Follow Up on R. Scott Clark and “Reformed”

Well, at least Black Friday isn’t completely boring for all of you who, like me, loathe being on the streets and highways today (I basically hide in the house, ride on the canals, do anything but be out in public). My response to R. Scott Clark’s comments has certainly gotten everyone’s holiday season off to a rousing start! Glad to be of service.

Seriously, I thought I had linked to Micah Burke’s blog, but I’ll be honest: I am using Ecto to blog in Mac, and…this program is definitely sub-par for a Mac platform. There are times it simply will not cooperate, and one of its quirks is sometimes it refuses to insert URL links. That is not nearly as annoying as the “edit this long, long post and I’ll delete 80% of it and give you no way of recovering what you spent the past 90 minutes writing” bug. Anyway, here is the blog entry and comments:

http://radongas.blogspot.com/2009/11/thought-on-r-scott-clarks-definiton-of.html

Hey, it worked that time (though, I note, all formatting commands are now off line—weird).

Just a few thoughts in response to all the buzz out there.

1) Please read my words with the emphasis I placed in the article, not yours. I did not compare my Presbyterian brothers to cultists: I said a defective reading of a text is an indication of tradition trumping exegesis. Try reading my words with half the fairness I try to show toward others and all will be well.

2) This debate cannot simply go away. Our confessions force it upon us, our love for the gospel brings us into close proximity, and our common commitment to sola scriptura drives us to live consistently in light thereof. And I say both sides get to speak clearly and fully. There is a lot written out there that, if I were looking for a reason to be offended, would offend me as a Reformed Baptist. I do not go through life looking for reasons to be offended by brethren. I simply ask the same in return.

With that, I return you to your regularly scheduled programming.