Scholars vs. Laity part 2

[Luke2427]

It has become quite evident that you are only a cyber bully looking to cause fights. Your actions are VERY un-Christ like. You cannot even accept an apology without your finger wagging and brow bashing. The fact you qualified your statement with "but" shows you never did.

At this point, I do have serious questions about you being fit for the ministry...honestly. No amount of seminary knowledge can trump your attitude, and I pray you seriously repent.

I find it quite telling you will not tell me whether or not you agree with Edwards' view on Governmental Theory atonement. Are you afraid you might admit his view is ...*gasp*...unorthodox? You can't do that, though...you have to win at all costs, right?

I'm not concerned with what people say about me to you through PM. If highly educated people feel they need to gossip about others, they don't answer to me about that. I also find it rich that someone would say anything about my intellect when I posted something so intellectually foolish from a "doctor" done via email and PM.

In my 5 years I've only had to block one person on the BB. It is looking like this needs to be done again.

This is yet another ad hominem. You cannot post in disagreement without attacking the character of the one with whom you disagree. Any one can look at your posts, they are open to the public, and see this terrible pattern of yours.

You cannot seem to avoid calling them names like ignorant, liberal, arrogant, lacking reading comprehension, hermeneutically handicapped, etc, etc, etc...

You almost NEVER address just the arguments- it is like you HAVE to attack the character of the arguER. That makes you a bully.

And if you block me it will not be because I am bullying you- it is because I force you to face the facts. Others just give up on you and let you think whatever you want to think. Those folks are to be commended. But I do not like the idea of leaving you to such thoughts. So I stay in the pocket and force you to face facts. That is why you will block me. Like now I am forcing you to face the fact that you have a problem with attacking the character of the ones with whom you disagree. That is why you will block me.

And I did accept your apology as far as it went. This is how you offered it: I admit that on this particular thread I jumped the gun on that particular remark and I apologize.

But in my responding post I accepted your apology for that particular remark on this particular thread but went on to point out that this is a consistent problem of yours not restricted to a particular remark on a particular thread.

But you will not see it. You are determined to see faults in me (and they are there) and every one who debates you- but you will not see them in yourself.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I did not start this thread because I have a problem with being educated. I respect all the hard work people have done to benefit their service of the Lord. Although it should not be a matter of pride.

But all the degrees in the world do not give a person the right to claim that their doctrine is correct and others are wrong simply because they have a "degree". That was the statement that caused me to start this thread.

It was stated that the majority of Calvinists were professors and Seminary grads and that is the reason they discovered Calvinism to be the correct doctrine. Basically, the reason the rest of "us" aren't Calvinists is because we don't have the training to understand the scriptures.

Although this began as a debate about Calvinism, that is not what this thread is about.

This arrogance could also be applied to other doctrines such as Eschatology, baptism, the atonement, speaking in tongues, and on and on and on.

If a professor or other formally educated person says that his view of baptism is the correct view because he is more educated than the laity, that is arrogant and prideful.

That is the purpose of this thread. It is not to disrespect those who have studied hard to achieve a degree.

Now I might be a little bias when I make this statement (b/c I have a Master’s degree in biblical/theological studies)—but its those who have not had at least some form of college education in biblical areas that seem to think their way is the right & only way—b/c as they are sure to say “its what the Bible says--& that’s enough for me!” The problem is-- knowing what you think the Bible says & knowing what the Bible actually means are not always the same thing. This is especially true with the subject of eschatology—where I’ve been called a heretic for not believing in the biblical reality of the “Left Behind” series. That being said-I think the theory of a pre-tribulation “rapture” is possible—but it certainly is not the only (or for that matter likely) possibility. Further, while the ability to use Greek, biblical systematic, & culture history has greatly attributed to my ability to teach God’s Word on a deeper level--I’m certainly not saying that God doesn’t use people with out college degrees to achieve great things for his Kingdom—its just if we are gonna rail on the educated for their stubbornness—we can’t neglect how the uneducated can be just as obstinate about their own opinions when it comes to Scriptural interpretation.

 

[webdog]

This is yet another ad hominem. You cannot post in disagreement without attacking the character of the one with whom you disagree. Any one can look at your posts, they are open to the public, and see this terrible pattern of yours.

Yes they can look at the posts to see you are now lying.

You cannot seem to avoid calling them names like ignorant, liberal, arrogant, lacking reading comprehension, hermeneutically handicapped, etc, etc, etc...

Lie #2. If you think all of those phrases were used in "name calling"...thanks for making my point for me.

You almost NEVER address just the arguments- it is like you HAVE to attack the character of the arguER. That makes you a bully.

Lie #3 (and quite immature). A bully is demanding an apology, getting one...then continuing to wag your finger and put them down. Let the reader decide who that is.

And if you block me it will not be because I am bullying you- it is because I force you to face the facts. Others just give up on you and let you think whatever you want to think. Those folks are to be commended. But I do not like the idea of leaving you to such thoughts. So I stay in the pocket and force you to face facts. That is why you will block me. Like now I am forcing you to face the fact that you have a problem with attacking the character of the ones with whom you disagree. That is why you will block me.

You missed your calling as a a comedian. Luke, your arguments are really weak, your reading comprehension is lacking, you argue things not said (while using the "stawman" statement at the same time) and you cause more heat than light.

And I did accept your apology as far as it went. This is how you offered it: I admit that on this particular thread I jumped the gun on that particular remark and I apologize.
But in my responding post I accepted your apology for that particular remark on this particular thread but went on to point out that this is a consistent problem of yours not restricted to a particular remark on a particular thread.

Lie # 4. Weren't you the one that stated an apology qualified with "but" is not sincere?

But you will not see it. You are determined to see faults in me (and they are there) and every one who debates you- but you will not see them in yourself.

Lie #5. I'm as wretched a sinner as the next person.

You drag my character through the mud but have the nerve to cry "ad hominem" each chance you get. That is hypocritical. At this point you can go on gossiping about me via PM,...

 

[Winman]

And if you block me it will not be because I am bullying you- it is because I force you to face the facts.

Luke, I have debated with you many times, and you rarely have "facts" to support you. You seem to consider your personal opinion as fact.

For instance, in this debate about whether regeneration precedes faith, or vice versa, I have presented at least half a dozen verses that clearly show one must believe (faith) to have life (regeneration).

You on the other hand have not presented a single verse to support your position. Oh, you have said Ephesian 2:1 supports it, but this verse does not even mention faith. However, all of the verses I have presented speak of both faith and regeneration (life).

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 20:31 clearly mentions faith (believeing) and regeneration (life) and shows you must first believe to have life. This verse is directly addressing the issue at hand. Ephesians 2:1 does not address faith whatsoever, so cannot be used as a proof text to support your view.

But you simply insist you are right, even when you have clearly been shown otherwise. And I don't care how many "scholars" agree with you, there is not one verse in all the Bible to support your view, not one.

 

[quantumfaith]

This is a straw man, though Amy. Haven'sdad, nor me, nor anybody else said that just because one has a degree it makes them right and the layman with whom they are debating wrong.

We have stated this no less than a dozen times. I don't know why you keep misrepresenting what we say. Are you trying to makes villains of us here? Because if you could convince me that someone said that on here it would cause me to think less of that person. So is that what you are trying to do? Make folks think less of us?

If not, why do you keep misrepresenting us.

We have said clearly, numerous times, that a degree TENDS to give one a leg up on the average layman concerning biblical knowledge.

Havensdad never said that because a majority of seminarians are Calvinistic that that means that Calvinists are right and Arminians are wrong. He said that it is "telling".

Luke, I realize the "you" did not say this, however, it is purely anecdotal. I know of no statistics which confirms this to be true. One has to ask, what seminaries are included in the claim, only "Baptist" or "SBC"? If we mean all "christian" seminaries, then I am pretty confident that it would not be an accurate statement.
So is blood on the hands of a person at a murder scene. It is telling evidence but it is not conclusive by itself. That is all that you can rightly deduce from Havensdad or my statements. That's it.

Please retire this straw man who said that having a degree makes one right and the one that says that NO layman can ever be as knowledgeable about the Bible as any seminarian.

This too is not definitive, without clarification. I might "tend" to agree with you if one is selecting both a "layperson" and seminarian randomly. However, anectdotally but confidently I think the claim can be made that there are non-seminarians who have "on their own" studied biblical languages, homiletics, hermeneutics, church history etc. and could probably go "toe to toe" with the average seminarian.

 

[RAdam]

There are classes on that kind of thing but glfrederick covered that quite well on the other thread.

Seminary is about the Word of God and Church History and Hermeneutics and philosophy, etc...

These things give you a tremendous leg up on the AVERAGE layman as far as knowledge of the Bible goes.

This knowledge will doubtlessly prepare a minister to know how to minister effectively in times of trouble.

But his primary job is the exposition of scripture.

He will get tools in a good seminary that will give him a huge advantage in this area.

No, he will get man's opinion of how to preach God's word, how to read God's word, etc.

As far as having a leg up on the average layman, it depends on how much the average layman is reading. I've known people in the pew that knew a lot more about the bible, church history, etc than your seminary trained preacher.

 

[Winman]

This too is not definitive, without clarification. I might "tend" to agree with you if one is selecting both a "layperson" and seminarian randomly. However, anectdotally but confidently I think the claim can be made that there are non-seminarians who have "on their own" studied biblical languages, homiletics, hermeneutics, church history etc. and could probably go "toe to toe" with the average seminarian.

Well, I think the seminary trained student has a huge advantage here, I do not even know what homiletics is without looking up that term in the dictionary. That said, someone may know much of this subject unknowingly.

But the scriptures themselves teach that even a child can understand the scriptures to a degree.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now, I don't know if all children can "know" the scriptures, but Timothy certainly did. And the following verses say that the scriptures alone are able to furnish a man with everything he needs to be "perfect", which means mature in spiritual matters.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The problem with scholarship is that the scriptures say knowledge "puffeth up". And boy, has that ever been evident in this thread. Some folks take great pride in scholarship. They love to think themselves more intelligent than others.

1 Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

If we cut right to the chase, that is the issue with this thread. Knowledge puffeth up, and many who are educated have a problem with pride and believe themselves more intelligent than laymen.

 

[Steven2006]

We have said clearly, numerous times, that a degree TENDS to give one a leg up on the average layman concerning biblical knowledge.

.

I will admit you have said this, and by itself it sounds very reasonable However you have also said many other things that makes it sound as if a person has a better chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning rather than being able to have the same knowledge as a scholar would on a topic of the bible. Your entire tenor has not been about scholars just tending to have a leg up in understanding scripture, but rather except for the rare genius it is impossible to be so.

There have been numerous threads now on this subject, and many more posts on each. But I wanted to post a few that stood out in my mind.


These are all you own words.

"We'd probably be a lot better off if the RULE was that men had to receive a degree to pastor.

A lot of mess floods the Church via ignorance."

"There is no way a person who has not learned Greek and Hebrew and written a couple of theses on theological research and passed a hundred rigorous theological exams and sat under some of the most brilliant living Bible scholars on earth can know as much about the Bible as one who has done these things."

"There are a few prodigies, as I have stated,- like Spurgeon- but it is noteworthy that Spurgeon educated himself by reading over a dozen books a week that ARE written by SCHOLARS.

And he was a genius. He was exceptional. This thread is not about "freaks of nature" but about the fact that seminary trained people tend to know a great deal more about the Bible than layman.

How you can argue with that is beyond me.
And if a pastor even, who is not a genius, is even going to hope to get close to the seminary graduate in Bible knowledge, he is going to have to do what Spurgeon and William Carey did- he is going to have to bury his face in books written by those who DID have formal training."

"There are an extraordinarily few people, most of whom are geniuses, who dig it out themselves without formal training- like Spurgeon, but the vast majority of them go to school. "

"Isn't it arrogant for a person who has little more than a Sunday School education to act as if he knows at least as much about the Bible as one who has painstakingly and at great expense dedicated his LIFE to the study of it?"

"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."

"I obviously meant laity in general- OBVIOUSLY since I have said well over a dozen times that there ARE EXCEPTIONS.

But I hasten once again to add that those exceptions are infinitesimally small percentage wise.

But there have been some geniuses like Spurgeon who read 6 books a week who did it."

"if the layman learns Greek and receives some awesome training outside a seminary then he in the exception. But if he does not learn Greek, receive some awesome training etc... there is no way he can have as much bible knowledge as a seminary grad, can he?"

 

[Luke2427]

Yes they can look at the posts to see you are now lying.

These are just the ones in the post here:

(and quite immature).
You missed your calling as a a comedian. Luke, your arguments are really weak, your reading comprehension is lacking

These are just a few I found perusing your posts. There are plenty more than these, but here are just a few:

Post 136 on Degree worth the paper: Hardly, please learn to use the phrase properly.

Post 130 on Degree Worth the Paper: Seriously, you are a legend in your own mind

Post 15 on Scholars VS Laity: Like I said, your reading comprehension is quite lacking.

Post 7 on Scholars VS Laity 2: Reading comprehension.

Post 80 on Degree Worth the Paper: Your reading comprehension is on par with Luke's.

Post 70 on Degree Worth the Paper: Can you not read?

Post 98 on Scholars VS Laity: Even saying it can be proven puts a huge black eye on your argument regarding education

Post 41 on Christmas Tree: Do you even know what a graven image is?

Post 77 on Poll on Doctrines of Grace…: It would do you a world of good to learn opposing views to your own.

Post 333 on knowing Jesus as Son…: You have been schooled on this...please learn.

Post 286 on Is knowing Jesus: You do not even have a solid understanding of regeneration let alone trying to define a term using it

Post 224 on Is knowing Jesus: Do you have that poor of a grasp on context?!?
This one was interesting BTW. This one is where he said it was a shame that I, a pastor had no hermeneutical skills, and went on to say that was because I believe the "natural man: of I Cor. 2:14 was unregenerate!

Post 208 on Is knowing Jesus: Your arrogance is seeping through again

Post 192 on Is Knowing Jesus: Kind of sad a pastor has such a poor grasp on hermeneutics

Post 176 on Is knowing Jesus: You are blind, my friend. Theology has ruined your ability to take in simple Bible 101 basic truths.

Post 49 on Conviction of Sin : Go back to your glass house.

Post 45 on Conviction of Sin: the objective reader will disagree with your lame assessment

Post 98 on Is knowing Jesus…: Here Freeatlast said: In fact you do it very hypocritically. The rules say this: Personal attacks will not be tolerated yet do continue to allow such against me. Then Webdog said: Spoken like a true liberal.

Post 88 on Is knowing Jesus: Go back to your glass house.

Post 72 on Is knowing Jesus: So which is it...intellectually dishonest, or deliberately blinded?

Post 64 on It will Cost you everything: You missed your calling...it should have been as a comedian.

Post 62 on It will Cost you Everything: You are the picture of immaturity.

Post 55 on It will cost you…: I see freeatlast is an idolater as well.

Post 39 on Why is there evil…: He's a hyper-calvinist, like you. That's not historic orthodoxy.

Post 11 on Who bites a disabled…: I'm fed up with reading such ignorant comments.

Post 138 on Are we born spiritually…: Your "fear" comments are comical.

Post 104 on Are we born…: I'm tired of these unintelligible responses.

Post 168 on Are We Born: You don't read too well.

Post 28 on Sin and the Health Care Bill: Only a blind liberal would find offense with this kind of analogy

I said, "You have a problem with attacking the character of the ones with whom you disagree."

Do you still deny it?

 

[Luke2427]

I will admit you have said this, and by itself it sounds very reasonable However you have also said many other things that makes it sound as if a person has a better chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning rather than being able to have the same knowledge as a scholar would on a topic of the bible. Your entire tenor has not been about scholars just tending to have a leg up in understanding scripture, but rather except for the rare genius it is impossible to be so.

There have been numerous threads now on this subject, and many more posts on each. But I wanted to post a few that stood out in my mind.


These are all you own words.

Yea, I stand by all of these words. What is your point? none of them tie me in anyway to this straw man some on here keep debating.

 

[Steven2006]

My point was that your tenor has not been just about scholars just tending to have a leg up in understanding scripture like you implied in your post.

This is getting us nowhere, and against my better judgment I have engaged in this much longer than I should have. So I intend this to be my last post on this issue. I should have bowed out a long time ago, and I am embarrassed I let myself get drawn in as deeply as I have.

 

[Luke2427]

This too is not definitive, without clarification. I might "tend" to agree with you if one is selecting both a "layperson" and seminarian randomly. However, anectdotally but confidently I think the claim can be made that there are non-seminarians who have "on their own" studied biblical languages, homiletics, hermeneutics, church history etc. and could probably go "toe to toe" with the average seminarian.

That's what we've been saying all along.

 

[Luke2427]

My point was that your tenor has not been just about scholars just tending to have a leg up in understanding scripture like you implied in your post.

This is getting us nowhere, and against my better judgment I have engaged in this much longer than I should have. So I intend this to be my last post on this issue. I should have bowed out a long time ago, and I am embarrassed I let myself get drawn in as deeply as I have.

If you were drawn it was by your own lusts- I didn't draw you at all. What you have wasted your time doing is trying to prove that I was saying something I was not saying.

 

[Winman]

Luke, you really should spend some time on this verse.

Prov 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

You must be a young man, when you are older you will know to be a little more humble. You can learn now the easy way, or learn later the hard way.

 

[jbh28]

This too is not definitive, without clarification. I might "tend" to agree with you if one is selecting both a "layperson" and seminarian randomly. However, anectdotally but confidently I think the claim can be made that there are non-seminarians who have "on their own" studied biblical languages, homiletics, hermeneutics, church history etc. and could probably go "toe to toe" with the average seminarian.

I agree. If you take the average "layperson" as you put it at someone that has a seminary training, typically the seminarian will have a better understanding of the Scriptures. Why is this? It's because the seminarian usually has had a great deal of time in careful study of the Scriptures, especially over doctrinal issues. The average Christian has read the Bible, but typically not in studying carefully key doctrinal issues. The seminarian has a better understanding because he has studied. If you have a person that has never been to seminary, he can carefully study the Scriptures and have just as much of an understanding or more than one from a seminary.

We should be careful not to discredit one just because he has not been to seminary. While going to a seminary and learning from those that have studied the Scriptures for years can be a great benefit, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are still the primary teachers in ones life.

So, if someone has a Dr. degree(earned, not honorary) they have had a great deal of time in careful study of the Scriptures. This is why they are more learned. It's not just because they went to seminary, but because they have had careful study. A person without a seminary degree can have this same careful study on their own.

 

[Amy.G]

Havensdad never said that because a majority of seminarians are Calvinistic that that means that Calvinists are right and Arminians are wrong. He said that it is "telling".

Here are his exact words.

Originally Posted by Havensdad
But, yes, the only place that Calvinism is a majority, is among Bible scholars/Seminary professors. Calvinism is in the minority among the laity. That does seem to suggest something.

So what does it suggest? I asked him and he has yet to answer.

You can dance around it all you want, but what he is suggesting is that there are fewer Calvinists in the laity because they aren't well educated. Once again the elitist attitude of I'm a Calvinist because I'm smarter than you.

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree. If you take the average "layperson" as you put it at someone that has a seminary training, typically the seminarian will have a better understanding of the Scriptures. Why is this? It's because the seminarian usually has had a great deal of time in careful study of the Scriptures, especially over doctrinal issues. The average Christian has read the Bible, but typically not in studying carefully key doctrinal issues. The seminarian has a better understanding because he has studied. If you have a person that has never been to seminary, he can carefully study the Scriptures and have just as much of an understanding or more than one from a seminary.

We should be careful not to discredit one just because he has not been to seminary. While going to a seminary and learning from those that have studied the Scriptures for years can be a great benefit, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are still the primary teachers in ones life.

So, if someone has a Dr. degree(earned, not honorary) they have had a great deal of time in careful study of the Scriptures. This is why they are more learned. It's not just because they went to seminary, but because they have had careful study. A person without a seminary degree can have this same careful study on their own.

Well said jbh28!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

Here are his exact words.


So what does it suggest? I asked him and he has yet to answer.

You can dance around it all you want, but what he is suggesting is that there are fewer Calvinists in the laity because they aren't well educated

Amy G. I think you are "spot on" in you analysis of the original intent. I could be wrong, but this "attitude" is usually demonstrated by the younger crowd having fewer years in which to mature both as a person and believer.

 

[Luke2427]

Here are his exact words.


So what does it suggest? I asked him and he has yet to answer.

You can dance around it all you want, but what he is suggesting is that there are fewer Calvinists in the laity because they aren't well educated. Once again the elitist attitude of I'm a Calvinist because I'm smarter than you.

Suggest and telling mean the same thing in this context.
If We find a person with blood on their hands at a murder scene we might say- That blood is telling- or we might say- That blood suggests some things.

And that is what he meant- that the fact that scholars tend to be Calvinistic suggests some things. It DOES suggest some things if it is true (whether it is or not- I don't know), but that is ALL that it does even if it is true- SUGGEST- it doesn't PROVE anything, it doesn't DEMAND anything- it just suggests some things. Suggesting and conclusively proving are vastly different things.

When you say that havensdad said that since scholars tend to be Calvinists that that proves Calvinism- that is a flat misrepresentation of what he said.

The reason being that words have meanings.

Suggest means Suggest. It does not mean anything else.

Prove means prove. It doesn't mean suggest and it cannot be used as a synonym for it.

I suppose the reason he chose the word "suggest" is because he did not mean that it PROVES something- he meant that it suggests some things.

If he wanted to say that scholars tending to be more Calvinistic is proof that Cavinism is right and Arminianism is wrong he would have used the word "prove" rather than suggest.

But since he used the word suggest, I think it is pretty darn clear that he did not mean that it PROVES it. It seems awful, I mean awful, clear that he meant that it "suggests" some things.

 

[Amy.G]

And that is what he meant- that the fact that scholars tend to be Calvinistic suggests some things. It DOES suggest some things if it is true (whether it is or not- I don't know), but that is ALL that it does even if it is true- SUGGEST- it doesn't PROVE anything, it doesn't DEMAND anything- it just suggests some things. Suggesting and conclusively proving are vastly different things.

When you say that havensdad said that since scholars tend to be Calvinists that that proves Calvinism- that is a flat misrepresentation of what he said.

The reason being that words have meanings.

Suggest means Suggest. It does not mean anything else.

Prove means prove. It doesn't mean suggest and it cannot be used as a synonym for it.

I suppose the reason he chose the word "suggest" is because he did not mean that it PROVES something- he meant that it suggests some things.

If he wanted to say that scholars tending to be more Calvinistic is proof that Cavinism is right and Arminianism is wrong he would have used the word "prove" rather than suggest.

But since he used the word suggest, I think it is pretty darn clear that he did not mean that it PROVES it. It seems awful, I mean awful, clear that he meant that it "suggests" some things.

I never used the word "prove".

I never said any of what you've posted here.