Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Reformed, Nov 10, 2015.
I agree. The problem I've been seeing, however, is that those who claim to be participating in exegesis are doing anything but. Though I believe formal education isn't necessary for good exegesis, one can't help but realize that the worst interpretations of Scripture usually comes from those with insufficient education in the biblical languages, Christian history, philosophy/logic, biblical content, and critical analysis of Scripture. And to make matters worse, those who don't know better are unable to realize they don't any better.
Years ago, when I was helping to evaluate complex machinery, I would conclude this is the problem or that is the problem. Others, more credentialed than myself, would sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. But no matter, if we were right, the "fix" would be appropriate and the "problem" would go away. But if we missed the mark, the problem would recur and we would know we missed. Not so with theology. Reality does not provide a validating feedback loop, at least not this side of heaven. So mistaken doctrines, that do not stand up to exegesis, are seemingly bullet proof, because it always boils down to my scholars are better than your scholars, or in other words an appeal to opinion.
This is true to a point. I agree with you and not with James White.
The problem with "bias" is it also often skewers the exegesis, so that the exegesis validates the traditions. So in the quote by James White, he is not accurate because he leaves out what you included.
You stated, "...that good exegesis ..." That one word "good" is the determiner.
That is why more often I take your view and thinking above that of James White. You see what he intended to say (imo) and actually put the appropriate wording to the statements.
Good for you!