jt: Why should David
Miller or any of us for that matter care what 'contemporary evangelical
scholars' that Lance considers to be godly (whatever that means) think about
the book of Romans? Truth is not determined by popular vote and God
does not preside over a democracy. Believing the scriptures does not
make one a 'gnostic'. Nor does being a neuropsychologist make Malcolm
Jeeves an expert on the book of Romans or any other book of the Bible for
that matter.
Sir John Eccles, the neurophysiologist who won the
Nobel Prize for his study of brain synapses said that the brain is a machine
that any ghost can operate. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. When
you subject God's Word to modern contemporary scholarship rather than the
other way around you open yourself to deception.
'I'm not the only one who thinks Tom Wright is a little bit shallow on
Romans' says David Miller.
1. Have YOU (implied above)
read/listened to Wright on Romans.
2. Name the
others who think as do you re: WOR.(sorry Wright on Romans)
3. Do you
have ANYTHING by Wright whatsoever? Name it/them.
4. Gordon Fee's name was also cited. What do you know of
his work on Romans.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO COME TO
UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR DUALIST VIEW IS NOT ONE HELD BY MANY CONTEMPORARY
EVANGELICAL GODLY SCHOLARS IN ANY FIELD.
I'd also mentioned
Malcolm Jeeves and, his work on this. He's a 'godly'
neuropsychologist. You may be obliged to poke your head out of the
burrow and, take a look. (Oops, sorry Mr. Moderator)
PS to David Miller: Have you ever/ do you now, play poker. You know the
term 'bluff' do you not? When you ACTUALLY KNOW something we are usually
treated to 12-15 paragraphs or citations from that source. Rather than ask
me to outline what you along with these unnamed 'others' know re: Wright on
Romans, WHY NOT ILLUSTRATE WHAT YOU KNOW. There exists a
resurgence of gnosticism (a dualist _expression_). One wants to take
care not to be a contributor, David.
(Close but no cigar, Mr. Moderator)
