Seminary Knowledge and Atypical Beliefs

[Youssarian]

I've come to know two men who are both older than me (one is in his upper twenties, and the other is about 40). They both went through seminary. And now, after their seminary studies, they do not strike me as "orthodox" Christians. By "orthodox" I mean belief in things such as this:

• Acceptance of the Trinity
• Biblical inerrancy/Bible as final authority
• The importance of attending church
• Salvation through faith alone
• Jesus as the only way to God
• Correct morality as laid out in the Bible
• The concept of a personal relationship with God

And others. However, both of these men reject at least one of these. The younger man believes the Bible is a good book, but errant, does not attend church but rather gets edification from friends, and seems to be very relativistic concerning morality and even what it means to be Biblical. He also has expressed a dislike of apologetics, favoring a "by faith only!" approach. The older man is non-trinitarian and rejects the notion of a personal relationship with God in lieu of God having a relationship with the church body as a whole.

As I said, both of these men are seminary graduates. They understand what the early church is like, and I'm sure that the church of the apostolic age greatly differs with the church of today. Both men strike me as liberal in regards to morality and theology (the older man to a lesser extent). I suppose this question is more aimed towards those who have been through seminary. There is this standard, "orthodox", Christianity which laymen most commonly experience. It's what I've experienced most of my Christian life. When you go to seminary, I would presume you learn historical, logical and theological truths that aren't common knowledge in the laity. Is that true? And if so, does it explain why a seminary-trained person would act and believe so notably different from the typical person, such as what these two men do? And if so, why would they not share that knowledge to bring the body of Christ closer to the actual truth? Or is it that they do share that knowledge, but it is processed slowly - or not at all - by laity or even resisted since it doesn't conform to what they already believe?

[parsonsmom]

Shalom Youssarian;
Not everyone; I attended Rhama Bible College; and that is not what I got; I got Pure Gospel teachings.

There is a very goodschool in Cleveland,Tn. New Life Bible School.
Blessings of Abraham on you.
Don't allow people to bring you down.Parsonsmom.

[Boo]

It would seem from the crop of seminatry graduates that are entering the ministry (and those who graduate but don't enter) that not all of them went for the same reasons or managed to keep their faith while attending.

Graduating from seminary is no sign of Christianity or belief. It has nothing to do with one's ability to teach or shepherd. It is a school.

Everything that we desire to see from a graduate can be seen in those who did not ever attend one as well. Its a God thing.

[shepherdsword]

It would seem from the crop of seminatry graduates that are entering the ministry (and those who graduate but don't enter) that not all of them went for the same reasons or managed to keep their faith while attending.

Graduating from seminary is no sign of Christianity or belief. It has nothing to do with one's ability to teach or shepherd. It is a school.

Everything that we desire to see from a graduate can be seen in those who did not ever attend one as well. Its a God thing.

The problem is Boo,is that we have reduced God's call for ministry to a profession. Out of all the early apostles only one attended some kind of seminary and that was Paul. The rest moved in the power and anointing that came from knowing Jesus.

[Boo]

The problem is Boo,is that we have reduced God's call for ministry to a profession. Out of all the early apostles only one attended some kind of seminary and that was Paul. The rest moved in the power and anointing that came from knowing Jesus.

Yes, we have. We have also demeaned the calling that others have recieved from God to preach and teach and count them as unqualified if they have not attended seminary. That's a man thing.

[episkopos]

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

[nimblewillsgrace]

I've come to know two men who are both older than me (one is in his upper twenties, and the other is about 40). They both went through seminary. And now, after their seminary studies, they do not strike me as "orthodox" Christians. By "orthodox" I mean belief in things such as this:

• Acceptance of the Trinity
• Biblical inerrancy/Bible as final authority
• The importance of attending church
• Salvation through faith alone
• Jesus as the only way to God
• Correct morality as laid out in the Bible
• The concept of a personal relationship with God

And others. However, both of these men reject at least one of these. The younger man believes the Bible is a good book, but errant, does not attend church but rather gets edification from friends, and seems to be very relativistic concerning morality and even what it means to be Biblical. He also has expressed a dislike of apologetics, favoring a "by faith only!" approach. The older man is non-trinitarian and rejects the notion of a personal relationship with God in lieu of God having a relationship with the church body as a whole.

As I said, both of these men are seminary graduates. They understand what the early church is like, and I'm sure that the church of the apostolic age greatly differs with the church of today. Both men strike me as liberal in regards to morality and theology (the older man to a lesser extent). I suppose this question is more aimed towards those who have been through seminary. There is this standard, "orthodox", Christianity which laymen most commonly experience. It's what I've experienced most of my Christian life. When you go to seminary, I would presume you learn historical, logical and theological truths that aren't common knowledge in the laity. Is that true? And if so, does it explain why a seminary-trained person would act and believe so notably different from the typical person, such as what these two men do? And if so, why would they not share that knowledge to bring the body of Christ closer to the actual truth? Or is it that they do share that knowledge, but it is processed slowly - or not at all - by laity or even resisted since it doesn't conform to what they already believe?

Do you believe a person who had no teaching from men and only read the Bible would come up with your same list on their own?

Think of the number of ways that scripture says we can enter the kingdom and the number of times it tells us to go to church?

[glad4mercy]

I've come to know two men who are both older than me (one is in his upper twenties, and the other is about 40). They both went through seminary. And now, after their seminary studies, they do not strike me as "orthodox" Christians. By "orthodox" I mean belief in things such as this:

• Acceptance of the Trinity
• Biblical inerrancy/Bible as final authority
• The importance of attending church
• Salvation through faith alone
• Jesus as the only way to God
• Correct morality as laid out in the Bible
• The concept of a personal relationship with God

And others. However, both of these men reject at least one of these. The younger man believes the Bible is a good book, but errant, does not attend church but rather gets edification from friends, and seems to be very relativistic concerning morality and even what it means to be Biblical. He also has expressed a dislike of apologetics, favoring a "by faith only!" approach. The older man is non-trinitarian and rejects the notion of a personal relationship with God in lieu of God having a relationship with the church body as a whole.

As I said, both of these men are seminary graduates. They understand what the early church is like, and I'm sure that the church of the apostolic age greatly differs with the church of today. Both men strike me as liberal in regards to morality and theology (the older man to a lesser extent). I suppose this question is more aimed towards those who have been through seminary. There is this standard, "orthodox", Christianity which laymen most commonly experience. It's what I've experienced most of my Christian life. When you go to seminary, I would presume you learn historical, logical and theological truths that aren't common knowledge in the laity. Is that true? And if so, does it explain why a seminary-trained person would act and believe so notably different from the typical person, such as what these two men do? And if so, why would they not share that knowledge to bring the body of Christ closer to the actual truth? Or is it that they do share that knowledge, but it is processed slowly - or not at all - by laity or even resisted since it doesn't conform to what they already believe?

Sadly, wolves in sheeps clothing have invaded pulpits, classrooms, colleges, and seminaries. This is why I say that seminary education may be a good thing, but be very careful which seminary you choose. We are in the midst of an apostasy which is taking many different forms, but proceeding from the same root of unbelief, (Denial of the word of God) . It's all the same lie as the one uttered on the day that the serpent said, " Did God really say that?" We need to decide once and for all if we're going to believe God or believe the serpent.

The only way to discern the lies of the serpent is to have an unction from the Holy One and be thouroughly familiar with the truth. Sanctify them by thy truth. Thy Word is Truth. ( John 17:17)

[PJW]

Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Then He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jo 8:32, 34)
Ask them if they still commit sin. If they say "yes", then whatever they follow is not the truth. If they say "no", then ask them to explain 1 John 1:8. If they can explain it, and live without sin, then they are on to something.

[nimblewillsgrace]

Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Then He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jo 8:32, 34)
Ask them if they still commit sin. If they say "yes", then whatever they follow is not the truth. If they say "no", then ask them to explain 1 John 1:8. If they can explain it, and live without sin, then they are on to something.

Do you sin? I mean ever miss the mark? Ever?

[Youssarian]

Do you sin? I mean ever miss the mark? Ever?

I'd like to know that answer also.

[Watchman]

Do you sin? I mean ever miss the mark? Ever?

I do. Sadly, yes, I do. However, I do not live in a lifestyle of ongoing sin. Sin is not my master. Commiteth is in the present tense, which means sin is an ongoing thing in one's life..a lifestyle.

W

[Reynolds357]

I've come to know two men who are both older than me (one is in his upper twenties, and the other is about 40). They both went through seminary. And now, after their seminary studies, they do not strike me as "orthodox" Christians. By "orthodox" I mean belief in things such as this:

• Acceptance of the Trinity
• Biblical inerrancy/Bible as final authority
• The importance of attending church
• Salvation through faith alone
• Jesus as the only way to God
• Correct morality as laid out in the Bible
• The concept of a personal relationship with God

And others. However, both of these men reject at least one of these. The younger man believes the Bible is a good book, but errant, does not attend church but rather gets edification from friends, and seems to be very relativistic concerning morality and even what it means to be Biblical. He also has expressed a dislike of apologetics, favoring a "by faith only!" approach. The older man is non-trinitarian and rejects the notion of a personal relationship with God in lieu of God having a relationship with the church body as a whole.

As I said, both of these men are seminary graduates. They understand what the early church is like, and I'm sure that the church of the apostolic age greatly differs with the church of today. Both men strike me as liberal in regards to morality and theology (the older man to a lesser extent). I suppose this question is more aimed towards those who have been through seminary. There is this standard, "orthodox", Christianity which laymen most commonly experience. It's what I've experienced most of my Christian life. When you go to seminary, I would presume you learn historical, logical and theological truths that aren't common knowledge in the laity. Is that true? And if so, does it explain why a seminary-trained person would act and believe so notably different from the typical person, such as what these two men do? And if so, why would they not share that knowledge to bring the body of Christ closer to the actual truth? Or is it that they do share that knowledge, but it is processed slowly - or not at all - by laity or even resisted since it doesn't conform to what they already believe?

What kind of seminary did they go to? There are many, many liberal denominations out there.

[Watchman]

What kind of seminary did they go to? There are many, many liberal denominations out there.

Which seminaries are liberal, and which teach truth? Could it be that the Spirit can use either to teach, if the heart of the disciple is right?

W

[Reynolds357]

Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Then He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jo 8:32, 34)
Ask them if they still commit sin. If they say "yes", then whatever they follow is not the truth. If they say "no", then ask them to explain 1 John 1:8. If they can explain it, and live without sin, then they are on to something.

You might want to study the translation process in play that yielded the English translation "committeth."