Comments on: Luther was not only right to insert “alone” into Romans, but he should have done it again

By: mark

mark — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:24:36 +0000

That fits Scott Hahn’s testimony (at least the one he was giving in the early nineties) perfectly.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:20:59 +0000

I’m shocked. Is there any chance that this could be someone posing as Gary Johnson? I just can’t believe that he didn’t interact at all with what you guys were saying. This is simply unbelievable, as Jeff said.

On a similar note, but not related personally to Gary Johnson, is it a common theme that any of these ex-Reformed guys that converted to Rome were very adamant about the Westminster Confession (i.e. – strict) until they started to see Shepherd and others questioning things. Then, once they saw an alternate route, they never changed their presuppositions about extra-Biblical authority and when they found the RC church, they simply swapped one extra-Biblical authority for another? A vivid example of this would be Scott Hahn and his wife in Rome Sweet Home. I picked it up off the shelf for a moment last week at Books-a-Million and started reading one of the chapters on his process of converting and my above analysis seemed to be his basic path – from a strict traditional presbyterian to that of a strict traditional roman catholic.

I’d be interested to know if anyone else has written about such a trend. It’s also interesting that Shepherd and others who have been the big names to question the tradition and point to Scripture have never even considered converting to Rome.

The point being that you guys (Mark, David, Jeff), Shepherd, and others have always held to a presupposition of Scripture over any and all traditions of men (as the Reformers did). Whereas the others who have converted to Rome never really had that view in their heart. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone like Gary started seeing validity in other’s arguments against traditional protestantism and ended up converting to RCism because they always have to have an extra-Biblical authority to survive in their Christianity.

What do you all think? I could be totally wrong. I just wanted to get some thoughts and comments/corrections. Thanks!

By: mark

mark — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:11:34 +0000

Gary, you seemed almost friendly when you started this. I was proud of you for not trolling for once. (And I am embarrassed that I surprised you by responding in kind.) But then you refused to interact with anything I said. Rather you kept repeating to say unsubstantiated vague generalities about Wright and then repeatedly tell me what I must “really” believe (Wright thinks the Reformers were wrong and therefore you must really disagree with the Westminster Standards).

I don’t understand why you simply didn’t address the issue of Romans 4.14, 16. Why just more preposterous character slurs about how I don’t care about the Apostle Paul?

The bottom line is you came here not to dialogue but to repeatedly type in my comments certain key accusations against me. You ignored everything and kept making the same claim. No argument. No discussion of Paul in Romans.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:04:16 +0000

No. Gary. You have not tried to dialogue here at all. Look up at your first post.

Why not talk to these guys about Romans?

By: G.L.W.Johnson

G.L.W.Johnson — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:27:03 +0000

Todd
It wouldn’t phase you, Mark, Jeff or anyone else in the FV in the least if the Apostle Paul himself appeared suddenly to debunk the FV. He would immediately be labeled
‘biased’, a ‘TR’ and most definely ‘not scholarly’. I have tried to dialogue with you guys and do so in a good-natured fashion- but I get insulted, called names and accused of havig sinister motives if I raise questions about NT Wright. Forget it.

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:47:44 +0000

Gary, several of us would really love to see you attempt to deal with Mark’s exegetical arguments. Please?

By: Jeff Meyers

Jeff Meyers — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:19:52 +0000

Unbelievable.

By: G.L.W.Johnson

G.L.W.Johnson — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:45:32 +0000

Mark
Gee, now you two have gone and hurt my feelings. And to think I was going to send both of you ’signed’ copies of the Warfield book. But since it does have any pictures you guys would get bored pretty quick.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:45:33 +0000

It is always an honor to deal with scholars Gary. I can only hope the intellectual quality of discourse is higher than what you have displayed here. Grapple with the issues someday soon, please.

By: Jeff Meyers

Jeff Meyers — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:31:43 +0000

So, let me get this straight. We ask legitimate questions about the relative importance of tradition and Scripture. Mark makes an exegetical argument that our tradition gets the interpretation of Rom. 4:14 wrong. I simply repeat what our Reformed forefathers have said about the danger of venerating human tradition. We ask you what you think of all this. And you respond with likening me/us to Charles Briggs. Amazing.

Again, this is so like Luther’s and Calvin’s Roman opponents it’s not even funny. Roman theologians couldn’t deal with their scriptural arguments, so they resorted to identifying the Reformers with various historical heretics. It was all about historical theology. It always is with traditionalists. Tradition, whether Reformed or Roman, is all-important. And tradition has already given us the final word on the interpretation of Scripture. Anything that violates our precious tradition’s authority must be silenced.