Gospel Principles - dissolution or destruction of the early church?

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I find it interesting that the apostasy of truth is so damn easy to prove. It's easy to show how non-Biblical concepts crept into the Church, because we have Biblical scholarship. The apostasy of authority is tougher.

"Biblical concept" is question begging. Nothing can be proved from the Bible. 

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I was reading Mark Ellison's chapter yesterday, and he dared to make the suggestions I've attached.

Stepping wrongly happens so quickly in discussions of this sort. Implications that somebody is "apostate" and that somebody else "isn't Christian" can go right to the heart and can hurt deeply. I like that Mark Ellison's piece identifies early Christian practices that might be valuable for Latter-day Saints; there is truth in the notion that practices are doctrine.

 

 

After reading what you wrote, I was going to reply about lex orandi, lex crendedi. But then I read the excerpt you attached and there it is!

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But that's really the sola scriptura approach compounded with the debate between scholars, which doesn't prove anything since everyone disagrees on how to interpret the Bible and the historical data.  A lot of people say Latter-day Saints have non-Biblical concepts too.  We all view the data through our individual biases.  

But I understand your point, because I find that the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the most in harmony with the entire Bible than any other faith I've encountered, and it best explains the historical data.  But I'd never call that "proof", but it is convincing to me.

 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

"Biblical concept" is question begging. Nothing can be proved from the Bible. 

There's no agreement and there's technically no proof outside mathematics.

But there is something called consensus.

Most theologians believe the early creeds were an outgrowth of councils, not just a summary of concepts prefigured in the Bible, like the naive view.

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars agree that creation ex nihilo isn't found in the Bible, but cooked up in the battle with the Gnostics.

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

There's no agreement and there's technically no proof outside mathematics.

But there is something called consensus.

Most theologians believe the early creeds were an outgrowth of councils, not just a summary of concepts prefigured in the Bible, like the naive view.

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars agree that creation ex nihilo isn't found in the Bible, but cooked up in the battle with the Gnostics.

Yes, perhaps   But you said it was "easy to prove".  A consensus isn't exactly proof.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As I'm always told you're confusing presentation with the ordinance.

Brigham's changes were presentation.  Joseph's changes were presentation.

But we've had this discussion ad nauseam.

Each order of priesthood has signs and ordinances attached.  Change ordination, change baptism, change the bestowal of signs and tokens of the priesthood, change the offices of the priesthood, and its unavoidable - you no longer have the same priesthood.  That's what happened to the Early Christian Church.  Not just a random end to the Apostleship.

We probably have had this discussion a lot, maybe because I don’t often understand your answers. But you are one of my favorite posters so I keep trying. 

[telnetd]

14 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I find it interesting that the apostasy of truth is so damn easy to prove. It's easy to show how non-Biblical concepts crept into the Church, because we have Biblical scholarship. The apostasy of authority is tougher.

We have some examples of apostasy in the Book of Mormon too. One being Moroni 8 (dated around
401-420 AD) - the church amongst the Nephites was apostate for their gross error in baptizing little
children.

There is another example in the early LDS church, as written about in "A Warning from Kirtland"

Scholars have generally assumed that there was a general apostasy in Kirtland. Brigham 
Young, for instance, said that the apostasy affected witnesses to the Book of Mormon, 
many of the Twelve, other authorities, and members in all the quorums. One eyewitness 
of the Kirtland events declared that “scarcely twenty people still considered [Joseph 
Smith] a prophet of God.”

These statements seem to be supported when we look at who apostatized. All of the Three 
Witnesses, three of the Eight Witnesses, and one-third of the General Authorities, 
including three Apostles, left the Church in 1837 and 1838. Moreover, two other Apostles 
criticized Joseph Smith’s leadership and were nearly cut off from Church membership.

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

 

There's no agreement and there's technically no proof outside mathematics.

But there is something called consensus.

Most theologians believe the early creeds were an outgrowth of councils, not just a summary of concepts prefigured in the Bible, like the naive view.

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars agree that creation ex nihilo isn't found in the Bible, but cooked up in the battle with the Gnostics.

I agree that the creeds are not merely "a summary of concepts prefigured in the Bible." I also agree that there are probably some people who might try to find a fully formed doctrine of creation ex nihilo in the Bible. 

Those people, however, are just not well informed. I would observe that there may be a bit of a rock and hard place presumption at work here, where ex nihilo is naively assumed to be obvious and fully formed in the Bible and/or somehow needs to be layered and explicated with all that naughty Greek thinking.  Is St. Athanasius still kicking his dog?

This is not how the many throngs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims are likely to approach ex nihilo creation. The "overwhelming majority of Bible scholars" are not considering creation ex nihilo in those terms either, and they also aren't likely to consider those beliefs as just outgrowths of councils. Many of the scholarly discussions explore the known historical antecedents, the preconditions, the often gradual and sometimes sudden developments that eventually lead to the councils. As a Catholic, the "it's found fully formed in the Bible" and/or it is "an outgrowth of councils" descriptions aren't even close to how I think about truth unfolding and being explicated in the grand procession that is God's creation.

I would also put forward for consideration that while the Gnostic heresies are important in understanding these issues, there is simply much more happening here than just the struggles with the Gnostics. The Arian heresy is incredibly important here for Christians, and there are also discussions circling around Christians' use of Old Testament books, the deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees (2 Macc. 7:28 being particularly important), and around understandings of idolatry. Jews and Muslims have their own reasons for believing creation ex nihilo, and some of those reasons are not enmeshed in the Christian questions. 

I hope you'll read my post charitably, as I'm intrigued by your taking the discussion in this direction and look forward to what you may contribute to these conversations going forward.

[Hamilton Porter]

15 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Scholars have generally assumed that there was a general apostasy in Kirtland. Brigham 
Young, for instance, said that the apostasy affected witnesses to the Book of Mormon, 
many of the Twelve, other authorities, and members in all the quorums. One eyewitness 
of the Kirtland events declared that “scarcely twenty people still considered [Joseph 
Smith] a prophet of God.”

These statements seem to be supported when we look at who apostatized. All of the Three 
Witnesses, three of the Eight Witnesses, and one-third of the General Authorities, 
including three Apostles, left the Church in 1837 and 1838. Moreover, two other Apostles 
criticized Joseph Smith’s leadership and were nearly cut off from Church membership.

This is well-known. Enough remained to retain the keys.

[Hamilton Porter]

13 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The "overwhelming majority of Bible scholars" are not considering creation ex nihilo in those terms either, and they also aren't likely to consider those beliefs as just outgrowths of councils.

Please expound on what you mean by this phrase. The reason the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars believe God created the cosmos out of pre-existing chaos is because the spirit moving upon the waters in Genesis parallels other ancient near eastern creation accounts where God created out of pre-existing chaotic waters.

14 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The Arian heresy is incredibly important here for Christians, and there are also discussions circling around Christians' use of Old Testament books, the deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees (2 Macc. 7:28 being particularly important), and around understandings of idolatry.

I'll gladly accept historical precedents if they help us contextualize the New Testament. Mainstream scholars (and LDS who follow them) use a lot of material from Canaanite religion in exegeting the Hebrew Bible. But the Maccabees passage is shaky at best, since it was a pep talk from a mom to his son. The HarperCollins Study Bible says, regarding that verse,

Quote

The mother's confession that God did not make them out of things that existed echoes vv. 11, 22-23; it need not be taken as a philosophical or theological statement about "creation out of nothing" (Latin creatio ex nihilo).

 

[Hamilton Porter]

54 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

This is not how the many throngs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims are likely to approach ex nihilo creation.

Islam appeared half a millennium after the New Testament. I think creation ex nihilo fits well with the Deity potrayed in the Quran. Jews did not adopt creation ex nihilo until even later.

[Hamilton Porter]

Here's a challenge to the majority position:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/abs/creatio-ex-nihilo-in-palestinian-judaism-and-early-christianity/9300DEB2E6CF2C81A89FC619928DCA42

Quote

Recent decades have witnessed a near-consensus of critical opinion (1) that the idea of God's creation of matter ‘out of nothing’ is not affirmed in scripture, but instead (2) originated in a second-century Christian reaction against Gnosticism's convictions about matter as evil and creation as the work of an inferior Demiurge. (3) Judaism's interest, by contrast, was generally deemed late and philosophically derivative or epiphenomenal upon Christian ideas.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Please expound on what you mean by this phrase. The reason the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars believe God created the cosmos out of pre-existing chaos is because the spirit moving upon the waters in Genesis parallels other ancient near eastern creation accounts where God created out of pre-existing chaotic waters.

I'm glad for the conversation. I'm not confident that either of us understands what we've written, and I'll try to clarify a bit. That's probably foolish on my part, but then there is the entertainment value. I will do my best to maintain that, and hope this post is received in a comparable good humor to which it has been sent.

First, I responded to this statement of yours: 

Quote

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars agree that creation ex nihilo isn't found in the Bible, but cooked up in the battle with the Gnostics.

My suggestion is, in part, that the above statement is what my grandfather would call "shadow boxing." It may sound convincing as an appeal to a majority, but I believe it misrepresents the scholarly conversation. My reasons are that: 

• I don't know of any Bible scholar who tries to argue that creation ex nihilo is in the Bible, because they are not trying to argue on the level of Farmer Brown's cow has not jumped over the moon. Marshalling a majority of Bible scholars to a contest that doesn't exist just seems ludicrous. There is a pie to be thrust into a face, and yet no face is presented for the untoward reception of said pie. "Where art thou?" lamented the Psalmist, and I am forced to agree. Now there may be someone, probably on a porch in lower Alabama, and near the bottom of a whiskey, and who is desperately in need of a barber, who is holding forth on such, but beyond that I know of no such person.
• There are plenty of Bible scholars who are interested in how Biblical exegesis intersects belief in creation ex nihilo. There are those interested in patristic thought, those who like to wring their hands over manuscripts in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, and who argue about the stride of Constantine on a certain day in March. They have written exhaustively about how Aristedes, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc., elaborated, developed, refined, and so on notions of creation ex nihilo. There are even a few scholars, who, in a spirit of derring-do, discuss creation ex nihilo in terms of contemporary issues, theology, and scholarship. And it is your ignoring these stalwarts, your failure to deign a royal wave as you pass them by, that directs said pie toward your own countenance.  
• There is also the demonstrated temerity of not mentioning key concepts to scholarly discussions of creation ex nihilo. You have rightly mentioned that Bible scholars consider the graspings of the Gnostics as important to these conversations. That much could be gained from Wikipedia or a Google search. The failure to account for the Arian controversy, for the pools and streams of Greek thought, for the emerging structures in the Church--for a veritable tower of relevancies--causes his majesty to slip on the cobblestone and go down in a heap. 

You then added this:

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I'll gladly accept historical precedents if they help us contextualize the New Testament. Mainstream scholars (and LDS who follow them) use a lot of material from Canaanite religion in exegeting the Hebrew Bible. But the Maccabees passage is shaky at best, since it was a pep talk from a mom to his son. The HarperCollins Study Bible says, regarding that verse,

 

Please allow me to pause a moment, hand to heart, in the name of the Harper Collins Study Bible as you set and charge at the windmill of contextualizing the New Testament. 

And for the affront of reducing the already nameless mother of Maccabees 7 to a "pep talk from a mom to his son," I will not offer my hanky, though your face drips with strawberries and seeds. The good woman deemed worthy of reflection in the breviary, the woman who died along with her seven sons at the hands of Seleucid, I gave my hanky to her. 

Good day to you.

[Hamilton Porter]

9 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Marshalling a majority of Bible scholars to a contest that doesn't exist just seems ludicrous.

It's not just that the majority of Bible scholars say it's not in there. It's that Genesis explicitly teaches God creating out of pre-existent matter. I think you need to read more closely:

Quote

Recent decades have witnessed a near-consensus of critical opinion (1) that the idea of God's creation of matter ‘out of nothing’ is not affirmed in scripture, but instead (2) originated in a second-century Christian reaction against Gnosticism's convictions about matter as evil and creation as the work of an inferior Demiurge. (3) Judaism's interest, by contrast, was generally deemed late and philosophically derivative or epiphenomenal upon Christian ideas.

I know that may bother traditional Christians, but it is what it is. 

 

16 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There are plenty of Bible scholars who are interested in how Biblical exegesis intersects belief in creation ex nihilo. There are those interested in patristic thought, those who like to wring their hands over manuscripts in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, and who argue about the stride of Constantine on a certain day in March. They have written exhaustively about how Aristedes, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc., elaborated, developed, refined, and so on notions of creation ex nihilo. There are even a few scholars, who, in a spirit of derring-do, discuss creation ex nihilo in terms of contemporary issues, theology, and scholarship. And it is your ignoring these stalwarts, your failure to deign a royal wave as you pass them by, that directs said pie toward your own countenance.  

Most of the Church fathers couldn't read Hebrew. A lot of them even spoke crappy Greek.

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

And for the affront of reducing the already nameless mother of Maccabees 7 to a "pep talk from a mom to his son," I will not offer my hanky, though your face drips with strawberries and seeds. The good woman deemed worthy of reflection in the breviary, the woman who died along with her seven sons at the hands of Seleucid, I gave my hanky to her. 

It seems to me that Maccabees 7:28 is teaching the exact opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  It says: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being."  This verse says the human race came into being in the exact same way that heaven and earth were created, and Genesis tells us that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7).   It can't be talking about creation from absolutely nothing, but it has to be talking about creation from relative non-being into being (i.e. from unformed matter into the object of creation).

Furthermore, Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form", making it clear that the world was created from unformed matter.  All of the statements about creation prior to the time of Taitan are either too ambiguous (where one needs to read into the verse creation ex-nihilo) or clearly teaching the opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  

One early Christian example is Clement of Rome, who says:  "For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth." (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 60:1)

[Navidad]

I would love to see a definition of "conservative Protestant theology scholarship" as used in this thread that doesn't date back fifty years or more. My experience is that today's conservative Protestant theology scholarship doesn't spend much time or ink on creation ex-nihilo. It doesn't seem to MATTER to many. Pun intended. I graciously think my LDS friends need to catch up a bit on modern twenty-first conservative Protestant theology, especially that of today's Evangelicals. I have lived through both and can testify to a significant difference. BTW, I just went through the annual program of the ETS in its entirety - not one programmatic mention of creation ex-nihilo. 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

"Biblical concept" is question begging. Nothing can be proved from the Bible. 

And then there is the epistemological problem of what that word even means.  2500 years of Western philosophy has yet to come up with even a widely accepted contemporary definition of "truth".

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

It seems to me that Maccabees 7:28 is teaching the exact opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  It says: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being."  This verse says the human race came into being in the exact same way that heaven and earth were created, and Genesis tells us that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7).   It can't be talking about creation from absolutely nothing, but it has to be talking about creation from relative non-being into being (i.e. from unformed matter into the object of creation).

Furthermore, Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form", making it clear that the world was created from unformed matter.  All of the statements about creation prior to the time of Taitan are either too ambiguous (where one needs to read into the verse creation ex-nihilo) or clearly teaching the opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  

One early Christian example is Clement of Rome, who says:  "For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth." (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 60:1)

Dang them PROTEST-ANTS.    (just kidding...   )

I always felt we should have kept the Catholic bible..... 

On the other hand, your quote below seems to point to ex nihilo, not recycled material. Underlining added.

Quote

Maccabees 7:28 is teaching the exact opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  It says: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.

Go figure!

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would love to see a definition of "conservative Protestant theology scholarship" as used in this thread that doesn't date back fifty years or more. My experience is that today's conservative Protestant theology scholarship doesn't spend much time or ink on creation ex-nihilo. It doesn't seem to MATTER to many. Pun intended. I graciously think my LDS friends need to catch up a bit on modern twenty-first conservative Protestant theology, especially that of today's Evangelicals. I have lived through both and can testify to a significant difference.

 

 

Unfortunately we don't tend to see a need to do so. 

Some references on how this is the case would be appreciated.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would love to see a definition of "conservative Protestant theology scholarship" as used in this thread that doesn't date back fifty years or more. My experience is that today's conservative Protestant theology scholarship doesn't spend much time or ink on creation ex-nihilo. It doesn't seem to MATTER to many. Pun intended. I graciously think my LDS friends need to catch up a bit on modern twenty-first conservative Protestant theology, especially that of today's Evangelicals. I have lived through both and can testify to a significant difference.

Does this suggest that these theologians are now more open to the idea of ex nihlo nihil (nothing comes from nothing), or does it simply suggest that they still strongly agree with the concept of creation ex nihlo but have nothing new to say on the subject?  Is the creation ex nihlo scholarship of these past theologians considered out of date, or just out of use?    Why did it matter (good pun BTW) before but not now?  It is obviously an incredibly important issue for Latter-day Saints as it speaks directly to our pre-mortal existence, which tells us about our identity and the nature of our relationship with deity (beyond important) and the purpose of our being here.   

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

It's not just that the majority of Bible scholars say it's not in there. It's that Genesis explicitly teaches God creating out of pre-existent matter. I think you need to read more closely:

I know that may bother traditional Christians, but it is what it is. 

 

Most of the Church fathers couldn't read Hebrew. A lot of them even spoke crappy Greek.

Notice also that God created by definition- it was just eternal space junk until it was organized for the human mind (also God's mind- except infinitely above our abilities) by saying that God "CALLED" it "The First (second etc) Day"

Things do not exist without a name.

Without a name, or words- please tell me what they are? 

They become ineffable.  The Word created all things. 

For us, sensory perception- including feelings and hunches- make up the world AS WE KNOW IT.

That sentence is as true as A=A- which is not saying much actually more than "a rose is a rose" or "it is what it is"

There is simply nothing to discuss about mathematics.   It is the way we see the world and is infallible by our own definitions.

Anyway, this is somewhat relevant to this thread actually, which is about the fine nuances of definitions, and that is why they are so important.  Things ARE as they are defined by the human brain, even God's!

That comes back to Nagel's Bats.  What is it like to NOT have human intelligence??   Unknowable!!

(Nagel- "What is it like to be a bat")

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I know that may bother traditional Christians, but it is what it is. 

 

[InCognitus]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand, your quote below seems to point to ex nihilo, not recycled material. Underlining added.

Quote

Maccabees 7:28 is teaching the exact opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  It says: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.

Go figure!

It could be read that way if taken out of context.  The rest of it qualifies how the creation was done (in the same way humans were created, which were from the dust). 

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It seems to me that Maccabees 7:28 is teaching the exact opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  It says: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being."  This verse says the human race came into being in the exact same way that heaven and earth were created, and Genesis tells us that "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7).   It can't be talking about creation from absolutely nothing, but it has to be talking about creation from relative non-being into being (i.e. from unformed matter into the object of creation).

Furthermore, Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form", making it clear that the world was created from unformed matter.  All of the statements about creation prior to the time of Taitan are either too ambiguous (where one needs to read into the verse creation ex-nihilo) or clearly teaching the opposite of creation ex-nihilo.  

One early Christian example is Clement of Rome, who says:  "For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth." (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 60:1)

There are plenty of arguments concerning creation ex nihilo, Maccabees 7:28, etc. no question.

 

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Unfortunately we don't tend to see a need to do so. 

Some references on how this is the case would be appreciated.

Ok. I am not suggesting you see a need to do so. But, if you don't see the need, then please stop (as a group) the inaccurate portrayals that stem from the 50s and 60s that only we old guys even remember! Is that fair? That includes generalizing and normalizing the most fringe elements that are getting more fringe each year.

I can't fathom why it matters whether the earth was created ex-nihilo or from pre-existing matter? Maybe it matters in the LDS view of things like ontology, but it certainly doesn't matter to me. I thought of you when today I went through the ETS annual conference program for last year. There were a whole bunch of meetings of the Evangelical Philosophical Society during the annual conference. I thought that to myself that Mark would probably really enjoy the fellowship of those who really might understand him! 😄 Best!

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Does this suggest that these theologians are now more open to the idea of ex nihlo nihil (nothing comes from nothing), or does it simply suggest that they still strongly agree with the concept of creation ex nihlo but have nothing new to say on the subject?  Is the creation ex nihlo scholarship of these past theologians considered out of date, or just out of use?    Why did it matter (good pun BTW) before but not now?  It is obviously an incredibly important issue for Latter-day Saints as it speaks directly to our pre-mortal existence, which tells us about our identity and the nature of our relationship with deity (beyond important) and the purpose of our being here.   

I am suggesting that these theologians are more open to leaving aside what we cannot possibly know outside of science. There are many other things on their plates today that seem more important to today's theologian.  Looking at all of the topics presented in a four day annual conference gives a lot of insight into the priorities of these scholars.  I would suggest that the passions of those who taught theology when I was in college (1960s) are very different from those of today. There is much from that time that is out of date and out of use. Of course one of the most significant thing that is out of date with Evangelical scholars is Mormon bashing. There was not a single session on sects, cults, Mormons, JWs, or the like. There were several sessions on Muslim-Evangelical dialogues and I am sure to Mark's delight, many sessions from within the Evangelical Philosophical Society. I can see why creation is important to the LDS, more so these days than to Evangelicals. 

I have two LDS friends - the Shepherd twins who recently retired from academia as sociology professors. They used to study general conference talks by the use of content analysis to write about priorities and changes in the priorities of the talks in general conferences every thirty years. They published several books on the subject. Great stuff. That gave me the idea to examine the conference schedule for the ETS to see what they are focusing on, especially after reading the generalized statements on this thread about "conservative Protestant Theology Scholarship. Take care my friend. Remember it is mind over matter! 😃

Edited March 21, 2023 by Navidad