Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Criticisms please. | Matt 14:13 | Robin Hass | 158106 | ||
Dear DocTrinsograce, On what grounds do you doubt the soundness of John Nolland, or Trinity Theological College ("All the academic courses at Trinity are mounted in partnership with Bristol Baptist College. The faculties of the two institutions work as an integrated faculty for the mounting of the various courses, and Baptist and Trinity faculty members are frequently involved in the team teaching of modules."): http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/index.php You can find Noland under 'Faculty' Furthermore, I would like to give Caloy the benefit of the doubt, but my interpretation of the angle his question is coming from, is that he is making a challenge on the Evangelical position on Bible as the inerrant Word of God; he wants to lauch into a discussion on modern biblical criticism. Caloy, correct me if I'm wrong. Robin |
||||||
2 | Criticisms please. | Matt 14:13 | DocTrinsograce | 158127 | ||
Dear Robin, Please do not misquote people. It is neither respectful or honest. What I wrote was "...his [John Gill’s] orthodoxy will be more sound than the other suggestions you've received." I did not state that John Nolland himself was unsound (whatever that might mean). Three factors contribute to my statement: 1. Test of time: John Gill's commentary has been under careful scrutiny for about 340 plus years. 2. Experience: John Gill was a pastor of what later became the Metropolitan Tabernacle for 51 years. 3. Orthodoxy: John Gill affirmed in his theological writings the Baptist confessions of faith published in the 17th century. (Compare, for example, the Trinity Theological College statement of faith to the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith.) These comparisons are verifiable statements of fact. I am not sure how you interpret Caloy’s approach from his two posts. Perhaps you are not aware that his statement "textual, historical, grammatical and literary criticism" would be an extremely conservative approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Indeed, this is the approach taken by the Antiochian School of Biblical Interpretation that dates back to the fourth century. It also stands in stark contrast to Biblical criticism, the approach that has gotten us into such a mess in the last hundred years. In Him, Doc |
||||||