Degree- worth the paper?

[Luke2427]

You invoke "strawman," attempting to say I've distorted your position: let's look at you and your thoughts, and what you've actually wrote (said), and maybe you'll understand why I've drawn the conclusions I have:



Your words. If you can't see even a hint of the things several of us have been trying to tell you about how arrogant this comes across as, well, I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Yea, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE WORDS says nothing about making one BETTER than another.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE WORDS that I said the YOU quote say nothing more than that going to seminary give one MORE KNOWLEDGE than the average layman

I understand what you're trying to say; that the majority of laymen (in your words, average laymen) don't spend extra time studying the bible, and that's why those who do spend the time and money are more equipped to discuss/teach biblical topics. However, your presentation comes across as haughty and prideful--as evidenced by the responses from more than one person in this and other thread.

Two things:

#1- It only comes across haughty to certain people. If you will peruse this thread you will see that there are several people who agree with me, one of which actually SAID I was not being haughty, several of which said the idea that one is haughty for believing that seminary enables one to have more bible knowledge than the average layman is, basically, ridiculous.

So just because three or four people who I think are being irrational on here say I am coming across arrogant certainly doesn't mean it is the case.

To some people, as has been proven in another thread, saying ANYTHING "matter of factly" comes across as arrogant. So I think some people are too intellectually handicapped to be able to really discern what real arrogance is.


#2- I don't care. I don't run poles to determine what I believe. If every single person on this baptistboard said one thing and I believed another, as long as I have a solid hermeneutical case for what I believe, as long as it is logical and within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, I am not bowing. The Holy Spirit, logic, and the Word of God are my ONLY guides.

In the context of the majority of laypersons, compared to those who have studied extensively--whether via seminary or exhaustive self-study--no, no one can argue with you that those who have studied are better prepared to teach the laity;

Then we have an accord. There is no need for you to keep debating me.

but I have to ask: Does it require a seminary degree to preach salvation by grace through faith?

This thread has nothing to do with that.

I personally believe that's where this conversation got muddled in the first place.

Only in the minds of some. There is no reason for it to have become muddled.

I believe you're trying to say that seminary-trained people are better prepared to teach over a period of years/lifetime; while your message, as presented, is being interpreted as "laity need to keep to the pews and let the 'experts' do the preaching."

Only to some. Those who don't follow the actual WORDS we say but try to reinterpret them in their minds.

Not trying to present any strawmen; presenting your argument based on perception/interpretation of what you've written. And I humbly present to you that, based on what others have written, that perception/interpretation is held by others--and therefore, if a distortion of your position (i.e., "strawman") exists, it's not because of anyone willfully trying to distort your position.

It does not matter what you are TRYING to do- straw man is what you DID.

Two things:

#1- It only comes across haughty to certain people. If you will peruse this thread you will see that there are several people who agree with me, one of which actually SAID I was not being haughty, several of which said the idea that one is haughty for believing that seminary enables one to have more bible knowledge than the average layman is basically ridiculous.

So just because three or four people who I think are being irrational on here say I am coming across arrogant certainly doesn't mean it is the case.

To some people, as has been proven in another thread, saying ANYTHING "matter of factly" comes across as arrogant. So I think some people are too intellectually handicapped to be able to really discern what real arrogance is.

#2- I don't care. I don't run poles to determine what I believe. If every single person on this baptistboard said one thing and I believed another, as long as I have a solid hermeneutical case for what I believe, as long as it is logical and within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, I am not bowing. The Holy Spirit, logic, and the Word of God are my ONLY guides.

 

[preachinjesus]

I think its about time to shut this one down.

 

[Luke2427]

Your reading comprehension is on par with Luke's.

See, Webdog. This is the kind of crud you do and then have the audacity, the unmitigated gall to call others arrogant and abrasive. This is ad hominem. It makes no argument. It only attempts to assault the character of the one with whom you are discussing.

 

[Amy.G]

I think some people are too intellectually handicapped to be able to really discern what real arrogance is.

Sigh. We're just a bunch of dummies.

 

[Don]

Two things:

#1- It only comes across haughty to certain people. If you will peruse this thread you will see that there are several people who agree with ma, one of which actually SAID I was not being haughty, several of which said the idea that one is haughty for believing that seminary enables one to have more bible knowledge than the average layman is basically ridiculous.

So just because three or four people who I think are being irrational on here say I am coming across arrogant certainly doesn't mean it is the case.

To some people, as has been proven in another thread, saying ANYTHING "matter of factly" comes across as arrogant. So I think some people are too intellectually handicapped to be able to really discern what real arrogance is.

#2- I don't care. I don't run poles to determine what I believe. If every single person on this baptistboard said one thing and I believed another, as long as I have a solid hermeneutical case for what I believe, as long as it is logical and within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, I am not bowing. The Holy Spirit, logic, and the Word of God are my ONLY guides.




Then we have an accord. There is no need for you to keep debating me.





This thread has nothing to do with that.



Only in the minds of some. There is no reason for it to have become muddled.


Only to some. Those who don't follow the actual WORDS we say but try to reinterpret them in their minds.



It does not matter what you are TRYING to do- straw man is what you DID.

Two things:

#1- It only comes across haughty to certain people. If you will peruse this thread you will see that there are several people who agree with ma, one of which actually SAID I was not being haughty, several of which said the idea that one is haughty for believing that seminary enables one to have more bible knowledge than the average layman is basically ridiculous.

So just because three or four people who I think are being irrational on here say I am coming across arrogant certainly doesn't mean it is the case.

To some people, as has been proven in another thread, saying ANYTHING "matter of factly" comes across as arrogant. So I think some people are too intellectually handicapped to be able to really discern what real arrogance is.

#2- I don't care. I don't run poles to determine what I believe. If every single person on this baptistboard said one thing and I believed another, as long as I have a solid hermeneutical case for what I believe, as long as it is logical and within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, I am not bowing. The Holy Spirit, logic, and the Word of God are my ONLY guides.

At this point, I believe you're too blinded to see anyone else's viewpoint.

 

[Jerome]

He thinks there are only "three or four" here who find him arrogant?

 

[webdog]

See, Webdog. This is the kind of crud you do and then have the audacity, the unmitigated gall to call others arrogant and abrasive. This is ad hominem. It makes no argument. It only attempts to assault the character of the one with whom you are discussing.

Like Amy said, you are really not one to point fingers...and besides, I was being facetious. How anyone can get reformed theology from what I posted, I can not undertand.
I was stating a fact, your reading comprehension is quite poor based on the replies I have read from you over the weeks. I was not attacking you, but your ability to listen. You argue things that are never said...and then cry "strawman argument".

 

[Amy.G]

See, Webdog. This is the kind of crud you do and then have the audacity, the unmitigated gall to call others arrogant and abrasive. This is ad hominem. It makes no argument. It only attempts to assault the character of the one with whom you are discussing.

I thought you said being abrasive was a good debating tactic? Didn't you start a thread on that? Now you're crying ad hominem?

 

[Steven2006]

I thought you said being abrasive was a good debating tactic? Didn't you start a thread on that? Now you're crying ad hominem?

Was that the thread where it was suggested we were to look to some hollywood actors as good examples for our conduct to emulate?

I guess it raises the question, would John Wayne or Charleston Heston have complained to Webdog?

 

[Luke2427]

At this point, I believe you're too blinded to see anyone else's viewpoint.

Or could it be that you're blind and cannot see my and several others on this thread's view point?

 

[webdog]

Or could it be that you're blind and cannot see my and several others on this thread's view point?

It could be...but I don't see it (pun intended)

 

[Luke2427]

Was that the thread where it was suggested we were to look to some hollywood actors as good examples for our conduct to emulate?

I guess it raises the question, would John Wayne or Charleston Heston have complained to Webdog?

I said men have won debates using abrasiveness. They have. It is an irrefutable fact. Christopher Hitchens utilized abrasiveness to defeat Tony Blair a couple of weeks ago in a formal debate.

I don't have a problem with it.

All I am pointing out is that Webdog and others are themselves abrasive and have the unmitigated gall to call others abrasive.

I don't have a problem with strong debate designed to destroy another's arguments. I think that is what we are supposed to be doing here.

But I have lambasted ad hominem from the start, including in the thread to which you are referring.

The reason I hate ad hominem (like calling someone arrogant and blind for example) is because it detracts from arguments.

And yes, John Wayne would have pointed out this hypocrisy.:thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

He thinks there are only "three or four" here who find him arrogant?

Ad hominem. No argument- just an assault of character.

the more firm you stand on anything and the more you persevere to defeat an opposing view point the more people are going to call you names like arrogant and abrasive.

The way to avoid this is to drive by post like you did here.

I don't care what people call me.

I care about what is true.

I am not running for office on baptistboard. I use this place to test my ideas against contrary ones and to persuade some of the truth that stands that test.

 

[glfredrick]

Why is it always the people without the higher education degrees that feel like they are not of equal worth, or conversely, who complain that people with said degrees think too highly of themselves?

Perhaps envy? I'm not trying to be facetious here, but a clear trend is emerging from this and other threads on this subject. The ones who have not taken the time to go to school are trying hard (too hard!) to prove their worth.

Let me say this very clearly...

WORTH is not determined by education. Nor is the ability to follow after Christ. Nor is understanding of the Scriptures. Nor is the amount of time one spends in the Word.

Education, especially seminary education merely teaches tools that are useful in gaining a better understanding of the Bible in the context of history, grammar, language, culture, and theology.

It will come as a complete shock to persons who have never entered the domain of a theological seminary, but the "whole Bible" is rarely taught. That is not the purpose of seminary, and that is why persons who are seminary grads may or may not actually know the Bible any better than what we are calling the laity (no distinction is made in Scripture between laity and/or clergy or professionally trained persons). That depends on that individual actually reading and learning the Word.

But seminary will teach the original languages, hermeneutics, theology (multiple ways, from systematic to biblical, etc.), church history, cultural anthropology, exposition and exegesis of Scripture, and other TOOLS that are very useful in learning the Word, so that when the trained person sits down with the Word, they will know how to "rightly divide the Word of Truth."

Seminary also does not (often) teach "people skills" such as how to sit and pray with a person at the hospital, how to officiate a funeral or a wedding, etc. Those skills are learned through church discipleship. Every seminary has some form of "practicum" a class devoted to teaching the pastoral distinctions and techniques used in the local church, but there is only just so much that any person can learn in a one-semester course that covers a such a wide variety of issues.

So, what good is a seminary degree? It is of immense good! Why? Because our calling is to prepare God's people for the work of the ministry and the better equipped we are to do so, the more apt we will be at doing so.

My recommendation is to pop into the closest local seminary and sit in on some classes. The profs love it when people do that, and the seminary usually welcomes visitors with open arms, at least the one I attended did and does -- The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky. Drop in and I'll be happy to give you a tour and introduce you to some great men who teach other men how to be great...

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Do the ones with a degree have a head start or leg up on the ones who don't? I suppose that could be debated, but I certainly don't think those who have the degree, the assumption should just be made that they are smarter/more qualified.

 

[Luke2427]

Do the ones with a degree have a head start or leg up on the ones who don't? I suppose that could be debated, but I certainly don't think those who have the degree, the assumption should just be made that they are smarter/more qualified.

The argument here is that those with a good degree have more knowledge than the average layman.

That tends to mean they are more qualified for leadership in ministry, yes.

There are exceptions, but that is the rule.

We don't want doctors who have no education doing surgery on us.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We don't want doctors who have no education doing surgery on us.

Yes but I stayed at the Holiday Inn last night..... :tongue3:

 

[Don]

Why is it always the people without the higher education degrees that feel like they are not of equal worth, or conversely, who complain that people with said degrees think too highly of themselves?

Perhaps envy? I'm not trying to be facetious here, but a clear trend is emerging from this and other threads on this subject. The ones who have not taken the time to go to school are trying hard (too hard!) to prove their worth.

Since Luke is fond of throwing out types of logical fallacies, you might ask him which one this falls under.

For example, I have a master's degree. From Liberty.

 

[Robert Snow]

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. Act 4:13

I'll take this type of education over any cemetary...uh I mean Seminary.

Perhaps Paul was talking about the scholarly when he said:

And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. Act 26:24

Alright, I know Paul was addressing the Roman Governor, Festus, but I still think this might apply to some of today's clergy.

 

[webdog]

Since Luke is fond of throwing out types of logical fallacies, you might ask him which one this falls under.

For example, I have a master's degree. From Liberty.

Depends on how much you have spent, no? Isn't that the true gauge used to determine Holy Spirit inspired knowledge?