Glitter My Words Myth #12: True ministers are well trained in the wisdom and skills of the world.
Thom (Dummies) confirms boldly that his ability in using philosophy, common sense, and a knowledge of contemporary culture, is a gift from God to him. He is certain that through these attributes is found the approved manner of crystallizing Godly truths and teaching them most accurately.
Not so.
True ministers speak by the power of the spirit and not the wisdom of the world. When Jesus sought out His disciples and when God chose His Prophets of old, a table was not set up at the local seminary, nor was a roster of the Pharisees requested.
We have no doctrines of our own to preach. There is no way any of us can create a plan of salvation that will save and exalt. Salvation and the doctrines of the gospel come from God. They are his. He reveals them to us by the power of the Holy Ghost. Then when we present them to the world, “we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” (1 Corinthians 2:13.)
The Apostle Paul illustrated that meaning in his first letter to the Corinthians: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. . . . And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1, 4-5.)
How had he learned this? "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit," Paul explained.
Where so many of the Orthodoxy mistakenly take there lead from Paul, let his words properly be heard: "Beware lest there be one who will lead you captive through philosophy and the vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world and not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8).
True ministers always speak by the spirit of inspiration. Because they have the gift of the Holy Ghost, they can “speak with the tongues of angels” (2 Nephi 31:13) and angels “speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the world of Christ.” (2 Nephi 32:3). Jesus counsels his ministers, “Take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you.” Matthew 10:19-20 And also “Neither take you thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man,” D&C 84:85
False ministers, on the other hand – those ministering in “churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord” – those who teach the doctrines of men and not of the Lord – “they shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.” 2 Nephi 28: 3-4. Doctrines created in heaven never seem to find a comfortable resting place in theologies crafted by the wisdom of men.
Former President Ezra Taft Benson contrasted the two different approaches of the Lord's way and the world's way:
"The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature." (Ensign, November 1985, p. 6.)
You try and set this up as either or, but as Thom has pointed out ot you in the past, Paul also used wisdom. In fact, if you read Paul's writtings, they are typically appeals to reason with very few quotes from scripture as compared to his use of Godly wisdom. It seems apparent that God gives all manner of gifts, and we are to use those in ministry whether or not we are full-time ministers, or working Christians.
Thom has simply said that, one of his talents lays in his ability to reason with the unbeliever who does not value the words of the Bible. He also said of himself, "I can defend anything I write on a religious topic by using the Bible. I am well-trained in Biblical apologetics."
If I understand you correctly, you see Paul not quoting scripture?
You must mean old testament scripture...because all of Paul is scripture. And a lot of what Paul drew from he considered scripture....but with your invention of sola scriptura it is no more. If that went over the top, let me offer this tidbit. Paul did not have a closed canon where the doctrines of Christ were concerned. It must be shuttering for you to think that Paul was referencing what you consider uninspired writings to write his inspired writings. The head spins with that.
Since when did the other Apostles make it their case at all to quote the old testament scripture in their letters to believers - any more often than Paul? You suppose this to be the case. Prove it. I dare you (Thomism).
And tell me if you would what is "God's wisdom" if it is not scripture?
What a mystery, this other Godly wisdom, it certainly wasn't as Thom or you describe. Paul has no less disdain for the wisdom of the world than any other apostle - as evidenced by his actual writings which I quoted in the topic (and not the spin orthodoxy puts on stories and tales unpublished).
I hope you are not trying to sell the idea that cultural knowledge and other forms of worldly wisdom are from God? I'm sure you don't want to be confirming my myth to be true. Please don't tell me man can invent Godly wisdom. That's why you guys left the Catholic church, remember? If so, I would want to know Which culture is of God. I suppose where it is Paul we are talking about, you presume Hellenism made a marked improved on the scriptures, right?....Kinda like how Thom is improving upon the scriptures in his topics.....and the Pope whenever he opens his mouth.
Sort this out for me will you?
I agree, most of the writters of the NT appealed to wisdom and reason rather than building their letters on solid scripture. It has a lot to do with who they were writting to. Most of the books in the NT were letters written to Gentiles who did not know th scriptures very well. This is why there are actually very few references to scriptures in most of the writtings. Not that they are absent, but the readers respected reason, and as such the writers used it.
As for Godly wisdom, well consider Solomon. Scriptures record that he was given a choice. Choose wisdom, wealth, or power. He chose wisdom, and as a result received all three. It is credited that he was the most wise man. I am sure you would agree this was Godly wisdom since it was a gift from God.
What I am not sure you are aware of is, Solomon sat with the "wise" from all over the "world." He reasoned with them, and learned from them. The book of Proverbs, a collection of Solomon's wisdom, includeds sayings believed to be unique to Solomon, as well as proverbs that are known to be from other, ungodly cultures.
So far I have just provided you with facts, though I am sure you have already drawn some conclusions. Let me see if we are on the same page based on the evidence I have provided.
Godly wisdom is a gift from God that includes revelation, but also the ability to use reason and intelect (also God given gifts) to gauge the merits of worldly wisdom and apply it where it is found to be truth.
How is that for a definition? If you wish, I can go to the book of Proverbs to define it, but ultimately I will end up providing the same basic definition.
Solomon did not represent the Church, he was a king. Solomon was worldly and God expressed his great displeasure about it. Likewise was his Father, David. Neither of them were apostles, let alone prophets. Solomon and his father recieved no revelation for the Church of God. The Prophets of God at the time of both men berated both of them for their unrighteousness and their worldliness. You think the worldly wisdom that each became entangled with serviced them well. Your scriptures tell you in both cases they were tortured at their errors in these matters. The scriptures are clear - do not trust in the arm of man - trust only in God. I can see where Protestant ministers of today would admire them.
You confuse men. And you are unlearned about what revelation is as it applies to people AND how it applies to the Church....even though it is a clear pattern in the Bible.
You continue with "Godly wisdom is a gift from God that includes revelation," It is good I see you include your form of revelation as an after thought and with diminished import. Thom did not list it at all and as stated in a previous myth - proven there that true revelation is dead where no new scripture is accepted by you.
Don't move away from Paul. Thom uses Paul as his entire justification without regard to what he actually says about worldliness. This is not odd to me. Protestant ministers like church leaders before them need to justify their corruption somewhere. Little Solomons they are. I give credit to Solomon though, he knew his place beneath the Prophet.
You wrote: “Thom (Dummies) confirms boldly that his ability in using philosophy, common sense, and a knowledge of contemporary culture, is a gift from God to him. He is certain that through these attributes is found the approved manner of crystallizing Godly truths and teaching them most accurately. “
· What you are referring to here--as you plainly know--is a statement by me where I was challenging you to see if you could find any religious idea I have presented on my blog that I could not defend ably with the Bible. The full context of my quote was that A) I have been well-trained in biblical apologetics, but B) I also believe that God has given me a certain giftedness to use philosophy, common sense and a knowledge of contemporary culture to present biblical ideas to irreligious people as well as people of other faiths and heretics. I ended this statement by challenging you to present any religious idea that I have written on, including any quotes by Augustine or Aquinas and see if I cannot defend them biblically. You didn’t bother to take the challenge. Instead you apparently decided to misrepresent me.
· What you have done is to lift the middle of a larger statement made by me out of its context and then presented it here that I am (quoting you) “certain that through these attributes is found the approved manner of crystallizing Godly truths and teaching them most accurately.” This is a complete and utter falsehood. I have never stated any such thing. You have made this up out of whole cloth.
· The whole rest of your post is based upon this false statement and the amazing thing is, I believe you know very good and well that it is false. This says volumes about your religious faith and its morality.
· Christians believe that God’s truth is not found in the “approved manner” of philosophy, common sense and a knowledge of contemporary culture. This is utter nonsense and you know it. Christians believe that God’s truth has been delivered to us once and for all in and through the Word of God--the Bible. It is called revelation. You are playing word games, I know it, you know it and the only people that may not know it are some of your readers. I pray that they may come to know of your self-conscious deceptions.
· My point has consistently been that St. Paul (as well as other apostles), when they were with Jewish audiences used the Old Testament Scriptures to explain the messianic ministry of Jesus. However, when Paul was with a pagan audience he revealed the truth of the revelation of Christ using means that they were conversant with including quotes from their own philosophers. This does not mean that he was endorsing all pagan philosophers, he was simply using things that his audience was aware of that were not unchristian in order to lead them to the revelation of Christ. Christians have always used this methodology when doing mission work with people-groups that have little or no biblical knowledge. And, by the way, so do Mormon missionaries and you know it. I do the same thing; but, again, I am very capable of defending any religious idea that I present with biblical reasoning and referencing. You also know this and have experienced it.
If you are going to dispel so-called Protestant myths that I propagate, I would suggest that you start by actually presenting what I believe rather than making up inane falsehoods that I have not stated nor do I believe in. Disingenuous misrepresentation (meaning that you knowingly say something false about me--also called bearing false witness in the Bible) seems to be standard operating procedure for LDS adherents.
Yes, I use reasoning as much as anyone. But that reasoning doesn't come from modern day cultural idolatry. It comes from solid gospel principles. Idolatry is any form of substitute for God in one's devotion. You have said it yourself....an unusual obsession for the middle ages and the philosophies of men. I view that as your preoccupation and substitute. Did I get that right? Will you be here long enough to answer me?
When you see a paraphrase, I do not use quotes. When I provide word for word quotations they have parenthesis. If you see a specific error, please bring it to my attention.
Correction. You have repeatly stated that using reasoned worldly - cultural - knowledge-ethics-philosophy is the best way to approach the scripturally challenged and you are justified because this is how Paul did it (my paraphrase of your meaning - it has no quotes-). It is not "a complete and utter falsehood." as you suppose. It is what you do incessantly and admit to doing.
If you now say your source is the Bible, how do you get philosophies of men and cultural "truths" from it? Christians do not in consensus believe that God’s truth are found in the “approved manner” of philosophy, pre-reformation Catholicism, common sense (worldly proverbs), and a knowledge of contemporary culture. This has been the basis of your blogs. Where is the Bible in your blogs? God's revealed truth is rooted in the scriptures. Your religious thought gives no evidence of being rooted in scripture at all. It is a matter of public record at your site. Most recently you posted on "the Blues" with no roots no mention of Jesus Christ but lots of thought for Aquinas and the Devil.
The Bible, you suggest, is called revelation. The Bible is most appropriately historical revelation accomplished for you. You think I playing word games because you lack the spirit of true revelation, living revelation to go where the LDS go.
1. You state, "My point has consistently been that St. Paul (as well as other apostles), when they were with Jewish audiences used the Old Testament Scriptures to explain the messianic ministry of Jesus."
Please demonstrate the truth of the above statement at the exclusion of its use with pagan audiences. You have never done that. In fact, it cannot be done. The writings of Paul in total within the Bible are an extremely small fraction of his writings in total. Considering his admonishments concerning belief in pagan philosophic thought (influence of Hellenism?) he would need to be contradicting himself in practice. I have provided ample biblical source material.
You contend with my head swimming: "However, when Paul was with a pagan audience he revealed the truth of the revelation of Christ using means that they were conversant with including quotes from their own philosophers. This does not mean that he was endorsing all pagan philosophers, he was simply using things that his audience was aware of that were not unchristian in order to lead them to the revelation of Christ. Christians have always used this methodology when doing mission work with people-groups that have little or no biblical knowledge."
Provide me evidence from the Bible of this method of missionary work being endorsed and followed "always" as you say occurred.....and in failing that, show me where it is used most of the time......and in failing that show me where that method of missionary work was used sometimes.......and failing that show me a handful of times.
LDS missionaries do not use pagan philosophies or unChristian thought in assisting a person while they investigate the LDS Church.
We do not generally review the corrupted beliefs they currently have in discussion. That is stupid. We teach them Gospel principles we know to be true and are fundamental to our Church. And because of the witness of the Spirit those truths are confirmed.
Certainly there were places in which Solomon erred, but I can assure you that t was no worse than Joseph Smith. One of the places in which David and Solomon were condemned most harshly was the practice of kings in other lands to take multiple wives that the kings of Israel began to follow. This, btw, is what lead to all of their troubles.
Now, if you wish to try an ignore what I have said, please remember that the Bible makes it very clear that Solomon's wisdom was an express gift of God. With this git Solomon not only became the wisest king of Israel, but also became the greatest ruler of Israel expanding the lands to their greatest point, having the first great age of Israel's peace, and building the Temple (which you hold in such high regard).
Regarding my definition of Godly wisdom you say that I add it consisting of revelation from God as an after thought, but I lead with it in my Biblical facts, and in my definition quite intentionally. Stealth, I honestly am left wondering once again if you have some weird intellectual dyslexia.
I say, "Godly wisdom is a gift from God that includes revelation, but also the ability to use reason and intelect (also God given gifts) to gauge the merits of worldly wisdom and apply it where it is found to be truth."
You hear, "Reason and intelect are of much greater importance than God because I have no use for His things, .................... Oh, and I should probably say something about revelation from God ... yeah that"
It just strikes me as essential that I not have to do that, given it is your responsibility to substantiate the scriptural verity of the subject for which you are writing. It just seems so easy, given you depend upon only one book for your scriptures and, as you say, you draw your doctrines from the Bible. But no, it turns out to be so difficult for you....wonder why?
Excuse me, but isn't that the way you are supposed to validate doctrine? Or do you feel because of your position that does not seem to be a necessity?
Just a thought.
After all, they are guided by cultural, philosophical, and common (worldly Osteen-like) sense. And where this is true, you believe they can be plugged into some obscure verse and there you have it - something that Paul would have taught, but didn't.
Where Solomon ruled over a Kingdom, he had secular responsibilities of office. He had no religious ones. The former requires the effective work with People; the latter requires the effective work with God. For his secular responsibilities, he was given by God: wisdom. The use of wisdom when one governs over millions of people is vital to being effective. Because these people were God's chosen people, God wanted him to do well where he was personally righteous. The Lord's Prophet at the time, was it Nathan? was not extolled for his wisdom. No Prophet leans on wisdom nor arrives at the calling learned in the intellect of the great philosophers, or the cultural civilizations, or the common sense of man, you guys believe a good Godly steward must. They lean on active revelation in administering God's church here on Earth. Whether or not you believe in Prophets today or not, that is what they have always been about.
So, if the subject is Grand Prix don't extoll the virtue found in Motorcross, thinking there is some kind of common ground worthy of comparison.
Either you consider wisdom that is a gift from God as "godly wisdom" or you do not. It is really that simple.
To the extent that any man is devout, a revelator, a prophet, such a person considers the gift of wisdom to be nonessential
Paul placed his wisdom at the bottom of his list of gifts. If you read the biblical sources I have provided, you will see it for yourself.
Now if Thom would like to compare himself to Solomon without a kingdom and without the fabulous wealth, I say he is mistaken.
James E. Talmage, a noted LDS scholar, said that "It is at once unreasonable, and directly contrary to our conception of the unchangeable justice of God, to believe that He will bless the Church in one dispensation with present living revelation of His will and in another leave [His] Church... to live as best it may according to the laws of a bygone age." I say, no Prophet, no God on this Earth. Without such, the wisdom for which you speak is the wisdom of man. Trust in the wisdom of man, that becomes idolatry.
You are right in saying that revelation is not dispensed in the same manner it once was. Now His Spirit has been poured out on all flesh, and so all can receive words of wisdom and prophecy (check out 1 Corinthians 12 on this). It is not limited to one prophet, or even a prophet and a few apostles, it is available to every believer.
You are wrong in your assesment of wisdom. Solomon's wisdom was a gift from God. (You can look that up in 1 Chronicles 1) Complain all you want, but that is Godly wisdom. The book of Proverbs is all about wisdom, and the word of God, so it is a complitation of Godly wisdom. It also happens to have many well documented sayings from non-Israelite origins.
These facts support my definition rather well.
Next you wrote: “Correction. You have repeatly stated that using reasoned worldly - cultural - knowledge-ethics-philosophy is the best way to approach the scripturally challenged and you are justified because this is how Paul did it (my paraphrase of your meaning - it has no quotes-). It is not "a complete and utter falsehood." as you suppose. It is what you do incessantly and admit to doing.”
• Notice your first statement and then your second statement. They are obviously different. The first is saying that I believe that through philosophy, common sense, and a knowledge of contemporary culture one has the “approved manner of crystallizing Godly truths.” This is hokum. In the second statement you state that I have repeatedly “stated that using reasoned worldly - cultural - knowledge…” Notice that you slip in the word “worldly” a Scripturally important pejorative word that is associated with the kingdom of darkness (I.e. “the world, the flesh and the devil” St. John). I have never, ever advocated such a thing. Let me say again what I have repeatedly and continually said to you on this subject:
1) I am very able to defend any religious idea I present with biblical references and reasoning. You know this, and I know this.
2) I believe that I have a certain giftedness in using philosophy, common sense, and a knowledge of contemporary culture to communicate biblical insights. Paul did this consistently when he spoke to pagan audiences (check Acts 14 and 17).
3) I dare you to specifically challenge me to defend any religious idea or quote from Augustine or Aquinas with the Bible.
Additionally, my blog is a theological blog and not a Bible apologetics blog. How hard is this to understand? Here let me help you. At Brigham Young university (you know, the LDS university), there is a philosophy department and a theological studies department. This may surprise you but the professors and grad students in these departments actually write articles and theses on philosophy and theology. In fact, I recently read an excellent article by a BYU grad-student on Aquinas. She did not quote one biblical or BoM text! Wow, how amazing! I think you need to take a look at your own religious tradition and If you don’t think theologians should be writing theological articles, why don’t you start by complaining about BYU?
Please stop disingenuously misrepresenting me; I know you are doing it, and I blieve you know you are doing it.
You wrote: in regard to my claim that Paul used lots of scriptural references with Jewish audiences (Old Testament), “Please demonstrate the truth of the above statement at the exclusion of its use with pagan audiences. You have never done that. In fact, it cannot be done. “
• Well, Stealth one needs to know a little about the Bible to see this; it is pretty obvious to those who have read the New Testament narrative. If you want to see Paul in action referencing lots of Scripture to a Jewish audience, guess where you might look. Hmmm…how about…the book of Acts! Let me help you with a little Bible knowledge. Open your Bible to Acts 13. You’ll notice that the first part of the chapter tells us how Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the Antioch church on their first missionary journey. Beginning in Acts 13:14, we see Paul and Barnabas in Pisidia Antioch going to the synagogue on the Sabbath. Then Luke (the author) provides us with a lengthy example of Paul’s typical Scriptural discourse to a Jewish audience (he practically retells the whole history of the OT). This continues clear to verse 41. However, in Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas present the gospel to a pagan audience and they don’t use one Scriptural reference (Acts 14:1-18). In Acts 17 we again have Paul in front of a pagan audience (Acts 17:16-31) and, again, he does not use any biblical references. In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes two pagan philosophers rather than any bible text to the Athenians. I have every confidence if you will read these passages that even you can figure out Paul’s methodology.
thomisticguy and puricristos are saying that Paul only used Old Testament quotes when he was preaching to the Jewish People and that he reasoned from his own reasoning with non Jewish people. Then Thomisticguy you take that example of what you believe Paul to have done and do that yourself, using examples of religious scholars who never had contact with an actual apostle of the Lord, nor the Lord himself. Just their own brains and what they decided was reasonable and basically these sources are Old Catholics.
I just have one question for Thomisticguy. Since when were you made an Apostle of the Lord?
Paul was given the ability to reason with these people through the Holy Spirit as he perceived their minds and used the Holy Spirit to help convert these people from pagan gods to the Lord.
You seem to want to convince people to the principles of Augustine and/or Aquinas.
This is just the way it reads to me.
I believe that if you feel you have the right to inspiration to the convincing people from ancient writings that you are being very hyopcritical in berating us for quoting our Prophets, Apostles, and other inspired leaders, from Joseph Smith Jun. to our current beloved Prophet President Gordon Bitner Hinkley.
If you are entitled to inspiration from the writings of old and the follies of man, then how dare you berate Stealth and or myself for using the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price along with the Doctrine and Covenants to make our point.
At least be consistent. Either we can quote people from the past or we can not. There is nothing that makes Augustine or Aquinas or any other Saint more accurate than the Scriptures we use to the convincing of mankind and bringing them to God.
The real problem you have is that we too can back up everything written by the Prophets from day one with the Bible as well and you and puricristos choose to say those passages are misinterperted by myself and or Stealth as we are learned men like the two of you.
What a crock of poppycock popcorn. You are just a person who is using this venue to perpetuate the furthering of your church and the new ones being built.
We too are using this venue only not for the gain of status or money or any other thing than to bring about a reasoned connection between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (non reformist)(non pologomist) and what our Heavenly Father has done from the beginning. He has a specific order for everything. It is established in the Old Testament, it continued in the New Testament, it is used in the Book of Mormon and it is now used as the standard of Christ's true church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (non reformist)(non pologomist).
As I have said before the proof of burdon lies with you as to the correctness of your statements. When I quote scripture it is very clear; although puricristos occassionally can't tell the difference, others can.
I also know that to tell people what the Bible says is exactly what happened in the Dark Ages and people did what they wanted and did not attempt to follow the Lord. Why was that do you think?
I believe that had they had access to their own Bible that they would have behaved very differently. As their "Fathers/teachers" were out for power and gain in most places and that example is what was followed.
Read Shakespear to understand how the church is maligned in a format that was allowable. Watch any of the operas of the time. The church owned everything, except for the North and South American Continents and this is where freedom exists.
It is clear that God cut himself off from the Jewish people and said he would establish for Himself many Zions, see Isiah for this. I am doing a post that should be finished by Saturday and up and running I have too many appointments to do it any sooner.
So if you want to condemn the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (non reformist)(non pologomist) for using "non biblical material" then I say to you look not to take the mote from thy brother's eye when the beam is in thine own.
Beth.