I'm interested in knowing the names of some well-known theologians/pastors/writers...with no formal seminary training (I have no idea when the first seminary opened) and their backgrounds. The denomination doesn't matter to me at all. If I am not mistaken, Charles Spurgeon, didn't get any special training. The reason that I ask about their background is to see how their experience played a role in connecting dots from the Bible.
If I didn't attend my Men's group but had only a transcript of the discussions with all the speaker identifiers removed, I could still tell who made what comment. This is because we have people with different backgrounds (lawyer, entrepreneur, dance teacher, car repair guy...) and each one has their own angle given their experiences. So it is not tough to predict.
I read from a Faithlife blog that Calvin was a lawyer and, thus, organizing came naturally. As a financial economist, I feel I can connect dots that others can't, simply because our eyes are trained to look for certain angles (example: benefit-cost) that others don't necessarily think of. The frame of reference (or prism or whatever fancy term is used today) is different based on our experience. Hence, I would like to know the background of these well-known Christian theologians/pastors/writers. It will also give a clue to their presuppositions, something everyone has but that we may be blind to. Thus, knowing the background helps understand why they say what they say.
Thanks everyone.
As you know, we like to 'discuss'.
Statistically, the better question would be, (1) who were their parents (perspective growing up), and (2) their close relatives (genetics). Statistical prediction.
1Cor10:31:, knowing the background helps understand why they say what they say.
D.L. Moody did not have any formal training, yet was not opposed to training because he founded a school. Billy Sunday was another revivalist from the late 19th/early 20th centuries, as I recall was a retired Baseball Player.
Modern era - do you want to poke the hornet's nest that is https://www.logos.com/search?query=Mark%20Driscol&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = Logos8 on Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (Win10), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone, [deprecated] Windows App, Proclaim, Faithlife.com, FaithlifeTV via Connect subscription.
DMB: As you know, we like to 'discuss'. Statistically, the better question would be, (1) who were their parents (perspective growing up), and (2) their close relatives (genetics). Statistical prediction.
DMB: Nature vs Nurture is always interesting to me. Logical reasoning has something to do with genes (Nature). People with good logical reasoning skill can sift through the complex cause-effect relationships in the Bible to highlight truths that others can't see.
Of course, God-given nature could be developed/enhanced by nurturing. If people choose their professional career based on nurture-enhanced nature, they would be good in what they do professionally. And this experience is what I had in mind.
David Thomas: D.L. Moody did not have any formal training, yet was not opposed to training because he founded a school. Billy Sunday was another revivalist from the late 19th/early 20th centuries, as I recall was a retired Baseball Player.
Moody is top shelf; thank you.
I found one book of Billy Sunday in Logos. Peeked inside and found a quote I really like: One hundred percent belief in the Christian religion is as necessary to a preacher as knowledge of mathematics is to an engineer. One of the outcomes of my musing over the question that has piqued my interests (why I believe what I believe) is to give certainty to my beliefs. If you asked my beliefs 5 years back, I could tell you what they were, but my confidence was never 100%. Now, I have 100% confidence in many of those beliefs. In some, the confidence went to 0% and were ejected!
David Thomas: Modern era - do you want to poke the hornet's nest that is https://www.logos.com/search?query=Mark%20Driscol&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe
In general, I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Every one of us is screwed up along some dimension, and we all could unearth some truths (which are all from God anyways) and, thus, contribute to society.
Let me also contribute by doing some simple googling:
https://www.challies.com/articles/is-seminary-really-necessary/: Mentions John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones; pretty good names. Haven't verified if true but Tim Challies is a well-respected blogger.
1Cor10:31: DMB: As you know, we like to 'discuss'. Statistically, the better question would be, (1) who were their parents (perspective growing up), and (2) their close relatives (genetics). Statistical prediction. DMB: Nature vs Nurture is always interesting to me. Logical reasoning has something to do with genes (Nature). People with good logical reasoning skill can sift through the complex cause-effect relationships in the Bible to highlight truths that others can't see. Of course, God-given nature could be developed/enhanced by nurturing. If people choose their professional career based on nurture-enhanced nature, they would be good in what they do professionally. And this experience is what I had in mind.
Actually, visa viz your point, the Bible most often points to the father/son relationship (daughters not often traced). And so also, Bible scholars look to the Apostle Paul's father .... after his feet-of seminary. Tent making? Have you looked at Luther yet?
1Cor10:31: (I have no idea when the first seminary opened) and their backgrounds.
I believe the modern seminary arose around the time of the Council of Trent (mid-1500's) but in another sense they go back at least to Antioch and Alexandria in early church history.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
DMB: Actually, visa viz your point, the Bible most often points to the father/son relationship (daughters not often traced). And so also, Bible scholars look to the Apostle Paul's father .... after his feet-of seminary. Tent making? Have you looked at Luther yet?
Thank you for pointing out Luther. I checked my library and I have lots of stuff on Luther - biography, his life, writings, commentaries, summary of his theology etc. I knew his Galatians commentary is famous. So I checked it out. Here is what he says in the preface: For the one doctrine which I have supremely at heart, is that of faith in Christ, from whom, through whom and unto whom all my theological thinking flows back and forth day and night.
It is clear from the above quote the thread that runs through Martin Luther's theology. That is what I am trying to infer from their experience. Because once you know the glue that holds a person's theology together, it is much easier to read their stuff.
MJ. Smith: I believe the modern seminary arose around the time of the Council of Trent (mid-1500's) but in another sense they go back at least to Antioch and Alexandria in early church history.
Thank you MJ. I wouldn't have guessed 1500's for sure. So there must be plenty of non-seminarian theologians whose writings are well-known and respected.
Billy Graham has a degree from Wheaton with a major in Anthropology. He also has a degree from a Bible College - but no seminary training.
Blessings,Floyd
Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
1Cor10:31:If I am not mistaken, Charles Spurgeon, didn't get any special training.
Spurgeon described John Gill (who read lots of books) => The Works of John Gill (19 vols.) in Lectures to My Students:
A very distinguished place is due to Dr. Gill.* Beyond all controversy, Gill was one of the most able Hebraists of his day, and in other matters no mean proficient. When an opponent in controversy had ventured to call him “a botcher in divinity,” the good doctor, being compelled to become a fool in glorying, gave such a list of his attainments as must have covered his accuser with confusion. His great work on the Holy Scriptures is greatly prized at the present day by the best authorities, which is conclusive evidence of its value, since the set of the current of theological thought is quite contrary to that of Dr. Gill. No one in these days is likely to be censured for his Arminianism, but most modern divines affect to sneer at anything a little too highly Calvinistic: however, amid the decadence of his own rigid system, and the disrepute of even more moderate Calvinism, Gill’s laurels as an expositor are still green. His ultraism is discarded, but his learning is respected: the world and the church take leave to question his dogmatism, but they both bow before his erudition. Probably no man since Gill’s days has at all equalled him in the matter of Rabbinical learning. Say what you will about that lore, it has its value: of course, a man has to rake among perfect dunghills and dust-heaps, but there are a few jewels which the world could not afford to miss. Gill was a master cinder-sifter among the Targums, the Talmuds, the Mishna, and the Gemara. Richly did he deserve the degree of which he said, “I never bought it, nor thought it, nor sought it.”
He was always at work; it is difficult to say when he slept, for he wrote 10,000 folio pages of theology. The portrait of him which belongs to this church, and hangs in my private vestry, and from which all the published portraits have been engraved, represents him after an interview with an Arminian gentleman, turning up his nose in a most expressive manner, as if he could not endure even the smell of free-will. In some such a vein he wrote his commentary. He hunts Arminianism throughout the whole of it. He is far from being so interesting and readable as Matthew Henry. He delivered his comments to his people from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence their peculiar mannerism. His frequent method of animadversion is, “This text does not mean this,” nobody ever thought it did; “It does not mean that,” only two or three heretics ever imagined it did; and again it does not mean a third thing, or a fourth, or a fifth, or a sixth absurdity; but at last he thinks it does mean so-and-so, and tells you so in a methodical, sermon-like manner. This is an easy method, gentlemen, of filling up the time, if you are ever short of heads for a sermon. Show your people firstly, secondly, and thirdly, what the text does not mean, and then afterwards you can go back and show them what it does mean. It may be thought, however, that one such a teacher is enough, and that what was tolerated from a learned doctor would be scouted in a student fresh from college. For good, sound, massive, sober sense in commenting, who can excel Gill? Very seldom does he allow himself to be run away with by imagination, except now and then when he tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in every circumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text which is not congenial with his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the word of God into a more systematic shape. Gill is the Coryphœus of hyper-Calvinism, but if his followers never went beyond their master, they would not go very far astray.
C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: Commenting and Commentaries; Lectures Addressed to the Students of the Pastors’ College, Metropolitan Tabernacle., vol. 4 (New York: Sheldon & Company, 1876), 21–24.
Keep Smiling
Logos Wiki Logos 9 Beta Free Support
1Cor10:31: I'm interested in knowing the names of some well-known theologians/pastors/writers...with no formal seminary training (I have no idea when the first seminary opened) and their backgrounds. The denomination doesn't matter to me at all. If I am not mistaken, Charles Spurgeon, didn't get any special training. The reason that I ask about their background is to see how their experience played a role in connecting dots from the Bible. If I didn't attend my Men's group but had only a transcript of the discussions with all the speaker identifiers removed, I could still tell who made what comment. This is because we have people with different backgrounds (lawyer, entrepreneur, dance teacher, car repair guy...) and each one has their own angle given their experiences. So it is not tough to predict. I read from a Faithlife blog that Calvin was a lawyer and, thus, organizing came naturally. As a financial economist, I feel I can connect dots that others can't, simply because our eyes are trained to look for certain angles (example: benefit-cost) that others don't necessarily think of. The frame of reference (or prism or whatever fancy term is used today) is different based on our experience. Hence, I would like to know the background of these well-known Christian theologians/pastors/writers. It will also give a clue to their presuppositions, something everyone has but that we may be blind to. Thus, knowing the background helps understand why they say what they say. Thanks everyone.
Hi there - You might consider A.W. Tozer who was a self-educated pastor, writer and theologian. His ministry over 44 years was with the Christian and Missionary Alliance. His degrees were honorary only. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._W._Tozer
Faithlife has many of his books – and all are worth reading. See https://www.logos.com/search?query=Tozer&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe Keep well Paul
Not exactly what you're looking for, but Karl Barth never finished his doctorate, which is surprising considering the influence he's had.
William MacDonald of Believers Bible Commentary had a business degree from Harvard, but no Seminary training.
Smith Wigglesworth was a plumber. No academic training at all.
Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Seminary Student (VIU).Christian Debate Forum --- Auferstanden! Blog
I don't believe Martyn Lloyd-Jones had any formal theological training. In many circles he's regarded as the finest preacher of the 20th Century.
1Cor10:31: I found one book of Billy Sunday in Logos. Peeked inside and found a quote I really like: One hundred percent belief in the Christian religion is as necessary to a preacher as knowledge of mathematics is to an engineer. One of the outcomes of my musing over the question that has piqued my interests (why I believe what I believe) is to give certainty to my beliefs. If you asked my beliefs 5 years back, I could tell you what they were, but my confidence was never 100%. Now, I have 100% confidence in many of those beliefs. In some, the confidence went to 0% and were ejected!
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, L9
Spurgeon (one of my favorites) is also a phenomenal example of the heights that can be reached without (much - just a year of academy, which isn't seminary) formal education.
Floyd Johnson: Billy Graham has a degree from Wheaton with a major in Anthropology. He also has a degree from a Bible College - but no seminary training.
Thank you Floyd for suggesting Billy Graham; his wiki seems to suggest that he had some sort of formal training
Thank you Keep smiling 4 Jesus for suggesting Spurgeon (one of my favorites too). The few times that I've read Gill's commentaries, I've come away impressed. I might have picked up Gill's name from Lectures to my Students, though can't recall for sure now.
Thank you Paul for suggesting Tozer. I've read his book on Attributes of God, which is really good. I will try to read other books of his.
Thank you Sean for suggesting Karl Barth. Sometime back, I started reading Church Dogmatics. That is a tough slog and I am not sure I'm going back to it. Charles Hodge's systematic theology is a lot easier. Vos was easy too. Calvin was a little hard; not as much as Karl Barth.
Thank you Mark for William MacDonald. I've never heard of his name, so I'll add him to my list.
Thank you Jan for suggesting Smith Wigglesworth. I've never heard of his name either.
Thank you Paul for suggesting Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Others suggested his name too. It is time to read some of his work.