Let's briefly note a few of these "worse than absurd" disagreements between fellow Protestants currently taking place on the Internet (obviously nothing has changed in 488 years: Protestants fought each other then and they continue to do so, and split and form new denominations). The following are not mere examples of gentlemanly disagreement: they are uncivil, acrimonious exchanges characterized by personal remarks at the expense of the other's honesty, sincerity, intelligence, basic knowledge, etc.
The links of mine dealing with Enloe referred to are as follows:
Money Into Mouth
In Case You Missed Last Week's Episode
Tim on Tim
The links of mine cited by Dear Old Dave dealing with Johnson are as follows:
Coffee Conversations Kicks the Can [?]
The general charges are that my tone is not one of general disagreement, but are markedly uncivil, acrimonious, and personal, dealing with personal remarks at the expense of Enloe's/Johnson's charity, intellect, sincerity, and the like.
If Dave knew me in person, he could doubtless find many faults of mine, for, I know myself well enough to say that I'm as good of an instantiation of Rom 7:15-25 as any. And it behooves me to check out my tone and conduct from time to time. This held true in my days as an assistant prof at a Roman Catholic university, now as a consulting wannabe, and as a blogger, as I try to run a reasonably civil blog here at PP while having some playful fun and whimsy in the process. And, as this is a semi-pseudonymous affair for employment reasons, I try not to make gratuitously derogatory comments about people while being a semi-anonymous blogger. If I'm critical, I try to provide evidence.
By the way, there's nothing wrong, uncivil, or uncharitable in pointing out and supporting the claim that somebody doesn't know what they're talking about and/or doesn't provide any evidence to their assertions, especially when their assertions are directed at a position of yours. The key in my making this claim is that I provide argumentation for it. And that's all that matters. Unlike Dear Old Dave, you won't find me requiring posters here to stipulate to my state of grace for me to respond to them. My points hold or fail regardless of whether I'm saved or damned. Nor will you find any sort of drama queen narcissism here where my mere outrage at something causes me to hit my anti-anti-catholic panic button, absolving me from dealing with somebody.
But let's take Dave's charge seriously.
Money into Mouth: nothing uncivil here. I've merely pointed out true phenomena and asked for some supporting argumentation. Pretty bland, if you ask me.
In Case You Missed Last Week's Episode: same comments as above. Again, pointing out that somebody has made evidence-free sweeping assertions and such isn't uncivil. Noting Enloe's fixation on Svendsen et al is merely noting a true phenomenon. Again, even though a man is not his own best judge, I haven't gone out of bounds here either.
Tim on Tim: Did Dear Old Dave want to compile an impressively long list, so he just threw whatever into his list? Given that this post is Tim McGrew's response to Tim Enloe's usage of Clapp's work on foundationalism and such, I have to wonder if Dear Old Dave even read the post. Note that McGrew clearly documents some Enloevian whoppers in the post. This isn't any different than when I give a low grade to some grad student's statistics project or exam.
From reading those posts, nothing false has been stated. No gratuitous personal attacks exist, unless pointing out what is obvious and observed is somehow gratuitious. Dear Old Dave wasn't being particularly careful, it seems.
I'll note that I haven't written song lyrics about Enloe nor Johnson either.
So far Dave's gun hasn't been firing any bullets. All that has come out is a little flag that says "BANG!" Either that, or I'm bulletproof thanks to being on a planet that circles a yellow sun!
Dear Old Dave makes the same claim about my dealings with Kevin Johnson. Let's inspect those posts again.
Knowing Christ: Apparently pointing out that KDJ doesn't seem to understand grammatical-historical exegesis runs afoul of Dave's charity detector. It doesn't run afoul of mine. Pointing out that Kevin could be my guru is a serious deduction to his claims of knowing Christ apart from the text. That last paragraph was serious if his claims are true!
Coffee Conversations Kicks The Can: Apparently I can't attempt to apply Johnson's standards to Johnson's work. I always thought one could do this. Oh wait a minute....you can. Ol' Buddy Dave must have me confused with that other Pedantic Protestant out there who has stolen my identity, hurling invective and not backing up his claims while sullying my good handle!
In summary, I don't know where the Davemeister considers my posts uncharitable. My contention has been nothing other than the fact that Enloe and Johnson are pseudointellectuals who speak authoritatively regarding things that presently for them are not things on which they should speak with their lecturing or hectoring tone.
And, I presently stand by that claim without the slightest abashedness or desire to retract. If that makes me an example-par-excellence of Protestant disunity to both Dave and other internet Romanists who bask in the warm embrace of the great epistemic, practical, and organizational unity provided by the One True Holy Mother Church, so be it. I'm already anathematized by Trent, and, what's more, I publicly reject Rome and her distinctly Roman dogmas, so my purported disunifying bellicosity is really nothing but the tip of the iceberg for my eventual condemnation. Even if the charges were true, it is sort of like, after sentencing a mass murderer to 5000 years in prison for his crimes, adding a 3-day prison sentence for failing to pay a parking ticket.