Realistically, are we all Bible Scholars?

[outdeep]

No one is saying that the book of Timothy does not apply to us.   In every book of the Bible, we attempt to discover what the original writer intended to mean to his original audience in the context of that time period.  From there, we try to discern a principle and then translate it into our contemporary circumstance.

Paul was writing to Timothy encouraging him in his role as elder in a specific, troubled church.  I think as we easedrop into this conversation, we obtain some principles that we Christians need to apply.  But, I wouldn't burden down a mother with four small children with the exhortation "preach the word, be instance in season and out of season" commanding her to, in addition to all her other responsibilities, have a mastery of the Bible in order to feed God's sheep.  Nor would I lay this trip on a man who is gifted with working with his hands and whose primary gift is to help people in the church through practical hands-on means.  For them, listening to sermons and a daily Scripture portion may be plenty.

On the other hand, those aspiring to teach Sunday school, lead a small-group, be an elder or pastor a church should take heed.

The Bible is not algebra.  One cannot necessarily take a statement from an epistle and say, "this is a timeless principle that applies to everbody in every circumstance."  Interpreting a passage in context of who is speaking, who is spoken to and what is going on is not strange exegesis.

-Dave

[Mark C.]

Hi back to you Jerre!

  Thanks for your participation on the BB and your kind reply to me.  I hope that you find the discussion here helpful as you try to help your roomate.

  I probably should mention for your sake, as well as others who may read here, what GG taught in re. to "heart knowledge."

   The crux of the teaching was that God must "speak to you" through reading the Bible.  This might sound reasonable at first consideration but what GG meant by this bordered on New Age teaching (and on some occasions crossed the border).

   In Assembly "Bible study" you were to enter another dimension and have a moment where God revealed through His Spirit special insights that could not be discerned by the mind (no, I don't know how that would possibly work  ).

  You knew that "God was speaking" if your interpretation agreed with GG teaching and caused you to lay down your life for the Lord (this phrase,"for the Lord", meant for the Assembly.)  The greatest sign of God's speaking to you, according to GG, was a personal desire to be unified; and consequently the greatest sign of not listening to God was to be "divisive".  God would, for instance, never ever tell  you to leave the Assembly to serve Christ in another group.

  By virtually separating us from critical thinking skills while reading our Bibles GG manipulated those under his control, since criticism was considered of the Devil.  

  All other Christian teachers could have "some" light, but if they did not recognize God's true church and devote all their lives to this purpose they were out of God's will at best, and heretics at worst.

  If you dared to challenge GG's interpretation you were drummed out of the group, if you could not be silenced (all in the interest of unity of course )

  If this sounds cultic to you it is probably because it is. Though some far-flung Assemblies may have tried in the later years to moderate this cultic view, they were so deeply rooted in this system that it still existed in some form.  The only way to get free from these roots is to identify them, pull them all out, and find a whole new way to look at reading the Bible.

  Ask your roomate, "what is God teaching you from your reading?"  I don't mean to ask in a harsh and critical way, but just to hear what she has to say.  If her answer is, "God is showing me that I must give all my heart to Him," ask her, what does that mean.  If the answer includes loyalty to the group, ask how she gets that from the passage.

 She may only answer with a generality, or something personal like praying and reading more, but let us know here what she says and let's see if we can help you with helping her to the restoration of her critical thinking skills.

 The Bible is filled with some wonderful verses that encourage testing our thinking via a willingness to accept criticism.  James says that humble acceptance of correction provides the means wherby wisdom comes from above, but rejection of a willingness to have our views tested means we are out of the way.  This is exactly opposite to the way that GG taught.

                                God Bless,  Mark C.    

[vernecarty]

Kudos to all who posted on this thread - your insights are great!

Does my burgeoning knowledge make me a scholar? Not in the least, especially if I don't share (or even worse, understand) this knowledge.
Jerre

The qualification for scholarship has more to do with one's contribution to the body of knowledge of a specific discipline than with formal titles or training per se.
Using that criterion, the vast majority of us, learned though we be, would not truly qualify.
If you have witten a thesis of any sort, you probably qualify in a minimal sense.
The study of the Holy Scirptures should not be considered in my view in such a carnal and worldly light, no disrespect to those holding the Th.D.  
God's words are spirit and they are life.
Much of what passes today for serious Scriptural discussion is little more than contempt for God's Holy Book.
The Word of God in only our heads profits us little. George Geftakys certainly demonstrated that.
As with the eternal Son, in each of us the Word must be made flesh, that is to say, we have to live it!

  If you dared to challenge GG's interpretation you were drummed out of the group, if you could not be silenced (all in the interest of unity of course )

 
 
                                God Bless,  Mark C.    

This is about as insightful as anything Mark has observed about Geftakys and the assemblies and really sums it all.
I have said repeatedly, and taken heavy criticism for doing so, that if you remained with a man like George Geftakys, particularly those who served in leadership responsibilities close to the man, you were  by definition compromised, and compromised deeply.
I do not make that case in a condemnatory way. A failure to acknowledge this stark reallity is in my opinion the reason some of these men will never recover...


Verne