Exactly! What I have been saying with respect to the blasphemer is that he is not doctrinally sound. The repeated disclaimer for not completely rejecting the blasphemer and refusing to refrain from all recommendation of him is that he is ‘doctrinally sound’. Sound doctrine doesn’t produce blasphemous behaviour. And close scrutiny, says Dave, will show that the ‘sound doctrine’ isn’t really all that sound.
So what is behind the seemingly compulsive qualification of so many who write disclaimers ((P.S. I can’t wait for Dave’s entry for me in his new “Disclaimerpedia”. I am sure it will be a doozy.)) for the blasphemer to include, “Well, he’s doctrinally sound”?
Could it be…
Comments