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)
