- Joel Marcus, who does the commentary on Mark for this series, just had a guest post on Bart Ehrman's blog. I really liked what he said and it has me interested in this series to try and see if I can find some more Biblical scholars along his line of thinking.
- Is it just me or do the Ninety-Six sermons of Lancelot Andrewes actually contain 99 sermons? Sermons 9 in volume 5 has a footnote as follows: "This Sermon is not one of the Ninety-six, nor does it occur in some of the earlier editions. It is given in that of 1661 between the last on the Gunpowder Treason and the Occasional Sermons." So i'll assume there are another two similarly placed that are not part of the original 96.
- So are we to draw our own conclusions are rely on the Spirit to guide us? And if the Spirit, then why read all these differing opinions? And why so many opinions in the first place? Is the Spirit only guiding me and not them? Am I that confident that I can assume I am right in my study, but these other men are not? Why am I so confident? What gives me this confidence? Having spent years of quality time with men who differ radically than me on question pertaining to Biblical interpretation I have to say that each one believe they have come to the correct interpretation through the guidance of the Spirit while all others have basically been led astray in some way. When approached with this fact they admit the possibility that they could be wrong but that they know Jesus is Lord and that they are saved. I find the whole thing rather circular to be honest. It basically goes like this: I know that I am correct because I have studied and the Spirit has directed that study. While all these other men have done the same thing they are wrong. I admit there is a small chance I the one who is actually wrong, but even if that is the case I know that I know that Jesus is my Saviour and that is all that really matters. This position that almost all Christians I have ever met are forced to accept is illogical. It basically one that says it is based on facts, but it is one that is based on faith. Faith always allows us to move the goalposts.
- When I see a commentary, I think perhaps of somebody who has taught this book for 30 years in a seminary. Can I possibly learn something from someone who has given so much of his time to this book? I know from my own experience that I learn when I teach. The act of teaching forces me to think things through on a higher level than I would otherwise. So I look forward to hearing what someone who has spent far more time with this book and who has knowledge and access to information that I can only dream of.
- Praise God we are saved by simple, childlike faith in Jesus Christ. Praise God He has a vested interest in our sanctification. Praise God. Eyes on Jesus. Even as you deepen in studying the text. My guess is we are all going to be surprised at how wrong we were about many things and many people, even the most scholarly and aged. Sanctify us, Lord.
- The learning is not disputed. It's the claim to certainty in one's interpretation I find untenable. Either these leaders haven't thought this issue through or are too uncomfortable to. The basic division is between those trying to conserve tradition vs those trying to get at the truth. Philosophers and Prophets have often been the enemy of established religion.
- Awful update. I have the original. They should have just put that up. Compare the sub-standard additions of Harold J. Chadwick with James M. Freeman and I think it should be pretty clear what I'm talking about. Chadwick's first entry on the Garden of Eden is just a so-so commentary on the that passage of Scripture. Nothing of value is gained. Now Read Freeman's first entry on the use of Father in the Bible and you get tons of very interesting and hard to come by background information that actually illuminates the text. I would have suggest Logos introduce their own version of the original, though whether that would be financially viable for them is another thing. Put it into Community Pricing and see what happens...
- "Heitzig has been publicly criticized for totalitarian leadership and a lack of fiscal accountability in connection with his 2004 departure from Calvary Chapel Albuquerque. A former board member wrote a letter to church leaders outlining many concerns. He wrote that Heitzig had stacked the Calvary Albuquerque board with out-of-town members— who did not attend church in Albuquerque, and who were more loyal to Heitzig than to Calvary. Heitzig and board member Paul Saber unsuccessfully tried to transfer Calvary's two multimillion-dollar radio stations to a corporation run by the two of them. Calvary Chapel Albuquerque founder Skip Heitzig apologized to the congregation for his role in a highly publicized struggle for control of the megachurch that eventually led to his resignation from its board of directors."
- Yeah we all blow it at times, that's why we need Jesus, He's better than radio station. I'm sure Skip will have more impact on the kingdom of God than I ever will. Isaiah 42:3 3A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; Matthew 12:20 20A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he has brought justice through to victory.