tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post114300733637426028..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Wright's WrongsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143432423049146692006-03-26T20:07:00.000-08:002006-03-26T20:07:00.000-08:00G'day Phil, I was wondering if you might have any ...G'day Phil, <BR/><BR/>I was wondering if you might have any comments about Free Masonry in the Fundemental churches.<BR/><BR/>Seems the Southern Baptists org, don't care too much about whether they get involved in their churches or not.<BR/><BR/>Blessings craig bCraig Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15588042075470456058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143313219259725922006-03-25T11:00:00.000-08:002006-03-25T11:00:00.000-08:00These modern issues have a very old legacy (Eccles...These modern issues have a very old legacy (Ecclesiastes 1:10):<BR/><BR/>"If the day ever comes when men care so little for the basic Christian experiences and revelations of truth that they cease trying to rethink them in more adequate terms, see them in the light of freshly acquired knowledge, and interpret them anew for new days, then Christianity will be finished." [Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Living of These Days, An Autobiography, pp. 230]<BR/><BR/>The problem with finding new, "more adequate terms" is that it forsakes those ancient terms and constructs of truth found in God's infallible Word - and that's no small problem.thearmouryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16573006949482415927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143266475625206152006-03-24T22:01:00.000-08:002006-03-24T22:01:00.000-08:00G'day Craig S, and Phil J.I think one needs to rec...G'day Craig S, and Phil J.<BR/><BR/>I think one needs to recognise the difference in cultural language differences that might be going on here.<BR/><BR/>As a Aussie I have read Craigs comments and do not see any thing offensive about them, as he made it clear it was for a illustrative purpose only.<BR/><BR/>Yet it is obvious that you do feel it was offensive.<BR/><BR/>I was talking about cross cultural offense before hand with others the other day with other students. Americans use the word "Fanny" to describe ones backside, over here the word means something totally different.<BR/><BR/>Australians and New Zealanders like to us the term "Bugger" when something goes wrong, yet to a English man, it is a totally offensive word.<BR/><BR/>I truly think that no offense was meant, and I truly cannot see how it can be construed as offensive, from an Aussie point of view, and yet somehow it is offensive to you, and therefore it has to belong in a cultural missunderstanding.<BR/><BR/>P.S I am not just taking sides with Craig S to just take sides with him, for if you look at the Anglican forums you will see we often do have opposing views. Yet our postings while strong, are rarely if ever offensive and i do have to say that I think Craig S is very generous, gracious and godly in his postings.<BR/><BR/>Blessings craig b<BR/><BR/>P.S I also made this same posting on Craig S blog<BR/><BR/>4:57 PMCraig Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15588042075470456058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143256616206150832006-03-24T19:16:00.000-08:002006-03-24T19:16:00.000-08:00I like NT Wright precisely because he is a strong ...I like NT Wright precisely because he is a strong (not weak) apologist. He has his own style that is sometimes annoyingly deferent. But he always ends up sticking it to his opponents (read his comments on Dominick Crossan in Jesus and the Victory of God, they are hilarious). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Speaking like an academic may seem like double talk (and NT Wright notes this in his introduction to Resurrection of the son of God). But it is actually a language of its own. You learn the mores of your culture and abide by them. Sometimes saying that someone is “misleading” may mean “he really doesn’t know what the heck he is talking about”. But it would be untoward to say it the second way but polite the first way either way, the point is conveyed. Wright has become like an academic to reach the academics. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes a quick comeback is not as good as a careful building of an epistemological foundation. A sharp rebuke is sometimes a good thing (the Apostle Paul does plenty of this) but sometimes a “dialogue” is more effective. Consider Paul's discourse at Mars Hill in Acts 17. Was Paul a “po-mo” because he carefully complimented his listeners on their religiosity and then gently pointed them to the unknown God that they were worshiping? I don’t think so. I think he knew his audience and was speaking in a way that would engage them and turn them to Christ. <BR/><BR/> We need NT Wright and Phil Johnson. They are both bold apologists with different audiences.CSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14590529257898046077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143212417379834502006-03-24T07:00:00.000-08:002006-03-24T07:00:00.000-08:00Only one question: Would Bishop Wright pass Mark D...Only one question: Would Bishop Wright pass Mark Dever's two minute test on the eplanation of what the gospel is?Castusfumushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09496477155977016899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143172302963279612006-03-23T19:51:00.000-08:002006-03-23T19:51:00.000-08:00Jerry Wragg--you are my hero! Thanks for your exeg...Jerry Wragg--you are my hero! Thanks for your exegesis of that passage. One of the most helpful things I've seen in comments in quite some time.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143169868422938252006-03-23T19:11:00.000-08:002006-03-23T19:11:00.000-08:00Apologies - I made a mistake in my last post (I sh...Apologies - I made a mistake in my last post (I should have checked).<BR/><BR/>The specific issue that prompted the "academic" comment was the charge made by liberal wings of the Anglican church that the conservative wing lacked academic respectability.<BR/><BR/>His comment - "As an academic myself I am bound to disagree" seems perfectly reasonable to me.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143169400453968112006-03-23T19:03:00.000-08:002006-03-23T19:03:00.000-08:00Another of Bayly's points was Wright identifying h...Another of Bayly's points was Wright identifying himself as an academic. He should have identified himself as a pastor, according to Mr B. <BR/><BR/>But this was in the context of who had historical angilcanism on their side. Perhaps Wright is simply being too humble. Let me paraphrase him - <BR/><BR/>"We believe x happened in the past. They believe y happened in the past. I think they are wrong, and I am a Professor Hisotry at Oxford."<BR/><BR/>But can't you see why I feel the criticism's of Wright are rather trivial? They hang on the turn of a single word. If Wright had said "Paul knew..." rather than "Paul believed..." and if he had said "pastor" instead of "academic", presumably all would be fine.<BR/><BR/>This does not seem like solid critcism to me.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143167128973181852006-03-23T18:25:00.000-08:002006-03-23T18:25:00.000-08:00Well, here is one of the criticisms that Bayly had...Well, here is one of the criticisms that Bayly had that most provoked me - <BR/><BR/><I>"…stick with (the Apostle Paul and) you will see that he really does believe that (his critique of Judaism) is the true fulfillment of …the promises to Abraham…"<BR/><BR/>Really--Paul "believes" that? Is that why the Apostle Paul damned those who didn't believe that?</I><BR/><BR/>What is the cricitism here? The fact that he used the word "believes" about what Paul, well, believes. <BR/><BR/>Now "believes" is a perfectly good word, makes perfect sense in this context, but Bayly is upset that Wright didn't use a word with stronger connotations. <BR/><BR/>To my mind, its somewhat like being upset that someone didn't bang the pulpit often enough.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143166706008360752006-03-23T18:18:00.000-08:002006-03-23T18:18:00.000-08:00Oh, one more thing. Words like "nerd" and "geek" h...Oh, one more thing. Words like "nerd" and "geek" have actually aquired a counter-cultural trendiness in modern language. They don't have the "sting" that they did 30 years ago. But obviously different people will take them differently.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143166596274039322006-03-23T18:16:00.000-08:002006-03-23T18:16:00.000-08:00See, Craig, I didn't say what you attribute to me,...See, Craig, I didn't say what you attribute to me, either. Never have I said that I "don't think the doctrine is a problem, it's just the way he phrases things, the tone of his language, his wordiness."<BR/><BR/>And the fact that there's difficulty enough in understanding plain words is frankly one of the reasons I despise <I>deliberate</I> ambiguity. Especially on issues where God Himself has spoken with perfect clarity.<BR/><BR/><I>That's</I> the issue, and if you think it's about the aesthetics of Wright's voice or the sheer number of words he uses, you still don't get what his critics are saying.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143166032429675212006-03-23T18:07:00.000-08:002006-03-23T18:07:00.000-08:00Oops, missed the last part of your post. Have to r...Oops, missed the last part of your post. Have to respond -<BR/><BR/><I>CraigS: "Phil, if you thought I was suggesting JMJ lacks passion or conviction, then you have totally misunderstood the point I was making."<BR/><BR/>Well, your exact words on this point were: "his voice doesn't *sound* passionate. I don't get the feeling that he is getting *really* worked up. But surely the gospel should stir deep emotions?"</I><BR/><BR/>Well that was my point - that you *can't* judge JMJs committment to the gospel by how he *sounds*. <BR/><BR/>And I feel that is what has been done with Wright. You don't think the doctrine is a problem, it's just the way he phrases things, the tone of his language, his wordiness.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if you have to explain a satire it is clearly a failure, so I have to accept I didn't make my point. <BR/><BR/>And I've just broken my committment to "move on" from the issue...Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143165699238414002006-03-23T18:01:00.000-08:002006-03-23T18:01:00.000-08:00Phil, I appreciate you deleting the original criti...Phil, I appreciate you deleting the original criticism. I have gotten over my initial rage. Australians don't hedge their words as much as the English. <BR/><BR/>I think we will have to agree to disagree over whether Tom Wright has been treated with Christian civility or not. <BR/><BR/>But I'm happy to let it go and move on. I guess those who are blessed by his teachings will listen to him, and those who aren't wont.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143165581701315442006-03-23T17:59:00.000-08:002006-03-23T17:59:00.000-08:00CraigS privately e-mailed me to protest that my ea...CraigS privately e-mailed me to protest that my earlier comment unfairly characterized his remarks (and used two particularly strong pejorative terms characterizing what he wrote). He points out that since I deleted his comment, people can't judge for themselves whether my assessment was fair.<BR/><BR/>On reflection, I think he makes a valid point, so I'm going to delete MY earlier comment, and just keep this caveat:<BR/><BR/><B>For future reference: <I>Deliberate personal disparagement</I> of my pastor, my church, my wife, my dog, my children, or the ministry I work for will be deemed outside the parameters of Christian civility and therefore a violation of Rule 2. Say whatever you like about me (as long as you keep your language clean), and I'll let you post it. Take <I>a cheap shot</I> at someone with whom I have a personal relationship of love and respect—whether it be John MacArthur, my dog Wrigley, or anyone in between—and I'll delete it.</B><BR/><BR/>For <I><B>PastorRod:</B></I> The reason you found my distinction "odd" is that both you and CraigS seem to have missed what the actual distinction was. He is wrong to suggest that his "parody" attack on my pastor employs the "style of attack" that has been used by others here against Wright. I <I>did</I> explain why this is true:<BR/><BR/>The criticisms of N. T. Wright in this thread and over at the BaylyBlog have been based on actual words spoken by Bishop Wright. The words were quoted, and the original source was cited, so that the context can be examined. Several <I>reasons</I> for disagreeing with the <I>content</I> of what he said were given.<BR/><BR/>That is not the same as simply calling someone "nerdy" and complaining that the tone of his voice sounds insincere or insufficiently passionate.<BR/><BR/><B>CraigS:</B> <I>"Phil, if you thought I was suggesting JMJ lacks passion or conviction, then you have totally misunderstood the point I was making."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, your exact words on this point were: <I>"his voice doesn't *sound* passionate. I don't get the feeling that he is getting *really* worked up. But surely the gospel should stir deep emotions?"</I>Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143162524748991652006-03-23T17:08:00.000-08:002006-03-23T17:08:00.000-08:00No one has ever complained that John MacArthur sou...<I>No one has ever complained that John MacArthur sounds less than passionate when he preaches.</I><BR/><BR/>Phil, if you thought I was suggesting JMJ lacks passion or conviction, then you have <I>totally</I> misunderstood the point I was making.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143162211994206072006-03-23T17:03:00.000-08:002006-03-23T17:03:00.000-08:00I agree Rod. It seems to me that a great double-st...I agree Rod. It seems to me that a great double-standard is being applied.<BR/><BR/>I made it clear that my remarks were a parody of the style of argument being employed against Wright. <BR/><BR/>Regardless, the two lines I wrote (clearly marked as satire) were far less aggressive (I thought) than what has been said on this blog about Wright.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143162015376439422006-03-23T17:00:00.000-08:002006-03-23T17:00:00.000-08:00I also mentioned (twice) that I was personally app...I also mentioned (twice) that I was personally appreciative of JMJs ministry.<BR/><BR/>But I imagine that is all clear from Phils comment.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143161945009334222006-03-23T16:59:00.000-08:002006-03-23T16:59:00.000-08:00craigs,While Phil may not have a personal relation...craigs,<BR/><BR/>While Phil may not have a personal relationship with Bishop Wright, I think there might be a few individuals who do. I find this distinction odd.<BR/><BR/>It's OK to savage this guy because we've never met him and don't know him personally.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143160724753062142006-03-23T16:38:00.000-08:002006-03-23T16:38:00.000-08:00Well, it's Phil's blog and he makes the rules.Just...Well, it's Phil's blog and he makes the rules.<BR/><BR/>Just for the record, his response seriously distorts my comment. <BR/><BR/>But you will never know as he has deleted it.<BR/><BR/>Let me be clear. I never - <BR/><BR/>- Called John Macarthur Jr "names"<BR/>- Suggested he distorted a biblical truth<BR/><BR/>What I did do was attempt to show that the style of attack being launched against Wright could be used against anyone. <BR/><BR/>I made it very clear (twice) that my comments were a satire.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143154788516614452006-03-23T14:59:00.000-08:002006-03-23T14:59:00.000-08:00Ha! I am dense! You're wry as toast, Phil. Wait - ...Ha! I am dense! You're wry as toast, Phil. Wait - that sounds wrong . . .Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143154332282438542006-03-23T14:52:00.000-08:002006-03-23T14:52:00.000-08:00Raja:No, I was referring to your use of the word "...Raja:<BR/><BR/>No, I was referring to your use of the word "dang" as an expletive, right after I deleted a post for using the non-euphemized version. I was attempting to be wry.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, you can be as snide with Jerry Wragg as he'll let you be. I figure he can defend himself.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143153556775893552006-03-23T14:39:00.000-08:002006-03-23T14:39:00.000-08:00Yikes - sorry! Just joking in the same vein as Jer...Yikes - sorry! Just joking in the same vein as Jerry! And I took Wright's prefatory comments to be about the proper words for the proper settings, none of which invalidate his construal of the Gospel given there. But again, sorry if any offense was taken - I thought my previous few comments would come off as tongue-in-cheek.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143152971000883402006-03-23T14:29:00.000-08:002006-03-23T14:29:00.000-08:00Raja—Are you deliberately testing the limits of ru...Raja—<BR/><BR/>Are you deliberately testing the limits of rule 2 with minced oaths? My advice: don't. You used up all your get-out-of-smart-aleck-jail-free tokens the first three or four times you commented on my blog, months ago.<BR/><BR/>And do I really need to dissect <I>a comment which Wright himself introduced with a disclaimer apologizing for the indefiniteness of,</I> in order to show why it's indefinite?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143152662276658472006-03-23T14:24:00.000-08:002006-03-23T14:24:00.000-08:00By the way, Jerry - it might be blasphemous to tal...By the way, Jerry - it might be blasphemous to talk about Jesus as having "skill", as this implies that Jesus had to expend effort to avoid failure. Everyone knows that as the Creator of heaven and earth with perfect power and instinctual perfection doesn't need "skill".<BR/><BR/>What are you, neo-orthodox or somethin'?!Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143152526268823162006-03-23T14:22:00.000-08:002006-03-23T14:22:00.000-08:00Jerry -Not everyone can be British!Jerry -<BR/><BR/>Not everyone can be British!Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.com