Shepherd's Theological

==I am not going to debate it since it has been over a year since I have even thought about/studied the subject in any detail. But I can give you my thoughts, my (at this time of the night) rambling thoughts, on the matter. :laugh:

==I would never argue that textual criticism is perfect. I would argue that it is far from perfect and it can be misused (too easily). However I just don't see another way to approach the issues of the text. Textual criticism is, in my view, unavoidable. Maybe it does start with a host of assumptions, but I don't know any other way to deal with textual issues. This is true whether we are talking about the New Testament or some ancient work.

What do you mean that it "cannot verify its claims"? Are you talking about the claim that the modern english translations are 98%-99% identical to the original autographs? Or are you talking about ideas like "Q" (etc)? If it is the latter I will confess I struggle with the idea of "Q". While I don't believe such an idea threatens inspiration (etc), or the nature of the Scriptures themselves, I do wonder about the evidence for such an idea. I know the arguments/evidence for it, and I admit it is interesting, but I wonder if Q is the invention of modern textual scholars who are desperate to explain the so-called "synoptic problem".

==If I bought everything I was taught I would be bouncing off the walls. I try to be critical with everything I am taught in school, books, or even with what I hear on tv. However sometimes you just have to make the best judgments you can based on the evidence you have and can understand. The issue of textual criticism can be confusing and it is certainly an area of study that is filled with intellectual landmines.

In summary I guess I would add that textual criticism is not "my area" and therefore I am sometimes confused by it. I do think I have, or at least had, a decent understand of the issues involved in it. While it may very well not be perfect, I do think it is our best option. I suppose if I accepted KJVO I could ignore textual criticism, but I can't do that. It is "my" opinion that textual criticism has done much good. It has improved our translations and it has given us a better understanding of the transmission of ancient texts. Is it a science? Maybe it is more of a practice than a science? Either way I think it is an important area of study for those who are into textual backgrounds.

I am a history and theology person, not a textual person, so my grasp of the deep details of the textual studies is probably limited. However my study of history informs me that sometimes you have to work with what you have. We would love to have the original autographs, that would solve all the problems. However we don't have the autographs, God has not seen fit to preserve them, so I suppose that to one extent or the other we are stuck with textual criticism.

 

Bill Gates dropped out of school prior to finishing the course. Did he not get an honorary degree? How is it that many "rich and famous" get honorary degrees? There seems to be a certain "mutual admiration society" among those who would be doctors which excludes a sizeable portion of the 6+ billion people on the planet--this makes many people suspicious, even angry.

Saul of Tarsus was probably a magna cum laude (advanced phylacteries) from Pharisee U., located near what Jesus called a "Den of Thieves"; pun intended. Jesus had to retrain him to become Apostle Paul-- at Damascus U., more pun.

Yes, Luke was a physician. This hardly establishes a precedent. It could be considered an example of how God calls people regardless of their position in the world. This must be considered along with the plain teaching that it is extremely difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. Also, God chooses the foolish to confound the wise.

Do I have an axe to grind with education? No. We are commanded to study to show approval unto God, unashamed workmen, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. This implies that it is also possible to wrongly divide. The world is filled with a plethora of religion. God is not the author of confusion.

What's in your wallet?:tonofbricks:

Selah,

Bro. James

 

What would happen if we were to close all our Bible colleges, universities and seminaries? Would you be happy?

 

This is not about my happiness, Bro. I am still trying to find a reliable map to Ninevah, can't even spell it right--NINEVEH. The cartographers seem a bit confused. Someone keeps moving the landmark.

I am going to take a double dose of "pabulum" and head for dreamland.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

==Jesus never condemned Paul, or anyone else, for their education. Period. Your intended pun is unBiblical. Jesus expected that the educated leaders of Israel would know the truth (Jn 3:10). However they did not. It was not their education level that was the problem, it was that they had overlooked the obvious.

==Bo, you love to yank Scriptures out of their context and wave them around don't you? Wow.

The context (1Cor 1:18-31) of the "foolish to confound the wise" is wordly wisdom. The passage says that "not many wise according to the flesh" (vs26). It is not saying that being wise in the Word, or well educated in the Word or in other important subjects, is a bad thing. It is not talking about people who study so they can preach/teach the Word or other important subjects (doctors, educators, etc). Keep in mind that Paul, who wrote this, was a very well educated man. Also keep in mind that it says "not many", so their are people who are called who are well educated. Now, the passage about the rich man (Mk 10:17-27) concerns those who trust in human riches. None of which describes true Christians who are learning so they can serve the Lord in whatever field He has called them into.

==Nothing right now.

I find it interesting that you did not answer one of my more important points. So I will repost it here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro. James
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.


==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.

 

Yep, live from the love offerings or make tents--that is what Paul did.
The Lord said He would take care of our needs--not necessarily in the form of a monthly stipend, parsonage, car allowance, medical insurance and a 401K. Most of the apostles died because of their preaching the Gospel--no retirement homes for them. John was exiled because of preaching--he preached from Patmos--The Lord took care of John's needs.

We are conformed to the ways of this world. I include myself in that rebuke.

The Gideons would provide the Bibles--probably free of charge.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I am not sure how, or if, that is a response to my points.

 

Not sure you answered my points as well. Let us call it a draw.

Moving back to the worthiness of Shepherd's U., I cannot judge such things. I have difficulty with their soteriology and ecclesiology. I am getting Arminianism and universal church from their statement of faith. These doctrines permeate most of Christendom. Now what?

Me thinks our paradigms are at opposite poles--kind of impasse. See you at Bema.

Over and out.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

==That's fine.

As for Shepherd's, I imagine they are three -> four point Calvinist (if there is such a thing). I noticed they do believe in total depravity, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, eternal security (sadly, not perseverence), and maybe a touch of effectual calling.