Shepherd's Theological

==Considering the fact that they did not have degrees, as we know them, in the first century Israel I don't think that is a good example. Those who graduate from conservative seminaries know the Gospel message.

==Getting an education is not about "having many letters in front and behind one's name", rather it is about learning as much as one can about the subject matter (in this case theology). There is nothing wrong with getting a good education.

Btw, you have misused 1Cor 1:21-31. The passage is talking about worldly wisdom. Evangelical seminaries do not promote worldly wisdom, they teach men the Word of God, Biblical languages, church history, ministry, and other important things. There is nothing worldly about any of that.

==Please tell me what you know about textual criticism.

My experience is that the study of textual criticism adds a helpful apologetical tool to the ministers bag of tools. Like it or not, modern preachers need to be aware of how people are attacking the Word of God, and textual criticism helps us refute those attacks. Ignoring textual criticism will only serve to isolate preachers from important debates/issues that affect the people in the pews (who watch CNN and A&E). If preachers are isolated from those issues then many people will assume the attackers have made valid points (which they really have not).

==I assume you mean "Bible preaching/teaching" and not "thumping" in the sense of taking verses out of context to use in a pre-determined way. Bible thumping is not a positive thing since it often is not based on a careful explanation of the Word of God.

==That is true sometimes, but not all the time. I know of plenty of churches where the truth is taught that have good attendance. My own church is a perfectly good example. O, and believe me, my preacher is not afraid of "hell-fire/brimestone" sermons. However I thank God that my preacher is not a "Bible thumper" but rather a Bible teacher.

Btw, I have been to seminary and nobody will every accuse me of going soft on any issue.

 

While it may not have been called magna cum laude(with much clamoring), from Jerusalem University, the Levites, scribes and pharisees surely seemed to have had a system of theological training which was thoroughly misguided by A.D. 30. "In vain they do worship, teaching for doctrines of men..." They were spiritually blinded--they missed the Messiah, in fact they had Jesus crucified and took responsibility while passing it to their children. Israel, as a nation, continues to reject Jesus, The Christ. This is promulgated by their learned ones to be sure, while much of Israel seems to care less.

Modern seminaries seem unable to decide who is right: Jon Chauvin or James Arminius when it is time for soteriology class, they both cannot be right. That has to be the most important question to be answered: Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Does anyone teach that the TOTAL depravity of man was preached many centuries before these gentlemen were born? If one is "wishy-washy" about depravity, that which follows is also watered down. There is either a spark of good in everyone or there is not--there is no middle ground.

I retract my use of "bible-thumping", it is more ambiguous that I realized. What I was trying to say is: there is only one Word of God, He said what He meant, He meant what He said. We are all without excuse.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. I did not get these notions at seminary. I was fifth from the bottom in H.S. I did learn how to read. God called me out anyway. I know whom I have believed. God is faithful to keep His Word.

 

Bro. James,

Along the way, Did you utilize any college or seminary for your theological training? Have you read books or articles of professors and so on to help you theologically?

 

==And that relates to modern conservative seminaries, how? Jesus never condemned them for their schools. He condemned them because they were not following God's Word. Just because they may have been "misguided" does not mean that all schools/seminaries are misguided.

==I don't know of a seminary that can't decide which was right. If you do, let me know. Seminaries, like all Churches, have come to different conclusions. Just look at the people on this board, in your church, or in the church down the road, there are different understandings on this issue. Such disagreement is not found only in seminaries. It is found among those who will never set foot in a seminary/college classroom just like it is found among those who have/will.

==And that has to do with education, Bible education, in what way?

O, and you failed to answer my question about textual criticism. I await your reply.

 

==Does this mean that you believe that God does not use educated people? Do you believe God's call is exclusive to those on the lower end of the education scale? Do you believe that your call, which I don't doubt, is the model for all callings? Do you honestly believe that God values a lack of Bible/Theological education?

 

Higher textual criticism seems a subtle means of casting doubt on the inerrancy of the Word of God. It is as if we are not sure who said what when nor why. Further, everything is suspect until proven one way or another. " Let God be found true, and every man a liar." God's Word is Truth whether we can prove it or not and whether we believe It or not.

Does God use education. Yes, indeed. Saul of Tarsus was probably an educated man. God had to re-train him in theology--rather forcefully it seems. Pauline theology is abundant in the New Testament. He preached to a lot of educated folk--some were converted.

The biggest problem I have with seminaries outside the authority of a local church is that they have no accountability per the sovereignty of the NT Church. There is no Bible sanction for such an entity.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Higher textual criticism seems a subtle means of casting doubt on the inerrancy of the Word of God. It is as if we are not sure who said what when nor why. Further, everything is suspect until proven one way or another. " Let God be found true, and every man a liar." God's Word is Truth whether we can prove it or not and whether we believe It or not.

Does God use education. Yes, indeed. Saul of Tarsus was probably an educated man. God had to re-train him in theology--rather forcefully it seems. Pauline theology is abundant in the New Testament. He preached to a lot of educated folk--some were converted.

The biggest problem I have with seminaries outside the authority of a local church is that they have no accountability per the sovereignty of the NT Church. There is no Bible sanction for such an entity. A similar observation could be made for boards, conventions, and another entity which can affect the sovereignty of the NT Church.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

1. When we begin to doubt the infallibility, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture because of seminary training, then something is definitely wrong. There are many ungodly seminaries out there.

2. Amen, brother.

3. Paul was well-education. Make no mistake about that (Acts 2:3; Phil 3:4-6).

4. You are entitled to your own position.

 

==If you don't understand the principles of textual criticism, then how are you going to respond to someone who doubts the Word of God because of their misunderstanding of textual criticism? Just brushing it off, or trying to get around it, will probably not work. You have to confront these things head on. What do you say to someone who has just watched some "scholars" on A&E say that the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the events? How do you respond to that in a meaningful way?

Textual criticism helps refute the misuse of textual criticism because it gives us the historical/textual data we need in apologetics. Many NT scholars who use textual criticism believe in inerrancy and inspiration. My studies on textual criticism only increased my belief in inerrancy and inspiration. I went from 100% certain of those things to 100% certain of those things. The liberals who deny inerrancy and inspiration, the liberals who attempt to late date the Gospels, those liberals have no case! And it is the study of textual criticism that helps us prove that. Texual criticism can be used for bad, but only if it is misused by people who have agendas. When properly practiced, textual criticism is just another tool in apologetics.

==That is true, but we are called by Scripture to give a defense for our faith (1Pet 3:15).

Now for the "everything is suspect" part. That is simply not true. It depends upon who is involved in the study. If you have a presuppositionalist, like myself, everything in Scripture is true and the evidence that is brought to the table is only icing on the cake. The evidence is only used to show unbelievers the reason why we can be sure that our faith is based on truth. We can use these tools to say, "look, the Bible is historically true".

==Most evangelical seminaries are accountable to a church or to a board of ministers. The Southern Baptist seminaries are owned and operated by the convention. They are accountable to the ministers on their boards and to the people of the Southern Baptist Convention. Other seminaries, such as Liberty and Temple, are under direct supervision of local churches.

==Seminaries don't control the local churches.

Let me ask you a direct question: Do you value a lack of education? In other words, do you believe little education is better than more?

 

Are we saying that ministerial boards and conventions are not, in effect, sovereign entities unto themselves? If my church building and property is financed by a Convention and my church decides to withdraw from the Convention, who has control of the property?

The "Holy See" comes in many colors. All the property in the diocese belongs to the bishop. I got this notion from hearing reports that certain local parishes found themselves bankrupt and without property. Property had been sold by the bishop/archbishop. Turns out this is legal.
This is an interesting bit of "church" sovereignty. Is it any different if 50 or 500 bishops have a conclave? What has happened to Church sovereignty?

I think I would rather be dumbeth and free than smarteth and enslaved.

Answer to direct question: no. Some study under fluorescent tubes; others use candlelight.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

==I am not talking about ministerial boards and conventions, I am talking about education and seminaries.

 

Ministerial boards and conventions are closely related to education and seminaries in terms of that which authorizes all of them and to whom they are accountable. See Mt. 16:18 plus context, including the Petrine Pun; also Mt. 28:20 in context. The authorization to carry out the commission was given to the First New Testament Church, not the holy see. She is still the pillar and ground of the Truth, being led by The Spirit, The Holy, who immersed them on the Day of Pentecost. He still indwells His assemblies, leading them in all Truth. Not all assemblies can claim this--some have had their candlesticks removed; others never had a candlestick. Questions: where did The Holy Spirit go after Pentecost? Also, where was He during the Dark Ages?

Does not the scripture teach we are not to call one another Doctor? It tends toward the sin of respect of person. Father is another. This is about who gets the glory--God or man?

We will probably have to wait for the Bema Seat to finish this discussion.

Sorry for chasing so many rabbits. This is kind of germane under the heading: By whose authority do we do these things?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

==Who has disagreed with that? Most evangelical seminary profs. would agree with that (as would I). I am also not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. The Holy See is Roman Catholic, I am not talking about any Roman Catholic institution.

==Passage reference? There is a difference between terms used on degrees and terms used in a religious context.

 

What flavor Baptist am I? A rather bizarre admixture of landmark, sovereign grace and particular, old regular and primitive. I have lived with Catholics, Methodists, Mormons,and Celts, also Baptists who say they are now Catholic. I am one of those weird Baptists who are not Protestants. Here's why:

I am persuaded Jesus started calling out His assembly on the shores of Galilee during His personal ministry on earth. This group is also His Bride. He has never left Her nor forsaken Her. She has been in every generation, the pillar and ground off the Truth, in spite of the onslaughts of the Prince of the Power of the Air, the god of this world. She is still in the world, awaiting the return of the Bridegroom. She has not been defiled by Rome, Wittenburg, Canterbury or Nauvoo.

Praise God, He is faithful, even when we are not.

Any one want to move this to a new spool?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Martin, please allow me to butt into your debate. Whereas one cannot speak for another, I will voice my views on the questions addressed to Bro. James. I reject textual criticism on intellectual grounds. It is, IMHO, poor scientific methodology and its basic assumptions, beginning with W & H through the present, are faulty. The problem is that whereas I find many folks willing to defend the discipline with the standard pabulum but no one has agreed to debate the basic premises or the philosophical issues or the scientific technical methodology with me. After all, epistemology is my passion. Basically, the whole discipline is invalid (I am using invalid in a technical sense) in that it does not do what it claims and it cannot verify its claims. I will make a bold, confident statement that textual criticism is very bad science, if that is what it is supposed to be.

Although I may possess a fair amount of education, I have been skeptical and thoughful throughout the whole process. In other words, I didn't buy everything that I was taught when it contradicted common sense, sound reasoning or other knowledge that I thought to be valid.

So, what are your thoughts, Martin?

 

Anti-intellectual bias, not really-- more at trying to follow the Master who said: sell your stuff, give the money to the poor, follow Me. There is no mention of picking up a doctoral degree in the meanwhile. In fact, most of the apostles were without pedigree.

Take the doctoral money and buy some English Bibles . Distribute them on the streets of New York City.. Live off the love offerings of the converts. Earn a Doctor of Humility.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

That comes across as sanctimonious. It also seems a bit hypocritical. I assume you didn't mean it in that way, but that's how it appears.

 

==Paul is going to pose a major problem for your unBiblical theory. He was a highly educated man, as was Luke. As a child, Jesus Himself went into the Temple to talk advanced theology with the teachers (etc) of His day (Lk 2:41-52). God does not condemn education. Jesus did not condemn it in His day, it was not condemned in the Old Testament, and it is not condemned now. Certainly a person does not have to goto school to be educated in theology/Biblical studies. However school will help a person learn the languages the Bible was written in, the historical context in which it was written, and it will help a person get a broader understanding of how Christians have understood issues throught the history of the Church.

Just because some of the Apostles were "uneducated" (Acts 4:13) does not mean that education is a bad thing. I think you are guilty of anti-intellectualism, you seem to glory in a lack of offical education and to put down offical education. At the very least you seem to resent offical education. I don't know why. Maybe it was a personal experience, maybe it is a teaching you have accepted, I don't know. But you certainly seem to have a strong bias against offical education.

==So you live off the "love offerings of...converts"? If not, why do you suggest others do something you don't do? If you do live off of love offerings why are you spending that money on computers (etc) and not only "English Bibles"?

O, and btw, where do you think those english Bibles came from? They came from people who spent years in school studying textual translation, learning languages, history, and theology. They came from the hard work of the very people you constantly put down. So your whole position is contradictory. Clearly God calls people to formal education, if He does not how do you explain the english Bibles you use? What about the various ministries you listen to, read, and watch? Are you aware of the fact that people had to goto school to learn how to make those things possible? The idea that formal education is a waste of money is unBiblical, unrealistic, and clearly shows a anti-intellectual bias that has not taken a whole bunch of factors into serious consideration. You should prayerfully and carefully reconsider your position.

O, and the reason I don't pass out english Bibles in New York is...I don't live in New York. And most people have Bibles in their homes. If they don't read the Bible sitting on the bookshelf in the living room (etc) what makes you think they are going to read a Bible handed to them by a stranger on the street? I have nothing against street preaching, handing out tracks, and other such practices. However I do believe such practices are not as effective now as they once were. Most of the people who listen to street preachers are already Christians. I am guilty of that myself! Many lost people walk by, roll their eyes, and keep on walking. So what is effective in our society? Relational evangelism. Getting to know a person and being interested in them personally, that is a great way to evangelize. People trust people they know and they are more likely to listen to someone they know and trust. Most of the people I have witnessed to are people I have come to know. I have seen this in my own life, in other's lives, and I see it in the Bible. Gaining people's trust has always been important, and it is even more important today. Mainly in light of the Ted Haggards of the world. Another way is to get people to listen to a preacher they know they can trust. You would be surprised how many lost people I run into who will not darken the door of certain churches because they know the Gospel is not being preached, or they will not watch certain preachers on tv because they know something is not right about them, but they will listen to a preacher who they know is "for real". That is why it is important for preachers to get to know people in the community. To be out and about and getting to know people. People listen to those they trust.