ALL denominations should beware of false teachers who have "...crept in unawares."

[Bob]

You may look at that "liberal" church down the road and shake your head at say, "God, I thank Thee that I am not..." But beware! Nowadays, almost every seminary and Bible college teaches the so-called "Higher Criticism" apostasy as a means of Bible interpretation. This doctrine of demons teaches that the Bible is the opinion of men only, and is therefore subject to man's revision.
KNOW YOUR PASTOR'S TRUE CALLING before you accept him into your church!

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Bob:
You may look at that "liberal" church down the road and shake your head at say, "God, I thank Thee that I am not..." But beware! Nowadays, almost every seminary and Bible college teaches the so-called "Higher Criticism" apostasy as a means of Bible interpretation. This doctrine of demons teaches that the Bible is the opinion of men only, and is therefore subject to man's revision.
KNOW YOUR PASTOR'S TRUE CALLING before you accept him into your church!

The seminary I attended did not teach this. Do you have any evidence for your accusation or is this simply hearsay gossip, which I believe is labeled as a sin by the Word of God?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Many do and many don't. There are too many denominations with thier right and left sides to make that statement in stone.
It is true however there are some schools that send out unbelievers. It would be the job of the local New Testament church to do the proper screening as it has been all along.

 

[StefanM]

Higher criticism isn't inherently evil.

The problem isn't higher criticism; it's the views on inspiration.

 

[Marcia]

Higher criticism as a school did start with men who rejected the supernatural and therefore did not see the Bible as God's inspired word but a mishmash of men's writings and redactors editing, etc.

If you look into Higher Criticism in some conservative books, such as Gleason Archer's A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction and Norman Geisler's Baker's Encyclopedia of Apologetics , you can read detailed sections on this topic.

I had to write a paper on this for my OT1 seminary course and it was very eye-opening. The Higher Critics for the most part started in Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries and were applying manmade notions of history and literature to the Bible rather than seeing it as supernaturally inspired. Although they were clearly refuted by many theologians later on, Higher Criticism theories are still taught in the more liberal seminaries and bible schools, and maybe even in some of the lesser liberal ones.

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by StefanM:
Higher criticism isn't inherently evil.

The problem isn't higher criticism; it's the views on inspiration.

If it denies the inspiration of scripture tnen what is it? Does God deny His inspiration of scripture?

Or do I miss something here?

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Higher criticism as a school did start with men who rejected the supernatural and therefore did not see the Bible as God's inspired word but a mishmash of men's writings and redactors editing, etc.

If you look into Higher Criticism in some conservative books, such as Gleason Archer's A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction and Norman Geisler's Baker's Encyclopedia of Apologetics , you can read detailed sections on this topic.

I had to write a paper on this for my OT1 seminary course and it was very eye-opening. The Higher Critics for the most part started in Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries and were applying manmade notions of history and literature to the Bible rather than seeing it as supernaturally inspired. Although they were clearly refuted by many theologians later on, Higher Criticism theories are still taught in the more liberal seminaries and bible schools, and maybe even in some of the lesser liberal ones.

It's still taught today, even here on this board.

The "debates" over the "Perfection" (infallable) "KJ" and those "who rejected the supernatural and therefore did not see the Bible as God's inspired word but a mishmash of men's writings and redactors editing, etc."

The point being that God holds man to a higher standard than he (God) is able to maintain himself.

Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[ascund]

Hey Joseph

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
The seminary I attended did not teach this. Do you have any evidence for your accusation or is this simply hearsay gossip, which I believe is labeled as a sin by the Word of God?

Where have you been? Please pull your head out of the sands!

We have Catholics all over the place preaching their process of justification that depends on sanctification.

Catholics have spawned many look-alikes such as the CoCers who simply add their twist to water baptism. Look also to those who hold to some experience as verification of God's inner works.

Unless a seminary professor loudly and forcefully teaches about EVENT justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ, they teach an unwittingly lax and corrupted gospel.

Your comment must be dismissed as that belonging to one very young in the faith. Justification is the chief issue.

Positively: Every teaching must ALWAYS point to this.

Negatively: No teaching should ever be present without a reference to justification.

Lloyd

 

[El_Guero]

Me4Him

The point being that God holds man to a higher standard than he (God) is able to maintain himself.

Did you intend to say this?

 

[D28guy]

El Guero,

You asked if Me4Him intended to say this...

The point being that God holds man to a higher standard than he (God) is able to maintain himself.

I think he meant that the one who makes statements like the one he referred to...

"who rejected the supernatural and therefore did not see the Bible as God's inspired word but a mishmash of men's writings and redactors editing, etc."

...are saying that, not he himself.

Mike

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
If it denies the inspiration of scripture tnen what is it?

I tolerance of higher criticism (or any theological concept on spirituality) is when it denies inspiration of scripture.

That being said, it seems we as Baptists are rightly concerned about thological authorities compcomising scripture by taking away things like inspiration, yet we seem to turn a blind eye to those who add to scripture. What's up with that???

 

[gb93433]

Gunkel would probably be classified as part of the higher criticism group. Yet it he who came up with the way conservatives interpret wisdom literature and Hebrew poetry.

I see higher criticism as much like gasoline. It can be put in your car and drive to church or it can be used to severely burn someone.

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Me4Him

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The point being that God holds man to a higher standard than he (God) is able to maintain himself.

Did you intend to say this? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[El_Guero]

If you made a mistake then clarify and apologize.

There is no standard to which God holds man accountable that God cannot maintain.

NONE

NADA

ZILCH

God holds us accountable to the standard that HE Himself MAINTAINS. He is not a man that He should lie or sin.

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob:
You may look at that "liberal" church down the road and shake your head at say, "God, I thank Thee that I am not..." But beware! Nowadays, almost every seminary and Bible college teaches the so-called "Higher Criticism" apostasy as a means of Bible interpretation. This doctrine of demons teaches that the Bible is the opinion of men only, and is therefore subject to man's revision.
KNOW YOUR PASTOR'S TRUE CALLING before you accept him into your church!

The seminary I attended did not teach this. Do you have any evidence for your accusation or is this simply hearsay gossip, which I believe is labeled as a sin by the Word of God?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]This isn't hearsay, and it certainly isn't gossip. If you have been to seminary and haven't seen it, perhaps you need to pay more attention to what goes on around you.

 

[StefanM]

My point is this: one can still believe that the Bible is wholly inspired and inerrant while holding to some teachings of higher criticism.

I like gb93433's analogy. Higher criticism can be used for good or for bad.

Was it championed by German liberals? Yes. Are many of its adherents liberals? Yes. Does higher criticism make one a liberal? No.

You don't have to believe that Moses was directly responsible for every single letter in the Torah to be a conservative. No matter how the Word of God came into being, it is still inspired. God can use an amalagamation of sources just as easily as he can use a single source.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by StefanM:
God can use an amalagamation of sources just as easily as he can use a single source.

Just as he did in the book of Jude quoting from extrabiblical sources and when Paul mentions about all Cretans being liars.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
The seminary I attended did not teach this. Do you have any evidence for your accusation or is this simply hearsay gossip, which I believe is labeled as a sin by the Word of God?

Lorin Cranford taught it at SWBTS. The master's level class was NT Methodology.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Can I get a definition from someone about what Higher Criticism is? I'm not familiar with this term.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Can I assume that when you are referring to Higher Criticism, you are talking about theories like Documentary Hypothesis and redaction?

Can someone spell out for me how the idea of a possible redactor suggest that biblical inspiration is not true? Why couldn't God have inspired redaction?

I am not suggesting that redaction and the Documentary Hypothesis are true. I'm just trying to understand the issue here.