In fact, it is kind of embarrassing to hear most Prots talk about “Augustinianism.” Can you imagine rejecting half (at least) of Calvin’s core theology and still trying to use the term “Calvinism”?
Aside from the fact that I mentioned nothing about Augustine in my post, I must say that I like you better when you visit my blog and actually engage in constructive argument there, rather than posting these immature little digs you’ve been so fond of making at my expense of late (I did get some extra traffic last week when you publicly remarked that I probably fault the Bible for not standing up to the scrutiny of the Confession and Catechisms).
You seemed to be a good Christian gentleman when I met you at GA, and you came off as being rather humbled when I told you that you were instrumental in convincing me of paedobaptism some years ago.
Are you a polite man in person and a sarcastic, petty one when playing your cyber role?
Just keep in mind that those whom you mock do read what you write about them. You may realize that, and you may be comfortable with the tenor of your posts, but then again, you may not.
On Augustine, you labeled a position that was unquestionably his (though not at all, mine, Lusk’s, or Gaffin’s) as semi-pelagian. My dig was not immature. It was precisely appropriate for the level of thought you demonstrated.
As for your judgments on my writing and possibly my character, you are not judging impartially when you look at your own writing on your blog and then declare mine to be something less than what you would expect from a Christian gentleman. You might consider that your own communications might seem somewhat short of the standard you invoke. In any case, you didn’t seem all eager to speak to me they way you write your blog either.
I was glad to hear about the paedobaptism help I gave you, at the time. Since then it has occurred to me that if you hadn’t changed you may not have ended up in such proximity to R. S. Clark. So there is something bittersweet about the whole deal.
There is a difference between arguing strongly for one’s position on the one hand, and a snide, one-sentence comment, which links to me, saying, “Poor Bible! It just can’t hold a candle to the Westminster Standards” (or whatever you wrote) on the other.
In all of my interaction with the Federal Vision, I refer to its advocates as “friends” and “brothers,” and do my best to avoid the kind of snarkiness that you have directed toward me of late.
Your mentioning Scott Clark is telling. I had a feeling your frustration was really toward him, but (mis)directed at me. Is it possible I was right?
Absolutely they do.
In fact, it is kind of embarrassing to hear most Prots talk about “Augustinianism.” Can you imagine rejecting half (at least) of Calvin’s core theology and still trying to use the term “Calvinism”?
Mark,
Aside from the fact that I mentioned nothing about Augustine in my post, I must say that I like you better when you visit my blog and actually engage in constructive argument there, rather than posting these immature little digs you’ve been so fond of making at my expense of late (I did get some extra traffic last week when you publicly remarked that I probably fault the Bible for not standing up to the scrutiny of the Confession and Catechisms).
You seemed to be a good Christian gentleman when I met you at GA, and you came off as being rather humbled when I told you that you were instrumental in convincing me of paedobaptism some years ago.
Are you a polite man in person and a sarcastic, petty one when playing your cyber role?
Just keep in mind that those whom you mock do read what you write about them. You may realize that, and you may be comfortable with the tenor of your posts, but then again, you may not.
Respectfully,
Jason Stellman
Dear Jason,
On Augustine, you labeled a position that was unquestionably his (though not at all, mine, Lusk’s, or Gaffin’s) as semi-pelagian. My dig was not immature. It was precisely appropriate for the level of thought you demonstrated.
As for your judgments on my writing and possibly my character, you are not judging impartially when you look at your own writing on your blog and then declare mine to be something less than what you would expect from a Christian gentleman. You might consider that your own communications might seem somewhat short of the standard you invoke. In any case, you didn’t seem all eager to speak to me they way you write your blog either.
I was glad to hear about the paedobaptism help I gave you, at the time. Since then it has occurred to me that if you hadn’t changed you may not have ended up in such proximity to R. S. Clark. So there is something bittersweet about the whole deal.
Mark,
There is a difference between arguing strongly for one’s position on the one hand, and a snide, one-sentence comment, which links to me, saying, “Poor Bible! It just can’t hold a candle to the Westminster Standards” (or whatever you wrote) on the other.
In all of my interaction with the Federal Vision, I refer to its advocates as “friends” and “brothers,” and do my best to avoid the kind of snarkiness that you have directed toward me of late.
Your mentioning Scott Clark is telling. I had a feeling your frustration was really toward him, but (mis)directed at me. Is it possible I was right?
Jason Stellman