(April 5, 2017 at 10:04 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: SteveII, you have identified a helpful list of orthopraxy, but remain silent about orthodoxy. Is it not also true that these "fruits" are expected to follow from knowledge God's Grace, Christ's work on the Cross, and true repentance.
Nevertheless, it is true that many atheist biblical skeptics have an extremely rigid and myopic way of looking at the Word. They get very upset with and dismissive towards Christians who take a more nuanced approach. For example, I am reading a book about debt in the ancient world. It really illuminates many parts of scripture - from the Law of Jubilee to the 1st century perspective on God's role as redeemer. Meanwhile skeptics are fixated on rabbits chewing cud. They cannot fathom our unity on the plain, clear, and central teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection, while still retaining our ability to have civil ecumenical discussions about minor doctrines, like total depravity, annihilation, infant baptism, etc. For them it is "all or nothing"
But you see, Neo, it is precisely that I do fathom your unity on (and belief in) the "plain, clear, and central teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection," that I am dismissive of Christianity and of what passes for reasonable in that world. Your views on 'minor doctrines' are intraparty disputes that don't concern me.
