So I call it isogesis and you want to call it eisegesis either way it is terrible and misleading theology built out of whole cloth
That's nice. I call it an interesting and insightful discussion of God's Holy Word.
But I'm not an infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Do you think you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture?
He said "healing and teaching" not "authority and infallibility".
Ultimately, as Arrogant Bustard noted earlier on - "the vain babbling of mere fallible Men". We call that YOPIOS.
There is no such word as “isogesis”; I believe the word you are searching for is “eisegesis” (documented as of 1892AD) as compared to “exegesis” (documented as of 1619AD).
Applying approved hermeneutical principles to a text (particle, word, grammar, sentence, local context, larger context, whole document, historical context, cultural context) to explain, to interpret what the passage says is _exegesis_, from ek or ex (out of) and hegeisthai (to lead). Its focus is on what is said, not particularly on current application.
The process of eisegesis is quite opposite. It is reading _into_ the text one’s own ideas, trying to make the text or selected portions into a pretext for supporting a one’s theory(s). This is what the writer of the article has done, and he has twisted Scripture in an amazing way. Peter himself warned about this (2 Pe 3:15-17 regarding the kind of wresting Paul’s epistles by the unlearned and unstable).
It is hoped this will bring a sense of admission of error and apology regarding the non-word “isogesis.” Actually, if there _were_ such a word, it would mean iso (the same as or equivalent to) + hegeisthai (to lead); or, an interpretation which is inerrantly and infallibly equal to or the same as the Scripture quoted. Is this what is meant?
Actually, the author (as well as several responders) ought to have been deafened by some very primary “rumble strips.” They are:
1. The incredible exegetic errors of interpreting Mt 16:13-28, esp. v. 18 as appointing Peter as head of the church. In fact, this is true _eisegesis_ - reading into Scripture what you want it to say. At that point, Peter was still an unregenerated “believer” who was still a child of Satan (v. 23). Peter was not converted (Lk 22:32)until much later, after the crucifixion and resurrection (Jn 21:15-19). He continued to make errors, until he and 129 others were invested with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, where the local Jerusalem Body of Christ was instituted by the Lord.
2. The Lord Jesus Christ authorized all the disciples to “bind and loose” when converted (Mt 18:3) and constituted as the church (Mt. 18:17-18) — not just Peter.
3. The pastor/chief elder of the very first church was not Peter, but James (Jacob) (Acts 15:13+, Gal 1:19), the son of Mary, (half)brother of Jesus.
4. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is there a catholic (universal, invisible, temporal, global) church (singular) exhorted — this is a pure _eisegetical_ invention of the apostate religion, the state church and its descendants. There are only local churches mentioned, each one a/the local Body of Christ when it is assembled (including the one in Heaven, whose members as yet have no bodies). Therefore, there cannot be a global denominational church with one ecclesiastical head, governing all as a “vicar”.
5. Doctrines and dogmas that require reference to this or that of the “patristics” or councils of the “early church” (read state-authorized, already apostate mixed-multitude) for their authority, and cannot stand on the inerrant, infallible, verbal, plenary, preserved Word of God only — are less than valueless — they are “traditions of men” and not of God.
THESE are just a few of the “rumble strips” the author ignores, regardless of his theological indoctrination. They are a spiritual alerts that cannot/do not enter the natural man’s reasonings as logical or meaningful (1 Co 2:14 in context).
With regard —