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.
Scholars vs. Laity part 2
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Amy.G, Dec 6, 2010.
Page 4 of 5
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
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,... -
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. -
-
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. -
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. -
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.
-
webdog said: ↑Yes they can look at the posts to see you are now lying.Click to expand...
(and quite immature).
You missed your calling as a a comedian. Luke, your arguments are really weak, your reading comprehension is lackingClick to expand...
Post 136 on Degree worth the paper: Hardly, please learn to use the phrase properly.
Post 130 on Degree Worth the Paper: Seriously, you are a legend in your own mind
Post 15 on Scholars VS Laity: Like I said, your reading comprehension is quite lacking.
Post 7 on Scholars VS Laity 2: Reading comprehension.
Post 80 on Degree Worth the Paper: Your reading comprehension is on par with Luke's.
Post 70 on Degree Worth the Paper: Can you not read?
Post 98 on Scholars VS Laity: Even saying it can be proven puts a huge black eye on your argument regarding education
Post 41 on Christmas Tree: Do you even know what a graven image is?
Post 77 on Poll on Doctrines of Grace…: It would do you a world of good to learn opposing views to your own.
Post 333 on knowing Jesus as Son…: You have been schooled on this...please learn.
Post 286 on Is knowing Jesus: You do not even have a solid understanding of regeneration let alone trying to define a term using it
Post 224 on Is knowing Jesus: Do you have that poor of a grasp on context?!?
This one was interesting BTW. This one is where he said it was a shame that I, a pastor had no hermeneutical skills, and went on to say that was because I believe the "natural man: of I Cor. 2:14 was unregenerate!
Post 208 on Is knowing Jesus: Your arrogance is seeping through again
Post 192 on Is Knowing Jesus: Kind of sad a pastor has such a poor grasp on hermeneutics
Post 176 on Is knowing Jesus: You are blind, my friend. Theology has ruined your ability to take in simple Bible 101 basic truths.
Post 49 on Conviction of Sin : Go back to your glass house.
Post 45 on Conviction of Sin: the objective reader will disagree with your lame assessment
Post 98 on Is knowing Jesus…: Here Freeatlast said: In fact you do it very hypocritically. The rules say this: Personal attacks will not be tolerated yet do continue to allow such against me. Then Webdog said: Spoken like a true liberal.
Post 88 on Is knowing Jesus: Go back to your glass house.
Post 72 on Is knowing Jesus: So which is it...intellectually dishonest, or deliberately blinded?
Post 64 on It will Cost you everything: You missed your calling...it should have been as a comedian.
Post 62 on It will Cost you Everything: You are the picture of immaturity.
Post 55 on It will cost you…: I see freeatlast is an idolater as well.
Post 39 on Why is there evil…: He's a hyper-calvinist, like you. That's not historic orthodoxy.
Post 11 on Who bites a disabled…: I'm fed up with reading such ignorant comments.
Post 138 on Are we born spiritually…: Your "fear" comments are comical.
Post 104 on Are we born…: I'm tired of these unintelligible responses.
Post 168 on Are We Born: You don't read too well.
Post 28 on Sin and the Health Care Bill: Only a blind liberal would find offense with this kind of analogyClick to expand...
Do you still deny it? -
Steven2006 said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
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. -
quantumfaith said: ↑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.Click to expand...
-
Steven2006 said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
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. -
quantumfaith said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
Luke2427 said: ↑Havensdad never said that because a majority of seminarians are Calvinistic that that means that Calvinists are right and Arminians are wrong. He said that it is "telling".Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Havensdad
But, yes, the only place that Calvinism is a majority, is among Bible scholars/Seminary professors. Calvinism is in the minority among the laity. That does seem to suggest something.Click to expand...
You can dance around it all you want, but what he is suggesting is that there are fewer Calvinists in the laity because they aren't well educated. Once again the elitist attitude of I'm a Calvinist because I'm smarter than you. -
jbh28 said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
Amy.G said: ↑Here are his exact words.
So what does it suggest? I asked him and he has yet to answer.
You can dance around it all you want, but what he is suggesting is that there are fewer Calvinists in the laity because they aren't well educated
Amy G. I think you are "spot on" in you analysis of the original intent. I could be wrong, but this "attitude" is usually demonstrated by the younger crowd having fewer years in which to mature both as a person and believer.Click to expand... -
Amy.G said: ↑Here are his exact words.
So what does it suggest? I asked him and he has yet to answer.
You can dance around it all you want, but what he is suggesting is that there are fewer Calvinists in the laity because they aren't well educated. Once again the elitist attitude of I'm a Calvinist because I'm smarter than you.Click to expand...
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. -
Luke2427 said: ↑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.Click to expand...
I never said any of what you've posted here.
Page 4 of 5