Traditionalism in political science Video
Traditional and modern view of political science lecture in English traditionalism in political science
My wife got me this book as a Christmas gift just going through my Amazon wish list I suppose.
Videos & Interviews
And God have mercy on her since I have two just for books and one of them is completely full. So naturally, I went through the book as soon as I could.
I will admit my bias. I hold to a view of Hell that would be closer to traditionalism, although most traditionalists I think would not really hold to my view. The book starts with the view of Fudge who holds to annihiliationism. To be fair also, Peterson would prefer his viewpoint not be called traditionalism since it can look like one believes just because it is a tradition.
Welcome to Scribd!
Such is the nature of the beast. I found it in many ways an interesting look. I do agree with the criticism later on that a number of passages I do not think really are talking about what I prefer to call the after-death.
I think Fudge did put forward a good argument and he did try to stay focused on the Bible. I do understand that as he went through each section of Scripture with an emphasis on the NT understandably and tried to cover as much ground as possible. I do think too often Peterson had relied too much on a more futurist eschatology. I also did think it was problematic to say that Fudge went too source into the Greek. I happen to think Peterson and Fudge neither one did well on their critiques.
Then Peterson made traditionalism in political science case and he made his slightly different, but I understand why. He started off from a historical position. Many of the greatest minds in church history have denied annihilationism.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Peterson himself would not say it is. What it does mean is that if you are going against that kind of consensus, you had better have some good evidence for it. Next Peterson makes his case from Scripture. In this, he goes to ten passages and traditionaalism the time frame and setting of each one and responds to the annihilationist interpretation, namely that of Fudge. I found this section to be quite well-written, though traditionalism in political science there were times I think a more futurist interpretation was included in the text, but few if any texts depended on that. Finally, Peterson shows how this impacts other doctrines and the best case was in Christology. What happened to Jesus on the cross when He died?
Did He cease to exist? Did His humanity go away. These are questions that have to be answered and if Fudge holds that Jesus ceased to exist after He died, then I think that we are entering into some very serious issues at this point. I have admitted my bias at the start, but when I read the text, I was trying to keep in mind that in some ways, Fudge was critiquing the view that I held. How would he do? Is there really any need for this? You would get the impression from Fudge that Peterson is practically roasting marshmallows watching unbelievers burn and celebrating it.
Fudge also did this in pointing to how Peterson has to hold to the tradition that he is in and Fudge does not. His denomination is one that says Scripture is the final authority. If you asked traditionalism in political science which was the final authority, he would no doubt say Scripture. The problem when we get often to just the Bible traditionalism in political science that it is not just the Bible.]
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
I think, that you are not right. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
It — is senseless.