I make the news
I have been mentioned in the trial of Peter Leithart by the owner of the GreenBaggins Blog, Lane Keistner. He claimed that my letter to his Stated Clerk, accusing him of hypocrisy regarding the Federal Vision because he himself is out of accord with his church’s confession on the key issue of sola fide, resulted in complete exoneration.
This all came as a surprise to me as you can imagine. I had not expected to be mentioned in Peter’s trial.
Having thought about it, I have a few questions I would like Lane Keistner to answer.
Lane:
1. What did they study? No-one contacted me, and since I am the one making the charge, that strikes me as odd.
2. You must have brought the case against yourself. That is quite a precedent. How many accused wish they could do that? What does that tell us about the quality of the evidence you brought against yourself?
3. You claim that you were completely exonerated. Exonerated from arguments you yourself brought? Were arguments made, or did you just say you are orthodox, and you all went out for coffee?
4. How would you answer to the accusation that this looks and smells like a deal done in advance? What does that say about your claim of total exoneration?
5. On that subject, three Presbyteries have ruled against you, and your friends, on these central issues. The tide has turned against you. Does that not give you pause to think that perhaps you may be mistaken? That so many of your peers and superiors disagree with you is telling.
4 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- March 2010 (2)
- August 2009 (5)
- April 2009 (4)
- March 2009 (3)
- February 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I fear, even if this were read, it would fall on deaf ears. If only all of those who opposed the three outcomes this summer were as Godly as Jason Stellman.
Erm… Keister. Twice.
Lane replied that the did not need to ask me anything because all they had to do was look at the places in his blog where I had corresponded on the issue, and make a decision. So then, Lane gets to interpret his answers, with no cross examination from his accuser! Lane, can you not see how bad this makes you look? At the very least, it betrays a lack of judgement.
As for your claim that you totally exonerated, the actual verdict was that there was no strong presumption of guilt at this time. Not the same thing at all. I was struck by the conditional clause at the end, “at this time”. Hardly unequivocal.
Hey Roger, This is not in response to the post above. Do you have another email address? I can’t get through on your talktalk one. Let me know. Thanks. Shaun.