Recently, Phil Johnson, the purveyor of the blog and the executive director of Grace to You, wrote a challenging post targeting Arminians in which he called on them to apply their understanding of God's sovereignty in inspiration of Scripture to the doctrine of salvation as well. I wrote this comment:
God is sovereign in salvation. We get this from Scripture, so we believe it. This is in the London Baptist Confession. Every man still sins and sins, but we still believe this; God is sovereign.One of Phil's two partners at his blog, Frank Turk, immediately begins with something both false and insulting. Ultimately he writes this:
God is sovereign in verbal, plenary inspiration. We get this from Scripture, so we believe it. This is in the London Baptist Confession. Men don't possess the original manuscripts, but we still believe this; God is sovereign.
God is sovereign in verbal, plenary preservation. We get this from Scripture, so we believe it. This is in the London Baptist Confession. Men have made errors in copying, but we still believe this; God is sovereign.
Who believes in sovereignty?
We love you and your cultic interpretations of both the confessions and the preservation of the text of the Bible, Kent.Of course, he's being sarcastic and mean. He means that he doesn't love me (I figured that out awhile ago) or what he calls my "interpretations" (I don't know what "interpretation of...the preservation of the text of the Bible" means). "Play on" is meant to be insulting as well as the benediction to his comment. That is normal fare from Frank.
Play on. May God have mercy on you.
Frank couldn't leave this one alone so he wrote a whole post about his use of the word "cultic." This was the first time I had ever written a comment on his blog and I did so only to clear up the "cultic" terminology. If you read the 83rd comment, you'll see that in the end, he bans me from his and the Pyro blogs for something I had said about Daniel Wallace.
I first wrote:
Daniel Wallace doesn't believe in inerrancy even in the original manuscripts. I don't know if that affects anything for you.I wrote this because someone linked to a Wallace article. Then Frank wrote:
Ardent engagement is one thing, and libel is another. Find some way to here retract your statement and apologize, or get banned.I replied:
Evidence. And I'll let you decide. Read this article by Daniel Wallace. http://www.bible.org/page.php?pa...php? page_id=676Frank then wrote:
He says that the CT reading in Mark 1:2 is in the originals, even though it is an error. There in Mark is a quote from Malachi 3:1, which the CT attributes to Isaiah. The T says "the prophets." He calls himself an inerrantist; true, Carl, but in this article he says that the error was in the originals. This is why he gives a long explanation of his particular view of inerrancy. So there is my explanation, Carl.
I don't have a personal bone to pick with Daniel Wallace. I think his Greek Grammar is very helpful and I've told him that personally. I believe that he is harmful; however, because of what he says. Just because I criticize his views doesn't mean that I don't like him, Carl. It could mean, and I believe it does, that I love him.
I believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, so one or two words in error void inerrancy. You are welcome to disagree with that, but it isn't an unusual view, Carl.
You're banned for being what you have demonstrated here: an unapologetic liar, and a person who is willing to resort to libel in order to advance an argument.I still believe that Daniel Wallace rejects the historic view of inerrancy. So would this man, based on this article. In this article, Daniel Wallace says:
Dr. Wallace does not deny inerrancy, and for being unable to admit you were wrong, you're banned until you apologize.
My own views on inerrancy and inspiration have changed over the years. I still embrace those doctrines, but I don’t define them the way I used to.He has changed on the doctrine of inerrancy. You'll notice in the Wallace article on Mark 1:2 that he charges anyone who disagrees with him as "quite arrogant." Should we assume that this is always true, because Wallace says it? Couldn't Wallace's position be arrogant too? His only explanation for differing is that they're quite arrogant.
In this article, Wallace agrees with Metzger (Metzger denied inerrancy) that certain texts went out from their author uncorrected (in other words, with errors). The textual variant in Romans 5:1 puts the doctrine of reconciliation in doubt---we might have peace with God rather than surely have peace with God. As another example, Wallace says that Paul made an error in 1 Corinthians 1:14 that he later corrected in 1 Corinthians 1:16. That doesn't read as inerrancy to me and I don't believe it does to many others either. Daniel Wallace doesn't believe in any Scriptural or theological presupposition of inerrancy. I have enough of a reason to reject Wallace's claim of inerrancy that this is not a libel against him. And yet Frank says I'm a liar and a libel and I'm banned. What do you think is happening here? Do you believe I have lied about and libeled Wallace?
Frank expects me to apologize for the lie and the libel. I told him that apologizing would be the actual lie in this situation. At this point my conscience is clean and clear because I do think that Wallace does "not believe in inerrancy" (my words).
On the other hand, Frank has lied about me many times, and I guess that since it is public, it could be called libel. I have mentioned these several times and Frank has never retracted them. One is the "cult" charge that started this whole thing. Frank becomes angry over my errancy charge with Wallace, but he's fine with calling me a cultist. He gets there by making false statements. I think they are false statements until corrected and if not, they become lies. That is regular with Frank.
He does this dozens of times in our debate at his debate blog. By the way, Frank tried to get his followers and readers to comment about our debate. He solicited comments. He got nothing. He has a huge readership and yet he didn't get any public support. If you read the debate, it will be easy to see. The position of verbal, plenary preservation wiped his view all over the floor. Frank and his view were decimated. I'm happy to hear explained how this wasn't true, but it very much was true. But I digress.
What About These?
In the comment section of Pyro, these are false statements that are lies:
"KENT BRANDENBURG DRIVE-BY!"Then we go over to Frank's blog and we read these lies in the original post:
"my cultic idea that the KJV is the only legitimate translation in English"
"Kent Brandenberg showed up to wave the flag of KJVO"In a later comment, Frank lied about me when he said this:
"to get to the place where the NIV and the NASB are not just flawed but devil-inspired"
"Which edition of the TR is the inerrant edition? You haven't answered that question yet. Across 3 blogs and many months, you haven't answered that."
"Kent doesn't answer questions."
"he has invested a lot of his writing time on this topic, discrediting himself as a person who is serious about the Gospel"
"BTW, Kent has informed me that you are all "yes-men" who are only flattering me to a "dense and desolate" end."I don't have to get into another long list of times that Frank does this during our debate.
This is where the story ends.
Did I lie or libel?