Internet Monk Radio Podcast #45

podcast_logo.gifI answer some of the criticism leveled at me from the theologians at Fide-O.

Podcast #15 is gone.

A Conversation in God’s Kitchen. This is the newer version with comments available.
Fide-o post 1. (see comments as well.) This post is gracious and reasonable. I would welcome this kind of discussion. The comment thread, however, is quite different.
Fide-o post 2. (see comments as well.)
Fide-O post 3. Clarifying that I am not a Christian, and bringing out some old anti-iMonk posts from Centuri0n. (This may be the first post about me ever to include the word “noose.”) I commented on this post, but the comment has not appeared and the post was subsequently edited so that my comment was moot.

Bruce has a related post.

A book some people ought to read.

A theologian everybody ought to read: Barth.

Robert Capon’s book on the inspiration of the Bible. Absolutely life-changing book.

Here’s a detailed post on my views on why I do not use the term “inerrancy”: We Thought He Was Such A Nice Boy….Until We Found Our He Didn’t Believe in Inerrancy!

8 thoughts on “Internet Monk Radio Podcast #45

  1. I call the bully a bully….and you call me a whining sissy playing victim.

    The Christian thing to do in your view is let the slander continue and respect the superior theologian’s personal ridicule of my entire profession of faith. Not going to happen, Mr. Robertson. Not here. Not ever.


  2. Michael,
    I will refrain from trying to defend myself anymore on this thread from your accusations. You tried too hard, and now they just sound silly. Even the comment about Karl Barth makes no sense, no one has ever said that Barth was considered a liberal.

    But Barth’s bibliology was considered liberal and so is yours since it is like his in that you deny the inerrancy of Scripture. I pointed that out on Fide-O and you have taken offense. It is that simple. Or maybe you just like to portray yourself as some poor victim, I don’t know. But whatever your reasons, it doesn’t matter. The truth is plain to see for anyone who cares to read it.

    Good day.


  3. Mr. Robertson:

    I’ve had dozens of comments disallowed and removed at Fide-o. To say otherwise is simply untrue.

    This entire foray started because I posted a humorous picture and said, in effect, “What happened to Fide-o?” Not a sentence of criticism. Just a silly “jump the shark” pic.

    Your response is to search my site to find an essay on which you can disagree, but more than disagree, call me a pagan, a rejector of the Bible and its authority, a liberal and PLAINLY, a non-Christian. Saying your adjectives and conclusions (See the Machen quote again Mr. Robertson) don’t proclaim me an unbeliever is simply another untruth. Where’s the honesty? If I say “The TRs are another religion,” I just called you a non-Christian.

    Because I disagree with the truly reformed on some matters (and agree on many more as anyone who reads me knows), there are no bounds to the names you will call me or the personal damage you will seek to do to my reputation as a minister. Because you reject my profession of faith, you excuse yourself from treating me as a fellow Christian, a fellow elder, an elder in the faith and an elder in age. You wouldn’t commune me at your church and you know it. Have some spine and be honest. To drive up interest in your blog and to make yourself appear to be a theologian, you will say anything about me and call it “Kingdom business.”

    You took the fact that I disagree with Limited Atonement and turned it into at least FOUR POSTS castigating me PERSONALLY as everything short of a criminal. I have never, on any of my blogs, said anything more negative about you than that you ARE TRULY REFORMED.

    I am, as I said on the podcast, not a man in your sight, but mere blog fodder. A cartoon. I am not a person for whom Christ died. I am not one laboring in the same field of evangelism. NO. Because I don’t have the same exact theology as you have, the same heroes, the same books….I am the enemy of the true faith. I am nothing more than fodder for you to hold up for ridicule and proof of your orthodoxy.

    You have labored to portray me as one who stands up in my pulpit and in my classroom to DENY the very things I believe. Find where I’ve said such about you.

    And of course, all efforts to defend myself are always proof that you are right. Classic playground bully tactic. “Take that beating and keep that smile on your face. If you hit back we’ll make fun of you.”

    You are welcome to post here, Mr. Robertson. You won’t be edited or called an unbeliever. You will be answered by a man who seeks to preach the Gospel and live for Christ, and who speaks for all of those your circle has excluded and ridiculed.

    BTW- Call anyone with a Ph.d in theology and tell them that Karl Barth was a liberal in his time. Then get back to us with their answer.


  4. Mr. Robertson:

    I would say “Robertson,” but mama raised me better.

    I appreciate your statement here, but you have most certainly stated that I am a “pagan” on your web site. Further, you specifically cite Machen’s words that “liberalism,” which is your blog-fodder name for me, is a non-Christian religion.

    That looks and quacks like a duck. I doubt that it’s a dog.

    Again, thanks for your clarification. As in all things here, I’ll let the reader decide.

    Please note that your comment here is being posted, whereas my comment at your blog was not posted.



  5. MODERATOR NOTE: My comments are banned at Fide-o. Jason’s will appear here, unedited. Also, on his blog, he routinely addresses me as “Spencer.” He seems to have found his southern manners over here. Bravo.

    As you know I have responded on Fide-O to your response. But I felt it necessary to say here on your site that I have never questioned your salvation. You insinuated on your podcast that I did so or something like that. But I have not.

    In fact, I do not have any reason to doubt your relationship with our Lord. Our salvation is not really effected at all by the outcome of this debate. But what is at stake is sound theology. The theology of Barth and Capon is sound in many areas, but such can be said of all Christian theologians — that is why we call them Christian theologians. But can one’s theology be wrong in some areas, Yes! I am contently testing my own theological beliefs against Scripture — and I have found errors within my own beliefs several times over the last 22 years since I came to faith.

    With that said, I do believe that your view of Scripture is not completely sound. In fact, I believe that it is dangerous. It is similar to the classic liberalism of the early 20th Century. That is why the inerrancy battles were fought! As all confessions reflect the issues of their times and religious climate, the inerrancy battles were fought to stop the cancerous spread of theology that causes Christians to lose all confidence in the authority of Scripture.

    Simply put, the Bible is without error, even when it records the errors of others. You do not believe that. I think your view is wrong and dangerous. You disagree. I hope no-one will agree with you. And when we get to heaven we will be “over” the whole thing and worship Christ together in spirit and truth.

    Have a good day.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: