Some say he is wrong, some insist he is Wright, what say ye?

If a prominent man within Christ's Church were to visit America, say for a conference, why might he reject the opportunity to affirm "crucial" creed-like statements to which many American evangelicals cling as if for life itself?

A wise man recognizes bait being dangled before him, even when his acquaintances do not recognize that they are trying to bait him.

If he puts one hand on a Nelson-copyrighted-version of the Bible and puts the other on an autographed picture of Martin Luther, then swears to absolutely and forever defend the widely-known verse, "Justification is by faith all by itself and nothing else whatsoever, amen and amen!!", the inquiring minds will remain hungry and insist that this man continue with several more oaths. Generally, he would probably be asked to commit to spending several hours of every day labouring to convince men of these other common verses: "The words election and covenantal condition should never be spoken within one week of each other," and "'Baptism now saves' is a phrase for private and seldom utterance without any genuine reflection on what it may mean," and "No translation of the Scriptures has ever contained one error, ever!" and "Any connection between Baptism and a 'washing of regeneration' or 'birth by water and Spirit' ought not to be pondered upon for long."

It is not beyond my imagination to think of a young, brash man quickly stepping to the podium to boldly answer "Yes!" when asked to affirm the "conservative" position in a debate to which he is wholly unconnected. But I have witnessed a man who anticipated the potential follow-up and so he wisely abstained. I just wanted him to say something like, "You have heard me teach and even preach the Word of God; who do you say that I am?"