Are Seminaries and Bible Colleges Biblical?

Well, if I understand what you're telling me, that a prophet only speaks NEW REVELATION, as in brand new words from God that aren't already recorded, then I agree with you on that. He warns us about adding/subtracting to the word. So, I agree with that.

But, new revelation to me means that you understand and learn more doctrine the more you hear and read the scriptures. So you can cite the verses over and over to me, and as I read it over and over, I might understand what it means all of a sudden whereas before, I didn't understand it. Or, I may have misunderstood it before and then I have a new understanding of that verse. So, citing scripture in this message board is prophesying. You're not prophesying anything new, but revelation may only be shining on the reader at certain times.

Daniel didn't understand all his visions and he was told to go his way, the book is sealed until the end. (paraphrasing.) So, at the appropriate time, the revelation is revealed even though it's not brand new different scripture.

When God says sons and daughters will prophesy in the latter days, it wasn't my understanding that he had something new to say, just that he was unlocking and revealing the spiritual truth and meaning of the words he's already given us.

I think that's why we're not agreeing.

I think Denver Seminary is considered to be a 'good' seminary..

Here is the link to their faculty:
https://denverseminary.edu/about/our-faculty/
Note the caps and gowns
Are they celebrating God's wisdom and accomplishments, or are they really celebrating their own wisdom and accomplishments?

What does God's word tell us?

Matthew 23:5-8
5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi (rabbi means my teacher) by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.

Agabus. Good ole' Agabus. Don't know much about him. Like the name, though.

I was talking about the oracles of God. Paul, being a Jewish Apostle wrote Scripture. Agabus, coming from Jerusalem,(v.27) probably was Jewish but didn't write Scripture.

That's actually called 'illumination', something the Holy Spirit does in His time.

You can call me names all you want! I have a very thick skin and you are a petty and prideful man. There are quite a few people who have gone to seminary in this forum. You basically insult us, when you say "seminaries are off limits." If you had said, "I think seminaries are off limits" or better again, "seminaries are off limit for me" I would have no problems. If you think you can reinvent the wheel, go for it.

I am also a child of God. God is the one who led me to seminary, and now theological school. I learned so many things, despite having read the Bible 25 times when I started. I feel sorry for you, really. The limits you have placed are on yourself, and meanwhile, I am free to examine, discuss and argue, and admit I am wrong (from time to time.)

In fact, all those words come from Greek, which I use. They are simply an easy method to describe something that occurs in the Bible. Theology, for example, comes from theos, and logia. Logia can be used to describe knowledge and understand. Theos is, of course, God. So, when I speak of theology, the majority of people understand I am speaking of "the study/knowledge/understanding of God." I am not sure how that is man made. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong!

Eschatology means "the study of the end." That is accepted by most people who study end times.
Hermeneutic, I confess, I don't have my lexicon near. But it does mean "interpreting the Bible" which people do all day long on this site.

A dispensationalist is someone who follows the 7 dispensations regarding the creation, middle and end times of the world. They are slightly different than historical premillennial, but I will leave that for you to learn. I am not a dispensationalist, but it does not hurt me to know about it, even if it is just to be able to discuss with dispensationalists what they believe.

Most people in this group know these things, I am sorry if you did not. When I first started studying theology, I didn't know a lot of new words. (Not these, these are pretty common). So, I learned them. And I am very glad to hear you escaped from the Catholic religion. God saved me from the New Age mov't. He is the one who turned my life up and down, and made me a new creature in Christ. So we have that in common.

I am sorry if you were insulted, but you insulted me, by putting down seminaries, when you have never attended one. I have "studied to show myself a worker approved" and that is not something anyone should put down. That is Biblical.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15

I also love God more than everything else. Going to seminary and theological just gives me a deeper walk with Christ, and the opportunity to read scholars and determine for myself who I agree with, and who best uses the Bible to come to their conclusions. It has been a deep and amazing journey. I a

Such patience Angela. (sigh)

You are partly right! I was speaking of the specific views of how the end times will unfold, as opposed to the interpretive viewpoints.

"Interpreters of Revelation have done their work with various emphases in mind. Many works on Revelation emphasize its historical background and relationship to the church in the first century. Others emphasize the importance of Revelation as a guide to future events that will occur at the end of time. A third emphasis tends to get less attention than it deserves. It falls in line with an increasingly common recognition that New Testament teaching presents an approach to eschatology that involves a tension between the already and the not yet. For instance, Christians are already new creatures in Christ (realized eschatology), and they will one day dwell with God in his new creation (consummated eschatology). This tension between the already and not yet is prevalent in Revelation. It is true that many aspects of Revelation have to do with consummated eschatology, which is more prevalent in Revelation than it is in the Gospel and Epistles of John. However, Revelation contains a number of elements of realized eschatology that need to be brought out as well. In this commentary, I am interpreting the book of Revelation with an emphasis upon the tension between the already and the not yet. In terms of theological labels, my approach is consistent with a historic premillennial perspective on the book. A historic premillennial perspective appears in certain recent commentaries. Nevertheless, many Christians have had little exposure to this view."
http://exegeticaltools.com/2020/07/30/four-interpretive-approaches-to-revelation/

The blog continues if you want to know more about how the interpretations fit with the eschatological views. I have never heard of an "Eclectic View of End Times" so, you got me there!

None of this is based on putting anyone in a man made box. That is your own paranoia. When I went to seminary, I was taught the interpretations and the eschatological views and then I was told to pick what I wanted. After studying the Bible on my own. I made my decision long before then, but I did read all the views, and picked what I wanted. If I had wanted to invent yet another view I was certainly allowed to do this, but I do know I would have had to support my doctrine in English and Greek/Hebrew! But, the sky is the limit. In fact, theology is always having people who have found something of special importance, and the publish it, and then debate other theologians. Some of these things are very silly, and others are very world shaking! That is what started the Reformation, or for that matter Auza Street and the Pentecostal Mov't.

If you could list the seminaries that are deceived then maybe we could talk about why I don't talk about Liberal or Progressive Seminaries. Because they do not follow the Bible. I would not go to a school or seminary that didn't believe in the Bible, the deity of Christ, or the Trinity. It is incumbent upon the students to dig into what is being taught in these seminaries, before putting down the money to attend. My seminary was excellent, and so is my theological institute. However I think from the way you are talking about seminaries, you have never been to one, and you know nothing about them. Try and be more concrete. Explain a specific seminary which was teaching something wrong. Tell us about people you know who had a bad or good experience. And if you don't know any specifics, you probably don't know a thing. I can vouch for my seminary, and its absolute reliance on the word of God. I agreed with many things, but a few things, I wrote papers to challenge things I didn't believe. I supported my arguments, and never had lower than an A. People were encouraged to see different perspectives, but always supported by Scripture.

If you really don't know about seminaries, and their purposes, then probably you should not post about things you know nothing about.

Thank you for noting the difference between Dispensationism and Historical premillenilaism most do not understand the difference...

I see. But, really, if you call it illumination and I call it revelation, is there really that much difference? But, I think I understand you that all of God's word, spoken and written, were given to the Jews first. Then came to us. If any gentile today is telling the world he's just heard God speak to him with anything other than what we already have in the Bible, I wouldn't believe him. Took me a while to get your point.

Some people believe that if God speaks at all, it is an addition to Scripture; is that your belief? If so, on what basis?

You got my point, and I have no excuse for not being clearer as English is my first language.
As far as the difference between 'revelation' and 'illumination' goes I will look that up tomorrow when I'm more awake. LoL

ok no takers well seminary/bible college is basically just like a 3 year long Bible quiz.
I think people go there just for fun.

I had a friend whos son in law studied theology and she was very dismissive of him for going to theology school, writing books and what not. Now he is teaching or professing. She didnt think he would get a 'real job'. (what exactly is a 'real job' anyway?')

If you are interested in studying all about God then do it but its not essential. I dont think the universe would fall if the seminaries closed but maybe the (catholic) church would collapse.

Actually the Roman Catholic Church thrives on ignorance. Look at her during the Middle Ages and in 3rd world countries.

This wasn"t that easy, after looking at a number of dictionaries (including ISBE) the best I could find was from Vines and the difference wasn't that major, only different Greek words.


ENLIGHTEN/ ILLUMINATION

photizo (φωτίζω, 5461), from phos, “light,” (a), used intransitively, signifies “to give light, shine,” Rev. 22:5; (b), used transitively, “to enlighten, illumine,” is rendered “enlighten” in Eph. 1:18, metaphorically of spiritual “enlightenment”; so John 1:9, i.e., “lighting every man” (by reason of His coming); Eph. 3:9, “to make (all men) see” (RV marg., “to bring to light”); Heb. 6:4, “were enlightened”; 10:32, RV, “enlightened,” KJV, “illuminated.” See illuminated, light. Cf. photismos, “light,” and photeinos, “full of light.”


REVELATION

apokalupsis (ἀποκάλυψις, 602), “an uncovering”, “is used in the NT of (a) the drawing away by Christ of the veil of darkness covering the Gentiles, Luke 2:32; cf. Isa. 25:7; (b) ‘the mystery,’ the purpose of God in this age, Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; (c) the communication of the knowledge of God to the soul, Eph. 1:17; (d) an expression of the mind of God for the instruction of the church, 1 Cor. 14:6, 26, for the instruction of the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 12:1, 7; Gal. 1:12, and for his guidance, Gal. 2:2; (e) the Lord Jesus Christ, to the saints at His Parousia, 1 Cor. 1:7, RV (KJV, ‘coming’); 1 Pet. 1:7, RV (KJV, ‘appearing’), 13; 4:13; (f) the Lord Jesus Christ when He comes to dispense the judgments of God, 2 Thess. 1:7; cf. Rom. 2:5; (g) the saints, to the creation, in association with Christ in His glorious reign, Rom. 8:19, RV, ‘revealing’ (KJV, ‘manifestation’); (h) the symbolic forecast of the final judgments of God, Rev. 1:1 (hence the Greek title of the book, transliterated ‘Apocalypse’ and translated ‘Revelation’).”

You take care and effort to provide me these definitions to help me. You seek the breadth of accumulated worldly knowledge on these matters. And I appreciate that. You do so out of kindness.

You notice I do not. But, I'm about to.

Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Does anyone need worldly definitions to understand that verse? Do we need a filter of worldly definitions and delineations to understand scripture?

Pursuit of worldly knowledge is wearisome; isn't it?

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

A lot of new institutions have emerged since the first century. The Bible mentions the idea of abstaining from fornication and not marrying, which we call celibacy. First a culture of hermits them monasteries emerged around this. Later, universities emerged from monasteries. Seminaries also developed.

I do not see it as sinful to study at a seminary. I so see some problems with the Bible college and seminary system as it exists in some denominations.

- Appointing individuals for an overseership role in the church based on their seminary or Bible college education, and not whether they meet the Biblical qualifications.
----Appointing the educated who are Biblically unqualified.
-------E.g. Formally educated individuals who are too immature to be qualified being appointed rather than qualified individuals within the assembly who did not go the seminary route.
----Excluding the Biblically qualified who do not follow the seminary or Bible college career route.
- Requiring individuals to pay large amounts of money or go into debt to be ordained to minister.
- Getting away from the Biblical pattern of itinerant ministers training other ministers and leaders and teachers within the church training others within the assembly.
- Liberal theology combined with unbelief in some seminaries or mindless indoctrination of some Bible colleges or seminaries depending on the school.
- Some institutions teaching students enough about Hebrew, Greek, ancient culture, etc. to make them dangerous without teaching them care in how they teach or to restrain pretentiousness when it comes to their expertise.
- Reinforcement of the idea that overseership is a career track like being an engineer or M.D. Go to school, get the formal education credentials, then get a job.
- Reinforces the idea of hiring an outside professional rather than the Biblical pattern of elders being appointed from within their own congregation.
- Can reinforce the unbiblical elder-pastor paradigm some churches have inherited based on the influence of the Reformed movement.

There are also denominations that focus on a 'call to preach' and preaching ability. One of the downsides of this way of thinking is that sometimes Biblical qualifications for overseer are overlooked if people believe the individual is 'called' to preach or pastor. One can have a gift and not be qualified for the role based on the qualifications in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. There are a number of gifts, and some denominational traditions roll them all into the clergy role in their thinking.

IMO, the system makes more sense if it is disconnected from the clergy career track and ministers and churches take a sense of responsibility for training leaders, especially those who are qualified from within their own assembly.

I do not believe that. I do not believe that God is speaking in addition to the Scripture at all.

This is a video I saw a while back that discusses the issue:

George Patterson (not the guy in the video above) has had a lot to say on the topic from a missiological perspective. He helped start a large movement of house churches in Central America, working with villagers who did not have the highest levels of education, and he has coached a lot of missionaries in the 'church planting movements' types of ministry. Patterson has taught at seminaries, but realizes the idea that seminary qualifies for degrees creates a lot of problems. I recall a little article he and a coworker emailed out that described how in spite of the research, churches would send out their 'best and brightest' young people to study at seminaries, who would come back with an attitude about how smart they are, eager to tell those who were actually Biblically qualified what to do. This was many years ago, but that was the general gist of it.

I believe Ephesians 4:11-12: "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ." It doesn't really say if this has to always occur in a church setting, but I personally believe it works best that way—that is, as long as the church works like it's supposed to and isn't dysfunctional.