I want to continue today with this series of posts, despite the possibility of flogging a dead horse. Given the brevity of my last post and the need to further flesh out these matters, it is necessary to continue in this vein, despite the fact that I find this to grow more and more distasteful with every passing hour.
I awoke this morning after a sleepless night to discover that my previous post had attracted a good bit of attention; in fact, it seems that some kind soul was good enough to post it directly to Chris’s Facebook wall. Needless to say, that is where the majority of the traffic is coming from; my audience can now properly be described as “hostile,” I suppose.
Allow me first to begin by responding to some of Chris’s assertions, which I will post so that you can read them for yourselves:
First, Mr. Rosebrough, I don’t erroneously believe that you don’t understand the difference between consequent condition and antecedent condition. Allow me to direct you to what I actually wrote:
“Could you demonstrate that you comprehend all of the terms and distinctions that Jones uses in his book?”
Again, allow me to reiterate, I don’t erroneously believe that Christ doesn’t understand the difference between consequent conditions and antecedent conditions; as far as I’m concerned the jury is still out on that point. The reason that the jury is still out is stated clearly above: I would like Chris to demonstrate that he understands those distinctions, and others, and he has not done so. This is precisely the same thing I stated directly in the post which precedes the one I’ve quoted from above:
Next, I should also draw your attention to the fact that a perusal of Chris Rosebrough’s Facebook wall also amply proves that he has not yet demonstrated that he has understood the fine distinctions that Dr. Jones makes between the necessity of good works as a consequent condition for salvation (which he affirms), and the necessity of good works as an antecedent condition for salvation (which he denies).
I’m struggling to understand where the confusion is here; I’ve repeatedly stated and asked that Chris demonstrate that he understands these distinctions. He has not yet done so, at least to my limited knowledge. If he has, I welcome someone directing me to that demonstration. If he has not, then my statement continues to stand.
The next issue is that Chris seems to be confusing justification and sanctification when he writes the following at the end of this comment above:
SECOND, Mark Jones’ salvation schema is not Reforemd [sic] it is based on Richard Gaffin’s theology. I suggest that he do some research and pay attention to those in the Reformed tradition who are challenging Gaffin’s theology and charging him with teaching works righteousness.
I am well aware of Dr. Richard Gaffin’s critics regarding justification and his role in the Norman Shepherd controversy; in fact, I’m one of his critics on that point. That aside, we have yet again an undemonstrated assertion on Chris’s part. He has stated explicitly that Mark Jones’s schema is based on the work of Richard Gaffin. Forgive me if I don’t just take that as infallible truth and ask that some evidence be adduced to back up that assertion. The article he links to certainly doesn’t back up his charge.
So again, I ask, “Where is the evidence? Where is the demonstration that Chris has understood these issues?”
Thus far, the evidence has not yet been presented, and I’m still waiting.
That being said, if I am not providentially hindered by other projects, I intend to return to this topic tomorrow. I truly look forward to being able to say that Chris has presented the evidence necessary to sustain the charges he’s made.