Archive for the ‘ Empaizo ’ Category


God be praised, we made it, even though it went until 3:15am for me! If I recall, that was 4:15 for poor Mitch.

I’ll likely repost the transcript here tomorrow, with the Q&A, and a few more comments of my own – but I think it went very well.

Here’s the Urban Philosophy debate transcript!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Reminder: Debate tonight!

I’m debating Mitch LeBlanc, a philosophy student at the University of Toronto, at 10:30 EDT this evening, July 31st. The debate is in a chat channel maintained by Urban Philosophy, established by the same Mitch LeBlanc! Viewing the debate requires registration at the site, so please stop by early to register!

The Resolution is: “The Triune God of Scripture is the proper grounds for all knowledge.” I am taking the affirmative.

The format is as follows: Opening Statements (2500 words), Rebuttals (1500 words), Cross-Examinations (15 questions apiece), Closing Statements (1500 words), Question and Answer (Until we drop!). I’d like to invite you to stop by and view the debate – and hang around to ask us some questions!

A Unique Opportunity: Part II

I returned to speak to the Jehovah’s Witness elder, as I mentioned in a previous post. It did not go as expected, for either of us – but God was, I think, glorified.

I believe that I was not, perhaps, honestly represented to this man by the people I talked to previously – so he got something unexpected, as well. He seemed to be under the impression that I was there to confront him about my children being part of his religion. There is an element of that, to be sure – but my primary goal was to take advantage of the opportunity to speak to their teacher. I was asked to speak to the young man previously – as I was asked to speak to this elder. My goal was, first and foremost, to faithfully present the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hopefully, I was able to impress that point upon him during our conversation, which only lasted about 45 minutes. I hope and pray that God was glorified through it.

I started out with a summary of JW doctrines I requested from Dr. White some time back, which reads as follows:

There is one true God, Jehovah; He is eternal and unchanging. His name is very important to know, and to use. He has revealed Himself in Scripture as Jehovah. His first and greatest created thing is Michael the Archangel – in fact, Michael is the one through whom all other things are made. He is the master worker. He is the only direct creation of Jehovah God. It is only through Michael that all other things have been created. Michael then becomes the man Jesus Christ.

The man Jesus Christ does not have a spirit, in the sense of some other spiritual component. We possess a soul, that is the life force within us. It does not survive death as a disembodied spiritual essence. This one, Michael, becomes Jesus of Nazareth, who gave his life on a torture stake as a corresponding ransom for the sins of Adam, and he is one of the 144,000. The 144,000 are those who will be with Jehovah in heaven, and Jesus is one of that anointed class. The rest of God’s faithful servants are known as “the great crowd” – they have not what is called a “heavenly hope”, as the 144,000 have, but what is known as a “earthly hope” – they hope to live on a paradise earth. The Bible teaches that God created the earth to be inhabited, and after it is cleansed, this will be the place where the great crowd will live.

Those who are in heaven, are in the new covenant, and those who live on earth receive the benefits of the new covenant only in and through their obedience to and fellowship with the anointed class. Once a year, the witnesses gather together for the memorial supper, and during that memorial supper, the elements are passed throughout the room in remembrance of Jesus – yet in the vast majority of congregations, no one will partake. Only those who partake are those who claim to be of the heavenly, or anointed class, and those who partake are demonstrating that they are part of the new covenant. All others in the great crowd let it pass by, because they are not a part of the new covenant.

A day is coming when Armageddon will take place, the faithful will be removed from the earth, God’s wrath will fall upon the earth, and those who have not followed Jehovah’s ways will be destroyed. Then a millennium is ushered in where those who have died before this time period will be resurrected, and they are taught the ways of God. This is not a sudden resurrection, but a resurrection over time. The servants of God will teach them the ways of Jehovah, and at the end of that time, there is a test. Even the faithful Jehovah’s Witnesses who are on earth at that time will be tested. Those who do not pass the test of faithfulness will be destroyed.

There is no conscious punishment for sin, there is simply destruction, or annihilation. Those who pass the test will live forever in paradise on earth – even though, the option is held open that if ever evil is found among those on earth, they will be very quickly destroyed, that this evil does not spread. Jehovah’s witnesses are very focused upon evangelism, very focused on going door to door, in obedience to the commands of Scripture. There is one organization that speaks for Jehovah today. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, centered in Brooklyn, New York, directed by the governing body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses – the “faithful and discreet slave”, that gives meat in due season to the members of the household, and one only finds true spiritual nourishment by listening to what is given them by the governing body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

There were 6 things objected to in that summary, which I hope to rectify soon. Those were:
1) “The man Jesus Christ does not have a spirit, in the sense of some other spiritual component. We possess a soul, that is the life force within us.”
2) “and he is one of the 144,000…and Jesus is one of that anointed class.”
3) “The rest of God’s faithful servants are known as ‘the great crowd'”
4) “the faithful will be removed from the earth”
5) “even though, the option is held open that if ever evil is found among those on earth, they will be very quickly destroyed, that this evil does not spread.”
6) “There is one organization that speaks for Jehovah today. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, centered in Brooklyn, New York”

I’ll address what I’ve discovered as to the possible inaccuracies in that statement, perhaps in a following post, but I wanted to share the fruit of that discussion.

As we continued to speak, I asked him to tell me what the Gospel is. I was given the predictable response “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” – which, while true, is not the entirety of the Gospel. I then responded by asking if I could give him what I had just taught the children in my 1-6th grade class concerning the Gospel.

A) Man is sinful, God is Holy! (Lev 11:44-45; Gal 3:11)
B) Man is cursed with sin, due to the Fall of Man in Eden. (Gen 2:16-17) Man’s nature is such that he cannot do good.(Eph 2:3)
C) God, however, has a Perfect Way to satisfy His wrath (Rom 1:18) toward sin, and to proclaim His glory (rom 5:2, Rom 15:7).
D) God promised a Redeemer, from the very beginning. (Gen 3:15) The law, and the prophets all point to Him (Rom 3:21)
E) That Redeemer was born to a virgin (isa 7:14), and lived a perfect life in obedience to the law(Heb 7;28)
F) That Redeemer was crucified by the Jews on a Roman cross,(Acts 2:36) in propitiation for – in substitution for (2 Co 5:21)- our sins (1Jo 4:10)
G) That death was the satisfaction – the payment for – the wrath of God. (Rom 3:25) All who believe on Christ will be saved from the Judgement to come. (Rom 5-9)
H) That Redeemer defeated sin, overcame death (Rom 8:3) and proved the reality of His sacrifice’s power by raising Himself from the dead (Acts 17:31; John 2:19)- and now lives always to be the intercessor for His sheep (Heb 7:25)
I) Men come to Christ by the power of God (John 6:44) – by being born again of the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Pe 1:3), by the Repentance (Acts 5:31) and Faith (Rom 12:3, Phil 1:29)that both come as gifts from God – and are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified by the power and for the glory of God. (Rom 8:28-37)

I think I was able to present most of it – and as we talked, he tended to try to direct the conversation to the Trinity argument – which I answered, and then returned to my presentation.

When we got to propitiation, we had a discussion of the atonement, justification, and the nature of man’s sinful state before God that I truly hope was extremely valuable to him. We discussed why the sacrifice had to be God, that there were two essential doctrines that the JWs truly do not properly recognize – sin, and the need for atonement from it. Personal atonement, for personal sin. He brought up the Trinity once, in relation to the early church’s witness – and I shared with him a bit of background concerning their supposed citation of Tertullian, in their book “Should you believe the Trinity?”. I’ve been working on a selection of quotations from those various Fathers, demonstrating that Trinitarian belief was something every major writer affirmed – albeit with lesser or greater degrees of accuracy. I’m also going to send him a rewritten summary, to see if he would consider that unobjectionable.

Hopefully, we can stay in contact – and he looked to be very interested in doing so. May God bless these opportunities in the future 😉

Debate: July 31st

I’m participating in a debate with the “proprietor” of Urban Philosophy, a website devoted to discussion of Philosophy, and the return of Philosophy to the forefront of people’s lives. Mitch LeBlanc is an undergraduate student in Philosophy and an atheist.

The thesis of the debate is:

“Is the Triune God of Scripture the proper grounds for all knowledge?”

I am taking the affirmative position, Mitch the negative.

The debate is on July 31st, and begins at 8:30pm. Anyone wishing to attend can register at the Urban Philosophy site, and join “Chat”.

The format is still TBD, but will likely include an opening statement from both parties, multiple cross-examination periods, as well as rebuttals. Other details still forthcoming.

When our friend Steve writes:

Taking the blog post and video together, we can say that White believes the following:

* God loves all men, though God’s love is not monolithic
* God’s will (his revealed will) is that all men obey his commands to repent and believe the gospel
* In that context (revealed will and command) we can say that God desires the salvation of all men

Having made those statements, much of what I (and others) have written in criticism of White as a hyper-Calvinist is no longer cogent. In my view, White has effectively exonerated himself from the charge.

I feel quite certain that White will take the position that this is nothing new for him — this has been his position all along. That may be the case, but this is new as far as his statements on the record. I know of no other place in White’s work where he has made these kinds of statements. I haven’t read all of his work, and I freely admit that he may have held this position all along while I suffered under a cloud of ignorance. But I doubt it. Citations anyone?

Citation 1

In response to the question quoted above, who denied God’s omnibenevolence? Evidently, our writer assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of “love,” from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike—but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God’s truth, God’s people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God’s own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the “God loves you!” smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise.
Now, our writer expresses a very common human failing in these words: “When you claim that God only wants some people to be saved, you are really claiming that God is only partially loving.” Notice the unstated assumption: love = extension of redemptive grace. What is the only logical conclusion to be derived from such thinking? Either 1) God’s love demands God’s failure; i.e., God will be unhappy and unfulfilled throughout eternity because He tried, but failed, to save those He loved (more than one theologian has held this position); or, 2) universalism. God will conquer all in the end, all will be saved. But in neither case can God show redemptive, saving love to undeserving sinners while, at the same time, expressing His just wrath and anger against the rest. By insisting upon this concept, our writer robs God of His freedom, let alone His ability to freely chose to love redemptively. The false dilemma is clearly seen: by denying the difference between the love God shows to all of creation in providence in the merciful suspension of His immediate and just judgment upon all sinners, and the special redemptive love He freely bestows on vessels of mercy, our writer creates a false unibenevolence and on that basis says God is only “partially loving.” That makes as much sense as noting that I love my wife in a way I do not love a woman in Bosnia and saying I am “partially loving” as a result. I am not supposed to love the woman in Bosnia in that way, and God is under no compulsion whatsoever to love redemptively (which involves the extension of mercy and grace). To say otherwise is to say that redemption can be demanded of God, that grace is not free, but can be demanded at His hand. That is, in essence, the sum of this kind of objection.
And so we see that the rest of the objection bears no weight and has no merit for it is based upon a misuse of terms.

Next, it is asserted that the “any” and “all” are “called to repent.” Actually, the text says that God wills (11) for the “all” to come to repentance, and of course, this is quite true. And since God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-25), God’s purpose will be accomplished, and is accomplished in the elect. They all, as a group, do repent. Why anyone would wish to say “It is God’s will that every single individual repent, but, alas, His will is constantly thwarted and refuted by the will of the creature” is hard to say.” CBF misses the point when it asserts that this cannot be the “beloved” because they have already repented. The point of the passage is that God will bring the elect to repentance throughout the time period prior to the parousia, the coming of Christ. At the point of Peter’s writing, the repentance of every single individual reading this book was yet future.

Next Dr. Geisler confuses the prescriptive will of God found in His law, which commands all men everywhere to repent, with the gift of repentance given to the elect in regeneration. It does not follow that if it is God’s will to bring the elect to repentance that the law does not command repentance of ev-eryone. This is a common error in Arminian argumentation.

~ The Potter’s Freedom, pages 149,150

The reference for (11) is as follows – “We do not here refer to the revealed will of God found in His law which commands all men everywhere to repent: we speak of His saving will that all the elct come to repentance, and His ability to perform that will.”

The first problem is that you are attempting to make someone’s use of your terminology to describe something (which is more precisely defined by the terminology he uses) the sine non qua of orthodoxy. He made it plain, by using your terminology to describe what it is he means by what he does say. In Dr. White’s terminology, the prescriptive will of God – His revealed will – is a command to obey the gospel. To repent and believe. When we offer the gospel, there is no distinction, and there can be no distinction, because God uses us as the means by which the gospel is proclaimed, offered, and commanded to all men. As long as I’ve been listening to, watching, and reading Dr. White, this has been what he says. In that sense God wills – commands – all men to repent, and believe – and thereby be saved. Not all men do so – for repentance and faith are both gifts of God.

The second problem is that you simply don’t know these men, and haven’t read enough of their work to be able to recognize what you seem to think they haven’t spoken about. I’m glad you recognize the possibility of your ignorance, but that doesn’t jive with your stubborn insistence upon their guiltiness, and the fact that even though you’ve been repudiated in your objections, you still “worry”. That, coupled with your insistence that somehow Phil has “gutted” his primer by very properly distinguishing between high and hyper calvinism (which he does in the primer itself!), he has rendered it practically useless. Sir, I’m sorry, but simply assuming your consequent just doesn’t work as an argument. If all of the people in question differ, most emphatically, with Byrne et al’s insistence that high calvinism they dislike = hyper-calvinism, that does not necessitate that the Primer is now gutted”to the point of uselessness.” Thsi is not a new definition, my friend. This is a historical definition, and Johnson explicitly warns about those who would attempt to “unthinkingly slap the label “hyper” on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to.” I second that warning, and really wish that folks would just stop and think about what they write.

Further, he says the following:

Another important consequence is that Phil Johnson has gutted his hyper-Calvinism primer to the point of uselessness. Johnson (quite unnecessarily as it turned out) said in defense of White that Dr. Allen had misinterpreted his Primer. Now that is not exactly what Johnson said, but that is the way his statements are being interpreted (by both White and Tom Ascol, and presumably many others).

Johnson, who is normally careful with his words, began muddying the waters — for the sake of his friend White — by introducing qualifications about optative expressions, and alleging his personal knowledge of White’s orthodoxy, and asserting the apparent misunderstanding of both by Dr. Allen. I deny that Allen misunderstood Phil’s Primer … he clearly understood it all too well. And White’s statements up until recently put him solidly in the hyper-Calvinist camp, whatever Phil may say about “misunderstanding his primer.”

As a consequence of Johnson’s defense of White, other people have begun seriously to misunderstand it, and now Tom Ascol, for example, is saying that Steve Camp is not a hyper-Calvinist because Allen misunderstands Johnson’s primer. Oh really!? Johnson would never (one hopes) say such a thing, but his sloppiness in recent weeks has given others a good deal of room to make these kinds of statements. The usefulness of his Primer as a benchmark has been eviscerated. And given Phil’s qualifications on “optative” language, his primer as a teaching tool has been eviscerated as well. I would never, given his recent qualifying statements about optative expressions, point anyone to that Primer. I will point people to Tony Byrne for real instruction on the point from this time forward. (Byrne will point us to Curt Daniel and Iain Murray … who presumably won’t be issuing “clarifications” that arise out of personal motives and result in more confusion.)

Now, as I read statements such as this, it reminds me of why the internet is not always a great tool for precise communication – especially when folks consider themselves experts on people whom they do not sufficiently understand, and have not read enough of.

To Steve’s first accusation concerning of Johnson, I can only point out that this isn’t his first use of “optative”, and not in this context, either.

What God has decreed isn’t a valid gauge for measuring what He “desires.”

Optative expressions (language describing a wish or a desire) pose a whole set of problems when applied to God. (That’s true for Arminians and Calvinists alike. The only system I know of that avoids this problem is Open Theism’s notion of a non-sovereign god for whom the future remains an unsettled mystery.)

However (granting an anthropopathic use of the expression “desire”), I think it’s a serious mistake to assume that God’s decrees and His “desires” are equipollent.

Now, isn’t this almost the exact same usage? Same context? Guess what? Dr. White is nowhere to be found.

As to Steve’s second accusation, take a look at this:

Nevertheless, Dr. Allen’s “defense” demonstrates conclusively that he doesn’t understand my definition of hyper-Calvinism. He relentlessly ascribes to me a position I have frequently refuted.

Now, isn’t that exactly what he said?

Now, there’s your citations. As I’ve said in my last two posts, the problem is not Dr. White’s, Dr. Ascol’s, or Phil Johnson’s understanding of hyper-calvinism, or inconsistency. It is the lack of understanding on the part of those who are quite evidently new to the subject, in the case of Dr. Allen, or yourself – or unbalanced in their approach, as are Tony Byrne and David Ponter. When you don’t know what you are talking about, or you have a long history of imbalance, (as well as the redefinition of terms, as do Byrne and Ponter), it becomes quite clear that the issue is not with those accused – who have a long history of opposing hyper-calvinism, in it’s various forms. The problem lies with those who haven’t a historical, balanced view of hyper-calvinism, and are, frankly, late-comers and/or axe-grinders.

As Dr. Ascol has said, with all due respect; “When I read Dr. Allen’s words that ‘it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism’ I want to laugh and say, ‘Welcome to the party, I am sorry it took you so long to get here.'”

What is this debate really about?

Pastor Lumpkins, with all due respect:

I must wonder if you’ve actually been reading the responses offered to the position you, Dr. Allen, and Mr. Byrne are espousing, or whether you’re simply dismissing them, as you seem to do quite frequently in your meta, including your response to me. When practically every 5-point calvinist, upon encountering this definition of hyper-calvinism, repudiates it, does this not give you pause? Does it not make you wonder if, perhaps, you may have misunderstood the position of hyper-calvinism, and that of mainstream, 5-point calvinism? Now, far be it from me to suggest that you take a look at historical discussions concerning hyper-calvinism, but I do think they might be useful.

Let’s move along to your rejoinder(s).

1) To make a distinction between my saying Dr. Ascol “has no time to respond” and that “[he] will not take time to respond” is absurd, Razorkiss–the old distinction without a difference assertion.

But even if your point well taken, what does such have to do with whether or not leaders should insult rather than just keep silent?

The distinction I make is very germane, given that your assertion was that he had no time – that was not what was said. Second, to call a germane distinction “absurd”, is simply to stretch credulity 😀 When you’re wrong, please be kind enough to admit it? There is a significant difference between “has not the time”, and “will not take the time”. If you don’t see that difference, my apologies, but that does not make the distinction go away. “Has not the time” speaks to scheduling inability – “will not take the time” speaks to unwillingness to spend the time to do something. The two are, in fact, different. I’m sorry that your desire seems to be to dismiss the clarification outright, but the fact remains. The fact also remains that you made the point, to wit, that although Dr. Ascol had no time to reply, he did take the time to “insult” Dr. Yarnell. The assertion seems to be that his claim to have no time to do so is somehow false, given that he does respond in some fashion. Given that a response would take quite a bit of time, and the short sentence he does write would not, is this a valid assertion? The plea to a supposed “distinction without difference” fails, sir, miserably. It is an attempt to evade, and no more. I’m really not inclined to let you 😀

As to your second point, that, somehow, it’s an “insult” – his comments are, in fact, “rife with innuendo and misrepresentation”. If you don’t like the characterization, I really can’t change your mind, I do realize – but your opinion really does not entail that it is in fact an insult. Upon my reading of Dr. Yarnell’s closing comments, as referenced, they are indeed full to the brim of such commentary. If you don’t like it, too bad. I find that characterization wholly accurate, sir.

2) Concerning your query: “is Tony Byrne’s continued misrepresentation really worth linking to?”

False assumption #1: That Byrne continually misrepresents.

Mr. Byrne is flatly wrong when he discusses the definition of hyper-calvinism. He’s also wrong in applying “desire” to hyper-calvinism, in any. Given the fact that his concept of “desire” is wrapped up in his definition of hyperism, it’s very much to the point. I would have to say that “false” assumption 1 can be very easily demonstrated by the fact that he does misrepresent, (however those who are not calvinists understand his comments) in that his concept of “desire” is what he attributes to a definitional understanding of hyperism. This is not the case.

I find it quite amazing that the more substantive comments I made were completely ignored – while you focus on the comments I make concerning your lack of rigor in treating Dr. Ascol’s comments. In regards to Mr. Byrne, you don’t focus on the argument, but on your own opinions concerning Mr. Byrne. Those, sir, are obvious. You linked to the man in your post. So, yes, we’re aware of your leanings. I’m not really concerned with examining your presuppositions, but with examining Mr. Byrne’s constant intent to redefine what hyper-calvinism consists of. The controversy is about that very thing. What hyper-calvinism is.

Mr. Byrne’s position is consistently ahistorical. If you examine all of the hyper-calvinistic controversies in reformed, and especially in baptist history, you will find that they all revolve around two things. 1) The free offer of the gospel, and 2) the duty of all men to believe savingly in Christ.

Those two things are what hyper-calvinism, historically, denies. We can add a third distinctive of hyper-calvinism, too – that “hyper-calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will.” This is very true – BUT – as Phil Johnson’s Primer points out, Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. This, sir, is what this supposed “definitional” distinction continually, erroneously, and doggedly denies. Yes, yes, there is a common belief in two wills of God. These two wills are not denied by anyone in the debate… quite right. That is NOT the issue at hand – as Mr. Byrne rightly points out – but, the issue at hand is ALSO NOT what Mr. Byrne DOES point out, either!

This ahistorical, incoherent, irrational concept of “desire” imported from an alien theology has nothing to do with historic calvinism, OR hyper-calvinism. It is foreign to the debate, and foreign to the issues which actually DO define the hyper-calvinism debate. That is the point which we have been making, all along. To try to make the effectual denial of Limited Atonement the linchpin of the hyper-calvinism argument is asinine, to say the least, and absolutely ridiculous, to say the most of it. It has no connection, whatsoever, to the actual terms of the debate, concerning hyper-calvinism. It is a complete misunderstanding of even the terms outlined in Phil Johnson’s Primer, let alone the historical discussion of the subject; even a cursory examination of the historical debate concerning hyper-calvinism, across any and all reformed traditions, will show you as much. If there was as much effort put into study of the actual terms that are discussed in the debate itself, rather than clinging to a novel, modern, redefinition of it, which has been debunked by every person involved thus far, there would be far, far less confusion about the issue, and no little progress.

False Assumption #2: That Tony’s post to which I linked is about Hyper-Calvinism proper. It is not. It is about Ascol & White’s fuzzy differences from one another

I didn’t think it was – per se. In fact, that has been my contention all along. That this silly, imported distinction belongs solely to Mr. Byrne. So, I would agree in that respect (but in that respect alone). It ISN’T about hyper-calvinism, in that sense. However, your own words don’t seem to agree, when you reference it as discussing hyper-calvinism in the context of your introduction to it!

Also, Tony Byrne has an excellent post that needs much consideration. He poses questions to both Ascol and White. By the way, Ascol has now publicly stated that he essentially agrees with White. Does that mean White comes off the Hyper-Calvinist list or Ascol goes on it? I think that will be an interesting consideration.

Hrmm? You reference his post – reference Dr. Ascol’s statement that they agree with other in what they are meaning – and then, ask if this means Ascol should go onto the hyper-calvinist list. Now, I do recognize that you may be finally seeing that this has nothing to do with the “list” – you other comment is “White comes off the Hyper-Calvinist list“. Frankly, sir, if there was a list, it would be entirely of Mr. Byrne’s making, given he seems to be the only person making this claim, that a denial of “God’s universal saving will” is somehow hyper-calvinism! Regardless, you can hardly claim that this has nothing to do with hyper-calvinism, as the discussion of whether God has this so-called will is what Mr. Byrne is defining as hyper-calvinism, and which Dr. Allen defined it as, in his presentation! In other words, what sort of silly equivocation to you expect me to fall for? That is _exactly_ the entire _point_ of Byrne’s post! To try to play divide and conquer, by either making Ascol deny that he believes the same thing, or making both out to be hyper-calvinists. Either way, he still isn’t denying his assertion that to deny God’s supposed “universal salvific will” is somewhow hyper-calvinism! Which is, you must admit, the main contention, no? So, because he doesn’t mention hyper-calvinism in the post – only discusses the point of contention by which Mr. Byrne is defining people AS hyper-calvinist – we’re not discussing hyper-calvinism? Obfuscation, anyone?

Sir, I engage in apologetics against every imaginable sort of belief system, and many of them happen to be intra-mural Christian debates. Such argumentation does not impress me. Such argumentation is childish, seeks only to obscure, not to get at the truth, and I can only assume, after watching your interaction with your own commenters, that you have a marked disinterest in seeking the truth of this matter. Your responses demonstrate it, quite conclusively. You dismiss whatever doesn’t fit into your neat little box of authoritative figures. If this were a Roman Catholic I was corresponding with, I would understand that mentality. From a Baptist, it is quite amazing. I’ve read quite a bit of the historical debate concerning hyper-calvinism. I do so, because I debate real, live hyper-calvinists. Since I do, I find great help and comfort in the study of those who have gone before in this discussion – just as I would find great help and comfort in reading Athanaius, when debating a Jehovah’s Witness.

False Assumption #3: That I or the readers here would take your profile on Hyper-Calvinism as representative of scholarly treatises while dismissing Tony Byrne’s

When you do read the debates between calvinists, and hyper-calvinists, in history, you will find exactly what I have outlined in my previous comment, as to what the debate is really about. If you insist on holding to Mr. Byrne’s erroneous definition, you will simply chase your tail around until your head spins, if you ever encounter a real hyper-calvinist. They will stare at you as if you have two heads. Their denial is of any will, whatsoever, for us to even give the command to repent and believe – to preach the GOSPEL to unbelievers, at any time! This is utterly beyond the typical, orthodox calvinist position, which DOES say that God commands all men to repent, believe, and be saved on those grounds. In fact, the hyper-calvinists believes that not only are we not to preach it – but that God does not demand faith as the duty of every man toward God. These are the tenets of hyper-calvinism. This silly strawman which you and your fellows insist on erecting is completely, and utterly wrong. So, make your appeal to authority if you wish. Mr. Byrne has, and my 5-point calvinist brethren will atest to this fact, completely, and utterly erred in his attempt to redefine hyper-calvinism. If it was in ignorance, it would behoove him to study the subject more thoroughly, and perhaps interact with real, live hyper-calvinists more frequently. If it was intentional, (and for a man of his credentials to be this appallingly ignorant of the theological distinctives of a group which was incredibly widespread in the time of Fuller and Spurgeon, was oft-encountered in more recent history, and still exists today, leaves me wondering what or who he has studied on the subject) then Mr. Byrne is guilty of nothing apart from utter libel of several men who have labored for Christ’s church for decades.

Complain how you will about these “mean” calvinists – but understand that it’s practically impossible for a calvinist to take you at all seriously when you stick to blatantly false understandings such as these. I’m quite annoyed at the lengths to which those who promulgate falsehoods will go to defend their obvious errors. If it is simple stubbornness, and refusal to admit your error, I invite you to repent, sir. If it is intentional, sir, shame is the least of your concerns. Dr. White, and Dr. Reymond are no more hyper-calvinist than was Spurgeon, or Fuller. To say so is absolute folly – and frankly, I think by this point you have to know it. To continue to defend it, to obfuscate when rebutted, and to quibble over minutiae while leaving the substantive portions of the argument untouched are symptoms I have encountered quite often, as an apologist. They are signs that your opponent knows quite well that they are wrong, and refuse to admit it. If i come across as harsh – I hope you recognize it for what it is. Righteous indignation at the defamation of good men – one of which is a friend. I’ve read the work of all of the other men defamed by Dr. Allen, but your comments are continually condescending and dismissive. You are the one who is propagating the debate, because, frankly, serious students of hyper-calvinism dismissed Mr. Byrne’s redefinition long ago, when he first started promulgating it. I don’t like our convention being the laughingstock of theological conservatism, because people from our convention make comments of this sort. So, this is one SBCer who is thoroughly disgusted by the complete lack of serious interaction being offered in response to our objections. If you don’t like this sort of language, sir, with all due respect, (for despite the harshness of my words, they are written with the intent of perhaps shocking you into a realization of where your positions stands, that you may perhaps understand the lack of historicity with which these claims are proferred) please stop listening to men who are clearly not students of history, and have clearly not studied calvinism and hyper-calvinism to be able to tell the difference. Stop linking to their articles, and hosting them on your website. If you don’t like this sort of response, please wake up, and please ratchet down the rhetoric. Historic calvinism does not affirm a universal salvific desire on the part of God. Hyper-calvinism has nothing to do with that issue, whether calvinism did, or did not, have that as a characteristic! These things, sir, and incontrovertible, and why a Doctor of Systematic Theology would possibly hold to this position baffles me. Sir, I’m not questioning your faith, or your passion for the people of your church – I am, however, questioning your wisdom in following men who obviously do not know calvinism, yet claim to be experts. I’m not a doctor of theology. I do expect doctors of theology to know more than I do about the subject, and whether the comment offends you, or not, they do not. I’m not impressed by a doctorate. I’m impressed by a theologian. When it comes to calvinism, these men are not theologians. They are crusaders, and it very much seems to me as if they are either woefully ignorant ones, or dishonest ones. I truly fail to see how they could honestly hold the positions they do , in any other way.

On the SBC and anti-Calvinism

Just to open up, I found Timmy Brister’s timeline very useful in organizing all of the commentary concerning the John 3:16 conference. While the conference was, indeed, an SBC All-Star event – it was decidedly anti-Calvinist. Now, I am quite aware that they don’t particularly like this categorization of their stance – Dr. Allen, for example, has taken exception to this – but, on the other hand, they certainly aren’t worried about categorizing Dr. White (a good friend, and spiritual mentor), Steve Camp, and Dr. Robert Reymond, whose Systematic Theology has been very helpful to me, as Hyper-Calvinists. Now, I’ve had quite a bit of dialogue with real hypers – and I have to say… they obviously have no idea what a hyper-calvinist is.

Now, I’m aware he would also reject this statement. He has, repeatedly. However, he has also repeatedly demonstrated that he has a lack of understanding concerning the difference between orthodox, historical calvinism and hyper-calvinism; decretive and preceptive will; anthropological will/desire and theological will/desire; not to mention showing a complete lack of balance in addressing the issue of Calvinism, in general. Apparently, Dr. Allen, as a professor of systematic theology, is unable to distinguish between these things. As a member of the SBC, I find this lack of perception absolutely mind-boggling, given our historical foundation as a Calvinist denomination. I don’t doubt that he would differ with that – but the fact remains.

My problem with this entire issue – with this entire conference, is that it is a group of SBC theologians with an axe to grind. The axe, of course, being the dismissal of Calvinism as orthodoxy. In the process of attempting to paint Calvinists in a certain light, they stooped to slander, followed by libel, in defense of the original slander. Dr. Allen’s statement is as follows:

“This is important. Here is the reason why this stuff is important. Limited atonement creates a situation where there is a diminishing of belief in God’s universal saving will. Dr. Tom Ascol sums up the historic Calvinist position when he wrote ‘I believe that God desires for all people to be saved but has purposed to save His elect. I see two (at least two) dimensions in God’s will: revealed and decretive. Failure to make this kind of distinction is a failure to read the Bible’s teachings on the will of God accurately.’ This statement was made in 2006 just before the time when the debate with the Caner brothers was scheduled to take place and Dr. Tom Ascol was supposed to join forces with James White to oppose the Caner brothers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson of, who is the right hand man of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson tells you the five things that make for hyper-Calvinism, and James White by his teaching is a hyper-Calvinist. Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism.

By the way, James White is a Baptist, he is not a Southern Baptist. On April 10, during a phone call on the “Dividing Line” web cast, James White scornfully denied there is any sense in which God wills the salvation of all men. That is the total opposite of what Tom Ascol said. By the way, Ascol is right that God wills the salvation of all men. White is the one who’s wrong. The denial of God’s universal saving will is a problem.”

Now, the reasons that this is an absolutely absurd statement have been documented, quite thoroughly, by both Phil Johnson, and Dr. Ascol – not to mention Dr. White!

Phil Johnson:

if Dr. Allen thinks James White is a hyper-Calvinist by my definition, then he doesn’t understand my definition.

Dr. Ascol:

Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.

Dr. White:

I simply point out that he seems to wish to establish a definition that forces one to somehow confess what God desires without providing any biblical basis for how we as creatures are to know this. Does God command repentance? Of course. Of all? Yes, of all. Do you proclaim the gospel to all? Yes, to all. Do you say it is the duty of all to believe? Surely, of course. Do you believe the proclamation of the gospel is the means by which God’s Spirit draws the elect unto Christ? Most assuredly. So what is the single basis of Allen’s accustion of “hyper-Calvinism”? My refusal to believe God decreed His eternal disappointment. I find nothing in Scripture or in the LBCF1689 that forces me to believe that God chose to create in such a fashion as to create His own unhappiness, His own lack of fulfillment. I see no reason to believe that God desires to do something He does not will to accomplish. It is only man’s limited nature that even raises the issue, for we know that the proclamation of God’s law reveals God’s prescriptive will, i.e., do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc. Hence we ascribe to God the concept of “desire” and say God does not “desire” that man do these things. Yet, we likewise know that texts like Genesis 50:20 tell us that God has willed that such events take place, and that, in fact, He uses them to accomplish His own purposes, His own glory. The problem is in trying to read into God’s will our own self-limitations. I can freely offer the gospel to all, not because I reject election, nor because I ascribe to God a human-oriented desire that runs directly counter to His own self-revelation and consistency, but because I do not know the identity of the elect, and I have the full promise of Scripture that no man, no woman, no child, will ever, ever turn in faith to Jesus Christ and yet be rejected by Him. ALL who believe will be saved. Will any man believe outside of God’s grace, God’s granting of repentance and faith? Surely not, but again, I do not possess knowledge of the identity of the elect. Hence, I can freely and properly proclaim the duty to repent and believe to all, knowing that those who do so will be those God has drawn to Himself. I find myself completely consistent with the Apostle who likewise said he endured all the trials and tribulations of the ministry “for the sake of the elect” (2 Timothy 2:10).

As I’ve said, this commentary by Dr. Allen, and the other j316 presenters, has been discussed by many, many folks – Timmy Brister has also put together a compilation of liveblogging links from calvinists who attended, as well. A cursory search will give you a wealth of commentary. My concern, as I’ve said, is that these noted SBC theologians seem to have an axe to grind. That axe, regardless of their protests to the contray, is an anti-calvinist one. Dr. Allen is on record as saying that “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.” (This was met with a standing ovation.) Now, although Dr. Allen’s insistence is that he is not an anti-calvinist – the reason he says this is as follows;

One of the overriding concerns throughout Ascol’s blog post is evidenced by the four times he identifies me (indirectly each time but clearly I am included) as “anti-Calvinist” (emphasis mine). This is simply false. I am not anti-Calvinist. … Neither is it accurate to portray my recent review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue or my John 3:16 presentation as “anti-Calvinist.” One must distinguish between being against people who hold certain theological views and disagreeing with the views those people hold. I am not against any Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe that Calvinism, especially five-point Calvinism, is biblically and theologically flawed at certain points.

In my book review and presentation at the John 3:16 conference, I was at pains to show this. It is apparent to me that some Calvinists within and without the SBC simply will not brook any criticism of Calvinism. To do so in their minds is to be anti-Calvinist.

Let me also say that there are occasions where I am against what Calvinists do or don’t do because of what they believe. I referenced one or two such incidents toward the end of my John 3:16 paper as well as in my book review. Why should this be a problem since Calvinists likewise reciprocate here? In fact, is not this rejoinder the result of Dr. Ascol’s own criticism of my criticism whereby he takes exception to what I have done or have not done because of what I believe? I consider this to be an example of being too thin-skinned.

Also, would it be possible for anyone reading Ascol’s blog to come to the conclusion that he is anti-non-Calvinist or anti-Classical Arminian? I suspect some could, some would, and I know of some who have. Sauce for the goose.

News flash: This is equivocation. When we say one is “anti-calvinist” – we very much do mean that someone is against reformed theology. That someone opposse it. To equivocate, as if the statement somehow means that one is personally dead set against the inclusion of Calvinists, as persons, in the SBC, is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I would have to say that Dr. Allen knows this very well. It was a cheap attempt to score points. Yes, we recognize that, Dr. Allen. Thank you so very much for your attempt to score points off of us with your supporters via condescension. Does Dr. Allen think that we won’t recognize such cheap tricks? If that is what he thinks, I sincerely hope he understands that we do, in fact, recognize such attempts for what they are. They certainly aren’t building any bridges. In fact, it simply propagates the contrary of his insistence that he has no personal animosity, when he makes such remarks. If one treats those one disagrees with such contempt for their understanding, one cannot be surprised if we respond as if he were being insulting. Frankly, if he doesn’t recognize it as insulting, that concerns me. What on earth is he teaching? While the personal dismissal is troubling, what troubles me more is the constant misrepresentation of the positions held by the men he defames. If this misrepresentation is so endemic – as Dr. White, Dr. Ascol, and others have shown – if his understanding of Reymond, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, not to mention Scripture itself, is that flawed – as has been shown by many in the Reformed faith – what on earth can we say other than what we are saying? Dr. Allen is either woefully ignorant – in which case, what is he doing teaching systematic theology? Or, Dr. Allen is being intentionally deceitful, by misrepresenting men of God. What else can we say? Did he not expect this response, when he penned his words for this talk? Did he not expect that those of the reformed faith would examine his words, and compare them to that of historical calvinists, modern calvinists? That those he criticized would not respond? We’ve done both – and we’ve found his comments woefully lacking in historical basis, understanding, and most especially, in any sort of Biblical foundation. Far be it from me to mince words – but in any sort of factual examination of his comments, they have no basis whatsoever in reality, these men’s comments, or in Scripture. This is why we comment so forcefully in our responses. His comments are an affront – not only to these precious men of God, but to the Scripture which we regard so highly. It’s not an attempt to “score points” – but to defend the Word, and the gospel we are commanded to preach. I exhort him to take that into consideration, and to examine his comments in light of Scripture, and not in light of Dr. Byrne’s conception of historic calvinism, which seem to greatly influence his comments.

Yes, I’m a bit perturbed. I’ll admit it. This does not, however, dismiss the fact that the speakers at the J316 conference are either intentionally misrepresenting the Reformed faith to attempt to “stem the tide” of young adherents to calvinism, or misunderstand our position so badly that they are simply firing darts into strawmen constructed of various and sundry piecemeal constructs with no real foundation in real, reformed theology. This insistence is not a new one. Men have been misrepresenting Fuller as an antagonist to Gill for quite a long time. Gill has been represented as a hyper-calvinist for a very long time. Owen, Turretin, and others have also been represented as hyper-calvinist. These representations, however, are simply not true, if you examine their works. You can see a consistent representation of historic, orthodox calvinism in all of the aforementioned men; and their affirmation of it’s doctrines has consistently led to the careful and painstakingly precise exegesis that is the hallmark of the reformed faith. To say otherwise is simply to anachronistically read your own free-will requiring principles back into historic calvinism. To cite Edwards’ Freedom of the Will to somehow affirm unlimited atonement is utterly baffling. To water Owen down in such a manner is simply amazing. To wrest Scripture to an affirmation of autonomous free will, I’m sorry, is just incredible. When you do even a cursory examination of the writings of both the historical and modern champions of human autonomy, and compare them to the historical and modern champions of God’s unquestioned, and incomparable sovereignty; there is simply no comparison whatsoever in the quality and consistency of argumentation. There is no difference in this discussion, either.

Friends, I’m just plain annoyed that this debate even exists in the SBC. That men are so self-deceived that they think that championing man’s autonomous free will, as practically every other apostate denomination does, is somehow an affirmation of Scripture, simply appalls me. If you don’t like the harshness of that comment – too bad. Sneer at the “unkind” tone all you like. I do love my brethren who disagree – but the love of the brethren is grounded in love of Scripture, first and foremost. If you reject the Word of God, and it’s position on the place of man, the place of your will, and the place of your own determination in your own salvation – if you persist in the Romish pursuit of decisional works in your own salvation – if you persist in the downright slander and libel of those who faithfully preach the word of God, for the sake of your desire to preserve the choice of man, while advocating the slavery of God’s will to the will of man – expect opposition. Expect opposition when you defame men who preach the gospel without fear or favor, to all men. Expect opposition when you condescendingly assume that those who were graciously brought to transformation of their mind, lovingly corrected of their conformation to the world in their embrasure of the sovereignty of their own wills, are simply ignorant of history, theology, and Scripture. Sirs, we are most decidedly not ignorant. If we were, we wouldn’t be objecting to the unfair usage of the historical calvinists whom we have read, love, and emulate, as they emulated Christ. Expect opposition when you paint the men who have done so much to teach us the Word out to be heretics, scripture-twisters, and the like. When you tell us that the gospel we preach is nothing of the sort. I beg to differ, sirs, and I expect your opposition when I say the following. “Open union with the people of God is most desirable. It would argue disloyalty in a soldier if he would not wear his regimentals, and refused to take his place in the ranks. True, he might fight alone, but it would probably turn out to be a sorry business. If God’s people will not be ashamed of us we need not be ashamed of them. I should not like to go into a public assembly disguised in the dress of a thief; I prefer my own clothes, and I cannot understand how Christians can bear themselves in the array of worldlings.” – C.H. Spurgeon I, Sirs, think very much that you are ashamed of us. Further, I feel that you are, in fact, ashamed of the Gospel.

Sirs, a gospel which presents sin as sickness, not death; a gospel which presents a foreseen work of faith as the sole, passive acknowledgment of God in salvation of sinners; a gospel which presents Christ as dying for the never-to-be-justified, along with those who will be justified; a gospel which presents the works of faith and repentance as the requirements for regeneration; a gospel which presents certainty of salvation as a nebulous (but still within the freely willed choice of man?) “seal”, but without the decretal, sovereign will of God as the complement to and surety for it – this is a gospel without power, and not the Gospel of Scripture. There is indeed a Gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. The gospel that was presented in this conference is nothing of the sort. You wonder why there was such a response? The response was due to the sub-biblical gospel presented, the dismissive manner in which the Scriptural Gospel was treated, and the frequent, cavalier, even reckless accusations thrown at ministers of the Gospel. First and foremost, the response engendered by the John 3:16 conference was instigated by the complete disregard for Scripture shown by those who spoke. Secondly, it was instigated by the insistence of the speakers to misrepresent and redefine reformed theology. Thirdly, it was instigated by the strange and acontextual cherry-picking of quotes from reformed theologians to substantiate the claims made by the speakers.

As has been shown, by many, many folks around the web, the conference was an unmitigated debacle. It has done nothing but polarize things further – I don’t really midn that, in some ways, because it shows what they really think, when they get together, but will not say in a conventional setting – only in conferences. I challenge Dr. Allen to discuss these things publicly, in a formal setting, with Dr. White, as he has been asked to. Let the SBC see your arguments for your position. Let Dr. Byrne, Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Allen, Dr. Land, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Keathley, Dr. Vines, Dr. Stanley, and Dr. Caner debate these issues publicly, with their theological opponents in and out of the SBC. This was an All-Star conference, as I’ve said. If they truly feel, as Dr. Allen said, that “a move toward 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel” – let’s hash it out, instead of doing this conference-sniping. Instead of skirting around the issue, let’s get this issue concerning the Gospel out in the open, and freely discussed in public. Let’s debate it, instead of sniping from the opposing sides. If you are truly against the gospel preached by the reformed, then let’s see some real discussion of that, and discussion with the men you disagree with. Like myself. Let’s see, from Scripture, how your position stacks up. Debate it. Yes, yes, good men can disagree on it.

I’m tired of the pussyfooting around. Let’s start talking to each other, not past each other. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. I need you to show me how what you beleive accords with Scripture. “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason … my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” ~ Luther

Here we stand, my friends. We can do no other.

I’ll leave you with something from the Prince of Preachers.

It has this singular virtue also—it is so coherent in all its parts. You cannot vanquish a Calvinist. You may think you can, but you cannot. The stones of the great doctrines so fit into each other, that the more pressure there is applied to remove them the more strenuously do they adhere. And you may mark, that you cannot receive one of these doctrines without believing all. Hold for instance that man is utterly depraved, and you draw the inference then that certainly if God has such a creature to deal with salvation must come from God alone, and if from him, the offended one, to an offending creature, then he has a right to give or withhold his mercy as he wills; you are this forced upon election, and when you have gotten that you have all: the others must follow. Some by putting the strain upon their judgments may manage to hold two or three points and not the rest, but sound logic I take it requires a man to hold the whole or reject the whole; the doctrines stand like soldiers in a square, presenting on every side a line of defence which it is hazardous to attack, but easy to maintain. And mark you, in these times when error is so rife and neology strives to be so rampant, it is no little thing to put into the hands of a young man a weapon which can slay his foe, which he can easily learn to handle, which he may grasp tenaciously, wield readily, and carry without fatigue; a weapon, I may add, which no rust can corrode and no blows can break, trenchant, and well annealed, a true Jerusalem blade of a temper fit for deeds of renown. The coherency of the parts, though it be of course but a trifle in comparison with other things, is not unimportant. And then, I add,—but this is the point my brethren will take up—it has this excellency, that it is scriptural, and that it is consistent with the experience of believers. Men generally grow more Calvinistic as they advance in years. Is not that a sign that the doctrine is right. As they are growing riper for heaven, as they are getting nearer to the rest that remaineth for the people of God, the soul longs to feed on the finest of the wheat, and abhors chaff and husks. And then, I add—and, in so doing, I would refute a calumny that has sometimes been urged,—this glorious truth has this excellency, that it produces the holiest of men. We can look back through all our annals, and say, to those who oppose us, you can mention no names of men more holy, more devoted, more loving, more generous than those which we can mention. The saints of our calendar, though uncanonized by Rome, rank first in the book of life. The names of Puritan needs only to be heard to constrain our reverence. Holiness had reached a height among them which is rare indeed, and well it might for they loved and lived the truth. And if you say that our doctrine is inimical to human liberty, we point you to Oliver Cromwell and to his brave Ironsides, Calvinists to a man. If you say, it leads to inaction, we point you to the Pilgrim Fathers and the wildernesses they subdued. We can put our finger upon every spot of land, the wide world o’er, and say, “Here was something done by a man who believed in God’s decrees; and, inasmuch as he did this, it is proof it did not make him inactive, it did not lull him to sloth.”
The better way, however of proving this point is for each of us who hold these truths, to be more prayerful, more watchful, more holy, more active than we have ever been before, and by so doing, we shall put to silence the gainsaying of foolish men. A living argument, is an argument which tells upon every man; we cannot deny what we see and feel. Be it ours, if aspersed and calumniated, to disprove it by a blameless life, and it shall yet come to pass, that our Church and its sentiments too shall come forth “Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”

The following discussion was from earlier this afternoon, and I believe clearly shows the common bankruptcy found in Islamic apologists – they can’t defend their own text, and they won’t answer questions. I invite you to examine the conversation and see for yourself.

[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:36 Nay, is he not acquainted with what is in the Books of Moses- (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:37 And of Abraham who fulfilled his engagements?- (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:38 Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another; (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] .kjv gal 6:2
[Bible] Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (King James Version)
[RazorsKiss] So, beyinsiz – why is your Qu’ran contradicting Scripture?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it doesn’t. It corrects the contradictions. That’s it.
[RazorsKiss] Surah 3:84 Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between on e and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
[RazorsKiss] The Books?
[RazorsKiss] Seems to me that’s one of the Books spoken on in the Qu’Ran.
[RazorsKiss] *of in
[RazorsKiss] Why does your Qu’Ran contradict it?
[RazorsKiss] .kjv exo 6:6
[Bible] Exodus 6:6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgements: (King James Version)
[beyinsiz] aligning*
[RazorsKiss] Seems as if God himself does the same.
[Delano] Muslims and Christians who dispute one another’s holy books only “prove” that the other doesn’t apply the same critical thinking to their own scriptures as they do to their opponent’s
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss A contradiction only happens with something that has COHERENCE. It’s true that the content of the bible is of full errors, historical information.
[RazorsKiss] Delano: One says the other book is inspired, yet contradicts it.
[RazorsKiss] That’s telling, is it not?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how many tellings in the bible are existing ?
[Delano] Oh, very much :o)
[RazorsKiss] Paul tells the Galatians to do something the Qu’Ran forbids.
[beyinsiz] if there are 60 bibles available, it’s likely that quran would treat them each as differently ?
[RazorsKiss] Look at the greek, and then look at your arabic.
[RazorsKiss] compare the two, see if they mean the same thing.
[Delano] Er,
[Delano] He couldn’t be able to anyway
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would something that Paul told would be a divine commandment. Paul cannot make any divine decision, He is not a prophet.
[RazorsKiss] Galatians 6:2 allhlwn ta barh bastazete kai outws anaplhrwsete ton nomon tou xristou (GRK)
[beyinsiz] He wasn’t even an apostle of Jesus
[Delano] The Qur’an is written in a classical form of Arabic that modern Arabs do not understand
[Delano] Just like modern English speakers do not understand Anglo-Saxon
[RazorsKiss] I know several Christians who read arabic just fine.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Galatians is an epistle that he wrote up. It’s not the word of God, nor that of Jesus. Come up with something else
[RazorsKiss] As well as Koine.
[Delano] Modern, yes
[Delano] Classical Arabic is different :o)
[RazorsKiss] No, Quranic.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss yes I can read classical arabic, koine greek, latin , hebrew with diacriticals.
[Delano] Same with Greek… modern is different to Koine and Attic
[RazorsKiss] Expressly for the purpose of studying Quranic textual transmission.
[Delano] Although Attic was not used in the NT
[RazorsKiss] Quranic Arabic, and Koine.
[Delano] beyinsiz, impressive
[beyinsiz] what textual transmission ? there has only been 1 manuscript and the bible had like 300 according to the decree at the Nicea Council.
[Delano] beyinsiz, which Latin? Classic or Old Church?
[RazorsKiss] Not according to the Uthmanic revision, no there hasn’t.
[beyinsiz] Delano Clasical, the church doesn’t alter remarkably except the the pronounciation. the grammar is the same.
[Delano] beyinsiz, and more vocabularly
[Delano] Biblical-based vocabulary
[RazorsKiss] Ibn Masud’s version is the foundation for the modern-day Sunni-Shi’ite division.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss yes Uthman was a companion of Prophet unlike Paul wasn’t of Jesus
[RazorsKiss] Same generation, and was indeed an apostle – though one born late.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss that’s inaccurate and non sense to the extent of textual transmission claim. If you claim there is any other version of the quran, can you please show it ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it still doesn’t make him an apostle
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz –
[beyinsiz] the bible says they were 12 you say something else
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I dont want a youtube video. show me a manuscript
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – yes it does – and was recognized as one by the other apostles – the apostle to the gentiles, as we both are.
[beyinsiz] you make it up you find one !
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss by no means it doesn’t. There is no one verse that Paul is regarded as an apostle.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – the video is one by Dr. James White.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Why would I belive in him ? It’s you who claim that there is another shii quran and I am asking you to show it up !
[RazorsKiss] Concerning the Uthmanic revision, and Ibn Masud’s manuscript he refused to give up.
[RazorsKiss] and, by certain traditions, was beaten for until he died.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss It doesn’t make any sense when you just speculate about the duplication of a text once you dont provide any clear evidence and yet I can show you a dozen for the bible ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss where are the manuscripts you claim for transmissions ? where are they ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz –
[beyinsiz] I see no manuscript differentiation on this page.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss either you show me a manuscript that DIFFERS from the one we have today
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – no manuscript variations exist in scripture that affect any major dotrine.
[Bonz],4273,4048586,00.html QURAN NOT GIVEN TO MUHAMMED
[Bonz] But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: sort of hard, since uthman burned them all, isn’t it?
[RazorsKiss] almost like islam had something to hide.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you even know that not on the basis of quran but some narrations ? Do you believe in the muslim narrations ? are you muslim yourself ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz Quran was changed several times
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer my question Do you believe in islamic narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] Not to mention the fact that the textual history of Islam is one of protection and central authoritative copying, past that date
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer my question Do you believe in islamic narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] and before that, all variatiosn were burned, so as to erase any variants.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You quoted an historical even on the basis of islamic narrations namely hadith. Do you believe in them to be true ?
[beyinsiz] event *
[beyinsiz] He cant answer the question
[RazorsKiss] Of course not, they contradict Scripture.
[RazorsKiss] I was finishing my own point, thanks 😀
[RazorsKiss] Care to respond to my last ones?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then how come you claimed that Uthman burned them from your point of view ???????????????????
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You first must justify the ground of your knowledge if you don’t believe what you claim, why should I take care to answer ?
[RazorsKiss] Why do you claim that Paul wasn’t an apostle, when your Quran commands you to consider Scripture as from Allah?
[RazorsKiss] Scripture says otherwise.
[beyinsiz] Inge then what part does he like to include and what others he likes to exclude ? what is the standart for that ? 🙂
[Bonz] beyinsiz He can use any standard he wants to.
[Inge] beyinsiz: *shrug* 🙂
[RazorsKiss] I don’t believe that they are spiritual truth – but I can see historical accounts.
[Bonz] beyinsiz And you have to defend against ANY standard
[Colin^] Bonz this is way over your head. I suggest you sit it out. :o)
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss There is no such verse that would make someone assume that Paul was an apostle. It’s the epistles he wrote which are not divinely revealed. There are many christian epistles in that time
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You couldn’t answer a simple question I asked. Yet you BASED YOUR CLAIM on that historical event. Your mask FELL DOWN
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] next question
[RazorsKiss] *being mentioned
[Bonz] beyinsiz You lose.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You based your opinion on the fact that you assumed the narration to be true and now you can’t answer. Did you lie there ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz The Quran is not inspired. Muhammed wasn’t a prophet of Jesu
[RazorsKiss] I don’t consider the Hadith to be a true reflection of spiritual things, no.
[beyinsiz] Did you lie when you were purposefully claimed that Uthman burned them and yet you didn’t take it a granted fact ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz He didn’t asume it to be true
[beyinsiz] This is what your faith could be like !
[RazorsKiss] I do consider them useful for an examination of the historical situation.
[beyinsiz] Bonz then why did he say he did burn it ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] he didn’t say he MAY HAVE burnt
[Inge] Bonz: are you arguing *for* a Christian?
* Inge takes Bonz’ temperature and calls 911
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would I answer your question and waste my time to discuss with you brother? You lied, why would I consider it worthwhile ?
[RazorsKiss] Uthman burnt every variant of the Quran, save Ibn Masud’s
[Delano] Inge, sometimes a man must choose the lesser of the two evils.
[beyinsiz] You have to explain to me something first. I will not just skip it.
[RazorsKiss] and Ibn Masud died for withholding it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Do you believe this to be true, and considering it a prophetical narration ?
[Bonz] Inge Nope, against a Muslim. beyinsiz wants to have his cake and eat it as well.
[beyinsiz] say yes or no
[beyinsiz] :DDDDD
[RazorsKiss] I don’t consider a proven false prophet to be true in any way, no.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then why did you claim that to be true ????????
[beyinsiz] then you lied !
[beyinsiz] you busted
[Delano] Inge, not if they support the bigger evil ;o)
[RazorsKiss] I do, however, think the Hadith literature is an interesting study in history.
[Colin^] beyinsiz is busted, he doesn’t obey the Quran
[Colin^] :o(
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you lost my friend. It’s your hatred, illogical faulty manner that gave you away.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz It’s not HIS fault that your holy books are wrong
[Delano] Well, to his RazorsKiss, I don’t think RazorsKiss is a hateful fellow
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss sorry I don’t regard to discuss with some person who even lies in the name of his argument (?).
[Delano] Er
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU are the illogical one
[Delano] Well, to his defense, I don’t think RazorsKiss is a hateful fellow
[Colin^] beyinsiz isn’t a Submitter…merely a beliver,shame face belong to him
[beyinsiz] everbody call in witness to what this man had done to himself.
[beyinsiz] Colin^ why ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz He won. You lost.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] Bonz if yo u say so.
[Delano] beyinsiz, in fact, RazorsKiss has been a lot more civil to you than a lot of other Christians here would have been :o)
[RazorsKiss] All you’re doing is spinning around like a top, sir.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You first explain as to why you used a prophetical narration as to be historically true when you claimed the person is a false prophet and thus unreliable ??
[RazorsKiss] I consider Mohammed a false prophet, yes.
[beyinsiz] Because it is our first topic to be sort out and without first solving it , it is useless and pointless to skip the other. Why would I do that ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then why did you quote the historical event to be true ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t even think the authors of the Hadith even consider a mention as such, at all.
[Bonz] beyinsiz Your holy books are wrong. He doesn’t have to believe in them to poiny point out thet they are wrong
[beyinsiz] did you lie ? or did you trust him in that particular time and event ?
[RazorsKiss] Because the uthmanic revision has nothing to do with the prophethood of Mohammed.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how do you know that ?
[beyinsiz] ??????????????????????
[RazorsKiss] It has to do with the actions of Uthman, and why he did what he did.
[beyinsiz] ??????????????????????
[RazorsKiss] Why did Uthman burn every Quranic variant?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how do you know that ? are you inspired or do you have other sources of epistemology ?
[beyinsiz] HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ?
[beyinsiz] HOW
[RazorsKiss] It’s attested fact.
[beyinsiz] HOW
[RazorsKiss] read this.
[Colin^] beyinsiz Attested FACT!
[RazorsKiss] I gave my source.
[Bonz] beyinsiz And you have to make arguments against the epistles. You can’t just say you don’t think they were prophets
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss but our case is not what I read. It’s what YOU CLAIM AND HOW YOU ATTEST
[RazorsKiss] and, Dr. White talks about it further in the video above, concerning Ibn Masud.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer me
[RazorsKiss] *talks
[beyinsiz] Did uthman burn it ? true or false… see he CANT ANSWER IT 🙂
[beyinsiz] YES OR NO
[beyinsiz] ?
[Delano] Heh
[Delano] beyinsiz, relax
[RazorsKiss] True, Uthman burned every variant copy of the Quran.
[Colin^] beyinsiz has his knickers in a knot
[Delano] beyinsiz, you’re not gonna get any point across by getting upset and TYPING ALL IN CAPS
[Colin^] Delano will be after him. :o(
[beyinsiz] how shameful you are to hold such a stupid logical incoherence. and you were going to discuss me something in particular about quran
[RazorsKiss] Except for Ibn Masud’s, given several sources.
[Bonz] beyinsiz You’re only making yourself look stupid
[Delano] beyinsiz, relax please
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you that these sources are historically to be true because they are narrated by prophet muhammad ?
[Delano] beyinsiz, you are an intelligent fellow… there’s no need to get emotional
[Bonz] beyinsiz HIS logic is FINE. It is YOUR logic that is faulty
[RazorsKiss] and, Ibn Masud’s defiance, accordign to those same sources, is the source of the Sunni/Shi’ite split today.
[beyinsiz] Delano ok I will take your word
[RazorsKiss] 1) You claim that Paul is not an apostle
[RazorsKiss] 2) This goes against the word of the apostles you do claim to recognize
[RazorsKiss] 3) Your own Quran tells you to consider that book from God, per Surah 3:84, and several others.
[RazorsKiss] 4) You deny what your own Quran tells you – what is denial of the commands of the Quran called?
[beyinsiz] you FIRST claim something else and failed to prove it
[beyinsiz] and got yourself stuck in a VERY VERY BAD THEOLOGICAL DUBMNESS
[beyinsiz] You couldn’t even answer
[beyinsiz] and you couldn’t even back up what you had to swollow ! now what are you enumerating ????????
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you couldn’t build a ground for your theory You couldn’t believe what you said
[RazorsKiss] I’ll go through it again – if you’d quit typing for a minute, you could spare the time to read it.
[RazorsKiss] 1) You claim that Paul is not an apostle
[beyinsiz] You didn’t confirm the information which yourself has provided
[RazorsKiss] 2) This goes against the word of the apostles you do claim to recognize
[RazorsKiss] 3) Your own Quran tells you to consider that book from God, per Surah 3:84, and several others.
[RazorsKiss] 4) You deny what your own Quran tells you – what is denial of the commands of the Quran called?
[RazorsKiss] Do you have an answer that doesn’t involve two dozen exclamation points?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss but the topic is none of what you have enumerated ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss sure I do have a lot
[RazorsKiss] Actually, it was the original topic I bought up.
[beyinsiz] but I will not skip your turn.
[beyinsiz] no we were discussing about the manuscript transmission
[RazorsKiss] YOU skipped all over creation for all sorts of others topics.
[RazorsKiss] *other
[beyinsiz] it’s now your turn to answer my question. It’s my right to ask.
[RazorsKiss] You’ve been asking the whole time.
[beyinsiz] How do you know that Uthman burnt the manuscript ?
[RazorsKiss] I’ve been answering.
[beyinsiz] the other one ? Prove it
[beyinsiz] no you didn’t it
[beyinsiz] How do you know that ?
[RazorsKiss] Burnt which one?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I don’t know. you claim that he did burn one didn’t yo u???????????????
[RazorsKiss] I gave you the source I had for Uthman’s burning of copies.
[RazorsKiss] You keep ignoring it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I didn’t ask for any reading source. My question was not that.
[beyinsiz] My question is simply relating to your confirmation that if this historical event is true , then do you believe the narrator, the prophet himself to be true ?
[RazorsKiss] the pertinent section: “‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it.
[RazorsKiss] So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ ” (33.23)”
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you believe this to be true ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you believe this to be true ?
[beyinsiz] I don’t judge the validity of the text. I am only asking you whether you TAKE THIS TO BE TRUE TO PROPOSE IT AS AN EVIDENCE
[RazorsKiss] On what basis do I have to believe that if one historical narration is true, the whole Quran is true?
[beyinsiz] can you understand that ?
[RazorsKiss] The narrator was not Mohammed.
[RazorsKiss] Secondly.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then do you believe the narrator whatever ?
[RazorsKiss] Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:
[RazorsKiss] Who is that, beyinsiz?
[beyinsiz] razor do you believe sahih al bukhari ?
[beyinsiz] it’s a muslim.
[beyinsiz] Do you believe a muslim reporter to be true ?
[beyinsiz] ?????????
[RazorsKiss] I believe he was telling the truth about that story, yes.
[beyinsiz] 🙂
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t tend to disbelieve people simply because they’re muslim.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then will you believe his other narrations as well ?
[RazorsKiss] Do you disbelieve Sahih Al-Bukhari?
[RazorsKiss] I hear tell he’s a pretty important source.
[RazorsKiss] in fact, one muslim apologist rejected Bukhari’s testimony over this one issue, in a debate with Dr. White.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok but here in this very particular event, you take him as an acceptable source regardless of his theological background
[RazorsKiss] Yes, for the third time.
[beyinsiz] Now will you regard his authencity when he narrates miracles of the prophet ?
[beyinsiz] as historical events ?
[beyinsiz] because he has lots of other historical narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] They may be.
[beyinsiz] please answer
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss nooo
[RazorsKiss] Scripture says many false prophets will come, doing signs and wonders.
[RazorsKiss] So Mohammed could easy have done signs and wonders.
[RazorsKiss] *easily
[beyinsiz] you didn’t give any probability to his very particular case. then you must consider the other with certainty on account of the narrator’s authencity
[RazorsKiss] However, he contradicted Scripture.
[RazorsKiss] Which makes him a false prophet in any case.
[RazorsKiss] Further, he was profoundly ignorant of texts he recommends.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Did you not judge the event’s validity based on the narrator’s validity ? now how come it turned out to be “may” and with uthman you took it granted
[RazorsKiss] If you look through the NT, it’s authors are very knowledgeable of the OT.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you are not answering the question
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: that would have to depend on whether or not Uthman had a tested interest in proving Mohommaed as a prophet, wouldn’t it? 😀
[RazorsKiss] *vested
[beyinsiz] razor if you judge it on the narrator’s authencity as you did with uthman’s action to burn the text, then there are other narrations of him that testify his prophecy, the unity of God, and the blasphemy of christians as HISTORICAL EVENTS
[beyinsiz] will you accept them as well ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t take every historian to be correct in every instance.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok then what made you to accept that and this not ?
[RazorsKiss] Especially not concerning an event central to further himself.
[RazorsKiss] Take Josephus, for example.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to consider an account of bukhari to be true and the other not ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss now we are talking about our case. let’s not get distracted
[RazorsKiss] On whether it had any self-interest involved.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to consider an account of bukhari to be true and the other not ?
[RazorsKiss] If you read the account, it’s very straight-forward.
[beyinsiz] answer the question please
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss according to what ?
[RazorsKiss] one more, and it’s my turn.
[beyinsiz] straight forward what ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s a very bare-bones, to the facts account.
[RazorsKiss] uthman wanted the texts, he got them, the rest were burned.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to judge a buhkhari narration to be straight forward to be true and in others parts that he failed ?
[RazorsKiss] all done.
[RazorsKiss] this is your last question – gimme a sec
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok but there are other narrations which are straight forwardly testifying the prophet’s validity and so others ?
[beyinsiz] noooooooooo
[beyinsiz] you didn’t answer it. You PROLONGED IT
* RazorsKiss rolls his eyes
[beyinsiz] still you remained a question unreplied because that’s the last station we may arrive !
[RazorsKiss] I judge the bukhari narration to be true in this instance, because there is no self-interest involved in the account.
[RazorsKiss] I do not care, concerning miracles of mohammed, because it’s a non-issue.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss what self interest could he seek with miracles ?
[RazorsKiss] Your turn, when I get back 😀
[beyinsiz] not it’s such a great issue to determine the scale of accepting a norm in analyzing the data
[RazorsKiss] I said last question, and I meant it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss we will not skip it
[RazorsKiss] You’ve had a good 15 minutes of cross-ex.
[RazorsKiss] My turn – but I want a break for a minute.
[beyinsiz] no you didn’t answer the question you only made another suspicious answer :=)
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss no way man. you lied
[beyinsiz] you are not answering it
[RazorsKiss] then be suspicious all you want.
[RazorsKiss] I don’t care.
[Bonz] beyinsiz Quran was revised many times
[Bonz],4273,4048586,00.html QURAN NOT GIVEN TO MUHAMMED
[Bonz] But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
[RazorsKiss] bbiam.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it’s not a suspicion of skepticism. It’s your not FULLY responsing kind of manner and logic
[beyinsiz] you never answer the question fully. How do you know that bukhari was seeking self interest or not ? Is it your beliefs and not the facts ?
[beyinsiz] because you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz It is fact and his belief. All of them were liars or insane
[beyinsiz] Bonz and why the other is not a fact or belief since the judgement is based on the narrator’s id ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you screwed up both in terms of your FAITH AND FACT KNOWING
[beyinsiz] you are in a worse trouble man than when you set out to prove
[beyinsiz] you never answer the question fully. How do you know that bukhari was seeking self interest or not ? Is it your beliefs and not the facts ?
[RazorsKiss] you had your say.
[RazorsKiss] My turn.
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[RazorsKiss] I started out with the topic of the Quran contradicting the Scriptures.
[beyinsiz] no answer this because you didn’T fully respond. this is childhish sophistry
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[RazorsKiss] You went off on the “one quranic text” rabbit trail.
[RazorsKiss] I refuted it – you grilled me in return.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss and what did you go off with ?
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[beyinsiz] Your ground of knowledge collapsed
[RazorsKiss] So, back to the original question.
[beyinsiz] the original question was How did you know that
[beyinsiz] and we came to this point and now you evade
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss No I am not skipping that until you finally answer my question
[RazorsKiss] Then you’ll be waiting a while.
[beyinsiz] how come your beliefs must be assumed as historical events objectively , please answer
[RazorsKiss] you asked, I answered.
[RazorsKiss] If you don’t like it, that’s not my problem.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss no you didn’t answer that. you said “I believe that” I say then how come your beliefs are just to be considered as historical events
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[beyinsiz] I will not answer unless you give this a full response
[RazorsKiss] then I suppose you won’t answer.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you can only suppose that you failed to answer the first question I asked
[beyinsiz] I am only doing this to make you seem worse
[RazorsKiss] You may be in the habit of directing every single conversation you have, but I am not in the habit of letting someone else control entire conversations.
[beyinsiz] so that perhaps you will regard to re think what you have done. That will be a good lesson for you
* Delano chuckles
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU are the one who is evading. Your pretend is not working
[Delano] So it’s a power struggle :op
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I never did that at all. each time I asked the question you altered the topic to something else.
* Colin^ giggles at the dualing egos
[beyinsiz] you consciously prolonged it and now you evade
[organicwrk] That does it. I’m pulling the car over.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz Why are you AFRAID to answer RazorsKiss ?
[beyinsiz] you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s because he knows his prophet was ignorant of the NT.
[beyinsiz] what kind of faith and fact appreciation is that ?
[RazorsKiss] not to mention of the Hebrew OT.
[beyinsiz] because you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] answer the question dont flee
[beyinsiz] you are fleeing from it
[beyinsiz] because you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s not ego, by the by.
[RazorsKiss] This is called “scattershot apologetics”
[beyinsiz] razor then why do you consider your own person beliefs that they must be regarded as historical facts ? Must I believe the way you do to understand the truth ?
[RazorsKiss] Throw as many objections as humanly possible at your opponent, and try to find one, by volume or ignorance, he cannot answer.
[deja_vu] beyonisz is using ‘apologist techniques’ to beat back Razorskiss
[RazorsKiss] Actually, it’s just being rude.
[RazorsKiss] Unfortunately, some people consider that an apologetic.
[beyinsiz] If that’s the case then why do you find it worth to ask a question since it’s all up to beliefs ? not logic ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz HE DID NOT SAY IT IS TRUE.
[beyinsiz] yes he did say it true. Bonz
[beyinsiz] he said uthman burnt it
[beyinsiz] I said how
[beyinsiz] he said bukhari reported it
[beyinsiz] I said do you believe him
[beyinsiz] he kept not answering for like 5 minutes or something
[beyinsiz] then he said the prophet was a fake
[beyinsiz] I said then how come do you believe in his narrator
[Bonz] It doesn’t mater if him. All he has to do is QUOTE him
[beyinsiz] he then waited a bit and said this one is ok . then I said why not the other, the one on his validity etc ?
[RazorsKiss] Actually, you asked if I thought the prophet was true.
[Bonz] It does not matter if he believes him
[RazorsKiss] Which had nothing to do with Bukhari.
[beyinsiz] he said it may have that he could show miracles giving some account for that . then I questioned his probability comment on that he didn’t answer as to his double standart
[RazorsKiss] But, regardless, I’m getting off the objection-go-round until you answer a question.
[beyinsiz] and then I asked him how did he know that he said this to be true ? he said HE BELIEVES SO
[Bonz] beyinsiz So YOU avoided the issue. “then I said why not the other, the one on his validity etc ?”
[RazorsKiss] I went 15-20 minutes fielding objections.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, beyinsiz can’t seem to answer one. Very telling for the truth of Islam, isn’t it?
[beyinsiz] then I said how come his beliefs could be facts objectively to be taken true ? no you fielded nothing more complicated than what I summarized.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU do not get to ask HIM questions. You have to ANSWER one
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you couldn’t even answer one question. you try to get rid of it
[RazorsKiss] all he’s done is ask questions.
[RazorsKiss] All I’ve done is answer them.
[beyinsiz] no you couldn’t
[RazorsKiss] Well… I’ve tried to ask them 😀
[Bonz] beyinsiz You have CONSTANTLY asked questions, ad NEVER said anything
[RazorsKiss] But someone isn’t answering.
[RazorsKiss] Perhaps because they can’t, without self-refutation?
[beyinsiz] you tried well I am sorry but it didn’t work. Not my fault. You ended up saying your beliefs are the truths as historical facts
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[Bonz] beyinsiz He doesn’t HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[RazorsKiss] to show your truth claims for what they are – self-refuting.
[beyinsiz] you tried well I am sorry but it didn’t work. Not my fault. You ended up saying your beliefs are the truths as historical facts
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[RazorsKiss] sheer volume doesn’t show truthfulness.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss if that’s all up to the belief to prove some point as fact will you regard some claim that you are pumpkin because they believe ?
[RazorsKiss] Neither does the volume of objections.
[RazorsKiss] The failure to answer a question – from your own text – speaks volumes in itself.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss according your own view of epistemology, if some other person believes that you are a bulky pumpkin he has all the right and it is as an historical fact. that’s where you end up
[RazorsKiss] Unless you’re prepared to answer?
* RazorsKiss will answer for beyinsiz, in that case.
[Bonz] beyinsiz You have nothing other than belief. Why is his standard higher?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would I answer ? you defined true knowledge on the basis of faith as it PROVES THE HISTORICAL FACT.
[beyinsiz] Why would you regard my questions as worthy when they are not YOUR BELIEFS ?
[beyinsiz] whyyyyyyyyyyyyy
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz cannot escape the fact that Islam is grounded in ignorance.
[Bonz] beyinsiz All religions do that. Islam included
[beyinsiz] razor well you’re groundless to say that. that’s for sure
[beyinsiz] you are embarrassed.
[RazorsKiss] Islam points their followers toward the scriptures of Christians and the Jews – yet contradicts them throughout the Quran.
[beyinsiz] you made such a big mistake and you even know dont where exactly you stand
[RazorsKiss] Which shows, quite clearly, that Mohammed was not only not a prophet, but not even knowledgeable of what he spoke of.
[beyinsiz] because youur reliance on a historical fact as YOU ADMIT is not beyond a “belief”
[RazorsKiss] Further, it shows that Mohammed did not consider the Scriptures to be corrupted.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, modern islam claims the opposite.
[RazorsKiss] Mohammed pointed to the Scriptures as the words of God.
[RazorsKiss] Modern islam points to the scriptures, and says “corrupted”.
[RazorsKiss] This is demonstrably false, given that we have many, many, MANY manuscipt copies FAR predating Mohammed.
[RazorsKiss] that say exactly what we can read today.
[RazorsKiss] Thus, Mohammed was pointing to a book that was in the same form as we see it now – and calling it God’s.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, his followers contradict him, and us.
[RazorsKiss] That’s why beyinsiz won’t answer the question.
[RazorsKiss] He can’t.
[RazorsKiss] It shows the bankruptcy at the heart of Islam.
[RazorsKiss] The demonstrable lie that is Islam, and the demonstrable lie that Mohammed is a prophet of any sort – let alone a prophet of God.
* RazorsKiss gives beyinsiz the floor back. All yours, man. But remember – Christ can save, and save perfectly.
[RazorsKiss] God bless.

For further references:

Mohamed Did Not Believe that the Old Testament was Corrupt
Quran 101: The Uthmanic Revision
An Interesting Conversation
Ibn Masud’s Death and the text of the Quran

Once upon a time, in a wild little channel called #Scripture, a group of atheists sat there and mocked. For hours. Here’s how it went, including the title story, at the end.

[avalanch_] one does not deal with the irrational undesireables by taking them seriously and trying to argue with them. they refuse to listen to reason afterall.
[avalanch_] thus, much as we ridicule neo-nazi’s, so too must we ridicule theists.
[avalanch_] i can not help being superior.
[glk] Jesus stories do not sound like historical data. All gods are based on faith.
[ridge_`] avalanch_: in the end, it’s the most effective means of dispelling myths.
[avalanch_] ridge: i agree. the more we ridicule theism, the more the smart people will realize theism just isn’t cool and respect-worthy
[RazorsKiss] Prv9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. (NAS)
[glk] Feel free to correct my facts
[RazorsKiss] avalanch_: the more you show disdain, the more you show condescension, the more it’s apparent what the fruit of your worldview is.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: do you not disdain criminals? do you not disdain the intolerant? the bigoted? have you no disdain for those that are simply less than you?
[avalanch_] no single religion has ever included more than 50% of humans.
[RazorsKiss] Who are the criminals? Who are the intolerant? Who are the bigoted? Who consider others less than themselves?
[RazorsKiss] Those who are consumed by overweening pride.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so, you have no disdain for pedophiles and rapists?
[RazorsKiss] Thus, we can see the fruit of your worldview.
[RazorsKiss] pedophiles and rapists have a disdain for their victims.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: and yet you have no disdain for them?
[RazorsKiss] I’m no better than they are.
[RazorsKiss] Neither are you.
[RazorsKiss] The true problem is that you think you are.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: ofcourse you’re better than they are. as am i. we are not all created equal, no matter what you might think.
[RazorsKiss] I don’t think we were. I think we’re all equally sinful by nature, however.
[glk] I never sin. Sin is violations of a religion rule. I have no religion or god.
[RazorsKiss] And what you disdain, I consider equally created in the image of God, if not identical in giftedness.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so, god created pedophiles? and this is a god you WORSHOP? what is WRONG with you?
[RazorsKiss] No, God created humans.
[RazorsKiss] Humans sin.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: we have no evidence of that whatsoever.
[RazorsKiss] So you’ll assume, yes.
[RazorsKiss] Some sin sexually, some sin intellectually.
[avalanch_] yet all are created equally by your god apparantly
[glk] I never sin. Sin is violations of a religion rule. I have no religion or god.
[RazorsKiss] We are created as humans, yes – and all humans have the image of God in their ability to think, and to act.
[glk] I was born, not created by any gods
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so now *god* is a pedophile?
[glk] Gods are not detected. People invent gods and write holy books.
[glk] There was no Adam, Eve, original sin, talking snake, magic trees, Fall or world flood. Genesis is mythology.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: i’m sorry, i just can not believe in a god that allows such people to exist
[glk] There was no 6 day creation or Noah Flood. Genesis is mythology.
[RazorsKiss] Is equivocation your usual debate tactic?
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Or do you just do that when you lack an argument?
[RazorsKiss] Fallacies don’t become the eminently superior, do they?
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: i think the fact that evil exists in the world is reason enough not to worship god.
[avalanch_] this is hardly a fallacy
[glk] I detect none of the gods, Allah to Zeus.
[RazorsKiss] I think that argument by equivocation is hardly a sound argument.
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Let’s set up your argument as propositions, shall we?
[avalanch_] let’s not.
[RazorsKiss] 1. God created men.
[RazorsKiss] 2. Some men are pedophiles.
[RazorsKiss] 3. God is a pedophile.
Is this a sound argument, avalanch_?
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Or is that a rampant equivocation?
[glk] There is no evidence for a Noah flood
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: 1. god supposedly created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, 2. some men are rapists.
[glk] No water exists to flood the earth
[RazorsKiss] Define image.
[avalanch_] no, *you* define it. you’re the one who believes it.
[RazorsKiss] Why, you’re the one using it in an argument.
[RazorsKiss] Shouldn’t you be able to define what you’re attacking?
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: nope.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: you’re the one that made the claim god created us in his image. not me.
[glk] No science or history reference agrees with your stories.
[RazorsKiss] Well, I thought you were interested in a rational discussion – it seems I was mistaken.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: rational? with someone like you? surely you jest.
[RazorsKiss] Given that your first attempt at a “rational” argument was a demonstrable fallacy, I really find the accusation amusing.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: what on earth makes you think i was trying to hold a rational debate with you? you deserve nothing but my ridicule.
[glk] Gods do nothing
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: if i was trying to hold a rational debate, i certainly wouldn’t do it here.
[RazorsKiss] heh.
[RazorsKiss] then come over to #apologetics.
[avalanch_] i’d rather not. they’re as irrational over there as they are here.
[glk] I am old and very wise.
[RazorsKiss] oh… so what you’re saying is, you assume irrationality a priori.
[RazorsKiss] Right, well. That’s certainly… rational.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: anyone who believes in a magic skydaddy can’t possibly be very rational on the subject.
[ridge_`] avalanch_: again, ridicule debate works best. Do not stray from the system.
[RazorsKiss] yes, that’s certainly showing the massive depth and weight of your argumentation 😀
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: again, you are under the mistaken impression that i’m trying to hold a rational debate here.
[RazorsKiss] create a strawman… call it names… then dismiss it.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: don’t project.
[avalanch_] ridge: i concur.
[avalanch_] ridge: unfortunately they seem to mistake my mockery for attempts at rational arguments.
[avalanch_] ridge: which only serves to further heighten my amusement at ridiculing them
[RazorsKiss] or, perhaps, it’s all you’re capable of?
[ridge_`] You expect too much.
[avalanch_] ridge: well i do have standards.
[RazorsKiss] We could turn it around.
[RazorsKiss] Let’s say there’s a group that believe in random uniformity.
[RazorsKiss] That everything random is random in a uniform manner.
[RazorsKiss] Always random, just the same.
[RazorsKiss] These folks all assume that everything happens the same way.
[RazorsKiss] But that it all happens randomly, of course.
[RazorsKiss] And that this uniform randomness somehow gave rise to order.
[RazorsKiss] This uniform randomness is governed by something called entropy.
[RazorsKiss] This entropy ensures that things stay orderly.
[RazorsKiss] Because, after all, there has to be a reason for a magic boom.
[RazorsKiss] That magic boom created something from nothing!
[RazorsKiss] The nothing, which became something, had no reason for being something.
[RazorsKiss] But, because it was something, it couldn’t reasonably just stay nothing.
[RazorsKiss] It had to expand.
[RazorsKiss] In an orderly fashion, of course.
[RazorsKiss] Because entropy said so.
[RazorsKiss] This entropic order which expanded the nothingness into something, with it’s random uniformity, decided, in a randomly uniform whim, to start becoming things.
[RazorsKiss] Those things were obeying laws.
[RazorsKiss] Those laws are immaterial things with no origin, and no reason, that mysteriously ignore quite seriously, any attempt at reason.
[glk] The laws came from the big bang
[RazorsKiss] It’s quite a mystery, in a completely rational universe.
[RazorsKiss] Of course, this rationality has no origin, and it governs everything – sensibly, of course.
[RazorsKiss] For no reason, with eminently reasonable guidelines.
[RazorsKiss] Now, all of this something, which came from nothing, and is orderly in it’s obedience to entropy
[RazorsKiss] In it’s eminent reasonableness, decided to become orderly matter – which random caromed around the universe.
[glk] Laws made the order, like electricity and gravity
[glk] Solar systems for naturally
[RazorsKiss] Sure, glk – it’s lawfully obeying entropy in an orderly fashion.
[RazorsKiss] Everyone knows that, after all.
[RazorsKiss] They teach it in schools!
[RazorsKiss] So, anyway, where was I?
[RazorsKiss] Oh, yes. Orderly matter.
[RazorsKiss] Blindly obeying the random laws of nothing in particular, for no reason whatsoever.
[glk] You obey the blind laws of nature
[RazorsKiss] Right.
[RazorsKiss] So. This matter spends a long time – which is our new hero!
[RazorsKiss] And this time doesn’t obey random chance. oh, no.
[RazorsKiss] It has a goal! Entropy set it into motion, and it’s function is to overcome the evil forces of entropy
[RazorsKiss] Doesn’t that make it all better?
[RazorsKiss] So, our hero, time, spends… billions of years. Doing not a whole lot.
[RazorsKiss] Just blindly ticking.
[glk] The earth is 4.57 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
[RazorsKiss] Watching atoms spin around.
[RazorsKiss] It’s great fun.
[RazorsKiss] If time could have fun, and was anything but a deus ex machina.
[RazorsKiss] But, all assumptions have a deus ex machina – and time is ours!
[RazorsKiss] So, time does all sorts of incalculable things over countless eons…
[RazorsKiss] (because, duh – there was no one to count them?)
[RazorsKiss] And then we magically have a planet, built completely out of popsicle sticks and paper mache.
[avalanch_] i don’t think you understand how gravity works.
[glk] Over 300 other planets are observed
[RazorsKiss] And a big fireball, formed out of time’s massive boredom.
[avalanch_] but that’s okay. you’re oberying it anyway
[RazorsKiss] But then time realized that was all a dumb idea
[RazorsKiss] And went back to the original mindless plan
[RazorsKiss] Of spending forever, waiting for something to happen
[RazorsKiss] Well, all sorts of things happened, as far as is assumed – because noone was there to observe it
[RazorsKiss] And then there was a planet – and it was all due to chance and time.
but chance wasn’t really the hero. Time was.
[avalanch_] no, it was thanks to gravity actually
[glk] They can look back in time close to the big bang
[RazorsKiss] yeah, I guess all of those immaterial, and inexplicable magic laws had a bit to do with it.
[avalanch_] how did god? same fricking problem
[RazorsKiss] But we can’t go spoiling time’s heroic epic, can we?
[glk] it was the origin of space time matter and energy
[RazorsKiss] This is about TIME!
[RazorsKiss] Not about some silly laws that have no explanation from a naturalistic perspective!
[glk] The origin of the big bang is unknown
[RazorsKiss] We can’t go yammering on about some bunch of laws that just exist, can we?
[avalanch_] glk: m-model dude. M MODEL!
[avalanch_] ofcourse we can
[RazorsKiss] And the magic explosion is NOT CRITICAL
[RazorsKiss] Time, as everyone knows, is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of it all.
[avalanch_] it’s not an explosion.
[RazorsKiss] Don’t interrupt me, I’m mocking.
[avalanch_] *that* is mocking?
[RazorsKiss]Are you seriously expecting this to be a rational debate?
[avalanch_] don’t be preposterous.
[RazorsKiss] I can’t believe you could be so stupid as to think this was all about you.
[RazorsKiss] I mean really.
[RazorsKiss] Does the world revolve around you?
[RazorsKiss] Are you some sort of flat-earther? get real. I’m mocking here.
[RazorsKiss] Don’t confuse yourself – people are trying to mock.
[RazorsKiss] And mocking is key to the success of your time here.
[RazorsKiss] Remember that – it’s critical.
[RazorsKiss] So, anyway.
[RazorsKiss] The heroic time, and his bumbling, blinded sidekick, random chance
go reeling through history, screwing everything up, according to entropy’s orders
[RazorsKiss] And, automagically – because we assume this a priori – we couldn’t be telling this story otherwise, could we?
[RazorsKiss] Some rocks turn into magical pre-life amino acids
[RazorsKiss] It’s quite a loving sight
[glk] That is part of the mystery
[avalanch_] i wouldn’t call them magical.
[glk] Amino acids form naturally
[RazorsKiss] The heroes watching the mysterious, magical amino acids… gurgling
[RazorsKiss] Just… doing whatever magical things amino acids do.
[glk] Carbon meteorites contain amino acids
[RazorsKiss] And then, after about a billion years of staring
[RazorsKiss] They’re living organisms!
[ridge_`] We should have the science and knowledge NOW, what we’ll have in 200 yrs from now, if not for that blasted magic stratosphere man.
[RazorsKiss] It’s really an unremarkable thing, because, after all, no one’s around to remark
and no one will care for a billion or two more years
[avalanch_] ridge: hell, if the ancient greek civilization had continued, we could have been living on mars for centuries now
[RazorsKiss] Not that caring has any possible significance, even to modern descendants of those amino acids
[RazorsKiss] But, we digress!
[ridge_`] Time to crush this thing once and for all. But HOW?
[avalanch_] ridge: nanophage
[ridge_`] Facts do no good.
[RazorsKiss] And time, being a bit of a patient type, keeps enduring random chance’s bumbling lack of progress
[avalanch_] ridge: i’m telling you, nanophage. just a little mass genocide.
[RazorsKiss] But, entropy, with it’s constant need to tear things down
[RazorsKiss] Manages to form complex living creatures
[RazorsKiss] And random chance is mighty put out.
[RazorsKiss] Let me tell ya. he was still enjoying watching the amino acids, and now he has to try to screw something ELSE up.
[RazorsKiss] Entropy was seriously falling down on the job, you know?
[RazorsKiss] And random chance just wasn’t going to take this lying down.
[glk] The Stanley-Miller experiment produced amino acids from simple gas mixtures
[RazorsKiss] All of this added complexity just wasn’t working for him.
[RazorsKiss] See, it made more work for random chance
[RazorsKiss] And who wants more work?
[RazorsKiss] But time was inexorable
[RazorsKiss] You know him – he stops for no… complex organism
[RazorsKiss] I think I’ll stop story time for now – tune in next time for “random chance: multiplied unimaginably, and still unable to stop unlikely mutation!”
~The End

John Loftus recently got his second youtube video debunked on the Dividing Line, on 6/12. Ironic, considering the title of his blog.

His response leaves me scratching my head. First, the fact that he responds to practically nothing that Dr. White had to say about his video. Secondly, that he still shows an obvious lack of understanding of where he errs in his understanding of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and doesn’t address any of it, in his response. Third, that he believes he is so important that Dr. White would remember mentioning him in passing, in a single blog post, over 2 years ago – in error, in fact, because the post he was commenting on was not even written by Mr. Loftus. Additionally, he mentions Mr. Loftus’ blog in a comment concerning one of the other posters, shortly thereafter.

He begins (after a short one sentence summary of Dr. White’s discussion of his video) with this statement.

Let me ask White if he knows his own theology.

I wonder. Is Mr. Loftus aware that Dr. White wrote a book called “The Forgotten Trinity”, as his Th.M Thesis? I have this book on my shelf, actually. Further, I truly wonder if Mr. Loftus is aware that Dr. White has formally debated on The Trinity specifically, and twice on the deity of Christ? Not to mention his lecture(s) on the subject, which can easily be obtained from his website.

Along with his obvious ignorance of basic creedal statements concerning the Trinity, his choice of “Christian” examples is also quite illuminating. Swinburne? His explanation of the Trinity is decidedly non-orthodox. Why is he trying to pass him off as mainstream in any way, shape or form? Especially considering that Swinburne is Eastern Orthodox by affiliation, and Loftus is replying to a Calvinist! Swinburne goes so far as to say: “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods”. This is directly contrary to any orthodox creed of any sort!

But let me explain what I said. Let’s see if I’m as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.

At this point, it may be useful to actually explore an orthodox explanation of the Trinity.

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith.
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

~ Tha Athanasian Creed

Swinburne is not orthodox, of course. Loftus isn’t even in the same time zone with orthodoxy, according to his explanation of his knowledge of the Trinity. This, from a man who graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! Did he not listen, I wonder? I really cannot imagine that he never heard an explanation of the Trinity from Dr. Craig, who he so often mentions as his mentor, of some sort. He also claims to have taught philosophy and apologetics. He did this, without even a basic understanding of what the Trinity is?

Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves.

That’s all very nice – but Swinburne, when he says that God is 3 Gods, has, at that point, nothing to do with Nicene theology. Period. He certainly cannot profess the Athanasian creed, that we saw above. So, why is Loftus even mentioning this man? Two words. Red Herring.

Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity.

There’s so much wrong with Swinburne at this point, that I’m really confessing – why are we even discussing Swinburne, as if he is relevant to Christianity? I’m sorry, but heresy on this basic level does not have any place in Christianity. Once again, why did he bring him up? Red Herring, perhaps? Distract, by showing us a heretical view, that obviously has nothing to do with orthodoxy, then slip in the punch line, after a bit of time.

I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning.

Ah, there we go. Ok, so – he admits, finally, that Swinburne has nothing to do with a Biblical account of the Trinity. I’m still failing to see it’s relevance – and especially in the light of the fact that he has yet to shed any light on Dr. White’s supposed ignorance on the topic. His conception is, indeed, fantastical, and bears no relation to Biblical teaching on the nature and essence of God. So, notwithstanding the bolded claim above – does he, in fact, understand the single orthodox understanding of the Trinity?

The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.

Of course not. This is GOD.

So, what is the logical next step? Perhaps, present the correct view of the Trinity? Nope.

Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God.

We go, once again, to a claim of universal orthodoxy by some.. wacky ideas. Barthian Neo-orthodoxy, being championed as actual orthodoxy? Why? Because we can score points that way. That’s why.

Barthian/EO ideas about Trinity are exceedingly laughable, considering that Barth was a rank heretic, and the mysticism of the EO church can hide any sort of wanton heresy, if it is explained as a “mystery”. Tell me I’m wrong. Does Mr. Loftus really think he’s fooling us? I’m quite sure he can fool people who want any reason to believe Christianity is false – but it may be helpful to listen to Christianity’s self-definitions, before he runs too far ahead of himself.

Now, his basic misunderstandings in the video Dr. White examined are rather incredible. No less incredible is his willingness to trot out obvious trinitarian heresies. Why does he do this? I’m purely baffled by his statements on this issue. I’m forced to concede that he is either incredibly ignorant of orthodoxy concerning the trinity, unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as validly Christian, or purely dishonest. Given his continual harping on his experience under William Lane Craig, we are left with little recourse than to say that it is more likely that he is being dishonest. Let me explain why.

If he studied under Craig, he would know what an orthodox construction of the Trinity is, and not the garbled hash he presented to his video audience. Thus, as he is deliberately misrepresenting the orthodox trinitarian position, he is being grossly dishonest, purely for points. This is further demonstrated by his list of qualifications, including claims that he has taught apologetics, philosophy, and theology.

If he is ignorant, it is despite all of this theological training, personal mentorship, and personal experience as a pastor. Despite his mentorship by William Lane Craig. What this suggests is these possibilities:
1. He was deliberately hardened, and did not understand what he was taught for that reason.
2. He just didn’t pay attention in class.
3. He is suppressing the truth, in unrighteousness, and doesn’t realize what he is doing.

Perhaps all 3. Regardless, this is not what he was taught, given where he went to school, and who he was taught by. So, it has to be an endemic ignorance!

If he is unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as valid, I’m forced to wonder why he continually refers to historic creeds and the like. We aren’t talking about something arcane, or something Christians disagree about. This is something that is definitional to Christianity, not something that is a take it or leave it. If someone does not confess the Trinity, they are not Christian. Point-blank, period. So, why then, are we even trying to state that people who deny the Trinity are even relevant to any discussion of Christianity? Orthodoxy concerning the Trinity is foundational, not optional. So, when we are speaking of Anti-social Trinitarianism, or Social Trinitarianism, why are we even pretending that this is relevant to orthodoxy? If we are ignoring orthodoxy, and only discussing modernist neo-orthodoxy – why are we even pretending to talk about Christianity? Does he understand that such neo-orthodoxy has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity? Perhaps we’re once again intruding into ignorance – the previous explanation.

Let Christians define Christianity. Further, let the Bible define Christianity. Not John Loftus. Especially since John Loftus cannot correctly define the Trinity.

“Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).”

Why do we have no mention of orthodox Trinitarianism? Does he know what it is? Not according to his video explanation!

“Each person is not to be considered God, only the whole”. Really? Let’s back up to the Athanasian creed.

“Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.”

So: Not only are each of the persons God – but, the whole is also God. Does Mr. Loftus know the orthodox explanation for this? He doesn’t seem to.

Dr. White certainly gives that explanation, to follow. Does Mr. Loftus interact with this correction? Not in the slightest. Instead, he goes into Social/Anti-Social trinitarianism. What does this have to do with orthodoxy? These two beliefs are not orthodox. In fact, Mr. Loftus’ understanding is far from orthodox. Has he ever read the Athanasian creed? The Nicene? It’s not apparent from his statement!

SOME Christians? I agree with Dr. White. This is definitional. You can’t deny the Trinity’s self-existence from eternity, and call yourself Christian.

Notwithstanding the mispronunciation of “Occam”, he behaves as if the very concept of “uncaused eternality” is an idea that has never had an argument advanced for it, throughout history. Not only that, his argument is a simple argument from incredulity. Last I checked, that was a simple fallacy. Further, he acts as if the concept of an uncreated God, let alone the two-millenia old doctrine of God, concerning the Trinity, is something new and “incredible”. However, as Dr. White points out – there is no definition of “person” made by Mr. Loftus in his discussion of God. What I find interesting is his assertion, in the comments of his blog reply, that Dr. White “(u)sing words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.” Is that so? Tell us, Mr. Loftus. Whose video was he critiquing, and how did the subject come up? Dr. White is a published author on the doctrine of the Trinity. His discussion of common misconceptions of the word “person”, when applied to God, can be found on page 25-26.

“Words often carry with them ‘baggage’ that has become attached to the meaning of a word. The way we use the word may cause us to conjure up particular mental images every time we hear it. The most glaring example of this is the word ‘person,’ a word that is often used when discussing the Trinity. When we use the word ‘person,’ we attach to it all sorts of ‘baggage’ that comes from our own personal experiences. We think of a physical body, an individual, separate from everyone else. We think of a spatial location, physical attributes like height, weight, age—all things associated with our common use of the word ‘person.’ When we use this word to describe a divine person (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), we tend to drag along with it the ‘baggage’ that comes from our common use of the term in everyday life. Many people, upon hearing the word ‘person’ used of the Father, for example, conjure up an image of a kind of old grandfatherly figure who is the ‘person’ of the Father. He’s separate, different, limited—everything we think of when we think of the term ‘person.’ It will be our task (and it is a difficult one!) to labor to separate such ‘baggage’ from our thinking and use such terms in very specific, limited ways so as to avoid unneeded confusion.”

I really think Mr. Loftus is the one laboring under a misconception, here. It is not Dr. White who misunderstands the doctrien of the Trinity. It is Mr. Loftus. Further, he is the one who has begun to delve into a discussion on the topic without any definition of terms, or exploration of the topic in historic orthodoxy. You would imagine he had received this training in the past – I myself have studied this doctrine, to some extent, as have most orthodox Christians. Not all understand it completely, but what they do understand MUST be orthodox. To worship God in Spirit, and in TRUTH, you must have a proper conception of what you worship.

Let’s delve into Dr. White’s definition of terms, concerning the Trinity. (pg. 26ff)

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

First, the doctrine rests completely on the truth of the first clause: there is only one God. “The one Being that is God” carries within it a tremendous amount of information. It not only asserts that there is only one God – the historic belief, shared by Christians and Jews known as monotheism– but it also insists that God’s “Being” (capitalized so as to contrast it with the term “persons” found in the next clause) is one unique, undivided, indivisible.

Second, the definition insists that there are three divine persons. Note immediately that we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. I emphasize this because, most often, this is the misrepresentation of the doctrine that is commonly found in the literature of various religions that deny the Trinity. The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine beings. As I warned before, we must not succumb to the temptation to read the term “person” as if we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings. What “person” means when we speak of the Trinity is quite different than when we speak of creatures such as ourselves. These divine persons are identified in the last clause as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, we are told that the relationship among these divine persons is eternal. They have eternally existed in this unique relationship. Each of the persons is said to be eternal, each is said to be coequal with the others as to their divine nature. Each fully shares one Being that is God. The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son 1/3 of God, the Spirit 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally. There was never a time when the Father was not the Father; never a tiem when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit. Their relationship is eternal, not in the sense of having been for a long time, but existing, in fact, outside the realm of time itself.

The three foundations of the Trinity, then, are already clearly visible. Here they are:

Foundation One: Monotheism: There is Only One God
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons
Foundation Three: The Persons are Coequal and Eternal

That’s in Chapter 2: What Is The Trinity?

In Chapter 11, we find: Three Persons. I won’t go into a detailed quote from this chapter – but He discusses all of the individual characteristics of these three persons, in detail.

In Chapter 12: A Closer Look, Dr. White lists Louis Berkhof’s definition, from his Systematic Theology.

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia).
2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the Divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished .
6. The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

After stating this, he goes into further detail, on each one of these points. I would encourage Mr. Loftus to purchase this book, The Forgotten Trinity, study it, and thereby gain an understanding of which he speaks. Dr. White is not confused, as to his theology of God, or on the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is eminently orthodox, very concise, and I am purely baffled at the claim of Mr. Loftus that Dr. White has no understanding of the subject. Again, he is the author of a book explaining the subject – and he does so in an extremely concise and understandable manner, that no orthodox Christian will have any problem in endorsing. it is, in fact, endorsed by Norman Geisler (an opponent of long standing concerning other issues), Dr. J.I. Packer (a theologian who has much experience writing about the Doctrine of God), Dr. Gleason Archer, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa (a Catholic debate opponent), Kerry D. McRoberts, and Dr. John MacArthur. This is no novice, and the book is entirely sound in doctrine.

What possible grounds does Mr. Loftus have for his skepticism concerning Dr. White’s understanding of the subject?

…that’s one of the reasons I asked White if he understands what he believes. Using words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.

See, that’s the thing. Dr. White is speaking from the perspective of a published author, with a very extensive body of work outside of that, as well. Plus, it’s work in the very subject Mr. Loftus is accusing him of ignorance in. If Mr. Loftus, as is apparently the case, is ignorant of Dr. White’s extensive treatment of the subject, I’m hard-pressed to be sympathetic about his own complete misunderstanding of the subject he is addressing.

I’m with Dr. White. What does “eternally created” even mean? Just a basic overview of the Nicene or Athanasian creeds will disabuse you of that notion. Further – I’ll return once again to his claim that Dr. White “failed to define terms”. Does he not understand that Dr. White is critiquing HIS video? Is it that difficult to see that his own failure to define any sort of terms is the source of most of his confusion?

The single greatest reason people struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity is miscommunication. It is very rare that anyone actually argues or debates about the real doctrine of the Trinity. Most arguments that take place at the door, or over coffee, or at the workplace involve two or more people fighting vigorously over two or more misrepresentations of the doctrine itself. it is basic to human communication to define terms. Yet so many people have so much emotional energy invested in the Trinity that they often skip right past the “definitions” stage and charge into the “tooth and claw” stage.

When it comes to the central affirmation of the triune nature of God, most of the time we leap right past the “formalities” and directly into a tug-of-war with passages of Scripture. The result is almost always the same: both sides go away thinking the other side is utterly blind. Such frustrating experiences could be minimized if we remember that we cannot assume that the other person shares our knowledge or understanding of the specifics of the doctrine under discussion.

~ The Forgotten Trinity, pgs 23-24

I would submit that perhaps Mr. Loftus’ knowledge of the doctrine in question is not as complete as he’d like to think.

“Massive confusion”, indeed. Created?

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Remember that, from above?

See, here’s where Mr. Loftus gets a bit annoyed. Dr. White corrected him over several things. I don’t think his usage of the word “logos” was in question. It was the manner of usage. Mr. Loftus says “also known as ‘logos'”. As Dr. White points out – “logos” is only a descriptor. Not a title. The second person of the Trinity is first and foremost, the Son. Perhaps He would be, in a much lesser sense, also known as “logos” – but the choice of this term was strange, in the manner he used it in.

Further, his discussion of the supposed “incoherence” of the Incarnation was… not very convincing or coherent, in it’s own right? I mean, when you post a link to your supposed discussion of the Incarnation, in the blog post that is supposedly an exhortation that your opponent is ignorant of what he HIMSELF believes, and even this is completely ignorant of the orthodox understanding of THAT doctrine, I find it hard to believe any accusations of ignorance against anyone else have any credence whatsoever. At least not from them. Mr. Loftus, despite his claims, has obviously not understood what he was taught.

Now keep in mind that the God-man Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected God-man must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise the human part of the God-man ceased to exist, died, or his was simply discarded. But it can’t be that God would destroy a sinless man, the man Jesus. Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, and this dual natured being is unlike the previous 2nd person of the Trinity.

Now, such a lack of understanding is truly indicative of the level of argumentation he has to offer. Honestly, Dr. White has better things to do than refute this level of… misunderstanding. As he often says, concerning Islam – if you want to show the truthfulness of your own view, it’s helpful to at least make an effort to accurately represent the beliefs of your opponents. If you show no interest in truthfulness concerning their views, you have shown, in essence, that you have no concern with it, ultimately, concerning your own.

Advice I wish Mr. Loftus would take. Especially when his sole claim to fame is that he was taught by the famous William Lane Craig.

This clip shows, very clearly, the depth of Mr. Loftus’ confusion, concerning very fundamental Christian doctrines. When he asks whether Dr. White knows what he believes – I find that odd, considering Mr. Loftus’ demonstrated ignorance throughout this video, and on his blog. A more pertinent question would be:

Does Mr. Loftus have a correct conception of orthodox Christian doctrine? If so, why is he misrepresenting it so badly? If not – what possible justification does he have for his ignorance? There is a very obvious answer to this question, of course.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.} But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Cor 2:12-16

This is the root of the problem. Mr. Loftus, despite his academic training, simply fails to understand even the most fundamental things of theology. Why?

{So} we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

~ Hebrews 3:19

He does not know God, and thus cannot appraise the things of God. He has no recourse, either. God is the only recourse. I will pray that God does His will in this man – but, of course, God changes the man. What the man thinks of God is really irrelevant. I pray that his eyes will be opened. We shall see.

Again, these standards he gives are not related, in the slightest, to orthodox understanding of the relationship of the members of the Trinity. This is his basic problem. Why does he not have it? Once again – no one can know the things of God unless they are spiritually appraised. One again, as Dr. White says – he has had “every possible opportunity to study the doctrine of the Trinity, and understand it”. Why does he not? He can’t.

What saddens me is that he doesn’t completely misunderstand it. He knows the gospel. Unfortunately, it’s just enough of it to condemn him. It’s truly not any sort of ‘glee’ that I feel, when listening to a false believer speaking of the contents of his false profession. It’s just sad, to me.

Once again – using “being” in a way that in no way accords with a Trinitarian description in any orthodox way simply shows your unwillingness to correctly represent your subject.

I could probably finish with more clips from the Dividing Line, but I think we’ve adequately explored Mr. Loftus’ colossal ignorance of what he puzzlingly considers a doctrine that Dr. White is ignorant of. As we can demonstrably show that this is not the case; as we can further show that Mr. Loftus is blindingly confused as to the nature and implications of Trinitarian doctrine; and even further, that Mr. Loftus has absolutely no excuse for being so staggeringly ignorant of what he professes to be educated in – we are left with only sobering conclusions.

Mr. Loftus does not know what he is talking about – because his mind is incapable of it. What do I mean by this?

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

~Romans 1:21

This qualifies as “futile speculation”, does it not? When you do nto understand, there is typically a reason for this. The reason is: God hides it.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from {the} wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal {Him.}

~ Matthew 11:25-27

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…

~ Romans 1:22

Can it really surprise us, when natural men act as they do? That they fail to understand what they fail to understand? It shouldn’t perhaps – but I’m willing to admit that it does surprise me, sometimes.

The wisdom of God is, truly, hidden from those to whom He has not revealed it. It’s hidden in plain sight. The things revealed are even impossible for them to understand as true. How much more so the doctrines approaching the secret things of God? Well, I hope that we can learn something from this. A man given every earthly advantage to learn the truths of God fails miserably, if God Himself is not in it. Folks, this is a sobering lesson for us. Education, opportunity, and even personal mentorship in doctrine are nothing, if God is not in it. Well, may God have mercy on him.

Soli Deo Gloria. Man has not a thing to do with it.

Hosted by: Dreamhost