Me: First, once again, I have not charged you with “intellectual dishonesty”. Second, I would like to present some of Lampe’s positions which I suspect you (as well as K&K) [Kostenberger & Kruger] would not agree with—which, as you probably know, come via the same methods that Lampe uses to arrive at his historical assessments (e.g. form criticism, redaction criticism, et al.). I shall begin with the following from Lampe’s pen:The issue here seems to be that Lampe doesn't accept that 2 Timothy was actually written by Paul. I don't happen to agree with this particular assessment, but I'm not going to discount all the rest of Lampe's work because of it. As I noted below, Carson and Moo give plenty of good reasons why they do think that Paul wrote all 13 letters attributed to him.
“The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals.
For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rom 16:21…
How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?>> (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.)
Now, do you believe that “the deutero-Pauline author” (Lampe’s words/take, not mine) of 1 Timothy made a “mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca”? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH LAMPE?
As well, I'm a guy who marks up his books. And I have a sticky-note at this very point with the note "Check references to Paul's travels. A few things on this.
In the first place, Aquila and Priscilla's travels (or non-travels) are not a matter of faith. It well could be that they were precisely where Paul, writer of the Pastorals, said they were.
Second, if Kostenberger and Kruger are in the least bit concerned about it, they are New Testament scholars, and they definitely have the means to check out something like that.
Third, I've checked Towner ("Letters to Timothy and Titus", Grand Rapids, Eerdmans); he outlines their travels through Paul's letters, and he does not even seem to be aware of the problem. After noting that they had "at some point migrated (apparently) from [Asia Minor] to Rome," he notes:
Subsequently, at the time when Claudius had expelled all the jews from the imperial city (Acts 18:2), they came to Corinth. They also appear in Paul's letters (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19). When Paul was en route back to Syria/Antioch, they all stopped off at Ephesus, where Aquila and Priscilla were left (1 Cor 16:19) and Paul began to preach (Acts 18:26). B the time Paul wrote Romans, the couple had returned to Rome (Rom 16:3). Yet at the time of this writing they had apparently returned to Asia Minor, probably in the vicinity of Ephesus (650-651).It could be that Aquila and Priscilla, like Paul, became itinerant missionaries, and they could well have settled back in Ephesus where they seem to have started.
So if this is the most significant point of contention that you have found (it is first -- do you lead off with your biggest and best?) -- then what else is there?
Posts
16 comments:
Hi John,
I should be in bed, but could not resist checking BA before I headed upstairs…thanks for responding to my comments; you wrote:
>>The issue here seems to be that Lampe doesn't accept that 2 Timothy was actually written by Paul.>>
Me: No, that is not “the issue” at all (even though I disagree with Lampe); “the issue” is whether or not you agree with Lampe that there are mistakes in the Bible. In addition to his belief that the author of 2 Tim made a “mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca” (forgive my earlier typo), he also believes the author of 1Tim made a mistake concerning the location of Timothy.
I asked a very simple question that you did not answer, and shall ask it again (with a typo correction and expansion): do you disagree with Lampe concerning mistakes being made in 1 Tim and 2 Tim?
Grace and peace,
David
David
treading very lightly now, I have to ask, are you dodging the questions raised now about your faith and hope?
Have you gone back to the other threads to see the question posed to you about your being open to the Ba'hai faith?
It seems to me very odd and strange that you can respond the way you do when there is hanging out there this question of your beliefs?
Are you open to the Ba'hai faith? Does this question pose a dilemma to you now when you can answer with such clarity as you have just now to the question regarding Aquila and Priscilla?
It troubles me so that you seem to ignore such a plain straightforward question about your belief in the Ba'hai faith.
My question is spurred on by the Apostle Peter and his classic apologetic exhortation by these words:
1Pe 3:13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?
1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
David,
also, going one step further in this inquiry, I note your response to Rhology, here:
Me: If I apply your understanding of “change” I have made NONE—I am, and always have been, a Christian.
Any reasonable person would hold that you "clearly" are a Christian by your own words.
However, when we review your other words and arguments in various threads here and then at your own blog, there is a question now just what "always have been a Christian" means?
As you most certainly know, the word "Christian" was first published by Luke in the Book of Acts?
I hope I am not being overly intrusive now?
If so, say so and I will refrain any further inquiry.
David -- I want to give some of the folks here who may be commenting on this some of the background of what you are talking about. I want to put this into perspective.
The first instance of an "inconsistency" that you've brought up, that I've made, is that you referred me to the particular work of well-respected 19th century Greek scholar who evidently made a very strong argument to the effect that Romans 9:5 should not be translated in such a way that Paul is calling Christ "God over all". I should further note that his translation comes down to a matter of punctuation -- should there be a period (or a colon) or a comma -- because in determining whether or not Paul is saying "Christ is God over all," a decision needs to be made as to what kind of punctuation ought to be put there.
For those who may or may not be aware, there is no punctuation, at least in the earliest manuscripts, which provide the best basis for complex textual decisions. This is not even a contested text in any way. It is the question of what kind of punctuation needs to be placed at a certain point in manuscripts where no punctuation appears.
It's true, the author you cited made a very extensive argument that there should not be a comma there, (which makes "Christ God over all"), but a period or colon (something definite like that, I forget which). That punctuation turns the sentence into two separate clauses, which in turn, prompts the conclusion that Paul had, at that point, stopped talking about Christ and had instead broken into a doxology of praise to God, as he is wont to do.
Now, this whole question turns on very complex Greek grammar questions that I have no ability to read, much less understand, and you asked me for an opinion. And so, against my better judgment, and out of the spirit of charitable discussion that you seem to value so highly, I consulted some highly technical sources, mis-read one of them, and so this is the big example of a mistake that you are holding over my head.
(I did not misread Metzger -- he clearly was stating that this was a difficult question with no clear answer, and that's what I said. I did misread the highly technical footnote apparatus of the Greek UBS -- I saw a capital "C" on a page full of Greek and otherwise dense abbreviations, and I thought that it meant what a "C" is intended to mean in the "A"-"B"-"C"-"D" scale of evaluating the difficulty of certain texts.
But I did not leave it at this. I also consulted both Schreiner and Moo commentaries on Romans, as well as a full range of modern and not-so-modern translations. And the overwhelming majority of these go with the comma, (contra what your author was saying), and again, I ventured the opinion that in 2000 years of church history, and hundreds of years of textual criticism, that my practice has been to value the opinions of people that I trust, and I ventured my opinion that I'm not going to distrust Schreiner, Moo, the translators of ESV, NIV, NKJV, and others who placed the comma in Romans 9:5 and concluded that Christ is God over all.
Here again, in this question about Lampe vs. K&K, you are going to ridiculous lengths to strain at a gnat and try to force me to the conclusion that there is some inconsistency between two sources that I like and highly recommend.
At issue this time is point 6d of Lampe's "argument from textual criticism" which is not even the major thrust of his analysis of all the many names in Romans 16, at the very conclusion of which Lampe determines that yes, Romans 16 was part of the original letter to the Romans, and not something that had originally been written to Ephesus and then merely appended to Romans.
Lampe's overall conclusion in this particular effort is widely accepted and widely applauded by conservative scholars. In this particular section (textual criticism points 5 and 6), Lampe identifies 16 of 28 persons mentioned, and analyzes their travel schedules through Paul's letters and Acts. Lampe points to some apparent inconsistencies in the travel details of these accounts. And while I have not studied this issue in detail, I am aware that there are commonly held to be some possible, minor, minor inconsistencies among these accounts having to do with the recollection of events and even private conversations between Paul and Timothy, (for which we do not have comprehensive details), and which have been much discussed throughout history.
You are referring here to the fact that Lampe points out that there is "a mistake regarding [the travel itinerary] of Aquila and Prisca", and you want to know if I think that Lampe is correct or incorrect regarding some of these apparent inconsistencies.
No, I am not going to answer your question. These issues no doubt are discussed in great detail in some of the commentaries that you reportedly own. Look them up and come to your own conclusions.
You are delving deep into the arcane details of textual criticism and the very active travel schedules of Paul and his companions throughout the New Testament, 2000 years ago, and you are asking me to make a judgment where (a) there is only a handful of scholars in the world who are qualified even to discuss such issues at the level they need to be discussed, and (b) to therefore trust or distrust one or more of these scholars based on unmentioned inconsistencies.
You are further proposing to the readers here that somehow, Lampe and K&K are somehow at a point of great disagreement over these issues (when K&K don't go into nearly the detail over this side issue) -- when at best, the answers, one way or another, to these questions, is not going to increase or decrease the value of the work being done, one iota.
I have already spent far more time in amicable discussion with you than I have cared to do. But I do have to agree with the assessments of some of the folks here -- these questions you are asking are misguided at best, and they are not helpful at all for our purposes here. Scholars will be discussing these details until the eschaton and not arriving at firm conclusions in any case.
And I was right about another thing: these issues do come down in great measure to "whom you trust," and you are not building yourself up as someone who should be considered to be particularly trustworthy.
Here, by the way, is the conversation with Matthew Schultz, from which the text of David's original post that disappeared. It goes into some detail about his charges of inconsistency, to which I responded.
The following is between Matthew Schultz and David. I've gone to the trouble to take out the multiple arrows which David uses -- ">>"-- these may in some cases have been misconstrued as html tags, and could possibly have kicked out his comment. I've also changed his use of "Me" as an indicator of who is talking, to "David Waltz".
***
David Waltz writes: For instance, John eagerly endorses the critical German scholar Lampe concerning the status of the Roman church/s during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and then thoroughly recommends Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's The Heresy of Orthodoxy which is at odds with some important conclusions of Lampe.
Matthew Schultz: How does it follow that this is inconsistent? Since you yourself have given the qualification of "some," it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that John can't recommend both Lampe and Kostenberger/Kruger. Unless they were completely contradictory (in both methods and conclusions), it seems perfectly reasonable to draw on and recommend those aspects of these works he finds helpful and accurate.
David Waltz: Perhaps you do not understand the key issues between critical scholarship and conservative scholarship (maybe you do, but choose to sweep these issues under the carpet for now). Lampe's critical methodology permeates his scholarly work--the inconsistency of John lies in his willingness to accept Lampe's critical methodology in a very narrow venue—i.e. wherein he undermines certain Roman Catholic claims—but then rejects Lampe's critical methodology when it works against his worldview.
David Waltz comments: Do not wish to digress here,
Then cites Matthew: Then I have to ask why you brought up this charge of inconsistency at all. Are you hoping that it will stand uncontested if you couch it in noncommittal language?
David Waltz: No.
Matthew Schultz: Charges of intellectual inconsistency are serious. It would be best to either make them with an intent to discuss them or not to make them at all.
David Waltz: I am willing to do so.
David Waltz: but it does remind me a bit of James White’s charge/s leveled against Muslim apologists who quote “liberal”, critical Christian scholars in their debates, whilst James allows himself to use “liberal” and critical Islamic scholars.
Matthew Schultz: That comparison assumes White's methods are inconsistent.
David Waltz: Not an assumption (IMO).
more
Matthew Schultz: However, it's appropriate (even obligatory) to argue that the conclusions of liberal scholars (quoted by Muslims against traditional Christianity) are faulty while, at the same time, demonstrating the merits of liberal scholarship with respect to critiques of Islam.
David Waltz:This is the 'problem' Matthew: you, and so many others, are willing to use a double-edged sword (i.e. liberal, critical scholarship) against your opponents whilst crying 'foul' when they attempt to do the same!!!
Matthew Schultz: Since White deals with liberal scholarship on a regular basis, I don't see how this approach is inconsistent on any level.
David Waltz:Sigh...
Matthew Schultz: And you are comparing the use of liberal and conservative scholarship across two different religious traditions. Not only do you require a symmetrical relationship where none should exist, but your comparison of John Bugay's methods with White's is disanalogous.>>
David Waltz: I disagree Matthew; the fact that John, James White, and many other epologists are willing to solicit liberal, critical scholarship ONLY when it furthers their aggenda/s, whilst denying the same method to their opponents, is an all too common practice—that you do not discern commonality and/or inconsistency here is a bit troubling...
* * *
JB: If that's not all of it, I apologize. Multiple versions of this post hit my email, and without having done a comprehensive search, I do believe this is the one in question.
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I wanted to draw some attention to the language that David Waltz used in his discussion with Matthew:
For instance, John eagerly endorses the critical German scholar Lampe concerning the status of the Roman church/s during the 1st and 2nd centuries, and then thoroughly recommends Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's The Heresy of Orthodoxy which is at odds with some important conclusions of Lampe.
1. The identification of Lampe as a "critical German scholar."
Yes, Lampe is from Germany, and yes, he is a critical scholar. But to call him a "critical German scholar" without further qualification is to put him into the category of a Schleirmacher, and that is precisely one point where he does not fit.
Yes, Lampe's work deals with texts at a very granular level; his work also deals with inscriptions and archaeology to a huge degree. One thing he does not do is come to doctrinal conclusions. (Although, as I and others have noted, in the area of the early papacy, which historically has tied itself inextricably to its own supposed history, arriving at such doctrinal conclusions from his historical work is inevitable.) On the other hand, K&K are almost exclusively interested in canonical and textual practices from the standpoint of the doctrines that these things produce. So it should be clear that these individuals are looking at things from widely different perspectives.
2: which is at odds with some important conclusions of Lampe.
Again, though K&K might disagree with Lampe on point 6d (as I've outlined above), this statement also supports the contention that I made, that David does not really understand how these New Testament scholars arrive at their conclusions.
Where David wants to position these individuals "at odds" on "important conclusions," Lampe's "important conclusion was a sub-point to a sub-point. And further, one thing that is maybe well-known in those circles that is not well-known here, is that European scholars generally don't hold to "inerrancy" in the way that K&K probably hold to inerrancy.
And so if a conclusion happens to surface where Lampe's predisposition not to believe in inerrancy comes out, one should not find this to be an earth-shattering disagreement.
Good morning (at least here) natamllc,
You posted:
==David
treading very lightly now, I have to ask, are you dodging the questions raised now about your faith and hope?==
Me: No, I do not have an infinite amount of time, and do not let my internet interests interfere my structured daily schedule (4 hours of off-line reading, 1 hour of language study, 1 hour of exercise, and 4 hours with my wife). As such, yesterday I tried to focus on the topic of the thread knowing that I would not have the time to address the 'rabbit-trails'.
==Have you gone back to the other threads to see the question posed to you about your being open to the Ba'hai faith?==
Me: Yes, and I have the time to address them today (keeping Ken's questions over at AF 'on the back-burner—sorry Ken, want to address the issues being raised here before I head back to AF).
==It seems to me very odd and strange that you can respond the way you do when there is hanging out there this question of your beliefs?==
Me: Can you provide specific examples of my responses that seem " very odd and strange" to you?
==Are you open to the Ba'hai faith? Does this question pose a dilemma to you now when you can answer with such clarity as you have just now to the question regarding Aquila and Priscilla?==
Me: As I said to Ken, I am "open to the possibility" that the Bahai Faith is a new dispensation of God's revelation to mankind; it is a remote possibility, but nonetheless a possibility. I am "testing the spirits" as the apostle John urged us to do, and checking the "fruits" as commanded by our Lord.
==It troubles me so that you seem to ignore such a plain straightforward question about your belief in the Ba'hai faith.==
Me: It troubles me that you have such difficulty with my attempt to apply the admonitions and instructions given to us by our Lord and His apostles.
==Any reasonable person would hold that you "clearly" are a Christian by your own words.
However, when we review your other words and arguments in various threads here and then at your own blog, there is a question now just what "always have been a Christian" means?==
Me: As I said to Rho, "always" clearly does not apply to my infancy, but rather begins when I was capable to exercise reason and understanding. From that time forward, I believe that I have been a Christian. Here are a few of my core beliefs that have not changed: one God; the Bible is the Word of God; Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, the incarnate Word of God, is the Son of Man and the Son of God, is our Lord and Savior; salvation is by faith, a faith that is not dead, but alive; Jesus Christ died on the cross for the salvation of mankind, He rose from the dead on Easter Sunday and is seated at the right hand of the Father—to shorten this list, I believe all that the Bible contains.
Now, as I said earlier, I have a couple of 'free' hours to answer off-topic questions. I am now heading over to the combox of the other thread to see if I need to add more to what I have already stated here.
John: will try to address your last comments after I have dealt with the off-topic issues.
Grace and peace,
David
John,
Two of my posts today have already disappeared; needless to say this is getting VERY frustrating. I am going to grab some lunch, get some reading in, then a bike ride--when I return I will try posting one more time, and if it vanishes, will create a new thread at AF
Grace and peace,
David
I noticed that, when I went to respond to one of your posts, (having gotten it in email), it was not at the site.
James is out of town for a few days, though none of us knows what's happening with Blogger.
If you email your posts to me -- johnbugay [at] gmail [dot] com, and I'll post them for you (within my own time constraints).
Attention natamllc,
I submitted the following post 2 hours ago, but after appearing for a short time, it has now vanished; here is what I wrote:
++++++++++
Good morning (at least here) natamllc,
You posted:
==David
treading very lightly now, I have to ask, are you dodging the questions raised now about your faith and hope?==
Me: No, I do not have an infinite amount of time, and do not let my internet interests interfere my structured daily schedule (4 hours of off-line reading, 1 hour of language study, 1 hour of exercise, and 4 hours with my wife). As such, yesterday I tried to focus on the topic of the thread knowing that I would not have the time to address the 'rabbit-trails'.
==Have you gone back to the other threads to see the question posed to you about your being open to the Ba'hai faith?==
Me: Yes, and I have the time to address them today (keeping Ken's questions over at AF 'on the back-burner—sorry Ken, want to address the issues being raised here before I head back to AF).
==It seems to me very odd and strange that you can respond the way you do when there is hanging out there this question of your beliefs?==
Me: Can you provide specific examples of my responses that seem " very odd and strange" to you?
==Are you open to the Ba'hai faith? Does this question pose a dilemma to you now when you can answer with such clarity as you have just now to the question regarding Aquila and Priscilla?==
Me: As I said to Ken, I am "open to the possibility" that the Bahai Faith is a new dispensation of God's revelation to mankind; it is a remote possibility, but nonetheless a possibility. I am "testing the spirits" as the apostle John urged us to do, and checking the "fruits" as commanded by our Lord.
==It troubles me so that you seem to ignore such a plain straightforward question about your belief in the Ba'hai faith.==
Me: It troubles me that you have such difficulty with my attempt to apply the admonitions and instructions given to us by our Lord and His apostles.
==Any reasonable person would hold that you "clearly" are a Christian by your own words.
However, when we review your other words and arguments in various threads here and then at your own blog, there is a question now just what "always have been a Christian" means?==
Me: As I said to Rho, "always" clearly does not apply to my infancy, but rather begins when I was capable to exercise reason and understanding. From that time forward, I believe that I have been a Christian. Here are a few of my core beliefs that have not changed: one God; the Bible is the Word of God; Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, the incarnate Word of God, is the Son of Man and the Son of God, is our Lord and Savior; salvation is by faith, a faith that is not dead, but alive; Jesus Christ died on the cross for the salvation of mankind, He rose from the dead on Easter Sunday and is seated at the right hand of the Father—to shorten this list, I believe all that the Bible contains.
Now, as I said earlier, I have a couple of 'free' hours to answer off-topic questions. I am now heading over to the combox of the other thread to see if I need to add more to what I have already stated here.
John: will try to address your last comments after I have dealt with the off-topic issues.
Grace and peace,
David
++++++++++
Here is David's most recent (lost) comment:
Attention natamllc,
I submitted the following post 2 hours ago, but after appearing for a short time, it has now vanished; here is what I wrote:
++++++++++
- Hide quoted text -
Good morning (at least here) natamllc,
You posted:
==David
treading very lightly now, I have to ask, are you dodging the questions raised now about your faith and hope?==
Me: No, I do not have an infinite amount of time, and do not let my internet interests interfere my structured daily schedule (4 hours of off-line reading, 1 hour of language study, 1 hour of exercise, and 4 hours with my wife). As such, yesterday I tried to focus on the topic of the thread knowing that I would not have the time to address the 'rabbit-trails'.
==Have you gone back to the other threads to see the question posed to you about your being open to the Ba'hai faith?==
Me: Yes, and I have the time to address them today (keeping Ken's questions over at AF 'on the back-burner—sorry Ken, want to address the issues being raised here before I head back to AF).
==It seems to me very odd and strange that you can respond the way you do when there is hanging out there this question of your beliefs?==
Me: Can you provide specific examples of my responses that seem " very odd and strange" to you?
==Are you open to the Ba'hai faith? Does this question pose a dilemma to you now when you can answer with such clarity as you have just now to the question regarding Aquila and Priscilla?==
Me: As I said to Ken, I am "open to the possibility" that the Bahai Faith is a new dispensation of God's revelation to mankind; it is a remote possibility, but nonetheless a possibility. I am "testing the spirits" as the apostle John urged us to do, and checking the "fruits" as commanded by our Lord.
==It troubles me so that you seem to ignore such a plain straightforward question about your belief in the Ba'hai faith.==
Me: It troubles me that you have such difficulty with my attempt to apply the admonitions and instructions given to us by our Lord and His apostles.
==Any reasonable person would hold that you "clearly" are a Christian by your own words.
However, when we review your other words and arguments in various threads here and then at your own blog, there is a question now just what "always have been a Christian" means?==
Me: As I said to Rho, "always" clearly does not apply to my infancy, but rather begins when I was capable to exercise reason and understanding. From that time forward, I believe that I have been a Christian. Here are a few of my core beliefs that have not changed: one God; the Bible is the Word of God; Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, the incarnate Word of God, is the Son of Man and the Son of God, is our Lord and Savior; salvation is by faith, a faith that is not dead, but alive; Jesus Christ died on the cross for the salvation of mankind, He rose from the dead on Easter Sunday and is seated at the right hand of the Father—to shorten this list, I believe all that the Bible contains.
Now, as I said earlier, I have a couple of 'free' hours to answer off-topic questions. I am now heading over to the combox of the other thread to see if I need to add more to what I have already stated here.
John: will try to address your last comments after I have dealt with the off-topic issues.
Grace and peace,
David
Evidently that one stayed.
David,
you wrote: Me: Can you provide specific examples of my responses that seem " very odd and strange" to you?
Yes, for starters, this response in here above is very odd and strange to me:
you wrote: Me: As I said to Ken, I am "open to the possibility" that the Bahai Faith is a new dispensation of God's revelation to mankind; it is a remote possibility, but nonetheless a possibility.
My response to that is there is absolutely no possibilities now or ever that the Ba'hai faith is a new dispensation of God's revelation to mankind.
Having acknowledged the quote cited as to how Bahá’u’lláh has laid forth his "dispensation", defined in his own terms, it is troubling that there would be even the slightest possibility in your spiritual being that the Ba'hai faith was a new dispensation of God!
I am not sure what way to go here. I will give you the benefit of the doubt seeing you wrote unequivocally things that seem reasoned and sound in doctrine and faith, here: "....Here are a few of my core beliefs that have not changed: one God; the Bible is the Word of God; Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, the incarnate Word of God, is the Son of Man and the Son of God, is our Lord and Savior;....".
Of course, the next part I would take issue with in that you believe Faith comes before regeneration and I believe regeneration, "a coming alive" happens before the gift of Faith is given to believe and understand the position of God's Grace and Mercy in imputing Christ's Righteousness to the Elect.
You further wrote as part of your core beliefs, this: "....salvation is by faith, a faith that is not dead, but alive;....".
The next expression in line of your core beliefs I am not now convince is correct as well. You wrote this too is a part of your core beliefs: "....Jesus Christ died on the cross for the salvation of mankind,....".
I am not convinced Christ died for "all" mankind, although His suffering is sufficient for those God elects, chooses and calls. You and I have had this discussion sometime back and I posted some thoughts on your blog before, nothing exhaustive though, just slightly shallow and general in nature.
I would say I have some reservation about your core beliefs being sound doctrine. I just do not get a sense when I read your words a ring of truth like I do with other commentors in here. I don't know how to express it just to say I have a check in my spirit and a gut feeling or sense something is amiss and not quite right within you with regard to the foundation you proceed from when making comments and judgments to others.
I can go back to other of your comments in the other threads, if necessary, to highlight other very odd and strange comments you have made, later?
Hi John,
Given the anomalies (i.e. vanishing posts) that continue plague the comboxes here @ BA, after this brief post (hoping it stays around), I am going to continue our discussion concerning Lampe over at AF.
You posted:
==The first instance of an "inconsistency" that you've brought up, that I've made, is that you referred me to the particular work of well-respected 19th century Greek scholar who evidently made a very strong argument to the effect that Romans 9:5 should not be translated in such a way that Paul is calling Christ "God over all".==
Me: Incorrect, I never said that your interpretation of Rom. 9:5 is an inconsistency; what I did say is that the this verse (paraphrasing here) is not the 'slam-dunk' that you and Ken think that it is concerning the deity of Christ. Once again, I personally find it very telling that the editors of USB4 (which include Metzger and the Aland's) side with Abbot. Anyway, once again, though I think Metzger, the Aland's, Abbot, and a host of other NT textual scholars, take on Rom. 9:5 is the correct one, I do not charge you with inconsistency for embracing the somewhat weaker position.
I shall return to Lampe over at AF.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment