Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Trounce
David Trounce
9 years ago

But they did get to call Him those things. Could you explain why you say they didn’t? Thanks.

jeers1215
jeers1215
9 years ago

Their version of reality had no authority, even using identical form. It sounds like Pastor Wilson is talking about bad semantics.

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
9 years ago

Trounce: “Get to” in the sense of “since the batter hit a home run, his team gets to put a point up on the score board”.

If the batter had struck out then his team could still put a point up on the score board, but it would be called by a different name: “lying”.

Blannwich
Blannwich
9 years ago

ah yes, ye olde serrated edge

bethyada
9 years ago

I often think this about mockery. It is something that can be done but only by those on the side of truth. Only truth gets to mock falsehood.

Drew
Drew
9 years ago

Doug,

I am intrigued by the presuppositionalist’s emphasis on the myth of neutrality, but I am skeptical because in debates the presuppositionalist too often gives explanations of presuppositionalism that seem (at least to me) to be too reductionist, polemical, and cluttered with constant references to “worldviews” to get at a really nuanced explanation of why neutrality-mongers are dead wrong. Perhaps my presuppositions are preventing me from seeing the light, but I was was wondering if you could point me in the direction of a book that dives deep into this subject and may attempt to “prove” neutrality wrong.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
9 years ago

Of course they did call Jesus all those things. I think the point is that they were obvious slanders.

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
9 years ago

@Drew: neutrality is a myth because a man cannot be neutral to Jesus, and Jesus is Lord of absolutely everything.

I agree that some presuppositionalists trip on their own vocabulary. I’ve done it myself.