Should PPT Screen Heretical Detractors?
“The Reformation is the biggest socialist hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. It is an anti-Christ worship of Platonist metaphysics….If the stats drop because people can no longer learn and cannot see my arguments work in real life, I do give a damn about that.”
Is James Jordan saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction? Why would the owner of this website allow the posting of such heresy? This might not be the place for me.
I just went through this conversation with an associate of PPT this week as a result of me cutting off Randy Seiver and others. It was not a short conversation. Curiously, some of the complaints about who I allow to post comments here come from those I have cut off. While claiming to hold to the whole canon and making it void with their Reformed traditions, they don’t like James Jordon because he rejects the Pauline epistles. Their argument is the following: “You show agreement by posting their comments.” No, my position on these issues have been clearly stated in no uncertain terms. And I warn anyone who rejects portions of Scripture to heed the warning of Christ found in Revelation. I would also add that distorting what is there is no different from adding to or taking away from it.
The person who discussed this with me despises the very people he doesn’t want me to screen. He also understands me very well, so any conversation about me fearing ideas that threaten the truth were not addressed. I am not afraid of ideas and my inability to refute bad ones with the facts. We have a morale duty to be informed. Lack of knowledge =’s death. Hence, bring the ideas, if I don’t know the answers, I have a duty to find them.
His argument was that PPT is pioneering uncharted waters; ie., I am the first one (in the blogosphere culture of contemporary history) to call out the very doctrinal foundation of Protestantism and the Reformation. I am not afraid to make hamburgers with every sacred cow of the Reformation. In fact, it’s my delicacy. The Reformation is the biggest socialist hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. It is an anti-Christ worship of Platonist metaphysics. Hence, many not only want to watch the fight, they want to learn how to engage in the debate as well. Knowing my indifference to numbers very well, he asked me in an assuming way why I thought my viewer numbers drop when I screen people. In other words, without seeing my stats, he knew the numbers drop and he also knew what my response would be: “Don’t give a damn.”
He then explained why the numbers drop, and I think his contention has merit: I have cut off the learning process. Also, I don’t have a moderator. If the stats drop because people can no longer learn and cannot see my arguments work in real life, I do give a damn about that. And this blog does need a moderator. The moderator and I are not always going to agree 100%, but I need one. That would be a huge step for this ministry.
For now, the comments come in, I shouldn’t have to fight this fight alone.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
I am the first one to agree that the best way to expose the darkeness of error is to shine the light of truth upon it, bringing it out into the open for everyone to see it for what it is. But at what point does dialog with a heretic become folly? When does it become counter-productive? Does the learning-process become inhibited at any point because we become side-tracked dealing with the vain janglings of a babbler?
LikeLike
Andy,
Yes, absolutely,that time does come. That’s where a moderator comes in. With the Potter’s House, the upcoming writing of TTANC volume 2, and everything else going on with TANC, the time just isn’t there for me.
LikeLike
Ironically, Paul stated:
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” ~ Titus 3:10-11
LikeLike
Andy,
That from those who laid a strong gospel foundation and taught their people systematic theology. You can bet Titus 3:10-11 applies at the Potter’s House on steroids. But the Reformers have laid their ground work well. According to the emails I get, church folk are in total confusion and have no basis to judge anything. They need to see the arguments refuted in real time. Paul and Christ engaged heretics in the field and debated them before all.
Nevertheless, I am in process on all of this myself and want to learn from others. The Potter’s House gang discussed a MacArthur clip last night that was so ridiculous that some laughed at it. I’m not kidding. But 3 years ago, I would have been bobbing my head like the proverbial Bobble Doll just because Mac said it. Men have clearly replaced the sum and substance of our own intellect and faith.
LikeLike
“But at what point does dialog with a heretic become folly? When does it become counter-productive? Does the learning-process become inhibited at any point because we become side-tracked dealing with the vain janglings of a babbler?”
Vain to whom? Babbling by what definition. Counter productive . . . by what standard of measure?
And this is the problem with the Christian pathology to constantly try and vet “Good” ideas from “Bad” ideas. It sets up one person’s specific knowledge as the defining measure of all valuable knowledge. Christians like to do a happy two step about where “Good” ideas come from, that is from God. But at the end of the day, God isn’t talking Men are talking which means that men are the ones holding up their specific intellectual conclusions as the defining measure of all available “Good” knowledge. Historically Christians have proven themselves over and over and over terrible stewards of ideas good or otherwise.
I submit the truth doesn’t need any help to prevail. It can sound the clarion call through any babbling and vanity and rabbit trails.
The only thing that needs to be defended in the public space is the liberty of the people to say what they think and let the stupidity and evil be revealed for what it is.
PS… not sure if this will double post, but if it does Paul, you can whack one of the instances.
LikeLike
For those of us who have gone around and around with Calvinists over the last 6 years or so, totally understand cutting them off at some point. Since their foundational premise is determinism and dualism, arguing scripture is a waste of time as they read that into it. Their methods are much like Luther and Calvin but without the state behind them. So they re frame arguments and then when you are weary of responding over and over to direct them back to the original issue, they claim victory, “because you won’t answer”. In other words, like bullies, they wear you down.
As for James I disagree with him on some big stuff but so what? There ARE contradictions with Paul, for example. I happen to think they are a result of cultural context and bad translating. On the other hand, I do not put him up there with Christ, either. I think evangelicals have painted themselves into a corner with the inerrancy issue.
LikeLike
‘Men have clearly replaced the sum and substance of our own intellect and faith.”
Yes. I see this every day concerning Piper, Mohler and Dever, here. Interestingly enough, not hearing as much about Mahaney even though he is actually in this city now.
LikeLike
Copying this over from the other thread where this post originated.
Bridget on August 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm
In all reality, when you think about it, weren’t Jesus’ ideas being interpreted by others (including Paul) from his death onward? Jesus wasn’t around to agree or dispute what people had to say about him or what Jesus actually said. Paul never interacted with Jesus. I’m not implying anything about Paul except the fact of when he came on the scene.
From my perspective, it often seems like Paul’s words are more revered than Jesus’ words.
LikeLike
“I think evangelicals have painted themselves into a corner with the inerrancy issue.”
So now even inerrancy is in question on this site?
Gotta run…
LikeLike
Abe,
I am presently debating a fellow on FB that has a reputation for making fools of Christians. Our little debate is not going well for him right now. Thing is, he is getting nailed to the wall with information I am gleaning from John Immel’s second session of TANC 2012. Where are all of the professors I had in seminary on this? Christians need to stop living by generalities and proof texting if we are going to solve this problem.
LikeLike
Abe said: “So now even inerrancy is in question on this site?”
LOL . . .
This question is of course indicative of a mind that cannot make the most basic conceptual distinctions, e.g., that SOMEONE’s objection to “inerrancy” necessarily equals EVERYONE’s objection to the “inerrancy.”
(The implied judgment being: Paul how dare you entertain such an evil idea)
If you are looking for criteria for which to abstain from serious discussion about ideas, might I suggest ignoring such intellectual adolescence? The arrested development of such minds will inevitably frustrate anyone with an adult conceptual capacity fully integrated with the highest skills of abstraction.
(My point being: Paul, you are at no point responsible for the content of other people’s ideas.)
LikeLike
Paul, I believe you are doing very well in exposing new calvinism. Many don’t understand what new calvinism even is, and even those that do, don’t have the spiritual weapons to say anything against it.
But you are making a ministry mistake by allowing comments that belittle the Word of God. You are taking away the foundation (the Bible), which is the only true weapon against new calvinism and any other form of error.
If inerrancy is belittled and/or denied, then there is no foundation. Then there is no point in talking about anything. There is no point in debating anything. If inerrancy is false, then we then would not have a Bible, and the new calvinists might be right after all. Without the foundation of the Bible as an unquestionable foundation, then the new calvinists would have just as much a possibility of being right as the Bahai’s, the Moonies, and the atheists, for that matter.
No point in debating a thing at all. You can’t build a house upon no foundation. You need to build on the Rock. Of course, I took that from the Bible. But if the Bible might be partially (or completely) false, then why discuss anything with anyone?
If I have permission to do so, then I would like to ask two questions of you, Paul, of what you believe. Not what your readers believe. What you believe. Please don’t see this as an insult or attack on you. If I come across as anything but sincere in my concern about this, I apologize to you. But I do send people to read things from you, and I’m beginning to think that I can’t send anyone to you to read here anymore, because you allow the comments that you do. So these are my two questions. You can refuse to answer these if you want, it is your blog, and your life. I’m a guy that appears as text on a website, so feel free to ignore me, belittle me, etc. My questions are:
1) Is the Bible inerrant?
2) Is the Word of God through Paul the apostle, equally authoritative to the rest of the Bible?
That’s all. To avoid a debate, if possible, please answer with yes or no. My answer to both, is yes.
LikeLike
Well Abe, I will do better than that. I will repost our doctrinal statement in the sidebar widget. It was there for months and totally ignored, but it seems that it is a hot issue now that it has been removed. You are far from the only one who has brought this up. The answers to both of your questions are an unequivocal YES, but the doctrinal and ministry statement will add further clarification. For what its worth, you echo many other emails that I get, but at this time, my reasoning stands as posted.
LikeLike