“In short, Jesus got to call them white-washed sepulchers and they did not get to call Him a demon-possessed drunkard in return, even though some modern neutrality-mongers might want to say that fairness required it” (Rules, p. 96).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
But they did get to call Him those things. Could you explain why you say they didn’t? Thanks.
Their version of reality had no authority, even using identical form. It sounds like Pastor Wilson is talking about bad semantics.
@david 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”.
ah yes, ye olde serrated edge
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.
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.
Of course they did call Jesus all those things. I think the point is that they were obvious slanders.
@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.