From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 17 1998 - 14:25:14 EST
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:50:08 -0800 "Dale M. Wheeler"
>I'm responding off list because of Carl's request...I'm cc: this
>to him, just so he knows what's what...
>Its somewhat difficult to enter into a discussion with you on this
>topic when you start off by branding any other interpretation of
>the passage than yours as "absurd".
Dale (and Carl):
I just sent off a rather long post to you, then received this one.
Thanks much for your gracious reply. Please accept my apologies. I am
only thinking logically and using logic notation when I say that your
position reduces to absurdity. If someone were to say that to me, I
would take it a certain way. Good, I hope. But, such does not carry the
same connotation to many and I should be more careful before using it
Your expertise is of great value to me. It is highly regarded. I do
hope we can continue to sharpen each other. Your comments about the
difficult passages for the Calvinistic position are sincere and not to
be lightly discarded. I am very much aware of the position you espouse.
Fanning and Hodges (my baby Greek prof at Dallas to whom you refer) have
championed it, I am sure. In my judgement such raises far too many
serious problems than it solves. If you would like, however, we could
delve into them. Maybe not.
It would be interesting to me to hear what Carl has to say, not on the
theology so much, but on what you and others have been espousing
recently. It does seem to me to be something which the Hodges-Fanning
camp may have been forced into because of their theology. Am I wrong?
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT