Au contraire, he answered your question just as directly as required.stahrwe wrote: Wright had a chance to 'catch a break' by answering my question. Since he chose to ignore it; no break.
Oh my, stahwre, you're reminding me of Walter Mondale's reaction to Ronald Reagan: "It isn't what he doesn't know that worries me. It what he knows for sure that just ain't so."As far as Scriptural Determinism goes, quoting from RW, TEoG: "Some people, in the sway of scriptural determinism, have a very dark view of the future. They note that the scriptures of all three monotheistic faiths embrace the slaughter of infidels. If these scriptures have the final say in a world of nuclear and biological weapons, we’ll see carnage that makes the Crusades look tame."
In my experience, when an author says, "some people" they mean themselves. If they meant some other group they would identify them by name. Once again this is an example of RW's lack of knowledge of the Bible. The Bible, including the OT does not advocate slaughter of infidels. The OT primarily deals with the nation of Israel. People who opposed Israel were destroyed, people who supported Israel propered. In the NT, a period of grace began operation during which time the Kingdom of Heaven was opened to everyone through Christ.
We only have to go as far with this as your "theory" that Wright is veiling his own view with "some people." If you had followed his drift at all, there is no way that you could have concluded this. This is something you're making up.
Your perception that I am "advocating" for scriptural determinism only indicates the futility of further discussion.You're splitting a fine hair indeed if you wish to maintain that you can advocate for 'scriptural determinism' without understanding the underlying scriptures. I would love to explore that with you but suggest a new thread for it. I'm sure the discussion will be arcane and tedious, exactly the way I like it.