His response is here.
Quotes of Note:
"Why discredit the clarity of the Saginaw resolutions? I have never felt the need of asking for further clarity as to what those resolutions say. The interpretation of this Report tells me the direct opposite of what the words clearly say. An interpretation that denies the clear language of the passage it is illuminating is repugnant. We deny this very thing to Rome. The preamble is not figurative language. Semantics has a work to do, but it must obey the Aristotelian law that 'A' and 'not-A' cannot both be said of the same thing at the same time and in the same connection."
"The premise that 'termination of church fellowship is called for when you have reached the conclusion that admonition is of no further avail and that the erring brother or church body demands recognition for their error' imports factors into Rom. 16:17f. which are not there."
"This tardy interpretation which says that 'A' is 'not-A' is, as I have said, repugnant on the face of it."
