In the 2007 edition of the Confessional Presbyterian (vol. 3), Dr. Pipa has an article entitled “Seminary Education”. And it is a defense of seminaries as the way
to educate our future pastors. I would
like to challenge that article because I am no longer convinced seminaries are
the way to go.
Dr. Pipa begins by admitting that formerly Presbyterian
ministers were the best educated men in town, and that is no longer true. He admits that this may be the worse trained
generation of ministers ever and points not just to not being the best educated,
but also to the state preaching and churchmanship as proof. He also freely admits the high cost of
maintaining seminaries serves as another strike against seminaries, but he
continues to believe it the best idea.
Dr. Pipa then goes into a biblical defense of
seminaries. The main biblical support
for seminaries is the “sons of the prophets” found in places 1 Samuel
10:5. Dr. Pipa’s main argument appears
to be that there was a group of people called “sons of the prophets” who appear
during the time of Samuel and continue and appear to dwell with prophets and
serve them. Dr. Pipa argues that from
these men are drawn future prophets, so they are sort of a prophet in
training. His proof for the assertion
that most prophets came from the school of the prophets comes from Amos 7:14
where Amos denies being a sons of the prophet, but rather a man who
shepherded. He claims they studied and
became the historians of the divided kingdom and he points to verses like 2
Chronicles 12:15 as proof. Although
those verses speak of Iddo the Seer and names prophets, it never says the
person was from the Sons of the Prophets.
Dr. Pipa also assumes that bible training would have taken place as well
as musical training and poetry readying them for life as a prophet. Dr. Pipa concludes then the Sons of the
Prophets were OT seminaries.
Now, I think this is shaky proof at best. We don’t really have an example of an
attender of the “sons of the prophets” becoming a prophet. Amos specifically says he was not one. Elisha is not one despite the Sons of the Prophets
being around. Isaiah is not one. Jeremiah is not one. Ezekiel is not one. Thoes three were priests. Daniel does not appear to be one. Neither does Zephaniah, who may also have
been a priest. These are a lot of
exceptions. The best picture of someone who
was a son of the prophet being a prophet himself is in 1 Kings 20:35 where a
certain man of the sons of the prophets commanded someone to strike him and he
died when he did not, and that son of the prophet then delivered a prophetic
message to Ahab. Dr. Pipa is assuming
that the rest of the prophets came from the sons of the prophets.
But let me put forth an alternative suggestion. Perhaps these sons of the prophets are the
source for the 400 false prophets of 1 Kings 22. Here there are four hundred men who are
pretending to be prophets of God, but are accepted by the king and many others
as legitimate prophets. I have read some
who suggest these are the 400 prophets of Ashoreth that are not mentioned as
being killed by Elijah on Mt. Carmel, but how would they be accepted as
legitimate if they all switched from Ashoreth to Jehovah? Something has happened to make people believe
these prophets are legitimate. And what
of the false prophets like Hananiah opposing Jeremiah in places like Jeremiah
28? Could they not be products of the
sons of the prophets? It might help us
understand why so many listened to the wrong voices. Would this not mean that the Bible is really
telling us seminaries are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs because
they will lead the church astray? This
seems to fit a bit better with more modern historical evidence like Calvin
Seminary and the CRC or the Mercersburg Seminary and the RCUS.
But in the end, the Bible is not saying either what I just
put forth or what Dr. Pipa puts forth.
We are both drawing conclusions through assumptions. The Bible in the end is not saying anything about
seminaries. Yes, it teaches we should
have an educated clergy (see 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 2). But, the how of that education is really not
spelled out. This gives the church
freedom to do what they deem best to educate men for the ministry.
Next I will look at some of Dr. Pipa’s historical
points.