at the feet of another. In essence, is that not what formal schooling is?

The scriptures constantly point toward education and the idea of a formal schooling came from a believer as a means of teaching the urchins of London and leading them upward by education.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Loren B]

The Priests of the old testament were trained.
Elijah had a "School of the Prophets".
The Apostles spent 3 Years with Jesus.
Paul spent 3 Years in the wilderness being taught directly by the Lord, besides the fact that as a Pharisee he was extremely well versed in the scriptures already - having sat at the feet of Gamaliel.
Formal education seems to me to be the standard - not the exception.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

I believe it to be scriptural to be educated, but the Bible really doesn't refer to education as a requirement to be in the ministry. But if the churches won't train their own, who will? Or is that thought scriptural? Are we supposed to train ourselves then?

An educated society demands teachers to be educated. Look at the school systems. A first grade teacher needs a degree to teach children at a first grade level because the educated child demands it.

 

[Gunther]

Glen, as I examine Primitive Baptist theology (and its near heretical ideas), I am personally thankful for seminaries.

 

[rsr]

This topic is not strictly history - and it's already getting nasty.

I am moving it to general Baptist discussions.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Getting nasty? Nah. Just honest differences of opinion.

Don't think anyone is opposed to education or training. Some feel it can be done in a church setting; I think formal education is much more comprehensive.

I would not want to listen to someone expound God's Word without them knowing the original languages, having a strong grasp of English, History, et al.

Graduate Education (like Paul had) in Greece/Rome was a tenureship of many years.

Sometimes we blend the dates of Acts too closely together. Before Stephen preached or Philip talked to an Ethiopian we have 12-14 YEARS since Pentecost.

Lots of time for indepth training.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
In the History of the Baptist are these institutions scriptural?

Historically, Baptists have had mixed opinions as to whether or not these were scriptural or necessary. For example, among early Baptists in America, many of the Regular Baptist ministers were educated in institutions of higher learning, while relatively few of the Separate Baptist ministers were. This was not just a matter of circumstances, but differences in approach.

And do we need preacher schools to turn out preachers?

No, we do not need them, in the sense they are not scripturally a requirement for ministry.

If we do, why didn't the Apostles come from one?

The Apostles were mostly educated by the Lord Jesus Christ - the twelve by approx. three years personal walk with the Lord, and the Paul in the wilderness. The second generation was taught by these men who were taught by the Lord, and so on (II Tim. 2:2). In my opinion, although some may misuse it, no one can have too much good education. But today's heavy reliance on Bible colleges and seminaries seems to devalue the institution of religious education placed here by the Lord Himself - the church (Matt. 28:20; particularly through pastors and teachers, Eph. 4:11, 12).

 

[tyndale1946]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... Brother Robert!

... Brother Glen

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tyndale1946:
In the History of the Baptist are these institutions scriptural?

Historically, Baptists have had mixed opinions as to whether or not these were scriptural or necessary. For example, among early Baptists in America, many of the Regular Baptist ministers were educated in institutions of higher learning, while relatively few of the Separate Baptist ministers were. This was not just a matter of circumstances, but differences in approach.

And do we need preacher schools to turn out preachers?

No, we do not need them, in the sense they are not scripturally a requirement for ministry.

If we do, why didn't the Apostles come from one?

The Apostles were mostly educated by the Lord Jesus Christ - the twelve by approx. three years personal walk with the Lord, and the Paul in the wilderness. The second generation was taught by these men who were taught by the Lord, and so on (II Tim. 2:2). In my opinion, although some may misuse it, no one can have too much good education. But today's heavy reliance on Bible colleges and seminaries seems to devalue the institution of religious education placed here by the Lord Himself - the church (Matt. 28:20; particularly through pastors and teachers, Eph. 4:11, 12). </font>[/QUOTE]If you will read some of those very early sermons during a time when certain Baptist preachers were confident that they needed no preparation and just believed they could preach what the Holy Spirit said, you would be in for a real shock.

Preaching that does not prepare directly violates the word "study" as used in scripture. Some of the most ignorant men are those who are unwilling to listen and think they have all the answers. It is amazing how they share their ignorance. Christianity is not about SYI (Share Your Ignorance) Most of the time I find that people who are unwilling to prepare just use that as an excuse to back up their laziness.

If you do not understand the background of each book how can you expect to get at its real and correct interpretation. I guess some are content to boast in their ignorance and lead other astray. I do not consider that handling accurately the word of truth. A knowledge of the language is the key to a culture. When you take a look at scripture you often see Jewish phraseology in thew Greek but are unable to see that in an English translation.

Some seem to forget that Paul was very well educated by Gamaliel. Just read the Greek language Paul uses. It is very much higher than the fishermen style.

Presently I am dealing with a pastor regarding some misconceptions he has. His understanding of scripture is quite simple. He sees things as being so clear (even those things that have been wrestled with for years). He just doesn't undererstand why others find some of those things so difficult. One day I enlightened him a little. He needs to be taught and doesn't even know it. He just doesn't get it. What I found out was that as things began to unravel he is afraid of liberal theology. I explained that knowing the truth does not make one a liberal. Knowing the truth gives one freedom. Not kowing the truth is bondage. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by gb93433:
If you will read some of those very early sermons during a time when certain Baptist preachers were confident that they needed no preparation and just believed they could preach what the Holy Spirit said, you would be in for a real shock.

I would be shocked if many such sermons were in print.

Preaching that does not prepare directly violates the word "study" as used in scripture.

I'm not sure where you read anyone advocating not studying; I don't think it's in this thread.

Some of the most ignorant men are those who are unwilling to listen and think they have all the answers.

Yes, and some of them are educated and some are not.

Some seem to forget that Paul was very well educated by Gamaliel. Just read the Greek language Paul uses. It is very much higher than the fishermen style.

What are the implications of this statement concerning those New Testament books written in "fishermen style"?

 

[Bible-boy]

I don't think the original post on this thread really belongs in the General Baptist section either. Since it is about whether or not Baptist preachers need to go to Bible College or Seminary I moved the entire thread into the Bpatist Colleges and Seminaries forum.

[ September 06, 2003, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[rufus]

IMHO, Colleges and Schools are anti-Scriptural when they adopt liberal or modern theology and standards.

But when they stand for truth and God's Word, I see nothing in Scripture to forbid them. In fact, I have greatly benefited from various schools, which I chose carefully. Hebrew, Greek, and German would have been much more difficult without classroom assistance.

Rufus

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

If we look at the earliest baptist ministers (out of English separatism), they were quite educated. In fact, Cambridge was a center for much of the early baptist controversy, if I'm not mistaken.

Most of those I have met who are against formal education do so because they either never had the opportunity, or they did and were too lazy to do it. I don't think this could be expanded to include all, but for many the psychological underpinnings are quite obvious.

For others, they fail to take into consideration the cultural differences between us and the time of the writing of the scriptures, or they discount the traditions of the church which instruct us on what the scriptures mean. I wouldn't take that to the extend that the RCC would, but tradition plays a major role in how we approach scripture (if it is admitted or not). Besides, I know God primarily not from scripture, but from those Christians I have known (from the Church).

Having said all of this, I agree with rlvaughn that formal training cannot replace wider Christian education. In fact, formal training can at best enhance what the church teaches.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Tanker]

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Not saying that the Primitive Baptist are against education we are not and I know many that have gone to college to better their life but not religious college as God is the teacher for the preacher!... Just my thoughts!..&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

I wonder to what extent one's own educational level influences one's thinking on this issue. Wouldn't it be fair to say that not many Primitive Baptists have a higher education? What about you, brother Glen, maybe you can tell us about your education and whether or not it influences your opinion on this.

It is your view that God is the teacher for the preacher. Where did you get this view? Is it from scripture? Can you really claim that God is the only avenue for knowledge?