Featured What Is Scholarship?

Hey, I feel like a Pup until I get out of bed.

 

The term scholarship doesn't necessarily involve truth. Jehovah's Witnesses have their scholars. Catholics have their scholars. Arminians have theirs. Likewise, Calvinists have theirs, etc.

 

Not necessarily. If your studies led you to a different position, and not just reenforced your present convictions, I would recognize it as biblical scholarship. In my case, biblical scholarship led me away from Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, towards the Calvinistic Baptists of the 1600s. But I dropped out of church and shunned all fellowship to launch an unbiased study. People only remain more convinced of their position otherwise.

 

A great many institutions are geared toward reinforcing particular conclusions, especially for lower degrees. Sometimes it’s just individual professors doing so.

It’s human nature, but in either case, they are essentially teaching the opposite of scholarship no matter how much they, or we, like to imagine otherwise.

 

The appreciation of good scholarship can tend to alienate those who really aren’t, especially those who like to think they are but really aren’t.

However, claiming we are striving to reach the truth in a matter is not the same as actually doing so and most especially is not the same as attaining it.

Anyone denying he has inherent biases and even blindspots either hasn’t had broad enough experience or is deceiving himself.

 

People who agree with me are no doubt scholars, people who disagree are unstudied imposters. Thus on this board we get copy and paste screed in support of whatever view is being promoted. And if I disagree, my knowledge and qualifications and character are questioned. Scholars study the information available, formulate a working hypothesis, and publicly state their view of the truth of the matter. Others, posing as scholars, selectively use facts in support of a view, prepared like a legal brief, rather than a scientific study. You know you are dealing with a seeker of victory, rather than a seeker of truth, when fallacies are used.

Try as I may, I could not find anything to nitpick in the OP, so of course it was a scholarly post...

 

“Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, …” (Narcissistic Personality Disorder - HelpGuide.org)​

Every one suffers from excess once and a while, but one that states

“People who agree with me are no doubt scholars, people who disagree are unstudied imposters.”​

Is displaying a more troubling condition.

Search the heart all men of dust, see if pride and arrogance are not leading to destruction, for too often such first blinds, then excuses, then declares self righteousness in blaming others.

23 One’s pride will bring him low,
but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.

12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

​

The Lord give wisdom to the reader(s).

​

 

JoJ, I would say that we are mostly in agreement on all of this, only differing slightly, yet significantly on the point of ad hominem. I don't disagree that those who have not worked as hard earning a doctorate don't deserve the same degree (pun inteneded) of respect as those that have.

My point would be to stick to addressing an issue at the point where the scholarhip is obviously lacking. It is OK to insist that the presentation of material does not pass doctoral muster and explain why. If the error is sufficiently extensive, your point will be much better made, and will prove instructive for many.

While it may not seem fair to have to address it at all, this is precisely the job of a true scholar, to exhibit the patient analysis that exposes error as only a true scholar could, rather than merely offhandedly dismissing it via ad hominem, which any Joe Blow could do, but with little to no edification in either case.

 

Credentialism is the bane of scholarship...

 

I would agree that intellectual acuteness does not always result in ability to perform, That is why the doctoral level is so research oriented with typically a thesis and board review defense.

Would it not be correct to consider credentials from a reputable source is an aid rather than plague?


For example:
Should I have hip or knee replacement, I would prefer a surgeon trained from the best orthopedic schools rather then one from Haiti. At least I would know the scrutiny was rigorous and the credentials valid.

 

What was the previous training of the men Jesus chose to be his disciples? How did he train them? What did Jesus say about scholars and scholarship? What did Jesus teach about pursuing truth?

 

Business men, government agents, opinionated lay people, …

The sort on finds in the modern world. We tend to think of them as uneducated, but they were not.

The intense three years training was filled with everything from theory to practice, much like the excellent educator of this day.

The scholarship of the disciples did not extend to them usually understanding even some of the parables at first hearing, for the Scriptures relate to them asking clarifying questions, and the Lord having to explain certain details. Same as we must when comparing Scripture with Scripture looking for what is the principle.

Two statements come to mind concerning the Lord’s teaching on truth.
One is, “l am the way the truth the light,” and the other is, “If you abide in my word, and are truly my disciples, you will know the truth…”

 

The age of credentials should end. With the pace of change now, the schools teach generation old technology. Qualifications are eclipsed by current performance success. The medical practices used in my youth (70 some years ago) were practiced by folks holding "doctorates." By today's standards they were unqualified hacks.

 

Please quote my remark addressing the theological matters I described. Thanks