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 
Its bit over my head. Like Luther says in the first paragraph of his Bondage, “I am an uncultivated fellow who has always moved in uncultivated circles.” This fancy reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. When I read Romans, I see Calvinism. What Paul says of the Law and Sin, so I say of Romans, “Romans is the strength of Calvinism.” No Romans 9, no Calvinism. No Romans 5, no original sin. No Romans 4, no more condemning those who live right. But you may be right — Romans may be the solution to Calvinism, in the same way that Homer Simpson says “Beer! The cause of and solution to all of life’s problems.”
LikeLike
Oh yes, Abe. And of course YOU get to decide what is “sound doctrine” and what is merely a “wind of doctrine”…by which you mean false doctrine. In fact you are so convinced that you have such a monopoly on “truth” that anyone disagreeing with you should be summarily dismissed.
Your “defense” of your ideas isnt too far from stake-burning.
You want to claim biblical inerrancy, defend it! Don’t run away. If you are so right, prove it in the arena of ideas.
I deny it! So, instead of telling Paul to heave me off the blog, tell me why I’m wrong. This is what healthy thinkers do, Abe.
James and I utterly disagree on fundamental metaphysics. But I argue why straight to his face on my blog, I don’t cry “off with his head!” And block him.
He denies Paul’s teaching. Big deal! If he’s wrong, then tell him why. Answer his accusations.
Paul warns him with scripture. I debate him on metaphysics. Our consciences are clear before God…we are not responsible for what he accepts. Banning James does nothing except tell Christians that they aren’t really obligated to rationally defend their beliefs. That a club or shunning is the best way to spread the Gospel.
How sad.
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…
”
Abe, Can you tell me which “translations” are inerrant?
LikeLike
Abe, I’m looking at this Galatians Four blog right now. I don’t recognize it. Which post did I supposedly comment on?
“They did recognize James Jordan immediately as being in the judaizer form of satanism.” I suppose to you not only ‘judaizers’ — which I’m not because I don’t advocate Sabbath keeping or any of the ceremonial law for Christians — but also Judaism itself is the worship of Satan to you, right? You’d have fit right in with Hitler’s churches.
LikeLike
Wow, well I guess I stand corrected. I am humbled by the doctrinal and philosophical brilliance of Argo and James. 😉
I’ll reference that Bible that I call inerrant, that Bible which talks about being delivered from unreasonable men. Laterz…
LikeLike
I still don’t know which post I supposedly commented on there. But I think whoever first mentioned questioning inerrancy was right. After thinking quite a bit about the question of why we can’t just accept all the books that were historically part of the Bible, all the Apocrypha and Romans and Galatians too, I finally figured out the answer: inerrancy. Those who believe in inerrancy have to widdle the Bible down to the books that agree with them. Otherwise, how can they say the Bible is inerrant? So I recant, even repent, of saying that Romans and Galatians should be thrown out. Nay, all the books should be accepted. The problem is not any particular book; its the false doctrine of inerrancy which makes us slaves to the worst misstatements in any book. Inerrancy not only produces spiritual slavery, but it defends literal slavery, for Paul supported slavery: he tells us not to look down on a brother who holds slaves. (1 Tim 6) There’s also a passage in Sirach that says the whip is for an evil slave’s back. That’s not inerrant. So neither Paul nor Sirach are inerrant. Inerrancy is the problem, not the whole books. Throwing particular books out solves nothing; its a band-aid. The cancer is left intact: inerrancy. A true inerrantist would be arguing for his right to hold slaves and telling us to stop looking down on Christian slave-holders.
1st Timothy 6:1-2 (NRSV) “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor..masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church [and still hold slaves] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.” Is that your inerrancy Abe?? How can we flirt with inerrancy for one minute, unless we’re racists? I’m ashamed I ever believed in inerrancy now.
LikeLike
I put my …s in the wrong spot. I should have just quoted the whole of the 2 verses in 1 Tim 6.
“Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.”
If John Piper or Al Mohler own you, slave, you best work double as hard than if Joss Whedon owned you. There’s some ‘inerrancy’ we can all be proud of.
LikeLike
Abe, Please understand that I simply do not want to redefine words as so many do. I want them to mean something. Inerrancy means what? Freedom from error. But we are dealing with translations, not original manuscripts. The word inerrant was a propaganda stunt. And I do not believe scripture is the 4th person of the Trinity. I used to but not anymore.
Do I believe scripture is Inspired? You bet. And I think the Holy Spirit can illuminate deeper understanding to us as we read it.
I disagree with James about Paul but am more than willing to read what he says. If we are such frail Christians we cannot listen to others and exchange disagreement/ideas, we don’t have much of a grounding in Christ. I have done my share of this with Calvinists for the last 6 years! At least James has not been a bully to me. And I have told him elsewhere that I see Paul totally misunderstood by Calvinists in the historical context. Especially Romans. I don’t think Romans teaches Calvinism at all. I think people miss the context of the letter and what was going on in Rome around that time. I think NT Wright does a great treatment of Romans in it’s historical context.
LikeLike
Goodness gracious, me oh my I love this blog! And reading through this thread is better time spent than watching any movie I’ve seen in the last 5 years! LOL I would be very sad if any of you stopped commenting here (Abe). Paul is a wise man, he’s studied the Bible well & he’s the captain of this ship, don’t you worry.
LikeLike
Paul, you should let James Jordan keep commenting, if only for the fact I find his comments completely hilarious. He’s a kid saying nanynanybooboo. But no, he’s a duking it out Luther. But no, he’s king of the one-liners. But no, he’s a name caller (Abe, you Calvinist-liter you). But no, he’s a cartoon watcher. But no, he’s a Judaizer.
James Jordan, how do you keep track of yourself? LOL
All kidding aside, first, I absolutely commend Paul for allowing differing opinions & comments, mine included.
In all seriousness, we must learn how to defend our views. And thinking is the work that pays off. Healthy disagreement in an arena that’s safe, allows a view to grow stronger or to be thrown out. It’s ideas that need to be thrown out & reeled back in again or discarded. Not people.
We’re not discussing doctrine at the moment. We’re discussing whether differing ideas are even allowed here, and my vote is 100% yes.
I think Argo has it right. Abe, you may not know, but I had a similar conversation with Argo on his blog telling him to “Defend it. Don’t run away. Prove it in the arena of ideas”. And Argo took it like a man. I have respect and admiration for him. He is valuable. Do I always agree or understand him? No. But he still allows me to comment. I’d go so far as to say Argo likes all comments, it’s the dialogue he’s after, the exchange of ideas, not strong-armed agreement. So I appreciate that.
I really don’t like banning (unless it’s one-dimensional groundhog day Randy, who becomes a monotonous drone in the background). James is interesting, fresh, funny, actually challenges me. I think his insights are valuable. And it’s an interesting discussion. Do I always agree? No. But we agree in several areas & I enjoy the discussion.
I would add that banning inevitably ends up hurting us more than anyone. Covering our ears with our hands doesn’t mean the opinion is not out there. And what will you do when your kid asks you the same question? Or knows they can’t ask you because questioning is not acceptable, only agreement is acceptable. So if they do ask, it will never be you they ask.
Replace “your kid” with a co-worker wanting to know the truth, with a friend wanting to know God, with a stranger struggling with faith. If we don’t have answers which have been forged in the fire of objection, that have withstood the test of debate, then how are we on solid ground with answers to help ourselves & others through tough times or temptation? Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. Faith doesn’t live in the mind, like Piper wants us to believe, faith results in action.
LikeLike