"Country Preachers"

[agedman]

I do not recall a single error that has infested the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints has come from a country trained preacher.

But in every case that I can dredge up from my faulty memory has been from educated "religious" folks who set about to establish a "doctrine" out of agenda, privilege, or seeking recognition.

 

[rlvaughn]

a) Theologically trained, including learning the original languages?

I don't see anything in the biblical qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 that would require this.

b) Called by a church to plant a church or fill an opening in a church?

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning behind this point, but I see no "lone ranger" preachers in the New Testament. They were called of God and connected to his churches.

 

[thatbrian]

I don't see anything in the biblical qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 that would require this.

Uh. . . could that be because they already knew the original languages?

 

[rlvaughn]

I suspect you'd have a hard time proving all of the preachers of the New Testament era read and spoke Hebrew, especially those of Gentile background.

 

[agedman]

I've found the older and well seasoned tech will diagnose issues with gas units and heat banks better. The school trained, experienced but younger techs will do better with mini-split units and communicating equipment.

I refuse to work on the new stuff.

Typically, the older techs are so entrenched in non-direct current thinking, that direct current with variable frequency control systems are frightening and what frightens is not liked, and what is not liked is rarely learned, for learning requires allowing for vulnerability.

The typical older tech is not teachable with great amounts of information packaged into a few sessions. They need hands on tools in which they can also visualize the cause and effect and relationships of the components.

As that relates to the thread, the training received in schools must be put into practice under the supervision of trained folks. Sort of like a teacher training program in which the student must practice teaching in the real environment under the supervision of the mentor.

However, too few experience such a thorough training that the lead pastor and confirming church can be held accountable for the later moral and/or doctrinal error of one that supposedly "worked" in their assembly.

 

[Reynolds]

How this applies to the topic is both have advantages. The experienced pastor brings things only years of experience taking care of his church and experience in the pulpit can bring. The educated pastor often has a broader view and understanding, hopefully based less on tradition, than he would otherwise possess. Each has its advantage.

And there is no place for DC in my AC.

Yep, I remember when DC was the only practical way to do speed control.
Thankfully I got rid of my last DC motor last year. I hated solid state DC controllers. They never worked as well as the old type they replaced. The solid state DC always surged or stalled under low speed high load. The AC VFD drives excel at low speed high torque. I even use them as load brakes on crane hoists.

My favorite two pastor's were seminary drop outs. The pastors at the biggest churches in this area did not go to seminary. They just seem more down to Earth and likeable. I think people right now are looking for more genuineness, realness, and are turned off by formality and religious tradition.

 

[agedman]

I suspect you'd have a hard time proving all of the preachers of the New Testament era read and spoke Hebrew, especially those of Gentile background.

AND, that they even had a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Philippians, states "hold firmly to the Word of Life." BUT, what is that word considering the NT wasn't written, and the OT was not typically a part of the gentile congregations?

 

[thatbrian]

I suspect you'd have a hard time proving all of the preachers of the New Testament era read and spoke Hebrew, especially those of Gentile background.

The early church was Jew and Gentile. The 11 + Paul were all Jews, for starters. They knew both languages.

 

[rlvaughn]

Proving some preachers knew both languages doesn't prove all the pastors knew both languages (and maybe throw in Aramaic; and also consider the fact that sometimes the NT writers appeared to be quoting from the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew). If your position requires that all of the preachers in the NT knew the original languages, feel free to prove that all of them.

 

[thatbrian]

Proving some preachers knew both languages doesn't prove all the pastors knew both languages (and maybe throw in Aramaic, and the fact that sometimes they appeared to be quoting from the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew). If your position requires that all of the preachers in the NT knew the original languages, feel free to prove it.

Common sense tells us that they knew the common language, but common sense is in short supply these days.

 

[rlvaughn]

And what was the common language that they all read and spoke?

 

[JonShaff]

If one hasn't learned "how to study, giving (one) a special set of skills to approach (the) calling, ..." seminary isn't the place to learn such.

Glorifying Christ in a persons life and "preaching God's Word" is not learned in the classroom.

If such were, then the seminary experience would not have cranked out decades of failure.

One should ALREADY be glorifying Christ in their live, should already have been "preaching" through their home church's outreach programs (nursing homes, Sunday school, youth meetings...).

I remember reading the testimony of Ed Nelson (pastor of South Sheridan Baptist Church - now long retired) and how God lead him from the moment of conversion though selection of schooling and on to the pastorate.
Dr. Ed Nelson On The Ministry In His Own Words

He was already sold out to Christ, already striving to serve the Lord, and the schooling was a manner of further service, not preparation to serve.

Not a single student to seminary should be accepted without a clear documented history of having that relationship with Christ and already busy doing the calling of God.

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

[thatbrian]

And what was the common language that they all read and spoke?

The region in which the Church began was multicultural and multi-lingual, so the 11 all would have likely spoken multiple languages. They all knew Greek, and they were all Jews, so I would argue that they all knew Hebrew.

Many have argued that Christianity spread as it did because of common language.

 

[agedman]

The region in which the Church began was multicultural and multi-lingual, so the 11 all would have likely spoken multiple languages. They all knew Greek, and they were all Jews, so I would argue that they all knew Hebrew.

Well, like it was said, there is no reason to assume that the gentile believers who were appointed by the assembly were fluent in other then their own language and perhaps greek.

So, they could travel to the local Jewish book store and pick up a copy of the law and prophets as well as the talmud. I wonder if they argued among the local pastors whether the Jerusalem Talmud was more literal then the Babylonian Talmud.

 

[thatbrian]

Well, like it was said, there is no reason to assume that the gentile believers who were appointed by the assembly were fluent in other then their own language and perhaps greek.

So, they could travel to the local Jewish book store and pick up a copy of the law and prophets as well as the talmud. I wonder if they argued among the local pastors whether the Jerusalem Talmud was more literal then the Babylonian Talmud.

If you want to clearly and precisely understand what the author intended by his words, you must understand the language he spoke in, and his customs, figures of speech, etc. Of course we can get by with English translations, but we do lose things in the translation, and we also end up with literalists who start cults based on their unsophisticated reading in a translation.

 

[Rob_BW]

And what was the common language that they all read and spoke?

Aramaic.

 

[JonC]

I do not recall a single error that has infested the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints has come from a country trained preacher.

But in every case that I can dredge up from my faulty memory has been from educated "religious" folks who set about to establish a "doctrine" out of agenda, privilege, or seeking recognition.

I can think of a few of instances. I know of several country Baptist pastors who became Church of Christ because the Bible does not mention the "Baptist church" but does "Church of Christ". I remember another pastor who emphasized anything in italics because this was what God emphasized. Another focused on the words of Christ (the words in red) as being the most important part of Scripture. Sunday "Sabbath" observances, where it is a sin to do any type of work is another (I remember specifically a sermon about people who mow grass on Sunday). My wife's preacher (before we were married) preached often on the sin of birth control (which he viewed as a form of abortion).

And, of course, there is Penal Substitution Theory. Only a lay-lawyer could come up with that.

 

[thatbrian]

I do not recall a single error that has infested the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints has come from a country trained preacher.

But in every case that I can dredge up from my faulty memory has been from educated "religious" folks who set about to establish a "doctrine" out of agenda, privilege, or seeking recognition.

I see you point and find some agreement with it, but off the top of my head, SDA places its faith in a crazy woman with a third grade education. She's done some damage. . . Also, much of the Pentecostal movement has been built on untrained leaders.

 

[rlvaughn]

The region in which the Church began was multicultural and multi-lingual, so the 11 all would have likely spoken multiple languages. They all knew Greek, and they were all Jews, so I would argue that they all knew Hebrew.

Many have argued that Christianity spread as it did because of common language.

There were many cultures and languages in the Roman Empire – which falls far short of proving that all the New Testament preachers knew or were required to know the original language of the Hebrew Bible. Most likely all the apostles read and spoke both Hebrew and Greek – which also falls short of proving that all the New Testament preachers knew or were required to know the original language of the Hebrew Bible.

There was a language common to most everyone across the Roman Empire – Greek. This also falls short of proving that all the New Testament preachers knew or were required to know the original language of the Hebrew Bible.

We do know that at the time Paul wrote his epistles there was a complete Old Testament, written in Hebrew, and that Paul’s requirements for bishops/pastors, written in Greek, did not include “able to read the Old Testament in the original languages” among them. One can assume it should be there, even sanctify that assumption by calling it “common sense,” but when the dust settles and the smoke clears it is not there – never was, never will be.

 

[thatbrian]

There were many cultures and languages in the Roman Empire – which falls far short of proving that all the New Testament preachers knew or were required to know the original language of the Hebrew Bible. Most likely all the apostles read and spoke both Hebrew and Greek – which also falls short of proving that all the New Testament preachers knew or were required to know the original language of the Hebrew Bible.

There was a language common to most everyone across the Roman Empire – Greek. This also falls short of proving that all the New Testament preachers knew or were required to know the original language of the Hebrew Bible.

We do know that at the time Paul wrote his epistles there was a complete Old Testament, written in Hebrew, and that Paul’s requirements for bishops/pastors, written in Greek, did not include “able to read the Old Testament in the original languages” among them. One can assume it should be there, even sanctify that assumption by calling it “common sense,” but when the dust settles and the smoke clears it is not there – never was, never will be.

You can ignore common sense, but that doesn't change it. You are looking for a rule without exceptions. I've said there is one. Your "argument" is weak in that it tries to prove a norm by finding one exception. That's backwards thinking. Common is as I've stated before, sadly uncommon, especially on online forums, it seems.