A Surrejoinder to William D. Watkins’s Rejoinder to My Critique of A House United? -- By: Robert N. Wilkin

Journal: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Volume: JOTGES 08:2 (Autumn 1995)
Article: A Surrejoinder to William D. Watkins’s Rejoinder to My Critique of A House United?
Author: Robert N. Wilkin


A Surrejoinder to William D. Watkins’s Rejoinder to
My Critique of A House United?

Robert N. Wilkin

Executive Director
Grace Evangelical Society
Irving, TX

I. Introduction

In this surrejoinder1 I receive an unusual opportunity. As I indicated in my critique of A House United? (hereafter AHU), I believe that it is a dangerous book. I felt a responsibility to point out its flaws and its dangers. Now I have an opportunity to critique what I perceive to be an equally problematic project, the rejoinder by William D. Watkins.

I very much appreciate Bill taking the time to respond to my critique of the book which he helped to write. I feel that this sort of interaction is both interesting (it has been for me!) and profitable.

Of course, some of our readers may question the wisdom of printing a rejoinder by someone who clearly disagrees with the Free Grace viewpoint. But all the editors felt that our readers would understand that this sort of exchange is a valuable medium for confronting the objections of our critics.

I have had several public debates on Lordship Salvation, one with a Bible college professor, one with a seminary professor, and one with a pastor. The rejoinder and surrejoinder in this issue of the Journal are merely a written form of debate.

The Journal’s policy in this type of exchange is that rejoinders will be printed only if the rejoinder is timely, well written, and reasonably irenic in tone.

In the present case, it would be tedious if I attempted to answer each and every point raised in the rejoinder. Therefore, I will be responding to those points which I consider to be the most crucial.

II. Kudos Appreciated

It was gratifying to read that Watkins felt that I displayed “a desire to critique AHU rationally, biblically, and theologically” and that I sought “to avoid emotionalism and personal attacks.” Bill told me in a phone conversation that Keith Fournier, the author of AHU, shared these same feelings.

This is encouraging because GES seeks not only to teach about grace, but also to foster graciousness. While we wish to boldly confront distortions of the Gospel, this should be done in such a way as to leave the door open for those who disagree to reconsider their position without being hindered by undue harshness (2 Tim 2:24–25).

III. Responses to Criticisms

A. Co-author or Writer?

I stand corrected. I didn’t...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()