Actually, it's more of a whimper. It shows the weakness of a person's proclaimed position when their only rebuttal includes misrepresentations (straw-men) and conjecture. -To take a side-argument from an entire article/interaction and speak on it for nearly an hour sort-of wreaks of the desperation of proving one's own self as "right" and "authoritative."
A little while back, we released (in blog form) an interaction with a somewhat suspicious anonymous person under one of our Youtube Videos. This troll, who never revealed their true identity, kept insisting on sharing items in link form in the comments from a certain "history & social justice grace teacher." As such it is that we do not agree with much of what this teacher stands for, it has not been our wish to promote him. It was only after being accused of "not being able to answer" this teacher's proclamations that we revealed the very reason why we have chosen to have no part in the promotion of his teachings. -Which is not only our prerogative, but our responsibility. We are not here to prop up teachings that we would never endorse.
Since we don't waste time going around publicly whining and crying "where's the grace" when someone opposes us or personally attacks us, nor do we victimize ourselves to gain sympathy, many do not realize the level of premeditation, deceptiveness, maliciousness, and vile accusations that we have endured over the years just for sticking to the truth of the scriptures. (From supposed 'grace people')
Yet we don't just set out to expose the false, inaccurate, biased, or lazy teachings of others for no reason and without provocation. You can bet that if you were targeted by us for exposition, you did something to earn it. -And it's very likely we have very gracefully held back on any response to you for many years. Such is the case with this history teacher. What some may conveniently fail to notice is that he wasn't even addressed in any of our teachings or blogs until this suspicious person came along and kept on insisting that we recognize and revere his teachings. We've left him alone for many years, although he has consistently campaigned against what we teach.
So, this teacher, the very one who is responsible for initiating the war against the ministry of reconciliation among the 'grace circles' in the first place - has chosen to respond to our blog, well, sort-of:
We woke up today to someone giving us a "heads up" on his most recent teaching. One in which he repeatedly uses our ministry name, website images, and youtube channel - putting it all on full display within his own video. -Which I'm sure the biased 'grace police' will overlook, even though it's against their own 'rules of conduct.' (Hypocrisy, anyone?)
And let me emphasize their own rules, because it is not our rules or even God's rules for that matter. We are perfectly fine with those who choose to speak out publicly against what we teach. All we ask is that they do not misrepresent what we teach and to make sure and spell our name right. The history teacher only succeeded at one of those, but I digress.
He did mention that he disagreed with what we teach about forgiveness. Funny, that's what the entire blog in question was about and the very thing he has campaigned against for years, yet he chose not to argue any of that. Quite telling.
In this attempted dissection of our blog post, he chose to only focus on one small portion, which was actually nothing more than a side-note to the overall content of the blog. Although, he did find time to victimize himself by stating that we made 'ad hominem attacks' before stating that he wasn't "going to get into all that." Apparently he couldn't help himself not at least bring it up - since after all, this whole 'rebuttal' really had everything to do with his attempt to maintain his own image, and little to do with what the scriptures actually say and mean.
In his hour long defense of HIS WORK in researching a single topic (and not in defense of the actual scriptures or terms within the context they were written), his repetitiveness was underwhelming at best. -Especially when you take into consideration that the vast majority of what he said did not oppose our statement that he zeroed in on within our blog post. So let's get into it.
This is the portion from our blog which he took so much time and effort to pick apart:
"TTR: No one's creating “new” definitions. Just letting the King James say what it says. You should try it. It's unfortunate that you have an issue with that and feel the need to “consult” other sources as your final authority. But I'll entertain your irrelevant claims for a second:
“new birth” (which is the definition of regeneration being strongly pushed lately) and RE-birth are not even the same thing.
NEW (never before)
RE (again)
If the best I could do was claim that “new” and “again” were both the same thing, I'd probably just shut up. -And I definitely would not preach entire sermons on it. -But that's just me.
Also, if I want an extrabiblical source for helping to define words from 17th century text, I usually find it more appropriate to look at the available sources from that same time period. Do etymological research, consult the contextual usage of that word in other relevant sources, etc. -Instead of putting all my trust in something from 200 years after that time period, which contains obviously proven incorrect definitions of other words. But again, that's just me."
Now, I'm not sure if this guy has completely missed the point made from this small section of the blog post, or if he's misrepresenting this whole section on purpose. (Again, this was not even what the entire blog was about - there were much more important facts that he chose to ignore. This was only in response to one random "out of context" statement from a suspicious anonymous listener within the entire discussion.)
However, this teacher tried to imply that we were against using man-made dictionaries as study tools. Notice, in the quote above, we stated very clearly that we are opposed to the practice of consulting other sources as the FINAL AUTHORITY. How do you get the claim that we are saying not to use man-made dictionaries from that statement? -You'll have to figure that one out for yourself - especially when we obviously go on to say what we "might" do instead of relying the Webster's 1828 to define terms from 200 years prior. Misrepresentation #1.
He then goes on and on and on (and on) about how regeneration means "new birth" - which is precisely what we said was being pushed as the definition of regeneration in the quote from the blog above. In trying to figure out exactly what point he was trying to make, it occurred to us that perhaps he was not paying attention to the context of that which he chose to spend so much time arguing against, and in not doing so, he actually furthered our point which is this:
It doesn't matter if you define "regeneration" as "new birth." The fact of the matter is that "new birth" and "born again" are not the same thing. Citing a single selected definition of "regenerate" to mean "born again" from 1604 does not change that fact. -Especially when the actual Bible word used is "regeneratION" (not regenerate) from the same dictionary, with the definition of "new birth." As a matter of fact, the word "regenerate" is not even in the King James Bible. So why are we using a word NOT in the Bible to define a word that IS in the Bible? Odd.
When we said in the blog "NEW (never before) RE (again)" it was in the context of the exact sentence prior, which was talking about New BIRTH vs Re BIRTH. The "RE" was not in reference to the word "REgeneration." But this teacher chose to argue as if our "RE" was in reference to the word "regeneration." It seems pretty clear in the context of that statement in our blog that we were talking about NEW birth vs RE birth (ie. born again), but apparently not so clear to the history teacher.
That's a strange way to fashion a supposed rebuttal, and unless he has reading comprehension skills, this is misrepresentation #2.
Furthermore, he continues to conflate the words "new" and "again" (in passing, like slight-of-hand tactics) as if they mean the same thing. (And it absolutely isn't the first time he has used this method of conflating terms to prove his own pet doctrine. He does the same thing with forgiveness combined with justification, salvation, and righteousness.)
Anyone with common sense knows that the claim of "new" and "again" having the same meanings could not be further from the truth, because we can define words in the context of every day language. But just because this guy is so bent on choosing his favorite historical textual definitions (without regard to the limitations on various definitions according to context and commonly understood scriptural truths) let's go back in time to evaluate the meanings and origins of the words "new" and "again."
From the etymology online website:
"new (adj.)
Middle English neue, from Old English neowe, niowe, earlier niwe "made or established for the first time, fresh, recently made or grown; novel, unheard-of, different from the old; untried, inexperienced, unused," from Proto-Germanic *neuja- (source also of Old Saxon niuwi, Old Frisian nie, Middle Dutch nieuwe, Dutch nieuw, Old High German niuwl, German neu, Danish and Swedish ny, Gothic niujis "new").
This is from PIE *newo- "new" (source also of Sanskrit navah, Persian nau, Hittite newash, Greek neos, Lithuanian naujas, Old Church Slavonic novu, Russian novyi, Latin novus, Old Irish nue, Welsh newydd "new")."
*Note: Further down in the entry is this interesting statement:
"Meaning "not habituated, unfamiliar, unaccustomed," 1590s. Of the moon from late Old English. The adverb, "newly, for the first time," is Old English niwe, from the adjective."
**Another note: Just so there isn't any confusion, regarding the example from the 1590's above, the "new" in the term "New Moon" was never meant to indicate that the moon was newly created. It is in reference to the (new) beginning, or starting point, of each lunar cycle. Which should be obvious, as when it is said to be the "New Moon," the actual moon is not even visible in the sky. New = beginning (as in GENESIS) in this instance.
"again (adv.)
late Old English agan, from earlier ongean (prep.) "toward; opposite, against, contrary to; in exchange for," as an adverb "in the opposite direction, back, to or toward a former place or position," from on "on" (see on (prep.) and compare a- (1)) + -gegn "against, toward," from Germanic root *gagina (source also of Old Norse gegn "straight, direct;" Danish igen "against;" Old Frisian jen, Old High German gegin, German gegen "against, toward," entgegen "against, in opposition to")
In Old English, eft (see eftsoons) was the main word for "again," but this often was strengthened by ongean, which became the principal word by 13c. Norse influence is responsible for the hard -g-. Differentiated from against (q.v.) 16c. in southern writers, again becoming an adverb only, and against taking over as preposition and conjunction, but again clung to all senses in northern and Scottish dialect (where against was not adopted). Of action, "in return," early 13c.; of action or fact, "once more," late 14c."
*Notice the last definition- "once more," late 14c. This shows the evolution of the word "again" and how it came to mean "once more" by the late 14c.
Compare:
NEW- for the first time
AGAIN- once more
Now, this begs the question - how do the words "new" and "again" mean the same thing? When have they EVER meant the same thing? Perhaps the history teacher should REthink (think again) on this dilemma. His desire to apply the term "born again" to the Body of Christ certainly isn't a NEW thought (never thought of before) - as religious Christianity has been saying the term "born again" means "new birth" since around the 1920's, near the end of the late modern era of Christianity.
Before that, being "born again" was the theme of the Great Awakening beginning in the 1700's - the "revival" in America led by preachers of Reformed Theology. (See Johnathan Edward's Doctrine of Original Sin.) In other words, being "born again" was the Calvinist Conversion Experience promoted during the Great Awakening. The term wasn't even widely used in mainstream Christianity until the 1970's. So, being a "born again" christian isn't a new thought, but it's not very old, either. Oddly enough, thousands of years must have passed before Christians historically began referring to themselves as being "born again."
Why one would make such efforts to conflate meanings and derivatives, KNOWING (as a history teacher should) where the usage of the terminology originates, thereby removing the obvious distinction that is one of the obvious Pauline tenets clearly laid out when "rightly dividing the word of truth," is beyond me. Perhaps this history teacher doesn't like being separate from the Calvinistic Reformed Theologians? Perhaps he needed to locate some "common ground" with mainstream Christianity? Maybe he has the idea that he needs to "stand out" from the others in what he calls the "greater grace space" and make a name for himself? Maybe he's just doubling down on "not knowing any better." -Who knows, and who cares, really? It's incorrect, misleading, compromising the truth, and dangerous to his followers.
And, just for the record, TTR doesn't "make up" definitions for terms. (Misrepresentation #3.) Yes, we do conduct our own research outside of scripture. We just do not promote it as "our work which cannot be questioned," nor do we go "all out" to defend it. Besides, if our own research does not line up with the contextual usage of the scriptures, it goes in the trash. Because, ultimately it isn't OUR WORD or OUR own understanding of terminology that matters, it is GOD's WORD that IS the final authority. -Not that of the extrabiblical research of a "history teacher," and certainly not that of a "born again" Calvinist who published a partially plagiarized dictionary in 1828. (More on that subject to come in the near future.)
Paul never uses the term "born again" to describe what happens to those of us saved during the dispensation of Grace. That fact cannot be argued. Well, at least it can't be argued against in an honest and non-misleading manner. If regeneration means "NEW birth" then it cannot, without breaking the law of non-contradiction, mean "born AGAIN." That's just common sense - no need to dig up ye olde dictionary entries to prove it.
NEW and AGAIN do not mean the same thing. It's astounding that one would even have to make such a statement, but this is the time in which we live - wherein the 'history teacher's' campaign to blur the lines between Pauline Truth and denominational dogma continues on.
Oh, and one more thing worth mentioning (misrepresentation #4 -we'll 'show some grace' by ignoring the rest in this supposed rebuttal, as well as all of the others piled on through the years, for now.):
Just because someone trusts the King James Bible as their final authority on God's Word does not mean they hold a "superstitious view" of it. Perhaps the all-knowing history teacher should look up the word "superstition" and its relation to religious beliefs. Then he might come to the conclusion that getting away from the superstitious religious dogma is the very reason why we (and SO many others who understand Pauline Doctrine) are so opposed to his new passion for embracing of the term "born again" as a shiny new label for those of us who adhere to Pauline Doctrine.
But then again, perhaps he likes religious dogma, since he took time to point out the fact that we question his salvation. And we do. While religion has made it SO taboo to question anyone's salvation (especially those of particular status within the alleged 'grace movement'), our Apostle Paul says this:
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
"Examine yourselves." Last time I checked, exams have questions in need of answers.
According to religious gracers, and the rest of Christianity in general, Paul really shouldn't have questioned anyone's salvation, should've he? How offensive of him! (By the way, questioning doesn't mean doubting. It means questioning.)
It's becoming more and more obvious that many who proclaim to follow Paul don't seem to understand half of what he said or why he said it.
TTR doesn't "assume" anyone into Heaven OR Hell. But we do listen to the words people say. We pay attention to the implications of what teachers promote, and the amount of time they spend doing so (which indicates motives.)
This history teacher has gone so far out of his way to prove himself "right" in opposing the finished work of Christ on the cross, I don't know how anyone who's paying attention wouldn't at least question exactly what he believes regarding the gospel. He teaches that belief is what gets sins forgiven - and not that what Christ accomplished on the cross earned forgiveness without anyone else's participation needed.
Suggesting that your belief is what earns you something that God granted (a done deal) for Christ's sake (not yours) around 2000 years ago is a blasphemous claim and a dangerous teaching which has produced rancid fruit among some 'gracers' at best, and will potentially cause some to stumble into Hell at worst.
But somehow, we at TTR are the "dangerous" ones?
Why?
Because we give ALL (not part of) the credit to Christ for forgiveness?
Because we take God at His Word?
Because we believe that the King James Bible IS God's Word?
Because we do not place men (past or present) on pedestals?
Because we don't seek the approval of men, but only of God?
Because we insist that our listeners study for themselves without the need to rely on our (or anyone else's) teachings?
Because we don't forsake sound doctrine in favor of supposed "fellowship?"
Because we refuse to compromise on clear distinctions between Pauline teachings and doctrine meant for Israel?
-Those kinds of things would only be "dangerous" to certain types of people with certain motives.
You can decide for yourselves who those people are and what their agenda is. We don't need to tell you.
Add comment
Comments