I went to the doctor the other day. I was shocked to find out that I have a rare genetic disorder that is going to require immediate attention. Apparently my duoduwhatzit is inflamed and is putting undue and unhealthy pressure on my intestinor majorus and my cardialitozalingdon. Thankfully humans can live fairly comfortably without the duoduwhatzit, so the doctor is suggesting that I have it removed immediately. He tells me that he is one of the foremost duoduwhatzit experts in this part of the world and that he would be glad to conduct the surgery for me.
I guess I'll go ahead with the surgery. The surgeon sounds like he knows what he's talking about. He certainly seemed to be familiar with my symptoms and his suggested remedy made perfect sense. He used small, simple words to explain the importance and functionality of the duoduwhatzit and to describe exactly how the procedure would take place. He made me understand just what's at stake here. He seems like a nice guy and exudes confidence. Perhaps the greatest testament to his skill was his clinic. It was big and filled with fancy new equipment. The halls were packed full of people - there must have been forty or fifty staff members milling about and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of patients. I'm sure this is a testament to his great ability.
I did notice one peculiar thing about his office. Where most doctors have walls emblazoned with degrees and certifications, this doctor's walls were quite bare. There was a large, color picture of him standing in the reception area with his staff and they all seemed very pleased. There was a small letter of congratulation from someone whose name escapes me, but I assume he is a high-ranking doctor who took the opportunity to commend this man's practice. But that was it. I noticed as well that most of the people in the picture, obviously staff members who are involved in this man's practice, were also young. There was hardly a grey-haired doctor to be found among them.
I asked the doctor about the bare walls and young faces. This is what he said:
Most of us are young--really young. Sure--there is a Caleb or two among us. However, the average age of this staff has to be in our late 20's or early 30's. Why is that? I believe it is because younger generations tend to believe in the power of medicine--we believe that if it is medically possible, that we can do it...well...then we can do it. Do not let the fact that you are young ever distract you from doing what your heart has called you to do! EVER!I remember being 28 when we started this practice and people telling me that I was too young and that I lacked experience...as I look back I think that me lacking experience was a good thing because it forced me to rely on common sense rather than textbook procedure and principals.
Speaking of textbook...not many of us have been trained "medically." In fact, I believe there is only one medical school graduate on staff. I remember talking to many of you about joining our staff and you making the comment, "But I don't have a medical degree," and then watching your face as I replied, "neither do I!"
Sure, there are people that may criticize that aspect of our clinic; however, when I look at the description given about some of my medical heroes...they are refered to as "unschooled, ordinary men." I believe the medical establishment is looking for a few more of those--people who allow fate to lead and teach them common sense. Don't get me wrong...I am not cracking on medical school...it's just that it isn't a mandate...and we have seen fruit without it.
I thought his words made great sense. He's right! What use is a medical degree anyways? Let's suppose that he had spent six or eight or ten years in college and medical school. What good would that do? He would have then had to spend several years unlearning all that head knowledge so he could learn to practically apply common sense medical procedures. I would far rather have a doctor rely on common sense then on what some "expert" wrote tens or hundreds of years ago. Seriously, textbook procedures and principals are so overrated.
One thing still bothers me just a little bit. I can't help but wonder if it would be such a hardship to endure a few year's preparation for as important a career as a medical doctor and surgeon. After all, if the job is that important, wouldn't it be worth a person's time to ensure that he is properly prepared? Wouldn't his love for his chosen career compel him to desire training from others more advanced in the field? So many questions. Anyways, I don't have time to think about it right now. My duoduwhatzit is throbbing and I'm going to go and have it removed. For some reason my life insurance policy will not cover this procedure. But that's okay. I'm sure that I and my duoduwhatzit are in good hands.
By the way, before I head over to his clinic I thought I'd leave you with a link. This is an interesting open letter written by a pastor to the staff members at his church. It may ring a bell.
Comments (38) »
1. Tim Challies
February 20, 2006
11:00 AM
Wait! Before someone pleads Spurgeon, hang on one minute. I don’t believe that theological training is an absolute necessity for pastoral ministry. However, I do believe it is something that should be emphasized and pursued in almost all cases. As I said in my pathetic little parable, surely a career as important as the ministry is worthy of some preparation. What’s worst of all is when people discount the importance of that preparation.
2. Stephen Morse
February 20, 2006
11:18 AM
Great post. Why would anyone plead Spurgeon? He was highly educated! There is no comparison.
Tim, great post.
I hear if you take 2 doodamaflachies 3 times a day for a little while you will begin to need to have a series of thingies but you will forget about that doudowhatizit completely. Why don’t you try it and let me know how it works! God bless!
3. bibliomaniac
February 20, 2006
11:25 AM
If anyone attempts to point to Spurgeon and Moody as proof that one can be successful in ministry without a theological training, they must keep these things in mind:
Both men were diligent, studious learners all their lives. They didn’t just go up to a pulpit and expect the Holy Spirit to speak through them. They worked hard at what they did—Spurgeon scoured the texts of well-trained men before him, and Moody was famous for always seeking trained ministers and asking them questions on end. At his Northfield conferences, Moody would sit in the front row and take notes as his fellow ministers preached.
Spurgeon and Moody might not have received their training inside formal classrooms, but they were well trained because they disciplined themselves in the work of knowing and understanding God’s Word.
Very few people have this kind of diligence. Sadly, even some who DO have formal training lack such diligence.
4. david
February 20, 2006
11:34 AM
You’re right, Spurgeon is not an example here. He may not have been formally educated, but he was definitely well educated, with over 12,000 books in his library.
5. DLE
February 20, 2006
12:06 PM
We must be very careful here. We cannot judge people’s spiritual depth and their ability to minister according to how much learning they have.
For instance:
The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. “
(John 7:15-16 ESV)
Now when [the Jewish religious authorities] saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
(Acts 4:13 ESV)
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
(John 16:13 ESV)
But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 2:9-16 ESV)
It is the Holy Spirit who imparts what we need to know. The Apostles were not studied men, but Christ chose them and imparted His Spirit to them. It is the Spirit alone who reveals the depths and riches of God’s wisdom.
This is not to say that Christian training cannot help people. But I also think it can be overblown, especially when we lend so little credence to the Holy Spirit teaching people apart from a classroom or a library of books. Yet that is how many great Christians have been taught—on their knees.
So I’m not a big fan of Tim’s illustration. There’s a bit of a non sequitur there. It’s not always a one-to-one correspondence between spiritual wisdom training and earthly wisdom training. The pastor of my own church never attended seminary. He worked most his life for a tire manufacturer, but the man knows the Lord and handles the Scriptures better than ten other men who had all the training. I’ve been very blessed being in his church. In fact, one of the reasons my wife and I chose this church was because this pastor routinely enlightened me to things I didn’t know, and as someone who’s been a Christian for almost thirty years, that’s saying a lot about someone’s ability to teach and preach because I’d thought I heard it all.
6. Jon
February 20, 2006
12:12 PM
C.J. Mahaney anyone?
I have to agree with Bibliomaniac. Spurgeon, Moody, even Mahaney reveal a Spirit inspired evidence of God’s grace to lead a life of diligent study.
7. Parker
February 20, 2006
12:26 PM
Sure the apostles were “unschooled, ordinary men”, but they spent 3 whole years following Jesus around Israel. Thats better than a seminary education, but since Jesus is in heaven now, dedicating 3 years for seminary is a good start.
And did you catch the line where he said “NewSpring is not my vision—it’s God’s vision—He just allowed me to borrow it…as long as we are faithful with it…He will continue to enlarge it.” Yikes, that is neither historically savvy nor biblically sound.
8. Terry Stauffer
February 20, 2006
12:57 PM
Well done, Tim.
Good point by Bibliomaniac, too. How many “Dr.s” (DMin, often) are out there who don’t have a grounding or even an interest in theology? Give me an ‘uneducated’ Spurgeon or Mahaney any day!
I’m conscious that I’m throwing stones from a fragile house, though. I’m not as dilligent as I should be in my studies. The T4G blog fellows have reminded me of that lately!
9. Tim Challies
February 20, 2006
1:15 PM
DLE - Do note my earlier comments: “I don’t believe that theological training is an absolute necessity for pastoral ministry. However, I do believe it is something that should be emphasized and pursued in almost all cases.”
I’ll stand by that. There are definitely some men who have done remarkably well without theological training. But I don’t see these men delighting in that and certainly don’t see them surrounding themselves with 44 other people who also have no training.
What really grabbed me was not the fact that this pastor has no training but his obvious disdain for seminary where he says, “as I look back I think that me lacking experience was a good thing because it forced me to rely on common sense rather than textbook procedure and principals.”
10. Julian
February 20, 2006
1:47 PM
Pshaw… move over Spurgeon and Moody… Brian McLaren doesn’t have theological education. Now that’s precedent!
11. Brian Thornton
February 20, 2006
1:56 PM
Using Jesus and the Apostles as examples of uneducated men in ministry is not very convincing. Jesus was/is God…and the Apostles were, well…APOSTLES!
I like the way Sproul talks about this issue of knowledge. He says that knowledge doesn’t automatically mean that one is theologically sound…but one can’t be theologically sound without knowledge.
This Pastor’s comments concerning the unimportance and even harmful effects of education in preparation for seminary are misleading and irrespsonsible for those who may look up to him. Does HE prepare at all now before he gets up in front of his church and speaks??? Or does he still have disdain for preparation even prior to doing a sermon?
If he DOES prepare prior to speaking in front of his church, that would seem inconsistent with his view of NOT preparing prior to entering into ministry. Why would it be a bad thing to prepare and study before going into the ministry, but okay once one is actually in a ministry position?
12. DLE
February 20, 2006
2:04 PM
Tim,
I agree that proper training is a good thing. I think the issue here is exactly what that training looks like.
In my own life, I spent many years doing ministry without “ministry” training. When I actually made it to a place of formal training, I found that the training was hopelessly out of touch with the practical issues most people find in a church. It was largely theoretical, and when I graduated, I was surprised by how little what I’d learned had a real-world application. I’d learned far more from the doing rather than from the formal schooling.
This is a common complaint against many seminaries and Christian schools.
13. jmark
February 20, 2006
2:17 PM
Spurgeon also set up a theological college to train pastors - he obviously believed in the necessity!
14. Tim Challies
February 20, 2006
2:17 PM
“This is a common complaint against many seminaries and Christian schools.”
It is. That’s the reason many seminaries no longer require Greek for degrees. Even fewer require Hebrew. Etc. I think there is a time when theoretical is valuable…
15. DLE
February 20, 2006
2:45 PM
Brian (et al.),
I think you missed part of my point about the disciples.
Before the Holy Spirit came, the disciples didn’t get most of what Jesus said, they had no coherent message to proclaim out of their own will, and they didn’t put 2 and 2 together.
It was only after the Holy Spirit filled them that they went from a mostly clueless group of arguers to empowered proclaimers of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit made everything in them fully realized, put 2 and 2 together, and gave them a coherent message.
We do a great disservice to the Body when we overemphasize learning at the expense of the Spirit. The most godly people I have ever known never got a college degree and never attended seminary. They learned with Christ in the school of prayer, and you can’t substitute anything for that. In this way, they were very much like the Apostles.
Most of the soul-stirring messages George Whitefield preached were extemporaneous. He relied on the Holy Spirit to provide the words. Too many pastors today live by their notes, and are loath to abandon them should the Spirit lead in another direction. Peter’s great Pentecost message was unscripted. We need to be sensitive to this kind of leading because the Holy Spirit has not gone away!
We’re arguing on this topic out of comfort zones and we need to be aware of that. Some of us are not comfortable with a pastor who preaches extemporaneously and some are not comfortable with one who always preaches off his notes. The Holy Spirit can work both ways, so let’s not get dogmatic about how He works. Isn’t God sovereign?
Sure, the pastor in question in Tim’s post may be relying too much on one form of ministry. He may be too “seat of the pants.” But I know just as many guys who have the opposite problem, and that’s not good, either.
16. Mike Garner
February 20, 2006
3:51 PM
It is. That’s the reason many seminaries no longer require Greek for degrees. Even fewer require Hebrew
That is also because many schools now reject inerrancy / plenary inspiration.
Appeals to the Apostles really fall short when one considers the personal time that they all spent with Jesus - 3 years. That is basically the amount of time in a M.Div program with a far better teacher. They also already knew Greek! :)
Appeals to Spurgeon and Moody are even less convincing once one looks at what these men said. They may not have had the formal training (although as many noted, they were trained nevertheless), but both went on to set up Schools to train people.
If either were asked (and I can find quotes if need be), then we can confidently know that their suggestion for the potential minister is formal training.
In fact, if memory serves me right, Moody was the one who lamented the fact that Americans were no longer catechised. This is not only for they layman, but for the child! Imagine the minister!
Lastly, I think it would have been great for Tim to leave the article without reference to the Pastor. If he cleaned it up a little better, I bet it would have been convincing and I would have loved to see the responses that people gave.
Few people would say “We do a great disservice when we emphasize medical school over the work of the Spirit. Isn’t God sovereign?”
In Christ alone,
mike
17. Brian Thornton
February 20, 2006
3:53 PM
“The most godly people I have ever known never got a college degree and never attended seminary.”
So, if I say that the most godly people I have ever known DID go to college and DID earn a seminary degree, does that mean they are less spiritual or less effective in their respective ministries?
I do understand what you are saying about not relying heavily on notes, etc, and instead relying on the Holy Spirit. I think my view of how the Spirit works today, though, may be different from your view. I believe the Holy Spirit today does NOT lead as He did with Peter, for instance, but instead today works through illuminating the truth of God’s word, which one has to study and prepare by reading it and hiding it in his heart.
But the point of this whole post is how this particular pastor has pretty much cast aside any need for training prior to entering the ministry. I find it interesting that Paul, himself an Apostle, was still intent on reading and studying while in prison, rather than relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit alone. He asked for his books and parchments to be brought to him. He was still learning by reading, etc.
I think Tim’s whole point - if I may speak for him - is that this pastor is wrong to discount the importance and value of preparing for the ministry…or for anything else related to teaching God’s people God’s truth. There has to be a foundation from which to build upon. And while there are examples of extraordinary men who have been used incredibly by God without the usual preparation prior to ministry…that is the exception rather than the rule.
I think it is irresponsible for this pastor to say the things he did. No formal preparation may have worked for him (only time will tell and holding up his theology and teaching to the light of the truth of Scripture), but those who listen to him may be misled if their discernment is not where it should be.
18. Dr Mike
February 20, 2006
3:53 PM
It’s easy to sit back and take cheap shots - complete with broad generalizations - about seminaries and what they do or do not do. Do some people go to seminary that don’t belong there? Absolutely. Do some seminaries teach false doctrine? Absolutely. But, in keeping with Tim’s analogy, should we do away with medical schools because some people graduate that shouldn’t have been there in the first place, or because malpractice exists?
I grow weary of people harping and whining about seminary this and seminary that, creating false dichotomies - as though you can be led by the Spirit or you can go to seminary - and making untenable arguments. Seminary teaches you how to study and what you don’t - and likely won’t ever - know with certainty. It is a humbling experience: it shreds your pet doctrines and challenges your personal, comfortable little lifestyle.
Do you need to go to seminary to learn things? Of course not, but you may need to go to seminary to put yourself under the scrutiny and accountability of people wiser and more godly than yourself. My exegetical papers were ripped apart and I was forced - no, make that, I chose - to go back and re-think some of my personal biases and blindspots. Seminary can be a great remedy for narcissism - which is why some people who start never finish: they don’t want to be exposed and humbled.
Someone said to John Wesley that “God told him to tell you that He don’t need none o’ yer fancy learning to do His work.” To which Wesley replied, “I’m sure that what you say is true, but it is equally true that He doesn’t need your ignorance, either.”
Some of the most godly men and women I know did go to seminary: they were my professors. If anyone wants to blast seminaries, then be specific and name names. If you don’t have the guts to do that, then be quiet: you vilify and insult people who have sacrificed - often at great expense - to prepare people for ministry in the Kingdom.
FWIW, the argument re the apostles in Acts is poorly reasoned and bad theology. A basic class in hermeneutics would keep one from making such errors.
Tim’s point is well-made. Unfortunately, those of us who understand the point will agree and those who desperately need to understand it will blow it off.
19. Julian
February 20, 2006
5:07 PM
Unfortunately, those of us who understand the point will agree and those who desperately need to understand it will blow it off.
Maybe if they went to seminary they’d understand. :)
It’s a funny thing, isn’t it, that being “unacademic” or “atheological” has become a hallmark of spirituality in North America? No one brags about degrees anymore in pop evangelical circles… they brag that they didn’t get any theological training.
Ironically, if they had gone to seminary, they probably would’ve learned some church history, wherein they would have seen that their “new” ideas are really only old heresies that have been thoroughly debunked a dozen times over.
*sigh* Those who don’t learn from history…
20. Brendt
February 20, 2006
5:58 PM
Two words for those who bask in youth — El Der.
OK, maybe that’s one. But the multiple meanings of this word is not a coincidence.
On a different note, I was a bit puzzled by the doctor referring to an older person as “a Caleb”. Yes, I got the reference in Biblical terms, but in medicine, it had me confused until I figured it was a Canadian thing. ;-)
21. wfseube
February 20, 2006
6:15 PM
Brian Thornton wrote: “I believe the Holy Spirit today does NOT lead as He did with Peter, for instance, but instead today works through illuminating the truth of God’s word, which one has to study and prepare by reading it and hiding it in his heart.”
BINGO! Thanks, Brian. That’s what I’ve been thinking as I’ve watched these postings appear today. You’ve done a good job of summing it up. While the original apostles had direct contact with Christ, were filled with the Spirit at Pentacost, and therefore enabled to go forth and grow the Church, those things ain’t happening that way now (cue the cessationist discussion now…). We have the Spirit, but it is imperative that we still study the Word (maybe not with a degree, but a responsible pastor will go beyond simple bible study) and learn/believe in/convey the doctrines that they contain. And all the while the Spirit is leading us in what we learn and helping us absorb it so it can be used to Christ’s benefit.
——
bill
22. Jim
February 20, 2006
7:30 PM
Many Bible colleges and seminaries have produced highly educated knowledgeable men that are as dead as a doorknob. They know the Bible but they have not gotten to know the Saviour. Of course, there are also many godly men coming out of some of these institutions.
Discipleship is the true key to Biblical training and perfection. It is truly shameful to put a young man with a degree and yet no reality of Christ into the pastorate. He will more than likely fall short of the goal because of his reliance upon his own knowledge rather than the power of Christ.
Only through true humility can we gain wisdom. Humility is not primarily gained through education but rather through the daily trusting Christ and walking by faith in His Word. This of course in no way discounts the need for training. Men of God should have an excellent grasp of scripture so that they can rightly divide the Word of truth. The successful man of God will use the scriptures not to stir up debate and strife, or show off his knowledge, but rather to encourage, edify, and feed the flock.
Good topic,
Jim
23. Dr Mike
February 20, 2006
8:25 PM
“Many Bible colleges and seminaries have produced highly educated knowledgeable men that are as dead as a doorknob. They know the Bible but they have not gotten to know the Saviour.”
Jim:
Name them. Name the Bible colleges, the seminaries, and the “highly educated knowledgeable men” that do not know the Savior. If you have specific knowledge of such things, you owe it to the Body of Christ to inform us.
If, on the other hand, you’re just making a statement that sounds insightful but for which you have no evidence, then what is the purpose of your statement? It is slanderous towards all seminaries - and makes all suspect - if the guilty parties are not identified. Why protect the guilty and impugn the innocent?
Name them.
24. Julian
February 20, 2006
8:36 PM
Dr Mike:
Heritage. There’s one. I know cuz I went there. There are also lots of godly people there as well, earnestly working for the advancement of the kingdom, but there are far and away way more duds than people actually sent by solid local churches. I appreciate your commitment to stay away from generalizations.
The problem is with the statement “Many Bible colleges and seminaries have produced…”
It shouldn’t be the Bible Colleges and Seminaries producing them. It should be churches, sending out people with an internal call to ministry, affirmed externally by the local church which sends and supports and employs the seminary student.
You’re grounded and you’re educated. Experience and theological knowledge. What a combo!
And don’t anyone here say it can’t be done, because I’ve seen it done well. The problem is with the church as well as the seminaries.
25. Dr Mike
February 20, 2006
8:54 PM
Julian:
I appreciate what you are saying about churches being the places for people to be trained and prepared for ministry, and this is actually done at many churches. To prepare for some ministries, however, specialized training is required that no church (at least, no church that I know of) can offer. How many churches have Hebrew and Greek scholars on staff who do nothing but teach language and write commentaries? Or systematic theologians who are committed to fulltime teaching? Church historians? New and Old Testament scholars? Philosophers? The list could go on.
As we get further and further from the culture and language of the Old and New Testaments, we are going to need individuals who have devoted their lives to specialized areas of studies. The only economically feasible way to do that is by centralizing the training in a seminary. There is also a certain amount of “quality control” built into a diverse faculty that is not always present in a local church, so the likelihood of hitting upon truth is increased as it is viewed from a variety of biblical perspectives, not just a single one.
Now, if I were from Nebraska and had just won $350 million or so in the lottery, I might start a church with that kind of staff. But it would be a waste unless I opened it up to nonmembers who wanted to simply come and learn from some of the best and brightest. Then I would have a seminary that was also a church - which might work for some of the students but not all, so we’re back to square one.
I won’t call Bible colleges and seminaries a necessary evil - I know that you did not say that, either - but would argue that they are necessary expedients in our time.
26. Julian
February 20, 2006
9:01 PM
Dr Mike:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying to do away with seminaries. I’m in a great seminary right now, doing an M.Div. degree.
All I meant is that churches need to be training men practically, giving them ministry experience and supporting them by sending them to seminary.
I think we’re on the same page here.
27. wfseube
February 20, 2006
9:17 PM
Julian wrote: It’s a funny thing, isn’t it, that being “unacademic” or “atheological” has become a hallmark of spirituality in North America? No one brags about degrees anymore in pop evangelical circles… they brag that they didn’t get any theological training.
Unfortunately, it’s not funny. True, but not funny.
The pastor at the church I was attending before I moved in the summer appeared to show a significant disrespect for those who spent time in deep study of theology and the Word. Needless to say, it didn’t set well with those who were well-read and/or those attending seminary! Sad…he’s not alone.
——
bill
28. The Greatest Man Alive
February 20, 2006
11:42 PM
Appeals to the Apostles really fall short when one considers the personal time that they all spent with Jesus - 3 years. That is basically the amount of time in a M.Div program with a far better teacher. They also already knew Greek! :)
While I am more on the side of formal training, lets end this false argument now. Despite the significant time spent with Christ, it was not until AFTER the resurrection that the Apostles finally “got it” and AFTER Pentacost that they were capable of doing what they had been commissioned to do.
I’m currently finishing my bachelor’s after a long time out of college and am looking toward finding a reformed MDiv that is close to me if possible. I’m definitely not against that kind of study, but the argument that the disciples spent 3 years with Jesus washes out when you see how little they applied during that time.
29. Jim
February 21, 2006
12:01 AM
Dr. Mike,
“Many Bible colleges and seminaries have produced highly educated knowledgeable men that are as dead as a doorknob. They know the Bible but they have not gotten to know the Saviour.”
Perhaps I should have phrased this sentence better. I am not implying these men are void of a relationship with Christ, but rather that it is primarily an intellectual understanding of scripture than revelation given by the Rhemas of God. They can debate the smallest jot and tittle of theology but simply fail to understand the depths of Christ’s riches in their daily lives. Thus their sermons become mere academia rather than life giving and faith building.
You asked for names and institutions; I will not give names but can guarantee you that virtually all Bible schools and seminaries are producing these men. Does that mean all schools are the same, definitely not. If Bible schools were the answer for our society, America would be a hotbed of continuous revival. As is the case, America has become one of the world leaders in obscene filth and decay. Where is the salt that prevents this decay? It will not be found in intellectualism (however important) but in the burning hearts of men on fire for God.
I am not opposed to the institution of Biblical learning per se, but unfortunately it produces many self confident, egotistically proud men, puffed up with knowledge. True knowledge will be cloaked in wisdom and humility and deflect all the glory and praise to God.
History has shown us that many colleges started for the gospel’s sake have ultimately turned into liberal arts colleges. Rather than training young men to preach the gospel, they are now espousing the perverted philosophies of secular humanism, the modern religion of the western world.
We desperately need men sold out to Christ to unwaveringly preach the whole counsel of God. May our Lord raise up a generation of men and women who lay their all on the altar.
God bless,
Jim
30. Mike Garner
February 21, 2006
12:36 AM
While I am more on the side of formal training, lets end this false argument now. Despite the significant time spent with Christ, it was not until AFTER the resurrection that the Apostles finally “got it” and AFTER Pentacost that they were capable of doing what they had been commissioned to do.
Yes. You stated this before.
Unfortunately there is a flaw in the argument. It is true that they did not understand most of what they were taught … but they were still taught. Once they did receive the Holy Spirit they did not have some Secret Knowledge that was void of a learning process as the Gnostics might suggest. Rather, they were made able to utilize and remember the knowledge that they had already been taught by Jesus (and learn in a community of believers).
The same could be said of the Apostle Paul. He was Spiritually dead when he learned quite a bit of the Old Testament information. However, once he was regenerated he did not suddenly get some mysterious secret knowledge. Rather, he was then able to look back at all that he had been taught and see it in light of God’s reality.
It is from this knowledge that the original disciples gained from Jesus and Paul utilized once they began their ministry.
The Spirit does not work in isolation to the Word and the Word does not work in isolation to the Spirit.
A spirit endwelled man will pursue the study of God’s word. This should be gained from the local church as well as personal study. The man called for ministry must know the Scripture all the more and will thus pursue the knowledge all the more. The local church and personal study must also apply here, but the added information (especially in our context) is almost always best gained in the context of a seminary.
In Christ alone,
mike
31. Candyinsierras
February 21, 2006
10:15 AM
The sad thing is that these days, many pastors download sermons from the internet. No studying involved at all.
32. Julian
February 21, 2006
11:46 AM
Jim said, “Where is the salt that prevents this decay? It will not be found in intellectualism (however important) but in the burning hearts of men on fire for God.”
To quote DA Carson, “Damn all false antitheses to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ” (Becoming Conversan with the Emerging Church, 234).
You’re toeing a very dangerous line with statements like this, brother.
33. Jim
February 21, 2006
1:30 PM
Julian,
Please expound if possible on your concerns? I am not quite sure what is so dangerous about that statement?
I think my point is that rather than simply rely upon scripture and its authority, we resort to the writings of men and use their theology to back up our own views. This is fine but it must be in submission to the truth of God’s word.
One of the hardest things for us christians to do is to separate a man from his theology, thus we become both a judge and executioner of other men based upon their views of scripture. Would that not be the most divisive? Ok, now you’re going to think I’m some kind of liberal wacko, nope just an objective observation.
34. The Greatest Man Alive
February 21, 2006
1:30 PM
While I am more on the side of formal training, lets end this false argument now. Despite the significant time spent with Christ, it was not until AFTER the resurrection that the Apostles finally “got it” and AFTER Pentacost that they were capable of doing what they had been commissioned to do.
Yes. You stated this before.
Actually, that was my first comment on the subject. Re-read the gospels. It was not until AFTER the resurrection that the disciples/apostles began to get it. It isn’t until John enters the empty grave that he begins to understand. While the 3 years with Christ gave the apostles something to look back on and finally comprehend, it wasn’t until the transforming act of the resurrection that they could do so. The academic/learning side of things was reliant upon and subserviant to the relationship. That doesn’t mean either is unimportant, but it does provide a decent view of which is most important.
35. Jim
February 21, 2006
1:32 PM
Julian,
Please expound if possible on your concerns? I am not quite sure what is so dangerous about that statement?
I think my point is that rather than simply rely upon scripture and its authority, we resort to the writings of men and use their theology to back up our own views. This is fine but it must be in submission to the truth of God’s word.
One of the hardest things for us christians to do is to separate a man from his theology, thus we become both a judge and executioner of other men based upon their views of scripture. Would that not be the most divisive? Ok, now you’re going to think I’m some kind of liberal wacko, nope just an objective observation.
36. Julian
February 21, 2006
3:50 PM
Jim,
No worries, I don’t think you’re a liberal wacko. I was just wanting to point out that we need to be very careful in how we phrase statements like the one you made (ie. “It will not be with … but with…” type statements). The simple reason being that the things we’re juxtaposing may not actually be real antitheses.
Can someone not be an academic and yet have their hearts “burning” as they live “on fire for God”? I certainly think that is a possibility, but the way you phrased your statement made it seem like the two ideas were opposed, that’s all.
37. Jim
February 21, 2006
5:14 PM
Amen Justin,
I apologize for the unclear comment. Ignorance is only bliss to the fool, but the man of God will study to show himself approved unto God, not ashamed but able to rightly divide the word of God.
I look forward to more of these friendly discussions.
God bless,
Jim
38. Jim
February 21, 2006
5:15 PM
Sorry Julian, I work with a Justin and had a mental block.
In Christ,
Jim
Post Your Comment Here »