ReasontoStand.org Declines All Chances to Defend Anti-Calvinism Remarks

At 8:30 am I received the following blog comment:

I’m afraid I’ll have to decline for a myrad of reasons including time constraints and a lack of interest in debating someone who is apparently more interested in attacking a fellow brother in Christ more than the topic at hand.

Sorry, but I don’t have time to waste on yet another minion of James White.

Chao!

At around 9:2o am, Wes (kai5263499) updated his twitter status to:

@hereiblog Tell him the answer is ‘no’ btw. I have no interest in wasting time with yet another James White clone.

Well, not that it matters now, but even though there is perhaps no bigger “minion” or “clone” of Bill Craig than Wes, I would still be interested in defending the sovereign and saving grace of God in the public square. We simply have to ask ourselves, does the “myrad” (should be “myriad”) of reasons, when taken collectively in these two responses, give legitimate justification for turning down an opportunity to publicly defend your own documented claims? After all, I never put a time limit on the invitation. I’m willing to participate in dialog on God’s grace, the doctrines of grace, man’s sinfulness and God’s holiness anytime I’m alive, which I hope is for a great many years (that is, after all, why I exist; to experience and proclaim the wonders of God’s grace). I do wonder, then, how “time constraints” prevents one from doing a debate that has no time constraint. Perhaps the 50 minute gap between Wes’s comment and the twitter status confirmed the real reason he declined: “wasting time.”

Am I really hearing that, because I resemble and support another apologist’s work, that this is a good enough reason to decline a public invitation to defend your own beliefs? If that’s the case, then I don’t think Wes (or anyone) will be debating or discussing anything with anyone for any reason because somewhere, sometime, out on the internet or in the masses of church history, there’s probably a person that the debate participants resemble and appreciate. People have influences! Gasp! And, apparently in Wes’s thought, because the debate participants are transparent about their influences, we shouldn’t talk about God’s grace…? How this demonstrates coherent cognition is beyond me.

In fact, we might wonder, if this is not a perfect opportunity to debate (clear questions, clear format, moderator, extremely flexible time schedule, publicly documented pre-debate claims and exchanges, etc.), what is? Indeed, for how often defend-the-faith organizations make claims about their faith, it is ironic how often their representatives actually turn down opportunities to defend their faith. It is even more shocking to write those opportunities off as a “waste of time.” But, that’s precisely what happens when one ignores the method and theological foundations for apologetics, and instead just fires up the website and starts pumping out ideas behind a keyboard.

And speaking of, everyone is brave behind a keyboard. Americans, Christian or not, take comfort in changing their twitter status from virtually any location or personal context. And, more than anything else is seems these days, people love making crazy assertions without having to actually defend them. Bomb-throwers, they’re properly called. So for how much this post is a news update, it’s really not news at all. ReasontoStand.org.  Just another mainstream generic Christian apologetics organization.

And for how many good things Wes has to say about Christian apologetics, it’s unfortunate that it’s scarred by this case of inconsistency and immaturity. God does call us to higher standards, and were it not for those higher standards, one apologetics ministry would be just as good as another. But the church needs what God suggests it needs: not “ok,” not “acceptable,” but “the best,” as Christ is our example. Refusing to debate for the reasons Wes has given demonstrates that he is content with something less than that. For that reason alone, Christians who stumble upon reasontostand.org should look elsewhere for real apologetics.