More Hypocrisy from Tom Ascol?I'm beginning to wonder if Brother Tom Ascol doesn't deserve a new title: The King of Hypocrisy. Seriously.
There was a time when Dr. Ascol strenuously objected to anonymous posters and bloggers. Then last year he announced,
a new blog has shown up in the blogosphere. The first several posts interact with Dr. Paige Patterson's recent article on alcoholic beverages. They are very insightful and worth reading. Check out the Concerned SBCer."Concerned SBCer," now offline, was for its short life an anonymous blog. Yet Tom Ascol had no problem recommending it.
In a more recent mishap, Ascol tried to take the moral high road by pointing out that Jerry Falwell shouldn't have referred to limited atonement as "heresy." Brother Tom said, "I do not regard my universal redemptionist brothers to be heretics because of their views of general atonement." He went on to say, "It is time for this generation of believers to learn how to disagree over substantive issues without falling into the sins of slander and bearing false witness."
So in 2007, we should all love each other and get along, right Tom? Fine and dandy. Except Brother Peter Lumkins went back and looked at some of your Founders Journals. Peter asked,
I nevertheless wonder how the following words penned sometime back fit into the outrage I sense here:Tom and his fellow Flounders have been trashing Southern Baptists for a long time, perhaps not using the "h" word but using language just as strong. Also, there are Reformed bloggers all over the blogosphere who do not hesitate in using the "h" word about Southern Baptists who reject the Reformed theology of Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry). Where is Tom's outrage over them? Has he visited their blogs and asked them to tone down their language? Why not clean up his own house before he goes after Falwell?
"When we talk about God, there are indeed some wrong answers...And where they contradict the clear teaching of Scripture on points of salvific importance, they need to be renounced in the strongest of terms--even to the point of using the dreaded "h" word. Otherwise, truth really does not matter at all." (FJ, Winter, 1997).
The question, then, is whether Dr. Falwell's statement about universal atonement qualifies for "salvific importance." It seems to me it does. What do you think?
It seems for Tom Ascol, it's wrong to be anonymous, unless he agrees with you. It's wrong to use harsh language and the "h" word, unless his Reformed friends are using it.
Tom Ascol. Should we Color Him Hypocritical?