Fr. Siarhei Hardun, an Orthodox Priest from Belarus, speaks the Gospel and shares the Apostolic Faith with Presbyterians in their own house. This is real Orthodox ecumenism at its finest.
Check out the insightful article on Fr. Siarhei's bombs at GetReligion.
And this especially insightful comment quoted by Fr. Joseph Huneycutt at OrthoDixie:
It’s worth noticing that the most usual Orthodox presence encouraged at such events is the more “colorful” Orthodox; the ones who have an interesting accent, hair, beards and such. Inviting the Orthodox from around the corner is likely to get you a *former* Presbyterian, Episcopalian or what have you. No accent, possibly the same hair. Not as interesting or exotic as the above (very good) priest. He was certainly expected to provide decoration and gratitude but surprised people by talking about God. That was an unplanned aberration.
Hooray for Father Hardun! A voice of sanity amidst the liberals. Me thinks, though, that there were some folks who actually heard and agreed to what Father was saying. One can only hope, and pray.
ReplyDeleteI had to just scratch my head and wonder about a certain part of that prayer, when the female moderator said, "we're just trying to figure out where we're headed."
For some who have eyes to see, it's not that hard to figure out...really and truly.
Wow.. Wow.. Love it. No yelling, no shaking of fist, just humble observations and questions. Quite powerful. Living -the- faith means living it, even if currently unpopular.
ReplyDeleteBravo Fr. Siarhei Hardun, Bravo :)
ReplyDeleteWhen did he speak the Gospel?
ReplyDeleteI mean, I can appreciate him giving something of a comeuppance to liberals (and so it's ironic that you're an errantist), but I didn't hear anything like what I'd call the Gospel. Could you clarify?
(oops, subscribing)
ReplyDeleteAs to proclaiming the gospel...I'm kind of glad he didn't give a Billy Graham "the buses will wait" exhortation. But he did point people to the Body of Christ, which is pointing to Christ.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can't speak for David (presumably your errantist comment was directed at him), I don't think errantist is the most accurate label. It's more along the lines that we reject the fact that 20th century evangelical civil wars on the Bible should determine the way the rest of the church views Scripture.
ReplyDeletePer the earliest use of Scripture--it was seen as liturgical texts not as databases for prooftexts (FF Bruce, evangelical no less, makes this clear).
Summary--evangelical shibboleths and epistemology should not determine how the rest of the church views scripture
ReplyDeleteAs long as epistemology is Christologically informed, what reason is there not to have epistemology shape how the church views scripture? Unless you mean "evangelical epistemology should not determine how the rest of the church views scripture," in which case I agree.
ReplyDeleteNathan,
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Epistemology will shape how we view Scripture. I was simply saying we shouldn't let the squabbles of various evangelical stepchildren, all of whom have major epistemological flaws, bring down the Church's legacy of Sts Ireneaus, Athanasius, Basil, ad infinitum.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteThis leaves me with two thoughts.
1) Errancy began in the very Garden of Eden - "Hath God indeed said?"
(OTOH, the errantist's first target is almost always a turn from what the Bible teaches about origins to what today's materialistic science fetishists teach, so maybe that's not the best example.)
2) I wonder if you can locate an early Christian writer who argued that the communication of God could conceivably contain error.
Rho,
ReplyDeletePer 1) I'm about as right-wing and backwoods as you can imagine, so, as you note, that's probably not the best example.
Per 2) I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that "Scripture contains error." I am simply saying we shouldn't view the Bible as an early version of Microsoft Access with a direct link to God's brain.
I think it comes down to rejecting Warfield's reading of inerrancy, as well as the Chicago statement. Yes, God's revelation to man is without error, but here's where the evangelical runs into problems by putting a focus on inerrancy.
Most inerrantists say "the original mss only are without error." That's probably true, but as any first year student in Greek will tell you, they don't exist. So the fact that Scripture is inerrant per this argument is quite useless.
And as anyone who has read the bottom of the page of a study bible will note, many translations aren't inerrant either (and besides some wacky KJV-onlyist, who would make such a claim).
So we either have "only the originals are inerrant," but they don't exist and it doesn't do us any good. I just think Warfield painted himself into a corner.
(Technically, I believe in inerrancy. I just don't like to set myself up for first-year science majors to shoot me down by using bad evangelical arguments).
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI'm about as right-wing and backwoods as you can imagine
Haha. Then, from one right-wing backwoods nut to another, hi!
(What's your position on origins, then?)
I'm not arguing that "Scripture contains error."
OK. Well, DavidW and David Bryan do.
I am simply saying we shouldn't view the Bible as an early version of Microsoft Access with a direct link to God's brain.
I would view that as a false dilemma, actually. That's not my position either.
That's probably true, but as any first year student in Greek will tell you, they don't exist.
1) I think you mean "they're not extant, to our knowledge". And yes, I know.
2) Textual questions are in almost every case easy to answer.
3) Ceding ground to materialistic science and its question-begging and self-serving pontifications about how "science knows how the world got to where it is today" is not a question of textual criticism. The entirety of Genesis 1-3 is not a textual question mark, as I'm sure you know.
So your objection to inerrancy doesn't do anything for the question here, I'm afraid.
I just don't like to set myself up for first-year science majors to shoot me down
All it requires is a little first-year philosophy to shoot them down b/c of their unargued-for assumptions. I'd recommend some reading on my blog and Triablogue to see it in action.
Peace,
Rhology
My position on origins? Leaning towards six-day creation. I say leaning because I've recently read reports on the structure of time, both from scientific and patristic perspectives, that make me think. Yes, I hold to six day creation, but there's more to it, I think.
ReplyDelete***I would view that as a false dilemma, actually. That's not my position either.***
I spent much of the past six months reading what pre-Christians, Patristics, and medievals say about "reading" texts (heck, even Luther found himself relying on the Quadriga). It's not quite the correspondence theory of truth that the Chicago statement makes it out to be.
***Textual questions are in almost every case easy to answer.***
When I'm reading the Gothic script at the bottom of my Nestle Aland, and realizing the myriad of equally valid options for this or that inclusion of a particular pericope, I do not think it is easy to determine which is the right reading.
I don't know why you keep bringing up Genesis 3 and textual criticism. I don't recall mentioning it, nor did I cede ground to materialistic science.
Triablogue's okay. I've read it off and on for five years now. They have some good stuff against New Atheism and Islam, but I'm not as enamored with analytical philosophy as they are. In fact, I'm almost hostile to it.
I do not think it is easy to determine which is the right reading.
ReplyDeleteAnd when one compares the # of those to the # of total verses in the Bible...
I don't know why you keep bringing up Genesis 3 and textual criticism. I don't recall mentioning it, nor did I cede ground to materialistic science.
You'd said:
Most inerrantists say "the original mss only are without error."
Which is true. But that's not the same thing as what mostly occurs when ppl discuss inerrancy. Mostly discussions about inerrancy center around "contradictions" or "factual errors when compared to scientific knowledge", cast by liberals or by the materialistic naturalist overlords. A case in point is the Genesis vs evolution-from-rocks question of origins.
What I'm trying to say is that this is the question of inerrancy usually doesn't deal with textual criticism. Those who claim errancy very often, even usually, are ceding ground to materialistic naturalistic scientism; that's what I'm getting at.
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on misrepresenting my position by training to fit my view, the view of the ancient Christians (as much as God allows me to imitate those holy people), into early-20th century categories, completely foreign to the ancient view? Biblical literalism and Biblical fundamentalism are products of the anti-Darwin movement of the late-19th and early-20th century, not the Apostles and not the Church Fathers.
David, per your above comment:
ReplyDeleteI'll explain as a former evangelical. To their credit (oops, Roman Catholic category) they did fight a legitimate battle against liberal protestants who did deny every tenet of the faith.
That said, that is ALL they are familiar with. They invented categories (which were kind of necessary at the time) to fight the liberals. They then reasoned that EVERYONE, everywhere, and at all times, must also use these recent 20th century hermeneneutical categories, or else they hate Scripture.
Evangelicals don't know anything about history prior to 1517, except that there was this one guy Augustine and another Anselm--but that's it. And so evangelicals--being late and recent on the church scene (makes it difficult for them to claim to be the faith once delivered to all the saints) can't understand that people did alright before they got there.
However,
ReplyDeleteI will say this: I consider Darwinism (and modern evolution; they aren't the same thing) to be part and parcel of the "modernist" worldview and the religion of the New World Order. I won't give ground on this. I'll stand with Fr. Seraphim Rose.
Now, I also think that most "YEC" defenses of creation are borderline stupid and silly. .
Aside from the lengthy discussion I must say that I was deeply moved by this. Tears were welling at the impact of truth, humility and love. Glory to Jesus Christ!
ReplyDelete-g-
DavidW,
ReplyDeletemisrepresenting my position
You keep saying that, but then you reaffirm over and over my representation of your position. These accusations are a bit tiresome.
Inerrancy = the Bible contains 0 errors.
Errancy = the Bible contains >0 errors.
You hold to the latter. You are an errantist. That's all there is to it, and it's not that difficult. If you want to "get past" this whole thing, then retract your accusations of error in the Bible.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Jacob: I wonder if you can locate an early Christian writer who argued that the communication of God could conceivably contain error.
Jacob said:
That said, that is ALL they are familiar with.
This is basically pomo talk. Either the Scr contains errors or it doesn't. That's all that I'm talking about here.
Evangelicals don't know anything about history prior to 1517
You claim to have gone to a Prot seminary, and have made sure to remind me of it, but then you come back and say things like this. I can't say my respect for your intellectual honesty is growing.
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteYou are an errantist.
I don't believe that the Holy Bible contains any errors; when did I say that? Of course, I also believe (well, know, actually) that it was written as a spiritual textual and not a science textbook. You debase and defame the Holy Words of Scripture with your attempts to humanize it in making it the latter, dishonoring both the book and its Author. God did not become man to teach us about science; he came to offer us salvation. Quit blaspheming the Almighty.
I wonder if you can locate an early Christian writer who argued that the communication of God could conceivably contain error.
I wonder if you can locate an early Christian writer who believed that the communication of God is limited to Scripture alone.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - Blessed Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'm not a Darwinist either; neither am I a scientist.
DavidW,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the Holy Bible contains any errors; when did I say that?
It grieves me to see you say this. Do you think I don't keep records or something?
Here
Here
You debase and defame the Holy Words of Scripture with your attempts to humanize it in making it the latter
This is funny to me, though no doubt unintentionally. I hold to total depravity, am a Calvinist, and a young-earth creationist, and I'm "humanizing" the text? Right.
I wonder if you can locate an early Christian writer who believed that the communication of God is limited to Scripture alone.
I wonder if you can answer a direct question.
Anyone can read our debate on the question you asked. So how about answering mine?
Blessed Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram
Thus you fulfill one of my fundamental criticisms of your position in general - you quote early Xtian writers when convenient, even as authorities, but when they say sthg that disagrees with your modern position, you're QUICK to remind us all that "they're just one guy, not The Church", and yet turn right around and say "our Church holds to unbroken apostolic tradition!" Please.
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteDo you think I don't keep records or something?
I have no idea; I don't.
Here
Here
I'll admit that my position now is much more well-defined than it was a year ago, however, I still don't see myself there saying "Scripture has errors." I didn't read the whole conversation, though; perhaps you can quote the specific part where I said that specific thing?
I hold to total depravity, am a Calvinist, and a young-earth creationist,
More blasphemy against God and His Holy Word.
and I'm "humanizing" the text?
Yes; you are injecting your own human traditions into it.
So how about answering mine?
They certainly didn't and neither do I. How's that?
Thus you fulfill one of my fundamental criticisms of your position in general...
So I can't quote something that Augustine said unless I agree with everything he said?
Hm...
Which brings us back to one of my fundamental criticisms of your position in general...
How come there ain't no Calvinists in the early Church 't all? (Unless we're counting the Gnostics, of course...)
Calvinism has a different Gospel than Orthodoxy ( http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/07/orthodoxy-and-calvinism-can-both-be.html ) and Orthodoxy's Gospel is that of the early Christians. Hm...
DavidW,
ReplyDeleteI'll admit that my position now is much more well-defined than it was a year ago
Glad to hear it, actually, and I don't mind at all when people retract or change their positions. God knows I'm not 100% static in my own positions.
This does, however, bring up another issue. Why is it "your position" at all? Why didn't the EOC inform your position authoritatively on this? Are you "working thru it" or something? Why? Just repeat what the EOC teaches on the topic!
...Unless it doesn't teach sthg monolithic on the topic. In which case, I have to question what good EOC's teaching authority is to you in real life.
you can quote the specific part
The part about the cross inscription, to be specific.
They certainly didn't and neither do I. How's that?
What?
Look, let me try to break it down here.
I asked a question. Here it is again: I wonder if you can locate an early Christian writer who argued that the communication of God could conceivably contain error.
You did not answer it. Please answer the question.
So I can't quote something that Augustine said unless I agree with everything he said?
If Augustine is part of Sacred Tradition, why would you disagree with sthg he said?
If he is not part of SacTrad, why quote him? Why not quote someone who is?
How come there ain't no Calvinists in the early Church 't all?
There are - Jesus, Paul, and Peter. This is, what?, the 4th time I've told you this?
Calvinism has a different Gospel than Orthodoxy
For which I thank God almost daily, that God has changed my heart away from thinking I could contribute anything but wretched depravity and utter want to the salvation of my soul.
Orthodoxy's Gospel is that of the early Christians.
The earliEST Christians were the NT Christians. And I'm the one who holds to Scripture (including NT) as sole infallible and final rule of faith. Double Hm...
Peace,
Rhology
***This is basically pomo talk.***
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, since i was referencing medieval *pre-modern* writers.
***You claim to have gone to a Prot seminary, and have made sure to remind me of it, but then you come back and say things like this. I can't say my respect for your intellectual honesty is growing. ***
Fair enough, I shouldn't claim to speak for all evangelical seminaries. That said, it is a fair analysis of southern Presbyterianism and RTS Jackson. Likewise, since you probably didn't go there, you don't need to be telling others what it may or may not teach.
***Why didn't the EOC inform your position authoritatively on this?***
Aside from ecumenical councils and longer periods of history, that's really not how authority works in the eastern church. That's a very western and roman catholic view of authority. (Cf evangelicals Letham and McClendennin for the same point).
***If Augustine is part of Sacred Tradition, why would you disagree with sthg he said?
If he is not part of SacTrad, why quote him? Why not quote someone who is? ***
That's called the "either-or" fallacy. One can quote ancient men, not as "infallible teachers" but also as historical witnesses. That's basic historiography.
***The earliEST Christians were the NT Christians. And I'm the one who holds to Scripture (including NT) as sole infallible and final rule of faith. Double Hm...****
I think at this point he would ask why do you know see this in the earliest, post-apostlic writings (some of which pre-dated the NT). Aside from positing a universal fall for the church, one has to assume some continuity between the apostle JOhn and St Ignatius (who sat at John's feet).
Table Talk's recent issue (on the 10th century, I think) posits a universal fall. Ligon Duncan comes very close to affirming just that. As does RL Dabney.
As to where did an early church writer say Scripture contained error--I don't tink early church writers said that, so I don't feel quite the onus to answer the question. I will say this--and it doesn't contradict the above: the early church writers didn't believe the bible had to function as a perfect science book or archeological text.
Jacob,
ReplyDelete"Inventing categories" is pomo talk. I should've quoted that to respond to, sorry.
But it's pomo talk b/c there are only two options here, as I've already said.
Inerrancy = the Bible contains 0 errors.
Errancy = the Bible contains >0 errors.
I shouldn't claim to speak for all evangelical seminaries.
Indeed. In fact, you said "Protestants", thus speaking for all Protestants.
So, what you meant to say was that in your limited experience, you haven't seen many Prots who know much about ch history.
See, *that* would be a much more circumspect (and correct) thing to say.
you don't need to be telling others what it may or may not teach.
And I didn't, so thanks for proscribing any temptation to do so. You did, so, I'd suggest you work on that log.
Aside from ecumenical councils and longer periods of history, that's really not how authority works in the eastern church.
So it doesn't help, then does it? Doesn't address the question. Doesn't tell you what to think about God's revelation. That's so funny; I'd've thought figuring out what God said was pretty important.
That's called the "either-or" fallacy. One can quote ancient men, not as "infallible teachers" but also as historical witnesses.
Your problem is that you've forgotten how EOx typically argue against Sola Scriptura and other Reformed doctrines. They/you like to quote "early church" in opposition to these doctrines and then say "Ha, see? The early church didn't believe that! You're a novelty act."
Then I turn around and quote early Xtian writers against an EO position, thus showing the same thing applies, that they too are a novelty act. Then they pull the eject handle: "But he was just one private theologian!"
So I'm just doing the same thing. Why should one private theologian bother me? Help me out here. But beware of being too consistent - you might end up Reformed.
I think at this point he would ask why do you know see this in the earliest, post-apostlic writings
Did you mean
"I think at this point he would ask why do you NOT see this in the earliest, post-apostlic writings"?
(If that is what you meant,) I'd respond it matters not in the slightest. Do you want to talk about what the earliest church believed or not? If you do, don't change the subject.
(If that's not what you meant, please correct me.)
Aside from positing a universal fall for the church, one has to assume some continuity between the apostle JOhn and St Ignatius
And that's so crazy! Turns out Ignatius DID hold to an awful lot of things John did! Like monotheism, Christ = God, forgiveness of sin, God speaks, OT is God's revelation, there were apostles, etc. Even held to a doctrine of Eucharist that at the very least does not resemble Rome's...
It's kind of irritating to keep rehashing old ground, but here and here you go.
As to where did an early church writer say Scripture contained error--I don't tink early church writers said that, so I don't feel quite the onus to answer the question.
Yes, I should think they were quite a bit more pious than today's liberalism- and modernism-ridden EOC. So I'd doubt we'd see that from them as well.
the early church writers didn't believe the bible had to function as a perfect science book or archeological text.
Which anyone familiar with the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy would not impute to the Reformed position.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteWe've gone over all of this before. I'll end my participation here. For the record (the one you keep, apparently):
1. No, the early Christians did not believe that there was error in God's communication.
2. No, I do not believe that there is error in God's communication.
Being someone who skimmed this long conversation, can I simply say that all of this debate... what good does it benefit anyone? It seems to have been pulled out of thin air. The video had a simple message. How did it get knee deep in talks about the Scripture?
ReplyDeleteI think that such a conversation is fruitless and helps no one. Let's keep the things of God free from our debates.
Dear Rhology, please take a step back and ask yourself if starting these kind of online conversations is really of any use. It turns the things of God into issues of debate... petty debates.
I encourage you to try to keep from doing this constantly, it would never look good to outsiders to see two people who claim Christ bickering about these things.
May God bless you and keep you sir!
-g-
Rho,
ReplyDeleteI had a response, but never mind. No offense, it's hard to talk to you. You are condescending to everyone who disagrees with you. I don't care if you call me wrong or even heretic. But you seem to speak down to others.
(Perry Robinson is a much more patient man than I am).
And while you will probably say I am stupid or make judgments on my reasoning process because of this, in the past decade I've probably read 600-700 Evangelical texts on theology, philosophy, languages, and church history. I probably know what I am talking about. I've read everything Sproul, Horton, Van til, Frame, Bahnsen, Kaiser, Fee, Packer, Grudem, Berkhof, Vos, Ridderbos, Bavinck, Moreland and Craig, Wolterstorff, Kuyper, most of the Puritans, GI Williamson, Luther's Bondage of Will twice, dozens of volumes by Jonathan Edwards, Guy Waters, all of Dabney (even the parts of Dabney that Reformed do not like), much of Gerstner, all of Rushdoony and North. Calvin's Institutes three times. Much of John Knox. Much of D'Aubigne, the first three volumes of Carl Henry, and all of Keith Mathison's work twice. Plus all of Ken Gentry, George Marsden, and Mark Noll.
Not to mention 3,000 to 4,000 audio lectures by various authors.
Yet I speak as a fool. At this point--someone with basic Christian charity and civility would say something along the following:
*That's interseting that you have read all of that. Why do you disagree with these people? Stating the main thesis, show where it is inadequate, please.
But that's not how you usually respond. Now, out of respect for David, you can ask some of these question on my blog (http://tsarlazar.wordpress.com). I will likely approve most of the comments (bad history with spammers in the past) until you start "type-yelling" at me.
and inventing categories is not "pomo" talk. If so, then every evangelical systematic theology textbook is postmodern, because they have the categories:
ReplyDeleteTheology
Soteriology
Harmartiology
Anthropology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology
As to pomo talk, which pomo writers ahve you read? Derrida? Foucault, Lyotard? When I read those guys that's not what I got as the impression of postmodernism.
(I'm not postmodern, btw).
DavidW,
ReplyDeleteOK, that's good to know. Tell you what, so I don't forget, I'm going to make a blogpost saying that. I don't want to misrepresent you, and I'm glad to hear that your view has changed.
George,
ReplyDeleteWell, I mean, I made a brief comment at the beginning, and Jacob has expanded the dialogue. But what's wrong with what we're doing? I don't blame him for asking me questions or challenging me. No one's forcing anyone to read.
How did it get knee deep in talks about the Scripture?
That's actually how I prefer to live! :-) Knee-deep, talking about the Scripture. Or neck-deep, either way.
Let's keep the things of God free from our debates.
To follow this advice would be to forsake the commands and example of Paul, Peter, Jude, and indeed of Christ Himself. This is bad advice.
If you want "petty debates", try People Magazine. I'd hate to see what you consider weighty matters, if the Gospel itself is petty.
Jacob,
in the past decade I've probably read 600-700 Evangelical texts
I believe you, but this wasn't the point either.
Remember, you said: "Evangelicals don't know anything about history prior to 1517".
This is a wide and sweeping generalisation. I presume you will admit you spoke in haste.
Further, just b/c we disagree with you about the implications of that history doesn't mean we know nothing about it.
Finally, I asked you a specific question about whether early Xtian writers thought the Bible contained error, so are you going to put me at fault for lack of interest? It's a historical question, on topic.
inventing categories is not "pomo" talk.
Well, that's not what I meant.
Tell you what, maybe I misread you, but I'm not interested in going back to look. ;-) I'm tired. I withdraw the comment.
which pomo writers ahve you read?
None directly. I was referring to the vast influence of pomo-ity in the current zeitgeist.
Peace,
Rhology
I believe that discussion is one thing, but I recognize that many (I used to be one of them) simply seek out debate for the sheer fun of it.
ReplyDeleteIt is an intellectual sport for some. The things of God ought not be so glibly tossed about in debate. It too often stirs up pride and lack of charity.
If I have misread you, do forgive me.
I also like to be swimming in scripture, albeit in the company of the Holy Fathers and Saints.
Blessings and peace,
-g-
Oh, and certainly the Gospel is not petty! Of course not!
ReplyDelete-g-
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteThat would be to assume that my position has changed; it has not. It has been further clarified, but it has not changed. The clarification has mostly (almost entirely) consisted in a realization that I can't communicate using heterodox terminology and thought patterns without in many ways communicating as a heterodox.
George: Beautifully said!
If you say so. But "inerrant" is not all that tough a word to use correctly.
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
ReplyDeleteMany folks have cautioned Rhology (Alan), such as myself and Jacob, as to his "attitude" but sadly, it doesn't seem to get through to him.
To posit that one must defend the "gospel" at all costs, while displaying an attitude and treating others in a manner that is the antithesis of the very gospel itself is quite disturbing. Quite a bit of what is done in the name of said "gospel" is a betrayal of what the gospel, lived out in reality, actually is.