Thank you for bringing these “pitfalls” in focus. We can be confident as we become and remain teachable, humble in God’s Word as believers. I’m just a 64 year old woman with a desire to know my God and Savior - through His Word. I’ve experienced and embraced along my journey many of these pitfalls. I’m becoming far more comfortable with possibility “I may be incorrect” but not resting with it. I’m going forward with help (like your podcast) and solid teaching and digging it out.
That’s so encouraging to hear about your desire to be humble and teachable. Maybe God continue to give you understanding and guidance through His word!
Hello again Peter and again you knocked it out of the park. Unquestionably profound. Trend's arise and go, but context, co-text, content, and the intention of the content still reigns. Blessings
I highly recommend Randy White Ministries. Dr. White is the best theologian, pastor, and teacher I’ve come across. By watching him do verse-by-verse studies, I learned how to study on my own using only the Bible, not commentaries. He considers all perspectives and biblically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of positions.
Fantastic content! First time commenter here (been binging your episodes the last week during my paternity :). Could you please speak to Carson's palpable example from Jn 21 on the word "love" and how the Greek words "agapao" and "phileo" are merely stylistic variations rather than originally intended by the apostle Jn to make a point - specifically concerning Peter's 3-fold restoration by Christ? Would you agree with Carson's "narrow" semantic range here? Carson demurred how it preaches well but is in fact an exegetical error. Too, he quips that nobody waxes eloquent on the words 'sheep' and 'lambs' in the passage. Thank you
Thank you for your gracious words of encouragement! Great to hear from a first time commenter like yourself. I’m happy to give you some of my thoughts. In sum, I agree with Carson’s take on John 21 and the words for love being synonymous and interchanged due to style. Having read through John multiple times in Greek, it definitely fits with how John’s style to interchange words. In fact, he does interchange words in many places, John 21 just being the one that receives most attention. But in the book of John itself, even John’s designation of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” actually uses an interchange of phileo and agapao. For example, John 20:2 is phileo (referring to the disciple), and 19:26 refers to the same disciple using agapao. Also, God is said to phileo the son (John 5:20), which doesn’t seem like a lesser or different kind of love in any way. All in all, I think it is pretty safe ground to say the interchange of words is not intentionally done to make a distinction between the two words. Love the question! Hope to hear from you more. Blessings!
@@thebiblesojourner Thanks for the prompt reply! One more follow-up here if I may - and I'm not entirely sure how to word it - but is one's hermeneutical semantic range "tolerance" simply a (valid) presupposition one brings at the observation phase of interpretation or would you personally consider it a fallacy proper? (I appreciate how Carson also admits the double-edgedness in overemphasizing errors). My pastor takes a wider range here and begins with the assumption that if the SAME author in the SAME book in the SAME passage uses DIFFERENT words, there LIKELY is a reason for that. He knows the burden of proof is on him, but he was up to the task and recently completed his 3.5yr exposition thru Jn parsing not only agapao/phileo but eido/ginosko ("know" in 21:17) as well as "lambs/sheep" without homiletical fanfare. Blessings
Thank you. I appreciate your restraint!! How do we protect from error when connecting OT events to NT principles? For examples, the multiple accounts of the influences of godless peoples around Israel leading them into disobedience being an example of 1 Cor. 15:33? Or the eventual judgments or consequences of disobedience being summed up in Gal. 6:7?
This is a great question. Protecting from error when connecting OT events to NT principles involves primarily understanding the OT event in its own context. In other words, what was the point of including the OT narrative in its original context? Often narratives are meant to communicate something deeper than simply "How to live." I will also say there is a difference between connecting two texts hermeneutically and using an OT narrative as an illustration. For example, I may use a OT narrative to illustrate a NT principle, even though the purpose of the OT narrative was different. Illustrations can be helpful. Hope that makes sense.
Hey brother, was wondering if you could give your take on the Didache and whether it's legitimate or not. Nine times out of ten, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox bring this up during discussions.
Sure thing! I am of the opinion that the didache is not inspired scripture, but it does have some valuable information. It is a good example of what the early church believed on certain things. It is especially useful in areas of baptism and eschatology. It’s certainly not inerrant nor would we expect it to be, But I think it can be valuable to study as an example of what the early church believed.
Reject and avoid all religion, tradition, philosophy, vain reasoning and manmade fabricated theologies. Only believe and accept what God's word actually says.
This is one of my favourite episodes, so grateful for this.
Thanks brother
So glad to hear this, brother! Praise God!
Spot on! Thank you. This is a great tutorial for a the layman wanting to disciple others well from the text of Scripture.
So glad it was helpful!
Yeah, I have already shared with all of the men in my Bible study group.
Thank you for bringing these “pitfalls” in focus. We can be confident as we become and remain teachable, humble in God’s Word as believers. I’m just a 64 year old woman with a desire to know my God and Savior - through His Word. I’ve experienced and embraced along my journey many of these pitfalls. I’m becoming far more comfortable with possibility “I may be incorrect” but not resting with it. I’m going forward with help (like your podcast) and solid teaching and digging it out.
That’s so encouraging to hear about your desire to be humble and teachable. Maybe God continue to give you understanding and guidance through His word!
This was very practical and helpful for a layperson like myself. I think I will need to listen to it more than once.
So glad to hear you found it practical and helpful! May God use it to help us be good students of Scripture.
Hello again Peter and again you knocked it out of the park. Unquestionably profound. Trend's arise and go, but context, co-text, content, and the intention of the content still reigns. Blessings
Appreciate the encouragement my friend! May we be faithful to Christ in reading His word well.
I highly recommend Randy White Ministries. Dr. White is the best theologian, pastor, and teacher I’ve come across. By watching him do verse-by-verse studies, I learned how to study on my own using only the Bible, not commentaries. He considers all perspectives and biblically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of positions.
Fantastic content! First time commenter here (been binging your episodes the last week during my paternity :). Could you please speak to Carson's palpable example from Jn 21 on the word "love" and how the Greek words "agapao" and "phileo" are merely stylistic variations rather than originally intended by the apostle Jn to make a point - specifically concerning Peter's 3-fold restoration by Christ? Would you agree with Carson's "narrow" semantic range here? Carson demurred how it preaches well but is in fact an exegetical error. Too, he quips that nobody waxes eloquent on the words 'sheep' and 'lambs' in the passage. Thank you
Thank you for your gracious words of encouragement! Great to hear from a first time commenter like yourself. I’m happy to give you some of my thoughts. In sum, I agree with Carson’s take on John 21 and the words for love being synonymous and interchanged due to style. Having read through John multiple times in Greek, it definitely fits with how John’s style to interchange words. In fact, he does interchange words in many places, John 21 just being the one that receives most attention. But in the book of John itself, even John’s designation of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” actually uses an interchange of phileo and agapao. For example, John 20:2 is phileo (referring to the disciple), and 19:26 refers to the same disciple using agapao. Also, God is said to phileo the son (John 5:20), which doesn’t seem like a lesser or different kind of love in any way. All in all, I think it is pretty safe ground to say the interchange of words is not intentionally done to make a distinction between the two words. Love the question! Hope to hear from you more. Blessings!
@@thebiblesojourner Thanks for the prompt reply! One more follow-up here if I may - and I'm not entirely sure how to word it - but is one's hermeneutical semantic range "tolerance" simply a (valid) presupposition one brings at the observation phase of interpretation or would you personally consider it a fallacy proper? (I appreciate how Carson also admits the double-edgedness in overemphasizing errors). My pastor takes a wider range here and begins with the assumption that if the SAME author in the SAME book in the SAME passage uses DIFFERENT words, there LIKELY is a reason for that. He knows the burden of proof is on him, but he was up to the task and recently completed his 3.5yr exposition thru Jn parsing not only agapao/phileo but eido/ginosko ("know" in 21:17) as well as "lambs/sheep" without homiletical fanfare. Blessings
Thank you. I appreciate your restraint!! How do we protect from error when connecting OT events to NT principles? For examples, the multiple accounts of the influences of godless peoples around Israel leading them into disobedience being an example of 1 Cor. 15:33? Or the eventual judgments or consequences of disobedience being summed up in Gal. 6:7?
This is a great question. Protecting from error when connecting OT events to NT principles involves primarily understanding the OT event in its own context. In other words, what was the point of including the OT narrative in its original context? Often narratives are meant to communicate something deeper than simply "How to live." I will also say there is a difference between connecting two texts hermeneutically and using an OT narrative as an illustration. For example, I may use a OT narrative to illustrate a NT principle, even though the purpose of the OT narrative was different. Illustrations can be helpful. Hope that makes sense.
Hey brother, was wondering if you could give your take on the Didache and whether it's legitimate or not. Nine times out of ten, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox bring this up during discussions.
Sure thing! I am of the opinion that the didache is not inspired scripture, but it does have some valuable information. It is a good example of what the early church believed on certain things. It is especially useful in areas of baptism and eschatology. It’s certainly not inerrant nor would we expect it to be, But I think it can be valuable to study as an example of what the early church believed.
I am planning on doing an episode on the didache some point.
Reject and avoid all religion, tradition, philosophy, vain reasoning and manmade fabricated theologies. Only believe and accept what God's word actually says.
Well said.