Tony Byrne recently drafted a reply to my refutation of his use of the Bunyan quote, in an attempt to defend his Neo-Amyraldian spin of Bunyan's material. His reply is extensive, and as such will be addressed in a couple of days time.
Byrne however is not content to merely refute (or rather attempt to refute) my previous rebuttal of his mis-quotation. Rather, he has gone on the offensive with a comment posted on Dr. Gonzales' blog.
Daniel,
Respond to the Edwards quotes above. We now want to see to see how you will interpret those.
Also, since you’re in the habit of name calling and speaking disrespectfully to us [even to Dr. Gonzales], I do not look forward to these exchanges with you. Since you don’t even talk to us as if we are Christians, I want to wrap this up as quick as possible. There’s no need to produce a long dissertation here in response to the Bunyan material above, and then demand that I respond to it on your time table [as you recently said on your blog: "Byrne having seemingly being silenced, his good friend David Ponter comes to the rescue..."]. I know you’re saying to yourself, “they do not want to [or can't] respond to me since I am such an intellectual powerhouse.” No, Daniel. It’s because you’re a hateful person and you show nothing but disrespect for us. And you will not change, so even these comments to you are in vain.
So, just move on to Edwards now, so we can get this over with as soon as possible. Do not expect me to respond to anything else you say about Bunyan. As I said above, we will just have to agree to disagree on him. Others can read what is above and make up their own minds.
Thanks,
Tony
[source]
First of all, Byrne is slandering me when he states about my "speaking disrespectfully" to Dr. Bob Gonzales and the Neo-Amyraldians. Let's get this straight: Byrne and Ponter can engage in the most egregious form of name-calling but when someone is thought of doing such, it is "speaking disrespectfully"? Byrne can slander the brethren and call respected apologist Dr. James White and ordained minister Dr. Robert Reymond "hyper-Calvinists", yet it is wrong for me to call him a Neo-Amyraldian? On David Ponter's side, he can engage in the worst forms of character assassination of Mark Farnon aka tartansarmy, but anyone calling his character for doing such a deplorable act is engaging in "slander, gossip and sniping"! The HYPOCRISY and double-standardness exhibited by these two Neo-Amyraldians disgust me. Even IF what they [falsely] charge me with is right, the best I can offer them is "Pot, meet kettle"! It seems that some people can dish out insults but cannot even take the smallest critique!
As for Dr. Gonzales, I let the readers read for themselves and judge whether I have treated him respectfully. In point of fact, Dr. Gonzales is no saint either on his blog, demanding of me to defend my position according to Scripture (while I was addressing the topic of historical theology not theology per se), while giving Tony Byrne and David Ponter free passes in their misquotations of reformed sources and never asking THEM to defend their positions according to Scripture. I am very disappointed that the president of a professed reformed seminary behaves in such a manner. I think it was James that tell us not to be partial. (Jas. 2:1)
Seondly, and most importantly, we can notice from Byrne's remark that the truth is NOT important for him. This is the relevant portion from his comment:
So, just move on to Edwards now, so we can get this over with as soon as possible. Do not expect me to respond to anything else you say about Bunyan. As I said above, we will just have to agree to disagree on him. [Bold added]
Let's unpack what Byrne is actually saying. He has just written a rebuttal to my contest of his Bunyan quote, yet he simultaneously claims that despite whether he is right or wrong, it is irrelevant! In other words, even if the Bunyan quote in actual fact DOES NOT support his Neo-Amyraldism, it does not matter. On the contrary, we claim it DOES matter. Few if any of us have the time and capacity to check out ALL the quotes given by Ponter and Byrne and their fellow Neo-Amyraldians, read ALL of them in context and either confirm or refute the interpretations of the Neo-Amyraldians. If even one of these quotes can be proven to be wrong, or even to have a highly plausible alternate reading that does not require a Neo-Amyraldian interpretation, then that quote just cannot be used by them to prove their Neo-Amyraldian position, period! It also should make us doubtful of their ability to read historic quotes alright, and are not merely quote-mining historical documents to look for words and phrases they desire to find, much like how Roman Catholic apologists have treated the writings of the early church fathers! Speaking of RC apologists in their utilization of the writings of the early church fathers, I honestly see no difference in their approach and the approach of the Neo-Amyraldians, but I digress.
In conclusion, Byrne has publicly state that he is not interested in the truth and that he is only interested in furthering his Neo-Amyraldian agenda; whether Scripture and the Reformers taught it is not important at all! Such a deplorable attitude can be seen in his manifest dis-interest in whether the Bunyan quote utilized by him does or does not in fact promote his position. Byrne has also slandered the brethren, and hypocritically cries foul when a similar but biblical action is taken against him.
1 comment:
Hello! :)
Post a Comment