|
On February 7th,
2004, I was informed Timothy Enloe had replied to the very
brief comments I had placed on the blog. As this
is a vital issue, I have chosen to reply openly and publicly,
in the hope the saints will be warned and encouraged to hold
to the truth. I am placing his comments in blue and
introducing them.
TGE wrote:
Of
course not. We know that you don't consider baptism
"important" if it isn't connected to explicit presentations of
solafidian propositions.
Translation for
folks who do not live in Moscow, Idaho: I think baptism is
meaningless outside of the gospel and the work of Holy Spirit.
I plead guilty, and would be glad to defend the thesis,
"Immersing, pouring, or sprinkling a child or an adult outside
of the context of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the proclamation
of His Lordship and Saviorhood, the work of the Holy Spirit in
bringing regeneration and faith, and the exercise of that
divinely enabled faith in the promises of God expressed in His
death, burial, and resurrection, is a meaningless act that is,
in fact, offensive to God."
What you continue to fail to provide,
sir, is MEANINGFUL engagement with other views.
We obviously disagree on the definition of "meaningful
engagement." I will leave it to our respective readers who
has, and who has not, done so. Isn't that the best way to
handle it?
TGE wrote:
Writing a couple of posts that spell out
your own exegetical conclusions and then concluding that your
opponent is "discontent with truth" or "doesn't want to submit
his traditions to Scripture" merely because your presentations
failed to convince him does NOT constitute MEANINGFUL
engagement with other views.
As those who watched know, Mr. Enloe, you REFUSED TO ENGAGE
THE TEXT when we first attempted to do so, preferring to
wander about in the world of external biblical preconceptions
and presuppositions. The exegetical ground has been held by
one side all along simply because the other side doesn't
really believe, fundamentally, that we can hear God speaking
in the Scriptures outside of the historio/traditional complex
of presuppositions (and, of course, the content of said
complex is left up to the person who believes it indispensable
and inescapable through the ordinary means of proper
hermeneutical practice).
I had written: baptism is defined by Scripture, which
you don't seem to think is perspicuous enough any longer to
even address the issue;"
TGE replies:
Again, a total lack of MEANINGFUL
engagement with other views. I most certainly do believe that
Scripture is perspicuous. What has happened is that I've
started taking the CONTEXT of that classical Christian view of
Scripture for what it is, rather than doing as you and your
friends do, abstracting it out of all connection to the
space-time world and pretending it's a mere intellectual given
that enlightens your minds so long as you wield the exegetical
technology properly.
Talk about a non-response! If you were precluded from using
the phrase "space-time world" you would be like an Italian who
is forced to talk with his or her hands tied to his or her
side. If Scripture is perspicuous, what does that mean? Why
did you refuse to even attempt to tell any of us what
Galatians 2:4-5 means only a few months ago on the RTWFC forum
boards? I refute your constant, errant, unfounded, and often
disproven assertion that to deal with the text in its original
context is to "abstract" it from the connections God intends
it to have. Galatians 2, or any other passage of Holy Writ,
had a meaning when it was written; that meaning did not change
a century later, or five hundred years later, despite the
progress of time. If you think I cannot know that meaning
without first journeying through the intervening centuries,
you do not believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, at least
in any meaningful fashion. I do not "pretend" anything about
the Scriptures, and your mantra-driven rants against those you
once worked with (we hardly need to start naming names) have
become very tired, and very old. If you can't make a
meaningful argument without repeating these red herrings,
perhaps this should tell you something? If it doesn't now, I
continue to hope and pray that maybe, someday, it will.
TGE continued:
"Perspicuity" doesn't mean anything if
you don't attach it to MEANS. What you apparently fail to
grasp is that I hold to the classical Reformational
understanding of what those MEANS are and how they function.
Or so you think you do, Mr. Enloe. Please don't blame Calvin
for your red-herrings about what I do or do not believe. We
never met.
TGE continued:
Which means that I do NOT hold to the
very much NON-Reformational understanding of them that you
hold. Can you discuss this very important disagreement of
historical theology without imputing bad motives and spiritual
darkness to those who differ with you?
Mr. Enloe, my comment about a discontentment with truth on
The Dividing Line had as its referent a very wide variety
of views, and you were not even primary in my original
development of the phrase. Now, no doubt, you have placed
yourself firmly in the midst of that camp by your outrageous
commentaries and wild accusations over the past few months,
but I hate to tell you that you were not overly relevant to it
initially. I had much bigger names in mind. Be that as it may,
if you really think the Reformers refused to go to the text of
Scripture as you did, we are reading very different editions
of Calvin's Institutes and Commentaries.
I had written: if I am convinced by the Scriptures that there
is a proper ground and means of baptism, upon what basis
should your opinions and traditions over-ride my convictions?;
TGE replies:
I could ask the same question of you,
but then, when it comes to your own views it is evident to
many of us that you are simply incapable of distinguishing
between "tradition" and "objective exegesis".
Non-responsive reply. How could you demonstrate that my
exegesis is errant when you refuse to offer a counter-exegesis
that could be examined on the basis of the grammar, syntax,
and over-all context of the passage, the author, and
Scripture?
TGE continues:
You pay lip service to the existence of
traditions in your own theology, but when the rubber meets the
road it becomes VERY clear that you don't REALLY think you're
influenced by traditions.
As I have said a thousand times before, I am well aware of
tradition. Hermeneutics exists to honor the Word by serving as
a control upon said traditions so that, instead of hearing
what our traditions demand we hear from Scripture, we hear
Scripture. If this is not possible, and it seems you say it is
not, then Jesus' commands in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 are now
null and void. While He held the Pharisees responsible to test
their traditions by Scripture, you seemingly would have raised
your hand from the back and said, "Excuse me, but that really
is not a meaningful possibility, given the danger of
abstraction from the space-time world...." Tell us plainly,
Mr. Enloe: can we know what Jesus meant when He said "All that
the Father gives Me will come to Me" without making reference
to Aquinas or medieval philosophy? If we can, how can we do
so? If we cannot, please state your view openly.
TGE continued:
I mean, look. Kevin Johnson and Tim
Gallant engaged your exegetical points about Galatians 2 in no
small degree, yet what was your ultimate response?
I will gladly let anyone who viewed the exchange decide for
themselves. I fully responded to anything that was meaningful
in Mr. Gallant's attempts, and Mr. Johnson's were below
meaningful. The use of the verbs went untouched; the use of
the very term itself elsewhere was ignored; eisegetical
maneuvering on the level of Dave Armstrong's best was rampant.
Surely, Mr. Enloe, you could recognize this if it was being
practiced on almost any other subject, could you not?
TGE continued:
"Those who really want to submit to
Scripture have already understood the truth of Galatians 2
about the false brothers"--and then you fly off to do another
debate or write another book or demolish some other heretic in
your chatroom. I'm sorry you don't seem to grasp that this
does NOT constitute MEANINGFUL engagement with other views.
If by this you mean I must continue to demonstrate what has
already been demonstrated to any serious minded individual,
then I reject your conclusion. I am more than happy to let
folks read the respective contributions and make up their own
minds. I have had a wide variety of folks, even those who do
not share my specific theological position, comment on how
lopsided was the discussion, and how utterly obvious the
meaning of the text actually is, and how the conversation only
made it all that much clearer. I will not stop writing a book
on Scriptural sufficiency, and working on teaching a class on
the Development of Patristic Theology, just to repeat the same
truths that are ignored by your tradition-bound friends. I do
not engage in these discussions for the reason of compiling
the biggest word count. I do this so that those who wish to
learn can see how important issues like sola scriptura
really are. I truly wish you were not one of the most useful
folks through which to warn others about what happens when you
lose touch with such important things. I have continued to
tell anyone who asks that I always found you a bright young
man. But I am not alone in having concluded that you have
completely lost your footing and your balance. Those of us who
once counted you a friend and ally do, truly, continue to pray
for you. I know I do. :-)
I had written: "gnostic" is a lovely buzz-insult but given
that I know what the gnostics believed, having a biblical view
of baptism and being under the authority of Scripture before
tradition in obedience to Christ's command does not make me a
gnostic;
TGE replied:
My use of the word "gnostic" is not a
reference to the actual capital-G Gnostics of the early
Church, who obviously you are not in league with. As I use it,
"gnostic" is an adjective describing a basic orientation of
suspicion and withdrawal from physical, space-time reality in
favor of "spiritual" things.
Which, quite simply, Mr. Enloe, when applied to me is a
bold-faced lie that has been refuted repeatedly, and I would
thank you to stop repeating it. :-) Anyone who knows me, and
has listened to my preaching, and my teaching, knows it is a
gross misrepresentation without merit and basis, and as long
as you continue to repeat it, you will only be showing how
little you care about accurately representing those you skewer
with your words. I do not share your postmillenial
presuppositions, and if you are including such concepts here
(and I think you are), you had better start saying everyone
but posties are gnostics.
TGE continued:
Based on several years of exposure to
your work I believe it is appropriate to call you a "gnostic"
in this sense. You have a very deep suspicion of the physical,
the cultural, the temporal--indeed, of all MEANS that do not
function on the level of disembodied, intellectual engagement
with capital-T Truth.
I can only shake my head, either at your inability to process
information, or your willingness to make such statements out
of utter ignorance; either one is reprehensible. I'd ask you
to demonstrate your absurd conclusions based upon a fair
reading of my work, including my ministry and preaching and
teaching, but you have never been exposed thereto, so how
could you even respond? Amazing, just amazing.
TGE continued:
If you don't feel this is a fair
description of your work, then by all means provide a
counter-reply.
Oh my, what a wondrous world we live in! If Dave Armstrong
pulled a stunt like this you'd laugh yourself silly. "You are
a gnostic who has a deep suspicion of the physical,
cultural...etc. and you reduce God's Word to the level of
disembodied, (merely) intellectual engagement with truth, so,
prove me wrong!" In case your trip through the looking glass
erased your memory, he who asserts proves. Remember? See, if
you were to attempt to get beyond your oft-repeated
accusations and actually provide some substance to your
constant criticisms everyone would get to see just how
fallacious, a-contextual and empty your "proofs" really are.
So what do you do? You make accusations without a single
citation, a single quotation, and then demand that I refute
them! Goodness, Mr. Enloe, can you not see how utterly and
completely backwards this is? Talk about destroying your own
credibility! Again, just amazing!
TGE continued:
Many of us would love to once again be
able to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than
constantly having to have our shields up because we never know
when you're going to lob a full spread of photon torpedoes in
our direction.
As I noted in another context, RING "Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot on
line 2."
I had written: do you really, really think my view on baptism
is "every bit as idolatrous and heretical" as the Mass as a
propitiatory sacrifice that perfects no one for whom it is
made? If so, upon what basis?
TGE replied:
You asked, so here's your answer.
I think your understanding of "the Gospel" is very deficient
precisely because of its overly-intellectual / propositional
orientation. I believe that your radical divorcing of the
solas from the sacraments creates tremendous tensions between
your theology and Scripture's theology, as well as immense
problems practically. I think your basic take on Christianity
is ultimately in the same spectrum of escapist, rationalistic,
isolationist Fundamentalism that has driven so many people to
Rome and Orthodoxy, and that your obliviousness to this is a
very great tragedy in light of your ministry's stated
purposes.
Yes, you've said that. But that's not the question I asked.
So, lest our readers lose sight of the topic, you placed a
tremendous amount of verbiage between the question and your
response. Let's get to the response and then I'll briefly
comment on all the NSA-ish ad-hominem that preceded it:
TGE finally said:
And yes, I think that you are every bit
as full of heresy and idolatry as anyone else on this planet.
The next time you feel led to extravagantly thunder about
others being "discontent with truth", remember that the Lord
opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Well, at least we now have a clear statement from you.
Reformed Baptists who do not embrace your particular viewpoint
(remember, a large number of Presbyterians who are friends and
acquaintances of mine think you have fallen off the cliff, and
we could both name names again) are "just as full of heresy
and idolatry as anyone else on this planet," whatever in the
world that means. Now, you then repeated a lie about me that I
have already corrected and that you repented of once, but have
now gone back to repeating the lie: you write:
You asked if I think your beliefs are as
idolatrous and heretical as the Roman Catholic Mass. Well,
thanks to your insulting connection between the Mass and
orthodox Reformed paedobaptism, I no longer trust your
evaluation of the Roman Catholic Mass.
Of course, you know this is untrue (remember the many times we
used to discuss in channel how we wondered how RC apologists
could sleep at night when they knew they were promoting
falsehoods? Perhaps now you could comment on this phenomenon
for me?). I never did any such thing. In a sermon delivered at
my church in 2002, as I recall, I said that as I studied the
Mass many years ago I discovered an inconsistency between
believing in particular redemption (as my Presbyterian
brothers do) and the view that baptism joins one to the New
Covenant (which, the Scriptures say, is the covenant in His
blood), and that as a result, a consistent Presbyterian could
not use the arguments I present against the Mass based upon
particular redemption. Anyone can go to www.prbc.org and
listen to the sermon and listen for themselves, and as you
know, I gave you the URL to the sermons yourself. If you have
not listened to them so as to be corrected, shame on you. If
you did, then you are simply lying without repentance. In
either case, it says much about your current state of mind.
In either case, anyone can listen to what I said and wonder at
how you can make the kind of false connection you do.
So, unless you would like to restate your position, I will
have to conclude that your answer to the question, "Is the
Reformed Baptist view of baptism as much a heretical departure
from Christian truth as the Roman Catholic doctrine of the
Mass, which is said to be a propitiatory sacrifice that,
however, does not perfect those for whom it is made?" is,
"Yes, they are equally blasphemous heresies." Let the reader
learn the power of abandoning the living words of God in favor
of the traditions of men.
Now, instead of investing more time here, let me go through
the rest of your comments as I had on the blog a few days ago,
very quickly: I truly wonder what Reformed person could hold
to semper reformanda and not believe they were being
consistent with it? Yes, I believe seeing the historical
context of paedobaptism at the time of the Reformation is
important, and that the practice should be, and must be, held
up to the scrutiny of the God-breathed Scriptures. I reject
your interpretation of what the Reformation's central concerns
were, and as I see you sliding off into New Perspectivism (as
your blog demonstrates just recently regarding dikaiosune
and dikaiow) I see my point being established right
before my eyes. I reject your mischaracterization of the
encounters we have had, for as I said above, if I have
presented clear and compelling argumentation that goes without
even an acknowledgement by your fellows, upon what basis must
I follow their lead in wandering off into extraneous issues
that do not address the topic? Unlike you folks, I can allow
the readers to decide for themselves. I reject your
comfortable rhetoric about just being one of those who
embraces "classical Reformational categories." That's part of
the whole argument, isn't it? Call me a fundamentalist if you
like, TGE, at least I have not lost contact with the
Scriptures. One of us is right where he was five years ago,
and one of us isn't. Remember what the Word says about the man
who is blown about by winds of doctrine. I will take your not
dying on the hill of Incarnational heresy as a wise decision
not to press such an absurd accusation. Mine is not an
"escapist, obscurantist worldview," and anyone who listens to
the DL knows better. I am tired of your uncharitable,
mean-spirited rhetoric getting the pass while any response to
you is said to be unkind and unloving. I find it ironic that
you would accuse me of deforming the gospel when you can no
longer speak of it outside of your now overwhelming traditions
and presuppositions, rather than directly from the inspired
page, and I again identify as an outright lie the assertion
that to reject your form of sacramentalism is to believe that
the gospel does not speak to every day concerns.
Finally, in the very process of writing this response, I
discovered TGE had removed the article he had originally
posted. I immediately left a comment saying he might as well
repost it, for I was going to address it. Why? It's simple.
This is important stuff. I don't mean the personal material: I
mean the theological material. I am convinced TGE's position
is incapable of mounting a meaningful defense in the light of
ecumenical inroads that compromise the gospel. I believe his
views on Scripture are poison to apologetics (not as much to
preaching since those in his camp pretty much ignore their own
position at this point and still manage to do what they say we
can't do with enough regularity to lessen its impact). People
need to hear someone from New Saint Andrews saying, "Yes, to
be a Reformed Baptist is to deform the gospel and to engage in
heresy as serious and blasphemous as the doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Mass." That kind of radicalism, which thankfully,
most can still recognize, still needs to be exposed for what
it is, and those who seek to put forth a sound, biblical
defense of the faith need to recognize that the battle rages
on many fronts today. TGE and his fellows refer to the
emphasis upon the solas as "sloganeering" because they
have decided those phrases need to include their particular
emphases. Remember, most of these folks used to stand by our
sides in the battle. They say they have "grown" in their
understanding. So be it. The fact is they have moved into a
new viewpoint while wishing to carry the same titles they had
before. The confusion that results is damaging to the efforts
some of us have been engaged in for many years. Now, should
that be discouraging to anyone, remember that I have often
said, in numerous contexts, that we live in a day when we are
called to be faithful even in the midst of unfaithfulness;
sound and unmoving even when many give way. God's truth has
never been determined by numbers and popularity, and even if
we live in a culture under the wrath of God (does "Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts sound familiar?), we are to
stand firm, trusting He will accomplish His purposes.
Finally, I repeat what I said above: Tim, you were once a
friend and ally. I continue to hope that someday you will
regain your balance and will be restored. You are an
intelligent man with many skills and abilities. I will
continue to pray for you despite your turning on me as you
have.
|
