Challies undermines watchblogs, oh what a horrible assault (1)

October 4, 2009

ChihuahuaWe are very proud to have Stephen Macasil respond to the extreme, and outrageous Tim Challies. Macasil appeared to be so sure that he was right, that it was difficult to track down the original article by the attack-dog Challies (perhaps Macasil is only trying to protect our innocence!!!)

Macasil writes:

Personally, I disagreed with most of what Challies wrote. His unwarranted attack severely lacked Scriptural support and was based on his feelings and autonomous self-reflection. Whenever someone offers doctrine or ethics based solely on an introspective reflection, the first task for the Christian is to test it by Scripture. Once I saw that his main authorities were appeals to himself and to Neil Postman it became clear to me that his faulty humanistic method would not lead to the prevailing light revealed only in Scripture. Since the Bible has plenty to say about not leaning on our own understanding and the consequences of following ways that seem right to our minds, I was able to interpret the whole controversy in light of God’s word and concluded that according to Scripture he was in the wrong and should not be followed. But I am thankful that Daniel Chew has given this response.

First,  we are terribly sorry that Challies comes on so strong, for that we wish he would repent.

Second, we are thankful Stephen Macasil pointed out that Challies did “not” use scripture!

Third, we are thankful that Stephen Macasil who is a defender of the bible used so many  scripture citations, scripture references and scripture quotes to rebuff Challies who did “not” use scripture…and therefore to “arrive” at a non-scriptural viewpoint.

Finally, we counted Stephen Macasil’s endless and over scriptural references …and they amounted to TWO….at the END of his “defense.” The references almost seemed to be afterthoughts, appendages of his valiant and mighty defense of the truth.

Even though Challies used at least two scripture references….it still means “none” to Stephen Macasil. We endorse such researchmentalism and conclusions because when we are in a truth war,  and truth is the first casualty.


PS We think that we should give Stephen Macisil the following Diploma of Overgeneralization. He has earned it!

%d bloggers like this: