<< But I feel, sadly, that there are many who probably
would agree with your very unfair characterization of my views as being in
the same Ballpark as LDS. I guess when reason fails, start the name calling.>>
I do feel your views here skirt dangerously close to "un-orthodoxy", and not
unfairly (see below). So I say so. But I don't question your sincerity, just
your interpretations. Nothing personal. Relax. Aren't Texans supposed to be
easy?
<<As for me, I will believe what God says in the Bible
rather than what you say the Bible says.>>
Your *interpretation* of Scripture is what bothers me. Let's just take one
example:
<<The fact that God spoke in a dream to Pilate's wife is clearly a case of
revelation to someone in another culture without an intermediary. >>
Where does the Bible say this was a dream FROM GOD? You see, you're reading
into the text, an interpretive no no.
And the reason this is a vital matter is summarized by the great Carl Henry,
in his article "Special Revelation" in Elwell:
"Christian theology has had to protect the biblical view of special revelation
against many perversions...The idealistic notion that God's revelation is
given only generally, that it is a universally accessible idea, is destructive
of biblical emphases such as the particularity of special revelation and a
historical sequence of special saving events."
What you're doing, it seems to me, is taking scanty Biblical data,
misinterpreting it, and then hypothesizing well beyond the limits of reason.
It seems to me also that this is what you do with the physical data in order
to get to your evolutionary views.
<<Your view of orthodoxy seems to be whatever you believe
and nothing more.>>
Not so. I'm supported by 2,000 years of theology.
Jim