I think y'all missed the point. We agree that liberalism first takes root in seminaries. When a teaching elder brings that liberalism to a congregation, it is the (so-called) ruling elders that are supposed to intervene. But they're "not qualified" to argue with the (so-called) teaching elder because, after all, he's seminary trained and they're not.

What I am suggesting is that all elders be trained at least to the Bible college level at no financial cost to them through seminars and courses offered through their own church under the guidance of presbytery or something like that.

Perhaps so equipped, they would be better able to guard the flock against the liberalism that creeps in through the "professional" ranks. Seminary officers and faculty should be scrutinized by those trained "ruling" elders and the Standards upheld without the compromises that are allowed because of "professional courtesy" or simply left to continue growing unchallenged by untrained "lay" elders who mount no defense against heresies because "the clergy knows better - they're seminary trained after all." Get my drift now?

For the same reason we believe in plurality of elders, we must train those elders sufficiently to guard the flock against the Clergy Elite and their "superior" professional education.

I'm not suggesting that all elders become "paid staff members" as a vocation, nor that they invest thousands of their own dollars in their training. But I am suggesting that untrained elders are ill equipped to oppose liberalism when it is introduced by a "seminary trained professional."