ALL denominations should beware of false teachers who have "...crept in unawares."

Those I think are techinically Lower Criticism as they involve the text itself and it's origins.

Higher Criticism attempts to look at the background behind the text i.e. the social influences, significant events of the time, etc. I have heard it described as seeing the world behind the text.

It can be help to some extent as it help foster understanding of idioms but should not be a primary filter by which scripture is interpreted. The debate over higher criticism tore apart the LCMS back in the 70's and was later rejected in convention.

 

How is this different from using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic?

 

I thought lower criticism was textual criticism using manuscripts to recreate the autographs to the best of our ability.

 

Joseph

The topic of this OP was a major part of the drive behind the SBC resurgence ...

It is also a major part of the new KJVO theology ...

Which one? I do not know his heart ...

 

Yes, true there were some contributions like this one from Gunkel. But the damage done and still being done by most of the teachings of the Higher Critics is far more than the contributions.

 

How is this different from using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic? </font>[/QUOTE]The assumption by Higher Critics was that men wrote the Bible with no supernatural "breath of God." Some of them even believed and taught that the Hebrews got their beliefs and rituals from near eastern religions. That kind of stuff.

It started with saying that different documents formed the Torah and some said Moses had nothing to do with the "Books of Moses." There was also the idea that using different names for God in Genesis meant that it came from different sources.

Yes, it had to do with documentary hypothesis and redaction, like the Graf-Wellhausen theories. They also ignored fulfilled prophecies.

Gold Dragon, if you want to read my paper on this, PM me and give me your email address. (I got an 'A' on it). It's not that long.

 

Where have you been? Please pull your head out of the sands!

We have Catholics all over the place preaching their process of justification that depends on sanctification.

Catholics have spawned many look-alikes such as the CoCers who simply add their twist to water baptism. Look also to those who hold to some experience as verification of God's inner works.

Unless a seminary professor loudly and forcefully teaches about EVENT justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ, they teach an unwittingly lax and corrupted gospel.

Your comment must be dismissed as that belonging to one very young in the faith. Justification is the chief issue.

Positively: Every teaching must ALWAYS point to this.

Negatively: No teaching should ever be present without a reference to justification.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]This was in no way what I experienced. At no time, was I taught as truth that the Word of God was simply the opinions of man and nothing else. I was taught what other liberals believe, but that it was heresy. I, therefore, have nothing to determine the validity of the OP. I know that there are some liberal seminaries which teach all sorts of heresy. I do not know that they currently represent the majority of scholarship today. I, therefore, ask for evidence of this. Thus far, I have recieved personal attacks, but no evidence.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The seminary I attended did not teach this. Do you have any evidence for your accusation or is this simply hearsay gossip, which I believe is labeled as a sin by the Word of God?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]This isn't hearsay, and it certainly isn't gossip. If you have been to seminary and haven't seen it, perhaps you need to pay more attention to what goes on around you. </font>[/QUOTE]Or, maybe since you are the one who made the charge against the MAJORITY of seminaries, you are the one who should have the responsibility to prove what you have accused them of. Thus far, you have failed to do so.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Lorin Cranford taught it at SWBTS. The master's level class was NT Methodology. </font>[/QUOTE]Was he there during the time of Dilday? It would not surprise me if this is true. During the time I was there, however, never once did I hear a single professor proclaim that the Bible wasn't the Word of God and that it was merely the Word of Man.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't have statistics to prove it, Joseph, but my understanding is that the majority of seminaries today do teach Higher Criticism or variations on it. The majority of seminaries are not conservative at all. I am talking all seminaries.

 

Thanks, I'll fire you a PM. I appreciate reading things from your bias, but I would also like to read from those who are more open to the "non-party-line" and willing to give these things a fair shake. I'll try to see if I can find any such sources about higher criticism.

From my understanding of the Documentary Hypothesis and redaction, this is not an assumption of Higher Criticism. While I believe all honest scientific studies require that assumption for an honest look at the evidence, that doesn't mean that there was no supernatural "breath of God" or that proponents of Higher Criticism disbelieve the inerrancy of the scriptures.

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of seminaries do study Higher Criticism. That doesn't mean they deny the inspiration of scripture.

 

Lorin Cranford taught it at SWBTS. The master's level class was NT Methodology. </font>[/QUOTE]Was he there during the time of Dilday? It would not surprise me if this is true. During the time I was there, however, never once did I hear a single professor proclaim that the Bible wasn't the Word of God and that it was merely the Word of Man.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Cranford was there during the time of Dilday. I think he was there during Naylor as well. He held our feet to the fire on interpretation. A concordance was used a lot. Seldom were commentaries used except for background information. Cranford was probably the top professor in the SBC. If was rather fun yet disgusting in studying to see the stupidity of so many preachers and professors among us who were simply repeating what they had heard in the past.

Cranford clearly stated the Bible was the word of God breathed by God. Patterson will even tell you of his appreciation for Cranford. Most of the doctoral students had him for classes. He was tough. It was said among his students that a "C" from him was better than an "A" from anyone else.

If you had Cranford you would come out knowing what the NT taught and not what someone else told you to believe.

 

Colin Smith in his critique of higher criticism has this to say about Julius Wellhausen.

Here is a link to an online version of an english translation of Prolegomena on Project Gutenberg. I didn't have time to find the quotations that Colin Smith was referring to but maybe someone else might.

Project Gutenburg : Prolegomena

I agree that many who are attracted to Higher Criticism do reject the inspiration of the Bible. Just like many who are attracted to evolutionary theory do reject the hand of God in creation. But in both cases, the theories are independent of the rejection. That doesn't make the theories right or wrong. It just make some characterizations of those who study and subscribe to those theories wrong.

[ October 04, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Gold Dragon, thanks for asking for my paper. I hope it was informative for you.

Also, thanks for your info above.

I agree that not all in the Higher Criticism school rejected inspiration of scripture, but the majority of them did. While at least one critc changed his mind on some of his earlier views, the thrust of Higher Criticism came from the desire to dissect the bible as just any other book and not as the word of God.

What is sad is that many brilliant theologians and scholars have refuted the views of some of these Higher Critics, who based some of their theories on what is now very outdated information, and yet many of these outdated HC theories still stand. I've read them myself in the study notes of the New Oxford Annotated Bible.

 

Colin Smith, in the article quoted above by Gold Dragon, also says this:

 

The seminary I attended did not teach this. Do you have any evidence for your accusation or is this simply hearsay gossip, which I believe is labeled as a sin by the Word of God?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]This isn't hearsay, and it certainly isn't gossip. If you have been to seminary and haven't seen it, perhaps you need to pay more attention to what goes on around you. </font>[/QUOTE]Or, maybe since you are the one who made the charge against the MAJORITY of seminaries, you are the one who should have the responsibility to prove what you have accused them of. Thus far, you have failed to do so.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]"To he who believes, no proof is needed; to he who believes not, no proof is enough." And: "He who, convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." It isn't proof you are seeking, Joe, it's conflict. I have made a general observation - which is obvious to most informed fundamental Christians - that you disagree with, and you will not rest until I have recanted my views and conformed to yours. And as for what the MAJORITY of seminaries teach, Jesus said in Matt. 7:14 that a MAJORITY of people are going to hell. How can one prove to a burn victim that fire is hot? </font>[/QUOTE]1. I do believe in Jesus and the Bible and no proof of that is needed (that is, BTW, part of what I was taught in the seminary I attended). I don't, however, believe in you and what you say in the same way. Without it being obvious to me and having no evidence to back up your assertion about most seminaries, it is simply your opinion, and nothing else.

2. I seek no conflict. I seek intelligent discussion, and thus far, I have failed to recieve any from you. Instead, all I have recieved is personal attacks and conflict.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I would settle for a somewhat intelligent conversation where you stopped attacking me personally and presented your case about your original accusation that goes beyond the idea that because you said so, it must be true. Present your case and let's discuss it. Otherwise, discontinue your gossip, slander, and personal attacks. It is not becoming a Christian.

Joseph Botwinick

 

How did you come to this determination? Because somebody told you so? Have you visited the majority of seminaries?

Joseph Botwinick

 

How did you come to this determination? Because somebody told you so? Have you visited the majority of seminaries?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]I think I may have read it in the course of writing my paper on Higher Criticism, possibly in Archer's book, but I would have to look it up, which I do not have time to do now. I can't read through all the pages. I may have also heard it in the class lectures. Didn't Vernon McGee (sp?) used to joke about the "cemeteries..er, I mean seminaries."

Also, it's my general impression from just being in the world and knowing only of a few conservative seminaries and more liberal ones. Also, if you look at the mainstream churches -- their seminaries are all liberal. There's a very liberal one in Richmond, about 90 miles away. Most churches in this area where I live are liberal. Most people I met before I was saved who were in some kind of seminary were in liberal seminaries. This Higher Criticism is taken almost as fact in the study notes of many bibles, like the one I mentioned above.

As I said, I can't prove it. I wasn't trying to start a debate on it. I'm surprised you would think most seminaries are conservative.

If you want to win the point on the fact I can't prove it, you win.