Scholarship v. the "guidance of the holy spirit"

[Audie]

That's a false concept of scholarship. Whether the subject to be critiqued, there always exists a predisposition.

Starting out with a conclusion that is
vital to a person, a highest virtue, is the
very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

An example I have noted elsewhere is that
there is no way to be a creationist who is both
well informed in science and intellectually honest.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it is hard work. And yes, it may lead you from what is comfortable. It may demand one become an adult in her/his religion just as other areas of life. Another words, to grow up, the Trinity is not 2 men and a bird.

Huh?

 

[Audie]

I don't want to have a pastor that is not spirit led.
If education is missing, they could still be a brilliant pastor, though.

a third group says that God does not favor the educated, this is at least my interpretation of Romans 2:11 ("no respecter of persons").
A pastor that has a problem with reading comprehension... can still be a great pastor in God's eyes. In Germany, for instance, a rather known preacher was a car mechanic. Also car mechanics should be able to become pastors.
Of course it's nice when they know some Greek or Hebrew, but still, other abilities are far more important, as I see it.
They should always have great knowledge of scripture, though.


I personally favor a speaking style that is plain normal. I disapprove of "holy" intonations.

edited to add the blue part

Did you ever read " Elmer Gantry"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When dealing with Christians, I've noticed that they tend to fall into two general categories (yes I'm about to make a sweeping generalization).

There are those Christians who value careful study under learned teachers, and using rules of logic, science, textual criticism, etc. as tools to understand their scriptures. These tend to put their clergy through extensive seminary training in order to have the best scholarship in their pulpits.

Then there are those Christians who tend to be suspicious of book learning, who see educational institutions as enemies of the faith, and who do not trust logic or science, and see things such as textual criticism to be even satanic in some of their opinions. A book learned pastor is the last thing in the world they want. They make fun of such pastors. What they want instead is a pastor who is "led by the spirit."

By this, in my own opinion, what they are actually getting are pastors with a minimum of Bible learning in the basics, combined with a charismatic speaking style that is highly persuasive. That speaking style can be considered a gift, but it can also be indicative of a manipulative personality. After all, con men the world over have the same silver tongue. IOW, I consider them to be vulnerable to unethical sorts that will come in and take advantage of them.

It's not like scholars do no wrong. You can have a church scandal with any personality type. I'm just saying the odds for a problem are much higher with an openness to a manipulator.

And what's worse, they deprive themselves of the very "meat" they say they want. Meat, or depth of learning, doesn't come miraculously out of the heavens. I'm not taking God out of the picture. I'm just saying there is no denying the necessity of study. You gotta do your homework to get to the expertise.

From there, I could go on to the claim of some that supposedly "spirit led" Chrisitans of little learning can understand the Bible while learned scholars who are not Christians cannot understand it -- but that is a whole other thread.

I'm of two minds about this:

- first, if the Christians are right, then God's guidance is enough. They don't need Biblical scholarship if they really do have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. What can the Bible tell them that God can't?

- second, if they're out to remove intermediaries between themselves and God, then those charismatic pastors you mention are just as much of an intermediary as some Biblical scholar.

I'm reminded of the Quaker approach for their meetings: no pastors. Everyone gathers together and prays silently. If someone feels called by the spirit to speak, or sing, or recite a passage from the Bible, they stand up, do it, and then sit down. Sometimes, whole meetings are completely silent with nobody feeling called to speak.

And even in their business meetings: instead of voting on business items, they pray. If prayerful reflection doesn't lead to a unanimous decision, then the item gets deferred to the next meeting.

It seems that this is what "being led by the spirit" would actually look like. Being led by a pastor is not being led by the spirit.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here is a selection out of Ephesians which addresses the subject:

Spoiler: Ephesians 5:15-21

5:15-21 (NIV) Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

This gives an idea that being filled with the spirit is a command which can be obeyed, not a passive infilling. It directs believers to fill themselves with the spirit, and this illustrates the middle way between scholarship and the (unfortunate I think) idea of the holy spirit as some ghostly nudge. Notice in this short passage that getting drunk is the opposite of being filled with the spirit, so its referring to sobriety, awareness Secondly it says to submit to each other. This is the opposite of having a single leader and that is directly related (through its juxtaposition in the verses) to being filled with the spirit. We have packed neatly here a warning against being the leader of your group and also direction to be a thinker, a singer, a joyful equal contributor and listener; and this is far from saying to have a pastor over your life or a guru or just wandering about listening to every idle notion in one's head.

 

[thomas t]

Did you ever read " Elmer Gantry"?

no, I didn't. Never heard of him.

 

[thomas t]

A friend believes that he has "spiritual insight", ie, that God guides
his thoughts. He distrusts all book learn'n except for Bible study.
[...]

It's always horrible when Christian talk like points 1-7,9. Especially when they don't provide clear evidence for 1-7,9.
It's rude and flat out horrible.

[your quote in detail:]
(1) Naturally, whatever he feels to be true is indeed true because
of his gift.
[...]
- (2) Biden stole the election from Trump. Satan is behind this.
- (3) Biden admitted publicly that he used a sophisticated voter fraud to do it.
- (4) Trump has proof of massive voter fraud overturning his landslide victory.
- (5) Christianity is science.
- (6) Catholicism & Islam are Satanic.
- (7) Atheists know God, but won't admit it...we lie.
- (8) The Bible is inerrant.
- (9) Democrats plot to take over with socialism. Satan is behind this.
- (10) The quality of an argument isn't based upon reasoning & evidence.
What matters is the spirituality of the person making the argument.

It can be difficult to converse with him.

But stating "I believe the Bible to be inerrant" would be great, as I see it (your point #8). I do the same thing.

 

[Audie]

It's always horrible when Christian talk like points 1-7,9. Especially when they don't provide clear evidence for 1-7,9.
It's rude and flat out horrible.

[your quote in detail:]
(1) Naturally, whatever he feels to be true is indeed true because
of his gift.
[...]
- (2) Biden stole the election from Trump. Satan is behind this.
- (3) Biden admitted publicly that he used a sophisticated voter fraud to do it.
- (4) Trump has proof of massive voter fraud overturning his landslide victory.
- (5) Christianity is science.
- (6) Catholicism & Islam are Satanic.
- (7) Atheists know God, but won't admit it...we lie.
- (8) The Bible is inerrant.
- (9) Democrats plot to take over with socialism. Satan is behind this.
- (10) The quality of an argument isn't based upon reasoning & evidence.
What matters is the spirituality of the person making the argument.

It can be difficult to converse with him.

But stating "I believe the Bible to be inerrant" would be great, as I see it (your point #8). I do the same thing.

Inerrant even when it is not accurate.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's always horrible when Christian talk like points 1-7,9. Especially when they don't provide clear evidence for 1-7,9.
It's rude and flat out horrible.

[your quote in detail:]
(1) Naturally, whatever he feels to be true is indeed true because
of his gift.
[...]
- (2) Biden stole the election from Trump. Satan is behind this.
- (3) Biden admitted publicly that he used a sophisticated voter fraud to do it.
- (4) Trump has proof of massive voter fraud overturning his landslide victory.
- (5) Christianity is science.
- (6) Catholicism & Islam are Satanic.
- (7) Atheists know God, but won't admit it...we lie.
- (8) The Bible is inerrant.
- (9) Democrats plot to take over with socialism. Satan is behind this.
- (10) The quality of an argument isn't based upon reasoning & evidence.
What matters is the spirituality of the person making the argument.

It can be difficult to converse with him.

But stating "I believe the Bible to be inerrant" would be great, as I see it (your point #8). I do the same thing.

Evidence is a tricky thing.
There's the kind that doesn't conflict with what one believes.
Then there's the kind that suggests what one believes to oneself.
And finally there's the kind that proves what one believes to other people.
One can prove anything true with the first couple.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When dealing with Christians, I've noticed that they tend to fall into two general categories (yes I'm about to make a sweeping generalization).

There are those Christians who value careful study under learned teachers, and using rules of logic, science, textual criticism, etc. as tools to understand their scriptures. These tend to put their clergy through extensive seminary training in order to have the best scholarship in their pulpits.

Then there are those Christians who tend to be suspicious of book learning, who see educational institutions as enemies of the faith, and who do not trust logic or science, and see things such as textual criticism to be even satanic in some of their opinions. A book learned pastor is the last thing in the world they want. They make fun of such pastors. What they want instead is a pastor who is "led by the spirit."

By this, in my own opinion, what they are actually getting are pastors with a minimum of Bible learning in the basics, combined with a charismatic speaking style that is highly persuasive. That speaking style can be considered a gift, but it can also be indicative of a manipulative personality. After all, con men the world over have the same silver tongue. IOW, I consider them to be vulnerable to unethical sorts that will come in and take advantage of them.

It's not like scholars do no wrong. You can have a church scandal with any personality type. I'm just saying the odds for a problem are much higher with an openness to a manipulator.

And what's worse, they deprive themselves of the very "meat" they say they want. Meat, or depth of learning, doesn't come miraculously out of the heavens. I'm not taking God out of the picture. I'm just saying there is no denying the necessity of study. You gotta do your homework to get to the expertise.

From there, I could go on to the claim of some that supposedly "spirit led" Chrisitans of little learning can understand the Bible while learned scholars who are not Christians cannot understand it -- but that is a whole other thread.

A balance between the two would be good.

Regards Tony

 

[Scott C.]

When dealing with Christians, I've noticed that they tend to fall into two general categories (yes I'm about to make a sweeping generalization).

In my Church the leaders are not formally trained theologians. They also are not a paid clergy (with the exception of relatively few leaders at the top who were asked to leave their professions and be full time church leaders.) The result is that the leaders in the higest position in my Church know what they know about the theology based on personal study and Church participation, and not formal theological training. But since these leaders came from the professional world, the are generally highly educated and stong believers in science, logic and reason. There is a strong principle in our church that we need to combine intelligence, reason, study and "guidance from the Spirit". The President of our Church, who I consider to be quite inspired and guided by the Spirit, was a heart surgeon before being asked to join the Twelve Apostles as a life long calling. As a trained surgeon (actually a pioneer in open heart surgery), he of course followed the science on a daily basis. But as a man of faith who follows the Spirit, he tells the story of how he was once confronted with a life and death surgical decision. He had no intellectual idea on what to do to save this person. Then, the Spirit of God actually revealed to his mind, and showed him in his mind, the exact steps to take to solve the problem. He says he would never have come up with this idea on his own. His first counselor in the Presidency of the Church is an attorney and was serving on the State of Utah Supreme Court before being asked to join the Twelve Apostles as a life long calling. There are a few in my Church who go to theological schools for their PhD. These are not necessarily called to be leaders. Some teach religion or philospohy in universities and write religious books. They make a living this way. The way my Church is organized it takes tremendous talent and intellectual capacity to run it at the top. I believe the leaders are chosen by inspiration to leave their professions. They have a unique and strong combination of intellectual skills combined with deep faith and the ability to be guided by the Spirit.

 

[Ponder This]

When dealing with Christians, I've noticed that they tend to fall into two general categories (yes I'm about to make a sweeping generalization).

There are those Christians who value careful study under learned teachers, and using rules of logic, science, textual criticism, etc. as tools to understand their scriptures. These tend to put their clergy through extensive seminary training in order to have the best scholarship in their pulpits.

Then there are those Christians who tend to be suspicious of book learning, who see educational institutions as enemies of the faith, and who do not trust logic or science, and see things such as textual criticism to be even satanic in some of their opinions. A book learned pastor is the last thing in the world they want. They make fun of such pastors. What they want instead is a pastor who is "led by the spirit."

By this, in my own opinion, what they are actually getting are pastors with a minimum of Bible learning in the basics, combined with a charismatic speaking style that is highly persuasive. That speaking style can be considered a gift, but it can also be indicative of a manipulative personality. After all, con men the world over have the same silver tongue. IOW, I consider them to be vulnerable to unethical sorts that will come in and take advantage of them.

It's not like scholars do no wrong. You can have a church scandal with any personality type. I'm just saying the odds for a problem are much higher with an openness to a manipulator.

And what's worse, they deprive themselves of the very "meat" they say they want. Meat, or depth of learning, doesn't come miraculously out of the heavens. I'm not taking God out of the picture. I'm just saying there is no denying the necessity of study. You gotta do your homework to get to the expertise.

From there, I could go on to the claim of some that supposedly "spirit led" Chrisitans of little learning can understand the Bible while learned scholars who are not Christians cannot understand it -- but that is a whole other thread.

I think that understanding without education is more useful than education without understanding. So greater amounts of education augment something essential.
It's also possible to be charismatic and lack understanding. Education is supposed to instill understanding, but I think that I prefer a mentorship model when it comes to understanding the Holy Spirit. In other words, a model that combines both a practical understanding with book knowledge.

 

[paarsurrey]

When dealing with Christians, I've noticed that they tend to fall into two general categories (yes I'm about to make a sweeping generalization).

There are those Christians who value careful study under learned teachers, and using rules of logic, science, textual criticism, etc. as tools to understand their scriptures. These tend to put their clergy through extensive seminary training in order to have the best scholarship in their pulpits.

Then there are those Christians who tend to be suspicious of book learning, who see educational institutions as enemies of the faith, and who do not trust logic or science, and see things such as textual criticism to be even satanic in some of their opinions. A book learned pastor is the last thing in the world they want. They make fun of such pastors. What they want instead is a pastor who is "led by the spirit."

By this, in my own opinion, what they are actually getting are pastors with a minimum of Bible learning in the basics, combined with a charismatic speaking style that is highly persuasive. That speaking style can be considered a gift, but it can also be indicative of a manipulative personality. After all, con men the world over have the same silver tongue. IOW, I consider them to be vulnerable to unethical sorts that will come in and take advantage of them.

It's not like scholars do no wrong. You can have a church scandal with any personality type. I'm just saying the odds for a problem are much higher with an openness to a manipulator.

And what's worse, they deprive themselves of the very "meat" they say they want. Meat, or depth of learning, doesn't come miraculously out of the heavens. I'm not taking God out of the picture. I'm just saying there is no denying the necessity of study. You gotta do your homework to get to the expertise.

From there, I could go on to the claim of some that supposedly "spirit led" Chrisitans of little learning can understand the Bible while learned scholars who are not Christians cannot understand it -- but that is a whole other thread.

" "spirit led" Chrisitans of little learning can understand the Bible while learned scholars who are not Christians cannot understand it "

What if two "spirit led" Christians differ with one another, please?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

" "spirit led" Chrisitans of little learning can understand the Bible while learned scholars who are not Christians cannot understand it "

What if two "spirit led" Christians differ with one another, please?

Regards

I had not wanted to bring up the whole thing of the basic unreliability of "spirit led" reading, but yes you are right. Your point goes to the heart of it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think that understanding without education is more useful than education without understanding. So greater amounts of education augment something essential.
It's also possible to be charismatic and lack understanding. Education is supposed to instill understanding, but I think that I prefer a mentorship model when it comes to understanding the Holy Spirit. In other words, a model that combines both a practical understanding with book knowledge.

My point is that education in the subject increases understanding. There is no substitute for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And you find no hint of this among Jews? Why the focus?

Because Christians in particular claim to be "led by the holy spirit."

 

[rational experiences]

When dealing with Christians, I've noticed that they tend to fall into two general categories (yes I'm about to make a sweeping generalization).
Life is origin to self presence human.

Equal living conditions scientific.

Basic living equality water oxygen bio existence. With nature.

We look at the beast and know it cruel

Spiritual awareness.

Do not be like the beast. We have choices. We know.

Our claim.

You read a book with terrible cruel stories. Then in full aware consciousness try to justify the cruel descriptions into a false theosophy of spirituality.

Why I knew preaching became falsified. If you tell a conscious.status you then do not support quoting if evil terms or references as spirituality.

For example Jesus died for our sins.

Meaning of humans commited their choice to an evil act.

Then you read it says.God being the power released out of God mass stone sacrificed life.

Life sacrificed however survived and was saved.

I never quoted the review as a self gain or a holy act. I read it as it was stated. A nasty choice of a nasty adult science father thinker about God as an adult who hurt his baby life.

As spiritual rationality.

I heard father speaking. He said to us the worst moment in his spiritual life was when we began to eat the flesh.

He taught me once we did not eat meat. As we burnt irradiated nature. The fruit dropped from the trees. Animals lay dead burnt sacrificed on the ground. The burning on the stone altar of God earth. The stone Ark. Planet earth.

Food became scarce.

What we learnt in life about agreement to sacrifice change natural life. Natural order.

God the earth stone the highest creation. Creation created.

To begin by a science law was heated law first law of satanism. Destruction. Thermodynamics.

It was never the first law of God. The stone.

God IS present was our teaching.

Therefore when I hear preaching such as when the slaughter of a lamb had a spiritual insight I pondered upon the preaching. It is not spiritual. The image horrifying.

Jesus on the cross is also horrific.

His spiritual life was a baby. A man who preached love. He had to teach against cruelty. We the innocent of satanic nuclear thesis therefore knew he taught on our behalf. We could not argue against the high priests of the sciences.

Jesus spoke on our behalf.

Why those stories are not holy. In fact they are proven to teach excuses to cause harm in a false spiritual context.

What rational basic spirituality is aware of.

I was taught human first. Human family group healing. Rational life human teachings for behavioural development far more important today than trying to interpret arguments against science.

As old symbolic secret meanings.

The true teacher speaks from their own heartfelt love. Knowing sacrifice never owned a spiritual reason. It was chosen by the father human theorist about how to change God in science.

When you love spirit and family then you simply do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because Christians in particular claim to be "led by the holy spirit."

This is entirely irrelevant.

Please go back to post #18 and read my question in the context of the quoted statement made by you. Feel free to answer it or not but, at the very least, show that you've made a good faith effort to understand it.

 

[MonkeyFire]

There are two types of believers in this world, those who use fire to burn others, then there are those who are the fire.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There are those Christians who value careful study under learned teachers, and using rules of logic, science, textual criticism, etc. as tools to understand their scriptures. These tend to put their clergy through extensive seminary training in order to have the best scholarship in their pulpits.

Then there are those Christians who tend to be suspicious of book learning, who see educational institutions as enemies of the faith, and who do not trust logic or science, and see things such as textual criticism to be even satanic in some of their opinions. A book learned pastor is the last thing in the world they want. They make fun of such pastors. What they want instead is a pastor who is "led by the spirit."

It seems like both of them think divine understanding hinges on the 'textual,' even the people in the latter paragraph will likely have the book present. I think important things can be in texts, but they are the products of our hand; they still represent 'the divine' as something filtered through a human. In any case, I'm not sure that the animist force can reside entirely in a 'text,' or at least we haven't yet built a text whereupon its spirit can fully descend, if that were possible. We have ancient books however, that get more difficult to understand as history progresses. Half of the things we argue about here, the ancient people would not argue about, because they didn't need to take a magnifying glass and a pick to their most basic of words. Nor in my opinion, was truly divine inspiration available to only a few dozen men, thousands of years ago

And what's worse, they deprive themselves of the very "meat" they say they want. Meat, or depth of learning, doesn't come miraculously out of the heavens. I'm not taking God out of the picture. I'm just saying there is no denying the necessity of study. You gotta do your homework to get to the expertise.

or like in the Pink Floyd song, where he says 'how can you have any pudding when you haven't had any meat?' In that case, the metaphor for what they want is pudding, and the hard work is represented by meat