tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post114596562896362232..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Righting (and writing) Wright's wrongs: reflections as the dust settlesPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56631761203833611562008-05-20T16:06:00.000-07:002008-05-20T16:06:00.000-07:00Dan, I Praise God for your insight!stand firm, don...Dan, I Praise God for your insight!<BR/>stand firm, don't be swayed.HKratzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08641755736705450935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18352540103416915632008-01-30T20:10:00.000-08:002008-01-30T20:10:00.000-08:00Dan, thanks for your analysis of this. This issue...Dan, thanks for your analysis of this. This issue has been a struggle for me with friends and leaders aligned with Wright. In a few interactions, I've heard Wright's comments here defended by the following: <BR/>"That reporter tricked Wright... He tried to get him to deny his friend." <BR/>"No one else has a relationship with Borg!" <BR/>"Wright goes on to affirm the bodily resurrection in that same article!"<BR/>"Wright doesn't have evangelical friends!"<BR/>And asking if these reasons satisfied, I was told 'yes.' I don't presume to know the interview or how the reporter framed or rephrased statements, but the defense that, "that reporter tricked him..." puts forth a philosophy where, "relationships trump truth." This encourages me to read Wright and other contemporary and traditional scholars with a grain (and sometimes heaping pile of) salt, and to go back to the Word every time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18077829134186530556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146247045748223352006-04-28T10:57:00.000-07:002006-04-28T10:57:00.000-07:00john h: I am not responsible for the comments off...john h: I am not responsible for the comments offered by others. If you take issue with the comments offered by others, please respond to those specific comments.<BR/><BR/>My comments on this thread and the previous, related one have consistently made the point that the idea offered for consideration should be separate and distinct from the person offering the idea for consideration.<BR/><BR/>I have made this point several times because too often these two items - the person N.T. Wright and the idea he placed in the public square - have been mixed together. If someone wants to evaluate the person N.T. Wright, then fine, let them, but in doing so evaluate N.T. Wright's entire body of work. In contrast, if someone wants to evaluate a specific idea that N.T. Wright has offered for consideration, do so using the same objective standard of truth applied to all ideas. Don't alter this standard because it was N.T. Wright who offered the specific idea for consideration.<BR/><BR/>If you want to make inferences about the overall discussion, go ahead and make those inferences, but please don't do so by mischaracterizing the clear content of my comments.<BR/><BR/>You properly jumped on craig - accusing him of slander - for his unwarranted inference about people being involved in the occult because of zodiac information automatically provided in their blogger profiles. Yet, you make similar unwarranted inferences about the clear content of my comment.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146213055679110552006-04-28T01:30:00.000-07:002006-04-28T01:30:00.000-07:00Farmboy: if this discussion really were only conce...Farmboy: if this discussion really were only concerned with a cool appraisal of a given proposition, with all participants indifferent to who uttered it, then it wouldn't have reached 300+ comments over the two threads. All the traction in this discussion has come from the question, "What does this tell us about NT Wright?" <BR/><BR/>To put it another way, these discussions have not been about evaluating the particular proposition, "Marcus Borg can be regarded as a Christian even though he doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection", but about evaluating the <I>person</I> who made that statement.<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone on these threads is seriously arguing with your statement that:<BR/><BR/><I>[Wright's] present statement that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. It does not correspond to the objective standard of truth.</I><BR/><BR/>Nor that, in reaching that conclusion, that "it is irrelevant that the person has a history of stating that 2 + 2 = 4".<BR/><BR/>The question is what <I>inference</I> is drawn from this. I think my own analogy captures more closely what has been argued in this discussion - namely, the inference that Wright's comments show that (contrary to almost every other public statement he has made) he does not <I>really</I> believe the resurrection <I>really</I> matters. That is an inference that <I>can</I> be drawn from his words, but I do not think that inference is correct.John Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074559601919298190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146170280735574202006-04-27T13:38:00.000-07:002006-04-27T13:38:00.000-07:00john h, why do you want to make this an issue abou...john h, why do you want to make this an issue about the person N.T. Wright? In relative terms, I don't care about N.T. Wright. I am evaluating a statement he placed in the public square, but I would evaluate the statment just the same if it had been placed in the public square by anyone else. It's ideas and the truth of those ideas that matter. Relatively speaking, N.T. Wright, you, me, and the rest of the world's population matter significantly less.<BR/><BR/>As part of a comment I offered the following:<BR/><BR/>In evaluating this most recent statement it is irrelevant that the person has a history of stating that 2 + 2 = 4. His present statement that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. It does not correspond to the objective standard of truth.<BR/><BR/>You paraphrase the above as follows:<BR/><BR/>"Therefore, the only rational conclusion we can draw from this is that his entire previous published output can be set aside, because this single remark shows he doesn't really believe it matters what 2 + 2 adds up to."<BR/><BR/>Oh, puh-leeze.<BR/><BR/>Note that my comment very carefully focuses exclusively on the content of the statement. Your paraphrase turns this comment on content into an alleged comment on the person offering the comment. I offered no such commentary on Mr. Wright.<BR/><BR/>The object of my comment was "His present statement...is wrong." The object of your paraphrase is "he doesn't really believe." These are entirely different objects.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146141518581028552006-04-27T05:38:00.000-07:002006-04-27T05:38:00.000-07:00ya know, when you sign up for blospot, and input y...ya know, when you sign up for blospot, and input your birthday, you are STUCK with the display of the idiotic astrological sign and the fact that you were born in the year of the monkey or gorilla or whatever...4givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604421713579961024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146131936278495732006-04-27T02:58:00.000-07:002006-04-27T02:58:00.000-07:00In previous ventures into the public square a pers...<I>In previous ventures into the public square a person has consistently stated that 2 + 2 = 4. This person has done so in excess of 100 times. However, recently, this same person ventured into the public square to state that 2 + 2 = 5. In evaluating this most recent statement it is irrelevant that the person has a history of stating that 2 + 2 = 4. His present statement that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. It does not correspond to the objective standard of truth.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it's more a case of saying: "This person has said, repeatedly and at length, that 2 + 2 = 4, in sermons, weighty academic volumes, popular writings, everything. He has made it clear he regards 2 + 2 = 4 as foundational to true numeracy. However, in a newspaper interview, he declined to condemn as innumerate a friend who believes that 2 + 2 = 5. <BR/><BR/>"Therefore, the only rational conclusion we can draw from this is that his entire previous published output can be set aside, because this single remark shows he doesn't <I>really</I> believe it matters what 2 + 2 adds up to."<BR/><BR/>Oh, puh-<I>leeze</I>.John Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074559601919298190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146100491635869032006-04-26T18:14:00.000-07:002006-04-26T18:14:00.000-07:00dan notes "a belief in a resurrection experience t...dan notes "a belief in a resurrection experience that is not connected with the tomb, but is nonetheless something God caused to happen as oppsoed to some group delusion."<BR/><BR/>Experience is inherently personal and subjective. Belief is also inherently personal and subjective. Given this, it doesn't make sense to talk of a personal, subjective belief in a personal, subjective experience. <BR/><BR/>As a person I can experience an objective, verifiable event such as an earthquake. Other people can experience the same objective, verifiable event, with each person having a different experience of the same objective, verifiable event.<BR/><BR/>In the same way, as a person I can believe that an objective, verifiable event such as an earthquake took place. (The belief is subjective and personal. The object of that belief is not.) Other people can believe that the same objective, verifiable event took place. Ideally, the decision that each person makes to believe that an event has in fact taken place is based on the weight of the objective, verifiable evidence indicating that the event did in fact take place.<BR/><BR/>The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an objective, verifiable event; it is not a personal, subjective experience. The objective, verifiable evidence indicates that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did in fact take place. A key part of this evidence is a tomb that once held a body but is now empty. The objective, verifiable event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be understood without reference to the tomb that once held Jesus' body.<BR/><BR/>People that believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ hold a belief that is consistent with the evidence. People that believe otherwise hold a belief that is not consistent with the evidence.<BR/><BR/>People can choose to either believe or not believe that Jesus Christ was in fact raised from the dead. This is a straightforward choice. Why would anyone want to introduce the third option of "a belief in a resurrection experience that is not connected with the tomb, but is nonetheless something God caused to happen as oppsoed to some group delusion"? <BR/><BR/>Such an option does grave violence to the accepted understanding of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one is forced to believe (as if this were possible) that Jesus Christ was in fact raised from the dead. If a person chooses to believe that Jesus Christ was not in fact raised from the dead, he/she is free to do so. But, why muddy the waters with this third option?farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146095562271596062006-04-26T16:52:00.000-07:002006-04-26T16:52:00.000-07:00Right in the ten-ring, Don.Your Mormon visitors lo...Right in the ten-ring, Don.<BR/><BR/>Your Mormon visitors love "Jesus."<BR/><BR/>Borg loves "Jesus."<BR/><BR/>"Jesus" did not rise bodily from the dead.<BR/><BR/>"Jesus" doesn't save.<BR/><BR/>Jesus alone does.<BR/><BR/>=> 2 Corinthians 11:4 <=DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146093795572730112006-04-26T16:23:00.000-07:002006-04-26T16:23:00.000-07:00I'd like to share an experience i had, and I'll co...I'd like to share an experience i had, and I'll compress it as much as I can.<BR/><BR/>Two LDS's (Mormons) stopped by my house and we sat on the porch for a long while discussing the Lord, and their religion.<BR/>They were very fine young men. I enjoyed their company. They said they loved Jesus, and wanted to follow him, and do all they could for him.<BR/>We spoke on all the various aspects of salvation; grace, works, etc. Covered every base.<BR/>At one point this young man was actually inspiring, I must say. This is all true.<BR/>As I burst their theological bubble with my explanaton of God's grace, and by denouncing Joseph Smith as a false prophet, they realized it was time to leave. They did ask me to pray and ask God to show me, if Joseph Smith wasn't a true prophet from God.<BR/>I said sure. But I already know the answer. I pray that the Lord would reveal His truth to you both. <BR/>They looked like Christians, but they were not.<BR/>I hope this isn't too far from what we are trying to discuss here.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146082508764785782006-04-26T13:15:00.000-07:002006-04-26T13:15:00.000-07:00So there's your experience, Dan, and there's your ...So there's your experience, Dan, and there's your opinion about what the watershed doctrine is, and there's what Paul says.<BR/><BR/>What do you make of what Paul says?<BR/><BR/>Your opinion about the horse is interesting, though unaccompanied by anything with any bearing on the discussion at hand.<BR/><BR/>Dan (yes "Dan," but not that Dan)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146080782616835212006-04-26T12:46:00.000-07:002006-04-26T12:46:00.000-07:00In previous ventures into the public square a pers...In previous ventures into the public square a person has consistently stated that 2 + 2 = 4. This person has done so in excess of 100 times. However, recently, this same person ventured into the public square to state that 2 + 2 = 5. In evaluating this most recent statement it is irrelevant that the person has a history of stating that 2 + 2 = 4. His present statement that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. It does not correspond to the objective standard of truth.<BR/><BR/>This is a simple, basic point, one that I hope that students and faculty at all reputable educational institutions would be able to grasp. This is the point I made regarding Mr. Wright's recent comments recorded in an Australian newspaper.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, Mr. Wright's recent comment that a person can be a Christian and fail to believe that Christ was raised from the dead is wrong (just as sure as 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong), as this statement does not correspond to the objective standard of truth revealed in 1 Corinthians 15.<BR/><BR/>This is not a controversial statement. This statement is not an evaluation of Mr. Wright. It is an evaluation of a statement that Mr. Wright happened to place in the public square. I don't know Mr. Wright, and I don't particularly care to know Mr. Wright. However, I don't need knowledge of Mr. Wright to evaluate a statement that he places in the public square.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146080126493733442006-04-26T12:35:00.000-07:002006-04-26T12:35:00.000-07:00Michael, you should have been a circus knife-thro...<B>Michael</B>, you should have been a circus knife-thrower. So many throws, every one a clean miss.<BR/><BR/><B>Farmboy</B> -- correct. The focus is on what Wright said.<BR/><BR/><B>Disclaimer</B>: I have promised monies to no one for commenting in ways that illustrate the criticisms I made in this post. It's all <I>strictly voluntary!</I>DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146079762121536942006-04-26T12:29:00.000-07:002006-04-26T12:29:00.000-07:00"Please write a research project for any serious u..."Please write a research project for any serious university using this method. Take a statement made in a newspaper interview and procede to zero out all previous books, articles and lectures. Then procede using the conclusion that the only relevant statement to your paper is the recent informal interview question. Should your supervisor question this method, be sure and call him an academic incompetent.<BR/><BR/>Grad students all over the world will welcome this development. Just think of the short bibliographies and reduced reading loads required to understand a subject! "<BR/><BR/>In the case above neither of the parties were seeking to "write a research paper". The concern was about an extrememly public, self proclaimed evangelical, getting mush-mouthed about belief in the Risen Lord and the failure to call him to the carpet because he does "write a research paper" or scores of books for that matter.ZFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411805753933625450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146078507134651542006-04-26T12:08:00.000-07:002006-04-26T12:08:00.000-07:00>Given that we are evaluating ideas that have been...>Given that we are evaluating ideas that have been placed in the public square, not the persons placing those ideas there, the previous ideas that a person may have offered for consideration are irrelevant to the evaluation of ideas presently being considered.<BR/><BR/>Please write a research project for any serious university using this method. Take a statement made in a newspaper interview and procede to zero out all previous books, articles and lectures. Then procede using the conclusion that the only relevant statement to your paper is the recent informal interview question. Should your supervisor question this method, be sure and call him an academic incompetent.<BR/><BR/>Grad students all over the world will welcome this development. Just think of the short bibliographies and reduced reading loads required to understand a subject!Michael Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01341176614241094480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146077846809369092006-04-26T11:57:00.000-07:002006-04-26T11:57:00.000-07:00sven offers the following: "Secondly, I also noti...sven offers the following: "Secondly, I also notice that you haven't bothered to refer to or cite any of the public lectures that Wright gave last year in which he also refuted Borg's views on the resurrection and explicitly condemned them as being unchristian."<BR/><BR/>Implicit in this comment is the notion that because of ideas that Mr. Wright has previously offered for consideration in the public square we should alter our evaluation of the ideas Mr. Wright offers for consideration in the interview in an Australian newspaper.<BR/><BR/>Given that we are evaluating ideas that have been placed in the public square, not the persons placing those ideas there, the previous ideas that a person may have offered for consideration are irrelevant to the evaluation of ideas presently being considered.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146076938479162332006-04-26T11:42:00.000-07:002006-04-26T11:42:00.000-07:00dr t,When I use the word Christian, my meaning wou...dr t,<BR/><BR/>When I use the word Christian, my meaning would be born-again Christian. I usually leave the born-again phrase off, when I am talking amoungst the Church, assuming those who are conversing with me will understand what I mean by the word Christian. <BR/><BR/>Surely there are always those in the Church who will be false-Chistains. The Lord said there would be tares in the Wheatfield of the kingdom of God: The visible Church covering the invisible Church.<BR/><BR/>Just a couple thoughts that hit me as I read through your thoughts.<BR/>Also:<BR/>I try to say what I mean, and mean what I say. Sometimes, however, I am quite crude in trying to make my meaning clear, but I shall continue to endeavor to always be as crystal clear as possible. And by the grace of our Lord I will grow in my communication skills.<BR/><BR/>I love the way Dan writes these excellent posts. He is a fine teacher of the Word, and he gives us a handle to grasp.<BR/>Thanks Dan. You're feeding the flock.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146075647233281982006-04-26T11:20:00.000-07:002006-04-26T11:20:00.000-07:00So, just to be clear, Josh, and to try to stick to...So, just to be clear, <B>Josh</B>, and to try to stick to the point, you're saying that Wright's entire statement about Borg, as quoted, is indefensible and inexcusable?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146072728507065482006-04-26T10:32:00.000-07:002006-04-26T10:32:00.000-07:00You know, it seems like people around here make a ...You know, it seems like people around here make a career out of misinterpretation. You want so much for not-you to be bad guys that you'll misinterpret everything that not-you has said. <BR/><BR/>Example: on friendship, no one said "NT Wright is friends with Borg, so it's OK." I and many others simply pointed out that this is a common error for Christians to make with their friends. Read that again. Commone ERROR. That means it's NOT RIGHT. But it's COMMON. It's something that I'm positive many of us have done, which is why I find the extremely judgmental attitude to be simply pharisaical. Wright has committed the same sin that many of us might have made if we were in his shoes (IOW, there are lots of Christians, doubtlessly some among the commenters here, who have made mental excuses for their unbelieving friends before). That doesn't mean it's OK or not wrong, but it doesn't mean that gleefully judging his life and faith is our place. <BR/><BR/>If John Piper had said that he didn't think Greg Boyd was going to hell, I doubt there would be such a storm of bitter rhetoric.Fearsome Piratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12171985273546955313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146071683598387602006-04-26T10:14:00.000-07:002006-04-26T10:14:00.000-07:00There is a quite simple means of avoiding the appe...There is a quite simple means of avoiding the appearance of astrological evil on one's blogger profile. One simply needs to omit one's birthdate.<BR/><BR/>I'm so glad that <B>I</B> discovered that virtue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406297844473478200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146066223150067322006-04-26T08:43:00.000-07:002006-04-26T08:43:00.000-07:00DanIf the Bible is definitive as to Christian fait...Dan<BR/><BR/>If the Bible is definitive as to Christian faith -- which should be a "duh" -- then belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ is essential to Christian faith (Romans 10:9).<BR/><BR/>If you did not believe in the bodily resurrection, then, you were not a Christian, Biblically defined. If you have another authority for what is and is not definitional to Christian faith, you're in a different Weltanschauung.<BR/><BR/>The notion that it is more charitable to leave folks in damning error is directly addressed in the post to which these are supposed to be comments.<BR/><BR/>Did you read it?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146065949044554612006-04-26T08:39:00.000-07:002006-04-26T08:39:00.000-07:00"Dr. Thomas" -- I don't fault you for not reading ...<B>"Dr. Thomas"</B> -- I don't fault you for not reading the comments. I do fault you for evidently not reading the post.<BR/><BR/>Commenting is not required. <I>Reading</I> what you are commenting on is strongly encouraged, <I>if</I> you are going to reply.<BR/><BR/>What you said has been answered again and again -- and yet again, in this post. <I>Please</I> stop repeating yourself as if it hasn't.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>The only new thing I see is you quoting Wright that he "would hope" that he would stop calling himself a Christian if he came to reject Christ's deity.<BR/><BR/>Yet <B>in the article we are supposed to be discussing</B> he is "quite sure" that resurrection-rejecters like Marcus Borg is a Christian.<BR/><BR/>Does Marcus Borg affirm the deity of Christ?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146061463545961592006-04-26T07:24:00.000-07:002006-04-26T07:24:00.000-07:00Hey Rich,I think dr thomas's other "real" name mig...Hey Rich,<BR/><BR/>I think dr thomas's other "real" name might rhyme with “glue wa jah” but that’s just a guess. I can’t believe folks keep falling for it. However you forget that the real Dr. Robert Thomas was fairly witty when he wanted to be. I especially liked how he referred to himself by using the editorial “we” (“We will have to disagree with Mr.________ for we do not find his perspective supported by the text of Scripture”).Paul Lameyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586488041794193370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146059154054773002006-04-26T06:45:00.000-07:002006-04-26T06:45:00.000-07:00Sven -- I assume that you've never read "The Meani...<B>Sven</B> -- <I>I assume that you've never read "The Meaning of Jesus"...</I> blah blah blah.<BR/><BR/>I assume you've never read the post you're responding <I>past</I>, nor the original to which it refers, nor the comments on that post.<BR/><BR/>If you ever get around to doing that, feel free to say something <B>about the incident and statement under discussion</B>.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1146058155069169532006-04-26T06:29:00.000-07:002006-04-26T06:29:00.000-07:00[cross-posted with the fella above this, whose poi...[cross-posted with the fella above this, whose points ought to be duly noted]<BR/><BR/><B>eek</B> asked: <I>"BUT... I'm wondering has he ever stated that its an ESSENTIAL and FUNDAMENTAL doctrine to the Christian Faith? Because defending it as an academic exercise is one thing... proclaiming it as essential to the faith is quite another. And without the later you are simply spinning your wheels."</I><BR/><BR/>Not in those exact terms, I'll warrant. I remember something forceful coming from his pen in this regard, but off the top of my head, these two quotes get at your answer a bit:<BR/><BR/>1) <I>"Christian faith is thus, for Paul, irrevocably resurrection shaped. Like Abraham's faith, it is by no means simply a general religious awareness or trust in a remote or distant supernatural being, but gains its form, as well as its content, from the revelation of God's covenant faithfulness in the events concerning Jesus" (Wright,</I> Romans<I>, 502).</I> <BR/><BR/>2) <I>"Paul then explains this [how when faith happens it leads to salvation] with a remarkable statement, one of the clearest in all his writings, of what precisely Christian faith consists of. It is not, for him, a vague religious awareness, a general sense of the presence of a benevolent deity. It is the confession of Jesus as Lord and the belief that God raised him from the dead. …Jesus' resurrection was, for Paul, the demonstration that he really was the Meissiah; his belief in Jesus as the turning-point of Jewish and world history, the bearer of God's purpose, the climax of the story of God's covenant, is unthinkable without it. …Belief in Jesus' resurrection is thus not an arbitrary dogmatic test, a demonstration that one is prepared to believe something ridiculous on someone else's supposed divine authority. Genuine heart-level belief can only come about, Paul believed, through the action of the Spirit in the gospel. This faith is the sure sign that the gospel has done its work" (Wright,</I> Romans<I>, 664).</I> <BR/><BR/>Definitely foundational; sounds essential too. I really <I>have</I> gotten a lot out of Wright's books — but good grief, what was he <I>thinking</I>?!" <BR/><BR/>(p.s. Happy to oblige, Mr. Gumm. The trick is to not take oneself <I>too</I> seriously. Methinks you've caught on.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.com