Comments on: Brief question about inerrancy http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brief-question-about-inerrancy Faith, mutatis mutandis Thu, 03 May 2012 19:05:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14334 Dan Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:57:29 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14334 Just to be clear, Wright's discussion in Ro 2 is not an endorsement of inclusivism. (I doubt Wright is a Restrictivist, but he is not here explicitly addressing the topic.) The comments he makes simply takes the first step toward inclusivism by denying that this is only hypothetical statement of positive judgment according to works which Paul later demantles in 3:19-20. Wright actually applies 2:15 to Christian Gentiles although his explanation of "their thoughts now accusing" is wanting. Makes better sense to me of saved and unsaved Gentiles. Just to be clear, Wright’s discussion in Ro 2 is not an endorsement of inclusivism. (I doubt Wright is a Restrictivist, but he is not here explicitly addressing the topic.) The comments he makes simply takes the first step toward inclusivism by denying that this is only hypothetical statement of positive judgment according to works which Paul later demantles in 3:19-20. Wright actually applies 2:15 to Christian Gentiles although his explanation of “their thoughts now accusing” is wanting. Makes better sense to me of saved and unsaved Gentiles.

]]> By: Dan http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-92620 Dan Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:57:00 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-92620 Just to be clear, Wright's discussion in Ro 2 is not an endorsement of inclusivism. (I doubt Wright is a Restrictivist, but he is not here explicitly addressing the topic.) The comments he makes simply takes the first step toward inclusivism by denying that this is only hypothetical statement of positive judgment according to works which Paul later demantles in 3:19-20. Wright actually applies 2:15 to Christian Gentiles although his explanation of "their thoughts now accusing" is wanting. Makes better sense to me of saved and unsaved Gentiles. Just to be clear, Wright’s discussion in Ro 2 is not an endorsement of inclusivism. (I doubt Wright is a Restrictivist, but he is not here explicitly addressing the topic.) The comments he makes simply takes the first step toward inclusivism by denying that this is only hypothetical statement of positive judgment according to works which Paul later demantles in 3:19-20. Wright actually applies 2:15 to Christian Gentiles although his explanation of “their thoughts now accusing” is wanting. Makes better sense to me of saved and unsaved Gentiles.

]]> By: Steve http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14331 Steve Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:35:59 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14331 Dan, Interesting! I'm somewhat surprised that Wright would lean that closely towards inclusivism, or at least away from strict restrictivism. Readers take note: inclusivism is not the same things as "universalism". It is God's prerogative to redeem people apart from knowledge of Christianity, but I certainly don't know that He's going to redeem <em>everyone</em>. <a href="http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/11/church-fathers-on-universalism/" rel="nofollow">It's something worth hoping for</a>, though. Thanks also for the recommendation of Sanders. Dan,
Interesting! I’m somewhat surprised that Wright would lean that closely towards inclusivism, or at least away from strict restrictivism. Readers take note: inclusivism is not the same things as “universalism”. It is God’s prerogative to redeem people apart from knowledge of Christianity, but I certainly don’t know that He’s going to redeem everyone. It’s something worth hoping for, though.

Thanks also for the recommendation of Sanders.

]]> By: Steve http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-92619 Steve Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:35:00 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-92619 Dan, Interesting! I'm somewhat surprised that Wright would lean that closely towards inclusivism, or at least away from strict restrictivism. Readers take note: inclusivism is not the same things as "universalism". It is God's prerogative to redeem people apart from knowledge of Christianity, but I certainly don't know that He's going to redeem <em>everyone</em>. <a href="http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/11/church-fathers-on-universalism/" rel="nofollow">It's something worth hoping for</a>, though. Thanks also for the recommendation of Sanders. Dan,
Interesting! I’m somewhat surprised that Wright would lean that closely towards inclusivism, or at least away from strict restrictivism. Readers take note: inclusivism is not the same things as “universalism”. It is God’s prerogative to redeem people apart from knowledge of Christianity, but I certainly don’t know that He’s going to redeem everyone. It’s something worth hoping for, though.

Thanks also for the recommendation of Sanders.

]]> By: Dan http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14325 Dan Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:10:00 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14325 Steve, I like your inclusivistic take on Ro 2 and on theology in general. I myself lean in that direction. NT Wright's commentary on the passage is especially helpful where he argues that Ro 2:13 is not some sort of hypothetical statement that can never be obtained. On inclusivism in general I found John Sander's <em>No Other Name</em> to be helpful too. Dan Steve,
I like your inclusivistic take on Ro 2 and on theology in general. I myself lean in that direction. NT Wright’s commentary on the passage is especially helpful where he argues that Ro 2:13 is not some sort of hypothetical statement that can never be obtained. On inclusivism in general I found John Sander’s No Other Name to be helpful too.
Dan

]]>