Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:13-14)

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Response to Dr. Wallace's Objections: Apostolic Fathers Analyzed (Dr. Wallace did NOT do his homework!)

To all – a note: Frank Turk has opted out of continuing to discuss the Epistle of James with me. He has claimed victory by citing a lexicon and quoting an expert. To him, the debate has been won; the shallowness of his affirmation readily identifiable to any impartial observer. He does not believe there is anything left to discuss but what to write on the FG tombstone, lol. The ‘Dead Horse’ posts on his blog say it all.

Furthermore, Frank Turk has banned me from his blog. Why, you ask? After contributing money to a missions organization that he was advocating in a post, I commented that I had donated, and that the organization seemed to be doing a needed and beneficial work. In the same comment, I added a hyperlink to the last article, in case he wanted to read it (in light of the fact it was a response to a post of his). He therefore banned me for including a simple link on a comment where I told him of my contribution to the charitable cause he was advocating in the OP. To this I say, “Of all the cheek!”

I am not done discussing James and the evidence that supports the Free Grace rendering and interpretation. We are currently treating Frank Turk’s ‘Big Gun’ (his words, not mine) expert, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, in his response to my lexical studies germane to our assessment of the kind of ‘salvation’ found in James. Frank Turk’s reticence will not prevent me from adducing all the relevant data to this issue. The traditional edifice has been raised. Can its foundation survive scrutiny?

Setting Up this Post

The book of James has generated a lot of controversy down through the centuries. In a nutshell, and to many, James seems to defy the Pauline doctrine of justification. Several theological constructs have had their take on this ostensible tension, offering their solutions to the apparent discord between the biblical writers. There have been basically four views of the James debate (other than the Free Grace position):

(1) Paul and James are irreconcilable. James teaches eternal salvation by works. (New Testament Scholar View)
(2) Paul is saying that salvation is apart from ‘works of Torah’, not all works per se. (A view advocated by some at the University of Tubingen, and some Anglicans)
(3) Introduction of perseverance theology. Faith that is divorced from works will result in eternal damnation. (Traditional Reformed)
(4) Faith must stay alive by the inclusion of works and faithfulness or else one will lose their salvation. (Arminian)

What these four views all have in common:

(1) The belief that James is discussing eternal salvation
(2) James, in one-way or another, must qualify Paul’s simple and explicit soteriology (except #1 that says Paul and James cannot be reconciled).
(3) Works, in a very real way, are necessary for the desired result: final deliverance from hell.
(4) ‘Faith alone’ is not sufficient for entrance into heaven.

The last three must all logically follow the first. If one is to advocate the position that James is speaking about eternal salvation, the language used in James will necessarily lead to a compromise between James and Paul, thus damaging the critical content of both. The insistence that James is talking about salvation from hell has wreaked incalculable damage to the Bible, and to the Christian faith. The soteriology of Paul has been brutally modified and works have been introduced into the gospel.

Is there any other option that has persuasive evidence to substantiate it?

Imagine for a moment that the salvation James is discussing in his epistle is not eternal. I know it would be difficult to do in light of the interpretive tradition fused to James. But… could this lead to a bona-fide resolution? The answer must be an emphatic, “Yes!”

The solution to the dilemma of James vs. Paul is very simple; easier than you may think, and does not take any gymnastics or sophisticated word play. Quite simply, James does not use the Greek word “sozo” (to save, deliver) in the sense of eternal salvation whatsoever. He is talking about the temporal deliverance of the life – in both significance and preservation from death. The biblical, lexical, and contextual evidence all point to this fact. A logical result of this substantiated position is a death-knell for the raging controversy concerning the Epistle of James. Not only does it fit the biblical data better, it resolves the mysterious and paradoxical nature that has been forced on soteriology by those who claim with their lips “sola fide” but proclaim with their doctrine a synergy of faith and works.

Can the Traditionalist, even for a moment, consider both the evidence and implications of this position?

For a short introduction to the evidence thus far adduced for the Free Grace rendering and interpretation of ‘salvation’ in James, discussing James 1:21, refer to this post: Overview. For a more detailed look, read over the last 5 posted articles on this blog.

Objection of Dr. Daniel Wallace:

Dr. Wallace read over one lexical study I did which analyzed every instance of the phrase “sozo” with “psyche” as its object in the Septuagint. This is the phrase we find in James 1:21, “save your souls”. It is found eleven times in the LXX. In each instance in the Koine Greek Old Testament, we found that the phrase in question invariably and most certainly meant a deliverance of the temporal life. To this study, Dr. Wallace gave a response that contained many objections. This is the third post thus far replying to his opposition.

Dr. Wallace is a decorated and highly esteemed scholar. Yet at the same time, I believe that his response to my lexical study was thoughtless and undiscerning. He has made many errors, which we have been exposing, and will continue to bring to light. I am being careful to answer each one of his objections to show the baseless nature of his arguments. We will let the impartial reader decide.

To read the whole objection, refer here: Frank Turk’s Dead Horse

The portion of the objection that we are addressing in this article is:

The author did not look at the apostolic fathers. But on a theological trajectory, it is important to see how the expression was used in the Greek immediately after the NT was written by those who followed the teachings of the apostles. Further, in the AF the bodily resurrection and afterlife is already well established. Thus, apart from three instances in the LXX that come after Daniel, we might say that the usage seems to move in a different direction-toward salvation from hell. Cf. 2 Clem 13.1; 15.1; Barn 19.10; Shep 61.1.

Reply to Dr. Wallace’s Objection

In our last post, Apostolic Fathers Part 1, we saw some of the tragic errors that filled these so-called Apostolic Father’s writings. No stock can be put into their epistles for the very reason that they significantly departed from apostolic doctrine, corrupting God’s grace. Please see the aforementioned post for a discussion of this very fact.

Nevertheless, in my last post, I stated that I was not running from these important references that Dr. Wallace has given us. We shall now look at the four passages given to us.

NOTE: I am seeking to determine the AUTHORS’ intent and sense of meaning in their writing by treating these passages. Whether or not they line up with biblical doctrine is up to you to decide. I am going to try to determine the sense of what the authors of these passages meant when they used the phrase “save souls”. This is my only purpose in treating these verses. How was this phrase used by them?

2 Clement 13:1

English Passage:
Therefore, brethren, let us now at length repent; let us be sober unto what is good; for we are full of much folly and wickedness. Let us blot out from us our former sins, and repenting from the soul let us be saved; and let us not become men-pleasers, nor let us desire to please only one another, but also the men that are without, by our righteousness, that the Name be not blasphemed on account of us.

Greek Phrase in Question:
μετανοησαντες εκ ψυχης σωθωμεν

The phrase we have been looking at, taken from James 1:21, is the Greek ‘sozo’ (to save, deliver) with ‘psyche’ (soul, life) as its object. From the very start, anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of English grammar can see from the English translation that ‘soul’ is not the object of ‘save’ in 2 Clement 13:1.

‘Psyche’ is the object of the preposition ‘ek’. This prepositional phrase modifies the verbal participle ‘metanoeo’. What this all says is that 2 Clement 13:1 is not an example of the Greek phrase in question.

It strikes me as particularly odd that Dr. Wallace so indiscriminately gives us a reference that is supposed to contradict my lexical study, when it is apparent from just a cursory look that this passage is irrelevant. Was the verse even read before he submitted it as a rebuttal to my studies? I would be surprised if it were, seeing that Dr. Wallace has such a scholarly reputation. Surely he would have noticed that this passage does not contain the phrase in question!

It is interesting in this passage, though, that the writer seems to equate the salvation he is talking about with one that takes works to enact. Furthermore, it seems to be a temporal salvation. Yet I would not bet my life on it… The so-called Apostolic Fathers were not the clearest stained-glass windows in the cathedral (as my last post showed)!

The writer calls his audience “brethren,” and includes himself in the admonition to repent (“let us now at length repent”). As a matter of fact, he incorporates himself in all the exhortations contained in this passage, even so far as including himself when he says, “for we are full… of wickedness”! Surely he considers himself as a Christian! (or does he!?) All of the exhortations are for saved people, as you can read. Therefore, it would seem that he is calling on saved people to repent so that they may have some kind of deliverance (obviously other than from hell). So the most probable solution would be to take ‘sozo’ as a temporal deliverance of some kind. This would not be a jump, as our studies have already shown that the OT uses the verb “sozo” as a deliverance from temporal circumstances in over 98% of its occurrences.

Nevertheless, it has been shown that this verse does not contain the phrase ‘sozo’ with ‘psyche’ as its object, which is the very phrase we have been studying.

2 Clement 15:1

English Passage:
Now I do not think I have given you any light counsel concerning self-control, which if any one do he will not repent of it, but will save both himself and me who counseled him. For it is no light reward to turn again a wandering and perishing soul that it may be saved.

Greek Phrase in Question:
ψυχην... σωθηναι

Granted, his thoughts here are a bit difficult to follow. But I will try rendering them intelligible with two paraphrase options.

Paraphrase #1:
My counsel to you about self-control is very important. If you should practice it, you will not regret that you did. This advice, if you follow it, will save you from the deadly consequences of intemperance. The one who exhibits self-control will save himself. When you follow my advice, I, too, will experience a salvation. This is seen in the fact that a great reward lies in store for the counselor who turns one from dissipation unto self-control, saving the life of the active recipient of his counseling.

Paraphrase #2:
My counsel to you about self-control is very important. If you should practice it, you will not regret that you did. This advice is good for both you and me; for if we should put into practice self control, we shall save ourselves from the deadly consequences of intemperance. This is explained by the fact that there is great gain in following my admonition unto self-control, which thus turns one from a destructive path of dissipation unto a path that saves and preserves the life.

(1) Self-control is the condition for the salvation in question.
(2) Self-control is obviously a work, and can in no way be mistaken for simple faith.
(3) The second sentence in the verse is logically tied to the first by use of the explanatory ‘gar’ (for).
(4) The one who practices self-control will save himself, a self wrought salvation.
(5) The salvation comes as a result of changing one’s behavior.

What is the opposite of self-control?

Dissipation, drunkenness, excess, indulgence, intemperance, intoxication, revelry, wantonness. All of these things, when fully mature, can cause physical death (see James 1:15). It is not hard to imagine the maturity of any sin causing death. Just think of the following: fornication, drunkenness, anger, drug use, etc; all of which are committed only in the absence of self-control.

It is obvious that someone who does not practice self-control is in danger of physical death. The practice of self-control will save one’s life! The one who is not practicing self-control is “wandering” from the truth and is perishing in his sin.

Both the options in rendering that I give take the above five observations into consideration. There would be one other interpretation that may be equally as valid in consideration of the observations shown, seeing that the so-called Church Father’s strayed so far away from grace. Just a casual reading of 2 Clement shows many explicit passages advocating a works-salvation. This passage could be another example of them, and thus be a false gospel. In that case, we could not put any stock into the unnamed (all scholarship denies that 2 Clement was written by the Clement of 1 Clement) writer of this ancient homily as to what the writer of James meant by “save your souls” in James 1:21, unless one is to assert that James advocates works-salvation.

Epistle of Barnabas 19:10

English Passage:
You shall remember the day of judgment, night and day. You shall seek out every day the faces of the saints, either, by word, laboring, and going to exhort them, and striving to save a soul by the Word, or by your hands you shall work for a ransom [IOW, liberty, freedom = Greek ‘lutron,’ “something to loose with”] of your sins.

Greek Phrase in Question:
σωσαι ψυχην

This passage is found in the midst of 11 verses (Barnabas 19:2-12) describing “the way of light” (19:1). Each of these verses starts out with the familiar imperative, “You shall (thou shalt)”, containing additional instances of this phrase within them as well. They are commandments to a Christian readership by which one should “travel on the way to his appointed place” (19:1). In other words, they are commandments for one’s Christian walk. The passage is like a medley of ordinances, only held together by virtue of the fact they are commandments. They cover many differing topics and do not have an evident and/or recognizable flow or meter.

The first sentence of this verse may or may not have to do with the second verse. Reading the eleven verses of this section one finds that there is not much connection between the commandments in the sense of a progressive thought. It doesn’t matter in any case. Christians must be vigilant and waiting for their Master to appear, before whom they must give an account at the Bema (Judgment seat) of Christ.

Diagramming the sentence that contains the phrase in question is very important, for it gives us the clues on how it is used by the author.

The main clause is:
“You shall seek out every day the faces of the saints”

Subordinate to the main clause are two subordinate clauses that modify/qualify the main clause and are delineated by the correlative conjunctions, “h[…h[” (English: “Either… or”).

The first subordinate contains three coordinate clauses, each of which is a verbal participial phrase, conjoined by the Greek conjunction “kai” (“and”):
“going to exhort them”
“striving to save a soul by [instrumental of means] the word”

Each of these participial, co-ordinate phrases is governed by the prepositional phrase: “by (through)[Greek = “dia”] word”

The second subordinate delineated from the first by a correlative conjunction:
“you shall work for a ransom of your sins” which is further modified by the prepositional phrase: “by your hands”

Illustrated Flow of this Verse According to its Diagramming:
(Main Command)
You shall seek out the faces of the saints, every day

(Subordinates that describe how one is to accomplish the main command, giving two options, per the correlative conjunctions)


By word:
1) laboring
2) going to exhort them
3) striving to save a soul by the Word


By hand:
You shall work for a ransom of your sins

The command is to seek out the faces of the saints. We are not talking about the unsaved here. The writer is exhorting his readership to endeavor in the ministries of edification and service unto the saints. He is not talking about evangelism!

The writer of this homily gives 2 options for following his command to “seek out the faces of the saints.” The first option has three co-ordinate components: laboring, going, and striving. It is obvious that the intention and aim of seeking out the faces of the saints is for the purpose of ministering to them. This ministry is produced either by option one:

Laboring by word. The minister is commanded to labor by means of his words, which must obviously include: teaching/preaching, admonition, and encouragement. The minister seeks to benefit ‘the saints’ by so doing.

Going to exhort them. A special emphasis is placed upon exhortation in the ministry unto the saints. It is of value to note that this verse resides in the context of a very large exhortation in the form of commandments (Barnabas 19:2-12). Could the author have intended this commandment (‘going to exhort them’) to be observed by urging the ‘saints’ to walk in “the way of the light” by preaching this set of commandments? It is highly probable.

Striving to save a soul by the word. Let us not jump ship here, dislocating this participial commandment from its governing clause! “Striving to save a soul by the [instrumental means of the] Word” is how one observes the command to “seek out the faces of the saints”! In this context, this command can hardly mean anything but “Strive to save the lives of the saints by exhorting them to obey the Word.” Obeying the commandments of the Word can save the life! This command is in the context of “seek[ing] out… the faces of the saints”, not “seeking out the faces of the lost!”

Here is a small ensample of the proverbial literature that illustrates this principle:

Proverbs 3:1-2
My son, do not forget my law,
But let your heart keep my commands;
For length of days and long life
And peace
they will add to you

Proverbs 13:13-14
He who despises the word will be destroyed,
But he who fears the commandment will be rewarded.
The law of the wise is a fountain of life,
To turn one away from the snares of death.

Proverbs 19:16
He who keeps the commandment keeps his life,
But he who is careless of his ways will die.

(For a more thorough introduction to the Proverbial literature having to do with this issue, refer to my article here: The Book of Proverbs and The Epistle of James)

Or this ministry is produced by option two:

By hand, you shall work for a ransom of your sins

The last subordinate should not give us any trouble. Remember! We are still within the context of ministering to the saints! The first option apparently discusses the ministering to the saints through our words. The second option discusses ministering to the saints through our deeds.

In other words, we minister to the saints through “laboring by hand”. Not only are we to edify the church by our words, we must build up our brothers and sisters by the performing of deeds. Not only does “laboring by hand” minister to the saints, it also has as a purpose a kind of freedom from the minister’s sins. When one is out laboring by his hands, doing deeds for the saints, he is working righteousness. We remember the old proverb that “Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” When one is working righteousness, it is impossible for him to be sinning at the same time. It is keeping him out of trouble. The working of righteousness will free the man from falling into the snare of sinful activity.

Of course this also may contain the ideas of penance and satisfaction, discussed briefly in the last post. The author may then be implying that by working and doing deeds for the saints one can merit favor or grace from God, enacting a temporal satisfaction for sins committed. It would be an act, similar to the sin offerings in the O.T., whereby one can stay in communion with God; providing a sacrifice for the temporal forgiveness of sins.

The Shepherd of Hermas Book 6 1:1

English Passage:
Sitting in my house, and glorifying the Lord for all that I had seen, and reflecting on the commandments, that they are excellent, and powerful, and glorious, and able to save a man's soul, I said within myself, "I shall be blessed if I walk in these commandments, and every one who walks in them will be blessed."

Greek Phrase in Question:
σωσαι ψυχην

A James Passage that Immediately Comes to Mind:
As soon as I read this passage in the Shepherd of Hermas, a sentence in James, merely four verses away from James 1:21 (where we have the phrase in question) came to mind:

James 1:25
But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Do you see the comparison? The one who walk in the commandments, says the author of Shepherd “will be blessed”. Does not James say the exact same thing? The one who continues in the law of liberty and is a doer of it “will be blessed” in his doings. The author of the Shepherd had this James passage in mind when he wrote his treatise.

The author of this Similitude relates to us that he was meditating and reflecting upon “the commandments”. It should be obvious to all that he means the commandments of God. Is he discussing salvation from hell? It is unlikely in the context here. He is discussing a salvation that is enacted by obedience to the commandments of God. He furthermore, mirroring James in his epistle, pronounces blessing upon the one whom “walks in them”.

This imagery closely parallels the Old Testament Proverbial literature.

Proverbs 19:16
He who keeps the commandment keeps his life,
But he who is careless of his ways will die.

How do commandments save a man’s life? The commandments give practical instruction on righteousness. Heeding the commandments keeps one from the physical death dealing consequences of sinful activities and behaviors. Walking in the commandments give temporal significance to the life and prolongs one’s days (Prov. 10:27).

Summing it Up

One of Dr. Wallace’s objections to me was that I “did not look at the Apostolic Fathers.” In this post, we have rectified this problem. Dr. Wallace gave 4 references to early church writings from the so-called “Apostolic Fathers”. We have examined each one closely, analyzing them in context. In the first instance, we found that the phrase in question did not even occur in the text. The final three were unsuprisingly shown to refer to temporal deliverance of the life.


Dr. Wallace ought to be embarassed by the carelessness that pervades his objections to my lexical studies. His assertion that “the usage [of the phrase in question] seems to move in a different direction-toward salvation from hell [in the so-called ‘Apostolic Fathers’]” was assumed on his part without him taking any time to critically look at the texts themselves.

In the next installment, we shall look at a few passages from Josephus that Dr. Wallace failed to look at. He obviously has the software that I used to find the passages in Koine Greek that have the phrase ‘sozo’ with ‘psyche’ as its object, but has completely ignored them.

A friend of mine (whom I agree with often and disagree with more) has said concerning Wallace’s opposition:

“he wasn't being objective with you, he was just showing a bias against your position rather than engaging it”

I would have to say that I whole-heartedly agree with his assessment.


Blogger Antonio said...

I sent this email to Frank Turk:

> Dear Frank,
> In Dr. Wallace's response to my lexical studies, he
> stated that I did not look at the Apostolic Fathers.
> He then proceeded to give 4 references to them.
> I have responded to this portion of his objections
> in the following post:
> 1 of them most certainly does not contain the phrase
> "sozo" with "psyche" as its object ("save souls").
> and the other three all have to do with the temporal
> deliverance of the life, NOT salvation from hell.
> Dr. Wallace ought to be ashamed concerning his
> sloppy and careless reply.
> Did he even READ the references he gave that
> supposedly dash my lexical studies to pieces?
> Antonio

To which I got the following reply:

Go to Bible.org and find his e-mail and say that to

I am certain, Antonio, that he will be far less
gratious with you than I have been if you try your
junk scholarship on him.

Your e-mail is now a spam address in my filters.
Please refrain from contacting me.


To this I say, "Of all the cheek!"

I may very well leave Dr. Wallace a note stating that I have been critiquing his reponse to me.

I once held high esteem for Frank...


January 30, 2007 6:14 PM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I am glad you are keeping the debate alive, Antonio.

January 30, 2007 6:26 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

I have taken Frank Turk's advice and emailed Dr. Wallace.

Here is a copy of my email to him:
Dr. Wallace,

Frank Turk and I had been discussing issues pertaining to the Epistle of James. I believe that he relayed to you an article I wrote on the occurrences of the phrase 'sozo' with 'psyche' as its object in the LXX. He posted on his weblog a rebuttal (authored by you) to my article.

Submitted, in the case of your interest, and for your consideration are three articles that I have written in response to the objections you made. I realize that you offered a disclaimer to Frank that you did not wish to be pulled into a debate with GES types like myself. Whether or not you desired to do such a thing, Frank Turk published a piece attributed to your authorship which contradicted a line of argumentation I sought to use in order to establish and substantiate my position on James 1:21, and the other occurences of 'sozo' in the epistle.

I feel that your brief piece was put together rather rapidly and without much care. I do not expect you to comment on my responses to your objections, but would be happy if you did.

As a side, I wish to thank you for your grammar, as it has been of great service to me.

Note: when I first responded to your objection, I was not aware of who wrote it. Frank reffered to you as his 'big gun', leaving your piece in anonymity.




I am not finished responding to your objections. I am taking them one at a time. I thank you for the springboard by which I have targeted my study.

With due respect,

Antonio da Rosa

January 31, 2007 8:57 PM  
Blogger centuri0n said...


That's funny -- from a guy who couldn't go past one round at the DebateBlog, and will not answer the 23 exegetical erros he has made regarding the matter of salvation in the NT, that's funny.

And that's all I have to say about that. Have a nice life. :-)

February 01, 2007 8:41 AM  
Blogger Antonio said...

The more I read on Gordon Clark, the more I like the guy.

I just wanted to add to this post that the Free Grace rendering and interpretation is not only possible, and probable, fiting the biblical data the best, it also leaves NO PARADOX nor MYSTERY nor CONTRADICTION whatsoever.

There is none of the gymnastics and secondary assumptions and theological reading into the text. It takes the words at literal value.

These are the strengths of the FG position on James 1:21.


February 01, 2007 6:24 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...


I'm skeert, buckwheat.

I already told you that I would address your fallacious responses to my 'sozo' study. In time. Right now I am taking your expert to task without so much as a response from you.

Just two bans, lol.

Your childishness is what is really funny, Mr. Turk.


February 01, 2007 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Bud said...


I don't know Frank Turk personally, but he seems pretty arrogant. You've done some good work here, but he can't see it... won't see it.

Mind-numbed MacArthurite robots are a waste of time. Rather than trying to convince these guys, spend your time producing good stuff like this post and prevent the innocent from being infected with puritanism.

February 02, 2007 5:00 PM  
Blogger Gojira said...

"I don't know Frank Turk personally, but he seems pretty arrogant."

Hmmmmm........and then Bud writes:

"Mind-numbed MacArthurite robots are a waste of time."

Hmmmmmmmm.......what is it they say -- pot meet kettle?


February 02, 2007 6:50 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Bud, you are absolutely right.

But let me tell you what I was thinking.

I thought that the mind-numbed MacArthurite types were at the least intellectually honest. Therefore I figured that "proof is in the pudding", and that they could dialogue rationally. Frank Turk cannot stand the heat of the kitchen. He is all about the "sound bite" anyway. Just look at his blog.

So far, which one of Dr. Wallace's objections that I have thus answered to still stands? Any objective and impartial observer would note that I have adequately responded to each of his points thus far.


February 02, 2007 7:16 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...


so you are, by your comment, agreeing to the arrogance of Mr. Frank Turk? Seems that way. (Turk is the kettle, lol?)

And hey,

I thought you would at least give me some feedback please! Have you read my post yet?


February 02, 2007 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Bud said...


Actually none of Wallace's objections stood in the first place, even if he had been accurate in his citations.

There are three reasons why the apostolic fathers are irrelevant: #1-as you pointed out, their theology was lousy; #2-it is an appeal to authority rather than to scripture, typical of Reformed theologians; #3-it overlooks the fact that in the progress of revelation the NT authors often poured their own meanings into common words.

And tell Gojira to lighten up and learn to recognize a joke. Sheesh, these knuckleheads don't even know when to have fun.

February 02, 2007 9:02 PM  
Anonymous Bud said...


One more thing.

Joe Carter over at Evangelical Outpost made an interesting point about evolutionary scientists that I think applies to Calvinists. He observed that with great intelligence comes exceptional skill to rationalize and self-deceive.

Maybe that's why most of these Calvinists are smarter than the rest of us, but can't see how stupid their arguments are?

February 02, 2007 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice work Antonio. There are truth seekers who are open to learning, and there are those who already think they know everything or trust in someone who they believe does. My Catholic Brother in law is one of the latter and it appears that in Christendom there are plenty of both. :(


February 03, 2007 9:12 AM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Good work. I found Wallace's assertions on the patrisitics to be, sloppy . . . but hey he's a language guy, not a historical theology guy.

February 03, 2007 11:01 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

Arrogance? You want arrogance? I can give you (or any one else) arrogance. It is one of my spiritual gifts.

But I really think there is plenty to go around.

February 03, 2007 4:01 PM  
Blogger Gojira said...

Bud writes:
"And tell Gojira to lighten up and learn to recognize a joke. Sheesh, these knuckleheads don't even know when to have fun."

So when Bud writes:"I don't know Frank Turk personally, but he seems pretty arrogant." He is joking? Perhaps he forgot to deliver the set up in that joke before he gave the punchline. And now "knuckleheads?" Ohhhhhh my side is hurting from all the laughter from this joke. Why not just say: "Tell that Gojira he is so ugly that when he was a kid, the dog still wouldn't play with him even if he did have a porkchop tied around his neck." But "knucklehead?" No, I am afraid that I do not have a knuckle shaped head.


I think you gave a good reply to Wallace. (Note to Bud: I am the knucklehead that was quoted at the end of the article). As I stated privately to you, in each instance where he mentions a CF, he is always assuming the longer reading. For example, and this is something everyone can do, if you were to look up each passage at say, Early Church Writings, and compare two of the main translations (given from Lightfoot and Hoole) one will find that in some instances, Lightfoot will give the shorter reading (which will completely drop the relevent phrase in question) while Hoole will have it (that is, the longer reading). So right off the bat, Wallace is begging the question, as he has not critically established the text for his argument to begin with. Another problem concerns the idea of the "soul" itself. Wallace never gave a definition of what he was specifically addressing. Does he think, for example, that the Biblical description of the soul is the same as that of the writers he gave? Is the soul some non physical stuff indicitive of some etheral "mini-me?" Or is the soul indicitive of what it is that makes a person be that person, which would be something way different from the non physical "mini-me" stuff? One thing is for sure, he never says.

"so you are, by your comment, agreeing to the arrogance of Mr. Frank Turk? Seems that way. (Turk is the kettle, lol?)"

I thought both comments were uncalled for. Frank gave a whole post from Wallace to be replied to. Researching that post, and giving an honest reply is what you did. It doesn't matter if one is for your position or not, you are to be commended for that. And I know that you are not done with your reply. So I think that Frank overstepped himself here. Bud echoing the same attitude with an ad hom. was just as bad as Frank. It doesn't serve to further grown up debate.

But over all, yes, you have so far given a good reply, and I look further for more.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go tie two porkchops around my neck and go play with the dog.

February 03, 2007 6:15 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Hey Trent,

thanks again for your encouragement and participation. I agree with you. It is difficult to have an intellectual, rational, and logical discussion with those who don't return the same. I had truly wished that a well-reaonsed treatment could persuade. But a mind must first be open to the communication.

Bobby Grow,

I appreciate that you took the time to read my treatise. That means alot to me. I would be interested more in your study into the thomistic understandings of "psyche". You should do a post on it, I would REALLY appreciate it. It seems that you and Doug may have some of the same ideas on it.

Hey Joe,

I appreciate you coming by. You are always there to make a tense moment more tense, er I mean light. Blessings to you, brother.


thanks for the kind words. I spent a lot of time studying these passages in the patristics. I have an idea that if I ever would write a doctoral dissertation, i would do it on the phrase in question.


February 04, 2007 11:58 AM  
Blogger Pastor Jim said...

I'm impressed, antonio! For atleast a year and a half, now, you have been arguing the SAME THING!!! I keep poking my head in to see if you have any other beliefs, but it appears you do not. You still have the same people on here who say, "good job, antonio," yet the number has not went up. You are not doing so well at getting out "your" word. I'll probably stop by in another couple of months and see you saying THE EXACT SAME THING WITH THE EXACT SAME VERSES. Do you just copy and paste the same posts with a couple different latin words to fill up space?

February 06, 2007 3:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home