Scholars vs. Laity

[Winman]

An example of what I believe being taught error in the seminary is shown in the article by R.C. Sproul entitled Regeneration Precedes Faith. Look at the opening statements.

One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

R.C. Sproul was saved, and he believed a person must first believe to be regenerated. I personally agree with this, because you cannot have life until your sins are taken away. If a person is regenerated for only one second before they believe on Christ, they are a born again sinner dead in their sins. This is impossible.

And this is what Sproul believed until he got into the seminary. It was then that his doctrine was altered by his intructors.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

As you can see, a major factor in Sproul changing his doctrine was that he was impressed by scholars.

However, no one who holds this view can show even a single verse of scripture to support it, while there are probably a dozen verses that clearly refute it.

What do you believe? Do you believe clear and distinct scripture that addresses this issue, or do you believe scholars?

I say you believe the scriptures.

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 and distinctly teaches you must believe to have life. And there are many other verses that clearly teach the same.

So, I don't care if a fellow is a "scholar" with a fancy title and half a dozen letters after his name. Scholarship and education is only as accurate as your teachers. If they are in error, you will learn error.

Isn't it amazing that at first Sproul saw that faith precedes regeneration? Isn't it amazing he had to be convinced otherwise by so called scholars?

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow, you are very proud and conceited.

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

Nail? Head?

What is our responsibility to a brother who treats others in the Kingdom with disdain? And mocks them publicly for no other reason than arrogant pride?

 

[Luke2427]

Wow, you are very proud and conceited.

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

Ad hominem. This is a logical fallacy and inflammatory. It is also abrasive and arrogant.

It makes no argument but just seeks to insult the character of someone.

 

[Luke2427]

An example of what I believe being taught error in the seminary is shown in the article by R.C. Sproul entitled Regeneration Precedes Faith. Look at the opening statements.



R.C. Sproul was saved, and he believed a person must first believe to be regenerated. I personally agree with this, because you cannot have life until your sins are taken away. If a person is regenerated for only one second before they believe on Christ, they are a born again sinner dead in their sins. This is impossible.

And this is what Sproul believed until he got into the seminary. It was then that his doctrine was altered by his intructors.



As you can see, a major factor in Sproul changing his doctrine was that he was impressed by scholars.

However, no one who holds this view can show even a single verse of scripture to support it, while there are probably a dozen verses that clearly refute it.

What do you believe? Do you believe clear and distinct scripture that addresses this issue, or do you believe scholars?

I say you believe the scriptures.

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 and distinctly teaches you must believe to have life. And there are many other verses that clearly teach the same.

So, I don't care if a fellow is a "scholar" with a fancy title and half a dozen letters after his name. Scholarship and education is only as accurate as your teachers. If they are in error, you will learn error.

Isn't it amazing that at first Sproul saw that faith precedes regeneration? Isn't it amazing he had to be convinced otherwise by so called scholars?

This is for another thread- one in which your position was thoroughly dismantled. The Word of God does teach that regeneration precedes faith as has already been proven to you.

If you wish to discuss this I will be glad to, but we need to start another thread and lay down and agree upon some ground rules.

You game?

 

[ashleysdad]

This is relative, particularly when there are many different flavors of seminaries, denominations, beliefs, etc. I know Roman Catholic priests who hold doctorates. In the scope of truth, does that mean anything?

You are right I should have been more clear. Just holding a degree in Biblical studies does nothing if truth is not present. Let me clarify as I should have earlier. I am strictly referring to seminaries that are grounded in Biblical truth. In that light I do not believe that it is relative. A person that spends years in intensive study and learning will have more knowledge and know more about the Bible than one who has not. Again this does not make them a better Christian or more Spirit filled but it does give them more knowledge.

 

[BobinKy]

Amy...

I come down on the laity side of things. However, I do think the Holy Spirit gives certain Christians more gifts in this area. And I also think, at times, those with more gifts are those in the pew, rather than those on faculty at some institution or preaching in the pulpit.

On the other hand, I do not think the role of prophet has closed. I still think we have prophets among us, who are guided by the Holy Spirit with Spirit-given knowledge and teaching gifts.

...Bob

 

[webdog]

She has no theological degree- that's enough, unless she's a genius. If she claims to be a genius and can back that up or declare that she does have some formal theological training- I will take it back.

I can't really add anything to this...it speaks volumes. I'm actually speechless. Unbelievable :tear:

I want to thank God that He saved this sinner, not based on any mental faculties I have or abilities to afford higher education, but for giving me a strong desire to dig into His Word and the greatest Teacher, Counselor and Helper I could ever ask for.

 

[webdog]

You are right I should have been more clear. Just holding a degree in Biblical studies does nothing if truth is not present. Let me clarify as I should have earlier. I am strictly referring to seminaries that are grounded in Biblical truth. In that light I do not believe that it is relative. A person that spends years in intensive study and learning will have more knowledge and know more about the Bible than one who has not. Again this does not make them a better Christian or more Spirit filled but it does give them more knowledge.

I agree about those who dedicate themselves to intensive study. I disagree this must be accomplished in a seminary format as that also becomes relative based on many factors. Scripture is clear that when Truth is sought out, Truth can be found and it is not limited to being purchased .

My father only has a GED and I would put him up against many scholars on this site and elsewhere on straight Bible knowledge. He has been an intense student of Scripture for almost 40 years and has forgotten more than I have learned.

 

[webdog]

This is for another thread- one in which your position was thoroughly dismantled. The Word of God does teach that regeneration precedes faith as has already been proven to you.

If you wish to discuss this I will be glad to, but we need to start another thread and lay down and agree upon some ground rules.

You game?

Luke, repeating something over and over does not make it true. You should have learned that in Seminary

No human in history has ever proven pre-faith regeneration. Even saying it can be proven puts a huge black eye on your argument regarding education.

 

[Robert Snow]

I believe the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ did much better before there were Seminaries than it has since their inception.

Doctrines like Calvinism has flourished thanks to "higher Christian education" but I believe this proves my point.

 

[Don]

You are right I should have been more clear. Just holding a degree in Biblical studies does nothing if truth is not present. Let me clarify as I should have earlier. I am strictly referring to seminaries that are grounded in Biblical truth. In that light I do not believe that it is relative. A person that spends years in intensive study and learning will have more knowledge and know more about the Bible than one who has not. Again this does not make them a better Christian or more Spirit filled but it does give them more knowledge.

There is only one problem with your post: Which seminaries are grounded in Biblical truth? We must identify those, so that we can recognize that anyone holding a degree from any seminary not on our list does not hold the truth.

Unfortunately, that begs the follow-on question: Who decides which seminaries are grounded in Biblical truth? Who decides the criteria that makes such a determination? Who does the annual or periodic re-evaluations to ensure previously identified seminaries continue to meet the criteria, and add those newly established seminaries who meet the criteria?

Which begs the follow-on question: Who decides who's qualified?

And so on, and so on....

-----
Added:
And ultimately, I find myself coming back to this answer: in a church that's looking for a pastor, it's the laity who looks at the man's background, schooling, experience, what he teaches, etc.; and who decides that a man meets particular requirements to be their pastor. In a church that was started by a pastor, it's the laity that decides to keep that pastor, or votes to fire him, or leaves one by one for whatever reason.

 

[kyredneck]

If scholars "know" more than the laity, why is it they disagree with one another about doctrine? Try finding 2 commentaries that agree 100%.

[great big smile of agreement]

They are no more unified than any other group of Christians.

[another great big smile of agreement]

I don't have anything against education. Learning the original languages is a good thing, but I can't tolerate the arrogance in saying that simply because they are more educated than the laity they "know" more. The proof of their knowledge is in the life they live and the example they are to others, not how many books they read or how much money it cost them to go to school.

[still smiling great big in agreement] It wasn't the [learned] priest or the [learned] Levite that showed compassion when it was needed, but it was a Samaritan that showed the work of the law written in his heart.

.....God reveals truth to ALL Christians who seek it. Not just scholars.

[still smiling] Amen Sister

And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. Heb 11:6

I don't see/read attending seminary in the above passage in order to be rewarded. Maybe some do.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that a person's spirituality is based on the person and their closeness to God is based on that person's relationship to God irrelevant of the "education" that person recieves. Yet in studying (to make oneself an approved workman) the scriptures present themselves to be an endless well of inspiration, knowledge, and enlightenment. However, study may give you more knowledge or certain understanding of something it is no guarantee of improved spirituality. Or true religion as our lord put it. Ie... the feeding of the poor. Protection of the widow and orphan etc...

 

[Old Union Brother]

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that a person's spirituality is based on the person and their closeness to God is based on that person's relationship to God irrelevant of the "education" that person recieves. Yet in studying (to make oneself an approved workman) the scriptures present themselves to be an endless well of inspiration, knowledge, and enlightenment. However, study may give you more knowledge or certain understanding of something it is no guarantee of improved spirituality. Or true religion as our lord put it. Ie... the feeding of the poor. Protection of the widow and orphan etc...

:smilewinkgrin: i'm like Ky redneck, Smiling in approval

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that a person's spirituality is based on the person and their closeness to God is based on that person's relationship to God irrelevant of the "education" that person recieves. Yet in studying (to make oneself an approved workman) the scriptures present themselves to be an endless well of inspiration, knowledge, and enlightenment. However, study may give you more knowledge or certain understanding of something it is no guarantee of improved spirituality. Or true religion as our lord put it. Ie... the feeding of the poor. Protection of the widow and orphan etc...

Yes TS, here we are in total agreement.

 

[quantumfaith]

Ad hominem. This is a logical fallacy and inflammatory. It is also abrasive and arrogant.

It makes no argument but just seeks to insult the character of someone.

Luke, I wish to inject. While I agree with you "reformed theology" is very solid from the aspect of "logic". But it should also be remembered, logical argruments only concern themselves with whether or not the conclusion follows from the premise. It may well be that "premises" are not entirely correct, and thus conclusions based on those premises are at least debateable.

 

[quantumfaith]

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that a person's spirituality is based on the person and their closeness to God is based on that person's relationship to God irrelevant of the "education" that person recieves. Yet in studying (to make oneself an approved workman) the scriptures present themselves to be an endless well of inspiration, knowledge, and enlightenment. However, study may give you more knowledge or certain understanding of something it is no guarantee of improved spirituality. Or true religion as our lord put it. Ie... the feeding of the poor. Protection of the widow and orphan etc...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

There is only one problem with your post: Which seminaries are grounded in Biblical truth? We must identify those, so that we can recognize that anyone holding a degree from any seminary not on our list does not hold the truth.

Unfortunately, that begs the follow-on question: Who decides which seminaries are grounded in Biblical truth? Who decides the criteria that makes such a determination? Who does the annual or periodic re-evaluations to ensure previously identified seminaries continue to meet the criteria, and add those newly established seminaries who meet the criteria?

Which begs the follow-on question: Who decides who's qualified?

And so on, and so on....


Excellent points!!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Steven2006]

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that a person's spirituality is based on the person and their closeness to God is based on that person's relationship to God irrelevant of the "education" that person recieves. Yet in studying (to make oneself an approved workman) the scriptures present themselves to be an endless well of inspiration, knowledge, and enlightenment. However, study may give you more knowledge or certain understanding of something it is no guarantee of improved spirituality. Or true religion as our lord put it. Ie... the feeding of the poor. Protection of the widow and orphan etc...

Absolutely! I greatly respect anyone who dedicates him or herself to go to years of school to study the bible. And I think of course those that do probably learn much, and know many things, especially when taking into account the entire bible from cover to cover. It is a good bet if one wanted and answer to many general questions they would be well informed to give it.

However when we start talking about understanding exactly what God intends to reveal to us with particular scriptures, who is to argue that absolutely any one individual must have a greater understanding than another.

My Grandpa for a long life into his eighties faithfully spent hours daily studying the bible his entire life. He never owned a television, listened to the radio rarely, and lived a rather plain hard working life as a farmer and carpenter. Raised a large family and was blessed. How he enjoyed his leisure was spending time with the Lord. I am not going to say that I know for certain that he knew more than anyone else, but I do know this. I know he spent more time in Gods word than anyone else I have ever known. I know he lived his life as an great example of faithfulness. He definitely didn't just have book knowledge to debate or answer questions. He lived it and was a great example and inspiration for many that knew him.

 

[Havensdad]

I believe the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ did much better before there were Seminaries than it has since their inception.

Doctrines like Calvinism has flourished thanks to "higher Christian education" but I believe this proves my point.

Actually this is completely backwards and turned upside down. Before Seminaries, it was only the Roman Catholic church which "flourished." All Protestant denominations, including Baptists, are a direct result of the educational explosion. Dr. Martin Luther is the one that set the whole break with Rome going. Others, such as Calvin, kept it going.

All of this was directly due to God's use of theological education. When people started diligently studying the Word of God and theology, and began going back to the original Greek (instead of the corrupt Latin translations of the RCC), they saw the huge discrepancies, and broke with Rome.