>>We really can't go on then. To dismiss entire works based on a few quotes,
to draw up conclusions with only a cursory understanding of what is written,
are ways to deal with difficulties, but not very productive ones for future
debate. Because you haven't read the works, you keep asking questions that
are off base, like:<<
Then Jim wrote:
>Glenn read a 1971 book by Bloesch, which is great. Anything by Bloesch I'd
recommend.
>
Jim, I have now read a book by Bloesch which you had correctly criticised me
for not reading some of this stuff. How about reading my book now so that
you won't be guilty of {to quote you above} dismissing
"entire works based on a few quotes, to draw up conclusions with only a
cursory understanding of what is written, are ways to deal with difficulties,
but not very productive ones for future debate. Because you haven't read the
works, you keep asking questions that are off base, like:<<
I wouldn't want that nasty charge you leveled at me to be applicable to you.
:-)
In the spirit of fairness, Your brother in Christ,
glenn