Scholars vs. Laity part 2

[Luke2427]

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.

Thank you for you genuine concern- I am certain, having exchanged with you these many times, that this post was not meant to be a slam or an insult, but rather a real act of compassion.

Especially remembering all the wonderful things you've said about me and other Calvinists. I know you to be a sweet spirited man aqnd I am sure that all those other Calvinists who have run in with you know that you would never use such a post like this to be demeaning- no, not you.

Bless you heart, grandpa. Maybe one day we can all behave ourselves as maturely as you exemplify for us on here. Thanks for being such a great example.:BangHead:

And I am a somewhat young man- I am 31, but I have been married for ten years and I am raising 5 children, and I have been preaching since I was sixteen which is fifteen years and been in full time ministry for more than a decade.

What pastoral experience do you have that I can glean from?

 

[Luke2427]

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.



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.

It is certainly what you are implying here with this straw man argument.

You said, "...to claim that their doctrine is correct and others are wrong simply because they have a "degree"."

He never claimed it proved that they are right.

You didn't use the word "prove" here Amy but it is what you imply because you are saying that havensdad said that Calvinism is correct because educated Christians tend to be Calvinists.
That means that you are saying that havensdad is saying that Calvinists being more educated proves Calvinism.

That is what it means to say something is correct because...

It means that something is proof.

So, yes, Amy, you are misrepresenting him by saying that he said that is proof- the way YOU said he said it was proof was by using the terms: is correct because.

"is correct because" can be interchanged for "proof". They mean the same thing.

So when you said Havensdad said Calvinism "is correct because" educated people tend to be more Calvinistic you were saying that havensdad was saying that being more educated "proves" Calvinism.

For you to say that you did not use the word "prove" makes no point for you because you DID use the phrase "is correct because" which means the same thing- the dead level same thing- the well nigh identical same thing.

So. yes, you did misrepresent what havensdad said because you implied that he said that people with more education is proof that Calvinism is true- you implied this by saying:

to claim that their doctrine is correct and others are wrong simply because they have a "degree

Do you understand that the phrase "is correct because" is the same thing as "proof"?

If you do, then you now know that you have been misrepresenting him because he never said Calvinism "is correct because" educated Christians tend to be Calvinists.

He said the fact that educated Christians tend to be Calvinists "SUGGESTS" some things.

"Suggests" something and "proves" or as you stated it "is right because" are two totally different things.

So, yes, you did misrepresent what havensdad said.

 

[Amy.G]

That means that you are saying that havensdad is saying that Calvinists being more educated proves Calvinism.

I am NOT saying that. First of all, you can't "prove" Calvinism because it is not in the Bible.

I am not misrepresenting anybody. I used Havensdad's own quote. I did not misunderstand what he said. You are defending him simply because you are a Calvinist like him and you also like to argue.

 

[Luke2427]

I am NOT saying that. First of all, you can't "prove" Calvinism because it is not in the Bible.

I am not misrepresenting anybody. I used Havensdad's own quote. I did not misunderstand what he said. You are defending him simply because you are a Calvinist like him and you also like to argue.

Your words have meanings. When you said "is correct because" you were saying that he was saying it "proves" it.

That is a misrepresentation of what he was saying.

I made the case for it above. You must not have read it.

 

[Amy.G]

Your words have meanings. When you said "is correct because" you were saying that he was saying it "proves" it.

That is a misrepresentation of what he was saying.

I made the case for it above. You must not have read it.

I have made my point clear many times on this thread. I have used Havensdad's own quote so I did not misrepresent anything he said.

If he would step forward and explain what he meant that would be great, but he won't. But you cannot defend what he said as it stands without appearing just as arrogant as him.

 

[Luke2427]

I have made my point clear many times on this thread. I have used Havensdad's own quote so I did not misrepresent anything he said.

If he would step forward and explain what he meant that would be great, but he won't. But you cannot defend what he said as it stands without appearing just as arrogant as him.

"Arrogant" is you and Webdog and preacher4truths favorite ad hominem.
It is a personal attack and the rules forbid it but that does not hamper you and webdog and preacher4truth does it?
And do you not think that name calling is abrasive?????

Here is another post where you misrepresented what he said. It is post 52 on the previous Scholars vs Laity thread.

What we are not supposed to be doing is saying that because "we" are scholars we know "our" theology is the correct one because we have studied more and care more about scripture than you do. That is what this is all about.

He never said that "it was the correct one because we have studied more".

He said that the fact that educated people tend to be Calvnists SUGGESTS something.

Saying that something SUGGESTS something is a world of difference from saying that something IS CORRECT BECAUSE...

You heard what you wanted to hear and you kept hearing it thought he clarified it a dozen times. You misrepresented what he said by replacing his word "suggests" with your phrase "is correct because" and then when he made it clearer you kept right on misrepresenting him.

SUGGESTS and "is correct because" are not the same thing- not by a mile.

So, yes, you misrepresented havensdad to make him look like he was saying something he did not say.

 

[Don]

Thank you Don. You inadvertantly hit upon one of my pet peeves.

What pet peeve would that be?

 

[Don]

I'm sorry, I can't help it; the last few pages have caused me much mirth:

Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.

 

[Amy.G]

"Arrogant" is you and Webdog and preacher4truths favorite ad hominem.
It is a personal attack and the rules forbid it but that does not hamper you and webdog and preacher4truth does it?
And do you not think that name calling is abrasive?????

No. I did not call you or anyone a name. A name is a noun. The word arrogant is an adjective. It describes your behavior.
(BTW, I learned that without going to Seminary :laugh

He said that the fact that educated people tend to be Calvnists SUGGESTS something.

What does it suggest?????? Please tell me.

 

[webdog]

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

Do you still deny it?

Yes I do, as with Scripture you rip random things from it's proper context. Do you still deny doing this?

You sure have a lot of time on your hands to do so much "research" on those you are trying to beat into submission. I'm flattered you have become so fixated on me (and now Amy), though. Do you put this much effort into those in your congregation...and when do you find the time?!? How edifying to search through a person's posts in order to try to dig up dirt on them.

Let me remind you...

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with * conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

 

[webdog]

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

[jbh28]

I think we need to take a break from this thread. It's off topic and not anywhere close to edifying.

 

[Don]

Hey - do I get any points for the "Princess Bride" reference?

 

[Dr. Bob]

This is far afield and at the 10 page limit. So will shut it down.

Not sure another thread (part 3) will be allowed. Will zap it personally as the subject has been beaten to death and now only hard feelings will result.

Trust you will understand. If not, you too can be zapped. :saint: