Scholars vs. Laity part 2

This is yet another ad hominem. You cannot post in disagreement without attacking the character of the one with whom you disagree. Any one can look at your posts, they are open to the public, and see this terrible pattern of yours.

You cannot seem to avoid calling them names like ignorant, liberal, arrogant, lacking reading comprehension, hermeneutically handicapped, etc, etc, etc...

You almost NEVER address just the arguments- it is like you HAVE to attack the character of the arguER. That makes you a bully.

And if you block me it will not be because I am bullying you- it is because I force you to face the facts. Others just give up on you and let you think whatever you want to think. Those folks are to be commended. But I do not like the idea of leaving you to such thoughts. So I stay in the pocket and force you to face facts. That is why you will block me. Like now I am forcing you to face the fact that you have a problem with attacking the character of the ones with whom you disagree. That is why you will block me.

And I did accept your apology as far as it went. This is how you offered it: I admit that on this particular thread I jumped the gun on that particular remark and I apologize.

But in my responding post I accepted your apology for that particular remark on this particular thread but went on to point out that this is a consistent problem of yours not restricted to a particular remark on a particular thread.

But you will not see it. You are determined to see faults in me (and they are there) and every one who debates you- but you will not see them in yourself.

 

Now I might be a little bias when I make this statement (b/c I have a Master’s degree in biblical/theological studies)—but its those who have not had at least some form of college education in biblical areas that seem to think their way is the right & only way—b/c as they are sure to say “its what the Bible says--& that’s enough for me!” The problem is-- knowing what you think the Bible says & knowing what the Bible actually means are not always the same thing. This is especially true with the subject of eschatology—where I’ve been called a heretic for not believing in the biblical reality of the “Left Behind” series. That being said-I think the theory of a pre-tribulation “rapture” is possible—but it certainly is not the only (or for that matter likely) possibility. Further, while the ability to use Greek, biblical systematic, & culture history has greatly attributed to my ability to teach God’s Word on a deeper level--I’m certainly not saying that God doesn’t use people with out college degrees to achieve great things for his Kingdom—its just if we are gonna rail on the educated for their stubbornness—we can’t neglect how the uneducated can be just as obstinate about their own opinions when it comes to Scriptural interpretation.

 

Yes they can look at the posts to see you are now lying.

Lie #2. If you think all of those phrases were used in "name calling"...thanks for making my point for me.

Lie #3 (and quite immature). A bully is demanding an apology, getting one...then continuing to wag your finger and put them down. Let the reader decide who that is.

You missed your calling as a a comedian. Luke, your arguments are really weak, your reading comprehension is lacking, you argue things not said (while using the "stawman" statement at the same time) and you cause more heat than light.

Lie # 4. Weren't you the one that stated an apology qualified with "but" is not sincere?

Lie #5. I'm as wretched a sinner as the next person.

You drag my character through the mud but have the nerve to cry "ad hominem" each chance you get. That is hypocritical. At this point you can go on gossiping about me via PM,...

 

Luke, I have debated with you many times, and you rarely have "facts" to support you. You seem to consider your personal opinion as fact.

For instance, in this debate about whether regeneration precedes faith, or vice versa, I have presented at least half a dozen verses that clearly show one must believe (faith) to have life (regeneration).

You on the other hand have not presented a single verse to support your position. Oh, you have said Ephesian 2:1 supports it, but this verse does not even mention faith. However, all of the verses I have presented speak of both faith and regeneration (life).

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 mentions faith (believeing) and regeneration (life) and shows you must first believe to have life. This verse is directly addressing the issue at hand. Ephesians 2:1 does not address faith whatsoever, so cannot be used as a proof text to support your view.

But you simply insist you are right, even when you have clearly been shown otherwise. And I don't care how many "scholars" agree with you, there is not one verse in all the Bible to support your view, not one.

 

This too is not definitive, without clarification. I might "tend" to agree with you if one is selecting both a "layperson" and seminarian randomly. However, anectdotally but confidently I think the claim can be made that there are non-seminarians who have "on their own" studied biblical languages, homiletics, hermeneutics, church history etc. and could probably go "toe to toe" with the average seminarian.

 

No, he will get man's opinion of how to preach God's word, how to read God's word, etc.

As far as having a leg up on the average layman, it depends on how much the average layman is reading. I've known people in the pew that knew a lot more about the bible, church history, etc than your seminary trained preacher.

 

Well, I think the seminary trained student has a huge advantage here, I do not even know what homiletics is without looking up that term in the dictionary. That said, someone may know much of this subject unknowingly.

But the scriptures themselves teach that even a child can understand the scriptures to a degree.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now, I don't know if all children can "know" the scriptures, but Timothy certainly did. And the following verses say that the scriptures alone are able to furnish a man with everything he needs to be "perfect", which means mature in spiritual matters.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The problem with scholarship is that the scriptures say knowledge "puffeth up". And boy, has that ever been evident in this thread. Some folks take great pride in scholarship. They love to think themselves more intelligent than others.

1 Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

If we cut right to the chase, that is the issue with this thread. Knowledge puffeth up, and many who are educated have a problem with pride and believe themselves more intelligent than laymen.

 

I will admit you have said this, and by itself it sounds very reasonable However you have also said many other things that makes it sound as if a person has a better chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning rather than being able to have the same knowledge as a scholar would on a topic of the bible. Your entire tenor has not been about scholars just tending to have a leg up in understanding scripture, but rather except for the rare genius it is impossible to be so.

There have been numerous threads now on this subject, and many more posts on each. But I wanted to post a few that stood out in my mind.


These are all you own words.

 

These are just the ones in the post here:

These are just a few I found perusing your posts. There are plenty more than these, but here are just a few:

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

Do you still deny it?

 

Yea, I stand by all of these words. What is your point? none of them tie me in anyway to this straw man some on here keep debating.

 

My point was that your tenor has not been just about scholars just tending to have a leg up in understanding scripture like you implied in your post.

This is getting us nowhere, and against my better judgment I have engaged in this much longer than I should have. So I intend this to be my last post on this issue. I should have bowed out a long time ago, and I am embarrassed I let myself get drawn in as deeply as I have.

 

That's what we've been saying all along.

 

If you were drawn it was by your own lusts- I didn't draw you at all. What you have wasted your time doing is trying to prove that I was saying something I was not saying.

 

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.

 

I agree. If you take the average "layperson" as you put it at someone that has a seminary training, typically the seminarian will have a better understanding of the Scriptures. Why is this? It's because the seminarian usually has had a great deal of time in careful study of the Scriptures, especially over doctrinal issues. The average Christian has read the Bible, but typically not in studying carefully key doctrinal issues. The seminarian has a better understanding because he has studied. If you have a person that has never been to seminary, he can carefully study the Scriptures and have just as much of an understanding or more than one from a seminary.

We should be careful not to discredit one just because he has not been to seminary. While going to a seminary and learning from those that have studied the Scriptures for years can be a great benefit, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are still the primary teachers in ones life.

So, if someone has a Dr. degree(earned, not honorary) they have had a great deal of time in careful study of the Scriptures. This is why they are more learned. It's not just because they went to seminary, but because they have had careful study. A person without a seminary degree can have this same careful study on their own.

 

Well said jbh28!!!

 

Suggest and telling mean the same thing in this context.
If We find a person with blood on their hands at a murder scene we might say- That blood is telling- or we might say- That blood suggests some things.

And that is what he meant- that the fact that scholars tend to be Calvinistic suggests some things. It DOES suggest some things if it is true (whether it is or not- I don't know), but that is ALL that it does even if it is true- SUGGEST- it doesn't PROVE anything, it doesn't DEMAND anything- it just suggests some things. Suggesting and conclusively proving are vastly different things.

When you say that havensdad said that since scholars tend to be Calvinists that that proves Calvinism- that is a flat misrepresentation of what he said.

The reason being that words have meanings.

Suggest means Suggest. It does not mean anything else.

Prove means prove. It doesn't mean suggest and it cannot be used as a synonym for it.

I suppose the reason he chose the word "suggest" is because he did not mean that it PROVES something- he meant that it suggests some things.

If he wanted to say that scholars tending to be more Calvinistic is proof that Cavinism is right and Arminianism is wrong he would have used the word "prove" rather than suggest.

But since he used the word suggest, I think it is pretty darn clear that he did not mean that it PROVES it. It seems awful, I mean awful, clear that he meant that it "suggests" some things.