A Case for Formal Theological Training

Wormwood · Oct 17, 2013

Asyncritus,

Thanks for your response. I have added my comments under your statements to make it easier to follow.

Asyncritus said:
I am personally very heavily against 'theologians' and 'theological training' in general.

Simple reasons.

1 Jesus and His apostles had no time whatsoever for the theologians of the day. In fact He roundly condemned 'the traditions of the elders - the theologians - for their false doctrines and evil practices.

What makes the modern churches any different?

Condemning the "traditions of the elders" for their false doctrines and evil practices is far different than condemning the study of the Scriptures.

2 It was the theologians of the day who were baying for His blood, and later, the blood of His disciples. Saul, you may recall, was one of the foremost, 'breathing out threatenings and murder' against his disciples. You can be sure that there were many other 'theologically trained' besides him. He is but the tip of the iceberg.

You are assuming that theological training makes someone a blood thirsty Christ-denier. I think this is a terribly misguided assumption. There were many "theologians" who became Christians after hearing the Gospel (Acts 6:7).

3 Paul cast aside all his 'theological training' and 'counted it but dung'. Why? Because it was his 'theological training' that caused him to be such a violent persecutor of the church.

What makes you think things are better today?

Paul cast aside confidence in his flesh that established his relationship with God (i.e. circumcision, birthright, titles, works of the law, etc.) He did not say his formal learning of God's Word was dung. It was his confidence in his own accomplishments that he set aside. Yes, if someone is being theologically trained as a way to earn their righteousness, then they should abandon it. But that is not what theological training is about.

Look at where the 'theologians' have led the churches today, and be afraid.

There are no good churches in the world?

The doctrines of the catholic and anglican churches, with so little connection with scripture, have been created by whom? Answer: the theologians.

Huh? I think this statement is void of any historical understanding.

The random doctrines of the random churches dotted around have been created and led by whom? The 'theologians'.

So we would all be one joyous church with no doctrinal differences without theologians? Again, this comment is void of any historical understanding of how denominations came into existence. It had a lot more to do with nationalism and the Reformation than it did theologians sitting in ivory towers.

Are you aware that the 'theologians' of the Graf-Wellhausen schools created that most evil system known so presumptuously as the higher criticism? Which postulated that the prophets couldn't prophesy, that Moses and Abraham couldn't write, and were mere fictions? That the Exodus did not take place, that Sinai was a myth, that Daniel was a fake?

And that those attitudes still permeate the universities and seminaries of today? Do you doubt that? Then let me tell you that the dating of the gospels by these 'theologians' all, practically without exception, say sometime between AD75 -100. And do you know why?

Because they cannot accept that Jesus could have spoken the Olivet prophecy, with its incredibly detailed account of what was going to happen in the Fall of Jerusalem. Therefore the gospels had to be written post-AD70!Such are their doctrines.

The worst part of all this is that in a college, university or seminary, you absorb these things subconsciously, by osmosis as it were. Perhaps no one comes out and says 'inspiration is nonsense'. but it is implied, and the attitudes absorbed, to the unconscious detriment of the scholar.

This is a silly argument. Its similar to the argument that people make saying they wont believe in Christianity because of the inquisition. Linking every theological institution to liberal theologies betrays a great deal of ignorance about "theological institutions" and what they teach.

But it is by their fruits that you shall know them. And what bitter fruits they are!

NT Wright wrote that one could not progress (in the anglican church, presumably) unless one held to the enlightenment philosophy. And a cardinal feature of that philosophy is the belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

How can that be since NT Wright believes in the resurrection?

Can you believe that? And these people who 'progress' in the church, stand there every week proclaiming a 'gospel' which is bereft of the resurrection of Christ, and with no awareness of exactly why it is such an important thing. Do you know why it is so important? Did they teach you at university or wherever?

It was the resurrection which powered the teaching of the early church. It was the power of faith in it that made Paul do as he did, and made the apostles willing to die for their beliefs. 'If Christ be not raised', he said. 'your faith is vain, and ye are yet in your sins'. Do you believe that, despite your theologians? And do you know why it is so vital a doctrine?

Um, every Seminary I have been to believes in the resurrection and teaches it as one of the cornerstones of our faith. What are you talking about?

It is no wonder people leave in droves. They are without hope - destroyed by the 'theologians'. So why hang around?

It is the theologians who have created the monumental edifices we see.

Who created the astonishingly unscriptural doctrines of the catholic and anglican churches? Why, their theologians , of course.

And the random and varied doctrines of the various denominations all over the place. Who created those? Why, their theologians, of course.

Who caused the accumulation of enormous quantities of wealth, in assets, land and bullion by the churches everywhere? Why, their theologians, of course.

The trouble , of course, is that these things snowball. One early mistake, and a titanic result follows. Build one building, then another then another and you end up with cathedrals and the most astonishing and expensive structures imaginable - all in the name of Him who had nowhere to lay His head! Who promoted all this one asks? Why, the theologians, of course.

And they keep writing books in their ivory towers. Why aren't they out there 'preaching the gospel'? Instead of flooding the world with paper? To make money, of course, and reputations!

Those are some of the reasons why I have little use for 'theology' and 'theologians'.

To the Law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because they have no light in them (Isa.8.20) Looks like he had the same problems in his day.

The scriptures are enough for any one. They speak at every level: to the brilliant and to the infant. No one is excluded.

They are available almost everywhere today, thanks to those wonderful men, many of whom were burnt by the 'theologians' of their day..

Beware of them, I say.

You paint with a very broad brush and make a whole lot of assumptions that are silly and inaccurate. These arguments are like me saying, "You cant be a Christian leader without a theological degree. Look at David Koresh! Beware! Ignorant Bible teachers lead to cults and unscriptural teaching. Look at Jim Jones and the People's Temple! Just look at Joseph Smith! Non-trained leaders create cults!" Its just silly argument that is not a reflection of reality. Anyone can point to a bad example and make a general rule, but it is not persuasive or legitimate.

Prentis said:
We settle for the seminaries for the institutions, for the ways of men because of unbelief. It is because we do not believe in the transforming power of God to the utmost. We might believe it 10%, 50%, 90%, but we do not believe God will do just what he has said, and prepare a bride without spot and wrinkle who will be perfect.

How is committing one self to the disciplined study of God's Word a form of unbelief? I am mystified.

We settle and we do not see, Israel also settled. They would settle for less then the calling, they would be lukewarm. Didn't God send prophets to awaken Israel? To call her back to what she should be? But the prophets were hated.

God sent the prophets because they had either rejected or ignored his Word. Not because they studied it diligently.

The theologians of the day settle with the current state, but if we are to bring life to the world, we must come with the truth of the radical and great call of God. It is unbelief that says 'things have always been so, why try to change them?'

I am not suggesting we settle for anything. But what I am saying is that it is immaturity and the lack of knowledge of God and His Word that ails the church. There will always be new and immature Christians and the Scriptures command us to study, rightly divide the Word, and go on to maturity. I think the classroom setting is a very viable way to accomplish this. Can you show me how this type of formal study of the Bible is errant and leads people way from "the radical and great call of God"?

But we are to be bearers of what is to this world a foreign but most powerful transforming Spirit which calls us to a life so different and peculiar. If we are not strangers and pilgrims on this earth, we need to examine ourselves, and if we are accepted and loved of the world, we need to ask ourselves serious questions, because they loved the false prophets also.

This post might seem harsh, but I say it in hopes that people would see. We have removed ourselves so far from our calling as a body... May we "repent therefore, and be zealous" (Revelations 3, to the Laodiceans, who believed they needed nothing).

Prentis · Oct 18, 2013

Dodo_David said:
No, he didn't. Paul's theological training is used throughout his epistles.

Asyncritus, you are saying that all theologians are wrong, but you give me no reason to believe that you are right.

You mean he kept stoning spirit filled Christians after conversion?

He might of used his knowledge of the word, head knowledge, but only along with the new nature. His head knowledge was also what he used when he approved of the stoning of Stephen. Is the head knowledge the key? Obviously not.

The ways that he learned, what he thought he had learned from his theological training, he had to set aside, otherwise he would of continued to do as the Pharisees, who taught him these things.
Wormwood,

It is the lack of knowledge of God and his Word that ails the church. Yet we have available today through the internet and our libraries more commentaries, more versions, more preachings, and more sermons that any generation before us.

Do we not read enough? Yet we have so many seminaries with people reading every day. Do we not study enough? People get doctorates in theology and divinity.

What we lack, as Asyncritus pointed out, is the resurrection life. No, not a doctrine of resurrection. Not the belief that Jesus was raised, nor the belief we all will be raised. What we lack is the power of his resurrection, the life. Doctrine is important, as long as it is used to protect the life. But if we do not have the life to start with, all our doctrine is useless.

We teach about the resurrection, we talk about the resurrection, like every other subject, we beat it to death. But do we have the life? You associate rightly dividing the word of God and studying with coming to maturity. But are you really speaking of a maturity in the Spirit, where we walk as he walked, as the NT speaks of? Or do you only mean to be 'mature' in our doctrine, how we lay it out, how we so neatly believe and recite? We are not called to believe the New Testament just in the sense of believing that it really happened and those people really were God's people. The Pharisees also believed Moses was a prophet, and they were right. We are called to walk in the same life as the did, and the bear the fruit that they did.

Once again, Asyncritus pointed it out: you will know them by their fruits. Are we living and walking the saints in the New Testament?

It is not that studying is unbelief. It is that the institutions and seminaries have, as you, settled for the fact that we won't be conformed to Jesus, they have settled for the fact we are not like him, and will not be. They have settled for the fact we are not a bride without spot or wrinkle, which Christ will come back for, and in their eyes we will not be. The western church at large has accepted our falling short and explained it away to make it acceptable. This is the unbelief: it does not believe in the power of God to do what he says, and it lowers the standard that we might consider ourselves to be fit for the calling.

The Pharisees studied endlessly, but they did not have the faith they were called to. So we also study endlessly, but fall short of the faith and life we are called to in the Spirit in Christ Jesus.

Wormwood · Oct 18, 2013

Prentis,

To put the matter simply and as clear as I know how... No one is opposed to the spiritual maturity and life of the Spirit you speak of. However, you are in error in youru assumption that theological institutions do not care for such matters or that formal theological study is only concerned about intellectual matters. I would encourage you to not speak of things with such criticism that you have never experienced first hand.

Dodo_David · Oct 18, 2013

Dodo_David said:
No, he didn't. Paul's theological training is used throughout his epistles.

Asyncritus, you are saying that all theologians are wrong, but you give me no reason to believe that you are right.

Prentis said:
You mean he kept stoning spirit filled Christians after conversion?

Is that your attempt at sarcasm?

He might of used his knowledge of the word, head knowledge, but only along with the new nature. His head knowledge was also what he used when he approved of the stoning of Stephen. Is the head knowledge the key? Obviously not.

You are assuming something that is unproven by Scripture, that Paul's head knowledge is what made him a persecutor of the Church.
It was his spiritual condition that did it. In John 6:44 and in John 6:65, Jesus states what must happen in order for a person to become a believer in Jesus.

The ways that he learned, what he thought he had learned from his theological training, he had to set aside, otherwise he would of continued to do as the Pharisees, who taught him these things.

You imply that nothing that the Pharisees knew was correct. What you imply isn't necessarily correct. They knew the teachings of the Tanakh, but they added their traditions to those teachings. Paul learned to reject the traditions without rejecting the Tanakh.

Wormwood,

I am not Wormwood, but I will respond anyway.

It is the lack of knowledge of God and his Word that ails the church.
According to whom? You? You haven't demonstrated that your claim is correct. You just keep repeating it.

Yet we have available today through the internet and our libraries more commentaries, more versions, more preachings, and more sermons that any generation before us.

Do we not read enough? Yet we have so many seminaries with people reading every day. Do we not study enough? People get doctorates in theology and divinity.

What we lack, as Asyncritus pointed out, is the resurrection life.
Again, you make a claim without evidence to support it.

No, not a doctrine of resurrection. Not the belief that Jesus was raised, nor the belief we all will be raised. What we lack is the power of his resurrection, the life.
You claim that we have such a lack, but your claim is without merit.

Doctrine is important, as long as it is used to protect the life. But if we do not have the life to start with, all our doctrine is useless.

We teach about the resurrection, we talk about the resurrection, like every other subject, we beat it to death. But do we have the life? You associate rightly dividing the word of God and studying with coming to maturity. But are you really speaking of a maturity in the Spirit, where we walk as he walked, as the NT speaks of? Or do you only mean to be 'mature' in our doctrine, how we lay it out, how we so neatly believe and recite? We are not called to believe the New Testament just in the sense of believing that it really happened and those people really were God's people. The Pharisees also believed Moses was a prophet, and they were right. We are called to walk in the same life as the did, and the bear the fruit that they did.

Once again, Asyncritus pointed it out: you will know them by their fruits. Are we living and walking the saints in the New Testament?

It is not that studying is unbelief. It is that the institutions and seminaries have, as you, settled for the fact that we won't be conformed to Jesus, they have settled for the fact we are not like him, and will not be. They have settled for the fact we are not a bride without spot or wrinkle, which Christ will come back for, and in their eyes we will not be. The western church at large has accepted our falling short and explained it away to make it acceptable. This is the unbelief: it does not believe in the power of God to do what he says, and it lowers the standard that we might consider ourselves to be fit for the calling.

Again, you make a negative claim against institutions, seminaries and Wormwood that is without merit.
It is as if Chicken Little were saying, "The sky is falling" because an acorn fell on his head.

The Pharisees studied endlessly, but they did not have the faith they were called to. So we also study endlessly, but fall short of the faith and life we are called to in the Spirit in Christ Jesus.

Same merit-less claim, different paragraph.

This Vale Of Tears · Oct 19, 2013

Prentis said:
I could beat around the bush, but I know that at least a good part of this has come from what I have said.

If you take what I have said to be a condemnation and judgment on individuals, and to be angry and opposed in a personal way to them, either I did not communicate well, was misunderstood, or both. My contention is not with the individuals in this system, but with the system itself. I could go on, but to keep it simple and short, I see a powerless Christianity here in the west. Yes, we do great things in our own strength, but not much more than loving and motivated Hindus might. But we are not for the greater part walking in heavenly power and endowment, and we are not for the most part dying daily as we are called to that we might be conformed to him. Others say it better:

I'm already seeing where this is getting off track. You talk about doing things "in our own strength" which I find similar to the accusation that we are doing things not for the glory of God or not placing Jesus first, etc. Hebrews 4 says that the word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, but we seem all to eager to make that judgment ourselves in a ridiculous game of "holier than thou" that we should rise above. By what evidence do you say the Western church is doing things in their own strength and no a reliance on God? Moreover, if I'm reading you right, individuals "can do all things through Christ who gives (them) strength" but organizations comprised of Christians cannot?

If I see aright, the cross of popular evangelicalism is not the cross of the New Testament. It is, rather, a new bright ornament upon the bosom of a self-assured and carnal Christianity. The old cross slew men, the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it. (A.W. Tozer)

We're all familiar with the image of the cross without splinters, without weight, and without shame. Christianity is a process of sanctification. Peter went from being so afraid that he denied the Lord to going willingly to Rome to embrace the martyrdom to which he was called. But again, if I'm reading you right, individuals bear the cross, dragging it down the Via Dolorosa while Christian institutions have a gold plated cross that never asks any sacrifice of them. Tell me if this is a strawman, please, because I'm not trying to misunderstand you.

I'm not here in this thread to start another endless argument, I'm just telling you what I see... I think that is clearly our point of disagreement. Where I see us coming short of the calling and not doing what we should, you see us doing fine. I guess it comes down to both of us having a radically different definition of what the new life in Christ Jesus is, and looks like.

Here's what I see. I see Christians rough before the refining process of sanctification still struggling with rebellion. Yes, I'm well aware of people who contend with the pastor during services thinking they have a word from God for the pastor, I've seen it. I'm also aware of people who disdain theological training and official ordinations because they are going about their own "ministry" and don't like to be told that a willing heart is not enough. It may shock you when I say that submission to "the system" (your words) is tantamount to submission to God. Because people who say they submit themselves to God but don't submit themselves to those God calls to leadership are fooling themselves and have not overcome the rebellion that characterized their BC days.

mjrhealth · Oct 20, 2013

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

You read teh bible it tells you about Jesus,
You go to church they should be telling you about Jesus,
you go to Bible college same thing they should be telling you about Jesus,
you watch videos, liisten to CDs, seminiray school what ever, they should be telling you about Jesus,
How many time do you need to be told before you do what He asked,

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

All teh knowlegde of teh world does noit replace teh knowledge of " Knowing Him". andd I dont mean about Him.

In all His Love

Wormwood · Oct 20, 2013

Yes mj,

And we know Him through the Word and through his Spirit which is expressed through teaching and other gifts at work among believers. Knowing Him is not about naval gazing. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

mjrhealth · Oct 21, 2013

And we know Him through the Word

No the bible which is not His Word can only tell you " about " Him as is all that " reading " can do because it is all the " dead letter" and has no life which is why He said'

"Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So many know " about " Him so few Know Him

In all His Love

Prentis · Oct 21, 2013

This Vale of Tears,

You say submission to the current institution is equal to submission to God. To which, the catholic church, the orthodox church, the lutheran church, presbyterian church, baptist church, evangelical church, etc? I assume you are catholic, so catholic is what you would answer. In which case, how is that the catholics claim they are the leaders established by God, and so do the orthodox, the lutheran, so on so on?

You will say Catholics were the first, the original. I would say they are the original imitation, the first to try and imitate what the apostles and early church did. God does not choose men according to man's wisdom. By who's will do men choose to go to seminary, and become leaders, the will of God or the will of men?

Again, you might say God's. But I would contend that the fruit is not according to the biblical pattern of men called of God.

Should Jesus have submitted to the leadership of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

Amen mj! We must know him in life. Men make doctrines whereby we are saved according to a scheme. But we are truly saved from our present state into a new life when we receive fully of his life and are brought into the life of the Spirit where we do the works of the Father.

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7)

Wormwood · Oct 21, 2013

mjrhealth said:
No the bible which is not His Word can only tell you " about " Him as is all that " reading " can do because it is all the " dead letter" and has no life which is why He said'

"Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So many know " about " Him so few Know Him

In all His Love

mj-

Yes, this defense of theological training (as mentioned before) is not claimed to be a substitute for salvation, grace or the need of the Spirit. The idea that the Spirit and study of the Word are antithetical for so many is a problematic. Everything in this blog assumes that someone has the Spirit and is saved. It is not a defense of theological training rather than having the Spirit, but children of God engaging in theological training. Seminaries are "Christian" and not secular. Their education is based on the teachings of the Bible which include things like grace, the indwelling Spirit and the cross of Christ. Just think about your Sunday experience at church, except every day and far more rigorous study and devotion of the congregation to know the Scriptures and receive evaluation on their understanding and reflections. I really don't understand how this can be viewed so negatively or as unspiritual. If it is unspiritual, then you should quit going to church services because they are highly reflective of the daily activities of a Seminary.

Moreover, the context of 2 Cor. 3:6 is comparing the sufficiency of the old covenant with the need for Christ. It is not an argument that study of the Scriptures is unnecessary or contrary to life of the Spirit. I think this is a prime example of how "knowing" the Scriptures is fundamental to our knowing Christ and his working in our lives. When we take Scripture out of context, our "knowing" Jesus can be very misguided (i.e. health & wealth Gospel, social Gospel, feminist Gospel, etc.). All claim to "know" Him and such subjectivity must be called into question when the one all these groups claim to "know" are in conflict with each other.

marksman · Oct 25, 2013

For what it is worth, I have been on every side of this discussion.

One, I am a bookworm. I am never happier than when I am reading a good book. I have over 1,000 of them in my personal library and love reading them.

Two. I have a theological degree from a bible college and I studied theology as part of my university Arts degree.

Three. I have been a very happy part of churches that only gave lip service to the life and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Four. I have been part of churches that had a life full of the Holy Spirit.

Five. I appreciate and enjoy the ministry of men who are schooled in the word and the Spirit like Derek Prince for example.

Six. I am fairly confident in my ability to study the word for myself and gain knowledge through the Holy Spirit's teaching.

Seven. I have been employed in the Christian book trade in a senior position and have seen all the rubbish that has been published that was nothing more than man's attempts to sound intelligent and a means to make money or push a particular barrow.

Eight. The most profitable and rewarding time in my 60 years as a Christian, having been in church leadership and three para church ministries was when God tapped me on the shoulder and said he wanted me in the wilderness for two years away from all religion becuase he wanted to get religion out of me which surprised me as I did not think I was religious.

Nine. I came out of those two years discovering a God I never knew. I discovered he was crazy about me and wanted to fellowship with me like no other.

Ten, I almost became the Principal of a Bible College but turned it down because they wanted me to be the Business Manager as well.

Soooooooooooooooooooooo....do I support the notion of formal theological training? This is how I see it. Because too many churches are nothing more that religious bless me clubs, there is a dearth of Holy Spirit teaching to equip the saints for the work of ministry, so one almost has to go to a theological institution to learn anything. I believe too that the reason why we have so many para church ministries is becuase too many churches are just playing games.

If you feel the need to become more knowledgeable go to bible school but, and here is the crunch, do not think it qualifies you for anything. What qualifies you for anything is to sit at the feet of the master and learn from him becuase only he can get all that arrogance, pride, selfishness, self serving, jealousy, competitive spirit, holier than thou out of you. Until that is dealt with you are a waste of space for the simple reason you cannot die daily which you are required to do until Jesus has broken you and destroyed the old man so that the new life in Christ can shine through.

My understanding is that it is not an optional extra, it is life itself and without it you are just playing games and pretending to be a Christian.

P.S. Whilst at bible college I did a study of revival and found two things that were common to all of them. One was they were the product of desperate prayer and the other was the presence of a holy God which meant conviction of sin was central to all that happened.

Wormwood · Oct 25, 2013

Marksman,

I appreciate some of your comments. I agree that education is the sole qualifier or identifier of a Christian leader.

I believe too that the reason why we have so many para church ministries is becuase too many churches are just playing games.

Actually, I would argue that many of the parachurch ministries are based out of a poor ecclesiology. I have been involved with parachurch ministries and I think that they often try to function as a church without the church. For instance, many campus ministries are led by a young minister in their 20's who is trying to be cool and reverent in outreach to the college masses. This often leads to bad theology where students are being taught by the latest fad and cutting-edge book and turns "church" into eclectic little groups of like tastes and ages. Many college ministries are nothing more than youth ministry 2.0. Those in parachurch ministries often have little or no accountability from church eldership and are often focused on the church helping them with their agendas rather than using their ministry to build up the church. For instance, college students often engage in campus ministry and as a result have a more negative view of the church because it is not as "relevant" or "authentic." They want the church to be about their peers and their tastes rather than being trained to become servant leaders for others. Students should be trained to love the church and to serve the elderly rather than have distain for them. Campus ministries are just one example, but you get the point.

marksman · Oct 25, 2013

Wormwood said:
Marksman,

Actually, I would argue that many of the parachurch ministries are based out of a poor ecclesiology.

I think that is another issue altogether. I was involved in a University Campus ministry. This particular one functioned as a ministry and a church.

Prior to this ministry, no church was reaching out to the campus students.

There were a couple of Christian groups on campus that never talked to each other and were there for the Christians on campus. There was no evangelism involved.

There were plenty of churches surrounding the campus but not one of them ever got involved in campus evangelism and that was my point. Because the churches were doing nothing, para church ministries eventuated.

Another para church ministry I was involved in was Teen Challenge. Prior to it arriving on the scene, not one church walked the streets to reach out to the prostitutes and drug addicts. TC has evolved and now they work through churches that want to be involved and all new contacts come by referral from the churches.

But again, very few churches have a ministry specifically to prostitutes and druggies.

I am involved in a para church ministry at the moment that reaches out to women who are pregnant and contemplating abortion. We make it possible for them not to abort. I have only ever come across one church in my State that does the same thing.

P.S. From my studies and observations, there are a lot of churches that operate with a poor ecclesiology, even those who are seen as an example to others. But that does not mean all of them are if you get my point.

Search

Search

A Case for Formal Theological Training

Wormwood

Chaps

Prentis

New Member

Wormwood

Chaps

Dodo_David

Melmacian in human guise

This Vale Of Tears

Indian Papist

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member

Wormwood

Chaps

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member

Prentis

New Member

Wormwood

Chaps

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her

Wormwood

Chaps

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her

Similar threads