Update to a post

Update to this post just below:

I wrote it just after reading Manata lecture, in his bullying way, somebody about how his, Manata's, end-times views are correct. He threw in the obligatory "that's an assertion, not an argument" and accusation of using fallacious reasoning and being an idiot for it and all the rest one expects from that little internet school made up of those types (usually former or current theonomists, among other things). If you want some fun tune in to some of Manata's mp3 debates and listen to him get bogged down with his approach against his opponent. Not that his opponents have the better argument, but that what seems free-flowing in print runs in to the usual dead ends "intellect-alone" approaches run into when peformed in real life.

And I'd just read Hays write a bizarre response to Vincent Cheung. Bizarre because his tone and attitude seemed juvenile and nasty, and Cheung is, if anything, a rather kind gentleman when you approach him. I don't have a dog in the "scripturalism" fight, but to pound Vincent Cheung the way the theonomists Hays and Manata do is just off-the-mark.