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 By faith, Abraham... Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:03:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Dan http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#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: Steve http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#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: Dan http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#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

]]> By: Steve http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-14317 Steve Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:32:16 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14317 Wind, <blockquote>I wish I had not set L. Ron’s volumes out on the curb 40+ years ago. They would not only be possible collectors’ items, but could serve as comparative study on logic and the objective reality of mind, spirit and matter. Will Clark assist me in better discernment of the authentic over the mimic? Or was it not sufficient at that time to have been reading the Bible also and deciding that God should be my “auditor” rather than a Dianetics practitioner with an E-meter? </blockquote> I wish I had written that. Or better, that I had the insight necessary to come up with it. Brilliant, my friend. Wind,

I wish I had not set L. Ron’s volumes out on the curb 40+ years ago. They would not only be possible collectors’ items, but could serve as comparative study on logic and the objective reality of mind, spirit and matter. Will Clark assist me in better discernment of the authentic over the mimic? Or was it not sufficient at that time to have been reading the Bible also and deciding that God should be my “auditor” rather than a Dianetics practitioner with an E-meter?

I wish I had written that. Or better, that I had the insight necessary to come up with it. Brilliant, my friend.

]]> By: Steve http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-14316 Steve Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:09:07 +0000 http://undeception.com/brief-question-about-inerrancy/#comment-14316 Doug, I agree well with the second half of your comment. But the first half is decidedly weak and based upon an exclusivist presupposition. The context very clearly says that justification ("declared righteous") takes place based upon adherence to whatever law is available, and that in this immediate context, judgment of Jews and Gentiles is implied to be based upon how well they uphold their own law. How superfluous would "even defending" be if the verdict was going to be inexorably against them anyway? "I'll see evidence from all sides, then condemn them all anyway." I somehow doubt this will convince you otherwise, but regardless, I was not using it as "proof text" (one passage in the Bible can't prove anything) but as an "evidence text", particularly interesting because it sticks out like a sore thumb; I've never once heard a sermon about this passage, particularly because it's so problematic for strict exclusivism. Doug, I agree well with the second half of your comment. But the first half is decidedly weak and based upon an exclusivist presupposition. The context very clearly says that justification (“declared righteous”) takes place based upon adherence to whatever law is available, and that in this immediate context, judgment of Jews and Gentiles is implied to be based upon how well they uphold their own law. How superfluous would “even defending” be if the verdict was going to be inexorably against them anyway? “I’ll see evidence from all sides, then condemn them all anyway.”

I somehow doubt this will convince you otherwise, but regardless, I was not using it as “proof text” (one passage in the Bible can’t prove anything) but as an “evidence text”, particularly interesting because it sticks out like a sore thumb; I’ve never once heard a sermon about this passage, particularly because it’s so problematic for strict exclusivism.

]]>