Lapine, this man has always frustrated me. As a graduate of BJU he has little hermeneutical basis. This was readily apparent as he taught OT and Acts at NBBC and was all over the map interpretation wise. I was young -- only new of the varying ways of interpreting for two years (as I didn't get anything but a steady diet of "sacred cows" from the church we grew up in). Nevertheless, knowing even a little, it was possible to see that there was NO hermeneutic in play. With the limited contact I've had with BJU it has seemed to be this way. Most likely the danger of a non-denominational school needing money and willing the scrimp on this issue (which most likely divides the constituency -- Baptist and Presbyterians etc.) Kinda pragmatic if you ask me but that's a different subject all together.
What intrigues me, is the sudden 180 degree change in mind. What led to this complete reversal? I'm sure there are many differing issues (as some are listed by Z-man) but I wonder if it can be traced back to his training (or lack of it) at BJU. When you don't have a solid basis for exegesis (even if you twist it a little) there is no foundation for holding a dogmatic position.
Ben, I was wondering some of the same things. It's not as if he just switched churches. He switched to an egalitarian view, to an amillennial viewpoint, etc. There is more to the story than what he's saying. I wonder what it is.
Matt, Totally different subject but wondering if you had read Vanhoozer's book, "The Drama of Doctrine". A bunch of my friends from Central East are reading it and wondered about your thoughts?
Listen to the MP3
6 comments:
that was a very gracious article.
Very wise statements. I've never thought of that.
Lapine, this man has always frustrated me. As a graduate of BJU he has little hermeneutical basis. This was readily apparent as he taught OT and Acts at NBBC and was all over the map interpretation wise. I was young -- only new of the varying ways of interpreting for two years (as I didn't get anything but a steady diet of "sacred cows" from the church we grew up in). Nevertheless, knowing even a little, it was possible to see that there was NO hermeneutic in play. With the limited contact I've had with BJU it has seemed to be this way. Most likely the danger of a non-denominational school needing money and willing the scrimp on this issue (which most likely divides the constituency -- Baptist and Presbyterians etc.) Kinda pragmatic if you ask me but that's a different subject all together.
What intrigues me, is the sudden 180 degree change in mind. What led to this complete reversal? I'm sure there are many differing issues (as some are listed by Z-man) but I wonder if it can be traced back to his training (or lack of it) at BJU. When you don't have a solid basis for exegesis (even if you twist it a little) there is no foundation for holding a dogmatic position.
Ben, I was wondering some of the same things. It's not as if he just switched churches. He switched to an egalitarian view, to an amillennial viewpoint, etc. There is more to the story than what he's saying. I wonder what it is.
Did he lose a lot of weight by eating at subway? And when did he dye his hair?
Matt,
Totally different subject but wondering if you had read Vanhoozer's book, "The Drama of Doctrine". A bunch of my friends from Central East are reading it and wondered about your thoughts?
Post a Comment