In Q&A#46, you seem to say that baptism (with water) is necessary for salvation. Am I interpreting your perspective correctly, and if so, what do you think about the man on the cross next to Jesus going to heaven without baptism?
What are the ten most stimulating Bible-related books that you have read?
Within this video, I discuss Matthieu Pageau’s stimulating book, The Language of Creation: Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis.
This video is a response to a widely-shared, much discussed, and controversial Twitter thread. Within the discussion, I reference a few articles and books:
I guess I’m intrigued about a couple of things.
First, do you really think it’s the case that there is actually any kind of moral consensus in principle among people? The kind of thing that lets pro-Natural Law folk say, “Everyone knows that murder is wrong” when, actually, a glance at our history raises at least some questions about this.
I guess this is prompted in part by the fact that what passes for sexual ethics in the public square is now moving so fast that even I feel old-fashioned, and (more to the point) I can remember a day not so long ago when “Everyone would have thought” that things now accepted as normal would have been described as abhorrent and unnatural.
Doesn’t this ethical slide raise at least some questions about the stability of any kind of NL ethic?
And second, a question from the other side of the coin. Shouldn’t Jordan Peterson’s remarkable success in making arguments in the public square in part on the basis of an unashamed appeal to the Christian Scriptures give us rather greater optimism that some seem to have about the credibility of making such an appeal to people who aren’t themselves Bible-believing Christians?
Might it not be possible to make a kind of (presuppositionally?) self-validating appeal to an unacknowledged source of religious authority like the Bible, in a way that doesn’t rely on a prior commitment to its authority, but rather generates precisely that commitment by the cogency of the appeal and the argument as a whole?”
I was wondering if you would comment on the Cain and Abel story and possibly develop some of the symbols, foreshadowings, etc. It is a rich passage that I would love to get your take on, especially since it is the first thing we are told after the fall of Adam and Eve.
Should we come to the text with completely open minds, or should we hold some ideas and convictions with certainty? This may be a poor example to help illustrate my question, but in Ephesians 2, Paul speaks about Christ abolishing the law. Christ himself says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Is it cowardly, faulty, and/or problematic in some way to be committed to analyzing and studying from the perspective that Paul cannot be contradicting Christ who cannot be contradicting the Old Testament writings? Or should we be willing to explore openly and to accept whatever conclusions our analysis leads to, which in this scenario could be something like Paul is actually saying something Christ would not.
What does baptism do for a person?
Do you hold to paedocommunion? If so, how would you reconcile this with Paul’s warning in 1 Cor 11:29, and that chapter more generally?