The necessity of scholarship

[Luke2427]

Actually I understand what Luke is trying to say. But, the way he says it has a condescending and arrogant tone to it as do a lot of his posts.

Arrogance is what I am condemning.

I have not boasted at all about myself. I think this claim is unwarranted and unsupportable.

 

[Luke2427]

"Point" is that ONLY "quaification" a Chrisiian really needs in order to post with understanding here on BB is to be filled with HS, study the Bible, be an applier of what is learned, and be open to see what others have to say!

One CAN indded know a lot of the Bible and theology even as a "lay person" or should 'scholars" only need apply?

A lay person can and SHOULD be a scholar if at all possible.

Until he is scholarly on what ever matter he'd like to speak he should keep silent.

The MEANING of the word disciple is "learner" "scholar".

All Christians should be disciples.
Disciple = scholar
All Christians should be scholars.

 

[Skandelon]

God works in us to will of His Good pleasure. Php 2:13

Of course He does, but are you presuming that He does so irresistibly?

Not all are teachers, there is a distinguishment of this within the NT....Those who do speak the Word should take it very seriously, 1 Cor. 4:1

No one seems to be disagreeing with those points. :thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

Of course He does, but are you presuming that He does so irresistibly?

No one seems to be disagreeing with those points. :thumbsup:

You're highjacking the thread. Are you doing this on purpose?

Stick with whether or not scholarship is absolutely necessary if one is to teach others things that impact their immortal souls.

 

[Skandelon]

You're highjacking the thread.

That is your opinion. Can you explain to us why discussing God's influence on our scholarship is unrelated to this discussion? Or is it that you recognize the difficulty in rebuking those who are only doing what God has casually determine them to do and would rather not be confronted with that inconvenient truth? One or the other?

Stick with whether or not scholarship is absolutely necessary if one is to teach others things that impact their immortal souls.

How can you speak of the necessity of something without discussing its necessary origin?

 

[quantumfaith]

Why post this if you are not going to back it up?

Does it not amount to a 3rd graders squabble? YOU DID! YOU DID!

I know you are but what am I!
Do you deny that a Christian ought to know what he is talking about before he talks about it??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That is unthinkable!

Do you deny that all Christians ought to seek to be taught by Spirit gifted teachers???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I cannot see how ANY reasonable person could argue such a thing.

What were you saying about 3rd Grade? "I am rubber, you are glue" comes to mind. (not being a "hateful" frame of mind here)

 

[quantumfaith]

Wisdom teaches us this, or should.

We should know what we are talking about. Also, through discussion we can learn more.

Fools speak like they know what they are talking of when they do not.

I think the OP is about the facilitation toward some within Christendom being considered ignorant by others on the outside (and from some within) due to not knowing their Bibles, and misapplying truth, misrepresenting truth, and misquoting truth, and misunderstanding truth, and holding bizzare unscriptural beliefs not supported by the Scriptures. This is what the OP sets out to discuss.

Although some may not like Luke2427s methods of saying things, it is the personality God gave him, and none of us are perfect, so to debate this as Christian we should look past our personal opinions and debate the subject matter.

As ministers, we have heard some of the most foolish unthought out conclusions from Scripture. These folks are whom he is addressing in the OP.

- Peace

PFT,

Who gets the be the arbiter of whether one "knows what they are talking about"? By this I mean, if Brother A says I think this scripture teaches such and such, but Brother B says "No brother you are wrong, thats baloney", this is what that scripture teaches. Then by Brother B's position, brother A does not know what he is talking about and by default not a scholar so he should then just not speak.

 

[preacher4truth]

PFT,

Who gets the be the arbiter of whether one "knows what they are talking about"? By this I mean, if Brother A says I think this scripture teaches such and such, but Brother B says "No brother you are wrong, thats baloney", this is what that scripture teaches. Then by Brother B's position, brother A does not know what he is talking about and by default not a scholar so he should then just not speak.

Well, that is another issue altogether.

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, that is another issue altogether.

But it is a "reasonable" question?

 

[JesusFan]

Of course He does, but are you presuming that He does so irresistibly?

No one seems to be disagreeing with those points. :thumbsup:

He does ALL THINGS after His OWN good and perfect Will... For his OWN pleasure...

SO IF God was the one sending fortth His grace to get a chosen "job" accomplished, would always be sufficient to the task assigned it!

 

[JesusFan]

That is your opinion. Can you explain to us why discussing God's influence on our scholarship is unrelated to this discussion? Or is it that you recognize the difficulty in rebuking those who are only doing what God has casually determine them to do and would rather not be confronted with that inconvenient truth? One or the other?

How can you speak of the necessity of something without discussing its necessary origin?

Question here...

How MUCH learning necessary in order to be able to "adequetly" dsicuss theological terms and concepts?

WHO decides the levels and IF one has met them?

 

[preacher4truth]

But it is a "reasonable" question?

That's purely subjective.

Give a detailed hypothetical context?

Now, say we have Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Dr. R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur Jr. debating JW's in a public debate. We'd be immediately aware of who is wrong in this debate, misrepresenting Scriptures &c as it would necessitate speaking of the Deity of Christ, and Salvation by faith, v. works. These are of course fundamental doctrines.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

He does ALL THINGS after His OWN good and perfect Will... For his OWN pleasure...

SO IF God was the one sending fortth His grace to get a chosen "job" accomplished, would always be sufficient to the task assigned it!

Correct. So the question is whether God sent the gospel to effectually save a select few or to provide the sufficient means necessary for free moral agents to make a free moral response.

 

[JesusFan]

Correct. So the question is whether God sent the gospel to effectually save a select few or to provide the sufficient means necessary for free moral agents to make a free moral response.

Question than would be
Would it be WRONG for God to choose the first option then in His dealings with Man?

 

[Skandelon]

Question than would be
Would it be WRONG for God to choose the first option then in His dealings with Man?

No, if that is what God's plan was then how could it be wrong? I just think that would be inconsistent with the revelation of scripture. The gospel is meant for "every creature" thus it seems inconsistent to me to presume it is not sufficient to save whosoever hears it.

 

[JesusFan]

No, if that is what God's plan was then how could it be wrong? I just think that would be inconsistent with the revelation of scripture. The gospel is meant for "every creature" thus it seems inconsistent to me to presume it is not sufficient to save whosoever hears it.

Youa and I BOTH agree that the Gospel is sufficient to save all those who can respond by faith, where we disagree is that you assume all can decide yes/no for jesus, mine is that ONLY those elcted by god will have means able to do that...

 

[Skandelon]

Youa and I BOTH agree that the Gospel is sufficient to save all those who can respond by faith, where we disagree is that you assume all can decide yes/no for jesus, mine is that ONLY those elcted by god will have means able to do that...

Your first sentence contradicts your last. The Gospel cannot be sufficient to save all if ONLY those elected by God have the means able to do that.

 

[JesusFan]

Your first sentence contradicts your last. The Gospel cannot be sufficient to save all if ONLY those elected by God have the means able to do that.

No...
iyts is the part of theology that says that Jesus indeed died for all sins for all men, BUT only those able to receive Him by faith gets the benefit of that grace, and those are the elect of God!

 

[matt wade]

No...
iyts is the part of theology that says that Jesus indeed died for all sins for all men, BUT only those able to receive Him by faith gets the benefit of that grace, and those are the elect of God!

So Jesus bought us ALL candy, held it out for us ALL to see, and then only passes it out to SOME of us.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So Jesus bought us ALL candy, held it out for us ALL to see, and then only passes it out to SOME of us.

Well its his candy....He can do what he wants with it. Right.:tongue3: