Saturday, 2 January 2016

After debate: A quick response to Dk-man7

What it says on the tin, this is quick:
"While the overwhelming majority feedback about the debate was that it was informative and we had two great speakers representing their perspectives, there are those who disagree. The blogger who made this debate available (known as Bobo557 or Answering Judaism) and his colleague Keith Thompson made the following comments about the debate and myself:"
You can find the comments here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0uviu5k4ug

Also I have already pointed out bobo557 is not me so I am not going over that again here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/dopplegangers.html

"What baffles me is that Bobo asserts no Christians have called me out to repent of the heresy of Universalism, yet Bobo577 has never personally told me to repent of Universalism, only Chris Claus took up this debate. Rather in the past Bobo has tried to debunk my Biblical case for Universalism on his YouTube channel and on his blog, attempting to make corrections. He has never contacted me personally or publicly told me to repent. What is even more bizarre is that I have challenged Bobo at-least twice in Sam Shamoun's chat forum to have a public debate on whether Universalism is Biblical (this can be confirmed by Jaihabor). However both invitations were ignored by Bobo. However, Dr. Chris Claus at-least took up the challenge and tried to expose me publicly, hence Bobo himself fails his own criterion and fails to realize that Chris Claus is a Christian who fulfills his criterion. Hence not only has Bobo not publicly debated me, he has never called me to repent in private or in public. I will issue the challenge again to Bobo to debate this topic whether in written or audio format. If he is more comfortable with written format, I have no problem dissecting his responses and making it a formal written exchange."

First of all, When it comes to teaching heresy, it is NOT a private matter or going someone privately. You taught universalism publicly, therefore you to be challenged publicly: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/matthew-18-what-does-it-teach-and-other.html.

Second of all, I am only speaking from personal experience with respect to anyone call you out on your universalism or not. I haven't seen anybody call you to repentance nor rebuke you. DrChrisClaus debated you and took up the challenge, That I won't dispute and I won't assume what his attitude is. Looking back, I should have given you an exhortation to repent in the article.

Third, You are correct I am more comfortable to debate in written format. Written debate is fine.

"Keith Thompson asserts God is angry with me, yet I have no idea how he would claim to know this apart from divine revelation, and the Bible no where condemns Universalism (one could argue contradicts, but there is no condemnation), nor is Keith a prophet. Presumably he thinks I am invading the Church and spreading a false heresy, but it not made clear how Trinitarian Universalism is a heresy, unless he is appealing to a late council of which he himself would not accept in totality, nor are either of us obligated to accept all Church councils, so this is neither here nor there."

I won't talk about where Universalism is in the Bible or not here, I have written other papers on this issue. I will say however, Keith is not claiming every council we are obliged to accept EVERY council. It would be beneficial all to read his article(s) on Sola Scriptura so you know what his position is:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/biblical-evidence-for-sola-scriptura.html

"Thompson who quite clearly dislikes me, seems to give the implicit admission that I won this debate since in his final comment he says Chris Claus was ill-equip to handle the Biblical case for the Universalist position since Chris avoided exegeting the passages I had submitted. However while he thinks that Chris failed to address these passages, he himself gives no explanation, or challenge to debate such texts, so presumably Thompson himself doesn't think he can win against me or refute my Biblical case for Universalism."

My thoughts on DrChrisClaus's performance I won't judge yet. An addendum will be added later. Also, Keith was making an observation of the debate and he was sharing his observation. Whether or not he looks at the biblical texts is another time, what ever the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism

Ps. I should have said to Dk man to repent publicly and for failing that I apologise.

Addendum: If Universalism contradicts the Bible, it is false, period, ergo, condemned as false teaching and a false gospel.

Addendum 2:
"Notice that Bobo has said Universalism is a heresy, yet I was not present in the room, when he made these assertions. Nor has Bobo publicly or privately ever said to me: "Dk you need to repent from Universalism" but only tried to show the Bible contradicts the position. Finally I have never taught Universalism in the Jesus or Mohamed room, I have debated Universalism with Chris Claus, but the goal of the room is not Christian/Christian debate. In fact the only time Universalism has ever come up even in other rooms is when it is being contested, not taught. Further more Bobo has never specified whether Universalism is a damnable heresy (putting one outside the faith) or whether it is merely a heresy in the sense of religious error. Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling me to repent, but not Keith Thompson? And why hasn't Bobo explained any of this to me if he is calling me to repent?  "

See my message above about private or public under my signature as well as earlier in the paper, I cover that already.

Firstly, I never claimed you taught Universalism in the Jesus or mohammed room, I said you taught it publically, referring to your website.

I am aware it came up in conversation as being contested not taught whenever it has been brought up

Second, Calvinism and Arminianism are not a salvation issue. I don't use the word heresy lightly, I NEVER even use the word when referring to a non damnable error. Despite disagreements with Keith, I don't believe it is heresy. Keith is my brother in Christ despite our differences. Calvinism and Arminianism are not an issue of salvation. Universalism on the other hand, IS an issue of salvation and one who holds to it is outside the faith.

Universalism IS a damnable heresy in light of what I have written in my papers on it. This is what I said in a previous paper:
"If Universalism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of universalism need to repent and shun it.

The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds." http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/universalism-ancient-heresy.html

So much for claiming I never specified. What Dk man was referring to was a comment I made to Keith on YouTube. If Dk read my papers, he would know how I view Universalism.

Addendum 3:

"After Bobo complained about no Christian calling me to repent, Bobo has now (ironically) conceded he himself was one of these Christians:

"Looking back, I should have given you an exhortation to repent in the article."
And:
"Ps. I should have said to Dk man to repent publicly and for failing that I apologise."
"

Here's the difference, I acknowledge that I should of called you out. I was making an observation that no one challenged you. (Putting aside the obvious debate that occurred)

"Bobo also claims that he specified on his blog that Universalism was a damnable heresy:

Universalism IS a damnable heresy in light of what I have written in my papers on it. This is what I said in a previous paper: 
"If Universalism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of universalism need to repent and shun it. The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds."

So much for claiming I never specified.

Bobo needs to learn to read carefully since in context I wasn't referring to him saying this any where at any stage, rather in the overall context I claimed he didn't inform me:

"Further more Bobo has never specified whether Universalism is a damnable heresy (putting one outside the faith) or whether it is merely a heresy in the sense of religious error. Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling ME to repent, but not Keith Thompson? Andwhy hasn't Bobo explained any of this TO ME if he is calling ME to repent?" 

Hence Bobo failed on two counts. He failed to call me to repentance (while complaining about others for doing the same thing), but further more he failed to inform me the serious nature of my heresy. And obviously I can't be expected to read Bobo's blog and posts unless he informs me they are directed to me or even that he has written such posts!"

I need not repeat what I said earlier. Furthermore, I wrote against Universalism generally speaking in my most recent papers. Since you are bothering to read my responses to you, it might behoove you to check out what I have said about universalism and also, my apologies for the misunderstanding of your statement. Should I have explained, Yes.

If you want my call to repentance, here it is, You doctrine is unibiblical, you are misleading people, repent toward God and repent of your false teaching.

"But what is even more thought provoking is that the very definition that Bobo provided to assert Universalism must be judged as a damnable heresy, actually matches Calvinism aswell. Just substitute the word Universalism for Calvinism:

""If Calvinism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary,then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of calvinism need to repent and shun it. The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds."

The only criterion Bobo specifies is that something is in fact false if it is contrary to Scripture, then it's demonic. Well, Bobo, is Calvinism contrary to Scripture or not? According to Bobo it is, hence it's a doctrine of demons. "

My point in context of the paper is referring to Universalism. I am saying contradicts the Bible, it is a doctrine of demons. That is not the same as something which is a disputable matter such as Calvinism and Arminianism. My statement about Universalism was addressing universalism in the paper.The statement from me in context could be applied to false teaching but not disputable matters.

"But what is rather baffling is that Bobo then asserts Calvinism which he thinks is contrary to Scripture is not actually a damnable heresy!

"Second, Calvinism and Arminianism are not a salvation issue. I don't use the word heresy lightly, I NEVER even use the word when referring to a non damnable error. Despite disagreements with Keith, I don't believe it is heresy. Keith is my brother in Christ despite our differences. Calvinism and Arminianism are not an issue of salvation. Universalism on the other hand, IS an issue of salvation and one who holds to it is outside the faith."

But in the very same breathe Bobo again affirms anything that contradicts the Bible is a false gospel and demonic:

"Addendum: If Universalism contradicts the Bible, it is false, period, ergo, condemned as false teaching and a false gospel."

That's twice! Does limited atonement contradict the Scriptures or not? Does unconditional election contradict the Scriptures or not?

Truly incompetent double standards from a person who has a chip on their shoulder rather than a heart for God's word and his truth. Bobo has no actual explanation as to why one is heresy and one is not other than his own cognitive bias.
"

The addendum was a quick response to one of your comments:
"Keith Thompson asserts God is angry with me, yet I have no idea how he would claim to know this apart from divine revelation, and the Bible no where condemns Universalism (one could argue contradicts, but there is no condemnation), nor is Keith a prophet. Presumably he thinks I am invading the Church and spreading a false heresy, but it not made clear how Trinitarian Universalism is a heresy, unless he is appealing to a late council of which he himself would not accept in totality, nor are either of us obligated to accept all Church councils, so this is neither here nor there."

That was the context of my addendum. it was pointing out that if one argues that universalism contradicts scripture, it results in condemnation.

For your information, I have a concern for what the Bible says and if it doesn't teach something, I have a right to speak out (again referring to heresy and not a disputable matter.) 

Dk man then provides quotations from Matt Slick which you can read here: https://carm.org/can-christian-be-universalist

"The sense in which I affirm that Arminians and Calvinists abide by heresy is in the lesser known sense of religious error. Bobo should take a page from Reverend Matthew Slick
Unlike Bobo, Matt Slick actually gives good justification for why some Universalists cannot be excluded from the Christian faith. As a Trinitarian Universalist, I accept all known orthodox doctrines that are essential and compatible with salvation. Can Bobo show a single passage that says belief in eternal conscious torment is a prerequisite for salvation? If he can't but he insists you can only be saved if you accept all Biblical truth, and nothing that contradicts the Bible, then why are Calvinists "saved" and Universalists "unsaved"? "

Sorry, but I don't share what Matt has said regarding Universalists. I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that all men are saved by Christ. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door.

Addendum 4:
"Bobo added an Addendum 3, however I don't see any answers to either myself or Matt Slick, but rather insistent begging the question (assuming one is disputable and one is false teaching without any actual reason). I wasn't even sure in the point of a non-response response? 

Bobo asserts:

"My point in context of the paper is referring to Universalism. I am saying contradicts the Bible, it is a doctrine of demons. That is not the same as something which is a disputable matter such as Calvinism and Arminianism. My statement about Universalism was addressing universalism in the paper.The statement from me in context could be applied to false teaching but not disputable matters."

In context you are referring to Universalism, however I am extracting the criterion you use to judge Universalism. The very standard you use to reckon Universalism as a demonic-non-Christian heresy. The only criterion you give to show that universalism is unbiblical was that it is a doctrine contrary to scripture and/or that it contradicts Scripture. However this is as equally as applicable to Calvinism since according to you Calvinism is contrary to the Scripture, yet you say one is a heresy but not the other. It's time to be consistent, or stop writing "responses" that don't address the substance of the issue."

Problem, The criterion I used doesn't apply to DISPUTABLE matters as I have already said, It applies to matters of salvation. You are misusing my criteria.

"
My question remains unanswered:

"The only criterion Bobo specifies is that something is in fact false if it is contrary to Scripture, then it's demonic. Well, Bobo, is Calvinism contrary to Scripture or not? According to Bobo it is, hence it's a doctrine of demons."

Again Bobo, shows us his standard is that if a doctrine contradicts scripture it is condemned (damnable heresy):

"That was the context of my addendum. it was pointing out that if one argues that universalism contradicts scripture, it results in condemnation.

Again, no one questions you were referring to if Universalism contradicts Scripture then it results in condemnation. Yet Bobo's double standards are glaring, if Calvinism contradicts Scripture it does not result in condemnation, yet if Universalism contradicts Scripture it does result in condemnation? Based on what? Where did you get this from? Stop saying that a doctrine contradicting Scripture is your criterion to determine heresy, because it's not! If Universalism contradicts the Bible clearly that does not make it a heresy, since you can't say the same about Calvinism, you need to find consistent standards. Does Calvinism contradict Scripture or not? If so it results in condemnation and you should be calling Keith Thompson to repent. Simply asserting one is a disputable matter of faith and one is not is begging the question. But not only do you relentlessly beg the question, you fail to address the positive case from Matt Slick."

I am just going to say this, Calvinism and Arminianism are not on trial, Universalism is on trial, not them. Your argument is like if someone tried to argue "Since the Trinity is true, You must accept Roman Catholicism as true". I can safely say that the Trinity is true and Roman Catholicism isn't. The same applies to Universalism, I can reject that without rejecting Calvinism. Once again, my statement in context is not applicable to disputable matters.


"Bobo again collapses:

"Sorry, but I don't share what Matt has said regarding Universalists. I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that all men are saved by Christ. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door."
Why couldn't I just say something virtually identical about Bobo?

"Sorry, but I don't share what Bobo has said regarding Keith Thompson (and other calvinists). I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that Christ died only for some. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door."

Again your statements can all be applied to the position of Calvinism, please stop publicly exposing your double standards, and repent and admit you are in error. Either both Calvinism and Universalism are disputable matters of faith, or they are both outside the fold, make up your mind or present a positive case for one being a damnable heresy and one being a disputable matter of faith. All the standards you have employed show that if we measure Universalism by this criterion, Calvinism must fall aswell.  "

Again, Calvinism is not on trial. The only reason I mentioned it was because you mentioned it first:
"Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling me to repent, but not Keith Thompson? And why hasn't Bobo explained any of this to me if he is calling me to repent? "

You introduced Calvinism into the debate, That's not the topic, As said before Universalism is the one on trial. 

As for Matt Slick, need I repeat what I said?

Addendum 5:
"Bobo says "well Calvinisim is not on trial, Universalism is". No Bobo, what is on trial is your consistency, if something contradicts or is contrary to the Scripture then it is damanable heresy (per you). You cannot selectively cherry pick one doctrine and not another. Either your standards are consistent or they are inconsistent, and yours are truly inconsistent, so inconsistent, that you have abandoned your own criterion selectively. If you are not capable of being consistent, you are not capable of being honest, which means a debate about Biblical Universalism with you would be obsolete. First you must demonstrate you are prepared to let go of your ego, and admit when you are in error. Simply declaring something is a disputable matter of faith and something is not is arbitrary and irrelevant to me. I am looking for a positive case, not a faith based blind assertion. Matt Slick gave a compelling case for why Universalism (while in error; he thinks) is not salvific issue, you did not, you merely begged the question. First show your commitment to truth, consistency and honesty before you debate Universalism, or are you incapable of such? "

No, Calvinism isn't on trial and never has been in our conversation, not the article I wrote, Universalism is on trial. You are the one who months ago wrote an article on it and I refuse to repeat what I have told you about my criterion since you refuse to take it on board. You are misusing and abusing my criterion. Consistency is important, I am not going to dispute that. Again, your argument is akin to someone saying that if the Trinity is true, Roman Catholicism must also be true, It's an absurd argument.

No comments:

Post a Comment