Scholars vs. Laity

[Luke2427]

Luke, to your 12:46am post.

A couple of things. First, you are speaking in generalities again, and if you go back to my first post, the very first thing I said is that most scholars would know more about the bible than most layman.

However one can be the most learned on a topic and still be wrong. If not all bible scholars would agree on every point. So for a scholar to say that he can say with authority that he must be right about a specific verse being discussed with another individual, is arrogant for it means he doesn't believe he could be wrong about any verse in the bible.

As far as God honoring hard work, yes He does. But that again that is just to general a statement to mean anything significant in this discussion. I know many people that worked harder and longer at things, but didn't have the God given abilities in that area as others who were more skilled with less work. Not no work mind you, but still less work. Also using that logic it means that any person with a Masters degree, must always know more about all the verse in the bible than anyone with Bachelor's degree. And the same for a someone with a Doctorate versus those with only a Masters.

Lets take it even further. With your reasoning any person who went to a school that is recognized as a better quality school with more higher level scholars as professors must end up always knowing more than those that go to schools with less standards.

So what we should do on boards like this is instead of debate, we should have every scholar list where they went to school, who were their professors, and what degrees they hold. The ones with only they highest of all standards should answer the questions for everyone, and be able to declare who is correct with every debate being discussed. And there should be no room for disagreement or complaint from those that didn't work as hard and diligently as those men because they must know more then everyone else.

OK, I admit to some hyperbole there at the end, but one can use your same argument to get us there each step of the way. Just different people discussing the same thing at higher and higher levels.

No. No one is saying that every educated person is going to be right in everything he says in a debate with some uneducated person. No one has said that.

That is a strawman.

What I have been saying, and I think quite clearly, is that it is not arrogant to say that people with ThD's tend to know more about the Bible than laymen.

That is it.

If you push it any further than that you are going to be arguing a strawman as is the case with the above post.

Amy literally says that those who have degrees do not know any more than those who have no degrees. You have already agreed that generally that is not the case. As such you are agreeing with me.

There is no need to argue against me any further. We have an accord.

 

[Steven2006]

Let me ask these questions to any scholar who would like to answer.

1) Do you believe your understanding of every verse in the bible is absolutly100% correct?

2) If the answer is no, how then can you say with authority that you must be absolutely correct when discussing a specific passage, or passages with another individual, even if he/she happens to be a layman?

 

[Steven2006]

No. No one is saying that every educated person is going to be right in everything he says in a debate with some uneducated person. No one has said that.

That is a strawman.

What I have been saying, and I think quite clearly, is that it is not arrogant to say that people with ThD's tend to know more about the Bible than laymen.

That is it.

If you push it any further than that you are going to be arguing a strawman as is the case with the above post.

Amy literally says that those who have degrees do not know any more than those who have no degrees. You have already agreed that generally that is not the case. As such you are agreeing with me.

There is no need to argue against me any further. We have an accord.

OK, I guess we do agree. But I thought that was Amy's point, that in discussing something specific some said they understood better because of education.

 

[Luke2427]

Let me ask these questions to any scholar who would like to answer.

1) Do you believe your understanding of every verse in the bible is absolutly100% correct?

2) If the answer is no, how then can you say with authority that you must be absolutely correct when discussing a specific passage, or passages with another individual, even if he/she happens to be a layman?

You're missing the issue, Brother.

It is not about who is right and wrong. It is certainly not about someone being right 100% of the time.

It is about WHO KNOWS MORE.

That's it.

You've already agreed with me that the educated tend to know more than the uneducated.

To further argue that education does not always make one right is to argue with the wind since probably no one on earth believes that.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Only if they have the gift of teaching. The sheep are to be under a shepherd for the rest of their lives.

A true scholar and teacher never leaves the role of student as learning continues for life. A person is either learning more, understanding deeper or is regressing. There is no point of standing still.

If you don't have a pastor, and you are not a pastor yourself, you are committing sin.

On the surface this seems an extreme statement and possibly filled with error. Would you please explain it further. Thanks in advance.

 

[Steven2006]

I went back to try and dig deeper to where this discussion all started, and I agree with Amy.

The claim was basically made that the more educated people choose Calvinism, so basically inferring that Calvinism must be correct because of that claim (which I don't even know if he could back it up with any actual facts to support such a claim), and if anyone refutes that statement they just aren't as "educated" to understand.

That is too specific an area of discussion, and goes back to my points that the more specific one gets about an individual topic being discussed the more it is a reality that the scholar could possibly be wrong.

Now of course I understand him not believing he is wrong, but to insist he must be correct on this specific discussion only because he is a scholar is arrogant.

 

[Luke2427]

A true scholar and teacher never leaves the role of student as learning continues for life. A person is either learning more, understanding deeper or is regressing. There is no point of standing still.

I don't think he was saying anything to the contrary.

On the surface this seems an extreme statement and possibly filled with error. Would you please explain it further. Thanks in advance.

I cannot speak for havensdad concerning what he means- but I can say that his statement is the rule with few exceptions.

We are not saved to be a bunch of individuals doing their own things. We are saved to be a part of an ecclesia- a body of called out believers.

Leading each ecclesia, ideally, is an undershepherd who is to feed the flock of God which is among him taking the oversight thereof.

Every Christian should understand that he is to be an active part of the Body of Christ which is first local and then universal.

If he is a part of that body he should have a pastor to shepherd him since the local body is supposed to have a pastor if possible.

To segregate himself from that body is not good unless it is necessary (some places have no good churches, some people are not physically able to participate, etc...).

Therefore, except in rare cases, it is a sin to be out of fellowship with the body and thus out from under the shepherding of a pastor.

 

[Luke2427]

I went back to try and dig deeper to where this discussion all started, and I agree with Amy.

The claim was basically made that the more educated people choose Calvinism, so basically inferring that Calvinism must be correct because of that claim (which I don't even know if he could back it up with any actual facts to support such a claim), and if anyone refutes that statement they just aren't as "educated" to understand.

That is too specific an area of discussion, and goes back to my points that the more specific one gets about an individual topic being discussed the more it is a reality that the scholar could possibly be wrong.

Now of course I understand him not believing he is wrong, but to insist he must be correct on this specific discussion only because he is a scholar is arrogant.

You are partially right about how this got started. But havensdad was simply saying it is telling that the more educated people are the more Calvinistic they tend to be. This may not be the case. I ahppen to think that it probably is. But that is irrelevant. The relevant point to THIS discussion is that education does tend to more knowledge.

Havensdad did not say that just because more educated folks tend to be Calvinistic that that is 100% proof that Calvinism is right. He was only saying that it is telling.

And if it is true- it IS telling- but that does not mean that it is irrefutably, unequivocally right. It simply stands as it's own piece of evidence to that end.

Blood on the hands of a suspect at a murder scene is not 100% proof that the suspect committed the murder. It is, however, a telling piece of evidence.

That is all that havensdad was saying. He, nor I, nor I suppose ANYONE, believes that being educated inevitably leads to being right all the time or even of necessity about any particular subject at any given time.

 

[Luke2427]

I went back to try and dig deeper to where this discussion all started, and I agree with Amy.

Do you agree with this statement by Amy:

but I can't tolerate the arrogance in saying that simply because they are more educated than the laity they "know" more.

?

Do you agree that you saying as you did earlier that generally educated people do "know" more than laity that YOU are arrogant.

You said:

Overall when speaking about large numbers of people, then yes, scholars would know more about, and should have a better understanding of scripture than layman.

Take that to the next logical step, and most scholars would most likely be correct if they believed that they understood scripture better than the majority of the layman they spoke about it with.

That seems to be what you are saying when you say you agree with Amy- you are agreeing that you are arrogant.

She said it is arrogance when people say that educated people "know" more than laity.

You said that generally educated people "know" more than laity.

She said that is arrogance.

You said you agree with Amy.

So it seems that you are agreeing with Amy that you are arrogant.

 

[Steven2006]

Do you agree with this statement by Amy:

?

Do you agree that you saying as you did earlier that generally educated people do "know" more than laity that YOU are arrogant.

That seems to be what you are saying when you say you agree with Amy- you are agreeing that you are arrogant.

I said that overall most scholars would know more about the bible overall than most layman.

But I said when you start getting into a specific area of discussion with specific people, even if they are layman the scholar could be wrong.

Since the context of Amy's statement was about a specific topic, I see her point.

Plus to really discuss this entire issue fairly, I think the the burden to back up such a claim is on the person making it. I would love to see the statistic where most bible scholars of the world believe in Calvinism. Plus to be real accurate we should look at the last say fifty years or so and see if that is true, and not some Readers Digest type of snapshot about a small group of people asked ten questions in an article.

And if he can't even back up his claim, well lets just say that is wasn't very scholarly of him to make it in the first place. :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

I said that overall most scholars would know more about the bible overall than most layman.

But I said when you start getting into a specific area of discussion with specific people, even if they are layman the scholar could be wrong.

Since the context of Amy's statement was about a specific topic, I see her point.

Plus to really discuss this entire issue fairly, I think the the burden to back up such a claim is on the person making it. I would love to see the statistic where most bible scholars of the world believe in Calvinism. Plus to be real accurate we should look at the last say fifty years or so and see if that is true, and not some Readers Digest type of snapshot about a small group of people asked ten questions in an article.

And if he can't even back up his claim, well lets just say that is wasn't very scholarly of him to make it in the first place. :laugh:

Do you agree with this statement by Amy:

Quote:
but I can't tolerate the arrogance in saying that simply because they are more educated than the laity they "know" more.
?

Do you agree that you saying as you did earlier that generally educated people do "know" more than laity that YOU are arrogant.

You said:

Overall when speaking about large numbers of people, then yes, scholars would know more about, and should have a better understanding of scripture than layman.

Take that to the next logical step, and most scholars would most likely be correct if they believed that they understood scripture better than the majority of the layman they spoke about it with.

That seems to be what you are saying when you say you agree with Amy- you are agreeing that you are arrogant.

She said it is arrogance when people say that educated people "know" more than laity.

You said that generally educated people "know" more than laity.

She said that is arrogance.

You said you agree with Amy.

So it seems that you are agreeing with Amy that you are arrogant.

 

[Steven2006]

Do you agree with this statement by Amy:


Do you agree that you saying as you did earlier that generally educated people do "know" more than laity that YOU are arrogant.

You said:


That seems to be what you are saying when you say you agree with Amy- you are agreeing that you are arrogant.

She said it is arrogance when people say that educated people "know" more than laity.

You said that generally educated people "know" more than laity.

She said that is arrogance.

You said you agree with Amy.

So it seems that you are agreeing with Amy that you are arrogant.

You are failing to fully understand what I am saying. Overall more scholars would know more than most layman would overall. However in discussing specifics they can be wrong.

The way I understood the context of what she was speaking about Amy was answering him in regards to a specific topic. Even more important to this discussion it that the topic being Calvinism, any logical person would agree than many scholars themselves have disagreed about this very thing throughout the years. So it is not like she is arguing that Mary wasn't a virgin or something that most all Scholars agree with him and she then called it arrogant when it was pointed that out to her.

But yes I do agree that overall scholars know more in general. If one was going to be tested on their entire knowledge of all of the bible, I am sure more scholars would have more knowledge than most layman. Does that mean the no layman would have more knowledge than any scholars at all? No I am sure there are some layman that would have more knowledge than some scholars.

And the more specific the area of study, the more the percentage of scholars knowing more would decrease. And topics that are generally more disputed area of discussion such as Calvinism, the percentages would decrease even further, and the more arrogant one would appear if they choose to be both dogmatic and dismissive of the other person they were discussing it with for no other reason other than their education.

But again, the real key to this entire discussion is proof of the claim itself. If he can't back it up, Then of course Amy would be correct and it would have been an arrogant statement. How could it not be, if it was just puffing up his own position with a claim he pulled from the air about ones education?

 

[Steven2006]

Well brother, it is late, and I am tired. I enjoyed the exchange of thoughts, but I need to get some sleep. Goodnight

Hey, don't you have to preach in the morning?

 

[Luke2427]

You are failing to fully understand what I am saying. Overall more scholars would know more than most layman would overall. However in discussing specifics they can be wrong.

No, I don't think I am failing to understand. No one is saying that any educated man is right all of the time. No one has said that. No one on earth, I suppose, believes that.

I thought I made this clear. I cannot understand your point and who you are debating when you say that in discussing specifics scholars CAN BE wrong. Who has said otherwise?

But when you say that "Overall more scholars would know more than most layman would overall" you are agreeing with me and supporting the very thing I am arguing here and you are flatly disagreeing with what Amy has said.

The way I understood the context of what she was speaking about Amy was answering him in regards to a specific topic. Even more important to this discussion it that the topic being Calvinism, any logical person would agree than many scholars themselves have disagreed about this very thing throughout the years. So it is not like she is arguing that Mary wasn't a virgin or something that most all Scholars agree with him and she then called it arrogant when it was pointed that out to her.

But I thought I made a pretty good case that havensdad was not saying that scholars were most assuredly correct on Calvinism just because they are scholars. Do you remember the murder scene anecdote? I thought I covered that.

Havensdad was NOT saying that Calvinism MUST be true because most scholars are Calvinistic. He was only saying that it is telling. And if it is true - it IS telling but not irrefutable proof. No one is saying that it is irrefutable proof.

The only thing havensdad and myself are saying is what you are saying- that scholars certainly tend to know more than laymen- period.

But yes I do agree that overall scholars know more in general. If one was going to be tested on their entire knowledge of all of the bible, I am sure more scholars would have more knowledge than most layman. Does that mean the no layman would have more knowledge than any scholars at all? No I am sure there are some layman that would have more knowledge than some scholars.

And you are arguing against the wind on this point, Brother. No one denies that there are some prodigies out there- some genius laymen who excel the average scholar. But they are the exception by far and not the rule- you believe this too so I don't understand why we are going back and forth on this.

It is clear that you are in 100% agreement with me and in sharp disagreement with Amy. Why keep debating me?

And the more specific the area of study, the more the percentage of scholars knowing more would decrease.

This only makes sense if that specific area is one which the scholar has little to no training on.

It is untenable that a bible SCHOLAR would have little to no training on theology and Church History and hermeneutics and bible languages.

So exactly how, concerning these specific areas, does a scholars shot at knowing more than the average laity decreas? I do not understand.

The scholar will know less than the plumber on the specific area of plumbing- if that is what you mean. But the chances are slim that the plumber is going to know more about theology than the Bible Scholar.

So what is your point here?

And topics that are generally more disputed area of discussion such as Calvinism,

how is this possible if the layman has no formal theological training and the schoalr can quote verbatum the Remonstrance and has written 300 page papers on these theological matters?

It is only possible if the laymen is a genius.

the percentages would decrease even further, and the more arrogant one would appear if they choose to be both dogmatic and dismissive of the other person they were discussing it with for no other reason other than their education.

No one should discuss these things for no other reason than their education but to say that the more specific topics for discussion become the less advantage the scholar has over the laymen is not defensible.

Scholars are educated in these very specifics to which you are referring. They write 300 page theses that are often published on these very matters.

But again, the real key to this entire discussion is proof of the claim itself. If he can't back it up, Then of course Amy would be correct and it would have been an arrogant statement. How could it not be, if it was just puffing up his own position with a claim he pulled from the air about ones education?

No, this is not the key to THIS discussion. It may be a helpful tool in THAT discussion which addressed that particular topic in that thread to which you are referring- but it is not even helpful here in THIS discussion on THIS thread since THIS discussion is not about whether scholars tend to be Calvinistic. THIS discussion is about the merits of education and does formal theological training tend to make one quite a bit more knowledgeable about Scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

Well brother, it is late, and I am tired. I enjoyed the exchange of thoughts, but I need to get some sleep. Goodnight

Hey, don't you have to preach in the morning?

We have singers coming in the morning- no sermon. I don't care for that practice but it is a tradition of theirs.

I am however working on a paper on the rise of the papacy that is past due. I work a while on that and then take a break and catch up on here.

I also have to preach of friend of mine's ordination service tomorrow afternoon.

But I am pretty well prepared for that.

Good night. Have a wonderful time of worship tomorrow! He's worthy!

 

[preacher4truth]

From another thread:


What do you think of this quote?


Do scholars receive more from the Holy Spirit than the average person in the pew?

Is the Bible not enough for the average Christian? Must we rely on the scholars to receive maximum revelation from God's word?

Are we "arrogant" to think that God reveals His word to us even though we may not have been to Seminary or we are not scholars?

We are not arrogant to think that Amy, we are humbled to believe and trust in God to open our eyes to his Word. Psalm 119:18.

Scholars do not recieve more, or less, either. God resists the proud. To be fair, there can be this pride among the laity too, but it is definitely rampant among the "scholars."

I don't see Scholars listed as those given to the church to edify the church. He did give the teachers though. Some will look at Ephesians 4 and say see, that word can be interpreted "doctor" and I am one. But the thing is, look at the attitude in that, as typically it means "I am way above and beyond you" instead of having the attitude of being a servant, as did our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not a condemnation of those with deeress, only to those who have the haughty attitude to go with it. That the teachers become arrogant and are definitely, in this context of the OP, lording over others, or better, attempting to, is pure arrogance. It looks rather foolish as I read excerpts from the OP where this is drawn from, and witnessed how not only said person addressed a lady, but how arrogant he came across in general. He's an elitist and in his mind superior. Who would want a guy like this teaching the poor little saints the Word, when they know how he really feels about them?

I've seen many laity put the "scholars" to shame in church. Why? Because God can give insight into Scripture above and beyond a paid education. In general, they have more faith in God than most of these scholars emanate. Most of the saints I have seen who are very good teachers of the word have a one over on scholars; they spend much time in prayer, and you can tell.

Let's not forget something here, it is God through His Holy Spirit who leads and guides into all truth, and it is He who empowers our words to give illumination to us to share with others. If it were otherwise, any person could simply learn the languages, cultures, hermenuetics, and every level of expositional preaching, and in turn, dispense truth, and still not be a believer. The truth they dispense may even come with as much power as it does through the scholars who hold arrogant contempt for the laity! Lifeless. Where does being a believer and love come into the equation, scholar? Too educated for the love part? If you are, then there is yet another thing amiss with you as a person, and I would ask why are you even ministering to people?

We should all ask that question. "Why am I doing what I am doing?"

I've read this nonsense elsewhere. It is almost becoming a fad to some that they think only they, who have the languages, should be interpreting Scriptures. You also see it on forums, just in general, that anyone person who attempts to interpret Scripture, in a forum, has subjected himself to ridicule, because no one can interpret Scripture but "I" and "I" alone. So the attacks begin. It is the same attitude the "scholars" have. There have been, I am sure, horrible misinterpretations posted in forums, but that doesn't justify the attitude. Sometimes it's because it is from a zealous babe in Christ. If however someone who is a minister uses subjectivity versus God's Word, to make a truth, or reject one, or to base decisions upon, especially when the Scriptures plainly condemn such, then let the attack begin. That is plain heresy.

Anyhow, it's no wonder the Holy Spirit said through Paul "knowledge makes arrogant." This was to the church he said this.


raying:


- Blessings

 

[quantumfaith]

This is the part that I find offensive.




It is arrogant for anybody to claim they know more than another about the Bible whether they're a Sunday school student or a scholar.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Ah, but there comes a time when the student must step out into independence.

How long and how much study it takes for an individual to become independent and mature in their beliefs is peculiar to each person. For Paul it was a matter of days. (think about it. Paul understood traditional Jewish culture from his youth, but learned of, accepted and began teaching Christ in only days)

It was this same Paul who complained that he was still feeding milk to Christian that ought to be eating meat.

There is nothing wrong with education, even higher education, but we should not allow our education to rank higher than the leading of the Holy Spirit within a mature Christian.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

OK, here is the "equivalence" relation. Being educated in biblical history, languages, criticism etc. , knowing ABOUT the word is not in ANYWAY equivalent to KNOWING the Word.

Observation: My experience(s) in life have been that the ones whose "knowledge and wisdom" that "I" would hold in high esteem, were those whose knowledge and wisdom were expressed in the most honest and humble means.

 

[Old Union Brother]

OK, here is the "equivalence" relation. Being educated in biblical history, languages, criticism etc. , knowing ABOUT the word is not in ANYWAY equivalent to KNOWING the Word.

Observation: My experience(s) in life have been that the ones whose "knowledge and wisdom" that "I" would hold in high esteem, were those whose knowledge and wisdom were expressed in the most honest and humble means.

Exactly. That is why Paul wrote in Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.