For me, the tangential, sideways crab-like movements of conversation on the site forums often provide the most interesting developments - though I have to own responsibility for this particular diversion.

Fair enough. Given how the conversation started, I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak. I had gotten the impression you were trying to construct some kind of explanation for why my .sig lines are “wrong” or “out of bounds” or inappropriate or something. So it has been kind of disconcerting to see this open up into quite a number of parallel threads across multiple posts at this point.

Like the reformers, I believe in the perspicuity of scripture - so while I agree that much is complex, I don’t agree that nothing is simple.

I’ll be 100% up front with you. My initial exposure to reformed theology while at college and the way I saw those who identified as reformed conduct themselves in discussions with those with whom they did not agree was one of the primary reasons I eventually converted to Roman Catholicism. The recent “controversy” over Mark Driscoll’s critique of the emerging church movement has re-affirmed my decision as correct for me. So there’s my bias and baggage on the table.

I think at heart, the message of the gospel (which is how the apostles defined the ‘word of God’) is simple, and that this provides a determinative way of interpreting scripture - OT and NT.

That’s certainly not something we’re either going to come to agreement on or change each other’s mind about, so not much point in pursuing it much further. All I will say is that while I agree that “the message of the gospel” at its core is very simple, I can’t agree that provides the definitive, clarifying lens through which to interpret scripture. At least not insofar as that should automatically produce some kind of self-evident, simple result which should be clear to any thinking person of reasonable aptitude. There are simply too many human finger-prints on the text to be able to take that as a primary approach.

The rest of this doesn’t appear to be a response to me specifically since it is unrelated to anything I’ve said, so I’m not quite sure what to do with it.

You keep skipping over my comments about the reliability of the source and the cohesiveness across accounts, so I will conclude that discussion doesn’t interest you and drop it.

I guess once again I’m done. :)

~jhimm
—
nothing lasts.
nothing is finished.
nothing is perfect.