A Defense of "Biblical" Against Interpretative Nihilism.

November 26th, 2012 | 5 min read

The recent controversy surrounding Rachel Held Evans' book has fortuitously coincided with some close rereading of Richard Hays' Moral Vision of the New Testament, a work that is simultaneously awe-inspiring for its scope and frustrating for its ambiguity. The question it pursues is straightforward: what are the conditions under which we can say a position is "biblical?"

true

Want to keep reading?

Subscribe for free to access this article and all of our resources.

Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is an Associate Professor of Ethics and Theology in Baylor University's Honors College. He has a D.Phil. in Christian Ethics from Oxford University, and is a Perpetual Member of Biola University's Torrey Honors College. In 2005, he founded Mere Orthodoxy.

Topics:

Bible

A Defense of "Biblical" Against Interpretative Nihilism.

Want to keep reading?

Best Of 2024: Institution Building Requires Virtue

Be Perfect

Institution Building Requires Virtue

At His Right Hand Are Pleasures Forevermore

The Overcorrection of the Evangelical Sacramentalists

Review: Pauline Theology as a Way of Life by Joshua Jipp

The Self and Subjectivity of Paul

Bones that Smell Like Roses

The Trinity in the Book of Revelation

Cross Multiplying: Expanding our Vision of the Cross

A Loving Father and Difficult Gifts

The King Jesus Gospel: A Review

Literally?

Mixing Fibers and Levitical Prohibitions

The Gospel to the Phillipians

Stephen Colbert and Bart Ehrman

Is the Bible Monotheistic?

A Biblical Dilemma

A Profile in Christian Courage: JP Moreland at ETS

The Anthropology of Romans Four: Conclusion and Footnotes

The Anthropology of Romans Four: Romans 4 with Respect to 5-8

The Anthropology of Romans Four: The Anthropology of Romans Four

The Anthropology of Romans Four: Continuing with Romans Four

The Anthropology of Romans Four: The Individual vs. The Communal