ETS, ETS 60th Annual Meeting, Evangelical Theological Society

>60th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Part 3

>Evangelical Theological SocietyMonday:
[New] Inerrancy is Too Much: An Alternate Proposal to Amend ETS Doctrinal Statement by C. Michael Patton, Parchment and Pen. “Having just come from the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference, I want to propose something for discussion concerning the doctrinal statement currently ascribed to by ETS. Whether you are familiar with ETS or not, this conversation will be beneficial to you, especially my students.”

Friend of Grace Topics at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society Convention by Rob Bowman, The Religious Researcher. “I had the opportunity on Wednesday morning, during the first session, to present a paper on “The Deity of God’s Son in Mark.” This paper was a response to an article that appeared in last year’s Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in which Herbert Bateman argued that the Son of God titles in Mark’s Gospel is simply a synonymous expression for Messiah, not a divine title. I took the contrary position, arguing that the Son of God titles connote deity in the contexts in which Mark uses them.”

Friend of Grace Back from New England by Sam Lamerson, for my students. “The paper that I wrote and delivered had to do with what is called the “longer ending of Mark.” If you look at Mark 16 in your Bible, you will note that may English versions will state that the verses that occur after 16:8 are not found in the “earliest and best manuscripts” as well as some notes stating that the vocabulary and syntax being “non-Markan.” My paper argued that the statements about the vocabulary and syntax being “un-Markan” are overstated at best and simply wrong at worst.”



3 thoughts on “>60th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Part 3

  1. >I can’t imagine arguing in front of the lost is any worse than pretending in front of the lost that we never argue. Besides, who’s arguing?And for what it’s worth, I’ve never advocated shorter Bibles. I’m all for leaving as much as possible in there with the proper footnotes. Not that you asked me, but there.

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | November 27, 2008, 7:53 pm
  2. >It does not surprise me that we Christians debate where Mark ends, we debate where to end the prayer Jesus taught us. Here is 2cents worth. It is true. It has been in there quite a while, can we leave it in with a footnote that only us bible dweebs will care about? I hate it when we argue in front of the lost. Peace.

    Posted by willohroots | November 27, 2008, 5:32 am
  3. >The longer ending of Mark question is a shibboleth in my own tradition (adult baptizers as we are). The party-liners will stand on Mark 16 the FULL VERSION BY GOD!! until the last trench, and those who even entertain the possibility that the original texts ends with that wonderfully literary “they said nothing” are shifty, shifty characters, not to be trusted.That said, I do remember researching the question when I taught Mark in a Sunday school class, and as I remember, one of the church fathers (can’t remember which, but I taught that series about six years ago) cast some fairly explicit doubt on the passage as early as the third century AD. As you might already be guessing, I established myself quickly in that church as a shifty, shifty character, not to be trusted.

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | November 24, 2008, 2:05 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: