Innerantists, Put Up or Shut Up

FARRELL TILL errancy@atheist.tamu.edu
Sun, 26 May 96 09:42 CDT (00833143320, 199605261400.KAA08612@mime3.prodigy.com)

MILLS For example, Mr. Beale claimed that "reasonable" and "plausible" were too ambiguous for us to apply to the interpretation of scripture. "Who will determine what they mean?" he asks. When I ask him what standards he used to interpret scripture, he replied with a quote from the Westminister Confession of Faith. At that point I and others asked him how he determined/interpreted the ambiguous terms in that creed. Obviously painted into a corner from which he could not extricate himself, he ignored us. Despite repeated attempts from myself and others, he never once acknowledged those posts (I admit a haven't read all 300+ posts since I have been gone, but he had ample time before I left). And yet he had time to continue quoting those same words over and over again.

TILL Beale informed me that he had to unsubscribe to errancy because of job demands; however, he has since had time to send me several personal messages and CCs of messages that he sent to Nanson and Carrell, all of them concerning errancy matters. One has to wonder about motivation.

MILLS Let's be honest Paul. Being as objective as I can, it seems to me that Till at least responds to most if not all posts directed at him.

He may not answer every single detail, but who can? Jim Beale made a couple of responses in a thread with me and then simply quit when the questions got tough. He refused to ever acknowledge further posts, despite repeated attempts. Can you cite an example of Till doing the same?

TILL You may recall that Nanson accused me of ignoring most of Beale's arguments. In response, I told Nanson that if he would post specific points of Beale's that I had allegedly ignored, I would then respond to each of them. Nanson's response? Clippity-clop, clippity-clop

Farrell Till