Trump national prayer breakfast

[scooperhsd]

Maybe not, but some religions forbid their use by their members.

[3fan4life]

To accept DNA as the standard for human identity, one can easily conclude that a human life exists at conception

This is getting pretty far afield from Trump's attendance at the prayer breakfast. But, I'll bite. Wouldn't that reasoning also make most birth control pills illegal ?

The Catholic Church thinks so.

But, I'm sure that many Catholics use some form of birth control.

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with birth control.

The stance of even the most extreme anti-abortion groups is that life begins at conception.

So, if conception never occurs then a life didn't begin.

[The emperor has no clothes]

To accept DNA as the standard for human identity, one can easily conclude that a human life exists at conception

This is getting pretty far afield from Trump's attendance at the prayer breakfast. But, I'll bite. Wouldn't that reasoning also make most birth control pills illegal ?

The Catholic Church thinks so.

But, I'm sure that many Catholics use some form of birth control.

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with birth control.

The stance of even the most extreme anti-abortion groups is that life begins at conception.

So, if conception never occurs then a life didn't begin.

I'm no expert on birth control pills. But I thought at least some of them worked by not letting the fertilized egg implant in the uterus ?

[Moonshot_1]

To accept DNA as the standard for human identity, one can easily conclude that a human life exists at conception

This is getting pretty far afield from Trump's attendance at the prayer breakfast. But, I'll bite. Wouldn't that reasoning also make most birth control pills illegal ?

The Catholic Church thinks so.

But, I'm sure that many Catholics use some form of birth control.

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with birth control.

The stance of even the most extreme anti-abortion groups is that life begins at conception.

So, if conception never occurs then a life didn't begin.

I'm no expert on birth control pills. But I thought at least some of them worked by not letting the fertilized egg implant in the uterus ?

It is one thing for a woman to make her body inhospitable to a pregnancy and clear on the other side of the spectrum to knowingly kill a growing life.

[Willow]

The Catholic Church thinks so.

But, I'm sure that many Catholics use some form of birth control.

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with birth control.

The stance of even the most extreme anti-abortion groups is that life begins at conception.

So, if conception never occurs then a life didn't begin.

I'm no expert on birth control pills. But I thought at least some of them worked by not letting the fertilized egg implant in the uterus ?

It is one thing for a woman to make her body inhospitable to a pregnancy and clear on the other side of the spectrum to knowingly kill a growing life.

Defining life beginning when a sperm unites with the egg (conception) is a bit over stated.  It's not unusual at all for a sperm joined egg to fail to attach to the uterus.  That's actually some seven to ten days possibly after the egg was joined by a sperm.

Truthfully it should be said that life begins at the start of a successful pregnancy.

[3fan4life]

To accept DNA as the standard for human identity, one can easily conclude that a human life exists at conception

This is getting pretty far afield from Trump's attendance at the prayer breakfast. But, I'll bite. Wouldn't that reasoning also make most birth control pills illegal ?

The Catholic Church thinks so.

But, I'm sure that many Catholics use some form of birth control.

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with birth control.

The stance of even the most extreme anti-abortion groups is that life begins at conception.

So, if conception never occurs then a life didn't begin.

I'm no expert on birth control pills. But I thought at least some of them worked by not letting the fertilized egg implant in the uterus ?

From the web:

Birth control pills work by emitting naturally-occurring hormones estrogen and progestin to prevent pregnancy. These hormones stop sperm from fertilizing an egg by stopping ovulation. ... The hormones in the pill also thicken cervix mucus, meaning it is more difficult for the sperm to get to the egg.




 

[Gavin_Sons]

To accept DNA as the standard for human identity, one can easily conclude that a human life exists at conception

This is getting pretty far afield from Trump's attendance at the prayer breakfast. But, I'll bite. Wouldn't that reasoning also make most birth control pills illegal ?

The Catholic Church thinks so.

But, I'm sure that many Catholics use some form of birth control.

Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with birth control.

The stance of even the most extreme anti-abortion groups is that life begins at conception.

So, if conception never occurs then a life didn't begin.

I'm no expert on birth control pills. But I thought at least some of them worked by not letting the fertilized egg implant in the uterus ?

From the web:

Birth control pills work by emitting naturally-occurring hormones estrogen and progestin to prevent pregnancy. These hormones stop sperm from fertilizing an egg by stopping ovulation. ... The hormones in the pill also thicken cervix mucus, meaning it is more difficult for the sperm to get to the egg.




 

Those little pills work well.  I have been testing them out for years. 

[Gryphon Rider]

We are not called to be theologians, we are called to be children, trusting in our Father and following His leading, plans and purposes for our lives. We are called to have power and authority in the Knowing of our Father and His glory and our glory also as His children. We are supposed to know our inheritance in a world that is not ours.

It is the theologians of this world that made more men go to hell, I would bet more than almost any vice. The contrast is becoming more and more of whose child each man is.

As for man its very much like the story of the 2 wolves, which you decide to feed is the one that lives, lives inside of each person. The difference in theology and Gods way is, one tells you its your responsibility to be good, the other says I will help in any weakness just come to Me and I will help and out of love we start to mirror His image. Following by example, because He heals us and out of being grateful we mirror His image. Lights on a lamp stand giving our light to the world, because of the one who saved us.

To tar all theologians with the same brush is simply ludicrous, and to dishonour them indiscriminately is as ridiculous as making some sweeping disparagement of any profession.  You have demonstrated a poor understanding of what theology is and what theologians are.  Included in this group of men (and some of their contributions to Christian faith), that you so carelessly misrepresent, are some you may have heard of:

Athanasius of Alexandria (Author of the Nicene Creed)
Augustine of Hippo (Articulated the doctrine of original sin)
Martin Luther
John Calvin
Thomas Cranmer
Menno Simons (Mennonite church named after him)
John Knox
Jacobus Arminius (Arminianism named after him)
Richard Baxter
Stephen Charnock
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards
Charles Wesley
John Wesley
George Whitefield
A.A. Hodge
Charles Hodge
Charles Spurgeon (best known for his preaching, known as the "Prince of Preachers")
James Strong (Strong's Concordance)
Louis Berkhof
F.F. Bruce
Lewis Sperry Chafer
C.S. Lewis
J.I. Packer
Charles Ryrie
A.W. Tozer
H.Orton Wiley
Alistair Begg
D.A. Carson
Wayne Grudem
Erwin Lutzer
John Piper
R.C. Sproul

[Robert]

Theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that helps them lead lives of obedience to the deities they follow or worship. So theology is taught as an academic discipline, not generally a spiritual awaking.

The bible was written by the Holy spirit, How with knowledge does anyone ever understand God? Which is the ultimate goal of Christianity.

While I did not name specific people and many advancements have been made by your so called category of theologians, I believe you incorporate to many in your definition of theologians. Not to mention there are many religions all these men would also fit into the category of theologians also. How do you a Christian reconcile an Islamic holy man as a theologian in your definition?

How many adherents does the Roman Catholic church have? How would you categorize these men and women? I heard the Pope say that its ludicrous to think each man can have a relationship with God and can speak and hear Him. I was appalled and shocked, so would you categorize him as a theologian? What about the first name on your list, MLK who was very antisemitic in many of his later teachings as one example. 

 I say, who you include in your definition of theologians is so broad it proves my point. The point of the church is to train and raise up people to know God, walk in and use the gifts God has given them and love God with all their hearts. 

[Willow]

Theology has turned into a secular field, ...

... What about the first name on your list, MLK who was very antisemitic in many of his later teachings as one example. 

 I say, who you include in your definition of theologians is so broad it proves my point. The point of the church is to train and raise up people to know God, walk in and use the gifts God has given them and love God with all their hearts. 

Robert, I have no idea where you get your information but I know that it is often incorrect.  You need to stop representing yourself as being at all knowledgeable about Christianity. 

I don't see MLK listed anywhere as a theologian.  Nor do I see the Pope or any Islamic holy men.

You made a very general statement regarding theologians.  There are indeed some who claim to be theologians who are not pursuing true Theology but to broadly dismiss everyone who has devoted his life to studying the Scriptures is more than a bit arrogant on your part.  Do some more study yourself before you start condemning large groups of those who have.

[Gryphon Rider]

Theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that helps them lead lives of obedience to the deities they follow or worship. So theology is taught as an academic discipline, not generally a spiritual awaking.

Theology is the study and understanding of God. Christian theology is knowing God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  People become Christians by believing fundamental theology (a.k.a. the Gospel) and turning from sin in repentance.  People cannot be truly spiritually awakened without understanding some fundamental truths about God (theology).

Jeremiah 9:23-24: Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”

The bible was written by the Holy spirit, How with knowledge does anyone ever understand God? Which is the ultimate goal of Christianity.

People come to know and understand God by studying God's Word, believing it, and obeying it.  All of this is a difficult but worthy pursuit.

While I did not name specific people and many advancements have been made by your so called category of theologians, I believe you incorporate to many in your definition of theologians.

Do you only include liberal or otherwise non-Bible-believing "Christians" in your category of theology?  All the people I have named are Christians who have deeply studied Biblical theology, have written books that are highly regarded by other theologians, faithful pastors, and by lay Christians who want to deepen their own understanding of God and how to apply their understanding to their lived-out faith.  Noteworthy Christian theologians fall into this category, they train, teach, and influence the leadership of our church, in seminaries and/or through their published writing.  Which of the men I named do you, in your exhaustive knowledge of them, not consider to be theologians?

Not to mention there are many religions all these men would also fit into the category of theologians also. How do you a Christian reconcile an Islamic holy man as a theologian in your definition?

I have no idea what you mean by this.  Are you saying that non-Christian religions look to some of these theologians for instruction?  They wouldn't have to look far to see the contrast with their non-Christian beliefs.

How many adherents does the Roman Catholic church have? How would you categorize these men and women? I heard the Pope say that its ludicrous to think each man can have a relationship with God and can speak and hear Him. I was appalled and shocked, so would you categorize him as a theologian? What about the first name on your list, MLK who was very antisemitic in many of his later teachings as one example.

Most religions have their own theologians, including the Catholics, and yes, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) was considered a learned theologian, although I'm not sure the same is said of the current pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis).

The third name on my list, Martin Luther, lived from 1483-1546, was German, and did not give the "I have a dream" speech.  He, to a large degree, was responsible for the Protestant Reformation.  Martin Luther King Jr.'s father renamed himself and his famous son after this 16th century reformer.

I say, who you include in your definition of theologians is so broad it proves my point. The point of the church is to train and raise up people to know God, walk in and use the gifts God has given them and love God with all their hearts.

In other words, to create theologians.  We agree on this.

Suggested reading (yes, I've read this book):  No Place for Truth: or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by David F. Wells

[Robert]

Why do we have many different churches and sect of one bible, Theologians.

“The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.” theologian KARL BARTH

1Co 2:1  And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2  For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1Co 2:3  I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Co 2:4  and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

1Co 2:5  so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

“Jesus does not give recipes that show the way to God as other teachers of religion do. He is Himself the way. theologian KARL BARTH

The purpose of the Gospel was never supposed to be a history lesson, it is the highly personal testimony of God for the purpose building men's faith into the knowing of God and knowing what we can do through Him. Moving men and women to aspire to the greatness inside each of them by faith to move into the calling God has on their lives and use the spiritual gifts He has given them.  

The gospel shows who our God is and what He wants and with the spirit reveals to us Gods words for us in context of who we are and what we can do and what our Father is like.

These men and women have demonstrated the power and authority we have. They gave demonstrations of what Jesus was talking about and what every believer can aspire to. They showed the way rather than giving history lessons of the past.

Smith Wigglesworth Ever Increasing Faith
https://youtu.be/kKhnABGoQHg

Lester Sumrall shares his personal encounters with Smith Wigglesworth along with his vision of an end time revival.
https://youtu.be/MnXONyQI8wM

 Lead by example not with words, what Jesus did, what the apostles did.

[Gryphon Rider]

Why do we have many different churches and sect of one bible, Theologians.

Although it is not perfectly clear in the way you phrased it, I assume you blame theologians for divisions in the church.  Ever since the early church, theologians have had the calling and duty of keeping the church true to the faith taught by the Apostles and their associates.  It's when the church de-emphasizes and fails to convincingly and strongly articulate Biblical theology that the church departs from the true faith, eventually requiring God to raise up a determined, sharp-minded theologian, like Martin Luther (of the 16th century, not the 20th century "I have a dream" civil rights leader), to lead a corrective movement that many would see as merely causing division.

“The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.” theologian KARL BARTH

It's interesting that you cite a theologian to help make your point.  By doing so, are you trying to divide the church?  I would agree with that quote except that theology is relayed to the minds and hearts of men who are subject to sin and the noetic effects of the fall, thus man has a natural aversion to "the best theology", and often advocates are required to cultivate the soil of the mind so "the best theology" can take root.

1Co 2:1  And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2  For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1Co 2:3  I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Co 2:4  and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

1Co 2:5  so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

“Jesus does not give recipes that show the way to God as other teachers of religion do. He is Himself the way. theologian KARL BARTH

The purpose of the Gospel was never supposed to be a history lesson, it is the highly personal testimony of God for the purpose building men's faith into the knowing of God and knowing what we can do through Him. Moving men and women to aspire to the greatness inside each of them by faith to move into the calling God has on their lives and use the spiritual gifts He has given them.  

The gospel shows who our God is and what He wants and with the spirit reveals to us Gods words for us in context of who we are and what we can do and what our Father is like.

Are you trying to say that we (or theologians) are wasting our time by thoroughly studying the Word of God, by reading theologians, and by studying Christian and theological history to better understand God and our faith?  If so, that's absolute rubbish, and you are destined to wallow in your ignorance, being swayed by every false teacher that captures your ear.

The Christian life is precisely the opposite of aspiration to greatness and power.  We should aspire to John the Baptist's attitude: "He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30)
God says, "But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word." (Isaiah 66:2b)

The purpose of the Gospel is not to teach us history, but understanding of some basic historical events is a necessary part of the Gospel:  1. that man is fallen, incapable of communing with God, and 2. that God provided a means to be reconciled to himself by inserting His Son into history to accomplish that purpose.  Scripture often uses history to make its point.  An example is in Hebrews 3 and 4, where the author uses the story of the people of Israel not combining the gospel preached to them (the promise of a permanent homeland) with the faith required for the gospel to be effective (demonstrated by them actually entering the land) to bring them into their rest.

These men and women have demonstrated the power and authority we have. They gave demonstrations of what Jesus was talking about and what every believer can aspire to. They showed the way rather than giving history lessons of the past.

Smith Wigglesworth Ever Increasing Faith
https://youtu.be/kKhnABGoQHg

Lester Sumrall shares his personal encounters with Smith Wigglesworth along with his vision of an end time revival.
https://youtu.be/MnXONyQI8wM

Lead by example not with words, what Jesus did, what the apostles did.

Sorry, I don't have the time to spend 4-1/2+ hours with Smith Wigglesworth or his adherents.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your "lead by example" statement, unless you mean that Jesus and his apostles primarily lead without words, which is preposterous.  They spoke first (or believed first), then backed it up with action.


It is telling that you refuse to address any of the points, responses, or questions that I have, but then go on to make additional points.  Why can't you ever admit you are wrong?

Just say it:  Some theologians have made huge contributions to the Christian faith.  If they didn't, you and I would likely be Roman Catholic right now.

Just say it:  You incorrectly thought that Martin Luther was Martin Luther King Junior.


Please clarify your position by answering my previous questions:

Do you only include liberal or otherwise non-Bible-believing "Christians" in your category of theology?

Are you saying that non-Christian religions look to some of these theologians (that I named) for instruction?  If not, what do you mean when you say, "Not to mention there are many religions all these men would also fit into the category of theologians also."

Which of the men I named do you, in your exhaustive knowledge of them, not consider to be theologians? (and why?)

[Robert]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
Theology

Islam
Main article: Schools of Islamic theology
See also: List of Muslim theologians

In Jewish theology,

 Inquiries within Buddhism, dedicated to the investigation of a Buddhist understanding of the world, prefer the designation Buddhist philosophy to the term "Buddhist theology"

While theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that helps them lead lives of obedience to the deities they follow or worship.

So theology as defined by Wikipedia seems to incorporate more than stated here.

 I assume you blame theologians for divisions  

 yes I do since you cannot have it both ways either they keep the church straight by knowledge or they don't.

 So you say theologians keep the church straight yet, the church deviated from the original mandate and what theologian demonstrated this original mandate.

Jesus Sends Out the Twelve Apostles

Mat 10:6  but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7  "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
Mat 10:8  "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.
 
Which theologian has done this, what church effectively follows this mandate, or what knowledge has gotten people saved, healed raised from the dead, since Jesus spoke in parables it does not seem He was to worried about knowledge.

Ecc 12:9  In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs.
Ecc 12:10  The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.
Ecc 12:11  The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd.
Ecc 12:12  But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.
Ecc 12:13  The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
Ecc 12:14  For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

Yes I have painted a broad sword in my naming of Theologian because the title goes to many, also to the Pope a man set as the head of the Catholic church, and the very Jewish leaders that crucified Jesus. My main point is the title theologian can also mean a teacher of history today, but without the spiritual revelation, the history has little meaning. How with knowledge only do you understand the thoughts and intents of not only the apostles but the people of  that period. Like the church doesn't even teach that there were no Christians when Jesus was alive they were Jews so the reference point of who they were preaching to what the beliefs are were totally different than today.

I want to ask you how many prophecies are there in the bible and how many have come true?
 
If you want to elevate theologians then call them men and women of God or those are ones that follow the original church mandate, love the Lord and can make sense of the spiritual side of the christian life and put some history as it relates to salvation and the works of the Lord. Otherwise they are history buffs and nothing else just like many who do the history channel shows on Jesus and christian topics.

Lead by example, you took it that Jesus did not use words, Jesus spoke in parables, and what attracted people was not mainly His speech but the working of miracles. How did the common man understand parables when even His apostles had trouble understanding them? We today even have trouble with somethings Jesus spoke. But what did Jesus himself say about His supposedly unclear speech.

Mar 4:11  And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
Mar 4:12  so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
Mar 4:13  And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?

So its not so preposterous to think that without spiritual knowledge combined with earthly knowledge the meanings and scriptures remained clouded. Knowledge again only goes so far.

The reason in citing theologians is, you can relate to them and the words spoken had good points.

You defend the men you cited, but I ask what about all the men and women that you didn't cite and which of these men performed the spiritual side of the original church mandate?

Its not the full gospel without the spiritual side of the bible, something to many theologians skip.


Quoted from you
he purpose of the Gospel is not to teach us history, but understanding of some basic historical events is a necessary part of the Gospel:  1. that man is fallen, incapable of communing with God, and 2. that God provided a means to be reconciled to himself by inserting His Son into history to accomplish that purpose.  Scripture often uses history to make its point.  An example is in Hebrews 3 and 4, where the author uses the story of the people of Israel not combining the gospel preached to them (the promise of a permanent homeland) with the faith required for the gospel to be effective (demonstrated by them actually entering the land) to bring them into their rest


First they were mostly Jews, which most neglect to mention and their relation and reason for not accepting the Gospel was not only in relation to what it meant to them, that the Messiah had come, but the fact that God veiled their acceptance of the Gospel till the time of the gentiles would be fulfilled. A spiritual reason and nothing to do with history, Geography or anything  of an earthly nature learned.

People are not saved by knowledge they are saved by the Holy Spirit initially moving on thier hearts to accept Jesus, to help them understand they have a need. Without the Spirit doing this work first they cannot be saved, even when someone comes along and explains Jesus to them.

As a theologian I think you would be super interested in ALL sides of your salvation, including the works of Smith Wigglesworth and his teachings plus many more who demonstrated the gifts of the spirit since they are the true working of our Father God in the spirit through a person. How can you know God by knowledge only? A doctor needs to have things demonstrated to him along with knowledge to fully understand his trade? Which is my beef with Theologians or any profession, unless you know all sides and demonstrate them how do you relate to what you teach? Knowledge is great and needed but without the spirit there is no real ability to relate, especially on the bible a spiritual book.

The first and foremost important thing for any person is salvation. Now if you want to understand God more and understand history through Gods workings and ways, or want to prove God really does have control of every facet of life then the study of history and the bible adds depth to salvation. It does change the person but the real work is done spiritually and Jesus did not come for us to study history but to know the Father. A measure of faith is given at birth then we as we walk and go through things and learn how much God loves us, helps us to deal with situations and if we really take the time to learn about spiritual gifts rather than history start to walk with the same abilities as Jesus. That is to heal the sick, raise the dead and speak and hear from God everyday about almost every situation. This is not something theologians or the church has taught and trained Christians to do, so to me they failed people and the original church mandate. Not all but most failed to show that we as Christians are victors. We have failed to be taught how to have the mind and perspective of chirst. Many Christians live defeated which is NOT why Jesus came.

[The emperor has no clothes]

“Which of the men I named do you, in your exhaustive knowledge of them, not consider to be theologians? (and why?)”

Five revisions to your post, multiple quoting of scripture, yet still no answer to GR’s simple question. 

[Gryphon Rider]

Now I see the issue:  Your understanding of theology and theologians comes from Wikipedia and the History Channel.

So demonstrate how knowledge was more important than the getting close to Jesus and moveing in the spiritual gifts given each person and what amount of knowledge makes people demonstrate, aquire and rise up in the gifts of the spirit and equips  them to emulate Jesus and His works?

You present a false dichotomy, knowledge vs. being close to Jesus.  A huge component of becoming close to God is knowing Him through what He has said and done, which requires study of His Word.  This allows you to supply another huge component to being close to Jesus:  obedience to Him.  You can't obey Him if you don't know what He has commanded. "You are my friends if you do what I command you." (John 15:14)

Our purpose as His church isn't to move in the gifts; our purpose is to make disciples.  The gifts are provided as a support to this purpose.  The purpose of an offensive linesman is to protect the quarterback.  The food he eats provides the energy and the raw material for building the muscle and putting on the weight required to accomplish the purpose of protecting the quarterback.  Putting "moving/acquiring/rising up in the gifts" and "being close to Jesus" on the same level is like saying a linesman's job is to protect the quarterback and eat the right food.

...what amount of knowledge makes people ... emulate Jesus and His works?

You can't emulate Jesus and His works without a knowledge and understanding of them.  "...Take the ... sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God..." (Eph 6:17).  The material the Holy Spirit works with is the Word of God.  As one studies God's word, implanting it in his heart, the Holy Spirit has more and more that He can bring to one's mind in the right circumstances.  Being able to cite God's Word at the right time is far more powerful than anything one can come up with himself, even when supposedly "moving in the gifts" without a strong foundation in God's Word.

If you want to elevate theologins then call them men and women of God those are ones that follow the original church mandate, love the Lord and can make sense of the spiritual side of the christian life and put some history as it relates to salvation and the works of the Lord. Otherwise they are history buffs and nothing else just like many who do the history channel shows on Jesus and christian topics.

I don't want to elevate theologians, I want to pull them out from under the bus you've thrown them under.  Not all theologians are men and women of God; some are false teachers.  By understanding theology myself, I can increasingly differentiate between the two.

Lead by example, you took it that Jesus did not use words, of course you did, instead of understanding that Jesus spoke in parables, and what attracked people was not mainly His speech but the working of miracles. How did the common man understand parables when even His aposotles had trouble understanding them? Something good theologins should not only know but demostrate. We today even have trouble with somethings Jesus spoke. But what did Jesus himself say about His supposedly unclear speech.

Where did you get the notion that I thought Jesus didn't use words, or that I don't understand that Jesus spoke in parables?  Yes, miracles attracted people, but the purpose of signs were not, and are not, to attract people, but to testify that the message of the one performing the miracles is speaking for God.  This was true for Moses, for Elijah, for other prophets, for Jesus, and for the Apostles (amongst other first century church leaders):

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst..." Acts 2:22

"So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands." Acts 14:3

"It [the message of salvation] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, 4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." Hebrews 2:3-4

My last words on this subject, unless you decide to actually engage my points and my questions:

To know wisdom and instruction,
    to understand words of insight,
to receive instruction in wise dealing,
    in righteousness, justice, and equity;
to give prudence to the simple,
    knowledge and discretion to the youth—
Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
    and the one who understands obtain guidance,
to understand a proverb and a saying,
    the words of the wise and their riddles.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
    fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Because they hated knowledge
    and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
would have none of my counsel
    and despised all my reproof,
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
    and have their fill of their own devices.
For the simple are killed by their turning away,
    and the complacency of fools destroys them;
but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
    and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.

Proverbs 1:2-7, 29-33

Robert, who is Martin Luther?

[Gryphon Rider]

“Which of the men I named do you, in your exhaustive knowledge of them, not consider to be theologians? (and why?)”

Five revisions to your post, multiple quoting of scripture, yet still no answer to GR’s simple question.  

Your posts are a  waste of time,

but to answer, in a reasonable fashion, how many labeled theologins not are not listed here?

Thousands are not listed.  I listed the ones who I was aware of, either through reading them myself, or through their reputations or documented accomplishments.  Many on my list have teachings on important but secondary issues that disagree with others on my list.  You said you don't consider some on my list to be theologians.  Back up your opinion.  But I'm pretty sure you won't, because that's not something you typically do.

Robert, who is Martin Luther?

[Robert]

“Which of the men I named do you, in your exhaustive knowledge of them, not consider to be theologians? (and why?)”

Five revisions to your post, multiple quoting of scripture, yet still no answer to GR’s simple question. 

Your posts are a  waste of time,

but to answer, in a reasonable fashion, how many labeled theologins not are not listed here?

Thousands are not listed. 

Robert, who is Martin Luther?

Priest and  started the Protestant Reformation easy and my mistake on your list actually. But that is what happens juggling to many things at once.

But that is also the point, you defend theologians and upset at me but its a blanket title given to many even by your own admittance, as if all are saints and furthered the one cause of advancing the original mandate of Christ. This is not true by any means and the definition I gave out of Wiki is only for convenience and if you have a better one then you can give that. I also wanted you to see that anyone can have the label of theologian in today's world and many that study the bible have no business in commenting or writing shows about the bible. The examples you gave are cherry picked. The ones that you picked in many cases did further the cause but still not based on the example Jesus taught which is through the gifts of the spirit.

 They have done this by history, learning, conforming to a set standard, almost like a military and forgetting the spiritual side of the message. As example that this is not working now church attendance is down, people are left to themselves to deal with problems and not knowing the full power and authority that they possess. knowledge without spiritual revelation can never bring people into the full knowledge of what Jesus has done for us at the cross. Nor does knowledge alone make room for the example Jesus gave us nor the working of the Holy Spirit through us. The bible can never be explained completely unless the supernatural can be explained and I would go even further to say that Jesus died for this right to have spiritual gifts.


 The title itself is way overused and even of the men who did further the cause and were priests and pastors there are many that did not follow the mandate of Christ for the church.
   
Your thinking on this matter also shows in not knowing the people that God demonstrates His power through as an example of what is available to anyone. Since God is not a respecter of persons. The spiritual side and without that its a lopsided gospel. All the history is only for one purpose to show that God ultimately has power and authority over all things and that He has everything in His control.

[Gavin_Sons]

Thanks for the religious rant. I feel so much closer to god having read this from you two. Yeah I actually didn't read any of it. Let's just say both of you are wrong and go on our merry way.

[Gryphon Rider]

Now we have progress!

Priest and  started the Protestant Reformation easy and my mistake on your list actually. But that is what happens juggling to many things at once.

The ones that you picked in many cases did further the cause...

Woo-hoo! you're admitting there are at least some theologians who are good for the church!

...but still not based on the example Jesus taught which is through the gifts of the spirit.

But, then you half take it back because they supposedly didn't make use of the gifts of the spirit.


How could you possibly know that the theologians I mentioned, or others unmentioned, were not making use of the gifts of the spirit?  Do you claim to be using the gift of discerning spirits?

Romans 9:6-8 - "Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness."

I think many of the theologians I named likely had/have the gifts of teaching, exhortation, and leadership.

[Gryphon Rider]

Thanks for the religious rant. I feel so much closer to god having read this from you two. Yeah I actually didn't read any of it. Let's just say both of you are wrong and go on our merry way.

Feel free to skip any post, or thread, you like.

[Gavin_Sons]

Thanks for the religious rant. I feel so much closer to god having read this from you two. Yeah I actually didn't read any of it. Let's just say both of you are wrong and go on our merry way.

Feel free to skip any post, or thread, you like.

Oh I feel plenty free to do so. I also feel free to post my thoughts. 

[Robert]

Now we have progress!

Thats pretty funny 

Co 12:4  Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
1Co 12:5  And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 
1Co 12:6  There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 
1Co 12:7  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 
1Co 12:8  For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 
1Co 12:9  to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 
1Co 12:10  and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 
1Co 12:11  But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 

The spiritual offices are
Apostle
Prophet
Evangelist
Pastor
Teacher

The list you came up with is a good one and most there may not fully walk in the gifts of the spirit but were used by God to accomplish His goals. There are more also, many in fact but like I said the term is a broad one.

The main point is it faith resulting in knowledge or knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Just like faith and works, faith without works is dead and works with no faith is dead. Many on your list did not believe in spiritual gifts and some even said the gifts were only for Jesus time and thats it. In fact many churches strictly forbid the use of spiritual gifts or acts that Jesus not only demonstrated but said we will have. Some of These were the very theologians in your post.  Since you have the Calvinists and Methodists, Catholics and only a couple others who actually believed in the spiritual gifts.

These men you listed were moved by the spirit to accomplish a task of an office they were set in. But I doubt anyone except for maybe one or two actually had the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Without that there is no spiritual gifts in operation, but they could be lead by the Holy Spirit. Just like the Old Testament there were many men who had a relationship with God and were lead by the Spirit, but in that time the filling or indwelling of the Holy Spirit was not there. As after Jesus was Crucified on the cross and the apostles were told to wait for the baptism of the spirit. Jesus said "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I don't go away, the comforting Counselor will not come to you. However, if I do go, I will send him to you".