My Responce to Dr. R. Scott Clark

[JOwen]

(1) Pastor and session invests time and energy in fathers and families to raise up Godly men.
(2) Children are well educated and their hearts are trained. Young men are encouraged to desire eldership and the ministry if that gift is noticed early on.
(3) Pastor and elders identify the young men who have the acumen and desire for ministry.

and then begin the list above.

In other words, the Church should be organically training and identifiying people.

Amen to this. Valid point to be sure!

I honestly believe that if Church's would reform the manner in which they identify and participate in the training of men that Seminaries would be very willing partners in that effort.

I would like to think you are right in this brother. However don't you think that some seminaries are such massive engines, that to change the model would be the removing of many secondary teaching and administrative positions? I would think the hired Ph.D's might have something to say about changing the method.

 

[JohnV]

Hi all,

I am young and fairly inexperienced, so I don't want to appear to be shooting off my mouth, but I would like to ask a sincere question.

I guess I have a hard time understanding where the idea comes that seminary training is considered even a normal prerequisite for being a pastor. I cannot recall anything in the New Testament that resembles the kind of formal seminaries we have today. I am not saying that the concept is wrong, but I don't understand the idea that the 'ideal' training for a pastoral candidate is to go though the seminary route. Someone here mentioned being mentored by a pastor as an alternative training method and it seems to me a perfectly valid one, every bit as valid as going to seminary. Paul told Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Tit 1:5) to be the ones appointing and ordaining new ministers and he made no mention of external teaching institutions, so there must be at least the assumption that a pastor can be the one to identify (note that the qualifications for ministers are given to Timothy and Titus in the pastoral epistles), train and ultimately ordain the next generation of ministers. I understand Pastor Greco's comments above that practically speaking pastors today may be pressed for time to do this, but I am interested in just examining the prinicple.

Let me say again I am not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with the seminary route, but I truely do not understand why there seems to be the strain of thought in christianity today where it is considered undesirable to take an alternative route.

Am I missing something here? Any thoughts?

Mark:

I think that originally this was what the idea of a seminary was. It was the church's particular interest in preparing the next generation of ministers, but doing it economically, and in an organized manner. Seminaries have grown since this original intent to be more on their own, not directly under the churches' oversight. You could even say, I suppose, that oversight in one sense has become oversight in another sense: watching over has gradually turned into forgetting to watch over. I think that's the problem here, not specifically how one learns. After all, which ever way one learns, he is still accountable before the examination committee for his credentials.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would like to think you are right in this brother. However don't you think that some seminaries are such massive engines, that to change the model would be the removing of many secondary teaching and administrative positions? I would think the hired Ph.D's might have something to say about changing the method.

That might be the case for some of the larger ones. I think it's the case, though, that if a Church is really fully involved in the equipping of a man for ministry then it's pretty hard for a Seminary to goon it all up. They would simply be a tool that the Church uses to round out and educate where a particular pastor (or pastors) might not have the specialized expertise for certain skills.

As it is, I think many Seminaries take on additional roles due to pressure from students that aren't getting it from their Churches or from Churches that don't want to train men.

 

[Ivan]

This follows the Pastor's College model of both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.

Lloyd-Jones had a Pastor's College?

 

[JOwen]

Lloyd-Jones had a Pastor's College?

http://www.ltslondon.org/

 

[Ivan]

http://www.ltslondon.org/

Ah, yes...my memory...not what it use to be. Thank you.

 

[satz]

Mark:

I think that originally this was what the idea of a seminary was. It was the church's particular interest in preparing the next generation of ministers, but doing it economically, and in an organized manner. Seminaries have grown since this original intent to be more on their own, not directly under the churches' oversight. You could even say, I suppose, that oversight in one sense has become oversight in another sense: watching over has gradually turned into forgetting to watch over. I think that's the problem here, not specifically how one learns. After all, which ever way one learns, he is still accountable before the examination committee for his credentials.

Thanks, John.

I am curious, do you folks think there is any NEED for seminary for a man to go into the ministry? Can a young man be prepared simply by mentoring and studying under his own pastor in his home church? Assume the church situation allows the pastor to send the requisite time and attention.

 

[JohnV]

Thanks, John.

I am curious, do you folks think there is any NEED for seminary for a man to go into the ministry? Can a young man be prepared simply by mentoring and studying under his own pastor in his home church? Assume the church situation allows the pastor to send the requisite time and attention.

Mark:

I would not ordinarily think that mentoring by one pastor would be enough. It is the church session, the Presbytery, and the denomination that are responsible for doctrine and ultimate accountability. It involves a plurality of elders.

Notice that I did not say that a collection of PhD's are responsible for these things. They are responsible to do the job that the church assigns to them, to prepare men for the ministry and the pastorate. They don't dictate or form or develop doctrine. That's the church's responsibility. At least that's what I believe.

You can go overboard either way, I would think. Too many cooks, or not enough cooks. But it is the church, that is the denomination, that is responsible for what is being preached and taught by her ministers.

 

[satz]

John,

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying about a plurality of elders and logically it makes sense to me. Yet Paul gave Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Titus 1:5) the duty to ordain ministers singularly. He did not give it to a group of elders. Any thoughts?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

John,

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying about a plurality of elders and logically it makes sense to me. Yet Paul gave Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Titus 1:5) the duty to ordain ministers singularly. He did not give it to a group of elders. Any thoughts?

Yes, but Timothy and Titus were not on their own, they were sent from the Church into the mission field for that task. I actually agree with the OPC retaining the office of the Evangelist and distinguishing it from the role of the Pastorate. Evangelists are ordained by the Church and sent into the mission field to Baptize, preach, and administer the sacraments and raise up Churches in an area. Dave Crum in Tijuana, Mexico is sent by the SoCal Presbytery of the OPC and his mission there is not merely to win souls but to build a Church and train men to assume the Eldership and eventually form Churches and Presbyteries in Mexico.

This is a bit off topic though because there is an "ordinary" sense of the need to train people for the ministry of caring for a local flock from which others are sent.

 

[KMK]

I believe in our world, this is the single biggest argument against distance education. The life of a reformed pastor is very busy - often a solo pastorate, with two (sometimes three!) sermon preparations per week, often with no secretary to help run the office, hospital visits, pastoral calls, meetings, etc. It would be very difficult to teach someone how to be a pastor. Some could be "caught" by accompanying the minister on visits, etc., but it could be very hard.

This is one reason why I think it is wrong to be dogmatic on this subject, either insisting one must attend a seminary (as Dr. Clark insists) or decrying seminaries as the root of all evil (as some of Dr. Clark's critics insist).

I think Jerrold has struck a good balance, and helped the discussion on this.

And don't forget his most important job! He is the husband of one wife and his children are faithful and orderly! You talk about a time commitment! (Where is the 'burning-the-candle-at-both-ends' emoticon?)

 

[jaybird0827]

The best model I can think of, in our day would look something like this:

1. Student presents himself before the Consistory to be accepted as a candidate for the ministry.
2. An examination is given to discern the inward and outward calling, and general cognitive ability.
3. Upon consensus, the Consistory makes a recommendation to Classis to examine the man for entrance.
4. Upon acceptance, the man is sent back to his home congregation and begins his studies under the oversight of the ministers of his Classis, his own minister being the lead pastor.
5. One half of the student's 1 year classes are taken via distance ed with all papers and exams submitted to members of Classis for review. He is permitted to take limited part in Consistory meetings and is invited to Elder's meetings as an observer (expected to take notes).
6. One half of students classes would be take in modular form at the denominational seminary (ours is PRTS) in one or two week intensives. (PRTS brings in the best of the best in any given field as it relates to the ministry!)
7. Upon completion of first year, the Classis examines the student (orally) on basic Greek, intro Bible courses, and each other first year disciplines.
8. Upon completion of this exam the student is approved to second year training.
9. Years 2 and 3 progress in the same fashion as year one, only in each successive year he is given approval to "speak an edifying word" to his local congregation (from the NT in year 2, and OT or NT in year 3). Year 3 he is expected to 'preach' to Classis twice. During year 2 he is also given permission to teach catechism, conduct Bible Studies, lead prayer meetings, accompany Elder visits, funerals, weddings, counseling, etc. All with consistory oversight. Material would be generated from his course material so as not to overburden the student.
10. Year 4 the student faces a final trial at Classis which includes Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament, New Testament, Systematics, general Bible, ethics, and eccesiology. He also preaches a full sermon and is examined extensively on his call to the ministry, piety, and private devotional life.

At the end he would have a 4 year degree with all the bells and whistles, would have hundreds of hours of preaching experience in a local Church, and would have intimate knowledge of Church life from counseling to funerals.

I would even go so far as to trim the curricula to hold to:

1. Old Testament (knowledge, exegesis, hermeneutics)
2. New Testament (knowledge, exegesis, hermeneutics)
3. Languages (4 semesters each)
4. Systematics (the 4 major disciplines)
5. Homiletics
6. Biblical Theology
7. Pastoral Theology

This follows the Pastor's College model of both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.

Yes!!!! And could we add -

Before step 1: Session or Consistory identify and encourage young men growing up in the church who show potential for the ministry.

more

 

[tcalbrecht]

John,

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying about a plurality of elders and logically it makes sense to me. Yet Paul gave Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) and Titus (Titus 1:5) the duty to ordain ministers singularly. He did not give it to a group of elders. Any thoughts?

Not seeing this thought in the texts. Can you be more specific? I know the OPC and to a lesser degree the PCA makes a distinction between elders and ministers. Both denominations have the role of evangelist which has a view to raising up churches and congregation elders. However, ministers (pastor-teachers) are qualified and ordained by a presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14).

 

[JOwen]

Yes!!!! And could we add -

Before step 1: Session or Consistory identify and encourage young men growing up in the church who show potential for the ministry.

more

Yes indeed. On my blog, I have updated my musings with a prefatory note reflecting this important step. Thanks!

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Reponses and a Question

I haven't read Jerrold's blog post. I'm sorry, I can't. I'm only responding to what I've seen on the PB discussion.

1. Does anyone else see the irony in a post objecting to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education being misspelled? To the best of my knowledge the British and American spelling is "response."

2. I see there has been clucking about the the fact that Clark doesn't seem to know that the cost of computers has come down. If one reads the HB entry where I re-posted the essay on the necessity of seminary education one will find that I made a caveat to that effect. I wrote the "necessity" essay about 10 years ago or so. Still, a laptop can run $1500 without much difficulty.

3. As to whether this is like the home school v traditional school debate, that's interesting because we home school! I recognize that primary education was done at home or at least privately for centuries. The modern idea that primary/secondary (sem being post-secondary) education must be conducted in a factory is quite novel and has proven to be not entirely successful. There is a rather large difference between home schooling and distance ed: home schooling is still a face to face tutorial whereas distance ed is not.

4. The proposal that we should go back to the 19th century American model of full-time ministers training candidates for ministry, seems to ignore several facts. First, it's been tried and abandoned. It was abandoned because it didn't work. The fact of intellectual specialization has been in evidence since the 13th century - it's not a wholly modern phenomenon. The speed of specialization has increased with the development of communication technology (printing, telephone, computers etc). The amount of information that must be learned and processed is considerably greater now than it was in the 19th century. The movement away from the Log College to Princeton was a natural development that followed a pattern that is evident in the early medieval and high medieval periods. We had catechetical schools in the early church organized around a single teacher (still face to face education mind you!). Those schools became associated with cathedrals (sort of an ecclesiastical county seat). Those cathedral schools were larger but not specialized. One "prof" taught both the arts (trivium) and theology. The need for specialization helped create the universities in Oxford and Paris with distinct theology and arts faculties. There was already too much for one person to teach by the 12th century. That process has only continued.

Today, it is not possible for even the most brilliant minister to tend his flock, study for his sermon, and keep up at a professional level (let's assume he has a PhD and is expert in a given field) with one field let alone four to seven depending on how one divides things. It's not even possible for a full-time scholar who doesn't have the daily demands of telephone calls, pastoral calls, hospital visits, small groups studies, crises, sermons, catechism lessons, and planning and session/consistory meetings (as our full-time pastor does) to keep up with more than one field. I teach in three distinct fields and I despair of doing a good job in each. Two of them are closely related (church history and historical theology) but just keeping up with developments and literature in the one theological locus I teach (the doctrine of God, not to mention the other loci of theology) is overwhelming!

So, I take it that one would have to argue that it's really not necessary to have specialists/experts teaching in each dept (exegesis, systematics, history, and practica), that a general knowledge of these things is sufficient.

In that case, one has embraced an apparently pious but anti-intellectual approach to training ministers. At the end of the day, that anti-intellectualism will show itself to be impious.

We're training MINISTERS of the gospel here. We have a spiritual and moral duty to see to it that our ministers have the best education possible. They have the highest calling and the toughest job on the planet. They must be highly trained because they will be pressed on every side (I know!) and pulled in every direction. They will be called to render unexpected judgments in hospital rooms. They must be able to draw on serious (and prayerful) training received at the hands of ministers with highly specialized training. Ministers call upon that training every day in a hundred ways. Now more than ever it is evident that we cannot allow the training of our ministers to slip one iota.

Appeals to the apostolic era are non-starters. Unless you can raise men from the dead, shake off serpents, or heal the lame, unless you were at the feet of the Savior for 3 years and unless you had a tongue of fire on your head, you should go to seminary.

To the claim (in another post) that we should be reading mostly 400 year old books (which, as a teacher of history it is my calling to read and teach at WSC!) I ask, is that what John Owen did? Did he actually spend most of his time reading 400 year old books or was he one of the most well-read and intelligent theologians fluent in contemporary Roman and Socinian, and Amyraldian, and rationalist theology in Europe or the British Isles? Clearly it was the latter. The point is that we ought to read Owen yes, but we ought to do in our age what Owen did in his and I'm quite sure he would be thoroughly versed in all the aberrant ideologies and theologies of our day as he was in his own day.

Finally, my question is why doesn't the analogy with lawyers and doctors work? What is there about the vocation of the ministry that demands LESS training than the vocation to the law or the vocation to medicine? Why should ministers have a less rigorous education (or none at all?)

Are you anti-brick and mortar sem proponents willing to trust your legal and medical well-being to home-grown doctors and lawyers and if not, why not? If pastors who have been trained solely by other pastors then why not lawyers and physicians trained solely by other lawyers and physicians? Why not? Because as I've argued for years, no lawyer who actually knew anything about the law would dare attempt to train other lawyers in place of law school! No physician would attempt to replace med school. There's no way that a single person or even a private co-op could replace the work done in med school.

A seminary is quite like med and law school. It is an extended internship/apprenticeship, arts education, and technical education in one. This combination cannot be replicated away from school. The alternatives all sacrifice one or more elements.

rsc

 

[JOwen]

1. Does anyone else see the irony in a post objecting to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education being misspelled? To the best of my knowledge the British and American spelling is "response."

Keep reading...

Appeals to the apostolic era are non-starters. Unless you can raise men from the dead, shake off serpents, or heal the lame, unless you were at the feet of the Savior for 3 years and unless you had a tongue of fire on your head, you should go to semimary.

Does anyone else find it ironic that a Ph.D who works at a seminary would spell it 'semimary'? Come on Dr. Clark, keep the chip shots on the golf course. Irony indeed.

Secondly, how scholarly is it brother to render critique without investigation? Where did I ever say that I objected to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education? Please read my blog or leave speculation on what I might have said alone.

 

[Kevin]

Is anyone familiar with the MT3 (Mobile theological teaching team) model that World Witness uses?

This is a system developed to send qualified professors to various seminaries to teach the same course at several locations in turn. Thus Dr Whytock could teach Church History first at Haddington House on PEI, then teach the same (or an appropriate version thereof) course in Kenya, Pakistan, Hungary, Turkey, etc. any place we have a Mission seminary.

He would be followed in turn by others teaching in their own field. Thus a local man under care of his local church/pastor or a missionary/evangelist would be doing "distence studies" and at the same time serving locally.

At the same timne much of the expence of a full faculty seminary is avoided.

This not only suitable to the mission field but works well here in North America as well with Haddington House being the "proving ground" for many of these courses.

BTW courses are a combination of both models with students doing much of the work before the prof arives and then having all classes within 6 or 7 days.

 

[larryjf]

On Dr. Clark's updated blog post he sums up by saying...

So, which of the elements are we prepared to sacrifice as we educate our pastors? Knowledge of the Biblical languages? Knowledge of archaeology? Knowledge of church history (please say "no!"), knowledge of systematic theology? Time with experienced pastor-scholars who help to shape future ministers in and out of the classroom?

I didn't realize distance ed meant neglecting these subjects.

i think that utilizing discussion boards, chat rooms, video conferencing, and mentoring can increase the community aspect of distance ed. I am not sure exactly would be the deficiency in a pastor who had online training as opposed to brick and mortar. It's a little to general to simply say that it lacks "community" or "face-to-face contact." I have a hard time believing that simply being in the presence of somebody can somehow impute some special grace for the ministry.

As far as the medical or legal profession...i would not equate the two. I would not want my doctor to have learned via online, but my lawyer i would have no problem with. What a student of theology would have as an advantage to the M.D. student is a church. There is no reason that i can think of why a seminary student could not utilize his church for the hands-on aspects that must be learned. The M.D. student simply does not have this utility.

 

[JOwen]

4. The proposal that we should go back to the 19th century American model of full-time ministers training candidates for ministry, seems to ignore several facts. First, it's been tried and abandoned. It was abandoned because it didn't work.

Really? Says who? Seems the Free Church Continuing, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Netherlands Reformed Churches have not been told it does not work.

The movement away from the Log College to Princeton was a natural development that followed a pattern that is evident in the early medieval and high medieval periods. We had catechetical schools in the early church organized around a single teacher (still face to face education mind you!). Those schools became associated with cathedrals (sort of an ecclesiastical county seat). Those cathedral schools were larger but not specialized. One "prof" taught both the arts (trivium) and theology. The need for specialization helped create the universities in Oxford and Paris with distinct theology and arts faculties. There was already too much for one person to teach by the 12th century. That process has only continued.

Scott, if you will notice, the method I propose is not a strict distance model. It is a mixture of the two with the greater emphasis on the local Church/Consistory/Clasiss. It is the same model as Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones, The Free Church Continuing, and other federations. If that makes me anti intellectual then you are redefining the term. And the move from the Log College to the Princeton model had as much to to with the European enlightenment University method as anything else.

Today, it is not possible for even the most brilliant minister to tend his flock, study for his sermon, and keep up at a professional level (let's assume he has a PhD and is expert in a given field) with one field let alone four to seven depending on how one divides things. It's not even possible for a full-time scholar who doesn't have the daily demands of telephone calls, pastoral calls, hospital visits, small groups studies, crises, sermons, catechism lessons, and planning and session/consistory meetings (as our full-time pastor does) to keep up with more than one field. I teach in three distinct fields and I despair of doing a good job in each. Two of them are closely related (church history and historical theology) but just keeping up with developments and literature in the one theological locus I teach (the doctrine of God, not to mention the other loci of theology) is overwhelming!

Look, no where in the Scriptures does it say that we are to bring in hired guns who are experts in a field to train men for the ministry. I say you are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. Not only is it possible to do this in house properly, it IS being done, and has been done for hundreds of years. Break out of your North American mindset and see that in other places a variety of different methods are being used to the same end.

John Frame said in A Proposal for a New Seminary. Journal of Pastoral Practice.” p.10,

In the early days of American Protestantism, the training of ministerial candidates was carried out by pastors of churches. A young man feeling a call of God to the ministry would associate himself with a church pastor, receive training from him, participate in the work of the parish, and perhaps even live in the minister’s home. I’m not sure why, but eventually this system was felt to be inadequate".​

Frame goes on to remind the reader that seminaries are a convention of the church, created to fill in the gap created by churches that are not fulfilling their Biblical mandate of discipleship. He sites old Princeton Seminary board member Rev. Gardiner Spring who contends that in his day the parish-trained minister far surpassed the seminary trained scholar. That is quite a statement from both Frame and Spring - two seminarians (p.11).

So, I take it that one would have to argue that it's really not necessary to have specialists/experts teaching in each dept (exegesis, systematics, history, and practica), that a general knowledge of these things is sufficient.

And why can't you have this within the parish church model is my question? My mentor was trained by the late Rev. Donald Beaton, ever heard of him? John Murray had and said he was one of the greatest systematic theologians he knew. The Free Presbyterians also had me who excelled in Church History, Logic, and the languages. So tell me again why one has to go away for this?

In that case, one has embraced an apparently pious but anti-intellectual approach to training ministers. At the end of the day, that anti-intellectualism will show itself to be impious.

Rubbish. There are are countless ministers trained this way who are not in any way shape or form anti-intellectual. They know Greek and Hebrew, love systematics and biblical theology etc, but they were trained in house. William Jay, Jonathan Edwards, and Lloyd-Jones are but a few who fail your grid I'm afraid.

We're training MINISTERS of the gospel here. We have a spiritual and moral duty to see to it that our ministers have the best education possible. They have the highest calling and the toughest job on the planet. They must be highly trained because they will be pressed on every side (I know!) and pulled in every direction. They will be called to render unexpected judgments in hospital rooms. They must be able to draw on serious (and prayerful) training received at the hands of ministers with highly specialized training. Ministers call upon that training every day in a hundred ways. Now more than ever it is evident that we cannot allow the training of our ministers to slip one iota.

Are you training minsters? “Seminaries not only frequently refuse to do the work of the church; they also tend to undo it, by making scholars not shepherds" says Frame. "Over the years, however, it has become less and less possible for a man to be an outstanding pastor and an outstanding scholar; thus seminaries, forced to choose, have inevitably picked the latter”. Quite an admission! Are the great bastions of the Church training scholars or shepherds? No, the two are not mutually exclusive, but there is a distinction.

Are you anti-brick and mortar sem proponents willing to trust your legal and medical well-being to home-grown doctors and lawyers and if not, why not? If pastors who have been trained solely by other pastors then why not lawyers and physicians trained solely by other lawyers and physicians? Why not? Because as I've argued for years, no lawyer who actually knew anything about the law would dare attempt to train other lawyers in place of law school! No physician would attempt to replace med school. There's no way that a single person or even a private co-op could replace the work done in med school.

Who's anti brick and mortar Scott? I don't see any posting on this board that are anti- brick and mortar. I've done both. I'm DOING both in pursuing a M.Th at PRTS! All we are saying is there are other ways of doing it, and the status quo has flaws than need to be remedied. I think my proposal here, is a good place to begin. Your stance on this, as has been pointed out by Trevor, is overtly academic. And is it any wonder considering you are an academic? No. But listen to the possibilities for improvement brother. There is more than one way to do this. I'm a perfect example. My federation is a PRTS federation yet my home/distance/parish training received unanimous support at 4 Colloquium Doctum's including a Synodical examination. I'm not all that, but it is proof that it can and does work. now I pastor a healthy, growing Free Reformed Church.

I have a great appreciation for your writings brother, but you have a blind spot (like we all do). I think an open mind and heart can bring more unanimity on this subject than we think.

 

[larryjf]

Something that really troubles me regarding Dr. Clark's blog

I see that someone is starting an(other?) online seminary. It has the intriguing name of Wittenberg Reformed Theological Seminary. To the best of my knowledge, "as of today," (as folk say during congressional hearings) Wittenberg was a staunchly Lutheran town (the official name is Lutherstadt Wittenberg) and school. Invoking Wittenberg as the qualifier of "Reformed" is a little like a Lutheran starting Geneva Lutheran Seminary or Dort Lutheran Seminary. Incongruous is a word that comes to mind. Now I love my Lutheran cousins (even though they regard us a "crafty" sacramentarians - Formula of Concord Art. 7) and I've defended the proposition that the Reformed and the Lutherans have a common doctrine of justification. Nevertheless, there are significant differences (e.g., Christology and and the resistibility of grace). I see that WRTS is oriented around Reformed standards and they don't include the Book of Concord (in which case the adjective Wittenberg might make more sense) so one has to wonder about the intellectual capital behind an enterprise that proposes to train pastors but doesn't seem to know what Wittenberg was. Now, of course, Wittenberg is a tourist town. They aren't invoking "tourist" as a metaphor for theological education are they?).

First, it is troubling to me that when he has a problem with a particular entity like WRTS he does not contact them directly to vent his concerns, but instead opts for public ridicule. The implication that he makes simply based on the name of the school...that there is no intellectual capital is also very troubling to me. Especially seeing such folks as Dr. Sam Logan and others involved with it. You would think that he would have at least contacted the school to ask why they chose that name.

Here is the WRTS site.

 

[Ivan]

Here is the WRTS site.

Thanks for the link, Larry. Keep us informed as things develop.

 

[larryjf]

Thanks for the link, Larry. Keep us informed as things develop.

Will do. WRTS is still very much in its infancy. Currently we are working very hard on getting the M.Div. program developed.

 

[JOwen]

Will do. WRTS is still very much in its infancy. Currently we are working very hard on getting the M.Div. program developed.

What other programs will be offered?

 

[larryjf]

What other programs will be offered?

After we get some more faculty on board and the M.Div. set up we will most likely have the head of the individual departments create their own programs for Board approval.

I am thinking that the next programs to be set up would be Theology, Biblical Studies, and Ministry. But that is not official.

 

[JohnV]

Of course, we have to our advantage the fact that there is a great and accessible combination of the two: The PuritanBoard. By now its an institution, isn't it?

 

[JOwen]

Of course, we have to our advantage the fact that there is a great and accessible combination of the two: The PuritanBoard. By now its an institution, isn't it?

lol, I think it is brother!

 

[Kevin]

Of course, we have to our advantage the fact that there is a great and accessible combination of the two: The PuritanBoard. By now its an institution, isn't it?

It is brother! Just send me your $400.00 graduation fee and your ThD will be in the mail!

The board read over all of your posts and decided it was the equiv. of a disertation.

 

[JOwen]

It is brother! Just send me your $400.00 graduation fee and your ThD will be in the mail!

The board read over all of your posts and decided it was the equiv. of a disertation.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Fair enough.

I knew if I misspelled anything I would get it in the neck! (and rightly so).

Jerrold, as I said in my post, I wasn't responding to your blog. I haven't read it yet. I was only responding to the posts on the list (and to a long-running argument on this board and on other discussion lists that dates back at least 10 years).

rsc

Keep reading...



Does anyone else find it ironic that a Ph.D who works at a seminary would spell it 'semimary'? Come on Dr. Clark, keep the chip shots on the golf course. Irony indeed.

Secondly, how scholarly is it brother to render critique without investigation? Where did I ever say that I objected to the necessity of a brick and mortar seminary education? Please read my blog or leave speculation on what I might have said alone.

 

[Robin]

Much has been said...


Isn't the important point being missed though?

Would you have surgery done by an MD that got his training from DL?

It's one thing to gain an English degree via home schooling...it IS another to attempt mastery of a vital skill/subject like neurosurgery.

The soul of man is the second most precious thing in creation next to the Holy Gospel.



Robin