tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115505313916554988..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Book review: Reinventing Jesus, by three guys with long namesPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155325425177337512006-08-11T12:43:00.000-07:002006-08-11T12:43:00.000-07:00Brad and Carrie:Will any one be saved in the futur...<I>Brad and Carrie:<BR/>Will any one be saved in the future if the inerrancy of scripture is no longer believed? </I><BR/><BR/>Actually Tom, my comment was meant for Brad (I disagreed with his comment). I get a bit tired of the grace police and their citations. <BR/><BR/>Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. I think the inerrancy of scripture is more than worthy of a little debate.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155321613010169902006-08-11T11:40:00.000-07:002006-08-11T11:40:00.000-07:00Some folks here will be interested to know that Da...Some folks here will be interested to know that Dan Wallace has weighed in on the controversy surrounding his bibliology. <BR/><BR/>His article entitled “My Take on Inerrancy” can be found here: <BR/><BR/>www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4200J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155238132473465602006-08-10T12:28:00.000-07:002006-08-10T12:28:00.000-07:00I hope there wasn't anyone drifting by the blog to...<I>I hope there wasn't anyone drifting by the blog today who needed saved.</I><BR/><BR/>If they do, hopefully they won't get hit by a stray stone either.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155228274874383602006-08-10T09:44:00.000-07:002006-08-10T09:44:00.000-07:00Dan:Good review. I've been looking for a book lik...Dan:<BR/><BR/>Good review. I've been looking for a book like this.<BR/><BR/>Re.the meta: It's such an inspiration to see men of God in loving communion. I hope there wasn't anyone drifting by the blog today who needed saved.<BR/><BR/>Brad the lesserBradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742294754524104305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155224747984366132006-08-10T08:45:00.000-07:002006-08-10T08:45:00.000-07:00This illustrates a concern I have had for some tim...This illustrates a concern I have had for some time in connection with the Emergent Church debate. While I enjoyed "Reinventing Jesus," it is clear that Wallace's other writings and statements have raised concerns as to how he stands on inerrancy and other key issues. It is right to raise those concerns. <BR/><BR/>In the EC, you hear the frequent (and tiresome) refrain that you must dialogue privately with each EC author/spokesman/teacher before commenting publically on their theology. <BR/><BR/>Pure bunkum. Publically disseminated error requires publically disseminated correction. It is not a situation where Matthew 18 applies. When someone writes or says something in a public forum that causes question or controversy, it is the responsibility of the one who said it to come out and clarify (or correct) matters. If they let their writings or statements stand without clarification or correction, then they are fair game. <BR/><BR/>"Reinventing Jesus" is a commendable book. However, those raising concerns about Wallace's position on inerrancy are doing the church a service. Remember the example of the Bereans.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155221627687703132006-08-10T07:53:00.000-07:002006-08-10T07:53:00.000-07:00J. Ed: "As I’ve urged you twice before, Phil, cont...<B>J. Ed:</B> <I>"As I’ve urged you twice before, Phil, contact Dan if you so strongly desire a response on specific statements in his writings. He’s easy to find and engage, and original sources are always to be preferred."</I><BR/><BR/>Let me make my position clear again: I'm not asking for a personal "response on specific statements in his writings." I'm simply trying to make the point with <I>you</I> that the questions that were raised here are honest and legitimate concerns. Getting angry that the questions came up in the first place is not, technically, an answer to the questions.<BR/><BR/>Dan Wallace didn't express his opinions on inerrancy and inspiration privately; it hardly seems fair to demand that all questions or criticisms about what he has published on the front page of the Dallas Seminary website or delivered at an ETS meeting should be brought to him privately.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155192945362107892006-08-09T23:55:00.000-07:002006-08-09T23:55:00.000-07:00Phil,I wasn’t suggesting that you (or anyone else ...Phil,<BR/><BR/>I wasn’t suggesting that you (or anyone else here, for that matter) have specifically taken issue with <I>Reinventing Jesus</I>. The point I was trying to make is that <I>that’s</I> the only discussion, if actually commenced, I’m willing to hang around for. After all, if Dan Wallace will truly lead people to a deficient view of the Gospels, as Paul claimed, then it follows that you should expect to find evidence of that in <I>Reinventing Jesus</I>. I’ve addressed my concern regarding potential misperceptions about the book as a result of discussions here, and I’ve said my piece on the way people here tend to go about business (which, by the way, is hardly justified in mature believers simply because the general populace of the Internet acts the same way). <BR/><BR/>As I’ve urged you twice before, Phil, contact Dan if you so strongly desire a response on specific statements in his writings. He’s easy to find and engage, and original sources are always to be preferred. <BR/><BR/>If anyone wants to contact me for any reason, I can be reached through the website in my profile.J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155187888462276572006-08-09T22:31:00.000-07:002006-08-09T22:31:00.000-07:00J. Ed: "If you find problems with Reinventing Jesu...<B>J. Ed:</B> <I>"If you find problems with <I>Reinventing Jesus,</I> if you see places where you think some sort of covert, liberal agenda is at play, if you’re concerned that we’re “giving away the farm” in our views of Scripture, then, by all means, let me know! I am more than happy to discuss those sorts of things as my schedule allows."</I><BR/><BR/>To be clear, I have raised no such concerns about your book. (Nor did anyone else, as far as I could see.) I haven't so much as <I>mentioned</I> your book, because I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. I'm sure it's a fine book. Otherwise Dan (and the list of friends you gave) would not have rated it so highly. I look forward to reading it.<BR/><BR/>Notice that I made no comment at all in this thread and had no plans to do so until your "terse" (your word, not mine) reply to Mr. Doutell struck me as a deliberate evasion of the issue he had raised. That, combined with the Ehrman piece (which troubled me greatly when I saw it posted on DTS's home page a couple of months ago) makes me think perhaps Mr. Doutell's questions might not be altogether unjustified.<BR/><BR/><B>J. Ed:</B> <I>"As for comments on Dan Wallace’s treatment of Ehrman, I personally see a big difference between saying that inerrancy isn’t as important as Christology and actually doubting the latter."</I><BR/><BR/>I <I>might</I> agree in a limited sense—except that Wallace did not merely say "inerrancy is not as important as Christology;" he expressly said that inerrancy and inspiration are <I><B>not even core issues,</B></I> and he scoffed at the notion that abandoning one's faith in the absolute authority of Scripture is a dangerous slippery slope. <B>Then he argued that belief in inerrancy may be an even <I>more</I> dangerous kind of slippery slope.</B><BR/><BR/>For the record, I didn't find that "confusing"; I found it shocking.<BR/><BR/><B>J. Ed:</B> <I>If you find Dan’s comments to be confusing, then why don’t you write to him and ask him for clarification rather than publicly claiming the ability to read his mind and heart (as in your emboldened comment on inerrancy)?</I><BR/><BR/>Correction: I read and cited what his <I>article</I> (not merely his "heart") says. But "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt. 13:34). Wallace's suggestion that verbal inspiration is a "peripheral" doctrine is a repudiation of one of the central principles of historic evangelicalism.<BR/><BR/>Wallace, not I, said he counsels his own students not to <I>"place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, [because] when [not "if"] belief in these doctrines starts to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down."</I><BR/><BR/>Now think about this rationally: as I said, Wallace's argument has no weight whatsoever for anyone who is confident of Scripture's inerrancy. As a matter of fact, if I made a similar argument about the deity of Christ, you would rightly doubt my commitment to the doctrine of Jesus' deity:<BR/><BR/><B>sock puppet:</B> <I>Tell students that the deity of Christ is essential, and if they begin to doubt that, they'll abandon Christianity completely. We need to learn to nuance our faith commitments a bit more, and stress the <B>principles</B> Christ taught (rather than <B>ontological propositions</B> about Him).</I><BR/><BR/>Pheh. No one who really believes in the deity of Christ is going to be the least bit persuaded by that argument.<BR/><BR/>Since I absolutely believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I'm similarly unimpressed with Mr. Wallace's argument, and appalled by his eagerness to consign the inerrancy and verbal inspiration of the Bible to the periphery of the Christian worldview. And <B>I am convinced that the truth of biblical authority arising from those principles is absolutely essential to authentic Christianity.</B><BR/><BR/>Since Dan Wallace is obviously already aware that good men have serious concerns about his stance on inerrancy, I think he ought to explain himself very carefully somewhere and make it as easily available as the Ehrman article. I know for a fact that I am not the only one who has expressed shock and dismay that the statements in his Ehrman article were issued from within the hallowed halls of DTS. Those views would <I>certainly</I> not have not voiced aloud or tolerated among the faculty there 15 years ago.<BR/><BR/><B>In fact, <A HREF="http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/" REL="nofollow">the DTS doctrinal statement <I>begins</I> by naming inerrancy as one of seven "essentials," under the heading, "CORE BELIEFS."</B></A> Wallace's argument looks very much like an explicit denial of DTS's doctrinal statement!<BR/><BR/>Again, I know for a fact that I am not the only one who has noticed that or called attention to it. If Wallace's defense is that he has been badly misunderstood by his readers, he owes it to them to clarify.<BR/><BR/><B>J. Ed:</B> <I>"And don’t you find it a bit problematic that your blog has allowed a fellow believer to be skewered first and (maybe) understood later."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, as a matter of fact, I'm kind of surprised at all the pitchfork and skewer metaphors after so little negativity was directed at Wallace's views in the wake of a <I><B>positive</B></I> review of your book. (Did anyone other than <I>Doutell</I> actually post a criticism before you decided you had had quite enough of "[trying] to be kind" about this?)<BR/><BR/>I decided to pursue it because I didn't want what seemed to be a valid question to be silenced by mere intimidation and insult. This current entry constitues probably the closest thing to a "skewering" yet. But notice: I'm still just pleading for explanation and elaboration—and trying hard to explain why I think that's a valid request that you oughtn't try to shout down.<BR/><BR/>No one actually has threatened to draw blood or called for anyone's head on a platter yet. Mr. Doutell's statements, which you characterized as "graceless," were well stated, I thought, except for the one wry comment you took offense at. And Doutell replied to every question you asked him.<BR/><BR/>I get a worse "skewering" than that almost every time I blog. It's a daily event. Publish an opinion on the Internet, and criticism of some sort is almost guaranteed—sometimes <A HREF="http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/08/jawbone-of-ass.html" REL="nofollow">even when you say nothing controversial.</A><BR/><BR/>But publish an article on the home page of DTS's website suggesting that evangelicals must move inerrancy and inspiration to the category of "peripheral issues" or risk producing more Bart Ehrmans, and I guarantee you're going to have some 'splainin' to do.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155183798927919032006-08-09T21:23:00.000-07:002006-08-09T21:23:00.000-07:00I do appreciate many of the comments on this blog....I do appreciate many of the comments on this blog. Even though I have never met Daniel Wallace, I have a great deal of respect for him as a Greek scholar (His book "Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics" is a gem). I believe many of his articles on Bible.org are well written (As a dad I really liked this one http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1326). With that said, there was one article that took me off guard a bit. <BR/><BR/>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=7<BR/><BR/>I was not looking for anything horrendous, just enjoying reading about his adventure to Wittenberg until I got to the bottom of the article. In the section "final thoughts", it seems that he was lending credibility to the theory (or shall I say myth?) that Paul may have not seen eye to eye with either James or Peter. Or as he says in the second to last paragraph of the article:<BR/><BR/>"Indeed, when we go back to the scriptures, it does indeed seem clear that Paul has a doctrine of justification by faith alone. But that doctrine is not as easy to find in James, Peter, or Jude. Yet Paul seemed to accept these other apostles, along with their theological commitments, as genuine and true. But if they did not see things quite the same way as Paul did, who are we to insist on beliefs and formulations that just might exclude even some of the apostles?"<BR/><BR/> Now I will grant that this is not a wholesale admission by Dr. Wallace to the truthfulness of the theory. The problems lies in it's subtleness which, to me, is worse since he is a well respected conservative scholar. You see, I don't believe he meant to cast doubt on any part of scripture, but he does seem to lend some credibility to the idea that it could be true. <BR/><BR/>This is not meant to be a jab at Dr. Wallace but to just say that a lot of the comments already made have confirmed what I thought after having read the above article. He is a great Greek scholar and seems like an all around nice guy, but does not seem to hold as firm or staunch a view of the perspicuity or inerrancy of scripture as, say Piper, MacArthur, or James White would.Exblogitoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238538236937702814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155175739624849502006-08-09T19:08:00.000-07:002006-08-09T19:08:00.000-07:00Phil,I think there’s a big difference between maki...Phil,<BR/><BR/>I think there’s a big difference between making an off-the-cuff observation about someone’s behavior (which I gave supporting evidence for) and throwing out non-contextual snippets from an academic article in an attempt to build an argument. In the case of the latter, an intellectually honest assessment demands a context (especially when the snippets are posted for shock value). <BR/><BR/>I’m not going to provide that context, for the same reasons that Dan Wallace did not post the paper on the Internet. I don’t want to launch into an extended discussion (which will surely follow) of the issues in front of a large, faceless audience (especially when I don’t have the time to stay on top of it). It’s a pastoral concern. Lots Tusej and others can impugn whatever motives of scholarly elitism to me that they like. God knows my heart. I stand by my conscience. <BR/><BR/>You may or may not be interested to know that when students at DTS ask Dan for a copy of his paper (which, by the way, is the second in a two-part series, the first of which defends the historicity of the fourth gospel!), he tells them they can have it on one condition: they must come and talk to him after they’ve read it. This is so that graduate students, who are still wrestling with how to think through things for themselves, don’t leave without having their questions clarified.<BR/><BR/>I told Paul Doutell that he was misrepresenting Dan’s paper by so loosely and selectively citing it. That was for Paul’s benefit, and his alone, since he apparently has a hard copy of the paper available to him (and I assume no one else here, at present, does). If, when I had clicked on Paul’s profile, I had found an e-mail address or website through which I could contact him, I would have made the remark privately. I do still hope that Paul revisits the paper and asks whether he’s being as honest as he can be in his portrayal of it. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, as far as arguments go, Paul’s ultimate one, which is one of the main ones I am concerned with in this thread, is that Dan Wallace cannot be trusted as a guide through the Gospels. It’s hard to see this as anything other than an implicit attempt to cast suspicion on our book (in the least, that’s the practical upshot), since it is, after all, the subject of this blog entry. Yet, ironically, the most outspoken folks on this matter haven’t read the book. <BR/><BR/>If you find problems with <I>Reinventing Jesus</I>, if you see places where you think some sort of covert, liberal agenda is at play, if you’re concerned that we’re “giving away the farm” in our views of Scripture, then, by all means, let me know! I am more than happy to discuss <I>those</I> sorts of things as my schedule allows. <BR/><BR/>But, again, let’s bear in mind that theologically astute and discerning folks like Justin Taylor, Marc Heinrich, James White, Dan Phillips, John Hendryx, Steve Hays, Frank Turk, and Tim Challies have promoted, in one way or another, our book. Yes, it deals extensively with the Gospels and the words of Jesus. And, no, we haven’t received any complaints about it undermining inerrancy or the like. [Indeed, the primary complaint we’ve gotten from evangelical scholars is that we are <I>too conservative</I> in our dating of the Gospels!] <BR/><BR/>As for comments on Dan Wallace’s treatment of Ehrman, I personally see a big difference between saying that inerrancy isn’t as important as Christology and actually doubting the latter. If you find Dan’s comments to be confusing, then why don’t you write to him and ask him for clarification rather than publicly claiming the ability to read his mind and heart (as in your emboldened comment on inerrancy)? I know that Dan finds it hurtful to know that people are so quick to castigate him when they know so little about him and his actual beliefs. Besides, Dan is one of the most accessible and responsive professors on the planet. He’s always happy to dialog about matters of the faith. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate your tenacity for truth, Phil. I really do. But don’t you think that the rhetoric is getting to be a bit much (i.e., the <I>Bib Sac</I> comment, which relates to <I>nothing</I> going on here)? And don’t you find it a bit problematic that your blog has allowed a fellow believer to be skewered first and (maybe) understood later?J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155171075286509382006-08-09T17:51:00.000-07:002006-08-09T17:51:00.000-07:00The article referenced by Mr. Johnson, "The Gospel...The article referenced by Mr. Johnson, "The Gospel according to Bart," contains the following quote by Mr. Wallace: "And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core..."<BR/><BR/>In contrast, Mr. Komoszewski observes the following about Mr. Wallace: "This is news to me. And it would be news to Dan Wallace, who, as I pointed out earlier, vigorously embraces the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the biblical text. His entire body of writings, both academic and popular, attest to his extraordinarily high view of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>I suppose it's possible to vigorously embrace more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration. This allows one to reconcile the above two quotes. Assuming, however, that one more tightly embraces central doctrines, as opposed to peripheral doctrines, it seems that an adjective such as "vigorously" would be reserved for central doctrines. Thus, I'm left without an effective way to reconcile the above two quotes.<BR/><BR/>How can the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture be anything but primary, central doctrines? If Scripture is not inspired and not inerrant how can we trust the content of Scripture? If we can't trust the content of Scripture, then how can we trust any of the doctrines that flow from the content of Scripture - including the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the founder and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2, ESV)?<BR/><BR/>Mr. Wallace states the following in the next to last paragraph of "The Gospel according to Bart": "If our starting point is embracing propositional truths about the nature of scripture rather than personally embracing Jesus Christ as our Lord and King, we'll be on that slippery slope, and we'll take a lot of folks down with us." Yet, how is it that we know we are to personally embrace Jesus Christ as our Lord and King? We know this because it is revealed in a completely trustworthy source, the Divinely inspired, inerrant word of God, the Bible.<BR/><BR/>If you concede inspiration and inerrancy, how can you hang on to anything else?farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155170865066553242006-08-09T17:47:00.000-07:002006-08-09T17:47:00.000-07:00Lot -- I just did you a favor. Your 5:35 PM post w...<B>Lot</B> -- I just did you a favor. Your 5:35 PM post went over the line of civility.<BR/><BR/>Here is an edited-by-me version. If you object to the edited version being up, say so, and one of us will also remove this post.<BR/><BR/>Here is part of what Lot wrote:<BR/>****************************<BR/>Lot said... <BR/>j. Ed,<BR/><BR/>I couldn't say whether most layfolks, like myself, have read Bock and Green on ispissima vox. I hadn't read Green until just recently ... stumbling upon it in this thread. What I do appreciate, though, is Phil's kind of condescension — linking the article for those who want/need to know more. What I do NOT appreciate is the other kind of condescension — assuming folks haven't read, or don't want to know, and couldn't care less, and thus keeping all the strong stuff on the high shelf ... away from the children. After all, you wouldn't want to give the hard stuff to a minor, right?<BR/><BR/>...You can HAVE your doctorates, if that is where they lead!<BR/><BR/>Now ... my final comment on the whole thing (which is already more than I have ever commented on ANYONE's blog-site ... ever!) ...<BR/><BR/>I don't mean this to be a personal attack ... I'm pretty much just venting about this academic elitism that SEEMS to ooze from behind some of your comments which feign humility, wisdom, and kindness towards the unenlightened. I'm going to CHOOSE to believe I have misread you (against my better judgment, but for sake of Christian charity)....<BR/><BR/>Lots <BR/><BR/>5:35 PM, August 09, 2006 <BR/>*******************************DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155166876952614982006-08-09T16:41:00.000-07:002006-08-09T16:41:00.000-07:00J. Ed: "Rather, in a style more befitting of Bart ...<B>J. Ed:</B> <I>"Rather, in a style more befitting of Bart Ehrman than someone genuinely pursuing truth, Paul has strewn together a list of statements obviously picked for their shock value, all the while remaining silent on their contexts. I’m sorry, but that’s not good scholarship where I come from."</I><BR/><BR/>1. The comments-thread of a blog typically doesn't need to try to maintain an academic standard equivalent to that of a scholarly paper or theological journal.<BR/><BR/>2. I'm certain you understand that, because as a matter of fact, your sarcasm about Mr. Doutell's supposed gracelessness was hardly the paragon academic excellence, even by <I>Bib Sac</I> standards.<BR/><BR/>3. Even if the quotations Doutell cited don't quite meet the documentary criteria of a Cambridge doctoral dissertation: a) I thought they were more effective and more convincing evidence than the quotations you <I>didn't</I> cite in support of your assertion that Mr. Wallace was misrepresented; and b) no one has claimed that Doutell <I><B>misquoted</B></I> anything.<BR/><BR/>4. If it's so easy to explain away the obvious problems those statements raise, you should've done it in at least shorthand fashion before attacking Mr. Doutell's character. I looked but couldn't locate the paper online. Since you have it right in front of you and are so concerned about scholarship, why not explain how those statements might be understood in an innocuous sense?<BR/><BR/>5. It's ironic that you mention Ehrman. What makes me less than disposed to give Mr. Wallace the benefit of the doubt regarding whether his opinions on biblical inerrancy are perfectly sound and well within the boundaries established by <A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html" REL="nofollow">the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy</A> is the way Wallace utterly fumbled the inerrancy issue in <A HREF="http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000" REL="nofollow">his article dealing with the decline and fall of Bart Ehrman.</A> Essentially, Wallace argues that evangelicals are at least partly to blame for Ehrman's apostasy—specifically because they put too much stress on the idea of biblical inerrancy. In the rarefied academic climate to which Mr. Ehrman ultimately ascended, his faith began to be shaken first of all when he was called upon to defend the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. Wallace clearly thinks conservative evangelicals helped drive Ehrman to apostasy, and the remedy for that, he suggests, is to move our commitment to inerrancy out of the center and more to the periphery, "learn to nuance our faith commitments a bit more," and stop thinking of the non-inerrantist position as a slippery slope.<BR/><BR/><B>That argument only works if in your own heart you suspect that Scripture is <I>not</I> inerrant.</B><BR/><BR/>For those who were part of the Council on Biblical Inerrancy or took an interest in the Battle for the Bible a generation ago, it's galling to see self-styled "evangelicals" who had no role in that struggle relinquish that hard-won ground so blithely.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if you think my opinion "graceless," but <I>contra</I> Mr. Wallace, I don't think inerrancy is a truth we can afford to set aside—or subjugate it to someone's standards of academic collegiality; the intellectual qualms of every Doctor of Divinity from Princeton; or even the heckling of an Emerging generation who, like Mr. Wallace, find it convenient to blame conservative ideas for every radical aberration rebellious hearts want to embrace.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155166312579188412006-08-09T16:31:00.000-07:002006-08-09T16:31:00.000-07:00Lots,You’ve told me twice now how well read you ar...Lots,<BR/><BR/>You’ve told me twice now how well read you are. But do you think that the average lay person, like you, has read both Bock and Green, for example, on <I>ipsissima vox</I>? I’m not asking about your acquaintances or people who may be in your church. I’m asking, in general, do you think the average English-speaking Christian is well grounded in biblical and theological studies?<BR/><BR/>Please remember, Lots: Dan’s decision to withhold the paper from public consumption was not made with you serving as the prototypical reader.J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155158441807283852006-08-09T14:20:00.000-07:002006-08-09T14:20:00.000-07:00Farmboy,Dan Wallace (or, to my knowledge, any othe...Farmboy,<BR/><BR/>Dan Wallace (or, to my knowledge, any other evangelical who embraces <I>ipsissima vox</I> to some degree) is not saying that the Gospel writers “fail to accurately reflect the words of Jesus.”<BR/><BR/>If you or any other blog readers are interested in seeing what a conservative evangelical has to say about <I>ipsissima vox</I> and the words of Jesus, I’d recommend starting with Darrell L. Bock’s fine article, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” It’s found in the Zondervan title, <I>Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus</I>, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland.J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155157388442271152006-08-09T14:03:00.000-07:002006-08-09T14:03:00.000-07:00As I understand it, the essence of Paul Doutell's ...As I understand it, the essence of Paul Doutell's comments regarding Daniel Wallace's paper is that in his paper Mr. Wallace makes the case that the human authors of the gospels took liberties when recording the words of Jesus Christ (the second person of the Godhead).<BR/><BR/>Regarding these comments and the discussion they generated I have one question: What about the role of the Divine author of the gospels (The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead)? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote as they did in accordance with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The words they wrote are as much God breathed as are the words Jesus Christ spoke during the time He walked the earth.<BR/><BR/>Given the above, if Matthew, Mark, Luke and/or John fail to accurately reflect the words of Jesus Christ, it follows that the Holy Spirit also fails to accurately reflect the words of Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>On a different topic, let me vent a bit about the ETS. J. Ed Komoszewski offered the following: "...I’ll stand with the Evangelical Theological Society..." With regard to the ETS, that organization lost at least a bit of credibility as a guardian of orthodoxy after it failed to muster enough votes to expel John Sanders for his rather novel understanding of inerrancy.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155156576022575022006-08-09T13:49:00.000-07:002006-08-09T13:49:00.000-07:00Phil,You charged me with being inappropriate and f...Phil,<BR/><BR/>You charged me with being inappropriate and followed that by saying Paul has been “persistent but polite.”<BR/><BR/>Here’s a specific example of what prompted my comments about Paul's lack of grace: <BR/><BR/>“I'd hide the paper from my web site, too, if I had written it.”<BR/><BR/>This is a cheap shot, plain and simple. In addition to being devoid of substance, it undermines the pastoral sensitivity which led Dan to withhold posting the ETS paper on the Internet and it implies some sort of deception on Dan’s part. This is hardly what I would call “polite.” <BR/><BR/>The fact is that Dan has nothing to hide. He’s simply mature enough to know that some people, lacking the requisite background to a given subject, might walk away with wrong impressions and thus an unnecessarily weakened faith. Ever concerned about the sheep and their confidence in holy writ, Dan didn’t want any misunderstandings to turn into stumbling blocks.<BR/><BR/>There’s wisdom in knowing <I>where</I> and <I>when</I> to say <I>what</I>.J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155153651241323402006-08-09T13:00:00.000-07:002006-08-09T13:00:00.000-07:00Frank, I understand what you’re saying. It’s true ...Frank, <BR/><BR/>I understand what you’re saying. It’s true that Dan Wallace is primarily known for his knowledge of Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism. And I agree (as Dan would, I’m sure) that he’s an exegete first and a theologian second. But I think it’s taking things too far to say that Dan’s not a theologian <I>at all</I>. <BR/><BR/>No, Dan has not yet published any commentaries on books of the New Testament. No, he hasn’t written a systematic or biblical theology for mass consumption. But please remember, Frank, that Dan <I>does</I> teach graduate and postgraduate courses on things like the Gospel of Mark, Romans, Ephesians, the Thessalonian Epistles, Jude, the Petrine Epistles, and (gulp!) New Testament <I>theology</I>. In other words, Dan works extensively in fields other than those involving Greek grammar and manuscripts. <BR/><BR/>Something that troubles me, Frank, is that readers of this blog are eager to prepare the stake for Dan because of his <I>perceived</I> views on the Gospels, and they’re ready to quickly dismiss him when it comes to theological reckoning of any kind. But my guess is that the vast majority of those same readers would rise up and call Dan “blessed” if they were to hear or read his exegetically and theologically nuanced arguments for things like cessationism, believer’s baptism, complementarianism, or the doctrines of Reformed soteriology. If my hunch is correct, it doesn't strike me as altogether fair. <BR/><BR/>That said, I deeply appreciate your spirit of fairness, Frank, as specifically reflected in the following blurb: <BR/><BR/>“When he says Luke "altered the meaning of Jesus' words" in a particular passage, for example, we have to wonder if he's saying "thus Luke cannot be inspired" or if he's saying "thus Luke was trying to make a specific point." If it is the latter, we can't break out the pitchforks and torches when they guy is not even talking about theology or doctrine: he's talking about how to read a specific passage.”<BR/><BR/>Even more specifically, you show a great deal of maturity and charity when you say, “we have to wonder if. . .” <BR/><BR/>I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with Dan Wallace. Heck, there are secondary issues over which Dan and I routinely argue. But I’d like to think that, as I’ve grown over the years, I’ve learned more and more to give the man his due hearing. After all, he’s proven to be a devout, careful scholar with a tough mind and a soft heart for Christ. And he’s unabashedly driven by the pursuit of truth to the glory of our Triune God. Besides, maybe, <I>just maybe</I>, he’s right and I’m the one who needs a mental adjustment. But I’ll never know that unless I take the time to <I>truly</I> “wonder if. . .”J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155151033139400402006-08-09T12:17:00.000-07:002006-08-09T12:17:00.000-07:00Phil, You’re far too smart to really think that, b...Phil, <BR/><BR/>You’re far too smart to really think that, by any reasonable standard, Paul has <I>documented</I> anything. <BR/><BR/>Rather, in a style more befitting of Bart Ehrman than someone genuinely pursuing truth, Paul has strewn together a list of statements obviously picked for their shock value, all the while remaining silent on their contexts. I’m sorry, but that’s not good scholarship where I come from. <BR/><BR/>What’s more, Paul made unsubstantiated, over-exaggerated claims like these:<BR/><BR/>“If you follow Wallace where he goes with his treatment of the gospels, you will be left speculating when you read the gospels: did Jesus really say this, or did the gospel writer make it up to help the Lord out?”<BR/><BR/>This is news to me. And it would be news to Dan Wallace, who, as I pointed out earlier, vigorously embraces the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the biblical text. His entire body of writings, both academic and popular, attest to his extraordinarily high view of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>So perhaps we should take a lesson from basic hermeneutics and wrestle with Dan’s hard statements in light of the clearer ones. And perhaps, just as we avoid building our theology on isolated problem passages, we should take Dan’s numerous, clear affirmations of the biblical text that are plentiful in his writings and suspend judgment on a few isolated (and, in some cases, liberally paraphrased) ones. <BR/><BR/>I maintain that the burden of proof still rests with Paul (and anyone else who’s itching to charge Dan Wallace with a heterodox handling of the Gospels). And I remain utterly disappointed with the knee-jerk reaction that doesn’t think it wise to try to truly understand where a confessing brother with a proven track record and long line of evangelical vouchers is coming from. <BR/><BR/>I still say some here could exercise a little more grace.J. Ed Komoszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111893389217932360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155143387262229852006-08-09T10:09:00.000-07:002006-08-09T10:09:00.000-07:00J. Ed: "apparently, grace is not a trait you value...<B>J. Ed:</B> <I>"apparently, grace is not a trait you value when it comes to dialog with or about a brother in Christ."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think <I>that</I> was called for.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Doutell has been persistent but polite. He documented what he said. If you thought he butchered the context and you have the article in front of you, why don't you do what he did and document some actual statements from the article that you think make your point?<BR/><BR/>PS: On the <I>ipsissima vox</I> issue (though not Wallace's article specifically), <A HREF="http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12d.pdf" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is an article from a comrade of mine. Worth reading.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155131317354778032006-08-09T06:48:00.000-07:002006-08-09T06:48:00.000-07:00Oh, now, Paul, you know that within three minutes....Oh, now, Paul, you know that within three minutes.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155128625680797732006-08-09T06:03:00.000-07:002006-08-09T06:03:00.000-07:00Purgatorio:Your pitchfork and torch is in the mail...Purgatorio:<BR/><BR/>Your pitchfork and torch is in the mail.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155127931338930702006-08-09T05:52:00.000-07:002006-08-09T05:52:00.000-07:00Dan, I sure am glad that I have already seen Memen...Dan, <BR/><BR/>I sure am glad that I have already seen Memento, since you totally blew the ending. <BR/><BR/>"Like the movie Memento, let's start at the end."<BR/><BR/>PaulPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787697543170787751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155126607838938922006-08-09T05:30:00.000-07:002006-08-09T05:30:00.000-07:00Ed,You've provided a fine defense of Dan Walace so...Ed,<BR/>You've provided a fine defense of Dan Walace so far, but how do explain his use of testosterone to improve his teaching performance, his running of a whiskey still during prohibition, and his involvement in planning the attack on the World Trade Center? Answer that if you can!marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10158311614104904363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155125143705266822006-08-09T05:05:00.000-07:002006-08-09T05:05:00.000-07:00Ed:The distinction I am drawing is this (and it's ...Ed:<BR/><BR/>The distinction I am drawing is this (and it's opinion, not necessarily fact or the means by which we drum Dr. Wallace out of good company, so let's not start a fight): Dr. Wallace is the gold standard for reading Greek as a language, especially in the context of the NT. He understands the <I>language</I> of the NT.<BR/><BR/>The remarkable thing that follows that, however, is that he doesn't seem to ponder its doctrines (that is, what it teaches in all that saying) the way most people would understand. He's not renoun, for example, for a series of exegetical commentary on the letters of Paul: he's known for his Greek texts and his work understanding the use of Greek for the modern reader.<BR/><BR/>He's not a theologian: he's a linguist. Which, in my book, is very fine -- something to be commended, to be sure -- as long as we don't confuse the two things. Specifically, you make the point yourself that his writings referenced here about the NT have to do with the human origins of the NT, not with the matter of inerrancy, inspiration, or the authority or sufficiency of Scripture. Well, when all of that is set aside (and it can be -- the Bible is a written text after all -- <I>even if that's like eating the bread and leaving the PB&J untouched</I>) and we want to talk about whether Matthew or John "remembered" Jesus' words or -- like many ancient historians -- composed Jesus' words <I>to make a specific point, based on what they could remember him saying,</I> (which is reductive of the kind of point Dr. Wallace makes, I admit) we are now talking about critical theory which, at best, runs on a parallel path to theology.<BR/><BR/>Some people would take this kind of thinking to be an abject denial of inspiration, but I'm not one of them. The motive, as you have alluded to, is to better grasp the historical context of the text in order that we can better apply the hist/crit method of exegesis. That's fair enough, I think. However, it also deals in things which are (and forgive me if this isn't a great way to say this) more art than science. (doh! the great spectre of modernity casts her moribund shadow on the discussion!) It is a highly technical discussion, as you rightly say pretty much above the heads of a lot of people, (and I may be one of them) and its conclusions are not likely to create a band of t-shirt-wearing fanatics.<BR/><BR/>The people who read this blog tend to be t-shirt-wearing fanatics -- good people, bright, love the Lord, and non-academic. Dr. Wallace's work, as you admit, is not for us. But the reason why is not that it's evil: it's in a different field of study than we are excited about.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that cleared up what I was saying any, but in the end, Dr. Wallace has one kind of expertise which we have to understand it as <I>that kind of expertise</I> and not as something it really doesn't pretend to be. When he says Luke "altered the meaning fo Jesus' words" in a particular passage, for example, we have to wonder if he's saying "thus Luke cannot be inspired" or if he's saying "thus Luke <I>was trying to make a specific point</I>." If it is the latter, we can't break out the pitchforks and torches when they guy is not even talking about theology or doctrine: he's talking about how to read a specific passage.<BR/><BR/>I didn't intend any slam on Dr. Wallace, and if it came across that way, I apologize for being careless in my post.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com