Regarding Dr. Cox’s Post of July 27

July 28, 2012

SBCToday’s editorial team has conferred regarding a couple of sentences in Dr. Michael Cox’s post on July 27 titled “A Biblical Critique of Calvinism Part 2a: Old Testament Scriptures Teaching the Optional Nature of the Gospel Invitation.”

While we agree that the analogy was intended by Dr. Cox to be illustrative of a significant point, we also are aware that the comparison presented significant offense to others. We must note that, the analogy is not original with Dr. Cox (see CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, works by Norman Geisler and RC Sproul). Further, we have no desire to be insensitive to others — especially if the analogy is personal — nor do we want to diminish the informative treatise by Dr. Cox.

To those who moved past the analogy and conversed about other salient points in Dr. Cox’s post, we are grateful. But for those who were offended by the two sentences in question, we offer our sincerest apology to you and ask for your forgiveness. We deeply regret any negative impact; and to illustrate our genuine lament in this matter, we have removed the analogy and the sentence subsequent to it.

 

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Bill Mac

Thank you.

Luther Jones

Yes. Thank you.

Tom Parker

Mr. Miller:

You said:”To those who moved past the analogy and conversed about other salient points in Dr. Cox’s post, we are grateful. But for those who were offended by the two sentences in question, we offer our sincerest apology to you and ask for your forgiveness. We deeply regret any negative impact; and to illustrate our genuine lament in this matter, we have removed the analogy and the sentence subsequent to it.”

How were “those” able to move past this horrendous analogy?

Several seemingly approved of it and that seemed quite strange to me.

    Norm Miller

    I would suggest, Tom, that you go back through the threads to find for yourself “those” who did not dismiss the entire post, but who engaged in meaningful discussion about the numerous salient points of the blog. — Norm

Lydia

How kind of you guys to express this to those who were so offended. As one who was a volunteer advocate for a rape crisis center, I understand that the definition is about power and having power over the weaker person. Control. Domination. It was used as a literary device in “The Rape of Nanking” where for 6 weeks the Japanese murdered thousands of people in Nanking in 1937. We have seen it used also as a literary device in other literature to describe the Barbarians and Visogoths who literally decimated cities. The use of the word today is a bit different than how it might have been used years ago. But anyway, you guys are irenic and that is what counts where there has been offense.

    Norm Miller

    Thank you, Lydia, for your thoughtfulness in your remarks. And thank you for your service in the rape crisis center. — Norm

Darryl Hill

I appreciate this very much. I will also acknowledge that this was not the primary emphasis of the article by Dr. Cox. Thanks for removing that analogy. It says a lot to me.

    Norm Miller

    You are welcome, Darryl. — Norm

CC

Thank you.

Patrick

Nothing but silence from Tim Rogers who continued to defend the use of the analogy. I wish I could say I was surprised.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available