Friday, December 31, 2010

Charity for me, but not for thee!

A lot of people are up in arms at the moment about a paragraph in William Lane Craig’s answer to Question 193 “Overweening Ignorance.” Facebook, blogs, twitter and message boards are abuzz with Christians angrily attacking Craig with the charge that this paragraph shows he either does not hold to the doctrine of original sin or that he thinks it is not essential to Christianity.

http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/12/william-lane-craig-original-sin-and-original-guilt.html

i) How does Matt know that we are “angrily” attacking Craig?

ii) If we are angrily attacking Craig, does this mean that Matt is angrily defending Craig?

The conclusion we are supposed to draw is that Craig is denying the truth of these passages and views these as “optional.”

Where did I indicate that Craig was denying the truth of these passages? How does Matt derive that conclusion from what I wrote?

In “Hollywood Squares” Hays draws a ejusdem generis parallel between Craig’s paragraph and the writings of liberal scholars like Spong, Bultmann and The Archbishop of Canterbury.

I didn’t identify them as liberals. I find it shocking that Matt would angrily attack Craig by comparing him to a bunch of liberals. He should be more charitable.



This own goal demonstrates not just an alarming inability for many Christians to read in context but also some overweening ignorance about theology (not to mention an alarming lack of charity for the man who is internationally renowned and respected for publicly defending the faith by lay people and the academy alike.)

i) Well that’s pretty choice. It’s not as if Matt is extending to us the same charity which he demands that we extend to Craig. Matt’s operating principle is “Charity for me, but not for thee!”

ii) In addition, Matt’s accusation demonstrates his alarming inability to read in context. What he’s done is to bundle together the comments of no fewer than six different critics. But how can he read six different critics in context when he treats them as if they are lodging interchangeable charges? If Matt really cared about contextual reading, he’d comment on each critic individually.

At a glance, sitting by itself in a Facebook status update, in a tweet or out of context on a blog, it may well look like Craig is saying that the doctrine of original sin is not essential to the Christian faith.

It may look like Craig is saying original sin is inessential to the Christian faith? Gee, how could we ever arrive at such an outlandish interpretation? Maybe because that is what Craig explicitly said. Here is his verbatim statement:

As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith.

It doesn’t just look like Craig said original sin is inessential to the Christian faith. Rather, that’s exactly what he said.

And two sentences later, he reinforced that statement: “What is essential to Christian faith is that all men are sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption.”

Notice that he’s underscoring his initial claim by setting up a point-blank contrast between something that’s essential to the Christian faith, and something that isn’t.

If Craig meant to convey that the idea that we are all innately sinful and as such need Christ’s salvation, is not essential to the Christian faith then why does he say in the very next line “What is essential to Christian faith is that all men are sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption”? [Emphasis original] He has just said that all of us are sinful and need Christ’s salvation!

Because what he said in the very next line is set in deliberate opposition to the first statement.

In the line after this he writes, “I’m sure you’d recognize your own moral shortcomings and failures, Luke.” Where does Craig get this surety from that Luke has moral shortcomings and failures.

Wherever he gets this surety, it’s not from believing that original sin is a Christian essential.

In case you need more evidence that this is not what Craig meant, then see the next line “So don’t get hung up on Adam’s sin. It’s your own sin you need to deal with.” Again, Craig seems pretty confident that Luke has sinned and needs a solution.

Which he sets in direct contrast to Adam’s sin.

Having realised now that Craig cannot have meant to convey a denial of universal sinfulness or the need for salvation – he said in sentence 4 that this “is essential to Christian faith” – we need to look at what he did say, what he meant.

Of course, that’s a straw man. Where did I suggest that Craig denies the universality of sin or the need of salvation? I didn’t.

Rather, I faulted him for treating original sin as inessential–for the apparent reason that it’s not universally affirmed by Christians, and Craig refuses to introduce that “stumbling block.”

By employing some helpful techniques I use for analysing difficult legal passages and finding coherent solutions to prima facie statutory ambiguities…

Well, that’s a counterproductive comparison. There’s no presumption that one law may not contradict another law. Indeed, the same bill may contain internal contradictions.

Obviously, many people are reading it as referring to the term “original sin” (and their understanding as to what that term means – more on that from Matt in clue three)…

Can Matt demonstrate where I based my criticism of Craig on my own understanding of original sin? I’m simply responding to Craig on his own terms.

On this reading, Craig is saying, “The doctrine of original sin [as understood by the outraged readers] is not universally affirmed by Christians.”

Why does Matt assume I’d be “outraged” by Craig’s claim that original sin isn’t universally affirmed by Christians? Where in my response to Craig did I take issue with Craig’s factual assertion regarding historical theology?

But as clue one showed us, this is a rather contradictory way of reading it. To read the paragraph this way we would have to read Craig as denying that universal sinfulness and the need for salvation are an essential Christian doctrine in the second sentence but then spending sentences 4-7 affirming universal sinfulness and the need for salvation and their place as an essential doctrine within Christianity!

It’s hardly a “contradictory reading” when Craig expresses his point by presenting an antithetical contrast between two different propositions.

Craig hold two PhD’s and is a world class analytic philosopher known for many things but making overt contradictions in the same paragraph, side by side, is not one of them.

i) Matt is tilting at windmills. He begins by imputing to critics like me the implicit accusation that Craig contradicted himself. Then he proceeds to reprimand us for accusing Craig of self-contradiction, after which Matt tries to demonstrate the falsity of our alleged charge by showing that Craig’s position is really consistent.

Matt’s entire exercise is a muddleheaded digression. I never said or suggested that Craig’s position is inconsistent. Indeed, I think Craig is following a consistent, albeit, inexcusable policy.

ii) In addition, Glenn Peoples, in a comment on Matt’s post, disagreed with Matt that this is a “contradictory way” of reading Craig.

But Glen must be sadly ignorant of the “helpful techniques” that Matt uses for “analysing difficult legal passages.” Or maybe Glen is “angrily attacking” Craig.

It is clear that by “that doctrine” he does not have in mind the idea that we are not all innately sinful and as such do not need Christ’s salvation – he is talking about something else, the specific doctrine that Luke raised.

Matt continues to burn his strawman. Did I ever suggest that Craig denies our need to be saved from our own sins (“It’s your own sin you need to deal with”)? No.

Are we really sure we know what the doctrine of original sin is as Craig is using the term?

Once more, that’s irrelevant to my argument. I wasn’t evaluating Craig’s own grasp of the doctrine in question.

The problem is that he’s exempting his correspondent from having to believe the witness of Scripture on this issue, regardless of how he (Craig) may understand the witness of Scripture on this issue. Instead, Craig seems to suggest that:

i) A doctrine is inessential if it lacks universal Christian assent.

ii) We mustn’t put a stumbling block in front of unbelievers regardless of what the Bible requires them to believe.

Craig also has a PhD in Philosophy and has worked in the field of contemporary analytic philosophy for most of his career. This is an important point to note because in Responsibility and Atonement, Richard Swinburne advanced one of the most important philosophical discussions of “original sin.”

Matt is drawing distinctions that Craig didn’t draw. Matt is introducing considerations that Craig didn’t introduce. That’s no way to interpret Craig. Why introduce all this extraneous material, then assume that this is what Craig really had in mind? How is that any way of adducing what Craig actually meant?

Now when Craig, a philosopher, talks about the doctrine of original sin as being “unessential,” he is claiming that acceptance of all three of these doctrines is “unessential.”

He is? Where does Craig claim that? Matt quotes Swinburne, not Craig.

So when Craig states that the doctrine of original sin is unessential, the question we should be asking is which of the three components is he refering to?

No, we shouldn’t be asking which component of Swinburne’s analysis Craig is referring to, since there’s no textual evidence that Craig was even operating with that framework, or affirming one component to the exclusion of another or others.

Rather, we should operate with the text before us.

In addition, Craig’s reply to the correspondent is consistent with his overall policy. His “minimal facts” approach to apologetics. His disinclination to get “sidetracked” into defending the inerrancy of Scripture or even the general reliability of Scripture. (For instance, see his preface to the 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith).

That’s how I read Craig “in context.”

Interestingly, all the scriptures Craig’s detractors cite do not clearly or unequivocally teach 3), the doctrine of original guilt.

i) Rom 5:12-21 doesn’t teach original guilt? That’s a denial which Matt needs to defend, not assert.

ii) Again, though, I wasn’t evaluating Craig’s personal version of original sin, or denying his personal belief in original sin. Matt can’t get that out of anything I said.

Rather, I faulted Craig for his laissez-faire attitude towards the obligations of Scripture.

Such claims would be news to the Eastern Orthodox Church…

I don’t hesitate to say the Orthodox church has a defective view of original sin.

Perhaps Craig could have been clearer. Not all his readers will draw the distinctions we have above, so given this, perhaps he should have used the term “original guilt” so as to be clearer to those less familiar with the literature as to which component of original sin he was speaking of.

But I thought Craig was a world class philosopher with two earned doctrines. Can’t he express himself clearly?

But really it is the duty of readers to read in context, to read charitably – where there are two possible readings, the one that does not entail blatant contradictions two lines later is probably the reading we should adopt… It is unfortunate that in this case it appears many Christians have failed to do so and are so quick to publicly jump to conclusions about one of their brothers.

i) I didn’t attribute a contradiction to Craig’s position. That is Matt’s cloud castle.

ii) Matt has been singularly uncharitable in his reading of Craig’s critics. In Matt's universe, some brothers are more equal than others.

iii) In terms of interpretive charity, there’s nothing uncharitable about my interpretation of Craig’s statement. It’s entirely consistent with his modus operandi in apologetics and evangelism.

Matt’s post is a study in sustained hypocrisy and sustained incompetence.

Matt’s wife also added her two cents:

The problem with your approach here Steve (and Bnonn and others) is that you start with your erroneous theological assumptions, you inability to read in context to then arrive at a dodgy conclusion.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/12/rabbit-ears.html#2983179662407786404

And the problem with your approach here Madeleine (and Matt and others) is that I didn’t start with my “erroneous” theological assumptions.  I didn’t introduce my own view of original sin into the discussion. Sorry if you’re too dim to see that.

Glenn Peoples also weighs in:

I thought I would add my voice to those defending Dr Craig and calling our fellow evangelical Christians to be a little more patient and careful – as well as striving to be better informed about the theological issues we discuss.

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/in-defence-of-william-lane-craig-on-original-sin/

Of course, Glenn isn’t really defending Craig. Rather, Glenn is using the Craig incident as a pretext to defend himself. Glenn is a liberal (denies hell, denies inerrancy), so he wants to make evangelicalism a big tent. Defending Craig is just a ploy for making his case that evangelicals should be more tolerant and open-minded with respect to the Glenn Peoples of the world.

60 comments:

  1. It was only a matter of time before the fanboys and girls came to the rescue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WLC said: As for your two moral objections, the first is an objection to the doctrine of original sin. But once more, that doctrine is not universally affirmed by Christians and is not essential to the Christian faith.

    Yep, it's still there!

    All WLC needs to do to correct the situation is affirm his belief that original sin is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, announce that he either misspoke, or failed to clearly articulate his point, and retract his statement.

    Think of all the time he could save his erstwhile defenders, and how quickly he could shut the mouths of liberal pretenders who have latched onto his comment to further their own perverse agenda.

    All that stands in his way is sinful pride, or the fact that he didn't misspeak and really does believe the doctrine of original sin is a non-essential.

    Which will it be, WLC?

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think what Craig meant is that the Christian understanding of original sin (and imputed guilt) has varied throughout the centuries, and that if you have "faith in Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior", you will not be flung into Hell by that same Christ for not having sufficiently grasped the doctrine of original sin. As such, it's "non-essential" to salvation.

    Would you disagree with that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, I read M&M and the explanation.

    It just doesn't square, in my opinion, with just how essential, Jesus, [in telling the parable of the Father Who dropped dead by giving the son his inheritance before his due], makes original sin.

    The son, after eating pig slop comes to his senses and prepares his justification speech for being received back into the homestead and village of his father as a hired manager instead of a son. While he is about to speak the father would have none of his story, essentially shutting him up about his essential sins and just forgives him and restores him to full sonship.

    The Apostle Paul does the same thing at Romans 5:17. Nowhere in the verse are we focused on our essential sins, but rather the sin of Adam and his transgression against God as the essential reason for our sinfulness. The essential thing is Adam's sin and transgression and more emphasis is placed therefore on the obedience of Christ which is to say, get your eyes off of yourself and onto Adam's transgression and Jesus' obedience instead!

    So, in explaining the "essentials" to Luke, an atheist, it seems Craig equivocates by blowing off the importance of original sin taught in the Scriptures and instead focuses Luke on his own sins in hopes what will happen? Is it to inspire him to live a selfless life before God? I think not.

    I don't know? Maybe someone more learned than I can help me understand Craig's idea for the need to shift the essential focus off original sin and from what the Scripture clearly teaches as essential to what both Jesus and Paul teach is essential in coming into an understanding of our salvation experience as we go about growing in the Grace and knowledge of the Truth?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve said...
    The problem is that he’s exempting his correspondent from having to believe the witness of Scripture on this issue, regardless of how he (Craig) may understand the witness of Scripture on this issue.

    Steve, I have great respect for your apologetical and theological skills. So, I'm not asking the following question in an accusatory way. But rather for the sake of clarity. How, exactly/precisely, in this context, is WLC "exempting his correspondent from having to believe the witness of Scripture on this issue"? Especially if, from his perspective he might not consider Scripture to be clear on this issue? Maybe Craig does think Scripture is clear. In which case, he would be guilty of your charge. I don't know if he does or not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For all I know, WLC might (wrongly) think that a Pelagian interpretation of Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 is a permissible (albeit misguided) option. Pelagianism of course teaches that each person commits the same sin Adam did in the garden when that individual person commits his/her first sin. If he does think a Pelagian interpretation is permissible (even if he might personally reject it), then that might explain why he believes Original Sin is a non-essential Christian doctrine. Especially if he thinks Scripture isn't clear enough to be dogmatic on the issue. It's not like Pelagians aren't aware of those passages and haven't interpreted them in a way that fits their theology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I pointed out before in my comments on one of your previous blogs, the people at www.bible.ca seem to be a Pelagian "non-denominational denomination" with respect to Original Sin. Are groups like that non-Christian by your definition? Maybe by Craig's definition, they are "Christian" in some sense. And so, that's how he can say Original Sin isn't an essential "Christian" doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve, the post at MandM was jointly authored as indicated beneath the title. The authorship of each part was apparent to anyone who read the post through. In the text of what I wrote I made reference to "Matt" and what he would write. When Matt took over writing, he made reference to me.

    So that you can aim at the right person (because you have gotten it wrong thus far) I wrote everything from the intro through to the close of clue two and Matt wrote clue three and most of the conclusion - I added a word and a sentence to the conclusion here and there.

    Your inability to carefully read and follow an argument is even further exposed by this post and your denial of how you slated Bill Craig will not be lost on your readers who are perfectly capable of seeing your choice of blog post titles, "Bible Optional Christianity", "Rabbit Ears" and your use of ejusdem generis to suggest aspersions - to save you the google time, ejusdem generis is where the meaning you give to one thing or person is drawn from the general themes and meanings of the words or persons they are listed with. You listed Craig alongside a bunch of widely perceived as liberal scholars in your post Hollywood Squares and you placed his quote next to Scriptures that (despite their lack of relevance to what Craig actually said) were supposed to suggest Craig was out of step with God's word. Now you are attempting to deny doing these things.

    I'll remind you of Matthew 18's requirements for how to deal with one among you whom you think may have sinned - go check it out. [hint: it does not say blog your accusation on the World Wide Web as your first port of call...]

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes Steve, whenever a brother posts public information in front of the entire world, you're supposed to go to him in private before you post a public rejoinder, that's your personal responsibility each and every time, and in every case.

    That's not a horrible eisegesis of the injunction of Matt. 18; and I'm sure it was the very pattern followed prior to the posting of the article William Lane Craig, Original Sin and Original Guilt.

    Amen?

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  10. MADELEINE SAID:

    "So that you can aim at the right person (because you have gotten it wrong thus far) I wrote everything from the intro through to the close of clue two and Matt wrote clue three and most of the conclusion - I added a word and a sentence to the conclusion here and there."

    Given the collaborative effort, further distinctions of who said what are irrelevant. I don't have to perform source criticism to comment on the post. It's not as if you two colored-coded your respective contributions. And in terms of which party has more impressive credentials, you're clearly the junior partner in that enterprise.

    Of course, if you feel slighted because you didn't get top billing, I could always reassign more blame for the inept performance to you instead of your husband.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This thread is hilarious. I am beginning to warm to WLC. I just need to get him to the point where he explains that belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus is not essential to Christianity. That's when I may just jump on board. Glenn is almost there. Spong and I are waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Madeleine said...

    "Your inability to carefully read and follow an argument is even further exposed by this post and your denial of how you slated Bill Craig will not be lost on your readers who are perfectly capable of seeing your choice of blog post titles, 'Bible Optional Christianity', 'Rabbit Ears' and your use of ejusdem generis to suggest aspersions - to save you the google time, ejusdem generis is where the meaning you give to one thing or person is drawn from the general themes and meanings of the words or persons they are listed with."

    Since I'm a Classics major (among other things), there's no reason for you to assume I need to google a Latin phrase. However, your advice is no doubt revealing about your own dependencies.

    "You listed Craig alongside a bunch of widely perceived as liberal scholars in your post Hollywood Squares and you placed his quote next to Scriptures that (despite their lack of relevance to what Craig actually said) were supposed to suggest Craig was out of step with God's word. Now you are attempting to deny doing these things."

    Where did I deny that Craig's statement was out of step with God's word?

    As to the liberal scholars, my "denial" was manifestly satirical. For someone who plumes her feathers about reading ability, your lack of rhetorical sophistication is striking.

    "I'll remind you of Matthew 18's requirements for how to deal with one among you whom you think may have sinned - go check it out."

    For someone who prides herself on reading ability, you're in no hurry to lead by example:

    i) To begin with, there's textual uncertainty regarding the scope of v15, depending on whether or not eis se is original or interpolated.

    If eis se is original, then the verse is irrelevant to my situation since Craig didn't sin against me. Cf. v21.

    ii) In any case, since Craig posted his answer in public, so I commented in public. Privacy is moot when Craig uses a public medium.

    iii) Likewise, you and your hubby made the World Wide Web your first port of call when you chose to reprove Craig's critics. So you clearly need to remind yourself of Mt 18 (as you construe it) before you presume to remind anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Coram Deo,

    So does this mean you think unless someone has a proper understanding of the doctrine of original sin they cannot call on Christ as savior, assuming that WLC didn't simply mean the original guilt teaching of Augustine but the doctrine in general?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Given the collaborative effort, further distinctions of who said what are irrelevant. I don't have to perform source criticism to comment on the post. It's not as if you two colored-coded your respective contributions. And in terms of which party has more impressive credentials, you're clearly the junior partner in that enterprise.

    Of course, if you feel slighted because you didn't get top billing, I could always reassign more blame for the inept performance to you instead of your husband."


    Whoa! That is not very nice.

    Of course you do not have to know who wrote something in order to criticise the content. But I never said you did.

    It is just that it is generally polite to attribute someone's work accurately and you clearly attributed the entire post to Matt. We may not have colour coded our sections but we did each make a point of referring to the other in our sections and we did sign the post jointly and you are the only person to have made that mistake thus far.

    Why not when this is pointed out, gracefully say, "sorry, you are right, I did err in identifying the author" and move on?

    Why the need to point out that my one set of letters do not match my husband's four? Did you not just make the case for dealing with the content of the argument?

    Why accuse me of feeling slighted? What's to be feel slighted about? I, with only one set of letters after my name, had my work mistaken for someone with four sets of letters (including a PhD) by someone with more sets of letters after his name than me - cool!

    ReplyDelete
  15. An interesting quote from Wesley.

    Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh good grief. So I'm not really defending Craig but defending myself?

    I affirm original sin. Why do I need to defend myself? And because I hold to a more exegetical view of hell and not your view, I'm a liberal?

    OK, this kind of nonsense confirms that you will always be irrelevant until you wake up, and I can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I just need to get him to the point where he explains that belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus is not essential to Christianity. That's when I may just jump on board. Glenn is almost there

    The Atheist Missionary, it may well be that reactionary trigger pullers like the author of this blog might be tricked by this silly "divide and conquer" strategy, but I am not.

    I have gone on record numerous times explaning the importance of the physical resurrection of Jesus. You are pleying to the ignorance of others by implying that the issue here is theological liberalism. You are exploiting the fact that some people are sloppy enough to think this, so you are playing on their sloppiness.

    Is that really intellectually honest?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Where did I deny that Craig's statement was out of step with God's word?"

    The denial on your part that I referred to was by implication (as I have already set out more than once).

    "Bible-optional Christianity"

    William Lane Craig [quote]

    Scriptures [quote]

    We are supposed to believe you logged in, clicked on 'create a new blog post' randomly gave it that title, threw a Craig quote in and whacked in some scriptures with zero attempt at cohesion of ideas - it was all just random, not meant to mean anything to the reader... Come on.

    Then there is this:
    From Rabbit Ears
    "[Craig is] trying to usurp too much control over the conversion process, as if he has to protect people against God’s word. As if God’s word is toxic in large doses. And so he assumes the self-appointed role of giving people permission to disbelieve certain Biblical teachings which constitute a “stumbling block” to their conversion.

    He makes a V-sign behind God’s head when God is speaking (the rabbit-ear gesture), and with a wink and a nod, assures the audience that it doesn’t have to take this or that divine statement too seriously."


    I am sure you never meant to suggest anything other than that Craig is a good bible believing Christian. "As to the liberal scholars, my "denial" was manifestly satirical." The context of your other posts that cite those same sentences coupled with whom you selected to be in that list of theologians screams the opposite.

    As for the Matt 18 thing, we responded to what was already in the blogosphere. You were one of the people who placed the dispute there.

    As for "Craig did not sin against me" so technically it is ok... you are missing the general spirit and intendment of Matt 18 alongside passaged commanding us to not get into stupid arguments, to not tear each other down and to play fair and to not engage in court cases with believers and so on - the point of all these being that in-house scrapping scores an own goal - as The Atheist Missionary's hand rubbing in the comments above demonstrates.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bossmanham asked:

    Coram Deo,

    So does this mean you think unless someone has a proper understanding of the doctrine of original sin they cannot call on Christ as savior, assuming that WLC didn't simply mean the original guilt teaching of Augustine but the doctrine in general?


    A person comes to faith by grace; and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

    But methinks in the context of his quote Billy Craig wasn't talking about whether or not a person can be saved [regenerated/justified] without a fully-orbed understanding of the doctrines of original sin, forensic justification, etc.; he was dismissing the doctrine as a Christian essential.

    Of course that runs counter to Luther, the Magisterial Reformers, and the Westminster Divines; not to mention the inspired Apostle Paul.

    If this is truly his position, then he is in error and needs to be corrected; if it's all a big misunderstanding, then he needs to clear things up.

    As for the Matt 18 thing, we responded to what was already in the blogosphere. You were one of the people who placed the dispute there.

    As for "Craig did not sin against me" so technically it is ok... you are missing the general spirit and intendment of Matt 18 alongside passaged commanding us to not get into stupid arguments, to not tear each other down and to play fair and to not engage in court cases with believers and so on - the point of all these being that in-house scrapping scores an own goal - as The Atheist Missionary's hand rubbing in the comments above demonstrates.


    Pot, meet kettle...

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why are my comments being deleted? All I have done is ask you to act biblically, to retract your accusations about my character and to contact me privately if you have an issue with me. I did not make the type of ungracious attacks that this blog is making against me, and you will not even approch me in a biblical manner.

    Who is the evangelical and who is the liberal?

    ReplyDelete
  21. At least three times now my comment (not the brief one above) has been deleted.

    Steve Hays, all I did in that comment was identify the accusations you have made about me and ask you to apologise.

    Your "rules of engagement," written by Steve Hays, says: "You can say pretty much anything you please about the team. Attack us with impunity. We don't care. We can take it."

    Can you really take it? As soon a s small amount of pressure has been put on you to act like the evangelical you profess to be, you have forogtten your own standards and tried to censor the concerns out of existence. You have descreditted yourself sir. I am not the liberal here. You are.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nonbelief in the physical resurrection? C'mon Glenn, that would be heretical. I don't think you would ever go that far ...

    Unlike Glenn, I don't mind being called a liberal but I guess my username already kind of gives that away. OK, I'll admit it: "My name is TAM and I'm a liberal".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Glenn has posted a response on his site entitled "(un)Friendly Fire"" but has curiously closed it for comments. He must be afraid of someone throwing stones at his glass house.

    In any event, he begins his post with the following sentence: Every now and then I make a remark about the unfairness and crippling partisanship of some evangelicals and the way that it harms our collective effort to present the Christian message to the world My question to Glenn is how does he decide the definition of the Christian message?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Glenn,

    It's amusing that you assail my character in the midst of your protestations about my assailing your character.

    Your comments were "deleted" by the spam filter. That happens automatically.

    Try not to be so ignorant or paranoid the next time around.

    ReplyDelete
  25. MADELEINE SAID:

    The denial on your part that I referred to was by implication (as I have already set out more than once)…We are supposed to believe you logged in, clicked on 'create a new blog post' randomly gave it that title, threw a Craig quote in and whacked in some scriptures with zero attempt at cohesion of ideas - it was all just random, not meant to mean anything to the reader... Come on.

    For someone who flatters herself on her superior reading ability, your inability to track the argument is conspicuous

    When your hubby said I compared Craig to “liberals,” my denial was satirical. That should be obvious if you really had the reading ability you award yourself.

    Non-satirically, Craig said the sort of thing (“original sin is not an essential of the Christian faith”) which we’d ordinarily expect to come from the lips of a liberal.

    And Craig’s demotion of original sin is, indeed, “out of step” (your phrase) with God’s word.

    However, there’s no pressing reason why I should prefer your form of words. I’ve already spelled out where I think Craig went awry. Deal with that.

    “As for the Matt 18 thing, we responded to what was already in the blogosphere.”
    And I responded to what was already in the blogosphere.

    “You were one of the people who placed the dispute there.”

    And Craig placed his answer there.

    This isn’t hard to follow. Why do you have such a hard time keeping track?

    “As for ‘Craig did not sin against me’ so technically it is ok... you are missing the general spirit and intendment of Matt 18 alongside passaged commanding us to not get into stupid arguments, to not tear each other down and to play fair and to not engage in court cases with believers and so on…”

    i) The “general spirit and intent” of Mt 18 is to lay down a reconciliation procedure between two estranged Christians who attend the same local church. It involves a personal grievance, where one member sinned against the other.

    ii) If you think we should avoid “stupid arguments” and “tearing each other down,” then try looking in the mirror. That’s a good place to start.

    “…the point of all these being that in-house scrapping scores an own goal - as The Atheist Missionary's hand rubbing in the comments above demonstrates.”

    If you object to playing into the hands of “The Atheist Missionary,” then it was a tactical mistake for you and your hubby to escalate the issue.

    Your consistent moral inconsistency is truly impressive.

    “It is just that it is generally polite to attribute someone's work accurately and you clearly attributed the entire post to Matt.”

    Actually, it would be ungallant of me to shift the blame to you. But if you insist…

    ReplyDelete
  26. Coram Deo,

    But methinks in the context of his quote Billy Craig wasn't talking about whether or not a person can be saved [regenerated/justified] without a fully-orbed understanding of the doctrines of original sin, forensic justification, etc.; he was dismissing the doctrine as a Christian essential.

    When I hear "Christian essential" I equate it with "essential for making one a Christian." In other words, essential for salvation. I think it's essential to realize that you're a sinner and hopelessly lost without Christ, but a robust understanding of original sin doesn't seem to be in "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

    I also think it's a bit hasty to accuse a fellow Christian of this when it isn't clear, especially since he says in the same post that "What is essential to Christian faith is that all men are sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption." Seems he's saying that the original guilt teaching, that we are guilty for Adam's sin, is not essential.

    Of course that runs counter to Luther, the Magisterial Reformers, and the Westminster Divines; not to mention the inspired Apostle Paul.

    Well, other than the inspired writings of Paul, a Christian is pretty free to disagree with what the other guy's wrote. I disagree with several things the reformers said and did. They aren't infallible.

    If this is truly his position, then he is in error and needs to be corrected; if it's all a big misunderstanding, then he needs to clear things up.

    I agree, but I also think that people need to read him charitably, especially since he is so reliable in other areas. Plus, the uncharitable attitude that seems to be coming across, correct me if I'm wrong, could stand to be altered as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. BMAN

    When I hear "Christian essential" I equate it with "essential for making one a Christian." In other words, essential for salvation. I think it's essential to realize that you're a sinner and hopelessly lost without Christ, but a robust understanding of original sin doesn't seem to be in "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

    How about the divinity of the Holy Spirit? A robust understanding of the trinity doesn't seem to be in, ""believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Paul,

    I'm not sure, but I lean heavily toward no, an understanding of the trinity is not essential for salvation.

    That doesn't mean that teaching heresy is ok, however.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think Michael Patton is on to something good with this post.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BMAN,

    When you say:

    "When I hear "Christian essential" I equate it with "essential for making one a Christian." In other words, essential for salvation.

    And then you say one may be saved even if one denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit, aren't you missusing terms? I would think that a "Christian" has to at least believe in the Trinity, but one may be "saved" without being a "Christian." I think you believe babies who die in the womb will all be saved, but would you say that they are Christians? I also know that several Arminians hold that people who have never heard the gospel may be saved according to "the light" that they are given. This is how they avoid all the troublesome implications of Arminianism and LFW. But would you want to say that a saved Aborigian is a Christian?

    Moreover, there are plenty of false professors who hold to orthodox doctrine, but they do not truly trust in Christ for their salvation. When they professed, they could be called Christians, as they are members in good standing in the church militant. (Now, perhaps an Arminian would equate all false professors with Christians since they believe that they are saved but then lose that salvation? If so, there's some theological assumptions being smuggled into this debate that need to be settled first).

    It seems to me that {Christians} ≠ {Saved}.

    On your view, why wouldn't Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses be "Christians?" If a robust understanding of the trinity or the divinity of Christ isn't in "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved," then how do you avoid calling them Christians?

    I'm not even sure Craig would go as far as you appear willing to go.

    ReplyDelete
  31. When I hear "Christian essential" I equate it with "essential for making one a Christian." In other words, essential for salvation.

    Okay.

    I think it's essential to realize that you're a sinner and hopelessly lost without Christ, but a robust understanding of original sin doesn't seem to be in "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

    The thief on the cross would agree with you no doubt, as do I.

    I also think it's a bit hasty to accuse a fellow Christian of this when it isn't clear, especially since he says in the same post that "What is essential to Christian faith is that all men are sinners and in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption." Seems he's saying that the original guilt teaching, that we are guilty for Adam's sin, is not essential.

    Well, I'm not exactly sure what you think Billy has been "accused" of; but what I'm reading is that he is quoted as declaring that the concept of original sin, which is plainly taught in scripture, is not a doctrine essential to Christianity. Except that it is.

    On this subject I previously said: "Of course that runs counter to Luther, the Magisterial Reformers, and the Westminster Divines; not to mention the inspired Apostle Paul."

    To which you replied "Well, other than the inspired writings of Paul, a Christian is pretty free to disagree with what the other guy's wrote. I disagree with several things the reformers said and did. They aren't infallible."

    Yes, the Reformers actually wrote that qualification into their treatises.

    I previously said: If this is truly his position, then he is in error and needs to be corrected; if it's all a big misunderstanding, then he needs to clear things up.

    BMH said: "I agree, but I also think that people need to read him charitably, especially since he is so reliable in other areas. Plus, the uncharitable attitude that seems to be coming across, correct me if I'm wrong, could stand to be altered as well."

    That's probably a matter of perspective. I don't see where anyone has anathamatized the man or declared him a blasphemer or heretic, rather there has been serious attention given to a serious topic.

    Original sin is a big deal. I've not seen anyone point to the specter of Pelagianism yet, but that's the very first thing I thought when I read Craig's quote..."sounds Pelagian".

    Billy needs to clear the air.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve, three times I posted my comment, and each time the comment appeard at the blog. I checked by visiting the blog again after commenting. A very short time later, the comment was gone.

    Make of that what you will. I have not attacked your character once. I again present my request: Please remove and apologise for your false claims about me, and if you have an issue with me and believe that it needs to be resolved, approach me in public.

    The Atheist Man - of course I close that blog entry for commenting. How could I do otherwise. It's not for everyone else to pile up with comments on the matter. I only put it there to raise the issue in a forum where I could be sure it wouldn't be deleted, and to give Steve the opportunity to make ammends. Not for people to add their fuel to the fire.

    Steve, I'm waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  33. TheAtheistMissionary said: "Nonbelief in the physical resurrection? C'mon Glenn, that would be heretical. I don't think you would ever go that far ..."


    Then why did you say I was nearly there? Oh that's right, you were playing divide and conquer for those who are sucked in by such tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  34. When I said "approach me in public" in my comment to Steve, I meant "approach me in private."

    Steve, on a related note, as you are Reformed perhaps you will benefit from a talk given by Greg Bahnsen called "The Law and Wisdom," which you can find at http://www.reformed-theology.org/realaudio/

    ReplyDelete
  35. GLENN SAID:

    "I again present my request: Please remove and apologise for your false claims about me."

    Since your demand is predicated on a false premise, I'll pass on that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I take it from his comments that Brennon doesn't think the Trinity is an essential doctrine of the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Glenn asked: "Then why did you say I was nearly there?"

    Answer: to get you riled up. Please consider it a comment from the peanut gallery.

    Mission accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Steve has accused me of lying and has refused to respond like a believer when challenged.

    I sent Steve a private message on Facebook with this request. he responded, pretending to be Fabio and then telling me that I'm not a Christian.

    Steve, your conduct is disgraceful. You are falsely witnessing against brethren, accusing them of not even being saved, refusing correction, being unwilling to repent and make peace, and bringing your brothers who blog with you into disrepute.

    Being an evangelical is as much about following Christ as about beliving sound doctrine. By wilfully refusing to be obedient to Scripture, you show clearly which of us is the "liberal," if by liberal you mean not holding to the word of God.

    If you will not listen to me, listen to Scripture:

    Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

    But the wisdom from above is first pure, then speaceable, gentle, open to reason, tfull of mercy and good fruits, uimpartial and vsincere. And wa harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.


    James 3

    ReplyDelete
  39. Glenn, starts the Bible quoting game! I love this:

    Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise. Proverbs 19:20

    A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control. Proverbs 29:11

    ... and one for me: Interfering in someone else’s argument is as foolish as yanking a dog’s ears. Proverbs 26:17

    ReplyDelete
  40. Is it un-Christlike to point out when someone is acting like a whiny little pansy?

    Methinks someone needs to get over himself already. And get a haircut.

    CD

    ReplyDelete
  41. Coram Deo, it is up to you whether or not you will go on record encouraging your brethren to lie about others without correction.

    You are merely showing that you will defend the sins of your friends and ridicule those who stand up to them. This entire blog's reputation - whatever it was - is suffering because of Setev's pride and those who are willing to defend it.

    Repentence isn't easy, but you're not helping hSteve by encouraging him in his sin.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Glenn,

    while I don't shoot with a beretta, mine is a K380, I just don't find where Steve has lied?

    Can you help me out now that you have gone to your brother once, twice and then taken two or three others with you to establish his sin and now you publish the fault in here of his for the rest of us goons to use against him with you or just ignore him as you affirmed and paste where he lied about you?

    In the mean time, you wrote in response to "Observer" at your blog combox:

    Observer, indeed. I sent him a message asking him to get in touch with me about this. He responded by pretending to be the model Fabio (!!!) followed up by the claim that I’m not a Christian. It’s incredible to think that he sees himself as in a position to rebuke others.

    See the word "indeed". Would you like to apologize for that in here seeing you have the ability to know that Steve is a fundamentalist and not an evangelical?

    Until you can establish the lie or lies about you, I think I will respect this characterization made about you:

    Glenn,

    It's amusing that you assail my character in the midst of your protestations about my assailing your character.

    ReplyDelete
  43. natamllc

    An evangelical is committed to understanding Scripture and it's theological implications - not merely one's own ecclesiology.

    An evangelical is just as committed to living the word of God as believing it.

    An evangelical is committed to seeing his character transformed by the word of God and the Spirit.

    Since Steve doesn't display these things, I think the person at my blog who characterised Steve as a fundamentalist rather than an evangelical is correct.

    As for Steve's lie, it is in his first comment about me. He claims without evidence that I am not really defending Bill Craig but myself (in spite of my own affirmation of original sin). He claims that I am using my defence of Bill as a pretext but that I'm not sincerely doing what I make myself out to be doing.

    It is far too late now for anyone to say that Seteve did not say this about me. He has no evidence for this accusation of lying, and he should apologise.

    That he has friends who are willing to pile on and insist that he is right to do this with impunity is not good for him. He needs to be encouraged to live in submission to Scripture, not to become hardened in his own pride and unwilling to repent.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You are merely showing that you will defend the sins of your friends and ridicule those who stand up to them.

    i.) Steve is not my friend.

    ii.) Like NatAmLLC I still don't know what you're harping about. Despite your incessant whining about Steve not being as nice to you as you'd like his decision not to lick your boots, and his refusal to kowtow to your browbeating over your hurt feelings [pride?] isn't actually sinful.

    iii.) Pointing out that you're whining and in need of a haircut are simply observations, not ridicule.

    iv.) Grow up. <-- (This is a strong suggestion, not ad hominem)

    CD

    ReplyDelete
  45. CD, it is ridiculous for you now to turn around and say that calling me a whiner is not ridicule.

    You are making up falsehoods when you say that the issue is that Steve won't lick my boots. This is just silly. I never asked Steve to be nice to me or agree with me. I only asked him to apologise for accusing me of being a liar.

    If you are in earnest in saying that you literally still do not know what I am saying, then I guess that's too bad. I have been clear enough.

    It's clear now the type of patron this blog serves. What a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  46. That last comment must have been directed at me. Ouch.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Glenn said..."As for Steve's lie, it is in his first comment about me. He claims without evidence that I am not really defending Bill Craig but myself (in spite of my own affirmation of original sin). He claims that I am using my defence of Bill as a pretext but that I'm not sincerely doing what I make myself out to be doing."

    Here's what Steve said to which Glenn objects...Of course, Glenn isn’t really defending Craig. Rather, Glenn is using the Craig incident as a pretext to defend himself. Glenn is a liberal (denies hell, denies inerrancy), so he wants to make evangelicalism a big tent. Defending Craig is just a ploy for making his case that evangelicals should be more tolerant and open-minded with respect to the Glenn Peoples of the world.

    Steve can speak for himself, but from my perspective that looks like a well considered opinion on his part as opposed to being a lie.

    Yet you say it's not only not merely an opinion [and a wrong one at that], but you claim that it's a sinful lie. That's quite a stretch.

    And how are we to know that you're not lying, or self-deceived about your own motivations?

    Why should we believe a guy who denies hell and denies inerrancy? Such things don't speak well of your general reliability or trustworthiness with the truth.

    CD

    ReplyDelete
  48. CD, it is ridiculous for you now to turn around and say that calling me a whiner is not ridicule.

    You are making up falsehoods when you say that the issue is that Steve won't lick my boots. This is just silly. I never asked Steve to be nice to me or agree with me. I only asked him to apologise for accusing me of being a liar.

    If you are in earnest in saying that you literally still do not know what I am saying, then I guess that's too bad. I have been clear enough.

    It's clear now the type of patron this blog serves. What a shame.


    Cool down.

    I posted my four point reply prior to reading your response to NatAmLLC. And I just posted another response to your allegations of lying, which seem rather specious from where I'm sitting.

    Maybe you need some "me time" to unwind a bit. You're sounding shriller and shriller with each successive post.

    CD

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Steve can speak for himself, but from my perspective that looks like a well considered opinion on his part as opposed to being a lie."

    Coram, stop typing so fast and try to appreciate what is being said here: Steve is accusing me of lying.

    See it now? That is the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  50. At risk of further irritating Glenn, I just want you all to know that he has provided me with great comfort in assuring me that I do not have to worry about eternal torment in hell and can simply look forward to annihilation.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Glenn

    I see that I need to be ever so caution commenting in here with you.

    I am confused by you.

    Which is it?

    You say you hold to the essential doctrine of original sin yet open your bandwagon appeal with these words cut from the link provided by Steve above and pasted in here:

    A good recent post over at MandM alerted me to just how far and wide the phenomenon of apparently ignorant evangelicals bashing William Lane Craig is spreading based on something he said recently.

    Then in response to Observer you agree with his assessment that Steve is a fundie not an evangelical.

    To make light of it, does your beretta shoot straight? :)

    You then write these words to make your next point in your bandwagon appeal: "... uninformed critique seems..." and go on to address evangelicals to respond better informed being patient and careful.

    Hmmmm, so, you don't see any contradictions there?, ...just building with your terms.

    Following this you insert this part into a sentence, which, now, in hindsight seems to betray your own responses in here: "... angry young sceptics are so often way out of their depth without even realising it." Just how old are you? I am fifty something and yes I get angry at times. Just ask my wife. No, forget talking to her!

    Then you go on and start with this sentence adding to your appeal: "I recall seeing this at Bill’s site and thinking nothing of it."

    Ok, fine. Apparently you and Steve have differing views on WLC and the issues at hand with him and Luke the athiest.

    You have laid out your reasons for an appeal siding with Craig on your blog. Steve has chosen to use his venue to lay out something that seem to clarify what appears to be a discrepancy. What's wrong with that? Nothing. I am sure you agree with Steve on that, at least, that he has a right to use his blog to pick up on things he wishes and address them in here?

    Just so you know, I have a different take on what a person yet enlightened to the Truth that they too are a part of the Elect should hear first. In fact, such a one should be given milk to drink not the hard stuff like the doctrine of original sin essential as it to the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

    Further into your appeal you use this phrase: "... to tear into Bill ..."; and then another: "... Christian figure has accused Bill ..."; then we come to this somewhat incendiary paragraph: "Why the furore? Why the extreme nature of the attacks? Why the accusations, hostility and wilful enmity? I know I’ve said this before, but it is such a major problem within evangelicalism that it can’t be mentioned enough. The problem is twofold: Ignorance and insularity. Actually there’s a third problem stirred up by ignorance and insularity, namely an unwillingness to listen carefully and charitably to what another person is saying."

    You then go on with your appeal, cooling off the rhetoric some, but end up making a conclusion that I don't make after reading M&M's work about Craig. In fact I agree that Craig has set behind the essential doctrine of original sin putting personal faults, guilts and shames ahead of it, I assume as his way of appealing to Luke's senses?

    Finally in your last paragraph you seemingly poke the guy's eye with these snickery words: and effective rebuff to a sneering sceptic.

    All that is to say that I kinda agree with Steve that you were not defending Craig only using the opportunity to set forth your own views of these things, on your blog, nevertheless. Oh, how dare you do such a thing? :)

    Is that accusing you of lying?

    It might be that you just as a pretext smuggled your views in there at Craig's expense?

    Question then. What's wrong with Steve pointing that out in here?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Can someone release my comments to Glenn Peoples. It was long so I think the unthinkable happened! grrrrr

    ReplyDelete
  53. Glenn:

    1. I don't think Steve has wronged you. But let's say for the sake of argument that he has wronged you. You've asked him to apologize. He hasn't. So why do you keep pursuing the issue with such vehemence? Shouldn't you rather leave it up to God at this point, given that you've already tried to seek reconciliation? That's the first problem: your apparent monomania in demanding an apology from Steve.

    2. Also, you've lied. You called Steve a "liberal": "Who is the evangelical and who is the liberal? . . . I am not the liberal here. You [Steve] are." But when Steve pointed how you've assailed his character, you replied: "I have not attacked your character once." By your lights, shouldn't you likewise apologize to Steve for lying about him?

    3. Not to mention you've not exactly conducted yourself in a "Christian" manner toward Steve either. For example, you've said Steve will "always be irrelevant until you [Steve] wake up." Isn't there at least a trace of condescension here?

    4. You say you affirm the doctrine of original sin: "I affirm original sin." By which I take it you affirm it as an essential Christian doctrine. Of course you can correct me if that's not what you believe. Now, obviously WLC doesn't affirm it as such. Yet you've tried to get Steve to apologize to you with far more zeal than it seems you've tried to get WLC or his defenders to "apologize" for their more eggregious error in denying original sin as an essential Christian doctrine. It seems you've got your priorities upside-down. Shouldn't you be far more concerned about WLC's denial of original sin as an essential Christian doctrine? I'm not suggesting a Christian who has been genuinely wronged shouldn't both pursue reconciliation with his brother as well as combat theological error, for example. It's not as if such things are somehow mutually exclusive. Not at all. Rather, I'm saying you're missing the bigger picture in the debate. Sort of like straining out a gnat, yet swallowing a camel.

    ReplyDelete
  54. PAtrick, since you were willing to assume for the sake of argument that Steve wronged me, you give up your right to say that I lied by calling Steve a liberal.

    If, as you agreed for argument sake, Steve wronged me with a false accusation - and he is unwilling to respond in a biblical way, then he is a liberal.

    So by your own lights, I did not lie.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Glenn said:

    PAtrick, since you were willing to assume for the sake of argument that Steve wronged me, you give up your right to say that I lied by calling Steve a liberal.

    If, as you agreed for argument sake, Steve wronged me with a false accusation - and he is unwilling to respond in a biblical way, then he is a liberal.

    So by your own lights, I did not lie.


    Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, absent the first point, it's not as if the subsequent point wouldn't apply.

    Not to mention you have a rather idiosyncratic definition of "liberal" (to put it mildly). So idiosyncratic, in fact, that it seems as if it's defined in a way which happens to perfectly suit you here.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Liberals are known for being about deeds over creeds. Pointing out someone is more about creeds than deeds (apart from whether it's the case) may be a problem, but it's certainly not liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If a person is lax to one aspect of the Bible (e.g. failing to repent when making false accusations) but they see themselves as passionate about another aspect of the Bible (e.g. specific teachings about how the first sin affects us), it seems rather self serving to take it upon yourself to assert that only one of these areas of laxity should be called liberal.

    This should be clear to you.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Glenn, my statement was of a historical nature. Notice I didn't say, granting the accusation arguendo, that there wasn't a problem, I said it wasn't liberalism. Words have meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Paul and Patrick, something tells me Glenn isn't an avid reader of Machen. But I could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete