And All God’s People Said, “Wut?”

[alex o.]

Greg Long wrote:

Please everyone, you must understand that Alex’s decrees of what is or is not Gnosticism, or what Wright truly means, are the final standard of accuracy, and so he does not need to explain his reasoning to us. He possesses knowledge of Gnosticism that the rest of us can only hope to obtain.

You are an instructor at Liberty? You must be going for your PhD to be at this level, or have you completed it? I’ve wasted time thinking about what I wrote as well as Bert and others’ writings (it was ultimately not wasted time because I am continuing to learn about what Christians currently think).

I am just not getting it (Bert’s identifying Wright as ironically having Gnostic tendencies by identifying a historic Adam from hominoids). So, you see Bert’s characterization as valid, yes? Could you lay out for me exactly how you see this.

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim and not from the objecting party.

Wright is out there. He has written voluminously for all to see. I’ve disagreed with him substantially at points and I don’t need Wilson to parse Wright for me.

I have not read texts of Gnosticism in their original languages or studied all the Jewish materials that shed light on proto-Gnosticism in their original languages. Neither have I read primary sources in their original languages. Tom Wright does so, and he interacts with scholars on the forefront of these issues globally. He is a competent scholar, so, it would be the height of irony if he locates Gnosticism as a current threat and yet falls into it himself. I don’t see him doing that at all.

Doug Wilson, I suspect, is feeling the heat of Wright’s pen. It is getting too close to where Wilson is. Wright is merciless toward imprecise scholars. Wilson’s comeback: pot shots, innuendo, snide comments. I don’t think Wright loses a minute’s sleep over Wilson’s words. Wilson is not someone who academics go to for anything. He called himself a cornpone and it seems fitting enough.

Wilson did much more than pot shots, although he did use humor he was very specific about his problem with Wright’s views. And it’s not like Wilson is the only one who has problems with Wright on this.

[Greg Long]

alex o. wrote:

Greg Long wrote:

Please everyone, you must understand that Alex’s decrees of what is or is not Gnosticism, or what Wright truly means, are the final standard of accuracy, and so he does not need to explain his reasoning to us. He possesses knowledge of Gnosticism that the rest of us can only hope to obtain.

You are an instructor at Liberty? You must be going for your PhD to be at this level, or have you completed it? I’ve wasted time thinking about what I wrote as well as Bert and others’ writings (it was ultimately not wasted time because I am continuing to learn about what Christians currently think).

I am just not getting it (Bert’s identifying Wright as ironically having Gnostic tendencies by identifying a historic Adam from hominoids). So, you see Bert’s characterization as valid, yes? Could you lay out for me exactly how you see this.

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim and not from the objecting party.

Wright is out there. He has written voluminously for all to see. I’ve disagreed with him substantially at points and I don’t need Wilson to parse Wright for me.

I have not read texts of Gnosticism in their original languages or studied all the Jewish materials that shed light on proto-Gnosticism in their original languages. Neither have I read primary sources in their original languages. Tom Wright does so, and he interacts with scholars on the forefront of these issues globally. He is a competent scholar, so, it would be the height of irony if he locates Gnosticism as a current threat and yet falls into it himself. I don’t see him doing that at all.

Doug Wilson, I suspect, is feeling the heat of Wright’s pen. It is getting too close to where Wilson is. Wright is merciless toward imprecise scholars. Wilson’s comeback: pot shots, innuendo, snide comments. I don’t think Wright loses a minute’s sleep over Wilson’s words. Wilson is not someone who academics go to for anything. He called himself a cornpone and it seems fitting enough.

Sorry Alex, but the onus is on you to explain how Bert misunderstands Wright and misunderstands Gnosticism, since you made both of those charges without explanation.

Wilson did much more than pot shots, although he did use humor he was very specific about his problem with Wright’s views. And it’s not like Wilson is the only one who has problems with Wright on this.

Apologies for excessive snarkiness, this is not something I aspire to become.

Upon reflection, yes, the onus is on me to support the charge so will withdraw it. Of course I don’t concede the point but I don’t have time to get bogged down on Wright’s writings concerning Gnosticism. Also, I don’t want my purpose to merely make debate wins and points.

So, grace mercy and peace be multiplied to all who love our Lord.