Would historic Reformed Christians consider FF Bruce to be on the liberal side of things? I've been reading his book on the canon of Scripture, and I am wondering if he is not trying to subtly push his agenda for evangelicals to give more weight to the Apocrypha (one way he does this is by only quoting the history that supports his case) and to confuse unknowing Christians that there are errors in the Bible (by presenting apparent Bible contradictions with no attempt to resolve the passages). In fact, I stopped halfway through his book because I'm finding Whitaker's "A Disputation on Holy Scripture" much more worth my while...and I'm finding Whitaker demolishing some of the "arguments" Bruce is subtly making in his book. Thoughts?
FF Bruce on the liberal side?
- Thread starter nwink
- Start date
- Status
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
I believe you have answered your own question friend.
Haha, I guess so. I just wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than me regarding Mr Bruce, as these are just my initial impressions after reading some of his book.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Bruce, mentor to a host of evangelical or fairly conservative scholars (cf. Gundry, Silva, Hagner, Gasque, Harris, Fung, O'Brien, etc.), was a "British" evangelical. This breed of cat is somewhat different from conservatives in the U.S.
I remember Bob Gundry telling the story that on his first day as a PhD student under Bruce at Manchester, Bruce told him that he was a "philologist" and not a theologian.
I remember Bob Gundry telling the story that on his first day as a PhD student under Bruce at Manchester, Bruce told him that he was a "philologist" and not a theologian.
- Status
Similar threads
