Why I do what I do the way I do it

[Amy.G]

Certainly, if you do the work I think we all know ought to be done.

How will you know if I've done the work?

 

[Luke2427]

It does what it can as of the ability it has been given; but does that mean it's better than the feet? Or the eyes?

No. But it should not try to be the feet either.

Neither should the feet try to be the hands, etc...

If you are a scholar, a God-gifted teacher- speak like one.

If you are not- do not.

If the hands try to be the feet and hoist the body up on themselves and attempt to carry the body wherever it goes then they are destined to hurt themselves and the Body.

 

[Luke2427]

How will you know if I've done the work?

You show it.

You quote your sources. We ought to do that anyway.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Luke

I am 100% disabled with a mental handicap, but I would still rather have my handicap than your arrogant, superior, condescending, nasty attitude towards others.

You have to remember that we are ALL students of the Bible. You have not cornered the market on 100% biblical understanding and knowledge.

Furthermore, you are NOT God's enforcer. It is not your job to smash everyone to bits that you don't agree with.

Can you spell d-o-g-m-a-t-i-c?

You may have left the IFB because they are dogmatic, but you have become just as dogmatic as any radical IFBer I have ever seen. Are you kin to Jack Hyles? Was he your father?

This thread is a joke..

Amy was right, this thread is just plain dumb.

John

 

[12strings]

And as for the verse that you post at the end- that verse is absolutely saying that this is the general rule in our dealings.

But what this verse is NOT doing is condmening Paul's bluntness when he withstood Peter to the face.

What it is not doing is contradicting what Paul said when he said that we should condemn to very HELL those that preach another Gospel.

What it is certainly not doing is undermining Peter's handling of Simon when he said to take his money to hell with him.

What is clearly not doing is condemning Paul for saying, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?"

What is most assuredly not doing is condemning Christ for his USUAL way of handling the Pharisees.

What it is not doing is condemning all of the prophets for their fierce handling of wicked kings and false prophets, etc...

And we could go on and on and on.

I agree, but I do think it should serve as a warning to temper those of us who are not up to the level of Jesus, Paul, or the prophets in our handling of real people who have real misunderstandings about difficult texts in the Bible, lest we become convinced that the definition of "righteous anger" is "I am right, and I am angry."

 

[seekingthetruth]

Besides Luke:

If you weren't wrong then you wouldn't be trying so hard to justify yourself.

John

 

[Amy.G]

This thread makes me wonder what was going through William Tyndale's mind as he was translating the bible into English for the "common plow boy" to read and understand. I wonder if he supplied a copy of systematic theology with each bible he hid in all those sacks of flour to be smuggled to Christians.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Luke

I have a verse for you:

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.


This is refering to the qualifications for a church elder (pastor or deacon). But since you are assuming the role of elder here on the BB i figure it applies to you also.

Do you think all of that pride you have might just be a sign that you are a novice? I hope youdon't fall.

John

 

[Benjamin]

Luke - I've asked this before, but don't recall your answer: do you consider yourself the eyes, the mouth, the hands, the feet, or some other part?

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[seekingthetruth]

Luke - I've asked this before, but don't recall your answer: do you consider yourself the eyes, the mouth, the hands, the feet, or some other part?

Evidently he is the brain.....just ask him

John

 

[InTheLight]

This message is hidden because Luke2427 is on your ignore list.

:sleeping_2:

 

[Robert Snow]

There is a man that sacks my groceries at the store. He is my age, but is mentally challenged. He loves the Lord and talks about Him regularly. I suppose I should rebuke him for talking about things he knows very little about. He may not even know the NT was written in Greek. I doubt if he knows what systematic theology is either. How dare he share Christ with anybody. :tear:

This is the dumbest thread in the history of the BB, and that is one thing I DO know something about. And I say that with boldness so as not to appear too "loving".

It sure is nice to know that Jesus doesn't have this arrogant attitude toward us non-intellectuals that Luke does. Some people value God's Word and His approval; some value education and elitism.

Good thing Luke was not around during the early church; he would have been critical of the unlearned Apostles, and no doubt would have criticized their lack of education. Perhaps he would have been more sympathetic toward the Pharisees; they were very well educated.

 

[Luke2427]

Forgive me for not remembering the exact context of the following example (the facts are true, but I have forgotten both the pastor's name and the association of churches)... but I believe it favors the view that Sometimes a simple Christian who believes the bible can make positive contributions to a church and a conversation

:

That is not in question.

 

[seekingthetruth]

:

That is not in question.

Yes it is. You have it very clear that those of us that are not as educated as you should keep our mouths shut.

John

 

[Luke2427]

It sure is nice to know that Jesus doesn't have this arrogant attitude toward us non-intellectuals that Luke does. Some people value God's Word and His approval; some value education and elitism.

Good thing Luke was not around during the early church; he would have been critical of the unlearned Apostles, and no doubt would have criticized their lack of education. Perhaps he would have been more sympathetic toward the Pharisees; they were very well educated.

If it is arrogant to believe that it is evil for people to handle the Word of God haphazardly then I am proud to bear the title.

But when someone knows nothing of the things I speak about in the OP and interprets the word of God on a public forum like this as if he does know what he is talking about- that is the epitome of arrogance. He does not care what the Church has historically believed- I think that means he has a dark heart. He does not care what the text says in the original language- he is moved by dark forces.

True humility will drive a man to study and handle the word of God with wisdom and reverence.

And I think true humility will drive a man to despise and condemn the arrogance of those who do not care enough to study a text properly before they proclaim their inept interpretation of it.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes it is. You have it very clear that those of us that are not as educated as you should keep our mouths shut.

John

No sir. I have said no such thing.

 

[Luke2427]

This thread makes me wonder what was going through William Tyndale's mind as he was translating the bible into English for the "common plow boy" to read and understand. I wonder if he supplied a copy of systematic theology with each bible he hid in all those sacks of flour to be smuggled to Christians.

Tyndale began a Bachelor of Arts degree at Hart Hall (later Hertford College) of Oxford University in 1512; the same year becoming a subdeacon. He was made Master of Arts in July 1515 and was held to be a man of virtuous disposition, leading an unblemished life.[6] The MA allowed him to start studying theology, but the official course did not include the study of scripture. He was a gifted linguist, over the years becoming fluent in French, Greek, Hebrew, German, Italian, Latin, and Spanish, in addition to his native English.[7] Between 1517 and 1521, he went to the University of Cambridge. Erasmus was the leading teacher of Greek there from August 1511 to January 1512, but during Tyndale's time at the university Erasmus was away.[8] According to Monyahan, Tyndale may have met Thomas Bilney and John Frith whilst there.[9]

 

[seekingthetruth]

No sir. I have said no such thing.

You said we should not comment on things we have no knowledge of. Well, we all have some knowledge or we wouldnt' be able to comment at all. So, i guess it comes down to the degree of knowledge we have. And how do we determine that?

I assume that since you are the one complaining about us "ignorant" people that you are also the standard we must meet in order to intelligently converse.

Which in a nutshell means that if we are not as smart as you then we should keep our mouths shut.

John

 

[Amy.G]

Tyndale began a Bachelor of Arts degree at Hart Hall (later Hertford College) of Oxford University in 1512; the same year becoming a subdeacon. He was made Master of Arts in July 1515 and was held to be a man of virtuous disposition, leading an unblemished life.[6] The MA allowed him to start studying theology, but the official course did not include the study of scripture. He was a gifted linguist, over the years becoming fluent in French, Greek, Hebrew, German, Italian, Latin, and Spanish, in addition to his native English.[7] Between 1517 and 1521, he went to the University of Cambridge. Erasmus was the leading teacher of Greek there from August 1511 to January 1512, but during Tyndale's time at the university Erasmus was away.[8] According to Monyahan, Tyndale may have met Thomas Bilney and John Frith whilst there.[9]

Tyndale was a brilliant man, but apparently you missed my point. The Christians that received his smuggled bibles were ignorant! They had been denied the scriptures for many years. Who taught them?

 

[Luke2427]

Tyndale was a brilliant man, but apparently you missed my point. The Christians that received his smuggled bibles were ignorant! They had been denied the scriptures for many years. Who taught them?

The point is that Tyndale was an extraordinarily brilliant man who wanted to enable the common man to become greater scholars of Scripture than the current corrupt clergy of his day.

To argue that Tyndale did not see the value, indeed the necessity of an understanding of original languages, etc... is to argue nonsense.

Tyndale knew where the process must begin- with common people having the Scriptures. You have absolutely no support for this idea that Tyndale thought that that is where it should end- none.

I contend, based on the fact that he himself was VERY educated, that he saw the value in education.

Do you doubt this?