Yesterday, I received an email notification that Wellman had posted to Patheos an article explaining what Jesus meant when conditioning entrance to the kingdom of heaven upon having greater righteousness than the Pharisees had. Matthew 5:20. See here.
Yesterday, I posted a reply to that article, pointing out that Wellman ignored the immediate context, and that more respect for immediate context would have led to the conclusion that Jesus was teaching a legalistic form of salvation. The reply was scholarly and did not break any rules.
I accused Wellman of acting like a Jehovah Witness in how quickly he ignored the immediate context and tried to mix Isaiah and Paul into Matthew 5, all because of his trust in "biblical inerrancy".
Somebody deleted that reply.
So today I posted another reply, substantially the same. Again, no breaking of any rules. And again, somebody deleted it. And now, the person doing the deleting flagged my reply "spam":
While there's always the possibility that it was somebody other than Jack Wellman who deleted my replies, it is certainly reasonable to suppose it was Wellman himself. The irony is that one of the replies there, from "Pud", is far more acerbic and insulting than my reply was, yet his posts from 3 years ago are still viewable.
What does it say about a "Christian" who allows insulting replies to his article to remain viewable, but who deletes scholarly rebuttals that directly attack the arguments in the article?
"Yesterday, I posted a reply to that article, pointing out that Wellman ignored the immediate context, and that more respect for immediate context would have led to the conclusion that Jesus was teaching a legalistic form of salvation. "
ReplyDelete"legalistic" would mean rituals pertaining to foods, prayers, clothes and moral behaviour?
yes, but also in the sense of conditioning salvation on one's exhibiting actual personal righteousness...which directly contradicts Paul's obvious antinomianism in Romans 4:4-5
Delete