I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think there are some misunderstandings between the two of us in terms of semantics and the definitions that we’ve used, but that does not change the point of my initial comment.
Your paragraph about Comer’s line being “anti-grace” is not accurate. In Comer’s theology, entering into his kingdom does not have salvific overtones. It’s not anti-grace. It’s a healthy response to grace, and is not something that an “editor should have caught.”
Now, if Comer had started PtW with “I am a Reformed Protestant and thus submit to a Reformed Protestant theology over and above contemporary theological scholarship,” then yes, an editor should have caught that line, because it would have been fundamentally flawed. Yet, even though Comer has immense respect for the reformed Protestant tradition, he has criticized and disagreed with many of its features, especially their understanding of “kingdom of heaven.”
As it stands, I would greatly recommend that you at least add a footnote or something to your original paragraph to explain that Comer’s understanding of entering the kingdom does not necessarily carry salvific implications and thus might not imply what your concern insinuates.
And I do apologize that we have had this whole discussion while typing off phones in a comments section. It’s not a good way to communicate and I’m sure I’ve misunderstood many parts of what you’ve said. If you’d like, I’m more than open to a phone or zoom call if you’d like to talk:
I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think there are some misunderstandings between the two of us in terms of semantics and the definitions that we’ve used, but that does not change the point of my initial comment.
Your paragraph about Comer’s line being “anti-grace” is not accurate. In Comer’s theology, entering into his kingdom does not have salvific overtones. It’s not anti-grace. It’s a healthy response to grace, and is not something that an “editor should have caught.”
Now, if Comer had started PtW with “I am a Reformed Protestant and thus submit to a Reformed Protestant theology over and above contemporary theological scholarship,” then yes, an editor should have caught that line, because it would have been fundamentally flawed. Yet, even though Comer has immense respect for the reformed Protestant tradition, he has criticized and disagreed with many of its features, especially their understanding of “kingdom of heaven.”
As it stands, I would greatly recommend that you at least add a footnote or something to your original paragraph to explain that Comer’s understanding of entering the kingdom does not necessarily carry salvific implications and thus might not imply what your concern insinuates.
And I do apologize that we have had this whole discussion while typing off phones in a comments section. It’s not a good way to communicate and I’m sure I’ve misunderstood many parts of what you’ve said. If you’d like, I’m more than open to a phone or zoom call if you’d like to talk:
griffingooch97@gmail.com