Update on the Caner "debate"
I have resisted posting anything about the prospective "debate" between Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner and Dr. James White and me over the last few weeks because I did not want to do anything that would muddy the waters as we were trying to work out details regarding format, thesis, length, protocol, etc. Silly me. I have finally been completely disabused of every delusion I previously entertained that the Caners were interested in a genuine exchange of ideas for the purpose of clarifying points on which we agree and on which we disagree regarding the doctrine of salvation.
While it is certainly true that love hopes all things even love cannot deny reality. And the reality is that Dr. Ergun Caner, and to a lesser degree his brother, have engaged in some of the most bombastic, mean-spirited obfuscation that I have ever experienced in any attempt to communicate about matters of the Christian faith. For the last several weeks, I have refrained from allowing myself to make that judgment because I kept hoping that at some point Dr. Ergun Caner would tire of his game and would deal honestly and respectfully with the repeated requests to finalize details in appropriate and mutually agreeable terms. After last night, I am convinced that such hopes were a mere pipe dream. Dr. White has posted the entirety of the email exchange (the bulk of which is between him and Dr. Ergun Caner as spokesmen for each side) on his website. Warning: it is not for the faint of heart nor for those who would like to believe that the top administrators of Liberty Baptist Seminary and The College at Southwestern Baptist Seminary are gracious, considerate men or that they sincerely want to debate the issues involved in our disagreements (of course, anyone who read their flamethrowing comments on this blog in February should harbor no such delusions). Furthermore, if you intend to read the whole exchange, you will need a large chunk of time.
Dr. White provides the details and he and I will be discussing this tomorrow on his Dividing Line program. Let me simply reveal the convoluted thesis that Drs. Caner are insisting we debate:
As it now stands, the "debate" is set for October 16 at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. They style that they have insisted on (finally, after much prodding that some formal style be adopted) is "Parliamentarian," which is based on the type of debate that characterizes the British House of Commons. Thus far, the Caners have not insisted that we be required to speak with British accents (though maybe we could persuade Dr. White to wear his kilt!).
While it is certainly true that love hopes all things even love cannot deny reality. And the reality is that Dr. Ergun Caner, and to a lesser degree his brother, have engaged in some of the most bombastic, mean-spirited obfuscation that I have ever experienced in any attempt to communicate about matters of the Christian faith. For the last several weeks, I have refrained from allowing myself to make that judgment because I kept hoping that at some point Dr. Ergun Caner would tire of his game and would deal honestly and respectfully with the repeated requests to finalize details in appropriate and mutually agreeable terms. After last night, I am convinced that such hopes were a mere pipe dream. Dr. White has posted the entirety of the email exchange (the bulk of which is between him and Dr. Ergun Caner as spokesmen for each side) on his website. Warning: it is not for the faint of heart nor for those who would like to believe that the top administrators of Liberty Baptist Seminary and The College at Southwestern Baptist Seminary are gracious, considerate men or that they sincerely want to debate the issues involved in our disagreements (of course, anyone who read their flamethrowing comments on this blog in February should harbor no such delusions). Furthermore, if you intend to read the whole exchange, you will need a large chunk of time.
Dr. White provides the details and he and I will be discussing this tomorrow on his Dividing Line program. Let me simply reveal the convoluted thesis that Drs. Caner are insisting we debate:
Resolved: That God is an Omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity.Now, if you can explain exactly what is being asserted here, please let me know. We have repeatedly asked for such an explanation from the Caners and--as has been the case with numerous other questions--have been completely stonewalled all the while being accused of exercising "delay tactics" and having our willingness to debate questioned. Read the correspondence. It really is amazing.
As it now stands, the "debate" is set for October 16 at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. They style that they have insisted on (finally, after much prodding that some formal style be adopted) is "Parliamentarian," which is based on the type of debate that characterizes the British House of Commons. Thus far, the Caners have not insisted that we be required to speak with British accents (though maybe we could persuade Dr. White to wear his kilt!).
posted by Tom at 5/15/2006 07:38:00 AM
345 Comments:
Dr. Caner has been a disappointment to me from my first encounter with him at Winterfest Jan 1, 2005. He "preached" to a couple of thousand teenagers but my wife and I were flabergasted when he used several racy, raunchy, getto, MTV like lingo on several occasions during his sermon. His manner on the Founders blog as well as this debate does not surprise me but I am disappointed that someone in his academic position would behave like this.
Tom,
I just read the entire file at AOMIN of the email exchange with the Caners. I have such a headache, one from squinting at small print and two from the banging my head against my desk.
I would suggest that you guys call the moderator and have a chat over that resolution. Don't accept that STUPID resolution. Is Ergun Caner the moderator's boss? If so, isn't that a conflict of interest?
They clearly want things so ambiguous that they can spend an hour throwing every bomb in their arsenal. Therefore causing you to have to pick one bomb out of a dozen to address, so they can say, "look at all these arguments they couldn't address."
Hashman
It's fairly clear they don't want to really debate. They want to stand up there and throw one-liners and zingers and listen to the applause from their fans. We keep hearing how Liberty has this world class debate team so I find it interesting that they are balking at a true debate format. That combined with their unwillingness to accept James White's suggested thesis says to me they are unsure of their ability to defend their position. Kind of a surprising thing for the 'intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world'. All in all a very sad situation. Especially given that Caner is one of the SBC's 'rising stars'. How long do you think before he's mentioned as a canditate for SBC president?
Yikes!...aarrgghh, this is coming as no monumental surprise to me either. Somebody has informed Ergun Caner that he would be eaten alive by James White if there was an honest straightforward debate. Thus, we see what he is doing now.
Look, I am NOT one of those that believe that those not adhering to the doctrines of grace are unregenerate. I obviously DO feel that they are misinformed concerning these important doctrines. However, when someone (especially in noted positions)resorts to these sort of tactics, why do we refrain from questioning their honesty/integrity? This is a dishonest man, who is full of himself, and will resort to more things prior to the scheduled debate that will exemplify the fruit deficiency of this so-called 'spirit-filled' man.
This "theological bulldog" more closely resembles a HYENA!
...and if you think this a bit harsh, I just have one question...
Would you want this guy feeding (mentally/spiritually) YOUR children?
If you are a Southern Baptist...he is. From youth to young adults, this IS the SBC's man.
The really scary/sad part is that he will create more like him.
Tom,
The Caners stated, Resolved: That God is an Omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity and you asked, Now, if you can explain exactly what is being asserted here, please let me know. Having grown up in the environment of such language and after having spent the first nine years of my Christian life hearing and using the same verbage, it is really quite simple to understand what they mean. Simply this, Through the opportunity of having salvation offered as a choice, wholly dependant upon the 'willful' desire of the unbeliever with neither internal nor external causation affecting or influencing one's decision, God has shown His Omnibenevolence to all humans wherein God Himself is forbidden to interfere or actually 'cause' one to decide in favor of Him, thereby, showing God's love for the world.
Sam
It wouldn't surprise me at all if this debate never happens. The Caners seem like the type that will either chicken-out at the last minute, or will insist on some incredibly outrageous demand that our side will not be able to accomodate, and thus torpedo the whole debate. I hope I'm wrong, but these do not seem like reasonable men.
dogpreaceher said,
"I am NOT one of those that believe that those not adhering to the doctrines of grace are unregenerate."
I don't think any one here believes that. Is that your assumption?
One observation: Not even the unbelieving business world stoops to the level of placing private e-mail conversations on a public forum to gain approval for their position.
I have read the entirety of the exchange, but refrain from any comments because of my concern of the ethics of taking private conversations between "brothers" in Christ and making it public. No matter where one falls on the issue of Calvinism, this is unacceptable.
Of course the statement "May the Truth be known," will inevitably be made - But may I encourage those who make it, to be consistent and ask Dr. Ascoll to avail us of all his e-mail correspondence between his spouse, his friends, and the signers of the Memphis Declaration - and thus let truth be known. While he is at it, avail us of all private phone conversations and for the search of Truth, let us not stop there, but share all his private thoughts also.
Perhaps the inability to grasp the meaning of the word “private” explains the inability to grasp the meaning of "Omni-benevolent."
I feel certain my views will be an anomaly on this Blog, which is telling, but Tom, I want to believe, if you looked at this objectively, the many frustrations you feel about the upcoming debate and the obstinance you feel the Caners are showing, does not excuse such an abuse of trust.
BR
After skimming much of the email archive, my brain is numb.
Like jim, I would be shocked to see this debate actually happen. But I'll be praying that it will.
I agree with Brad- I wish those emails had not been posted by Dr. White, especially since the Caners made that specific request.
It seems to enflame hostilities between the debate participants more than anything else.
All that is lacking now is:
- an arena (the Vines Center will suffice)
- a cage
- Emir to shave his head
- the promotional genius of Vince McMahon (Falwell could probably fit the bill)
brett:
We need don king as well.
kbh
Brad:
You may rest assured that this Memphis Declarer is very careful with his email correspondence. In fact, I am careful with all correspondence. I'll be happy to forward you my correspondence as it relates to the Memphis meeting. It consists of travel information, hotel reservations, and general overview of the times for the meeting.
I understand your concern, however. And I know that your close friendship with the lesser Caner prompts, to some degree, your response. I suppose I would rally to the defense of my friends too.
All that to say that I remember the backroom discussions we used to have in Wake Forest -- some of which you were a part of, and others you were not -- and I'm wondering if you're willing to come clean about all those conversations? They were not really "private," because everybody at the Border talked. That's one of the reasons that the administration at SEBTS was frustrated by that round table in the storage room of a greasy spoon restaurant.
But back to my point. Are you willing to start talking about the conversations -- too many to count -- where you, me, two current SWBTS professors, and several current SEBTS professors used to discuss the political situation in the SBC?
I'm willing to be increasingly open about them as the days continue. I know that CB is too. You?
How sad! How tragic!
How sad! How tragic!
How sad! How tragic!
The self-acclaimed PIT BULL of the Liberty institution seems to be rather rabid and emotionally unfit to participate in a rational debate based upon the truth of Scripture and the facts of history.
I must ask, in pure jest, if the barking PIT BULL (his chosen nickname) has been vaccinated either for or against rabies!
The PIT BULL (his words) may be able to rant, rave, bloviate and intimidate some students at the Falwell school but.....
.....Caner will find the debate in October (if it occurs) to be so different, well, he may have his
biggest FIT of his young life and career.
How sad! How tragic!
I have the sickening feeling that there is a level of ugliness to this that goes beyond Scriptural disagreement and theological concern.
Resolved: That God is an Omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and opportunity and you asked, Now, if you can explain exactly what is being asserted here, please let me know...
It is clear to me that the Caners want the sole focus of the debate to center on John 3:16 alone. I believe they will insist that the doctrines of grace are not consistent with "the most important verse in the Bible".
Originally, was there not a mutual agreement between Caner and White that their correspondence would be republished? I could be wrong... Search all the published correspondence from AOMIN very thouroughly. Maybe Dr. Gene Bridges or someone with more energy and time than I could look that up...
However, be not distracted. This is not the issue. This debate is won on the basis of the text of Scripture. This is what really matters. And that is where this interaction must be taken. One point that Ergun made I thought was especially revealing. He stated that he sees himself filling the shoes of Pastor Adrian Rogers, at least in terms of anti-Calvinism rants... Referring to his now famous/infamous sermon (however that may be interpretted), Caner writes,
"Since the death of Dr. Adrian Rogers, many of us have wondered who should stand against those hyper-Calvinists who have ceased to give biblical invitations, and embraced Protestant Scholasticism."
As long as he continues to merely rant and rave/ making emotional appeals while attempting to refute what he truly considers to be a heresy, the waters will continue to be muddy. If only this thing could be brought around the table of biblical exegesis... I know Dr. White has made this point before, but, is this how Caner would interact with a muslim? a mormon? an atheist? This debate must be brought to the point of actually debating passages of Scripture w/ cross-examination. To quote Bro. Johnny Hunt at the 2005 Southern Baptist Pastor's Conference in Nashville,
"...WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE BOOK!!!"
Ben,
You were gone when I came to SEBTS. And I have only had two conversations to my recollection at a restaurant with you and others. Based on those, the Admin had nothing to worry about.
However, whether a conversation was with two, four or ten, the number of participants does not define the privacy of it. Therefore, without the consent of all involved and a firm belief that it would edify Christ, my integrity would prevent such.
The point being - the definition of Private.
If you or others desire to make SELECTIVE private conversations, public, then that is your business, I have enough trouble keeping my heart pure without creating problems for others, because of something they said in private.
I fear you have misunderstood my concern...it was about making private conversations public - and therefore I would reach the apex of hypocrisy if I expressed that concern and then turned around and did it - whether those conversations were edifying or not.
I, for one, do not want all my private conversations or private thoughts aired - I am a wretched sinner and have failed my Lord numerous times and fear my private failures would cause shame on the name of Christ, yet His Amazing Grace has covered all my errors, and I desire with all my heart to not make the same mistakes.
I choose, to reframe from doing to others what I would not want done to myself, no matter how vigorously I disagree with them on matters, nor would I purposely do something that would hurt the cause of Christ.
And yes, I am friends with both the Caner's but my friendship with anyone would never compromise my ethics or practice - I certainly felt you knew me better. Were someone to post private conversations you had, my critique of it, would remain: I feel it is unethical.
Hence, my concern of Dr.s White and Escol.
I did not sign the Memphis Declaration but there seems to be a blindness of some who did, concerning the 5th declaration.
BR
Pardon the mispelling of refrain. I got in too much of a hurry, and missed the mark:)
Praise Him for His Grace
BR
This is my first up-close impression of the Caners, and I must say, I am stunned.
Does Dr. Falwell know or even care that the pres. of his seminary is engaging in this sort of ill-willed, immature correspondense?
Dear Gavin,
I e-mailed Dr. Falwell after the flaming anti-Calvinism thing a few weeks ago. No response.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Dear Dr. Ascol,
Was there any kind of consent on the part of the e-mailers that their correspondence be made public?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
BR,
I certainly agree that it is unethical to present private emails for the public to read, especially if one asks to keep those emails private and another agrees to that request. However, is it not also unethical for you to read those emails you considered to be private between others? Shouldn't you have not read them at all or at least stopped reading them when you discovered they were meant to be private (although by one person only so far as we know)?
Is it ethical for Caner to falsely accuse brothers and sisters in Christ of being hyper-Calvinists when he knows they are not? Is it ethical to accuse someone of being a hyper-Calvinist if one truly doesn't know what a hyper-Calvinist is? I don't recall seeing any such condemnation against Caner for his unethical behavior or any repentance of your own for reading emails you know are private.
Please don't misunderstand me BR, I'm not attacking you but I am attacking the seemingly 'double-standard' you've presented.
Sam
1) Unless it was agreed upon by all parties at some point, I don't understand the rationale of posting those discussions. Love hopes all things- I'll wait to hear the reasoning for doing so.
2) Whatever happens from here forward (whether the debate happens or not), I would encourage Tom & James to continue to handle themselves in a God-honoring way- there is great temptation in these matters to retaliate in kind (I have been guilty many a time).
Jeremiah
Tom,
I just read the email exchange between the Caners and Dr. White. Am I surprised? No! I going to make some statements to our fellow bloggers:
1. As I have mentioned before that I served at three of the largest megachurches in the SBC. I have seen this type of Character, Misrpresentations, Childish behavior, and dodging the questions as we have seen and heard form Ergun Caner with many of the men that line up in Erguns Camp" So to Speak". Except for James Merritt! Dr. Merritt always handled himself as a Christian gentleman around me. I wish Merritt and Akin would talk a little sense into Ergun. Though Merritt and Akin do not hold to Particular Redemption they need to help Ergun with some things( Not just theology).
2. Please don't forget that many of our churches have these men in their pulpits over and over. They do cause great damage with their false teaching on some doctrines and methodology. That's why we need to continue to confront these guys with scripture and let them know that we are not going to" Roll over" and let them mislead the SBC any longer.
3. Don't be fooled in thinking that many love the way Ergun is responding in email and preaching to Dr. White. I have heard these men in the past be ruthless about Calvinist and anybody who would confront them on things. They have this attitude of " Who are you to confront me". Again, I never saw this with James Merritt!
4. Dr. Akin and Patterson would you please help Ergun with being honest about the differences between Hyper Calvinism and Calvinism.
Danny and Paige,
You called us( Calvinist) to be upfront with churches and not hide our theology. Would you please do the same thing with the Caner brothers about how they act for one and for them to show Christian character by representing James and Tom correctly. Would you two write an article telling the noncalvinsits to represent us( Calvinists correctly)?
Paige and Danny,
Just look at the email exchange and ask who is acting like a 5yr old child!
Brad, Jeff and others:
After spewing forth repeated abuse via email, Dr. Ergun Caner tacke on this gem at the end of an April 17th email to James White, copied to me:
"However, NONE- and I mean NOT ONE, of the exchanges between the four of us, is for public use. Neither Emir nor I want or give permission for these exchanges to be posted publicly in any form. In our initial exchanges, you freely posted these on your website, which is simply bad form."
I immediately responded with an email that included this comment:
"Why are you concerned that these exchanges be kept out of the public eye? Are you embarrassed by what you have written? You need to know that I make no such promise and your insistence to the contrary carries no weight with me. Given what you have written both publicly and in emails to James, I hardly think you have any ground on which to stand and call his shedding light on your exchange 'bad form.'"
I do not know why Dr. Ergun Caner so stridently tried to demand that his words not be made public. That is between him and God. But he himself did not keep the email exchanges restricted to the 4 original participants. Most importantly, I made it very clear that I would not acquiesce to his demand.
Justin Taylor and Tim Challies have some good, related thoughts.
Sam:
Thanks for helping with the definition. Yours is the most charitable explanation I have seen so far.
Tom-
Thanks for going ahead and posting on this. I'm sorry that the Caners have responded in this way as it surely takes the prospective good that could have happened and tosses it in the toilet.
The public release of private email?
No matter how you feel about the question. The bottom line is that Dr. Caner needs to be confronted and he needs to repent of his less than Christ-like demeanor and his deliberate misrepresentations of others.
My hope...is in the end this may turn out to help Dr. Caner to become more Christ-like in his interaction with those whom he disagrees with.
Dr. Caner, will you acknowledge that you have been less than Christ-like?
I will publicly admit that in my email to you that I was less than Christ-like in my calling you Luther's Erasmus. Forgive me for the cheap shot. As my brother, you deserve better than that and I am sorry.
Tom
To selectively post some private e-mails and not ALL of your e-mails you have ever received is disingenuous of the position you have taken.
I for one will never be e-mailing you anything I do not want to be made public but I assure you anything you e-mail me will be between us unless I have your consent!
Sam
To read private statements that are made public for everyone to read is much different than making private statements public. It would be foolish to debate this issue, if it is not apparent.
BR
Brad:
I guess the force of Sam's argument escapes you, but it is very apparent to me. Furthermore, your selective application of your own principle must escape you, as well. You see nothing wrong in your reading what you argue should never have been posted. Yet, you falsely accuse me of stooping lower than the unbelieving business world by "selectively post[ing] some private emails" when, in fact, I have not posted any of the emails in question.
It is an interesting approach to ethics that you have taken.
I am glad that Dr. White has been so "open" by allowing us the priviledge of seeing the exchange of emails between himself and the Caners. I have seen several comments here that have frowned on this. To that I would like to offer the following quote:
"Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint it is worthwhile work. To our Savior, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," it ensures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls "caught in the snare of the fowler"- how many of them God only knows-it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting." -Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951)
Tom;
So... I have both you and Dr. White listed on my blogroll. As a matter of fact I visit both of your blogs daily for encouragement and instruction...
But I guess I will have to refrain from now on...
... if, in fact, you really aren't my Christian brothers, but are simply a virus in the body of Christ!
How sad it is that discussions on doctrines can lead to such a wretched example of 'brotherly love'.
Tom, thank you for your ministry. I am praying for you and your work.
I will be back...
To Tom Ascol - Can I just interject quickly and say that I appreciate you so much. This may brighten your day ever so little in this discussion, and I do have a point to make about Caner. However, if I could briefly state that I was an Elder and helped facilitate a new church plant of a reformed baptist church. I say WAS an Elder, because I am now a newly commissioned missionary with the IMB and now serving overseas. Imagine that...reformed and a missionary? It has to do with obedience...as you already know. Anyway, you might be interested to know that at least 30 of the 80 new missionaries with me at the learning center in Virginia were (and still are) reformed in their theology. This came up only after hearing one of the leaders go on and on about 2 Peter 3:9. This number includes everyone in my "house" (ie. cabin). We studied there for 7 weeks before going to our respective places of service. One night included a free showing (by me) of the Amazing Grace DVD. I had only viewed it 247 times but it had been almost 2 months since my last viewing so I was anxious to share it again with the others (who had not viewed it before, by the way). Also, a married couple in my "house" at the learning center had your brother as their pastor. If you would like to know who just drop me a note. You still have my email address, don't you? : ) Anyway, they were thrilled when I told them I knew Tom Ascol. I hope you don't mind that I tell people I know you -haha-. My brief point ragarding Caner is this. I listened to his sermon re: why he is not predestined to be a hyper calvinist. I find it hard to comment when something is said like...”God hated Esau for what he did." I don't get it? Anyway, as disturbing as that comment is I was more disturbed by his morning sermon which I listened to as well. Providence perhaps? Here are a few excerpts from Caner that morning..."I affectionately call my minivan my ‘castration wagon'"..."We have everything in our church the world has to offer" (how right he is, sadly). But the real hurtful one for me and the most shameful for him was when he was speaking about his parachuting effort. He described the instructor strapped to his back (so he could control the jump) as "...being to close for my taste." After everyone stops laughing, he reiterated (I am assuming so all the young children listening could be sure and ask their parents later what he meant as they wonder why everyone was laughing hysterically), he restates it proudly..."The instructor was too ‘brokeback’ for my taste". Unbelievable!!! This is not a sermon I would want to try to explain to my children. How would I explain this? Would I lie and say that "brokeback" is just a slang for being uncomfortable?...Would I be truthful and have to explain the homosexual issues involved...even before I or my kids are ready! Should I have to deal with this prematurely because of a sermon they heard? I respect your opinon Tom. Tell me this...Can you hear Spurgeon, Whitfield, Edwards, or any other great preacher (reformed or not) make comments like this! In my view, his morning sermon shows a prevailing lack of respect for God’s word and for the highest calling of exposing God’s word in the church today. This may reveal why he and others hold such a high view of man and his abilities. On a mere surface side note since I have your attention, all this theology talk is covering up a simple matter that Caner is asking us to believe. It appears that Mohler, Piper, Nettles, Sproul, Packer, Schaffer, Edwards, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, Augustine (and just a "few" others including Ascol : )) are wrong on the issue of election...and Ergun Caner is right? Does that seem odd to you? These titans of theology may have disagreed on many things. But if they all agree on one thing...shouldn't that "thing" get our attention? Thanks for your space and time my friend and keep up the good work.
Let us move on, brothers, dismissing any anger or surprise at this development.
"Resolved, never to suffer the least motions of anger towards irrational beings." — Jonathan Edwards, Resolution #15.
Is the right to privacy in human, and especially Christian, conversation a Biblical right (or just an American one)? Should that make any difference in this discussion?
Dear Dr. Ascol,
Even though I had great enthusiasm about Drs. Emil and Ergun Caner when I first heard about them a few years ago, and even though I had been excited about their appointment to positions of service in Baptist colleges, I found their comments on that famous blog post repulsive. I could not even believe they had really written what they had written. After corresponding with Dr. Ergun Caner personally, however, I had to admit that two men in positions of trust in Baptist life are unwilling to engage in scholarly discussion of theology, and are perfectly willing to engage in the worst types of mud-slinging against their fellow Baptists.
During that time, I followed links to Dr. James White's website, read his materials, and found him to be the opposite. He is careful, scholarly, and precise in his argumentation. He is also generally kind to his opponents and critics.
Therefore, when I read this most recent e-mail exchange about the debate, I was expecting the worst from the Caners and the best from Dr. White. Indeed, I found Dr. White to be more rational and more kind that Dr. Caner and Dr. Caner.
I was disappointed, however, in some of Dr. White's comments, which I thought were goading. For instance, he wrote:
"you will be doing yourself no favors to be scattered all over the countryside throwing out every possible red herring or torching straw men left and right."
I had not expected Dr. White to resort to this kind of rhetoric. (Yes, "red herring" and "straw man" are legitimate terms, but he used them in a condescending, provocative way.)
He also wrote:
"I am immediately struck by the possibility that something has gone terribly wrong such as a family crisis that has caused both of you to completely lose your internet access and any time, or desire, to engage in correspondence."
In addition to using a split infinitive, :) Dr. White could have put his foot all the way into his mouth if the Caners had indeed been struck by some family emergency. If so, Dr. White's comment would have been very hurtful.
Please do not get me wrong. I appreciate Dr. White's approach in general, and I disapprove of Dr. Caner's and Dr. Caner's approach in general. But I do not think the blame for this e-mail exchange being unproductive is entirely one-sided.
You, Dr. Ascol, along with Dr. White, have a great opportunity to debate in favor of the Bible's true message of salvation. Thank you for your willingness to seize the opportunity, and for your long years of patient work that put you in such a position. So far you are winning the debate simply based on your attitude of Christian charity and of seriousness toward the Word. Please keep up that good work, and do not allow yourself to be dragged down toward their level.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
I have had serious reservations about this debate all along and would strongly suggest Dr. Ascol that you remove yourself from it. I would love to think that honest, theological debate is a possibility at Thomas Road and Liberty University but the Caner brothers will not engage in that. I must also say in fairness that Dr. White has been equally wrong in this exchange and his posting of this correspondence is reprehensible. I do commend you Tom for making it clear that your correspondence would be public. You handled this in an upright and honest fashion. Dr. White on the other hand made no such attempt. He should be ashamed and publicly ask for the forgiveness of the Caners.
In my opinion, Dr. Ascol you have the most to lose in this debate and you carry with you the integrity of the Founders Ministry/Movement. Let me explain. Dr. Whire is not a Southern Baptist and has nothing to lose here. The Caner brothers have already shown that this is going to be a battle of cliches and one liners. They win not matter what because many in our convention will applaud such childish behaivor. But you have worked for years building the Founders and giving us a voice in the convention. We are making an impact on the convention and with patience and continued diligence we could see something amazing happen. Those who oppose what we stand for are looking for every reason to shoot us down. Dr. Ascol you have always behaved with dignity and integrity, for you to engage in this debate could be disasterous for this movement.
I realize that saying this may come across as arrogant and may make people upset. But I encourage you to back out of this debate while there is still honor in doing so. We have all seen what the Caner's will resort to in defending their positions. Now we know that Dr. White will not conduct himself in a worthy manner. Please consider this humble request.
Backing out will not harm the cause. The work of reforming the church must be done on a church-by-church basis. At this crucial hour we must stay the course and continue to do what has gotten us to this point.
I find it very hard to believe that this level of rhetoric is being generated simply because certain people find Reformed soteriology so abhorrant. There is an element of demagoguery and grandstanding in this that smacks of political expediency. The blatant and purposeful misrepresentations of the Doctrines of Grace and of them who hold to them seem to be nothing but tactics used to scare people away from boogey-men.
The bottom line is that a serious, Christ-honoring exposition of the Holy Scriptures threatens the power base of the Mega-Church, baptize a million mentality. This goes beyond the Calvinist/Arminian divide. Calvinsts are simply the easiest targets. I would hope that even the most ardent Arminian could see the foolishness of setting such a baptism goal. (Though I wish that God had given us 10 million to baptize!) I had hoped that when the smoke of the fireworks cleared, others might see that as well.
The trick here by the Caners, I'm afraid, is not to seriously discuss the theological issues at hand, something which surely any person has done here in a sane and rational manner. How many times, my non-Calvinist friend, have you discussed these issues without resulting to such antics? I know that I have, and I hope to do so again in the future.
So if serious discussion is not the goal, then what is? It is to label and caricature the Reformed movement in the SBC today so as to marginalize their voice and effectiveness. Period.
Tom
To read in the NY Times a private conversation that the President had with a cabinet member (private now made public) is very different from the ethics of one who makes the private conversation public. If such difference is not agreed upon then I have played the fool in wasting my time here. And the fact you supplied a link to the posted material and deny the posting of it, is semantics (unless you are willing to say Dr. White was wrong in posting it).
Further, if you honestly believe this edifies Christ, then you and I will disagree on who the Christ of the Bible is.
And again to those calling for truth I look forward to the posting of all your private conversations and thoughts, until then, please stop removing the speck in others eyes.
BR
jbuchanan:
You stated, "Dr. Whire [sic] is not a Southern Baptist and has nothing to lose here."
I would suggest to you that perhaps that statement should be reworded. It could be misconstrued as being elitist. Surely you don't mean that?
I say this as one who is in the SBC, but I realize that anything people do reflects (positively or negatively) on their professional and/or personal lives. Debating involves "risks" (for lack of a better term) for all involved.
Brad,
Would you be so kind in answering (5 Yes or No questions for me) ? Before I ask them you may think my questions are not valid to the issue of the blog. You would be right but it will prove a point that I want to make later to someone( Not you).
Here are my 5 questions:
1. Brad,
Are you 5 point Calvinist? Do you support the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?
2. Brad,
Do you think your "Boss" Dr. Danny Akin was really trying to help both sides with his April article on Calvinism in the SBC ? Do you think Danny was trying to help noncalvinists understand what true Calvinism is or Do you think Danny was trying to send out a message to Calvinists to quiet down?
I know some of you will say Scott you can't expect Brad to answer questions like these about his Boss publicly. Even though he would not be " Tearing Him Down" but that's not fair or you should not put him on the spot like this.
I'm trying to prove a point to someone about the state of the SBC. I have no intention of trying to hurt you Brad( I just want to prove a point). If you choose not to answer on the blog then that is fine. I will respect your reason!
Brad,
I wonder, in the last day when every idle word that men speak is called to account (Matthew 12:26), if the Lord God will be guilty of violating the "privacy" that you espouse. The bottom line is that if a man does not wish to be called into account for certain words, then he ought not utter them. This goes for me as well, and I have said some sinful, stupid things in private. The making public of such stupidity is not the sin, it was the uttering of the idiocy in the first place.
Brad:
We seem to be two men separated by a common language (much the way I feel in my communication with Ergun Caner). Let me replay some of the exchange in hopes that we might come to an understanding:
You said:
"But may I encourage those who make it, to be consistent and ask Dr. Ascoll to avail us of all his e-mail correspondence between his spouse, his friends, and the signers of the Memphis Declaration - and thus let truth be known. While he is at it, avail us of all private phone conversations and for the search of Truth, let us not stop there, but share all his private thoughts also."
So you think that consistency on my part would require publishing all my correspondence and private thoughts.
You said:
"I feel certain my views will be an anomaly on this Blog, which is telling, but Tom, I want to believe, if you looked at this objectively, the many frustrations you feel about the upcoming debate and the obstinance you feel the Caners are showing, does not excuse such an abuse of trust."
You have implicitly accused me of abusing trust.
You said:
"And yes, I am friends with both the Caner's but my friendship with anyone would never compromise my ethics or practice - I certainly felt you knew me better. Were someone to post private conversations you had, my critique of it, would remain: I feel it is unethical.
Hence, my concern of Dr.s White and Escol."
You call posting "private conversations" unethical and use that as your basis of concern for me.
I wrote:
"I do not know why Dr. Ergun Caner so stridently tried to demand that his words not be made public. That is between him and God. But he himself did not keep the email exchanges restricted to the 4 original participants. Most importantly, I made it very clear that I would not acquiesce to his demand."
This clearly declared to my correspondent that his acerbic comments had no expectation of immunity from public scrutiny simply because he tried to decree it to be so.
You wrote:
"To selectively post some private e-mails and not ALL of your e-mails you have ever received is disingenuous of the position you have taken."
This is a fallacious statement on its face, but I digress. You bear false witness against me by charging me with posting private emails. Will you please point me to the place where I have done so?
I wrote:
"You see nothing wrong in your reading what you argue should never have been posted. Yet, you falsely accuse me of stooping lower than the unbelieving business world by "selectively post[ing] some private emails" when, in fact, I have not posted any of the emails in question."
By this I tried to show you what you should have plainly seen, if your interest truly is in speaking truth. You have falsely accused me of something and then castigated me for it all the while claiming to take the ethical high ground.
You write:
"And the fact you supplied a link to the posted material and deny the posting of it, is semantics (unless you are willing to say Dr. White was wrong in posting it)."
You accuse me posting private emails. I correct your false testimony. Then rightly note that I "supplied a link tot he posted material" but try to divert attention away from your violation of the 9th commandment by charging my distinguishing what I did from what you said I did as simple "semantics." I find that an interesting ethical two-step.
You write:
"Further, if you honestly believe this edifies Christ, then you and I will disagree on who the Christ of the Bible is."
I am not sure what "this" is, but let me assure you that I certain that the making of false accusations does not honor Christ. He magnified the law of God and made it honorable. Bearing false witness cannot possibly honor Him. Doing so and failing to admit it only compounds the sin.
Brad, you are wrong in your accusations. No amount of ducking and weaving in your efforts to avoid this will change the easily documented facts of the case. We ought to be able to agree on this...unless we are not using the same dictionary.
Sojourner
If you think that things uttered in private should be made public PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't ever take a job for our CIA, or for that matter any job within the defense dept.
Further, if you feel the revealing of things assumed to be confidential is not sin then our understanding or Harmatiology is quite different.
The defense of such actions is most telling to objective readers. Thank You.
Scott
My Soteriological beliefs are Biblical. I fear I would be using the time God gave me unwisely if I were to enter into a Calvinists debate on a Calvinists Blog.
Concerning Dr. Akin I would never presume to judge his motives.
BR
I don't really have anything to add except that I am really sad that there isn't one SBC baptist who will publicly castigate reformed doctrine who will not also publicly and rationally defend what he says he believes in a meaningful way.
Sheesh.
Brad:
You think defense department secrets are in the same category as e-mails between porfessional men on the topic of a public debate they are scheduling?
Dude. Have a glass of water or something.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for you not to answer a fool according to his folly. Maybe the debate shouldn't even be held.
Tom
If my accusation of abuse of trust was implicit I apologize...let me make it explicit - You abused the trust of the Caners.
Forgive me for assuming that the posting of a link to private conversations you had with these men was equivalent to posting these conversations (we shall disagree on the semantics here and yes I still believe it to be unethical)
The fact that you denied the Caners their express wishes about private correspondence AFTER a large part of the correspondence took place does not excuse either the action itself or the dishonoring of their wishes.
Your defense of this action is amazing and telling...while this Blog is very homogeneous and may not be the most read, what is posted here is Public. Thank You.
Also, thanks for the English lesson, perhaps now a lesson on the etiquette of which private conversations should be made public would be in order.
Waiting on a link to your other private e-mails.
If in anyway I am sounding unChrist-like, please forgive me, that is not my intent and many times the spirit of what is written is not expressed in type. But I do want to be clear where I stand and what I feel to be inconsistencies and unChrist-like behavior.– my flesh certainly desires to defend the implication that I made false accusations but that is unnecessary.
BR
Centurian
Confidentiality is confidentiality whether in small or large matters. If my desire for fidelity in the small areas offends you I apologize, but will not repent of such desire.
The ability to publicly and rationally defend what one says has nothing to do with the wisdom of doing so when it appears the time would be wasted. On this Blog, I feel the time would be wasted, (as the current conversations validate) in a public hearing at perhaps, oh let's say Liberty University it would not (I believe that is what is happening)
BR
Not even the unbelieving business world stoops to the level of placing private e-mail conversations on a public forum to gain approval for of Calvinism, this is unacceptable.
A.Notice the knee jerk appeal to the motives behind the posting of these emails. Why, Brad, do you consistently attack others motives? As I recall, when casting aspersions on the motives of others came up v. Paul, he said:3But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.
4For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
5Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.
Ah well, what's a little thing like Scripture to stop folks from casting aspersions on others' motives, right?
B. The "unbelieving business world" does not post emails in public in order to protect copyrighted trade secrets. They have something to hide. Are you saying that the Caners should be allowed to hide their methods?
C. Posting the contents of emails in full does not self-select for the approval of any one party over another. It's rather like the Grammatical-historical method. The GHM does not self-select for any single type interpretation of words. That's why we use it and not, say, allegory or the Quadrigz. In this case, the words of all parties involved are posted in full view, opening up all 4, not just Ergun to criticism.
D.They were told that their emails might be posted in public, and before saying that they didn't want the entireity of their exchanges posted Ergun himself requested the entireity of their exchanges be posted, Dr. Caner asked to quoted correctly, when discussed.
He wrote on 2/20:
Dear Dr. White:
Having seen your references throughout the Founders' blog, and knowing that this is a subject of particular interest to you- let me respond. I am sure I shall see and hear of this exchange. However, when I am quoted, please be assured that I ask I be quoted correctly: (emphasis mine: GB).
So which is it, does he wish to be quoted correctly when commentary is made on what he has said or not? Emails are fair game for purposes of public commentary or criticism when they serve a public interest/audience, per the copyright laws in the US. In addition emails are private in a multiple party discussion with public interest, when all 4 correspondents agree to it. That is not the case.
What's more: Dr. White told him he would blog about the challenge to debate in the future, and Ergun Caner gave him express permission to post their email exchange. I would add that we know this, precisely thanks to Dr. White's posting of the material. Here's the exchange from 2/21:
Sir, you seem to be seeking any reason to avoid facing serious interaction. I am leaving to preach now here in London. I will blog tomorrow about my challenge to you to debate in writing the subject of John 6. I hope you will step up to the challenge.
James,
Now THAT is funny.
Blog away. Including e-mail correspondence would seem to be in keeping with the general tone of your "logic?"
I am more than happy to excerpt every argument Geisler and Hunt used. We can talk in circles all day. More than happy to do it.
I have a number of topics I am more than happy to discuss, and shall say so. You will NOT pick the subject and "run the show." YOUR exegesis of John 6 may not hold up to 2 Peter 3:9.
That first request followed by the second as well, immediately forfeited their copyright on their private emails, and Dr. White did not post a single word until that point. Moreover, the accusation that the posting of those emails (despite Ergun telling Dr. White he had permission) was not called "bad form" and objected to until 4/17...nearly 2 months later. They have no right to subsequently claim Dr. White has violated their right to privacy or that their conversations are confidential. They need to keep up with what they have said. It is by no means for Tom or James to do that for them.
What prompted this change of mind on his part on 4/17? You appear to know the motives of others, so perhaps you can give us the scoop. You're also the one claiming that Tom Ascol and you differ on identity the Christ of Scripture. That's a rather strong charge, as that assumes that one may be possibly unregenerate. So, apparently it is okay for the Drs. Caner to disparage others and you to disparage others but not for others to disparage others if that is, indeed what they are doing.
E. You have accused Tom Ascol of posting private emails. James White, not Tom Ascol posted the emails.
F.You write, "To selectively post some private e-mails and not ALL of your e-mails you have ever received is disingenuous of the position you have taken.
I for one will never be e-mailing you anything I do not want to be made public but I assure you anything you e-mail me will be between us unless I have your consent!"
1. So, apparently, Brad, they are private enough not to be posted, but not private enough for you not to read. Just so we're clear here.
2. Notice the conflation of categories. For you, it is all or nothing, a false antithesis if ever there was...but an email exchange about a public debate in which one of the 4 involved told the other that he had his permission to post the exchange and then changed his mind isn't in the same category. Emails between spouses are not in the same category and serve no public interest. The emails over the Memphis Declaration, per Ben, are very available.
3. There is no prohibition for posting the substance of any private email, per US copyright laws, and, since you are the one discussing the business world and its reasons for not posting private emails (which have to do with the copyright laws), it seems you need a lesson into what kinds of email exchanges are included and what kinds are excluded. You see, there are category distinctions recognized by the law, and, if we should be modeling our behavior after the unbelieving business community, then it seems we should understand, per your own yardstick, what those regulations are.
There are exceptions to copyright protection that fall into the area of fair use. According to Sec. 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(a) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(b) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(c) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I call you attention to this list of Fair Use Provisions:
Criticism
Comment
News reporting
Teaching
Scholarship
Research
This looks to see if the work is for one of the purposes that are mentioned in the preamble of the fair use provision. It should be noted that this list is not restrictive. However, the burden of showing fair use is somewhat easier if the work is for one of these purposes.
Source:http://www.benedict.com/info/Law/FairUse.aspx
Now, we have at least two those reasons lying behind Dr. White's posting of them.
FAIR USE - Fair use are exceptions in copyright that are allowable for such purposes of teaching, research and scholarship functions, in the function news reporting, and critiques, reviews or comments on the work provided that the value of the copyrighted material is protected and is not diminished.
There are five basic elements in determining fair use:
• the purpose and reason for the use
• is it commercial vs. non-profit or educational
• the nature of the copyrighted work
• the amount or portion of the work used
• does the use of the work diminish the value
Fair use also includes "parody" or a work that mocks or ridicules a work by imitation. It uses elements of the original work to create a new work, that in some way, comments on the original work.
Is this or AOMin a for-profit site? No In fact, dare we say that us bloggers serve a niche of a niche audience.
Is the email being reproduced being reproduced as a news item and comment? Absolutely.
Just in case folks are under any illusions as to what is favored and disfavored under Fair Use:
Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied.
What is not favored:
Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)
Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm
In addition, the trend with respect to emails is currently for the author to publicly state the copyright, not merely assume it.
Notice.
For several years, copyright notice has not been required in the U.S. Until then, however, that was not true; notice may be needed to rebut lingering notions that works published without notice can be used by others without restriction.
** Web pages.
Again, web pages are simpler. Although a formal notice is not required, it is best to provide a notice such as appears at the bottom of this page.
** Email.
Notice on individual email messages (if blanket notice is not provided, say, in a welcome message) may also be useful. Something as straight-forward as "Please do not forward this message without permission" should be legally adequate as well as honored by most recipients. It is hard to see any advantage to traditional notices.
--Do these emails intefere with Ergun and Emir's income? Well, they claim that SBC Presidents have emailed Ergun in support of him. If we believe Ergun, these emails should further establish his position. If you ask me, that is more beneficial for him where he is, since he says Calvinists have no place at Liberty, so one could argue that these emails help him and do not hurt him. No commercial purpose is being here served. Criticism, education, scholarship, and commentary are all in view here, and we have a request by Emir to be quoted correctly, and written permission to post emails when discussed on Dr. White's blog, and the material falls well within the standards of the "unbelieving business world's" definition of fair use, so nobody has sunken beneath the business world at all. If Dr. Emir Caner objects to this, then he needs to have a chat with Ergun about what he says that gets them into a bind. This is what happens when you don't watch what you say or mean what you say.
4. If you wish to email persons and be certain your privacy is protected, there's a little thing called a notice that you can put underneath your signature. Here is the one that an editor of a Baptist state newspaper whom I know uses regularly: Please pardon the disclaimer, but I request that all e-mail from me be considered personal, and not forwarded or disseminated in other ways without express permission.
Greetings:
I wish to make a brief comment in response to the few who have objected to my posting of the correspondence regarding the debate preparations.
I posted the first exchange between myself and Dr. Caner a few months ago. As he himself had said, he expected his comments would be posted, and asked only that the exchange be posted in its totality, which is what I did. Obviously, the response to those e-mails was not what Dr. Caner expected. They plainly and clearly exposed his behavior for what it was.
When this second "round" began, the issue of posting the exchanges had honestly not crossed my mind. I remained hopeful that we would not have a repeat of the "ignore every question asked, behave like an angry teenager, demonstrate you really haven't a clue what you are blustering about" scenario. And until the Caners purposefully, willfully, maliciously, "went silent" for three weeks, I still hoped it would not be necessary. However, please note in the file that this topic came up. As soon as the Caners started "arguing" their points they said they wanted to keep this all private. Tom Ascol *immediately* rejected this caveat. He *immediately* said this conversation had to be kept open and above board, and everything else written has been written with that understanding. Once again, I have included *everything* that has been written so that there is no editing or spinning on my part.
Now, these were not e-mails that are in any way, shape, or form, parallel to e-mails to my wife or members of my church. I cannot begin to understand how such a parallel could be drawn (as it was in the comments I read). This is similar to the closed meeting/open meeting situation in government, with the added reality that we are speaking about an ostensibly *Christian* event. There is no secret that four men, whose identities are all known, who are all public figures, are supposed to be debating Calvinism on a given date in a given place. Tom and I are not quietly trying to get Ergun and Emir to see the error of their ways. While I have bent over backwards to seek to befriend these men (to no avail), the purpose of our exchanges is no secret nor is it "personal." People who will attend that debate deserve to know who tried to provide them with a meaningful debate and who did not. If these e-mails are hidden away in secrecy then all we can do is say "we tried" and they will say "we tried" and nothing is accomplished. Christian leaders should be held to a higher standard. Indeed, this issue goes to the heart of not only why I debate at all, but why I debate this kind of issue: in our "personal rights" crazed culture we tend to think the personal feelings and rights of individuals are significantly more important than great and eternal truths. I, as a person, am irrelevant in this situation: the issues we wish to debate were relevant long before I was born and will be long after I am gone. I am simply blessed to be able to be used of the Lord to make God's truth known in my day. These issues are so much more important, so much bigger, than I am, that to focus upon me, or personal issues, or to worry about "private e-mails" that were anything but private to begin with, is to completely miss the point. I find it ironic that Ergun Caner has said that "our churches hang in the balance" of the issue of the debate---if that is so, why would he not want what he has said, and how he has behaved, to be seen by all? I will tell you why. It has nothing to do with private e-mails. It has everything to do with the fact that he has done all he can to derail the debate and has engaged in the most incredible behavior toward men who are ostensibly his colleagues (though, obviously, he and his brother do not even believe me to be a Christian). Unless I can trust that Ergun Caner will honestly inform his own students of his attitudes and actions, the truth must be told. Remember, this debate is no secret. He's announced it in chapel while trying to rev up the audience to show up for it (in the context of bashing Calvinism). God's people deserve to know what is going on and why the debate is taking the form that it is.
Sparrowhawk:
DUDE! That is the funniest line that has appeared on this blog in a long time! Thanks for the Edwards lesson.
Oh, and one more thing...since I happen to know a thing or two about email as a PT Network Admin...if the Drs. Caner are using their .edu email addy's for their correspondence, they really aren't private at all. They are owned not by them, but by their respective institutions. So, they are actually very subject to others reading them, gleaning information from them, and using them for public or even private, personnel related reasons. This is *also* common practice. This is one reason that certain seminary professors with whom I correspond about personal matters use their private, home emails and not their .edu addresses. When we speak on those emails, we both agree to keep the conversation on particular topics. Big Brother, for whatever reason, can certainly have a looksee whenever he wants on those email addresses. It doesn't mean anybody has anything to hide, rather it means that you shouldn't say anything to another you wouldn't want repeated anyway. As Alice said, say what you mean and mean what you say."
Finally, let's all realize here that this would not be an issue if (A) the Caners had not colluded together like 2 adolescent schoolboys going to shoot cats in the dark Georgia night a few months ago on this blog to apparently rile up some Calvnists, and (B) not continued their behavior in private emails not only to James and Tom, but to others of us.
This is precisely the reason why at Strange Baptist Fire, when I created the rules there, I posted this:
Speaking for myself, I will not entertain spam emails, rants, and other such items. In the spirit of openness, this means if necessary, I will, speaking strictly for myself, post the contents of emails if they display a pattern of abuse, mean-spiritedness, misrepresentation, unresponsiveness, or willful ignorance. This is to draw your attention to the way you sound, and I say this because I respect you and believe you capable of better behavior, but sometimes it is necessary to do such a thing to make a point.
Correction to spelling in my last post: Quadriz should be Quadriga.
Brad,
Thanks for responding! I guess by your comment you are not a Calvinist( However you did not say that). This is my guess.
Byroniac,
I did not mean to come across as elitist in saying that James White has nothing to lose in this debate because he is not a Southern Baptist. Perhaps I should say that he has less to lose than Dr. Ascol has. The Founders have been working for years to raise awareness in the SBC about our historical roots in Calvinism. This debate could do a great deal to hurt the work that has been done. That is all that I am trying to sya.
Gene
Thanks for the lesson on law, you are well-versed...I am certain many will read it carefully. I however, do not base my actions on man's laws.
The rest of your Blog I have already addressed.
And you are right I did imply that Tom's motive was to garnish support for Calvinism. I honestly, would like to thank you for pointing that out...that was clearly wrong on my part and is sin. The fact, I did not see that when I Blogged bothers and concerns me and I will try by God's grace to avoid it in the future.
I have asked forgiveness from my Lord and now,
Tom, I want to ask you to forgive me. Will you forgive me?
BR
Brad,
If someone comes to you, confidentially, and then tells you that they know that the neighbors children are being sexually molested, will you keep silent? That would not only be irresponsible, but illegal and appalling.
I suppose that your understanding of secret keeping would change under that circumstance. Just like I am not beholden to keep this sort of statement a secret, "I think that the neighbor is a big idiot." I may just inform you that I'm going to call a conference and tell the neighbor what you said.
Brad,
You need to consider what you are saying here. If you really believe what you say you need to openly rebuke your current boss, your former boss and Tim Lewis who served as chairman of trustees in 2004 along with several of your co-workers.
Please stand down. Tom has done nothing worthy of such rebuke from you. For you to attack Tom and at the same time defend those that you do is in no way balanced and proper. I am your friend. You have said these things in public, therefore, in public, I again, ask you to stand down.
IN CHRIST FREE,
cb
Sojourner
If you can't see the difference in private correspondence being made public without the consent of those involved and reporting the private conversation about the abuse of a child to the proper authorities (not placing it on a Blog but reporting it to authorities) then again my time is wasted.
BR