hearers/doers

[quantumfaith]

Welcome too Baptist Board Bronco, may your time here be fruitful and scholarly.

 

[Amy.G]

This is the kind of boasting that I am saying is the epitome of the problem of our culture.

If you are not a scholar of the Word of God you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

At the very least you ought to have the humility to not speak about it until you become one.

Because until one s a scholar of the Word of God anything he says about it is very dangerous to the simpleminded.

Here is the definition of a scholar:



One who has ANYTHING to say about the Word of God had BETTER be learned about what he is saying concerning it; he had better be one who has a profound knowledge of what he is saying or he will face the judgment of God for handling the Word of God haphazardly.

First of all, where was I "boasting"?

One thing that I know is that it is not up to you what I do or do not say regarding the word of God. That is between me and the Holy Spirit. You have an arrogant, self righteous spirit, thinking that you have the authority to declare who can speak about God's word and who cannot.

Nowhere in scripture are we taught or commanded to only speak about God's word if we are "educated". In fact, Jesus severely rebuked the Pharisees for doing this very thing. The Catholic church kept the word of God from the common (unlearned) man for centuries until Godly men such as Wycliffe and Tynedale defied the Pope and translated the bible into the language of the common man. It was then that the gospel began to be spread to the whole world. As long as the bible was held under lock and key by the "learned", the gospel went nowhere.
You are always preaching that people need to study church history, but I believe you need to study the glorious history of the bible. It was spread worldwide by ignorant and unlearned men and women who literally gave their lives for sake of Christ and His gospel. Had they followed your advice, we would all still be sitting under the authority of the Pope, having scripture read to us in Latin.

 

[quantumfaith]

First of all, where was I "boasting"?

One thing that I know is that it is not up to you what I do or do not say regarding the word of God. That is between me and the Holy Spirit. You have an arrogant, self righteous spirit, thinking that you have the authority to declare who can speak about God's word and who cannot.

Nowhere in scripture are we taught or commanded to only speak about God's word if we are "educated". In fact, Jesus severely rebuked the Pharisees for doing this very thing. The Catholic church kept the word of God from the common (unlearned) man for centuries until Godly men such as Wycliffe and Tynedale defied the Pope and translated the bible into the language of the common man. It was then that the gospel began to be spread to the whole world. As long as the bible was held under lock and key by the "learned", the gospel went nowhere.
You are always preaching that people need to study church history, but I believe you need to study the glorious history of the bible. It was spread worldwide by ignorant and unlearned men and women who literally gave their lives for sake of Christ and His gospel. Had they followed your advice, we would all still be sitting under the authority of the Pope, having scripture read to us in Latin.

:applause::thumbsup::applause:

 

[quantumfaith]

First of all, where was I "boasting"?

One thing that I know is that it is not up to you what I do or do not say regarding the word of God. That is between me and the Holy Spirit. You have an arrogant, self righteous spirit, thinking that you have the authority to declare who can speak about God's word and who cannot.

Nowhere in scripture are we taught or commanded to only speak about God's word if we are "educated". In fact, Jesus severely rebuked the Pharisees for doing this very thing. The Catholic church kept the word of God from the common (unlearned) man for centuries until Godly men such as Wycliffe and Tynedale defied the Pope and translated the bible into the language of the common man. It was then that the gospel began to be spread to the whole world. As long as the bible was held under lock and key by the "learned", the gospel went nowhere.
You are always preaching that people need to study church history, but I believe you need to study the glorious history of the bible. It was spread worldwide by ignorant and unlearned men and women who literally gave their lives for sake of Christ and His gospel. Had they followed your advice, we would all still be sitting under the authority of the Pope, having scripture read to us in Latin.

Now Amy, don't you be speaking out without your Burka on embellished with your Phi Theta Kappa stole.

 

[Don]

If being a "scholar" has ANYTHING to do with MASTERING ANY subject then NNE is a SCHOLAR on ANYTHING.

Who has MASTERED physics?? Who has come to know all there is to know about it?? Not even Einstein. So there is NO physics scholar.

Who has MASTERED the musical arts?? Were Beethoven or Mozart familiar with every harmony that could ever be achieved???

Such a notion is silly!

A scholar is a devout student of a subject or as DHK shared with us "...one who learns of a teacher; one under the tuition of a preceptor; a pupil; a disciple; a learner; a student."

And you had darn well better be a scholar before you open your mouth on matters that concern the person of the Son of God.

The most wicked blasphemies ever set forth have come from people who purported things about the person and work of Jesus Christ haphazardly.

The hottest fires in hell are reserved for such people- and rightly so.

So, in all honesty, who here is *not* a scholar?

Your continued plea that only those that are studying the Word should be able to talk about the Word, is basically a stupid argument. As I mentioned in my previous post, anyone who comes on this board and withstands the challenges put forth to them, is studying. Some have better comprehension levels than others, and are putting forth their best effort; but they keep pressing on. Does that not show a desire to learn about the things of God?

In other words, Luke, you're finding resistance to your particular line of discussion, because either you have a different definition of what "studying" means, or you haven't explicitly defined *who* you're talking about.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Welcome too Baptist Board Bronco, may your time here be fruitful and scholarly.

Thank you very much.

 

[JesusFan]

Luke, I'm not trying to nit-pick or be argumentative with this question. I'm honestly just wanting to understand what your perspective is when you say things like this as one who believes more "deterministically."

You say "we ought to be hungry for the MEAT of the Word" as if we are the one who control our desire to be hungry for such things, but you don't believe that, right?

I mean, in order for someone to be "hungry for the Meat of the Word," doesn't God have to make them hungry? Doesn't God have to make men have the desire to study His scripture and become the 'scholar?'

If so, then what is the point is rebuking those who don't when clearly they are just doing what God has caused them to desire? Why not instead, say, "God out to make us more hungry for the MEAT of the Word?"

Again, I just honestly want to know how your doctrine practically plays out in everyday life as you "challenge" and "rebuke" what others "ought" or "ought not" do?

But isn't the truth that ALL Chrsitians, regardless if cal, Arm, other will have same desires to grow up in God, read/study/apply the Bible to our lives?

we would ALL have same Holy Spirit same Bible

isn't it the "job" of God to be about confirmong ALL believers in jesus to be more like jesus?

NOT based upon our theology, that is "just the way it is?"

 

[JesusFan]

So, in all honesty, who here is *not* a scholar?

Your continued plea that only those that are studying the Word should be able to talk about the Word, is basically a stupid argument. As I mentioned in my previous post, anyone who comes on this board and withstands the challenges put forth to them, is studying. Some have better comprehension levels than others, and are putting forth their best effort; but they keep pressing on. Does that not show a desire to learn about the things of God?

In other words, Luke, you're finding resistance to your particular line of discussion, because either you have a different definition of what "studying" means, or you haven't explicitly defined *who* you're talking about.

Think that in order to make 'accurate" debate points on things like textual criticism/texts/grammer points of original languages etc SHOULD be a 'scholar"

BUT

in everyday Christian doctrines/applications etc
just need to be one who willing to be taught by HS in the Bible, and has the desire to read other study aid helps to learn more!

For if we need to be schoalrs to discuss doctrine in ameaningful fashion

ONLY PHD in theology need post here on the BB!
And the Apostles, save for paul, would be excluded, as none were 'learned" men, "just" had teaching from jesus and the HS!

 

[Don]

Think that in order to make 'accurate" debate points on things like textual criticism/texts/grammer points of original languages etc SHOULD be a 'scholar"

A scholar of what? I believe Luke pointed out that a scholar is someone who is learning; so when we are challenged on this board, or in person, or wherever, and we go out to find the hebrew/greek meanings of words, read the commentaries to determine what others say, and come back to discuss those "points," are we not being scholarly?

Or are you saying that only those that have received a degree in languages are "scholars"?

BUT

in everyday Christian doctrines/applications etc
just need to be one who willing to be taught by HS in the Bible, and has the desire to read other study aid helps to learn more!

For if we need to be schoalrs to discuss doctrine in ameaningful fashion

ONLY PHD in theology need post here on the BB!
And the Apostles, save for paul, would be excluded, as none were 'learned" men, "just" had teaching from jesus and the HS!

That's the clarification we're seeking; is "scholar" defined as one who is studying and learning? Or is "scholar" reserved only for those that take formal classes in theology?

 

[Don]

[deleted due to deletion of original post; response no longer matters]

 

[JesusFan]

A scholar of what? I believe Luke pointed out that a scholar is someone who is learning; so when we are challenged on this board, or in person, or wherever, and we go out to find the hebrew/greek meanings of words, read the commentaries to determine what others say, and come back to discuss those "points," are we not being scholarly?

Or are you saying that only those that have received a degree in languages are "scholars"?


That's the clarification we're seeking; is "scholar" defined as one who is studying and learning? Or is "scholar" reserved only for those that take formal classes in theology?

No...

just stating that there are SOME areas where you MUST be a scholar, in sense have graduate degrees/advanced learning and creditals..
Areas such as evaluating biblical manuscripts/texts/translation etc

Also, in oreder to be recognized as being "expert" in theology per say WILL have to have advanced learning/degrees etc

MOST of what we post on BB though will NOT requite that to be done...

Difference is one can use schorerly books/sets etc and make good informed decisions about bioble and beliefs

others are the 'experts" who wrote the very stuff you use to make those informed/good biblical decisions!

 

[DHK]

Those definitions are fine. A person who is going to speak out on a matter with as great an import as theology had better be a scholar.; he had better be at least "Someone (especially a child) who learns (as from a teacher) or takes up knowledge or beliefs,"

No problem. Anyone who goes to a good church does that.

he had better be "... one who learns of a teacher; one under the tuition of a preceptor; a pupil; a disciple; a learner; a student'"

Every pastor ought to be a good teacher. It is actually one of the qualifications of a pastor: "apt to teach."

he had better be "One engaged in the pursuits of learning; a learned person; one versed in any branch, or in many branches, of knowledge;"

We encourage those in our congregation to be like the Bereans and go and check with the Bible everything that was said in the sermon. In other words do some more study for themselves. That would take care of that point.

he had certainly better be "A man of books"- especially one book!

I hope we all are.

The trouble with the definitions you have taken, (and I hope you don't mind me saying this), is that you have "dumbed-down" the definition of "scholar" in the minds of most people.

Take the "general" definition of scholar that was given above.

General One who by long systematic study (as in university) has gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines. Source: European Union. (references)

I think that by general consensus most people would have a picture in their mind of a scholar fitting this definition, rather than some of the others given. Therefore, by definition, most would admit that they are not "scholars." They are housewives, tradesmen, computer networkers, laymen of various sorts, but not "scholars," "those who have gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines." This excludes most on the board. And for one to speak about Christ before they become a scholar, well then, you can see the problem.

 

[JesusFan]

No problem. Anyone who goes to a good church does that.
Every pastor ought to be a good teacher. It is actually one of the qualifications of a pastor: "apt to teach."
We encourage those in our congregation to be like the Bereans and go and check with the Bible everything that was said in the sermon. In other words do some more study for themselves. That would take care of that point.

I hope we all are.

The trouble with the definitions you have taken, (and I hope you don't mind me saying this), is that you have "dumbed-down" the definition of "scholar" in the minds of most people.

Take the "general" definition of scholar that was given above.
I think that by general consensus most people would have a picture in their mind of a scholar fitting this definition, rather than some of the others given. Therefore, by definition, most would admit that they are not "scholars." They are housewives, tradesmen, computer networkers, laymen of various sorts, but not "scholars," "those who have gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines." This excludes most on the board. And for one to speak about Christ before they become a scholar, well then, you can see the problem.

There ARE times when a true 'scholar" has to be answering here on BB, when 'expert" only is qualified to address the matter raised...

Thankfully. MOST of this is NOT what is posted here!

 

[DHK]

There ARE times when a true 'scholar" has to be answering here on BB, when 'expert" only is qualified to address the matter raised...

Thankfully. MOST of this is NOT what is posted here!

Would you agree that the immediate reaction to Luke's initial post would be because most people viewed a scholar as matching this definition:

"One who by long systematic study (as in university) has gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines. Source: European Union."

Only after Luke clarified his definition of scholar did the discussion settle down some.

 

[JesusFan]

Would you agree that the immediate reaction to Luke's initial post would be because most people viewed a scholar as matching this definition:

"One who by long systematic study (as in university) has gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines. Source: European Union."

Only after Luke clarified his definition of scholar did the discussion settle down some.

yes, did seem that Luke was saying that ONLY One who was a 'real" scholar could really provide valids answers here!

Glad that we all got on same page, we have "legimate" disagreements between us, no need to add one that is "just" from a misunderatnding!

 

[Luke2427]

No problem. Anyone who goes to a good church does that.
Every pastor ought to be a good teacher. It is actually one of the qualifications of a pastor: "apt to teach."
We encourage those in our congregation to be like the Bereans and go and check with the Bible everything that was said in the sermon. In other words do some more study for themselves. That would take care of that point.

I hope we all are.

The trouble with the definitions you have taken, (and I hope you don't mind me saying this), is that you have "dumbed-down" the definition of "scholar" in the minds of most people.

Take the "general" definition of scholar that was given above.
I think that by general consensus most people would have a picture in their mind of a scholar fitting this definition, rather than some of the others given. Therefore, by definition, most would admit that they are not "scholars." They are housewives, tradesmen, computer networkers, laymen of various sorts, but not "scholars," "those who have gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines." This excludes most on the board. And for one to speak about Christ before they become a scholar, well then, you can see the problem.

No, DHK, you have picked a MINORITY definition of scholar just to win an argument here with me.

I used your OWN definitions that YOU provided and you still have a problem.

Yes. As is true with almost EVERY word there is a definition that is not applicable to the current discussion.

But the MAJORITY of the definitions of "scholar"- even those that YOU provided mean EXACTLY what I have been saying from the START of my part of the discussion on this thread.

 

[Luke2427]

yes, did seem that Luke was saying that ONLY One who was a 'real" scholar could really provide valids answers here!

Glad that we all got on same page, we have "legimate" disagreements between us, no need to add one that is "just" from a misunderatnding!

This is from post 64 and I could not have been clearer:

For further clarification:

You ought to be a bible scholar if at all possible and you ought to keep silent on matters on which you have no real understanding.

A Bible scholar is one who makes it his life's ambition to study the Word of God and to know what it is actually saying and thereby to come to know the Author of it as well as possible.

You, if you are a Christian, should be a Bible scholar- if you are not you need to repent.

By "education" I do not necessarily mean seminary. I mean the process by which the humble student has set himself under people who God has gifted to teach and that student has also sought the counsel of a multitude of such gifted men (or women for that matter) and that student is using that training in his rigorous personal pursuit of the knowledge of God from the Word of God.

I think if one does not meet the above qualifications then he ought to keep silent on whatever matter he is unqualified to speak on until he becomes qualified.

If he does not, I think it is because he is wickedly arrogant and blasphemous evidenced by his haphazard handling of the most sacred thing we have on this earth- THE WORD OF GOD.

 

[DHK]

This is from post 64 and I could not have been clearer:

For further clarification:

You ought to be a bible scholar if at all possible and you ought to keep silent on matters on which you have no real understanding.

A Bible scholar is one who makes it his life's ambition to study the Word of God and to know what it is actually saying and thereby to come to know the Author of it as well as possible.

You, if you are a Christian, should be a Bible scholar- if you are not you need to repent.

By "education" I do not necessarily mean seminary. I mean the process by which the humble student has set himself under people who God has gifted to teach and that student has also sought the counsel of a multitude of such gifted men (or women for that matter) and that student is using that training in his rigorous personal pursuit of the knowledge of God from the Word of God.

I think if one does not meet the above qualifications then he ought to keep silent on whatever matter he is unqualified to speak on until he becomes qualified.

If he does not, I think it is because he is wickedly arrogant and blasphemous evidenced by his haphazard handling of the most sacred thing we have on this earth- THE WORD OF GOD.

Now that we are all on the same page let's proceed.
(I would omit that last sentence though)

 

[Luke2427]

I understand what you are saying, but disagree that one has to be a scholar to speak out about God's Word. No one should speak concerning the Scriptures more than God has given them understanding at that point thru the Holy Spirit. But it isn't wrong to speak concerning what God HAS revealed, even though one is not an expert on the complete subject.

Yea, but the crux of the matter is that every cult leader in the history of the world, every founder of every heresy has claimed to have had God "reveal" to him what he purports.

Scholarship demands accountability.

It demands that one have some basis, not just his own pet interpretation of some passages, but the backing of a multitude of godly counselors.

A scholar is one who has set himself under the teaching of a God-gifted teacher and not just one who does not rely on teachers himself. No. One who has been properly educated and is himself a scholar.

And by properly educated I do not mean NECESSARILY seminary- but I mean the accomplishment of having read and is familiar with many scholars who span a broad spectrum of Christian history.


Unless a man has received such instruction on a matter of as great an import as the Person of Christ- he absolutely ought to keep his mouth shut.

For him to refuse is for him, imo, to evidence the fact that he is wicked.

Think of Joseph Smith and well nigh every founder of heresy for examples of how dangerous such arrogant, blasphemous people can be.

 

[HankD]

I believe when Luke refers to a non-scholar (at least in part) it is what I used to call "paint by the numbers" Christians or "TV dinner" Christians.

See the simile?

Personally, I don't use that degree of mockery that much anymore because there is always someone with more (LOTS MORE) skill and ability than I and I don't appreciate it when they name-call or are condescending towards me and therefore neither do those whom I target.

So - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - this applies, no?

However, I believe Luke does have a point, IMO his delivery is a little harsh and overreaching but he is straight foward in speaking his mind.

What we/I don't want to do is to be so harsh with babes in Christ that we offend and discourage them when they seek the truth. We don't want that millstone around our neck.

He said feed my sheep, (not beat them up).

But then again, we don't want a bunch of "paint by the numbers"
novices fleecing the sheep either.

HankD