This morning I listened to _Faultlines_ by Dr. Voddie Baucham (not spelled "Bauchman")--the entire book in one session over the course of about six hours. I have started to see comments by Dr. Anthony Bradley. Dr. Bradley prides himself on his scholarship. But his responses...

have been anything but scholarly. This is not how a scholar responds. It is obvious he did not read the book, nor does he intend to do so fairly. Tom Ascol has already posted the relevant page from this first absurdity from Bradley's keyboard:

I am uncertain how Tom Buck came in for a shot, but I am quite unimpressed with people who think "100% trash" is a relevant rebuttal.

This is dismissive desperation, not actual interaction. But if Voddie's thesis is correct, there really won't be any substantive interaction anyway, given the presuppositional nature of the CSJ position.

I would challenge these dismissive and truly misrepresentational statements by @drantbradley but he blocked me long ago. He likes to insult "1689" guys, but he feels no pressure to actually provide meaningful argumentation.