The comment provides nothing meaningful, nor helpful to the subject at hand. He asks the question "Why bother?" presumably to suggest that the use of Scripture to defend a position is irrelevant because it can be used to support any opinion (a claim that is suspect, but we will grant it for argument's sake). He then asks, "Why not just go directly to what is right?" which seems to suggest that either what is right is so plainly obvious that it does not need Scriptural basis, or that what is right is the "Spirit of the Word" which is somehow above the use of Scripture in articulating an opinion. If the former, then we have solved nothing because just going directly to what is right is the problem that is searched after in the first place, namely, what is right (that is to say, no one has the same "plainly obvious")? If the later, then how does one know what the "Spirit of the Word" is unless one uses that "Word" to articulate an opinion about what it's spirit is? There doesn't seem anything meaningful here.
Further, it seems that Hoodwin wants to suggest that the nature of unconditional love is what is most important and not the "letter of the law." Unfortunately this is still of no help because we still have yet to define what "unconditional love" is, and by what authority ought we to make that definition. Is it just what I think it means? Is it what Scripture says it is (and we are back to articulating an opinion based on scripture here)?
So while the comment sounds meaningful and possibly even helpful, it appears it is neither.
More information about text formats