Paul S. Dixon, Pastor Check out my doctoral product:
Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a Model for
Wilsonville, OR 97070 Evangelism Today"
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Mike Phillips wrote:
> > From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <email@example.com>, on
> 8/21/96 10:53 AM:
> > Mike:
> > The author of John's prologue was certainly not versed in the
> > doctrine of the Trinity as we now know it <wink>. Does that mean any
> > argument for the doctrine of the Trinity from the Gospel is therefore to
> > be discarded?
> Please note, this is my second reply to you on this subject. It would
> be helpful if you read the other first on this matter, if only to place this
> one in appropriate perspective. The vagaries of email don't ensure you will
> receive them in the order in which I posted them, so I offer this intro as a
> means of alerting the reader that some context is missing if you don't read the
> other first.
> Now, Paul. I note you have posted to two forums (I hadn't noted this
> before), one for Greek Exegesis, and one for Greek Studies. I had to reexamine
> the invitations I received to each to decide again, whether to follow up in the
> vein of the question as you asked it. I choose not to, given my understanding
> of the forum. However, your mileage may vary.
> Yet, your quesion raises a counter question. Is it exegesis if we view
> the text through a trinitarian lens and determine what it must or must not mean
> given the lens we know it must be viewed through (my tongue, admittedly, is in
> my cheek)? I don't believe so. Hence, not only does my intitial comment on
> the logic of your take stand, but this follows: any exegesis which applies the
> doctrine of the Trinity _as we understand it_ (underlined) to authors, texts
> and communities who, historically did not share our convictions regarding the
> verity of our present day claims, risks being eisegesis. That doesn't mean it
> won't preach, Paul, it just means it shouldn't publish <smile> without being
> critiqued for what it is.
> Best wishes,
> Mike Phillips
> A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
> it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
> to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes