Without Mary’s obedience, without Mary’s willingness to receive the Holy Spirit, our salvation would be in doubt. Raniero Cantalamessa, therefore, quite rightly entitles his 1992 book Mary: Mirror of the Church. With some justification Mary is often identified as the second Eve, but Mary is also our Abraham. Just as Abraham obeyed God’s call for him to leave his familiar land to journey to a foreign destination, so Mary through her willingness to become the very Mother of God is the beginning of the church. She is the firstborn of the new creation faithfully responding to the Son who calls into being a new people. Just as Abraham is the father of Israel, so Mary is the mother of the church.
All of this means that when Christians lose the significance of Mary in the economy of salvation we also risk losing our relation with the people of Israel. Jesus is born of a Jewish mother. His flesh is Jewish flesh. To be sure Jewish flesh is human, but Christians dare not forget that the flesh that is ‘very man’ is particularly the flesh of Mary. Matthew will not let us forget that the one born of Mary is he who has come to free Israel from its sins. Jesus is very God and very man, but that formula does not mean we can ever forget that the God he is, and the man he is, is the same God that has promised to always be faithful to the people of Israel.
Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew (London, SCM Press, 2006), p. 36.
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
Stuart 12.22.10 at 10:15 am
Thanks for this, it is especially pertinent to me as I make my way to the Catholic church and navigate Mariology, which is no easy task for an entrenched Protestant.
I found this to be very helpful and illuminating:
Most Excellent Vid on Mariology
It really is most excellent as it happens, or at least I thought so….
Jarrod Longbons 12.22.10 at 5:11 pm
This is a wonderful thought. Having grown up a “half protestant/half catholic” (though mostly protestant….long story), I always felt a need to defend Mary against those who deny her because they want to avoid mariolatry. I would often remind protestants that we have high, sometimes too high, a view of Paul…we have a lesser, but still high, view of Peter…why not view Mary for what she means to salvation history, or at least as an exemplar of the faith!
Kim 12.22.10 at 7:11 pm
I would add just one caveat - a good word for Joseph! Indeed a most excellent word. In fact, Karl Barth went so far as to say (in a letter written in 1963): “I find this biblical figure, so moving and obedient and subservient, much more appropriate as a protector (et exemplar) ecclesiae than Mary, with whose function that of the church cannot be compared.” Joseph was both daring and caring. He’s the real hero of the Christmas story. Call Joseph, also a Jew of course, the step-father of the church (vitricus ecclesiae)!
Allan R. Bevere 12.22.10 at 7:59 pm
Kim.. a great comment on Joseph. I quoted your Hauerwas quote on my blog today and I’m going to add yours as well.
dh 12.22.10 at 8:48 pm
Jarrod, we should have a high view (without idolatry of course or matriolarty) of all of the men and woman of Faith in Scripture. Jarrod if you think I have too high a view of Paul then I’m sorry for I have a very high view of Scripture albeit without the idolatry no matter how much Kim and other accuse me of that.
Kim 12.22.10 at 9:14 pm
Why thank you, Allan. We sometimes disagree, but more often, I think, are of one (or at least eight-or-nine-tenths!) mind - and you are so patient with my (occasionally!) polemical style (Hauerwas is a Texan, but New Yorkers can be equally pugnacious) - and I am glad about that, because I am one of many who is in debt to your ministry. Merry Christmas to you and yours - and a blessing for every single day of the new year.
Pax,
Kim
Paul F. 12.22.10 at 11:57 pm
I would argue that Conservative Protestants aren’t high on Paul at all. They’re actually low on Paul and high on their entrenched presuppositions of what the Gospel is, the nature of salvation, etc., which they then filter Paul through. (Which, being named after him, I find especially frustrating)
Ah, what am i doing? The third word of my post is “argue”. It’s that time of the year to exercise “good will toward men”, so I think I’ll STFU now and save nitpicking over theology for another season.
Jonathan Marlowe 12.23.10 at 2:44 am
These reflections by Hauerwas concerning Mary are profound, but it seems to me they would belong more in a commentary on Luke than Matthew.
Kim 12.23.10 at 8:41 am
I agree with you Paul, and have maintained your assessment from the get-go of my becoming a Christian, at the time with relatively little scholarly apparatus (though Barth played the crucial human role in my “conversion”), but with consistent augmentation over the years, beginning with Stendahl - and now with massive confirmation by Douglas Campbell in his quite astonishing The Deliverance of God (2009). I think it should be a New Year’s resolution of every literate minister to work their way through this 1,000+ page tome. At the very least it will be a re-education and bringing-up-to-speed in Pauline theology.
dh 12.23.10 at 3:17 pm
Paul F., I have no “presuppositions” regarding Paul F. If one reads Romans and the many other passages of Paul F. the nature of Salvation is very clear. I believe that people have a low view of Jesus by not recognizing nature of Salvation that is by Faith in Him alone and the Gospel which Christ mentions specifically in the “reat Commission” when that is specifically what Jesus specifically says. When one looks at these two things then one can see that what Jesus says is not different than what Paul says and vice versa. Unlike Paul F. and Kim which which believe otherwise.
dh 12.23.10 at 3:18 pm
“reat Commission” I meant “Great Commission”, sorry for the typo. Kim had his earlier it was only a matter of time.
Tony Buglass 12.23.10 at 8:07 pm
DH ” I have no “presuppositions” …”
Yes you do. Everyone has presuppositions about everything. The key question is whether or not they are properly examined in the light of the evidence and confirmed or modified accordingly. If they are, that’s learning and progress. If they’re not, it’s ignorance and prejudice.
Paul F. 12.23.10 at 11:24 pm
I’m not going to respond, other than to say that I’m very flattered by the suggestion that I wrote a third of the New Testament.
dh 01.03.11 at 5:05 pm
“The key question is whether or not they are properly examined in the light of the evidence and confirmed or modified accordingly. If they are, that’s learning and progress. If they’re not, it’s ignorance and prejudice.”
speak for yourself
“When one looks at these two things then one can see that what Jesus says is not different than what Paul says and vice versa. Unlike Paul F. and Kim which which believe otherwise.”
Paul F. as you can see I made the distinction that you were unable to recognize.
Tony Buglass 01.03.11 at 6:19 pm
“speak for yourself”
Yeesh.
Kim 01.03.11 at 6:24 pm
“The key question is whether or not they are properly examined in the light of the evidence and confirmed or modified accordingly. If they are, that’s learning and progress. If they’re not, it’s ignorance and prejudice.”
speak for yourself
Rather, in speaking about arguments being substantiated by evidence, Tony is simply citing a universally agreed criterion for all rational investigation and intelligent conversation. In rejecting what Tony says, DH, it is you who is speaking for himself and, I’m afraid, to himself, for no other sane, sensible human being could have the slightest interest in the shite you talk (except as case study in “ignorance and prejudice”).
dh 01.03.11 at 7:33 pm
Kim, Tony using universally agree criterion in reference to Romans? I highly don’t think so. I know many many theologians with way more intelligence than myself who strongly disagree with you and Tony’s perceived “understanding” of Romans:
Lee Stroble, Charles Finney, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Spurgeon, etc. It is YOU not me who is failing to look at the facts from these wonderful theologians on the Book of Romans. I have looked at these as well as Hauerwas and find Hauerwas “wanting”.
Paul F. 01.03.11 at 7:40 pm
I wish “sense of humor” and “irony awareness” were available as over-the-counter supplements for some folk.
dh 01.03.11 at 8:42 pm
Paul F. I knew you were being “humorous and ironic”. I appreciate the fact that your name is Paul. Your mom was really wise to name you such a great name. BTW, my brother is named Paul and we work together in our family business. He is a great guy and you too are well even though we may disagree.
Tony Buglass 01.04.11 at 10:20 am
Yet again you fail to read what I actually wrote. I wrote that everyone has presuppositions about everything. That is a universally accepted fact (except on planet DH, apparently - must be fun there…).
If you wish to apply that to the specific case of Romans, well, yes, you do have presuppositions about it:
- you first met Romans when you were first introduced to the NT, which means you first approached it as a Christian text;
- you were introduced to the NT by the church you attended, which colours your understanding of what it means for something to be scripture (if you were Roman Catholic, I suggest that would be slightly different);
- you were first introduced to Romans in English, rather than the original Greek - subliminally, that takes you past the ‘cultural alien’ gap which exists between us and the Greek-speaking Christians of the 1st C.
I could go on, but it would almost be a waste of time. I say ‘almost’ - even though arguing with DH is like arguing with a brick wall, I reckon there will be other readers of this blog who might just benefit a little from what he spurns.
dh 01.04.11 at 2:47 pm
Tony, these guys Lee Stroble, Charles Finney, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Spurgeon, etc. HAVE looked at Romans and the NT in the original Greek.
Your comment on presuppositions was not what was addressed on the later part of the thread (it was earlier but we went on to this): “The key question is whether or not they are properly examined in the light of the evidence and confirmed or modified accordingly. If they are, that’s learning and progress. If they’re not, it’s ignorance and prejudice.”
In light of that compared with Lee Stroble, Charles Finney, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Spurgeon, etc. who HAVE looked at the evidence and are very intelligent theologians who HAVE looked at the original Greek and HAVE a totally different conclusion from yourself. I’ll take Spurgeon and Finney over Hauerwas anyday.
Tim 01.04.11 at 3:21 pm
Question: what do Stanley Hauerwas, Lee Strobel (note the correct spelling of his name, dh), Charles Finney, Charles Spurgeon and Chuck Swindoll have in common?
Answer: None of them has written a work of primary scholarship (as opposed to a devotional or homiletical guide) on Romans!
dh 01.04.11 at 4:22 pm
So Tim, does that mean you are going to reject Luther because his writings are not “primary scholarship”?
The fact remains many of these guys are or were very prominent theologians and many way more intelligent than most “primary scholars” and to reject then because of some self-imposed construct seems disengenous.
dh 01.04.11 at 4:35 pm
Also Tim, does that mean you are going to reject Hauerwas because his views are not based on “primary scholarship” (since he is listed in your list of “non-primary scholars”)? And if so doesn’t that prove my point with regard to myself rejecting Hauerwas’s quote at the start of this thread?
Tim 01.04.11 at 4:58 pm
‘Reject’ is too strong a word. I have to confess I have not read Luther on Romans. However, I don’t have a very high regard for him as a theologian because I think he misunderstood what Paul was on about when he talked about faith and works. I think he read his own spiritual autobiography into Paul’s letters. But as Sanders and others have pointed out, Paul’s actual spiritual autobiography is very different from Luther’s. Paul actually thought he’d done a good job of obeying the Law (see Philippians 3), and his conversion as recorded in Acts 9 had nothing at all to do with finally being relieved of the burden of having to obey God’s commands in order to be saved.
The problem I find, dh (and I’d be happy to compare notes with you on this) is that Paul seems a bit contradictory at times on the subject of faith and works. In one breath he’s talking about being justified by faith and not by works, but then in another he’s talking about calling the Gentiles to ‘the obedience of faith’ (Romans 1 and 15). And whatever he means by ‘being saved apart from works’, it doesn’t mean that the Christian is free to disobey God. So I find it more helpful to read Paul in the light of the work of scholars like Sanders and Wright, who have showed us that when Paul talks about ‘works of the Law’ he’s usually referring to ritual works - circumcision, the food laws, sabbath observance etc. But faith in Christ, to him, includes obedience to Christ, as is clear from several places in his letters.
So I suppose in a sense I do reject Luther because I find his interpretation of faith and works unhelpful. But to see the larger picture: no, I don’t reject more devotional and homiletical works, but if I find they’re not truly based on a clear understanding of what (for instance) Palestinian Judaism was really all about, then I won’t give as much weight to them as I will to the works of the scholars who’ve really done the leg work to set the texts in their original contexts.
For me, in an earlier generation that means people like J.B. Lightfoot and C.H. Dodd, and today (on Romans specifically) Doug Moo & N.T. Wright. But even more important are N.T. Wright’s two big books ‘The NT and the People of God’ and ‘Jesus and the Victory of God’ and Ed Sanders’ books on Jesus and Paul, which do the historical legwork to help us understand what the issues of the day really were.
I trust Stanley Hauerwas as a theologian; I’m not sure he’s a great biblical exegete. But his statement above was not about biblical exegesis but about the theology of Israel and its place in salvation history.
Sorry this is so long!
dh 01.04.11 at 6:14 pm
Tim, your reply is humorous. It really kind of proves my point.
However, I will let you digress the discussion to another unrelated discourse listed below:
As you have seen me mention on previous posts, there is a difference between Mosaic Law and the Law of God. Obedience to Faith, while in a sense in the natural can by definition “law”, it is not the law Paul is refering to. When Paul says “we are not under the Law” he is referring to the Mosaic Law alone.
The obedience of Faith defined by the “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” While in the natural many refer to this as “works” it isn’t part of the works that Paul is mentioning.
While I typically don’t agree with NT Wright on Paul, I do like the sentence your referenced on “when Paul talks about ‘works of the Law’ he’s usually referring to ritual works - circumcision, the food laws, sabbath observance etc. But faith in Christ, to him, includes obedience to Christ, as is clear from several places in his letters.” I will add that “obedience to Christ” begins when one “confess with their mouth and Believes in their heart that God has risen from the dead for Salvation” . When Paul says that “he did a good job of obeying the Law” it is in reference to “ritual Mosaic Law” which at that time kept him from Salvation for Paul murdered Christians. Under Mosaic Law he “obeyed it” but for Paul to be “saved” he needed to follow “obedience of Faith” by Paul’s own Faith in Christ alone for Salvation.
For me I don’t see a contradiction as you seem to observe. I see it more in terms of the issue of the multiple definitions of a word/term. If one doesn’t recognize the multiple definitions then one can think there is a contradiction when in fact it isn’t there. Does that make sense? If you need clarification I will be happy to restate.
I appreciate this particular subject discussion even though it is a sidetrack of what you and I were originally talking about.
dh 01.04.11 at 6:21 pm
I also don’t see how Luther’s discussion on Faith and works was “not helpful”. Scripture seems pretty clear that works doesn’t save a person however we all are required to do good works and are such need to be “obedient to Christ” which begins when one accepts Christ their Savior heart, soul and mind. For Paul is very clear in one of my favorite Scriptures here: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue to sin that Grace may abound? God forbid! How are we who are dead to sin live any longer in it?”
Tony Buglass 01.04.11 at 10:36 pm
DH: “Tony, these guys Lee Stroble, Charles Finney, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Spurgeon, etc. HAVE looked at Romans and the NT in the original Greek.”
But you haven’t, and that was my point. Secondly, as Tim pointed out, these people are not necessarily biblical scholars. Spurgeon is a preacher, not a critical exegete. Luther was a biblical scholar in his own day, but (like Augustine before him and Calvin after him) read his own theology of justification by faith into Paul, rather than reading Paul’s theology of justification by faith. TO say nothing of the increasing anti-semitic bias which affected his thinking as the years went by and the Jews didn’t flock to him for conversion.
“I’ll take Spurgeon and Finney over Hauerwas anyday.”
And you might be right to do so, depending on what you’re actually looking for. For good critical analysis of Romans, I’ll go with C K Barrett, J Ziesler, and other more modern scholars who have the benefit of work which has been done in the decades since your list of favourites.
Be honest, DH - do you choose your favourite scholars because their arguments are persuasive and their grasp of the evidence convincing, or because they say what you already believe and want to back up?
Tim 01.05.11 at 4:47 am
Thank you, Tony for reminding me of C.K. Barrett - his commentary on Romans in the Black’s series used to be one of my favourites! (I like Jimmy Dunn on Galatians too).
Kim 01.05.11 at 8:56 am
There has been major, groundbreaking, game-changing work done on Paul since the 1970s, accelerating more recently, by such outstanding scholars as Krister Stendahl, Ed Sanders, James Dunn, Louis Martyn, Tom Wright, Richard Hays, and most recently Michael Gorman and Douglas Campbell, among others, on such major themes in Paul’s letters as (Second Temple) Judaism, the “works of the law”, the “righteousness/justice of God”, pistis Christou (faith in/faith of Christ), forensic/participationist Christology, apocalyptic , and theosis. Anyone who doesn’t have at least some idea of the substance of these issues and the discussion surrounding them would be wise to get some - and otherwise remain silent (except in tentative and interrogative mode) at the risk of being thought stupid, rather than opening their mouth and having the suspicion confirmed.
Richard 01.05.11 at 9:20 am
I’ve never heard any of that stuff mentioned on God TV, Kim.
Kim 01.05.11 at 10:43 am
dh 01.05.11 at 3:35 pm
“Luther was a biblical scholar in his own day, but (like Augustine before him and Calvin after him) read his own theology of justification by faith into Paul, rather than reading Paul’s theology of justification by faith.”
Tony, thats YOUR opinion. To say otherwise is being ignorant of the facts. Tony, I follwo this because the arguments are convincing.
To those people I refer to Galations 1:9
dh 01.05.11 at 3:43 pm
BTW, I’m not a big fan of GodTV but I would say that much of the people Kim referenced fall into Galations 1:9 as well as on the 180 degree opposite of that on GodTV as well. There is a balance where God is between the two.
dh 01.05.11 at 3:48 pm
To equivicate these guys with Luther and Augustine seem rather strange.
Tony, the same question can go back at ya bud: ” do you choose your favourite scholars because their arguments are persuasive and their grasp of the evidence convincing, or because they say what you already believe and want to back up?”
dh 01.05.11 at 3:49 pm
“want to back up” or should I say “disproved”?
Tim 01.05.11 at 4:16 pm
I can’t speak for Tony, but for myself I can say that when I first read Tom Wright he was in strong disagreement with many of my previous convictions (About, for instance, the meaning of justification, faith and faithfulness, works of the Law, biblical eschatology etc.), but I found his arguments so convincing that I eventually changed my views on many of those subjects (not all). I certainly don’t agree with all of E.P. Sanders’ conclusions, or Anthony Harvey’s (Jesus and the Constraints of History was one of the most important books I ever read), or (in a completely different field) Diarmaid MacCulloch’s), but I enjoy reading top-level scholars who challenge my views.
dh, I can’t find the word ‘equivicate’ in any dictionary. ‘To equivocate’ means ‘to avoid committing oneself in what one says’. For instance, if I asked you ‘What does dh stand for?’ and in reply you hummed and hawed and tried to evade the question, that would be ‘equivocating’. To ‘equate’ means ‘to equal or make equal’. i’m guessing that you meant the latter, not the former.
As for Galatians 1:9, be careful who you choose to make anathema. First you need to be sure that you believe the same gospel Paul believed, and that you correctly understand how he used the key words, and that you know the context in which he wrote. If you don’t, you may find the same barb coming back at you.
dh 01.05.11 at 4:47 pm
Tim, I should have said “make equivical”. Thanks for the correction.
With regard to the passage I quoted, I am very careful at the same time appreciate your advisement. We must be sure before we make such comments and I have. I have major problems and at times he can border on heresy with regard to the “New Understanding of Paul” (in reference to N.T. Wright). However, his scholarly defense for the Resurrection of Christ is superb. I would say the conclusions he made after the defense are a bit of a stretch. However, the defense of the Resurrection of Christ standing alone without opinion conclusions thereafter is superb.
dh 01.05.11 at 4:48 pm
…N.T. Wrights understanding of the nature of Christ seems a little off. Christ was 100% fully God and 100% fully man. I may have misundertodd Mr. Wright, but he seems to have a slight different view than that.
Tony Buglass 01.05.11 at 11:29 pm
DH: “Tony, the same question can go back at ya bud…”
Fair enough. When I began theological training in 1973 to be (first) a Methodist local preacher, I was pretty much a hard-line literalist. Going to study at Cliff College (a British evangelical Bible college) in 1974 taught me to read the Bible in its historical context(s), and my first degree at Bristol University introduced me to a wide range of scholarship, a great deal of which was a very long way from what I believed or wanted to read. My 20-year-old self would be horrified at some of the things I now believe, because I have read books with which I disagreed, and have been persuaded by their arguments and by the evidence. Recently I graduated MTh (with distinction) for a dissertation on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection - I read a lot of stuff for that, some good (like NT Wright) and some a bit strange (John Spong, Dominic Crossan, etc).
I do not read uncritically. I have been taught to evaluate and focus, so as to understand what people are really saying. hence my comments about Luther and Calvin, which are probably the majority opinion among church historians these days.
Tony Buglass 01.06.11 at 8:55 am
DH: “I may have misundertodd Mr. Wright, but he seems to have a slight different view than that.”
It’s Bishop Wright, or Dr Wright. Yes, I think you have misunderstood him - he’s an evangelical bishop in the Church of England, currently serving as a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen after a good stint as Bishop of Durham. For someone of your theological persuasion, he’s one of the good guys in the Church. His Christology is thoroughly orthodox, I have never read anything from him denying either the full humanity or the full divinity of Christ. Where the confusion arises, I suspect, is that the whole business of Christology got very complicated as the Early Church Fathers struggled to explain HOW Jesus could be both fully human and fully divine, and did it in the categories of the Greek philosophies in which they naturally thought - hence all the debates about Natures and Persons, groups like Monophysites and Monothelites, and the propensity of passionate Mediterranean cultures to argue with vigour which led to schism rather than considered debate. Given that Wright will discuss the ins and outs of the issue at considerable length and great detail (because he does really know his stuff), it’s not surprising that you’d lose a few threads in there!
My own view is that every heresy starts from a truth which needed to be emphasised, but was then over-emphasised and taken out of proportion - often because those pushing that particular truth were excluded by the majority. And of course it does need to be said that, just as history is always written by the winners, orthodoxy is usually the heresy that won. Many (most?) of the heresies were every bit as Christian as the orthodoxy which rejected them.
Paul F. 01.06.11 at 8:27 pm
DH,
Since you’ve been so irresponsible as to pretty much declare a whole slew of world-class scholars with tremendous pedigrees “accursed” (or “eternally condemned” if you prefer the NIV), would you please explain to us, in detail, what it is about, say, Richard Hays that you find troubling? Please cite a scholarly article or book he authored where he obviously is touting “another gospel”. Better yet, please do tell what his specialty as a NT scholar has been these last 20 years, or what book of his you read cover to cover, disliked, and why. Do the same with every other author Kim mentioned, and then your casual casting of aspersion would be half-tolerable.
dh 01.06.11 at 9:04 pm
Paul F. I will answer if and only if you can point out where I said the whole slew of world-class scholars “accursed” or “eternally condemned”?
If you look at my responses I have only mentioned Hauerwas and Wright of which I HAVE read and of which I HAVE pointed out the concerns as you have described at ad nausium over the years. Maybe if you go over ALL of my past responses/posts relating to Hauerwas and N.T. Wright on this blog where I have responded and read all of them then maybe you would have a half-tolerable view of my aspersion? The “those scholars” were solely in reference to the two I mentioned. I would never comment on a scholar for which I have no basic premise as to their particular understanding on a subject be it support and/or reject.
Again, I have never pointed out any concerns other than on Hauerwas and N.T. Wright. I have only mentioned the scholars/theologians of which have a different view than these two and who happen to be just as intelligent as Hauerwas and Wright.
Maybe you need to reread the response where some scholars were looked at in this post in a better light than Augustine and Luther? Maybe you need to “practice what you preach” and do the same as you have admonished me to be with “Lee Strobel, Charles Finney, Charles Spurgeon and Chuck Swindoll? I personally won’t hold my breath.
dh 01.06.11 at 9:06 pm
…and if one rereads one of my previous posts I NEVER “accursed or condemned” N.T. Wright when I mentioned that his defense of the resurrection of Christ is superb. How is that what you accuse me to be? The fact is IT ISN’T!!!
Tim 01.06.11 at 9:22 pm
Kim: such outstanding scholars as Krister Stendahl, Ed Sanders, James Dunn, Louis Martyn, Tom Wright, Richard Hays, and most recently Michael Gorman and Douglas Campbell
dh 1: I would say that much of the people Kim referenced fall into Galations 1:9
dh 2: If you look at my responses I have only mentioned Hauerwas and Wright
Maybe the two dh’s aren’t the same???
dh 01.06.11 at 9:32 pm
Tim the two mentioned are the “much” I was in reference to. One must look at ALL of the posts I maid where Hauerwas way mentioned as well by others as myself to have him included in the mix.
The response you quoted Tim doesn’t mean that I have “accursed” or “condemned” Wright and Hauerwas. Again you still need to reread what I stated. I will give a million dollars if I have ever “eternally condemned” or “accursed” anyone on this post.
Again this will be repeated until responded but I won’t hold my breath: “Maybe you need to reread the response where some scholars were looked at in this post in a better light than Augustine and Luther? Maybe you need to “practice what you preach” and do the same as you have admonished me to be with “Lee Strobel, Charles Finney, Charles Spurgeon and Chuck Swindoll?”
dh 01.06.11 at 9:33 pm
….Tim the dh’s are the same and myu previous reply explains and shows what you are straining at the air for.
Paul F. 01.07.11 at 8:59 am
“Much” has always meant, for me at least, way more than two. In any case, you know exactly what you are implying when you insert Gal. 1:9 into the conversation. If you can’t even acknowledge that, well, this thread’s been running long enough that it’s time to put it to bed.
I’ve never actually discussed Chuck Swindoll, Spurgeon, et al. on the Internet with anybody, much less here on Connexions, so I don’t really have anything I have to defend there.
dh 01.07.11 at 5:26 pm
“I’ve never actually discussed Chuck Swindoll, Spurgeon, et al. on the Internet with anybody, much less here on Connexions, so I don’t really have anything I have to defend there.”
Well I have never discussed the individuals other than Wright, Hauerwas and any others I failed to mention that weren’t on that particular list. So for me if you have nothing to defend on Swindoll, Spurgeon then I don’t as well for your list.
If I misstated and said much when I meant some I’m sorry. That was not the impression I was trying to give. It is easy to have a word here or there off on a blog. I’m sorry for the confussion. It was totally unintended. I know what I was implying and truly it wasn’t what you thought I implied.
Paul F. 01.08.11 at 12:55 pm
DH, I apologize for coming down hard on you. I realize we do that on a regular basis here. Let us all be mindful of what we, er, type, from now on.