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.
http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/07/brief-update.html
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."
http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/04/
jerry-falwells-friday-13th-declaration.html
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?
Charles
posted by Charles @ 3:13 PM
4 Comments:
HERESY AND HERETICS?
Bob to Charles:
I wonder, Charles, if Tom Ascol believes it is heresy to (1) baptise babies in infancy on the presumption that they either are already regenerated, or shall be regenerated, and to (2) add the these babies to the membership of the church?
In his blog, Tom says:
>>
What I regret is that he finds particular atonement to be "heresy." This must mean that he and Liberty believe that those who hold to particular atonement to be heretics.
>>
Tom has an "ordained Congregrationist minister," David Wells, lined up as the "Keynote Speaker" for the Founders National Conference. The Congregationalist church is like the Presbyterian church on the baptism of infants. Infants, which are the offspring of believers, supposedly have regeneration as their "inheritance" -- according to these denominations and their "covenant" teaching.
Is this "heresy" or not, according to Tom Ascol?
Dear Charles,
Thanks for the link, my Brother. Dr. Ascol did answer me. However, he curiously assumed I was suggesting he did not believe heresy's existence.
I followed up asking the same question another way.
And, I substantially agree with our Brother Bob: I get the feeling that dubbing folks heretics or identifying heresy is a particular discernment gift given only to our Founders brothers--at least, that's the way they sometimes come across as seeing it.
Grace to both you and Bob. Continue the great work. With that, I am...
Peter
Great blog! Keep it coming! You guys are one of the few blogs I can read without raising my blood pressure.
JS
TOM AND JAMES
Bob to Charles:
I noticed that while Brother Tom Ascol is complaining about Jerry Falwell, his "debate partner," James White, is complaining about the "King James Onlys."
James has done it again -- "backed out" -- like he backed out of the Caner debate last year. This time, he has backed out of trying to evangelize the Mormons in Mesa, Arizona.
According to James, the KJVO street preachers who showed up in Mesa made his "evangelism" of the Mormons an impossible task -- so James has announced he won't be back to try to reach the elect among the Mormons. He has surrendered the Mormon territory to the KJVOs.
He has "endured all things" that he can endure for the elect's sake, and has thrown in the towel, leaving any witnessing and soul-winning of the elect among the Mormons to the KJVOs.
That may be just as well, as I have not seen any report from James which indicates he has had any Mormon converts, anyway. Must not be very many of elect among the Mormons.
Post a Comment
<< Home