e=mc2 Posted July 8, 2007 Posted July 8, 2007 Norman Geisler, one of the better known Evangelical scholars, has proposed some dangers from philosophy and the reasons for those dangers, which I elaborate on in this new podcast. The Trinity has some issues as well, interestingly enough!http://backyardprofessor.typepad.com/the_backyard_professor/
cksalmon Posted July 8, 2007 Posted July 8, 2007 Norman Geisler, one of the better known Evangelical scholars, has proposed some dangers from philosophy and the reasons for those dangers, which I elaborate on in this new podcast. The Trinity has some issues as well, interestingly enough!http://backyardprofessor.typepad.com/the_backyard_professor/Hi Kerry--As far as I know, Barry Leventhal is the current dean at Southern Evangelical, rather than Geisler. From the article:Do Not Dance on the Edges.--My next bit of advice for evangelical exegetes is to avoiddancing on the edges. Do not see how far the borders of evangelicalism can be stretched toaccommodate the latest scholarly fad. Do not flirt with the latest critical methodology. Some ofour own ETS members have been caught in this trap. It would appear that Grant Osbornetemporarily fell prey to this temptation when he claimed that Matthew expanded on Jesus
e=mc2 Posted July 9, 2007 Author Posted July 9, 2007 Ah! I shall have to go back and see. Geisler is going against the grain to say that the Trinitiarian formula is in that baptismal formula however. That is eisegesis. Thanks for the heads up.
cksalmon Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 Ah! I shall have to go back and see. Geisler is going against the grain to say that the Trinitiarian formula is in that baptismal formula however. That is eisegesis. Thanks for the heads up.Kerry--I'm not sure what you're suggesting is eisegesis. Whatever its implications, the Greek text certainly contains the admonition to baptize eis to onoma tou patros kai tou uiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos. By my reading, Geisler's brief mention merely suggests that this a faithful rendering of Jesus' words, rather than a later Mattheanism. I'm not sure what would be eisegetical about that claim. Perhaps you can clarify? Best.CKS
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.