Sensus plenior debates: Difference between revisions
From 2nd Book
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with " :"The fact is plain: the Apostle Peter would get an “F” if he preached his Acts 2 sermon in Moody’s class, “Communication of Biblical Truth”. The professor, vigilant to eliminate any interpretation that went beyond the “original authorial intent,” would give the classic critique to the apostle: “this text used out of its context!” Of course, because Peter is an inspired author—in this case a preacher—such an imaginative scenario reveals the despai...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{bl| Sensus plenior debates }} | |||
{{th}} | |||
{{1c| In the last century prominent Theologians and scholars debated ''sensus plenior''. They concluded that they could not read the OT the way Jesus and the apostles did. | |||
}} | |||
{{1c| | |||
:"The fact is plain: the Apostle Peter would get an “F” if he preached his Acts 2 sermon in Moody’s class, “Communication of Biblical Truth”. The professor, vigilant to eliminate any interpretation that went beyond the “original authorial intent,” would give the classic critique to the apostle: “this text used out of its context!” Of course, because Peter is an inspired author—in this case a preacher—such an imaginative scenario reveals the despairing gulf between the methods of exegesis of the modern conservative bible student, and the exegetical methods of the NT writers. How do evangelical scholars reconcile this? One on hand, how can they honor the inspired exegesis of the NT writers, and then hypocritically reject the same methodology for themselves? Conversely; how could evangelicals allow an open door for exegesis to turn into a literary or “Spirit lead” Picasso-painting of meaning, significance and application of the Word of God?" - RESEARCH PAPER “The Use of the Old Testament in the New”, David Niblack, BI-422 A. Schmutzer – February 17, 2005. | :"The fact is plain: the Apostle Peter would get an “F” if he preached his Acts 2 sermon in Moody’s class, “Communication of Biblical Truth”. The professor, vigilant to eliminate any interpretation that went beyond the “original authorial intent,” would give the classic critique to the apostle: “this text used out of its context!” Of course, because Peter is an inspired author—in this case a preacher—such an imaginative scenario reveals the despairing gulf between the methods of exegesis of the modern conservative bible student, and the exegetical methods of the NT writers. How do evangelical scholars reconcile this? One on hand, how can they honor the inspired exegesis of the NT writers, and then hypocritically reject the same methodology for themselves? Conversely; how could evangelicals allow an open door for exegesis to turn into a literary or “Spirit lead” Picasso-painting of meaning, significance and application of the Word of God?" - RESEARCH PAPER “The Use of the Old Testament in the New”, David Niblack, BI-422 A. Schmutzer – February 17, 2005. | ||
}} | |||
|} | |||
Latest revision as of 10:19, 26 August 2022
| In the last century prominent Theologians and scholars debated sensus plenior. They concluded that they could not read the OT the way Jesus and the apostles did. | |
|
