tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3977594553188411687..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: For this reasonPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85047940875381435732009-02-02T10:02:00.000-08:002009-02-02T10:02:00.000-08:00Speaking of which, I have posted a correction/apol...Speaking of which, I have posted a correction/apology at the top of the post.<BR/><BR/>And I'm closing the comments here. Please me-mail me with any further grief or graciousness.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89873044711091682312009-02-02T09:57:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:57:00.000-08:00Really?I applaud Frank's persistent and patient pr...Really?<BR/><BR/>I applaud Frank's persistent and patient provision of answers to every question and challenge that's been flung at him.<BR/><BR/>Good work, Frank!<BR/><BR/>Has JT done the same?<BR/><BR/>And while I'm opining, I think Frank's being over-gracious.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70603885950232962852009-02-02T09:43:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:43:00.000-08:00I heartily recognize and applaud Justin Taylor(JT)...I heartily recognize and applaud Justin Taylor(JT)'s perseverance.<BR/><BR/>Great work brother!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24243611608162963382009-02-02T09:39:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:39:00.000-08:00I sent Moreland your restatement. Here is his resp...I sent Moreland your restatement. Here is his response (reprinted with permission):<BR/><BR/>"You are correct. The context was politics and not ministry in general. I would have to be nuts to say the first thing in general is political engagement!! JP"<BR/><BR/>JTJThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07870180415697038018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36317833970166007592009-02-02T09:06:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:06:00.000-08:00Yep.Yep.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8263589586840438102009-02-02T09:04:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:04:00.000-08:00Frank,“I truly believe that (a) the first thing pa...Frank,<BR/><BR/><I>“I truly believe that (a) the first thing pastors should be concerned about is their flocks inhabiting the political process, and (b) the first thing that our pulpits should be used for is causing Christians to inhabit the political process. And the reason is that this is the most pressing issue for Christianity today.”</I><BR/><BR/>So just to clarify: if Moreland were to say this is not what he meant or said, you'd concede? <BR/><BR/>JTJThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07870180415697038018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51571022441495512402009-02-02T08:35:00.000-08:002009-02-02T08:35:00.000-08:00| I should probably drop| it at this point, but| a...| I should probably drop<BR/>| it at this point, but<BR/>| as I said in my initial <BR/>| comment, the "first"<BR/>| clearly refers to the<BR/>| first thing pastors should do in <BR/>| terms of addressing/rectifying this <BR/>| issue--certainly not the most <BR/>| important concern a pastor should <BR/>| have. <BR/><BR/>JT: pastors in addressing this issue <I>from the pulpit</I>. Hewitt’s question frames this as the <I>concern from the pulpit</I>.<BR/><BR/>We do not disagree on the “what”: I don’t even think we disagree on the “where” and the “when”. What we disagree on is <I>whether we should take seriously what Hewitt and Dr. Moreland have prescribed</I>. Your view, insofar as I have been able to grasp it so far, is that we should consider this as general and vague advice for pastors to take up at some time. My view is that Hewitt and Dr. Moreland think this is the most pressing homiletical topic on the preacher’s agenda -- <I>if he cares about America and evangelicalism</I>. It’s a call to action.<BR/><BR/>Both views may be false, but it seems to me that only one of them may be true, based on what is in the transcripts.<BR/><BR/>| In response to your challenge: I think <BR/>| those sorts of challenges only work <BR/>| when you're dealing with two <BR/>| plausible interpretations. I don't <BR/>| think yours is plausible--so it <BR/>| becomes akin to trying to prove a <BR/>| negative. <BR/><BR/>Not at all – although I admit that’s a nice try. I’m not asking you to prove a negative: I’m asking you to substantiate <I>any other plausible reading</I> from the transcript. Some exposition would be good.<BR/><BR/>Don’t disprove me: prove your view.<BR/><BR/>| My counter-challenge: do you really <BR/>| think that if we emailed Dr. <BR/>| Moreland, he would say, "Yes, <BR/>| criticisms aside, Frank has correctly <BR/>| understood my authorial intent: I <BR/>| truly believe that (a) the first thing <BR/>| Christians should be concerned about <BR/>| is inhabiting the political process, <BR/>| and (b) the first thing that our <BR/>| pulpits should be used for is <BR/>| inhabiting the political process." <BR/><BR/>Yes, I do. However, I think you have here misrepresented both Dr. Moreland and me because Hewitt’s question was for <I>pastors</I>, not all <I>Christians</I><BR/><BR/>I think that Dr, Moreland would affirm “I truly believe that (a) the first thing <I>pastors</I> should be concerned about is <I>their flocks</I> inhabiting the political process, and (b) the first thing that our pulpits should be used for is <I>causing Christians</I> to inhabit the political process. And the reason is that <I>this is the most pressing issue for Christianity today</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Listen: the great build-up from Hewitt and Dr. Moreland regarding the great power of government to do justice upon people made it clear what their intention was – and as I pointed out to Dr. Frank Beckwith at your blog, their view that more laws will do the trick is not really a very consistent view, let alone a very Gospel-centered view, or a very historically-consistent view.<BR/><BR/>If that build-up doesn’t influence the way you’re reading this interview, I’m not sure what can.<BR/><BR/>| And let me just clarify again: every <BR/>| other criticism you make might be <BR/>| true--but this one simply isn't. <BR/><BR/>Is too. I have given every other argument in favor of my view, so I might as well respond to this last objection.<BR/><BR/>Is not? Is too.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20709475272905755572009-02-02T07:21:00.000-08:002009-02-02T07:21:00.000-08:00Frank,I should probably drop it at this point, but...Frank,<BR/><BR/>I should probably drop it at this point, but as I said in my initial comment, the "first" clearly refers to the first thing pastors should do in terms of addressing/rectifying this issue--certainly not the most important concern a pastor should have.<BR/><BR/>In response to your challenge: I think those sorts of challenges only work when you're dealing with two plausible interpretations. I don't think yours is plausible--so it becomes akin to trying to prove a negative.<BR/><BR/>My counter-challenge: do you <I>really</I> think that if we emailed Dr. Moreland, he would say, "Yes, criticisms aside, Frank has correctly understood my authorial intent: I truly believe that (a) the first thing Christians should be concerned about is inhabiting the political process, and (b) the first thing that our pulpits should be used for is inhabiting the political process."<BR/><BR/>And let me just clarify again: every other criticism you make might be true--but this one simply isn't.<BR/><BR/>All good things must come to a close--so I'll let you have the last word.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>JTJThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07870180415697038018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22450721826861450962009-02-01T20:20:00.000-08:002009-02-01T20:20:00.000-08:00The continuing effort to reconcile the church with...The continuing effort to reconcile the church with politics grows tedious, but remains as productive as the dog chasing its tail. Should the Lord tarry another fifty years a new generation will be presented with solving that spiritual Rubic's Cube with basically the same success.<BR/><BR/>Every once in a while a mirage presents itself and excites the faith community, only to disappear with the natural cyclical nature of such things. And disappearing with that mirage is the time, effort, and finances that were given to help construct that very mirage.<BR/><BR/>Dog + tail = Dog + tailRick Fruehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05879848568892457571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53009587266230666692009-02-01T17:04:00.000-08:002009-02-01T17:04:00.000-08:00Andrew:That's a very broad-minded and humble respo...Andrew:<BR/><BR/>That's a very broad-minded and humble response, and I honor that.<BR/><BR/>I would respond to you right now, but PITTSBURG JUST SCORED AT 00:00 at the end of the fist half!<BR/><BR/>WHOOOOOOOO!<BR/><BR/>More tomorrow.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66373573212465904792009-02-01T04:30:00.000-08:002009-02-01T04:30:00.000-08:00Libbie:"Why ON EARTH would a Christian want to pre...Libbie:<BR/><BR/>"Why ON EARTH would a Christian want to pretend their own reasonings are a higher authority than the Bible, especially to an unbelieving world? Absolutely barking."<BR/><BR/>Amen. Sounds like they are trying to find a common-ground authority between the disagreeing parties. You know, "Well at least we both agree that THIS can inform our behavior". The problem is that, outside of the Word of God, there is nothing objective left but culturally-based societal norms, or pure naturalistic means (science), both of which are useless in defining absolute ethics.Tim Bushonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361674501531239434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68182962090094877562009-02-01T04:27:00.000-08:002009-02-01T04:27:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tim Bushonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361674501531239434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58806486581620197602009-01-31T23:10:00.000-08:002009-01-31T23:10:00.000-08:00HIS: Frank's whole point, I think, is that if the ...HIS: <B><I>Frank's whole point, I think, is that if the big-picture strategy for impacting culture starts with getting church members to vote; omits any reference to the gospel; and deliberately seeks to stress arguments that make no appeal to Scripture--well, that's neither "holistic" nor "evangelical."</I></B><BR/><BR/>That may or may not be Frank's point on this meta. I'm not taking sides on this issue. I think Frank's position on whether the pulpit should be used for discussion on anything "political" is well known. Why argue? <BR/><BR/>But, I think one thing is clear, JPM is not saying the first thing pulpits should be used for is to teach Christians on how to inhabit the political process.<BR/><BR/>I think there are good things to discuss about what JPM is arguing. But it seems to be completely distracted by this notion that JPM is arguing that about "first things" pulpits should be used for.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8509034938898809762009-01-31T20:39:00.000-08:002009-01-31T20:39:00.000-08:00"Holistic" is the operative word.Frank's whole poi..."Holistic" is the operative word.<BR/><BR/>Frank's whole point, I think, is that if the big-picture strategy for impacting culture starts with getting church members to vote; omits any reference to the gospel; and deliberately seeks to stress arguments that make no appeal to Scripture--well, that's neither "holistic" nor "evangelical."Habitans in Siccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666311435942322569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36863004707436864872009-01-31T20:11:00.000-08:002009-01-31T20:11:00.000-08:00Frank: snip snipThe first thing. Seriously: that's...Frank: <B><I>snip snipThe first thing. Seriously: that's the first thing the pulpits of our churches should be used for? But get this as a chaser:<BR/><BR/>snip snip Let me offer you the same golden opportunity I offered Andrew -- show me where Dr. Moreland contexted his remark to something other that what I have presented here.<BR/>snip snip</I></B>.<BR/><BR/>Frank - It does appear that the context of JPM's remarks is his concern that evangelicals have failed to develop a political philosophy that's holistic.<BR/><BR/>JPM: <B><I>Well, I think Evangelicals have failed to develop a political philosophy that’s holistic.</I></B><BR/><BR/>JPM then goes on to list his concerns. HH then asks JMP what he expects of pastors since most of them are leery of touching politics. <BR/><BR/>HH then says: <B><I>In a very practical way, what’s your recommendation to a pastor who thinks that okay, the country’s gone very far to the left, or to his lay board that thinks he needs to step up and get involved without endorsing people from the pulpit which is verboten under the tax code.</I></B> <BR/><BR/>HH then asks JPM what practical steps he would advise. And then JPM launches into the steps that he advises. The "first thing" is not the first thing that pastors should be doing on pulpits but JPM is just going through his steps that he believes pastors should do in getting people involved in the political process without endorsing a candidate.<BR/><BR/>Later in the interview, HH asks JPM on "step two?" And JPM continues. So, you're asking for a tenable alternative to what JPM is saying. <BR/><BR/>Well <BR/><BR/>(a) JPM says that evangelicals have not developed a political philosophy that is holistic. {You may agree or disagree with that} <BR/><BR/>(b)JPM has some concerns and goes into a discussion on positive and negative rights.<BR/><BR/>(c)HH asks what should pastors do since very few of them want to touch politics in the pulpit. JPM responds by saying he believes the Bible has some things to say about the state and therefore pastors should develop their theology what the Bible says about the role of the state.<BR/><BR/>(d) He then talks about a bunch of stuff on culture and the HH talks about a lot of evangelicals that don't know what to do politically and hence JPM launches into the practical steps of what pastors can do to teach their flock on what to do politically. {You probably don't believe that pastors should do much if anything at all using pulpit time on political issues, to that, <A HREF="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/Principles%20for%20Choosing%20a%20Leader.mp3" REL="nofollow">RC Sproul</A> would disagree.}<BR/><BR/>But I don't believe the context as shown above is that that the first thing pulpits in our churches should be used.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91487996287206415962009-01-31T18:31:00.000-08:002009-01-31T18:31:00.000-08:00Frank,I'm frustrated: last night I typed out anoth...Frank,<BR/><BR/>I'm frustrated: last night I typed out another response, and then after I was sure I had posted it, it vanished into the nether regions of the internet, apparently.<BR/><BR/>Probably a good thing, because it probably rambled.<BR/><BR/>I'll use numbered points this time, because it helps me thing:<BR/><BR/>1. I need to apologize. Reading back on my comments and considering the attitude I've been walking around with as I turn this conversation over in my mind, I realize that I've been prideful and arrogant, seeking to show you that you are wrong rather than actually to edify. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but my attitude has been less than, "Boy do I want to edify the church right now." So I genuinely apologize and ask your forgiveness.<BR/><BR/>2. After re-reading your detailed response to my last post, I gladly concede that Moreland is talking more directly about preaching than I allowed for, at least in the first of the two exchanges you quoted back to me, and probably primarily in the second. I skimmed the "opposite" comment to try to get to the meat, and didn't realize it until you pointed out more closely. So thanks for that- it's helpful.<BR/><BR/>3. On that note, thanks for putting in the time to interact with me in such detail. I know it takes awhile, and as another blogger, I really do appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>4. I've been too broad in my critique, so let me narrow it down to the one thing that really troubles me, which is what J.T. is also getting at: <B><I>when Dr. Moreland makes his "first thing" comment, he is not suggesting that the main thing churches/pulpits should always be used for is political, moralistic preaching. Rather, he is addressing Hewitt's specific case of a pastor who specifically wants to address the political issue. The first thing that pastor should do, says Moreland, is to get people voting.</I></B><BR/><BR/>This is simpler than you're making it. It's an issue of Hewitt asking a specific question in which he creates a specific hypothetical situation, and Moreland responds addressing that hypothetical situation. "First thing" refers to the "priority in a series of possible actions related to pastors who want to commend right wing politics without specifically endorsing a candidate from the pulpit." Again, that is what Hewitt asks the question about, and that is thus what Moreland answers.<BR/><BR/>Imagine you invite me over one day to talk. I arrive at about 11:30 a.m. and you decide that you want to have the conversation elsewhere because someone at your house is sick. So we figure lunch is coming up, and we'll go out to get some food and talk over a meal. We get in your car (thanks for driving by the way, since I did just drive all the way out to your house), and I say, "So what do you want to do?"<BR/><BR/>Then you respond, "The first thing we need to do is fill our bellies." I would know, because of that context, that you were talking about eating lunch. I would know quite certainly that you were <I>not</I> saying that above all else in life, we should care about eating.<BR/><BR/>But then imagine that J.T. somehow gets a hold of a recorded version of our conversation, cuts that piece out, and posts something with the title, "Cent is Looking to Feed Himself, not God's People." Then he lampoons you on his blog for looking to feed yourself as the main thing in life.<BR/><BR/>What he has done is taken your "first thing" comment, and made "first thing" necessarily denote "the main thing in all of life," when what you meant was, "the first in a series of afternoon activities."<BR/><BR/>This is, I think, what you have done to Moreland's comment. He is quite obviously talking about a specific issue: political theology and preaching. In real life, that specific issue would have to be carried in the church, probably from the pulpit. But just because he could be talking about the broader issue of the main goal of the church and the role of preaching within that does not mean that a discussion of every specific case has to apply so broadly.<BR/><BR/>I just don't know how to address this another way.<BR/><BR/>Hewitt asks a question. Moreland answers it. What's the question- what's that one, specific question (not the theme of the whole interview, but that one question, which by the way, comes right after a broadcasting break, so it is possible that the subject has changed at least partially) that Moreland answers? There is your context.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for all your time on this.<BR/><BR/>AndrewAndrew Farishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16500885575497425538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91803675958976572232009-01-31T16:21:00.000-08:002009-01-31T16:21:00.000-08:00JT, do you have like a "two Frank" policy?If one k...JT, do you have like a "two Frank" policy?<BR/><BR/>If one kind of "Frank" <A HREF="http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/05/beckwith-resigns-ets-membership.html" REL="nofollow">becomes Roman Catholic after making a name as an "evangelical" leader</A>, you don't say "boo," shut down any line of comments that gets too critical, put up posts about his books, and let him comment <I>without comment</I> at your own blog?<BR/><BR/>But if <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-this-reason.html" REL="nofollow">another kind of "Frank"</A> so loves the true Gospel that he complains when the Gospel isn't given first-place, you chase him down to other people's blogs to demand a retraction?<BR/><BR/>I don't get it. I think you love the Gospel, too, but that's just kind of weird.<BR/><BR/>Me, I love Franks who love the Gospel. The other kind gives me constipation.<BR/><BR/>Did Moreland ever say in that interview that preaching the Gospel was first, and that a "just" society of unbelievers was still going to Hell because they really need the Gospel, not just good manners? If he didn't say it, isn't that kind of important? Isn't that Frank's point? Don't you agree with that point? Wasn't it important that someone make that point? Aren't you glad Frank made that point?fisshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16103055803739113334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54653986426919475642009-01-31T16:19:00.000-08:002009-01-31T16:19:00.000-08:00Joe:I am always most convicted when an anonymous p...Joe:<BR/><BR/>I am always most convicted when an anonymous poster demands that I recant.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your input. I will file it under the last name of your pastor.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43676232011286489322009-01-31T16:10:00.000-08:002009-01-31T16:10:00.000-08:00JT:Let me offer you the same golden opportunity I ...JT:<BR/><BR/>Let me offer you the same golden opportunity I offered Andrew -- show me where Dr. Moreland contexted his remark to something <I>other</I> that what I have presented here.<BR/><BR/>Let me be honest: I want to be wrong about Dr. Moreland. I would prefer to apologize <I>if I knew I did him wrong</I>.<BR/><BR/>I have a double problem at this point. The first problem is that I have apparently misrepresented what Dr. Moreland said -- which is logically possible, yes? So the first problem is a possible fault of mine.<BR/><BR/>But the second problem is that <I>no one has offered a tenable alternative reading</I> of what Dr. Moreland has said.<BR/><BR/>The resolution of the second problem moves toward resolving the first. I leave it an open question: what did he mean, if not what I have here complained about? "First" when and where for pastors, Justin -- because it is not the "what" which we are unsure about.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89222037577913105662009-01-31T15:03:00.000-08:002009-01-31T15:03:00.000-08:00Habitans in Sicco:Come on, dude. Frank clearly mis...Habitans in Sicco:<BR/><BR/>Come on, dude. Frank clearly misrepresented Moreland. Frank has Moreland saying that the first thing Christians should be concerned about, and the first thing that our pulpits should be used for, is inhabiting the political process (!). Moreland said nothing of the kind, and doesn't believe that. That's all I'm saying. <BR/><BR/>We all mess up in this blogging thing--and if we do, we should fess up.<BR/><BR/>JTJThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07870180415697038018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54657147618832008602009-01-31T12:30:00.000-08:002009-01-31T12:30:00.000-08:00The full context of Moreland's remark, which Frank...The full context of Moreland's remark, which Frank <I>did</I> give, argues for Frank's interpretation; not the backward exegesis of those who have tried to soften the problems with what Moreland said. If Moreland meant something totally benign, he was anything but "clear" about it. Insisting he was clear enough doesn't actually make the statement he mande any clearer.<BR/><BR/>I.e., Moreland is the one who needs to withdraw or clarify what he said, not Frank Turk.<BR/><BR/>And I think it's grossly uncharitable to charge Frank with uncharitableness for pointing out the clear implications of Moreland's remarks.Habitans in Siccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666311435942322569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55362244370006208952009-01-31T12:22:00.000-08:002009-01-31T12:22:00.000-08:00Frank,I was a little skeptical as well until I wen...Frank,<BR/><BR/>I was a little skeptical as well until I went and read the transcript and found this gem.<BR/>---<BR/>HH: Would you recommend pastors preach from the pulpit on the necessity of registering to vote? <BR/><BR/>JPM: Oh, there’s no question about it. Absolutely. In fact, it’s a derelict of duty if a pastor does not, in a free society like ours, where we have an opportunity to be a part of promoting a just society and good, stable and social order with regard to laws and politics not to encourage from the pulpit that people become informed on these issues, vote, and so on. Absolutely.<BR/>---<BR/>Ouch! I thought the pulpit was to be used to 'preach Christ and Him Crucified'. I thought the pulpit was to be used to proclaim the glories of the Scripture. I must have missed that register to vote section of the Scripture. Our job is not to present a 'just society' but to proclaim a risen Savior. We were told that the world would get worse as time goes on and it has, why substitute the Gospel which is the 'power of God unto salvation' for some moralizing about voting. Sheesh!!!<BR/><BR/>I appreciate JP Moreland for many reasons but this interview is not one of them. <BR/><BR/>Soldier on my friend.Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01256518337951573331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10291167558940511392009-01-31T11:04:00.000-08:002009-01-31T11:04:00.000-08:00Yes, evangelical Christians should jettison that '...Yes, evangelical Christians should jettison that 'Word of God' thing. We do so much better on our own. [insert 'for crying out loud' emoticon here]<BR/><BR/> I don't care how much else is sensible in that interview, the minute I hear someone saying something like <EM>Christians need to learn how to provide independent arguments for traditional marriage that do not require premises from the Scriptures</EM>, the person has completely undermined everything else.<BR/><BR/> Why ON EARTH would a Christian want to pretend their own reasonings are a higher authority than the Bible, especially to an unbelieving world? Absolutely barking.Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14873728356115837593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57796453713105262112009-01-31T10:58:00.000-08:002009-01-31T10:58:00.000-08:00WildernessWonderer asked"You don't really mean tha...WildernessWonderer asked<BR/><BR/>"You don't really mean that. Issue: Did the Holocaust occur?<BR/>Please supply equally compelling arguments on either side. Go!"<BR/><BR/>That's not a question of morality, it's a question of historical fact. <BR/>A better question is "Should the holocaust have occurred" GO!! And, absent Scripture, an argument plausible enough to capture an entire generation of Europeans was aptly given.<BR/><BR/>"Daryl said:<BR/>"When it comes down to it, either we have made a decision based upon the Word of God, or we have made it upon our, or someone elses good idea."<BR/><BR/>Paul disagrees with you in Romans. Even Frank Turk recognized that."<BR/><BR/>Where does Paul do this? He does say that God's eternal attributes can be seen, but, absent special revelation, how is it decided that man should only sleep with his wife? Where is that determined in natural law? I offer that it just isnt'.<BR/><BR/>"And, discussions in the public square are opportunities to argue that justice be done, which can be argued from natural law with those who do not accept your premise that the Gospel is enough."<BR/><BR/>So is the role of the church, as the church, to provide justice in the public square, or to announce the gospel?<BR/>If the church successfully argues that abortion should be stopped and yet the gospel is NEVER proclaimed in so doing, has she succeeded? Has she been faithful?<BR/><BR/>I wonder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5823095717201907042009-01-31T10:20:00.000-08:002009-01-31T10:20:00.000-08:00Frank,I respect you greatly, and you may be entire...Frank,<BR/><BR/>I respect you greatly, and you may be entirely right about Hewitt. But the fact is that your riff on Moreland's use of "first" is wrong, uncharitable, and should be corrected. Sorry--but I think it's actually pretty clear.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>JTJThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07870180415697038018noreply@blogger.com