Tim Enloe says he's not going to respond, and then he responded.
:-) In part:

So go ahead, Dr. White. Blog some more about my "discontent with truth". You're only preaching to a very narrow choir. Which is, of course, exactly how your very narrow, very much Donatist-like theological tradition likes it.

For those not familiar with the digs used by sacralists, you might want to get hold of a copy of Leonard Verduin's The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. There is a whole chapter on the use of that term as a derogatory remark. Be that as it may, I have a suggestion for Mr. Enloe. It seems that despite his hard work on his thesis, TGE has lots of time for writing other stuff, especially on this topic. So, how about we benefit everyone and actually address an issue in a formal, written format on this website? How about we address the issue, "Is the Roman Catholic My Brother"? I think our readers would find such an encounter, with specific limitations on lengths, most useful. How about it, TGE? Galatians 2:4-5 revisited? You say I'm "courting heresies," so lets obey the concept of Isaiah 8:20, and see who handles the Word of God aright?

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

And the response was quick:

The answer to Dr. White's debate challenge to me is "No". There are far more credible men out there who can stand against Dr. White--why doesn't he seek them out? I am just a layman and an undergraduate student who sometimes has a little bit of time to post informal, rambling stuff on a blog. Why a Doctor of Theology with a well-established, public ministry would care to publicly and formally debate with an undergraduate student who wrote some rambling stuff on an out-of-the-way blog on the hind-end of cyberspace seems very strange.

Why should it seem strange? TGE has been active in Internet apologetics for quite some time; has been associated with a number of ministries, and I have said many times he is one of the sharpest folks I've ever met. But the answer to the question is not far to be had: I have said from day one the issue is exegetical. Mr. Enloe has repeatedly (and falsely) asserted I believe I am
immune from external influences in my interpretation of Scripture. Myself, and others, have attempted to explain that the proper practice of sound hermeneutics is designed to identify those external influences and filter them so that the actual meaning of the original text can first be ascertained before it is then transferred into the context of the modern situation. An exegetically based discussion of the issues would demonstrate this for all to see, to the benefit of any follower of Christ. Sadly, Mr. Enloe's response to a challenge to engage the biblical text is:

But at the end of the day, the problem is less with his actual views than it is with his horrible, sectarian ATTITUDE. Can't get him to understand that, though. He just wants to run formal debates and piously intone "To the law and to the testimony and if they speak not according to [my sectarian exegetical conclusions] they have no dawn."

Big words that would be easily proven, if true. Odd that the one avoiding the demonstration would make them. In any case, my invitation remains open.

And as to seeking out others, well, I know of some who are doing just that.
:-)

N.B. One of the greatest ironies is found in one of the comments posted in response to TGE's blog, from one of the more notorious of Rome's self-congratulatory defenders, Dave Armstrong:

Very short-lived promise from yesterday, Tim. :-) But hey, I can relate totally. For once we agree on something. When it comes to your criticisms of Dr. White, we're like two peas in a pod. Now you can see the frustration I've had trying to interact with the man, since 1995.

OK, I've made glancing comments on the Dividing Line without getting specific, mainly due to respect for the individual (I still like this guy!) and out of hope that some semblance of balance might be regained. But today's rambling comments by Timothy Enloe (see the blog entry for 1/14/04) simply demand a brief response. Seemingly, unless you believe it is God's intention to create anther "Christendom," i.e., a Christian society (and hence hold to a particular form of post-millennialism), you separate the gospel out from the "rest of life." The result? Well---and Mr. Enloe says this repeatedly---specifics regarding the doctrine of justification do not seem anymore to be relevant to the gospel itself (if you are wondering where you heard that before, let me remind you: it's called ECT, Evangelicals and Catholics Together). The example used by Enloe in the current blog is quite insightful: the destruction of the Oak of Geismar by Boniface in the 8th century. Enloe narrates it briefly, and then makes the amazing statement, "Boniface preached the Gospel by chopping down a tree, not by thundering about Justification By Faith Alone." So, that was the extent of the proclamation? Cut down the tree and then sprinkle the amazed and awed pagans, and now you have a Christian society? Does not history tell us what happens when this kind of "societal evangelism by baptism" is practiced? You end up with wet paganism. What happened to following the Apostolic example found in the New Testament? Why didn't Paul knock over the altar to the Unknown God? Why am I a Platonist for noting that the Apostles seemed quite concerned about the details of their proclamation of the gospel? Have all those statements about "watch your doctrine!" from 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus fallen out of the canon up in Moscow, Idaho?

Folks, the foundation of the Christian life is knowing who God is, what He has done in Christ, and that I have peace with God not because of anything I have done but solely because of what Christ has done. Until that relationship of peace is established and understood, the rest is just window dressing. You can sprinkle water on somebody's noggin until they drown, but without that foundation you will never build a proper, balanced Christian life. Whether justification involves imputation or infusion may sound like a war over words, but it isn't, anymore than saying there really is no difference between saying Jesus is God or "a god." The issue of whether there is, in fact, a positive imputation of Christ's righteousness or not (the issues relating to New Perspectivism) is vital to how we view ourselves, our relationship to God, our standing in Christ, and any number of pastoral questions and issues. And whether the mere act of Trinitarian baptism actually joins one to the covenant in the blood of Christ so that one so baptized is in fact to be considered a "brother" (contra Galatians 2) is likewise of vital importance to our evangelism, our view of the gospel, and our apologetics. These are vitally important issues, with great importance to the faith. I can only hope that those who once seemed to be balanced in their understanding of these things will regain that balance, all to God's glory.