A Note on Enforcing Rules

It seems that SK, or c.t. or whatever his or her alias is this week is unhappy that we moderate comments. S/he believes this is “Roman Catholic,” and is designed to squelch dissent. S/he accuses us of hyporcrisy, since one of the reasons for SBF is the fact that the folks at Baptistfire have chosen to disallow any posts on their message boards about Calvinism. S/he also believes we here believe James White to be above criiticism.

A. I have reason to believe Sk is one and the same as particular internet troll who has run afoul of the rules on Centurion’s blog, Steve Hays’ blog, and the Pedantic Protestant’s blog, and a few others in the past year. I can tell by the location information that SK comes from the same range of IP’s reported for c.t.

B. In addition, Sk says all of this and accuses us of hypocrisy and cowardice while using a fake email address and refusing to identify himself/herself. This makes personal contact with SK impossible. From this point on, allow me to invite SK to post with his or her full real life name and full real life email address visible to us all.

C. We moderate comments here and have rules to keep order, not silence dissent. The folks at Baptistfire seek to silence dissent, not merely keep order. There is nothing Catholic about us doing this at all. Reformed churches are known for orderliness. There is a world of difference between setting up a website about Calvinist soteriology and not allowing Calvinists to respond and moderating comments, particularly, when Sk could not control him/herself within 2 posts in the very first thread posted here. This is a board about biblical soteriology, not a free for all about James White, the KJV, or any grudges people have with other websites. Non-Calvinists are not banned. Dissent is not squelched. Dissent that manifests no Christian humility, reverence, etc. is weeded out, because it dishonors Christ and creates disorder.

D. Sk chose to attack James White and my pastor as a follower and sophist of James White in his/her last unpublished comment yesterday. There is a standing rule here that says very plainly that this is not a parallel universe where you can say what you wish with impugnity and press every grudge you have for or against a particular person. If you have a particular problem with James White, contact James White. He has an 800 number and a webcast. Alternatively, write a book or scholarly article. Likewise, my church has received no email about Dustin to my knowledge, and, apropos that rule, if you email a particular church, then be prepared to fly to that city to make your charges in person with witnesses. You will pay that bill yourself.

E. James White is not above criticism, as long as the criticism is on topic. As far as KJVOnlyism is concerned, it was SK, who chose to attack Dr. White with no provokation and warble on about the tainted Alexandrian manuscripts. For the record, SK, one need not prefer to Alexandrian manuscripts to disagree with KJVOnlyism. Dr. Maurice Robinson is one of the most vocal opponents of KJVOnlyism, and he prefers and specializes in the Byzantine text-type.

F. This is SK’s second warning. I was tempted to ban him or her, given his or her record on the other blogs as well, but Nathan has dissented and invited SK to comment on Dr. White in the article posted below this one as long as (a) s/he abides by the stated rules of this board, and (b) stays on topic, and (c)provides his or her actual name with a valid email address.

G. If a third warning is issued, it will be in the form of a ban. It will include a recommendation that s/he be called to repentance and treated as factious person in accordance with Titus 3:10-11, for the same reasons as we would call for a person sowing open dissent and disorder in a church or classroom to be treated this way.

H. The comments to this note are disallowed, as this is the last word on this, pending G, if necessary.

Explore posts in the same categories: Rules of Engagement

%d bloggers like this: