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.
M. Div. With or Without Languages and Martin Luther
Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges & Seminaries' started by Rhetorician, May 5, 2010.
Page 2 of 2
-
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Ah, I had forgotten to reply here...apologies...
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?
I noticed you did nothing with my previous point about the subjective genitive. So how do you reconcile it? Textually?
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.
Profoundly shaped hermeneutical methods based in the languages make this possible.
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. :)
Page 2 of 2