James Arminius

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

“All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin ... Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever.”

[Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ @SpeedWatkins]

“The slaughter of the Canaanites was not genocide… [it] was not murder. It was capital punishment… The insertion of a divine command makes all the difference. Since our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, what He commands is just and right.”

—William Lane Craig

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@XianMind @scottrswain Or were you perhaps unwittingly thinking of this article????
https://t.co/BwMXTssvjs

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@WriterJohnBuck @Philip_Goff So God is not omnipotent???

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@realRobertArmel @JoelMCurzon LOL! No.

The post could have ended immediately before the hyphen as there’s not a shred of evidence that Irenaeus “discovered” Acts.

But, for example, Acts 20:35 and 1 Clement 2:1 both mention it being better to give than to receive. Dependence or shared sources? So,“perhaps”.

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@JoelMCurzon Another moronic post that is contrary to the empirical evidence and that has no first century evidence to support it?

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@SoteriologyA1 I didn’t have largely agreeing with a Calvinist post on Romans 9 on my bingo card for today.

But I agree entirely with your criticism of the deceptiveness of the original post.

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@MikeWingerii Jesus and the Apostles did Number 1 on purpose. So be careful with criticizing that approach.

Number 4 applies to most academics with their speculative and “new” readings that are disguised by appeals to “context” and “culture” and the like.

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E And although you try to skate over it, your post above makes it crystal-clear that whereas Jesus sees the resurrection of the dead as a concept in Exodus 3:6, you see him as wrong.
And that is the main point of this thread (as the “context” clearly shows).

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E My claim is that higher critics side with the Sadducees and against Jesus in saying Exodus 3:6 does not “prove” the resurrection of the dead.
That claim is indisputable, which is why you continue to throw up smokescreens.

(And, as you know, Peter Enns is now uber-liberal.)

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E To claim that Higher Critics do not side with Sadducees on the specific point of rejecting Ex 3:6 as proving the resurrection of the dead is incredibly deceptive.
Simply put, Higher Critics reject God as the author of Scripture & see Jesus as violating hermeneutical sensibilities

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E So, Peter Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture” WTJ 65 (2003) 263 at 269-70 “To understand Exod. 3:6 as demonstrating that ‘the dead rise’ ... as Jesus does, violates our hermeneutical sensibilities, and we should not pretend otherwise.”

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E To use scholastic/Reformation-era language, Jesus is claiming belief in the resurrection is a 'necessary consequence' of God's statement in Exodus.
Higher critics side with the Sadducees and see the original meaning as they saw it thereby disagreeing with Jesus' interpretation.

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E And you said "It is in fact later biblical texts that often seek to explain away or reinterpret earlier ones."
But Jesus scolded the Sadducees for not believing in the resurrection on the basis of God saying, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E as the author of Scripture, and that your approach regards the interpretative methods of Christ and the Apostles as erroneous, naive and to be critiqued rather than followed.
You may well argue that their view is wrong, but you should be aware of the issue and up front about it.

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E No. You are wrong.
At a minimum, you should realize that your view is diametrically opposed that the views of Christ, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Scholastics, the Reformers & the Book of Common Prayer.
But intellectual honesty requires the admission that you reject God

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E Those are all usually excuses to depart from the doctrine that God is the author of Scripture.
We usually know nothing about the author or his intent apart from the text of Scripture.
And appealing to "sociohistoric context" is usually connected to explaining away the text.

[James Arminius @ArminiusFan]

@Graham_Mark_E Your observation is irrelevant for a Christian theologian who regards God as the author of Scripture. Facts about Cain and Abel are found in Genesis, Hebrews, 1 John & Jude.
Mine said nothing of "living texts" or speculating about "authorial intent" or "sociohistorical context".