Receiving brotherly criticism to the glory of God

Michael Patton has humbly posted a brief criticism that I wrote regarding his methodology over at Reclaiming the Mind's Parchment and Pen blog. I should say that I consider Parchment and Pen blog to be a very interesting and frequently insightful blog. Patton is not the only writer on this blog, either. This criticism should just be taken as a grain of salt, from my perception, regarding Patton's writings. I should also say that I've noticed, as of late, and maybe it is just me, an increased emphasis on the danger of error.

I was asked why Patton would post my criticism without his own commentary. And I think this is instructive:

My answer is, and Michael is free to correct me, that he doesn't feel threatened by criticism. He invites it. He's got a humble approach, which is a real positive point about it. He feels he can leave the criticism standing on its own. He isn't defensive about it and I think he wants his readers to consider the criticism with respect to his writings. It is also consistent with his irenic method, and I think Patton tries hard not to be a hypocrite in terms of his methodology. This is commendable, and I am humbled here.

The full text of my primary and fundamental issue with his approach was originally posted in the comments of this post here - read it for the context.

** As an aside, if it isn't clear, I have chiefly in view the orthodox, protestant Gospel - that which one must believe to be saved - which Michael Patton holds, as I do, and from there this concern extends in varying degrees to the general danger of error in the church. For example, I perceive from the writings of John Piper a real urgency to believe the true Gospel. I perceive(d) a more academic tone from Michael Patton. A few commentators unfortunately reacted negatively as they took this criticism as relating to how Patton deals with non-Calvinists. It had nothing to do with that, as the context in the original post shows. I urge you to read it. One commentator, Jugulum, gave a good summary of the real heart of my critique:

"When you discuss the various alternatives on an issue–well, the danger is that you’ll be so even-handed that you don’t communicate the urgency of ending up in the right place."