Degree- worth the paper?

[Luke2427]

Like I said, that text is not saying that.

He learned the Law as a jewish boy before his Bar Mitzvah. He learned to be a Pharisee under Gamaliel.

OK. I'm not going to argue with you about it. It's there but you are not going to get it. Acts 22:3 says

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Suffice it to say that Paul was not demeaning his education in the passage to which Amy was referring.

 

[webdog]

OK. I'm not going to argue with you about it. It's there but you are not going to get it. Acts 22:3 says

You really need to familiarize yourself with Jewish customs, Luke.

He was brought up "in this city" at the feet of Gamaliel...but he was born in Tarsus, and understood the law according to Jewish custom there. He got his "religious leader" education under Gamaliel.

 

[GBC Pastor]

This is how I defined the matter in the OP:



Quote:
What this thread is about is this- Is it arrogant to say that people who are thoroughly theologically trained and educated tend to have a stronger grasp on the Scriptures than those who have no formal training whatsoever in this matter?

That is how I defined this from the start.

But you also included this:

Is it not also arrogance for laity to assume that they can go to the Bible and dig out as much or more than those who have dedicated a decade of their lives in universities specializing in the study of the Scriptures?

No it is not arrogance for the laity (and here you did not use "average laity" but clumsily lumped them all together) to dedicate themselves to the study of the Scriptures apart from the universities and believe that they can also "dig out" as much as the seminary trained theologian. If they put in the effort it can certainly be done. Sitting in a seminary doesn't make anyone a biblical scholar anymore than my sitting in my truck makes me a mechanic. The amount of effort and study put into it makes the difference regardless of the form or location.

 

[webdog]

Sitting in a seminary doesn't make anyone a biblical scholar anymore than my sitting in my truck makes me a mechanic.

:laugh: Great line :thumbs:

 

[Steven2006]

But you also included this:



No it is not arrogance for the laity (and here you did not use "average laity" but clumsily lumped them all together) to dedicate themselves to the study of the Scriptures apart from the universities and believe that they can also "dig out" as much as the seminary trained theologian. If they put in the effort it can certainly be done. Sitting in a seminary doesn't make anyone a biblical scholar anymore than my sitting in my truck makes me a mechanic. The amount of effort and study put into it makes the difference regardless of the form or location.

Yes, and here is another nugget:

No one is saying that a layman can't get all he needs from his personal study of the Scriptures.

He can understand a great deal.

But there is a ton more that he cannot understand without training.

emphasis mine

 

[Luke2427]

You really need to familiarize yourself with Jewish customs, Luke.

He was brought up "in this city" at the feet of Gamaliel...but he was born in Tarsus, and understood the law according to Jewish custom there. He got his "religious leader" education under Gamaliel.

I've already proven it to you. The text is clear. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I said. I've got better things to do with my time- like argue with this wall here.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes, and here is another nugget:

emphasis mine

And I stand by it.

There is a ton by way of GREEK and HEBREW and a hundred other things one doesn't get by osmosis.

He must have training.

How you can argue with that is beyond me.

 

[Luke2427]

:laugh: Great line :thumbs:

It's not a great line- it's silly and irrelevant to this discussion.

No one is talking about sitting in a seminary. Were talking about GRADUATING from one.

 

[webdog]

It's not a great line- it's silly and irrelevant to this discussion.

No one is talking about sitting in a seminary. Were talking about GRADUATING from one.

Wow, you even debate my personal opinion on what I think is a great line :laugh:

You'll probably disagree and debate this too...

 

[webdog]

I've already proven it to you. The text is clear. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I said. I've got better things to do with my time- like argue with this wall here.

Seriously, you are a legend in your own mind

You think you prove everything you say about every subject simply because you say so. Why are you even on the BB, Luke?

 

[webdog]

And I stand by it.

There is a ton by way of GREEK and HEBREW and a hundred other things one doesn't get by osmosis.

He must have training.

How you can argue with that is beyond me.

Besides dismissing God's ability to gift anyone to speak any language at any given time, you assume one doesn't seek out such knowledge on their own and they are unable to attain it unless they spend "many thousands of dollars".

 

[Steven2006]

And I stand by it.

There is a ton by way of GREEK and HEBREW and a hundred other things one doesn't get by osmosis.

He must have training.

How you can argue with that is beyond me.

No person can learn to understand this withought getting a college degree?

 

[preachinjesus]

I love the results when someone pokes the Baptist antidisestablishmentarianism bear!

 

[Luke2427]

Besides dismissing God's ability to gift anyone to speak any language at any given time,

Straw man. never did that.

you assume one doesn't seek out such knowledge on their own and they are unable to attain it unless they spend "many thousands of dollars"

Straw man again. Never said that.

In fact I said there are some exceptions probably a dozen times in this debate.

I said that such an education TENDS to make one more knowledgeable about the Scriptures than layman.

You cannot debate me without misrepresenting me.

 

[Amy.G]

It's not a great line- it's silly and irrelevant to this discussion.

What is silly and irrelevant is you arguing with WD over his opinion of J. Edwards. He is entitled to it and you are trying to hijack the discussion because you have lost the debate.

 

[webdog]

Straw man. never did that.

Hardly, please learn to use the phrase properly. You stated a person MUST have training which is contrary to God gifting someone to use those languages without having training. You are wrong.

I'm not misrepresenting you...you are doing a dandy enough job of that on your own.

 

[Luke2427]

Hardly, please learn to use the phrase properly. You stated a person MUST have training which is contrary to God gifting someone to use those languages without having training. You are wrong.

I'm not misrepresenting you...you are doing a dandy job on that on your own.

Since I have said no less than a dozen times that there are exceptions to the rule it is abundantly obvious that I meant that one MUST have training from someone to know GREEK- even if it is the book that he is reading on it doing the training. And the book that he is reading while self teaching is almost invariably going to be written by a lettered scholar.

So this exceptional layman who learns Greek on his own STILL depends fully on scholars for his knowledge.

MOST layman don't read such books so your point is irrelevant.

I have said all along, from start to finish and clearly, that what seminary education does is make the graduate more knowledgeable than the average layman. And I said several other times including the OP that what seminary education TENDS to make the grad more knowledgeable of the Bible than laymen.

Both ways I have said it clearly mean that there are exceptional layman out there who are as knowledgeable as seminary grads. But if that was not clear enough I literally said multiple times that there are exceptions to this rule- like Spurgeon.

So yes, as is your faithful custom, your post is a straw man.

 

[webdog]

Since I have said no less than a dozen times that there are exceptions to the rule it is abundantly obvious that I meant that one MUST have training from someone to know GREEK- even if it is the book that he is reading on it doing the training. And the book that he is reading while self teaching is almost invariably going to be written by a lettered scholar.

I must have missed the logic where if something "must" have something, there are "exceptions to the rule" where "must" does not really mean must.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth at times.

 

[righteousdude2]

A Thd from Cemetary is . . .

. . . no better than what the Holy Spirit can do through individuals chosen to lead and tend the flock.

While I have no problem with those who have gone the way of academia to gain a better understanding of the Bible and theology, it is my opinion that throughout the history of mankind, God didn't select His leaders and prophets according to the number of degrees listed after their name.

Furthermore, academia has often misled the faithful with liberal, watered down interpretations of the Bible and the mission of the church.

We can lay the blame for the many different denominations, that separate the church, on doorsteps of theologians.

Lay leadership is often as effective as the educated leader, and when God does the selecting of those He wishes to lead a flock, who's to argue?

Both the laymen and the scholarly led pastor must find theChristian love and ability to accept one another's calling when it is clear that the Lord has ordained it.

I've seen miracluous works come out of the sweat and prayers of both the educated leader and the lowly layperson! I've also observed the fall of both when overwhelmed with demonic temptations.

When the degrees are set aside, the man called of God, and those who remain true to their calling and the God of their salvation will continue to reap great harvests for the Kingdom!!! :thumbs:

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[Luke2427]

I must have missed the logic where if something "must" have something, there are "exceptions to the rule" where "must" does not really mean must.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth at times.

No I didn't. One MUST have training if he is to learn Greek.

Rarely laymen selfTRAIN. They still have training and it comes from SCHOLARS they read after.

But these are the exceptions. Laymen by and large do not train themselves in the Greek and Hebrew languages. By and large they do not train themselves in church history and hermeneutics and philosophy.

There have been some, most geniuses, who have done so without a seminary degree.

But the fact still remains that those seminary grads TEND to be more knowledgeable than laymen.

That is what I have said all along. It is consistent and without contradiction. There has been no talking out of both sides of the mouth here.

You did that, though in the scholarship vs laity 2 thread, didn't you? when you said you did not say Jonathan Edwards was not orthodox and then admitted you did say it? Is that not the epitome of speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

And BTW, when you said, "You talk out of both sides of your mouth", was that an argument relative to this discussion or was it a personal attack, an ad hominem.

Aren't you being abrasive with such a comment? Isn't that what you jumped on the band wagon against me for earlier?