Friday, May 30, 2008

Speaking of "arrogance"


It seems that Tom Ascol has found him a new "tar baby" -- Elmer Towns.

I have noticed that when Tom finds something which appears to him to be rather "weak" up beside his Hybrid Calvinism, he buckles on his guns and goes hunting. So I suppose the "choir" on his Flounders' blog will be treated to a few of his "big game hunting" exhibitions in blogs ahead.

Tom says --

"I found Dr. Towns' article to be seriously flawed in both research and argumentation. While he does not caricature the doctrines of grace in the typical ways that characterize many of the opponents of Calvinism, he makes some glaring factual mistakes, fails support some gratuitous assertions and leaves the reader wondering what exactly he is trying to say."

Now, what appears to place Tom squarely in that group of "arrogant Calvinists" referred to by Pastor John Piper is this:

Tom alleges that Towns "fails [to] support some gratuitous assertions."

Tom Ascol is the "king" of gratuitous assertions! Let's take note here of just one:

Tom has been carrying an item on his website for a few years, alleging that the Southern Baptist Convention is an "unregenerate denomination."

Yet there has not been a single unregenerate Southern Baptist, active or "inactive," who has been offered as an example to support this "gratuitous assertion." Where is the evidence that even one person whose name appears on a Southern Baptist church roll is "unregenerate"?

It is all a mere speculative judgmental assumption about a matter which not a single Flounder within five thousand miles of Cape Coral knows anything about. Has Ascol even found an "unregenerate" Southern Baptist in his own city?

"Where's the beef?"

For all Ascol, Jim Eliff, or any other Flounder knows, every single one of those absentee Southern Baptists could conceivably be active members of other Christian churches. The fact is, the "numbers" prove nothing either for "regeneracy" or "unregeneracy." It's all merely "gratuitious assertions."

Also, the fact that there is a large number of absentee members on SBC church rolls does not prove anything about whether or not they are regenerate or unregenerate, and it certainly does not prove that the large element of attending Southern Baptist members are unregenerate. If "non-attendance" proves unregeneracy, then does "attendance" prove regeneracy?

To allege that the SBC is "an unregenerate denomination" based on pure assumption in regard to the spiritual status of unattending members is as a large a piece of "gratuitous assertion" that ever came down the Florida Turnpike.

If either Ascol or Eliff have a single "Exhibit A" of an "unregenerate" in the Southern Baptist Convention, let either of them demonstrate that he has more than assumption as evidence of the assertion. He could not prove it in court if his life depended on it.

To presume that possibly there are or may be unregenerate members on the SBC's church rolls is one thing, but to allege that the SBC is "an unregenerate denomination" based on pure assumption seems to me to qualify for what Piper called "arrogant Calvinists."


Post a Comment

<< Home