I will siimply go back to my earlier illustration on preterism. MacArthur wants to argue in the same fashion against preterism. If one accepts the preterist hermeneutic then in a generation everyone will end up a hyper-preterist. It's just a bad argument that may try to scare a few people and keep a few in lock step, but it doens't really get anyone anywhere.Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I came away from reading Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, with the sure and certain conviction that only an Arminian could have come up with his theories. His description of the court scenario is simply impossible from Reformed and Calvinistic presuppositions. This, in my view, is why ultimately there will be no harmony with Wright-inspired theology and entrenched Reformed committments. Those who attempt a mediating position will have to acknowledge their hybrid status--that they hold a Reformed soteriology out of preference, but are swayed on key points of theology by Wright's explanations/exegesis.
I said something similar to Jacob, when I called for whoever most values his reformed credentials in the FV Camp to write a book-length defense of Justification, on par with James Buchanan or James White, that builds nothing on disputed texts (i.e. faith of/in Christ passages). Don't you dare tear up a foundation, but still declare your undying commitment to the pillars that it once supported. They will surely vanish in a generation.
My Reformend theology isn't out of preference, but, I believe, upon Biblical exegesis. I just disagree that some traditional proof-texts are addressing that particular issue. So, I fully believe that Jesus will return bodily, I just don't believe Mt. 24 proves that. I still believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I just don't believe 2 Co. 5:21 teaches that.
[Edited on 7-25-2005 by openairboy]