tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post2301007738973265654..comments2023-06-16T07:01:52.541-07:00Comments on The Blog of Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb: Michael Halcomb ClarifiedTMWHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06807155020816222182noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-84096394319429902962008-02-27T17:34:00.000-08:002008-02-27T17:34:00.000-08:00" . . . perhaps this different perception bet..."<i> . . . perhaps this different perception between Quixie and I may be because I've read Witherington's exegetical work, and nothing more theological or popular that he has offered... </i>"<br><br>That's a good point, James, and I would like to add that I can recognize someone's intellect and expertise—Witherington's, Bauckham's, Wright's . . . these guys are walking encyclopedias, s%#t, even Wm Craig and J White are eloquent scholars. I don't think they are devils or even scoundrels . . . just "apologists" in the end. That's all.<br><br>:)<br><br>peace<br><br><b>Ó</b>Quixiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-73542013917530177162008-02-27T13:50:00.000-08:002008-02-27T13:50:00.000-08:00James,good question about Dt/Rom. as for the 2nd ...James,<br>good question about Dt/Rom. as for the 2nd question i couldn't figure out if you were asking if my point was moot or if the one you were attempting to make is? <br><br>as for witherington,<br>the guy is a great exegete but like everyone else, has flaws. he has contributed much to NT studies that others haven't, namely the rhetorical stuff he's done. (yes, i know rhetorical criticism is a large field and he's not the pioneer but he may be the first to have completed practicaly a whole set of NT commentaries on it!!!)T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-91249105640447049932008-02-27T10:11:00.000-08:002008-02-27T10:11:00.000-08:00I wonder to what extent Paul's interpretation ...I wonder to what extent Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 is something that one can assent to today, based as it is on such a different way of bringing meaning out of a passage. But I also wonder if the point is moot - Paul affirms "if you believe/confess you will", not "if you don't, you won't". :)<br><br>On another note, I will say that of the conservative scholars around today, I certainly am very appreciative of Ben Witherington's work in particular. He does do scholarship in a "conservative way", but (like F. F. Bruce in the generation before him), he does it <i>very well</i>, and offers a lot that is valuable even to those who are at different points on the theological spectrum. But perhaps this different perception between Quixie and I may be because I've read Witherington's <i>exegetical</i> work, and nothing more theological or popular that he has offered...James F. McGrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-72972061973261713552008-02-26T21:53:00.000-08:002008-02-26T21:53:00.000-08:00If I could, I would like to ask those participatin...If I could, I would like to ask those participating what they do with the mandate to confess (e.g. Rom. 10.9-10, among many other passages)? I've been answering a lot of questions and clarifying, I'd like some to respond to this. By the way, I just read an awesome post (which gives some great examples of this) over at Parchment and Pen. Check it out:<br><br>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/26/orthodoxy-should-we-define-who-is-in-and-who-is-out/T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-28731524693833025792008-02-26T21:43:00.000-08:002008-02-26T21:43:00.000-08:00Drew,This is surely the crux of the matter for me....Drew,<br>This is surely the crux of the matter for me. I'm quite sure you know where I stand. I'm not aware of how the latter view (the one you're close to or that you hold) is "well represented". <br><br>Q,<br>I find it quite interesting what you say. I have to be honest, I see humor in it because guess who Mrs. Levine calls when she needs someone to teach her courses? You guessed it, Dr. Witherington. Isn't that something? Evidently, she sees enough in him! I think you are completely wrong about the 1st round knock-outs, completely. Btw, I also found it fascinating that you mentioned Mrs. F. I just downloaded 3 lectures by her yesterday and read a few chapters out of her book Jesus of Nazareth. :) <br><br>James,<br>I have to admit, I'm not too versed in Eastern Incarnational Theology, so, I can't say much there. <br><br>All,<br>As it stands, it appears that the other 4 or 5 people engaging in the conversation so far, quite disagree with me. At this point, I am the only one holding exclusive views. I stand behind my claim that a confession in Christ is a must. <br><br>Anyway, I'm going to go. The Simpsons are on and it's the episode where Homer predicts the rapture---hilarious stuff!!!T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-86271655161241494202008-02-26T20:22:00.000-08:002008-02-26T20:22:00.000-08:00Although I've never explored it as fully as I&...Although I've never explored it as fully as I'd like, I am aware that the Eastern Church has a strong emphasis on the <i>incarnation</i> as salvific, uniting the divine and the human ontologically. And so this gives Drew's view some serious street cred as far as the orthodoxy of his views - regardless whether the initial 'O' is big or small! :)James F. McGrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-22732859398725080992008-02-26T18:56:00.000-08:002008-02-26T18:56:00.000-08:00Nah. I have no wish to ban anyone from any discuss...Nah. I have no wish to ban anyone from any discussion. To suggest that I do is not only inaccurate, but silly, as I made it clear that I've taken the time to actually <i>read</i> his work. To be fair, I'm sure Witherington is a very nice gentleman—I don't want to demonize anyone. <br><br>But while I would never "ban" anyone, I think it fair to point out when I find a scholar is being disengenious or apologetically circular or consistently closed in their approach to the materials.<br><br>No?<br><br>I'll put it another, more humorous way:<br>Bring the Witheringtons and the Wrights to the arena if you will. My money's on a first-round K.O. <br><br>Do I get to pick their two adversaries? :D<br><br>If so, I'd pick . . . . hmm . . . . Paula Friedricksen (her knowledge of Origen is impressive) and . . . . . hmm . . . how about another lady . . . A.J. Levine . . . knowing me, I'd probably bring Robert Price along . . . just to be a shit-stirrer . . . (he's a big dude too! - good for any tag team) - laughs<br><br>(just a moment of levity there- :)<br><br>But seriously, I guess that I have faith that things that are brought to light cannot be concealed, faith that resistance to a loosening of the formerly inviolable approach is indeed futile in a post-Bultmann, post-Nag-Hammadi, post-post-modern world. <br><br>:)<br><br>Other than that, I appreciate your point that "novelty" and "originality" are not criteria by which to rightly judge one's N.T. acumen. I'm cool with that.<br><br>pax<br><br><b>Ó</b>Quixiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-43705571376073467292008-02-26T18:32:00.000-08:002008-02-26T18:32:00.000-08:00To clarify, before I do another post, I am trying ...To clarify, before I do another post, I am trying to hold two things in tension. It is not so much that one does not have to submit to the Lordship of Christ, it is when. I am not so sure that maintaining an assertion that such a submission must occur in the midst of time and space - a confession as it were before death. On the other side of this, it is also quite clear that what the cross means is an act of justification that goes beyond any particular human response to it. It is an event that saves regardless of human response. These are both well represented in Scripture and where we continue to run in circles at this point it seems.Drewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12344192935890766744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-60165838395475172082008-02-26T13:44:00.000-08:002008-02-26T13:44:00.000-08:00Q,I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I ...Q,<br><br>I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I see your point about the "apologetic" nature of Dr. W. I can also see, from reading your blog, where you would be unimpressed with him. That said, I must once again, disagree with you. First, let me state that I wasn't "JUST" appealing to Witherington. I said to see his commentary. There you will find others he engages in the discussion. Second, I've read at least half of W's work and I own at least half of everything he's written. I don't always agree with him and even when I had courses under him, I debated and disagreed with him. There are a number of things I think he is fundamentally wrong in, even when it comes to the rhetorical studies (which he has made much ground in for biblical studies). But to ban his voice from the conversation is an error and sounds quite like something "Bob Funk" would say. He is one discussion partner among many and what I see you doing is trying to capitalize the conversation on saying who can and who cannot contribute. I wholeheartedly disagree. If it is a question of modern sources, let everyone have their say, even if it means in the end, you disagree. <br><br>On a final note, just because W. brings nothing to the convo. as you see it, may only mean that it's not relevant to you. Perhaps you've studied some issue top to bottom and know the ins and outs. And perhaps in some of his work, he relays the same findings and therefore it seems un-novel to you. That doesn't mean it is nothing new to others. Part of what it means to be a reasearch sometimes is gathering and divulging the information, not necesarrily adding into it or, I might add, taking away from it, as I feel you are doing.T. Michael W. Halcombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01119080394574322124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-5012849032749154912008-02-26T13:14:00.000-08:002008-02-26T13:14:00.000-08:00Just to touch on a single one of your points . . ....Just to touch on a single one of your points . . . <br><br>Witherington is easy enough to refute at almost every turn, as his "scholarship" is transparently apologetic (evangelically so even), and he seldom makes a persuasive objective (keyword: objective) argument. I haven't read his latest, but I am familiar with his work, so I'm basing my assesment on what I HAVE read of his. But that aside—let me add that it's not enough that Witherington agree with you. Your analogue won't work because Witherington's defenses of an "orthodox" acceptance of the traditions as prescribed seldom rise above the level of exegetical over-reaching. <br><br>In short, you can't bring Witherington (or even Wright, arguably) into a tit for tat against consensus, not because you are excersizing restraint, but because he essentially brings nothing. I'm not trying to be mean; this is simply my sober assesment of Witherington's writing as I read it.<br><br>I'll keep following the blog-a-log.<br><br>:)Quixiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3839131113481621095.post-69025053852707619832008-02-25T22:42:00.000-08:002008-02-25T22:42:00.000-08:00Thanks Michael (and everyone else) for the discuss...Thanks Michael (and everyone else) for the discussion so far. I have tried to follow from the beginning, though I'm not sure I've caught everything. I want to offer a few reactions.<br><br>First, You maintain that Christianity is both inclusive and exclusive. This is a useful way of framing things for you since it keeps you from being pushed into pure exclusivism, which smacks of barbarism and intolerance. But the way these terms have been traditionally used is specifically in reference to who can be saved: if non-Christians can be saved apart from an explicit knowledge of Christ, that is inclusivism. If they can't, it's exclusivism. The fact that salvation in Christ is offered to everyone universally does not make your position inclusivistic in the sense that the term is usually employed. Of course you've defined your terms and you're free to use them however you want, but as far as I can tell you are an exclusivist if we stick to the usual sense of the terms. I might point out that many exclusivists have rejected the term in favor of <i>particularism</i>, which highlights the fact that salvation is universally offered but attained only through a particular faith, i.e. Christianity.<br><br>Second, You routinely speak pejoratively about Universalism as if it were a bad thing. You questioned whether James was on a "downward spiral" to universalism, and suggested that inclusivism tends to "degenerate" into universalism. While I do not think there are sufficient grounds to construct a universalist doctrine from scripture, I would be thrilled if I could. The notion that billions of people will be eternally damned is one of the least compelling aspects of Evangelical Christianity.<br><br>Third, With <a href="http://leoquix.blogspot.com/2008/02/monitoring-blogologue.html" rel="nofollow">Quixie</a>, I am curious about your definition of salvation. Tom Wright has argued that the gospel is not about going to heaven when you die, but rather it is the proclamation that Jesus is Lord. It seems to me that James, Ken, Drew, and you have some sort of unspoken consensus that salvation means you will go to heaven when you die instead of being damned to hell, though I doubt any one of you would sign on to the definition quite as I've given it here. I would like to see some clarification on this point.<br><br>Finally, I think this is the first time I have ever seen the word "eleventhly" used, at least in a blog. :)<br><br>Please continue this diablogversationalogue. I am quite enjoying it.rtjoneshttp://rtjones.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com