A hand-out

I know you've all been engrossed by my exhange with iMonk this time around, and also with the coupla sidebar issues that have come up. It's been sort of cathartic for me to be able to say some of the things I've said here about CBA/ECPA, but I'll bet that it's been pretty boring for most of you. These are really thinly-veiled "This is Where I Am Right Now" posts, and I apologize to all of you for making them. However, there are two more -- one here, one at iMonk's blog -- left to unveil, so demonstrate perseverence.

To encourage you blog-wise, I found this little ditty via brother Dr. James White's blog and Tom Ascol's blog. Pastor Ascol was somewhat charitable towards the essay, and Dr. White was a little diappointed that this note came out at falwell.com.

Personally, I think it's inflammatory and ill-conceived. The only way to construe this essay as somehow "even handed" or "charitable" is to compare it to the private exchanges Ergun Caner has had with Dr. White and Pastor Ascol on this subject.

The real irony for me is that I don't think Dr. Caner's litany against "Hyper Calvinism" is the real offense here. I think this is the real offense:

Since my salvation, I have been a Baptist. Since coming to Liberty University, my wife and I have been members of Thomas Road Baptist Church, which has an amazing history and a 50-year trail of miracles. Yet, being a Baptist goes back even further than a building. In the 16th century, our Anabaptist forefathers were not so mingled with the Reformed movement in Geneva. In fact, they were hunted in virtually every country in continental Europe. Men such as Michael Sattler and Balthasar Hubmaier suffered at the hands of all of the Magisterial Reform movements, including the Calvinists.

That is the core historical issue. In our history, Free Church believers have never been adherents to one particular system or philosophy. We certainly have not been locked to a scholastic movement that was formed by men. We are Biblicists. We believe the Bible is inerrant, not because a particular creed forces us to do so, but because we see Scripture as plain on that issue. We are adamant that Jesus Christ — virgin-born, living a sinless life, crucified, buried, physically resurrected and soon returning — is the only Savior because the Bible states it, regardless of the whims and wishes of men. [Emph Added]

Really, I'm just speechless. Where exactly does one start with something this confounded and biased? How does one address the underlined text which is contradicted by the highlighted text?

Listen: I promised not to bring him up anymore, but I'll say this plainly -- if Tim Enloe thinks that this is the way I think, he may be wrong about me personally but he's 100% justified in disdaining this kind of ridiculous cherry-picking of facts.

There's enough material in those 100-or-so words to keep this blog afloat for a month.

UPDATED: I hate it when Gene Bridges steals my thunder.