by CBTSeminary | Jun 20, 2018 | Theology Matters
In the previous (third) post on a biblical philosophy of theological education we came to consider the fact that the specific responsibility for theological education resides with a specified class of men in both the Old and New Testaments. We spent some time reviewing the necessity of this arrangement in New Testament times. We sought to show why such an arrangement is necessary in the New Testament. In this post we now consider the identity and specificity of these arrangements.
2. The Identity of These Arrangements
It is not at all surprising, then, to discover that in the New Testament a permanent class of men occupying an ecclesiastical office described variously as elders, overseers, and pastor-teachers are appointed who have as their distinctive responsibility the teaching of the Word of God (Eph. 4:11-13; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9-11). Nor is it surprising that certain men in the office were to be financially supported so that they might give themselves by way of vocation to the study and teaching of this revelation (1 Cor. 9:13-14; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17-18).
3. The Specificity of These Arrangements
There is a specific passage which addresses with particular relevance the duty of the Christian ministry with regard to theological education. The Christian Ministry as the particular agency for the preservation and communication of Christian Truth to its future teachers is the theme of 2 Timothy 2:1-2.
The Bible reveals that the task of maintaining and promoting Christian truth in the world is not simply or generally the task of the church as a whole. Indisputably, every Christian ought to feel a responsibility in the context of his local church, within the compass of his own gifts, and as suggested by his own complex of duties to promote the truth in the world (Matt. 12:30; 1 Cor. 10:31-11:1). Similarly, each local church as a local manifestation of the universal church must endeavor according to the strength and gifts God has given it to be a pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Indeed, this work is essential to its very identity.
The New Testament makes clear, however, that it is the Christian ministry in particular that is charged with this responsibility. Key here is the Apostle Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:1-2: “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” So key is this passage to a proper understanding of theological education that a brief explanation of its importance must be given here.
First, notice the spiritual commodity which this passage specifies.
The Apostle calls Timothy to be strong in “the grace” that is in Christ Jesus. It has been asserted that the grace mentioned in verse one refers to the doctrines of grace. It is true that one of the clearest and strongest statements of the sovereignty of God’s grace in Paul’s writings is found in the previous chapter at 2 Timothy 1:8-10. The doctrines of sovereign grace are definitely involved in this grace of which Paul speaks here. Thus, Paul, when he speaks of the grace that is in Christ Jesus, is thinking of the entire system of grace and truth contained in the Scriptures. Grace here, then, refers partly or wholly to the system of the doctrines of grace which Paul taught.
This seems to be confirmed by verse two which immediately refers to Christian doctrine in the words, the things which you have heard from me. These words clearly designate Christian doctrine. Paul refers to such doctrine frequently in the surrounding context (2 Tim. 2:8-9; 1:12-14; and 1:8-11). The spiritual commodity which forms the subject and burden of Paul in this passage is the doctrine of grace which he preached. This was the heart of Paul’s message. It was for this grace and in this grace that Timothy was to be strong. Further, it seems to be clearly implied that the way—at least one way—in which he was to be strong in this grace was by communicating it to other faithful men.
An implication of the duty to communicate “the things which you have heard from me” is the careful preservation of the original deposit of truth imparted by Paul to Timothy. It is this Christian truth whole, unimpaired, and unpolluted which must be imparted by Timothy to a new generation of Christian teachers. This means that there must be agreement on the content of those doctrinal “things” which Paul mentions. This means in turn that there must be an agreed upon doctrinal basis for such instruction. Where there is no such agreed doctrinal basis, coherent theological education conducted by more than one man is not possible. Reformed Baptists adopt the 1689 Baptist Confession as the best summary of “the things” which Timothy heard from the Apostle Paul and the best available creedal summary of Apostolic Christianity. Confessional integrity is especially necessary in the theological education of men in the truths of Apostolic Christianity. For Reformed Baptists such confessional integrity means that such instruction will conform in its teaching to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
Second, the spiritual genealogy which this passage envisions.
Four generations of truth are specified by Paul here in verse 2.
- From Me in the presence of many witnesses
- The things which you have heard
- Entrust these to faithful men
- Who will be able to teach others also
Thus, the spiritual genealogy found in this passage runs like this:
- Paul
- Timothy
- Faithful Men
- Others Also
To rightly estimate the importance of this spiritual genealogy for Paul we must remember the poignant circumstances in which these words of 2 Timothy 2:1-2 are written. Paul faces his imminent martyrdom for the sake of Christ (2 Timothy 4:1-8). One of the things most important to the Apostle Paul as he writes Timothy shortly before his death—one of the things of greatest significance to the Apostle with his death clearly on his mind—is the preservation and communication of the truths of the gospel of grace. It is not, however, simply or generally the communication of these truths to all the members of the church which burdens his heart. It is most especially and significantly the communication of these truths to faithful church leaders who will continue the genealogy of truth. That is, it is the instruction of men with the ability to hand down the tradition of truth faithfully to the next generation. Myths and false doctrines will arise and assail the truth of the gospel. Timothy is to combat this, not only through his own ministry to the whole church, but through passing the deposit of truth down particularly to faithful men who will maintain unbroken the genealogy of truth.
Part 5
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | Jun 14, 2018 | Theology Matters
In the last post we were considering the fact that the church has been given the general authority for the theological education of its ministers, now in this post we proceed to …
III. The Specific Responsibility for Theological Education
The work of theological education is assigned throughout the Bible as the specific responsibility of a specified class of men or office in the church. More than one reason for this arrangement may be mentioned. It would certainly be true to say that the supreme importance of Christian truth might warrant that its study and teaching should be made the solemn responsibility of certain men. It is also true that the vast extent of Christian Theology seems to require such an arrangement. Whatever the reason may be for this arrangement, it is the fact of this assignment of the task to a specific class of men which will be particularly emphasized here.
A. The Arrangements in the Old Testament Church
Even in the Old Testament times and within the Old Covenant the extent of this truth was such (and the complications of its application to the corporate life of the people of God were so extensive) that a special class of men or office was appointed which had for a major aspect of its responsibility the study, preservation, and application of this truth. The Levitical priesthood was charged with this responsibility. One of the clearest emphases of the Old Testament Scriptures is that the priest in Israel was to be the reservoir and dispenser of instruction with reference to the holy law of God. Cf. 1 Sam. 2:12, 13; 2 Kings 12:2; 17:27; 2 Chr. 15:3; Ezra 7:6, 10, 11; Neh. 8:1-9; Jer. 2:8; 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Micah 3:11; Mal. 2:1-9. These passages make plain that it was one of the great duties of the priests in Israel to instruct men in the precepts of the law.
B. The Arrangements in the New Testament Church
1. The Necessity of These Arrangements
One might argue that it was the complications introduced by the detailed, ceremonial laws into the life of the people of God which made such a class of teaching priests necessary. Thus, it might be concluded that such a class of men is no longer necessary in regard to the less ceremonial and complicated revelation of the New Covenant. This argument, however, forgets a number of factors unique to the New Covenant.
- First, in the Old Testament period there was a relatively primitive and limited revelation of truth. This is the necessary implication of the doctrine of progressive revelation. Now in the New Covenant we have the final and more extensive revelation of God’s truth (a revelation made “in (His) Son”) in which the radiance of the Word shines more clearly and extensively (Heb. 1:3). While, certainly, some of the difficulties and complications of the ceremonial law have passed away, this greater revelation creates its own more extensive field of study.
- Second, this revelation of truth took place within the relatively insulated and limited context of the Jewish theocracy in the promised land. The application of this primitive revelation in this insulated and limited context was, therefore, much simpler than in the universal context of the New Covenant revelation. The revelation in the New Covenant is not meant to function in the confined context of one nation in a small part of the earth. It is rather meant to function among all nations and to the ends of the earth. This vast field in which the truth is to be applied creates its own complications, especially when we take into account the twisted and depraved character of so many fallen cultures.
- Third, this Old Testament revelation was given to a people of God who spoke the language (Hebrew) in which God had revealed His truth. In the New Covenant the added difficulty of translating the divine revelation originally made in Hebrew and Greek into the multiplied languages of the world must be considered. This complication may be reflected even in the Old Testament period. We are told in Ezra 7:6 and 10 that Ezra was a skilled scribe in the law who had set his heart to study, practice, and teach the law of God. Later we are told that in teaching the people of Israel this law it was necessary for Ezra after the Exile to translate the law (originally given in Hebrew) into the (Aramaic) dialect now spoken by God’s people. Nehemiah 8:8 says: “They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.” Now if such translation (or explanation) was necessary because of a slight change of dialect, it is certainly so now when God’s people speak many very different languages. A truly adequate theological education will require, then, a careful study of the original languages in which God gave divine revelation and the proper way of bringing that revelation into the languages of the many peoples to which it was intended to be taken.
- Fourth, and finally, adding to the comparative extensiveness of theological education in the New Covenant age is the way in which the implications of divine revelation have been displayed over the almost 2000 years of church history. Theological education which did not acquaint the student with these controversies and the way in which they have served to bring out more explicitly the meaning of Scripture would certainly have to be judged defective. On the other hand, acquainting the theological student with those controversies clearly and necessarily adds the department of historical theology to the study of the science of theology.
Part 4
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by CBTSeminary | Jun 11, 2018 | Theology Matters, Uncategorized
While the first post in this series considered “The Material Substance of Theological Education” in this post a second subject comes into view.
II. The General Authority for Theological Education
A. This Authority Identified
The Apostle Paul leaves no doubt as to what agency is responsible for the maintenance and promotion of Christian truth in the world. It is clearly the church of Jesus Christ that is charged with this responsibility. 1 Timothy 3:15 is plain: “… but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”
B. This Authority Specified
The question may be raised, however, as to what Paul means exactly by the term, church, in 1 Timothy 3:15. To be specific, the question is whether Paul is thinking of what theologians have called the universal church or whether he is instead thinking of the local church. This is not a distinction which ought to be too sharply drawn in 1 Timothy 3:15. This is so because it really appears that Paul (in this passage and some others) understands the local church to be a particular expression of the universal church and speaks of it in terms which assume this relationship. It is clear, for instance, in this passage that Paul is writing to Timothy with regard to his particular responsibilities to guide the church in Ephesus and that this is prominent in his thought in this passage. It also seems clear, however, that he regards this church at Ephesus in light of its connection with the universal church. Paul could hardly mean to describe the local church at Ephesus—in itself and by itself—as the house of God, the church of the living God, or the pillar and support of the truth.
Here, then, we must fall back on a broader scriptural understanding of the church and see that each particular church is seen as a local expression of the universal church. Though recognizing their spiritual unity as part of the universal church, Reformed Baptist ecclesiology sees each particular church as governmentally independent and in that sense autonomous. Cf. the 1689 Baptist Confession, chapter 26, paragraphs 5-7. At the same time, it recognizes that it is vital for these churches to cooperate for the better achievement of their tasks in the world. Such cooperation may take many scriptural forms, and in Reformed Baptist life it has taken many forms. According to the Confession it may involve formal associations of churches where this is providentially possible—as long as such associations do not infringe on the independence of the local church. Cf. the 1689 Baptist Confession, chapter 26, paragraphs 14-15. It has often been thought that such tasks as missions (church-planting) and theological education (the training of ministers of the Word or pastor-teachers) especially require, or at least are more easily and better accomplished by means of, such cooperation. It is the assumption of this blog series that this thinking is correct.
Part 3
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | Jun 7, 2018 | Theology Matters
Several years ago as we sought to develop the credibility and expand the usefulness of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, the necessity of having a clear constitution for the Seminary became clear to us. I was charged to write that constitution. That responsibility forced me to think carefully through the philosophy of theological education we had developed as an institution. This philosophy was developed from the Word of God applied to the particular providences which have molded CBTS. It is, of course, altered here somewhat in its form from the Preamble to our Constitution.
I. The Material Substance of Theological Education
The first thing to be considered in a biblical philosophy of theological education is the question, “What is it that theological education seeks to teach?” This question has to do, then, with the material substance of theological education. In what does the subject-matter of theological education consist? That is, “Into what intellectual material does theological education intend to introduce its students?”
A. The Supreme Importance of Christian Truth (John 8:32; 14:6; 17:17, 19; 18:37-38)[i]
Here we must surely remind ourselves of the premium which the religion of the Bible places upon “truth.” As the passages cited above from John’s Gospel make clear, it is the truth which liberates men from the dominion of sin. The Scriptures make clear that this truth is the truth centered in the Mediator who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Those liberated by this truth centered in the one Mediator between God and men are further sanctified in their life and conduct by this truth. Finally, it is this truth, as the passages also make clear, which a fallen world either completely denies or deeply doubts can be known.
B. Christian Theology as Christian Truth
Clearly, theological education has as its goal to acquaint its students with the science of theology. An extended examination of the definition of theology is out of place here. Suffice to say that this essay assumes that theology is the science of God. When properly expanded and analyzed, this definition of theology means: “the science of God and His relations to the universe as He has revealed himself and them for our knowledge and worship unto His glory and our salvation.” If this expanded definition is correct, then theology is substantially identical to (what we have called) Christian truth. The science of theology is simply the systematic or scientific study of Christian truth. Theological Education is, then, the task of educating men in what is the supremely important area of human knowledge, Christian truth.
Thus, the assumption of this attempt to provide a biblical philosophy of theological education is that Christian theology—properly so called and properly understood—is just Christian truth carefully, systematically, comprehensively understood. The science of theology, in other words, is just the science of Christian truth. It is the science of the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph. 4:21)[ii].
PART 2
[i] John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
John 17:17, 19 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
John 18:37-38 Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.
[ii] Ephesians 4:21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
