the obligation to object

is this just another instance of you feeling obliged to disagree with everything I say?

(Note: though I don’t presently have time to involve myself in discussion, I actually follow practically ALL of the OST discussions using google reader, which allows me read the post more quickly and to miss very little…)

Andrew, I was sorry to pick up your apparent frustration with Peter’s input in this post: I think it a matter of observation that you exercise the right to disagree with others as a matter of course.

I value the dialogue you and Peter have considerably. As I made clear in my considerable review of your CoSM thesis, I can see your argument and have sympathy for it, even though I am not convinced that it should be considered de facto.

For this very reason, I’ve appreciated Peter’s robust theological challenge to your thesis. And I think you should too (Do you see any weaknesses to your thesis!?).

If you thesis is ‘right and proper’ (sic) then challenge in the areas it is or appears weak is to be valued. If it’s not so, then equally challenge is to be valued, since it may save a lot of us from going too far down a fruitless or dead end route.

I am under no illusions that Peter needs me to defend him. But it saddened me when I read your apparent annoyance followed up by Peter’s apparent concern that he ought not to intrude so often into the fray with you. I think the OST site and community would be lessened if that happened.

Proverbs says it’s a fool who intrudes upon an argument between two men, so I offer my gentle concerns with no expectation of their being welcome, only the hope that one of the really important overarching theological tussles which OST has elicited, won’t be undermined in the long run.

And by the way, yes, lovely diagrams. Especially from someone who’s on record as not liking theological diagrams!

shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)