tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post114275074666393295..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Double-talk is "diabolical cruelty"Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143139047215606022006-03-23T10:37:00.000-08:002006-03-23T10:37:00.000-08:00..........I want to weigh in.......what to say, wh.............I want to weigh in.......what to say, what to say...... HI EVERYBODY!!!!!!Matthew Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09560558150386821288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143132480825137792006-03-23T08:48:00.000-08:002006-03-23T08:48:00.000-08:00Rod, you said: You (if you are married) are probab...Rod, you said: <I>You (if you are married) are probably the kind of guy who jumps down his wife’s throat every time she uses the words “always” and “never."</I><BR/><BR/>You must not read this blog much or you would know that Phil is married. We have been married for more than 27 wonderful years. It's obvious you don't know him. He is not the type of man who "jumps down his wife's throat" <I>at all.</I> <BR/><BR/>Do I need to point out how hypocritical you sound?Darlenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16126280504641160265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143070145147806572006-03-22T15:29:00.000-08:002006-03-22T15:29:00.000-08:00Steve,I know you don't see this, but the question ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I know you don't see this, but the question contained several assumptions that Wright didn't want to accept. That's why he refused to give a simple answer. He wasn't trying to play the politician.<BR/><BR/>It is like the classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" One has to unpack all the assumptions before answering the question.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143069772988981042006-03-22T15:22:00.000-08:002006-03-22T15:22:00.000-08:00Phil,1. What is an evasion of the point you made?2...Phil,<BR/><BR/>1. What is an evasion of the point you made?<BR/><BR/>2. You apparently have a different definition of ridicule than I do.<BR/><BR/>3. This remark was endorsed by you. (“David Gadbois at Mongrel Horde added some thoughts about Anglicanism in general that likewise echo my opinion exactly, almost as if he read my mind.”) It does help my point.<BR/><BR/>4. You’re the one who “made my complaint” in the first place to point out what you perceived to be hypocrisy on my part. I have addressed specific generalizations as being inaccurate. Those generalizations were made in a very different context. My hyperbole stands as a legitimate manner of communication. You (if you are married) are probably the kind of guy who jumps down his wife’s throat every time she uses the words “always” and “never.”<BR/><BR/>5. I missed a point. I didn’t brush it aside. You were the one who had to be brought back to the questions at issue.<BR/><BR/>6. I would like to know what you consider my “childish rhetoric.”<BR/><BR/>You are smart and articulate. But you are not the only person who has a defensible position. It seems to make you uncomfortable when someone engages in serious debate with you.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143068591631835882006-03-22T15:03:00.000-08:002006-03-22T15:03:00.000-08:00Rod,What about it?1. It's an evasion of the point ...Rod,<BR/><BR/>What about it?<BR/><BR/>1. It's an evasion of the point I made. <BR/><BR/>2. Most of the remarks you cited involve no "ridicule" at all, but make perfectly valid points.<BR/><BR/>3. The "church of the pointy hats" remark was quoted from a non-Reformed source, so it hardly helps your point.<BR/><BR/>4. If such generalizations are perfectly justifiable under the rubric of "hyperbole," what's your complaint in the first place?<BR/><BR/>5. You have a nasty habit of brushing aside important points you don't like and trying to substitute accusations against those whom you disagree with.<BR/><BR/>6. Please don't spam the comments section of my blog with that kind of childish rhetoric and then superciliously complain about other people's attitudes and lack of politeness.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143064663256102642006-03-22T13:57:00.000-08:002006-03-22T13:57:00.000-08:00Phil,What about the other parts of my reply to you...Phil,<BR/><BR/>What about the other parts of my reply to your charges? Especially the one about "Who ridiculed whom?"<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143064495873632532006-03-22T13:54:00.000-08:002006-03-22T13:54:00.000-08:00Phil,I did miss your point. I intended that as hyp...Phil,<BR/><BR/>I did miss your point. I intended that as hyperbole.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143064273054367512006-03-22T13:51:00.000-08:002006-03-22T13:51:00.000-08:00Pastorrod: "So how is this unfair?"If you're going...<B>Pastorrod:</B> <I>"So how is this unfair?"</I><BR/><BR/>If you're going to feign ignorance, there's not much point in pursuing it. But just in case you really missed the point, the operative part of your original assertion--the part I replied to but you danced around--was encapsulated in the phrase <I>"everyone they disagree with."</I><BR/><BR/>There are lots of people I disagree with on many issues but get along with famously. The closer our disagreement comes to the core truths of Christianity, the less passive I'm going to be about tolerating the error. It's a pretty simple rule of thumb, actually.<BR/><BR/>One thing I <I>do</I> despise and <I>don't</I> tolerate gladly is unctuous hypocrisy.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143063828902939332006-03-22T13:43:00.000-08:002006-03-22T13:43:00.000-08:00I prefer the attitude of Gordon MacDonald who said...I prefer the attitude of Gordon MacDonald who said, "The older I get the more confident I become of less." (I'm going from memory here.) His point was that his confidence in the truth was stronger but his circle of what was "essential" was smaller than when he was younger.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143062258333098132006-03-22T13:17:00.000-08:002006-03-22T13:17:00.000-08:00Years ago, as a young man fresh out of seminary, I...Years ago, as a young man fresh out of seminary, I couldn't stand John MacArthur's cocksure-sounding sermonic certainty. I turned the radio off whenever he came on the air.<BR/><BR/>Somewhere in the late eighties or early nineties, I came to love his preaching for exactly the reason I had previously despised it--he spoke as one convinced of truth. <BR/><BR/>As a pastor working in full consciousness of the reality of hell, of the five virgins who do not make it into the wedding, I value certainty more and more.<BR/><BR/>Moses "the most humble man who ever lived" never once said, "I think."<BR/><BR/>David BaylyDavid Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623286549207872834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143059133565154232006-03-22T12:25:00.000-08:002006-03-22T12:25:00.000-08:00Phil,You said, “See, that's just the kind of unfai...Phil,<BR/><BR/>You said, <B>“See, that's just the kind of unfair generalization you have elsewhere professed to deplore.”</B> It is an observation, that was also qualified. In fact, you admit that you deem it appropriate to resort to ridicule in certain circumstances. So how is this unfair?<BR/><BR/>You said, <B>“But to write off every argument you disagree with as ‘a tendency among the cock-sure Reformed camp to ridicule everyone they disagree with’ is patently dishonest.”</B> I did not write off any argument. I made an observation, one that I stand by. There is nothing dishonest about it. While this observation may not determine the truth value of the argument in question, it is a valid point. To dismiss my observation as “patently dishonest” is to avoid the issue.<BR/><BR/>You said, <B>“Who ridiculed whom here?”</B> First, I did not say that this particular thread was the only place I was referring to. You cited other threads, with approval, in your original post. Here is a collection of things said here and in those threads:<BR/><BR/><I>Humility does seem to be currently defined by 'pretending not to know what the answer is'.<BR/><BR/>I realize many of Wright's evangelical groupies find his style of studied verbal squidginess charming.<BR/><BR/>The Church of the Pointy Hats, also known as the Anglican Church (or Episcopalian Church here in the U.S.), has quite the reputation for being soft on...well, everything.<BR/><BR/>So what's the occassion for today's Anglican ridicule post? Well, one could dismiss such quirks and effemenite mannerisms as cute but harmless byproducts of English foppery.<BR/><BR/>I have drinking buddies with more conviction than these alleged ministers/bishops/fops.<BR/><BR/>UPDATE: Phil Johnson gives a hearty 'amen' here.<BR/><BR/>In this gelded age, the revelation and authority of God are soft-pedalled by emasculated clergymen who like to think of themselves not as preachers and shepherds, but intellectuals and "academics."<BR/><BR/>Anglican foppery knows no shame, except perhaps for being ashamed of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Again, I despair of these people! False shepherds and dumb dogs the lot!</I><BR/><BR/>You said, <B>“..and, I might add, your statement conflicts with your own plea for everyone just to "love" one another and simply set aside all our disagreements. Obviously, you don't really believe your own advice.”</B> I never said that, or anything remotely close to it.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143056206072162052006-03-22T11:36:00.000-08:002006-03-22T11:36:00.000-08:00PastorRod: "I notice a tendency among the cock-sur...<B>PastorRod:</B> <I>"I notice a tendency among the cock-sure Reformed camp to ridicule everyone they disagree with."</I><BR/><BR/>See, that's just the kind of unfair generalization <B>you</B> have elsewhere professed to deplore.<BR/><BR/>I have repeatedly appealed for careful distinctions to be made between essential doctrines and secondary or tertiary issues. Cherck it out: you won't find me arguing much at all about secondary matters such as millennial views, paedobaptism, or supralapsarian—even though I hold strong opinions on those issues.<BR/><BR/>Where I tend to get feisty is when someone attacks the doctrine of justification by faith, some fundamental tenet of Trinitarian theology, or the coherence of truth itself. I will occasionally resort to satire or sopme other form of <I>reductio</I> to make the point, and (as I have explained elsewhere) I believe there is clear biblical warrant for that. <BR/><BR/>But to write off every argument you disagree with as "a tendency among the cock-sure Reformed camp to ridicule everyone they disagree with" is patently dishonest. Who ridiculed whom here?<BR/><BR/>..and, I might add, your statement conflicts with your own plea for everyone just to "love" one another and simply set aside all our disagreements. Obviously, you don't <I>really</I> believe your own advice.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143055803012358892006-03-22T11:30:00.000-08:002006-03-22T11:30:00.000-08:00Rod,Are you sure you know what "cock-sure" means a...Rod,<BR/><BR/>Are you sure you know what "cock-sure" means and if so how can you be sure?<BR/><BR/>Just wondering out loud...Paul Lameyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586488041794193370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143052172986534012006-03-22T10:29:00.000-08:002006-03-22T10:29:00.000-08:00I notice a tendency among the cock-sure Reformed c...I notice a tendency among the cock-sure Reformed camp to ridicule everyone they disagree with. I ask this question: Who demonstrates a Christlike attitude more clearly, the aforementioned individuals or Bishop Wright?<BR/><BR/>Even if the charges against Wright were correct (which they are not), the manner in which they are made is inappropriate and embarrassing to the Kingdom of God.<BR/><BR/>RodPastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143045113348034712006-03-22T08:31:00.000-08:002006-03-22T08:31:00.000-08:00Raja's blog site says he is retiring...Personally ...Raja's blog site says he is retiring...<BR/><BR/>Personally i can't see RAJA staying away from the blogosphere. He's dedicated too many hours of sweat and tears to just walk away for good. <BR/><BR/>Air Jordan, Roger Clemens, Super Mario ALL retired only to find themselves needing to come back.<BR/><BR/>If Raja does return i hope he comes back like Clemens did(older, wiser, more mature). :)<BR/><BR/>On a serious note, i've really enjoyed the interaction from everyone. N.T. Wright is a hard guy to fully understand. This blog site has helped clarify things in my own mind.<BR/><BR/>THANKS-Caleb Kolstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430229005942296570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143044117148315502006-03-22T08:15:00.000-08:002006-03-22T08:15:00.000-08:00There once was a Pyro named PhilHe made the Blue R...There once was a Pyro named Phil<BR/>He made the Blue Raja squeal<BR/>But Blue wielded his forks<BR/>And said, “Wright’s not such a dork<BR/>He (Wright) knows just how I feel.”Paul Lameyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586488041794193370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143043015257373412006-03-22T07:56:00.000-08:002006-03-22T07:56:00.000-08:00To clarify:Blue Raja is not Brad Arnold, but one o...To clarify:<BR/><BR/>Blue Raja is not Brad Arnold, but one of Brad's fellow elders at Nampa Bible Church, and a fellow graduate of TMS.<BR/><BR/>Raja was not the target of my comment questioning the fitness for ministry of someone who prostitutes the clarity of the gospel and purposely employs weasel-words instead of declaring revealed truth from God as <I>truth.</I> That was my response to NT Wright's own self-characterization.<BR/><BR/>Raja apparently took that as a direct challenge to his own fitness to hold office in the church. That was not my intent. If it provokes him or others to self-examination with regard to the unduly high deference they are willing to give to double-talk ("polite academic discourse"), fine. I think such self-examination is needed all around.<BR/><BR/>But for the record, Raja himself was not the target of that statement. Until I looked it up this morning to see what his role is at his church, I was not even certain that he was an elder.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143042301479911692006-03-22T07:45:00.000-08:002006-03-22T07:45:00.000-08:00oops. Typo.I meant to say "TOO-shay". Sorry.oops. Typo.<BR/><BR/>I meant to say "TOO-shay". Sorry.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143041344659838422006-03-22T07:29:00.000-08:002006-03-22T07:29:00.000-08:00tooche, raj. :-)I'm gad in the heat of bloggle you...tooche, raj. :-)<BR/><BR/>I'm gad in the heat of bloggle you don't lose your sense of humor.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143037229866479602006-03-22T06:20:00.000-08:002006-03-22T06:20:00.000-08:00RAJA,The blog world was too peaceful when you went...RAJA,<BR/><BR/>The blog world was too peaceful when you went on your sabbatical. Thanks for keeping us "fundamentalists" honest. I imagine you would consider yourself above all else biblical (perhaps also post-conservative and in some ways post-modern). <BR/><BR/>Of course we are not "culture fundamentalists" as Dr. Farnell so aptly critizes.<BR/><BR/>I think Phil and Tim are on track here.<BR/><BR/>None the less this is a helpful "conversation."Caleb Kolstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430229005942296570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143033086568728502006-03-22T05:11:00.000-08:002006-03-22T05:11:00.000-08:00Before the beatings begin, I should point out that...Before the beatings begin, I should point out that:<BR/><BR/>1) Wright, like most sinners, isn't fault free in everything he's spoken or done<BR/><BR/>2) The insinuations about Wright's "abandonment" or "equivocating" on the Gospel which generated my comments have never been answered - he summarized the Gospel in terms of God's authority as Creator, Jesus' substitutionary death, the resurrection and Lordship of Christ, the need for repentance and faith because of our sin and the need for obedience from a heart of gratitutde.<BR/><BR/>3) The point about the hypocrisy of using academic scholarship in the study (with all its "insipid" tones and bland historical, grammatical and theoretical descriptions) while piously condemning it in the public square was never addressed (this was my only point about "context" - that not everything written about the Bible should be exhortative or expository)<BR/><BR/>4) The point about how swaths of evangelical scholars (even a few Anglican ones!) who engage in historical description of exactly the same tone as that of Wright's (condemned in Bayly's article) are somehow accepted (or even celebrated in some cases) in various commentaries and study tools, but somehow deplorable in Wright's own work was never addressed. Refer to the Master's Seminary's list of books for the expositor's library.<BR/><BR/>5) The responses instead characterize me as a postmodern enemy of the truth who possibly has prostituted himself for academic respectability and is thus not fit for the office of elder. Ouch. That one hurt.<BR/><BR/>Okay - now let the flogging begin! I'll probably be absent for it, though. Let me own up to being a sissy and admit that I sometimes get my feelings hurt around here!Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143031692129937902006-03-22T04:48:00.000-08:002006-03-22T04:48:00.000-08:00Frank,Buy a dictionary!Frank,<BR/><BR/>Buy a <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0740751476/sr=8-2/qid=1143031560/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4550451-6394458?%5Fencoding=UTF8" REL="nofollow">dictionary</A>!Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143029168978712532006-03-22T04:06:00.000-08:002006-03-22T04:06:00.000-08:00I wanted to note that the desiderata of any partic...I wanted to note that the desiderata of any particular pericope in this thread leaves itself open to the pitfalls of pluriform interpretation, as it were.<BR/><BR/>... huh? ... wha? ... I dozed off for a second, and I was dreaming that I was Hank Azaria in a turban ... the guy in the movie with the forks ... what's his name -- with the phony Empire accent ...FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143022398974145502006-03-22T02:13:00.000-08:002006-03-22T02:13:00.000-08:00Are we voting now? If so, I'm with the blueraja bu...Are we voting now? If so, I'm with the blueraja but I sure enjoyed the debates.rickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761115460598252675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1143006687761070882006-03-21T21:51:00.000-08:002006-03-21T21:51:00.000-08:00Phil said: Any minister who desires to be recogniz...Phil said: <B>Any minister who desires to be recognized and revered in academia as <I>that kind of scholar</I> has prostituted his office and abandoned the real calling of an elder.</B><BR/><BR/>Amen!Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.com