Would you really jump so quickly to that accusation? He is a very well-known and popular Catholic theologian: https://danhoran.com/
If you think the influence is Calvin, you are incorrect. Here is a sample of what has influenced my Christology:
Also, you could read up on the Christology of Jon duns Scotus.
Well, I was taught by the Catholics that fear is the opposite of faith. Look, you can try to paint me as a Calvinist all you want, but that would only be a straw man. Jesus calls not to be afraid, and you are saying that we need to fear a wrathful god. Read the article referring to Pope Benedict’s book.
This passage has to be very carefully explained, as there are some problems.
39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
So if the Pharisees are the ones who previously “saw”, then they have become blind (by resentment). So they are “claiming” to see, but in actuality they are blind. On the other hand, Jesus said that if they were blind, they would not be guilty of sin, so they are not guilty of sin even though He says “your guilt remains”.
The literal passage, then, makes no sense. We have to look at the overall point, which is that the Pharisees are indeed blind or ignorant even though they say they are not, and their rejection is to their disadvantage.
Paul is generally understanding, though, that people sin in ignorance. He knew that his own persecution of Christians was in ignorance. Paul probably did not play out all the scenarios in terms of the Pharisees.
Are you going to respond to my post 119? It is much closer to the topic. Is there a reason why you are avoiding speculation about what could have been going on in the mind of the person you described?