Critique of a Critique Pt 1

Posted: November 29, 2010 by Ricky Roldan in Topical
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Mangled History

In the age old debate between Calvinist and Arminians you have good thorough scholarly work on both sides though disagreement arises in the exegetical (interpretation) portion of such writings. But then you have what you mostly see on the internet, what I like to call “internet theologians” and I’m using the word “theologian” very lightly in reference to these individuals. What you will find is that these self proclaimed “teachers” in their blind zeal do not actually do their homework and research before attempting to come against other points of view and or doctrine they disagree with, they don’t read original sources but instead depend on second and third party sources such as other internet theologians and self proclaimed teachers and they also base their theological backg round information and teaching on Wikipedia in doing so misinterpret not only the view they have taken up to critique but also with this lens misinterpret scripture to back their claims up, the blind leading the blind. In the debate world this is called a strawman argument which means that they build a weak and false version of the view they are attempting to attack hence the straws and then they proceed to tear down this strawman they have falsely built and then proclaim some type of victory or sound critique when in fact what they did was actually attack and tear down a point of view of their own imagination, not dealing with the actual arguments of the proposed view and not only that but also, and what is more disturbing, accuse the other view of error by attempting to use church history but what is actually being taught by these guys is historical opinion based on unhistorical events. This type of rhetoric is really frustrating for those who actually know what they believe because all it does is complicate the matter worse and tends to keep honest discussion going in circles and people talking past each other. This type of stuff is what you mostly see on blogs and Internet articles that attempt to discredit Reformed theology and or Calvinism. It is with this in mind that I will attempt to tackle a few recent articles written by a fellow blogger whose HipHop name is Justparadox which is also his screen name not sure what his real name is actually, who uses such erroneous techniques to proclaim a sound defense against Calvinism. The first part of this critique of his critique will then focus on the inaccurate historical statements. All in all I am contemplating that this entire critique will consist of 3 or 4 parts but we will just have to see. You can read these critiques for yourself at his blog for further reading.

Why have I taken it upon myself to focus on this brother’s article out of the plethora of erroneous articles out there? Well, because this brother is part of my culture and pretty much have the same audience not to mention like myself he is also a member of a pretty large Christian hip hop community that gather at a website called Holy Culture Radio and also contributes to the message boards there where these things are discussed ad naseum. For those who don’t know me, I don’t claim to be some scholar or heavy theologian, yet hehe, so my critiques will not be so intellectual and professional that I omit my own character in it, I am going to be myself and speak as I always do speaking the truth in love, with a hint of sarcasm and comedy lol…

So then, first and foremost this part of my critique will consist of simply showing the historical errors this individual has made concerning Calvinism and its effects on the Church, people usually just cut to the chase and engage in a proof-text war with each other but I would like to take a different approach and start with the critiques use of history to support its assertions and false claims. I will be quoting him extensively to leave no room for speculation or claims of misrepresentation and will quote him as each misrepresentation appears chronologically in his article, his words will be in blue. Let us begin……..

Historical fallacies in part 1 of Justparadox’s critique

“To understand the Calvinistic Order of Salvation (Ordo Salutis) you have to understand the Catholic Ordo Salutis and Catechism.”

Really? How so? Where is his sources for such assertions? On the contrary the Ordo Salutis that is taught by Reformed theology is found in Romans 8:29-30 and has nothing whatsoever to do with a parallel or response to the so called Catholic ordo salutis and or their Catechism. The Romans passage reads as follows:

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (ESV)

This is what we call the Golden Chain of Salvation aka the Order of Salvation aka Ordo Salutis (Latin). Foreknowledge(fore loving not foreknowing our actions) predestination, calling, justification, glorification and all these ALREADY DONE in a true believer, the only step missing is Sanctification which is a ongoing process through the power of the Holy Spirit in us though technically also already done since it is God that gives us the want and ability to walk according to His statutes and His law that is ENGRAVED in our hearts.

“I’ve heard the debates for and against Arminianism and Calvinism and have always took a more balanced approach than either side takes this is not a new discussion just one that needs to be revisited in favor of balance and real reform, not just “Reformed” Catholicism. Martin Luther’s goal was to Reform Catholicism not repent and return to pre-Catholic biblical faith.”

“Martin Luther never sought to leave the Catholic Church, therefore all his followers are Reformed Catholics whether Episcopalian, Lutheran or any other form of Reformed follower of Martin Luther or his disciples.”

Here is our first example of his poor use of history but even worse his self claim of omniscience since he claims to know Luther’s heart in asserting that Luther’s goal was not to repent and return to pre-Catholic truth. Serious students of theology and Church history know that this statement is false reformed or not. While it is true that Luther wanted to Reform the Roman Catholic Church, his main objective was in fact to bring Rome back to the scriptures and eliminate all the man made traditions and man made sacraments of Rome as evident in his famous 95 thesis that he nailed to the castle church of Wittenburg. Most importantly what struck Luther was the phrase in the book of Romans that read “the just shall live by faith” and realized that faith is the sole means of justification and salvation without works of which Rome vigorously taught and in doing so Luther indeed did repent of his traditions of Rome and false teachings which resulted in his excommunication from Rome and enflamed the zealous fire of the Reformation. In other words since Rome did not accept Luther’s revisions and reform he was kicked out of the Roman Church his life also being threatened and Luther started a reformation of the people instead which spread like wild across Europe. Therefore Luthers and the Reformers main objective and teachings were to actually return to pre-Roman Catholic biblical faith hence the Great Reformation of the 16th century and its latin slogan POST TENEBRAS LUX when translated means AFTER DARKNESS LIGHT and what they meant by that is that the Church was in biblical darkness for many years but now has the Holy Spirit brought them back to its Biblical truth with its Light of the True Gospel. Thank God for Luther and the Reformation or we will still be worship ping Mary and praying to statues of saints which is Idolatry.

As far as his calling us reformed folk “Reformed Catholics” I don’t mind accepting that label as long as it is understood that it is NOT Roman Catholic and being the fact that the term “catholic” means Universal, therefore “Reformed Catholic” meaning the Universal Reformed Church. Lets move on then.

“The founders of many pseudo Christian cults (Jehovah’s Witnesses & 7th Day Adventist for one) have used this doctrine as a spring board to start anti-Christian doctrines.”

Now this assertion is extremely false and not even close to being a historical fact. I was almost not going to even entertain this assertion but for the sake of the uninformed I thought it would be best to at least say a little sumtin sumtin bout it, lol.

First of all, these cultic movements did not appear til like 200yrs later. Second of all, 7th day adventist are purely Arminian in their soteriology and heretical in their view of the atonement. Third and most importantly, the “spring board” that started the JW movement was their heretical view of the person of Christ (Arianism resurge) not double predestination which again the JW’s are Arminian to the core in their soteriology hence why I am baffled by such claims as this as an attempt to poison the well of Calvinism and make us look like something we are not. If you read his article you will see no actual sources for these claims whatsoever.

“Calvin’s first point asserts that the entire human (body, and soul, intellect and will) are fallen and helpless, passive and dead.”

This statement shows the lack of research in this paper. Calvin did not formulate the Doctrines of Grace aka 5 points of Calvinism a thorough investigation would have corrected this mistake. What’s interesting is that he got it right the first time in the beginning of this paper where he stated that the 5 points were a response to the Arminian 5 points of Remonstrance but then turns around and states that it was Calvin. I scratch my head and wonder if the writer of this paper even understands or is paying attention to what he is reading instead of just searching for points to attack, well I am not omniscient so I don’t know but it just seems that way.

“The inappropriate and false teachings of predestination have caused many to turn to false religions and paganism and as such are doctrines that do cause offense.”

Again, where is the proof? Where is his sources? Was there a consensus done to come up with this statistic? This is also a mere assertion that holds no weight.

“Calvin makes this his first point as a point of contention yet they seem to be in agreement at least in essence in the first part that man can not save himself.”

Once again this is incorrect. Calvin did not formulate the 5 points and so it cannot be stated that the first point of Calvinism was Calvins first point of contention, this is not a fact nor historical truth.

“The term saint was used for believers who were walking in the way of the Sect of the Nazarene, some came and some went, they are the foundation for the true Church.”

Wrong, the term “saint” was most vigourously used by the Apostle Paul to identify and refer to ALL Christians world-wide as found in most of his epistles, lets take a look a few:

Romans 1:7
7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 1:2
2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

2 Cor. 1:1
1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia:

Ephesians 1:1
1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful [1] in Christ Jesus:

Philippians 1:1
1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants [1] of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers [2] and deacons: [3]

I assume you guys get the point.

Now the following statements by Justparadox were in response to my replies in his blogsite where he posted this paper. These few will also be historical errors one or two restated from above comments.

“Reformed theology has spawned the Jehovah’s Witness and Seventh Day Adventist, because the hard line they take both cults reacted to Calvinistic over reactions. Bet you didn’t know that.”

This is a reiteration of an above comment he made that I already spoke to. But suffice it to say once again that this assertion is false and unhistorical and once again, where are his resources for making such an assumption? He has none but probably false bias websites who make such false claims against Calvinism to make the system look evil, pure absurdity if you ask me. This tactic is dishonest and unscholarly.

“Martin Luther was only a reformed Catholic, the reformation didn’t fulfill its call to return to the first love it only reformed some bad Catholicism and kept other bad doctrine.”

Lol, he asserted something similar above to which I also already responded to. But let me add that the SOLE purpose of the reformation was in fact to return to sound biblical teaching as evident in the Reformers deeds and writings, now whether you agree with Reformed theology or not thats a different case but to claim that Luther and the Reformers (John Calvin, Zwingli, Knox to name a few) intention was to only remove some bad Catholicism is utterly ridiculous and false.

I conclude this first part with some advice to those seeking to really understands these debates and or disagreements. Really simple, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! No really if you are going to engage in study of this subject or ANY subject then actually study and thoroughly read the actual writings and works of what it is you are studying whether it be Calvinism, Eschatology, Apologetics or whatever, be of sound mind and actually do honest justice to what the subject at hand.

To be continued……………………..part 2 dealing with the strawmen and false charactitures next……stay tuned

  1. Trey.Dub says:

    Realtalk bro, every time I read a “critique” of Calvinism I always (95% of the time) find that the blogger hasn’t a clue what Calvinism is to begin with. I sometimes get concerned at the motives of these “internet theologians” who, in their unbridled zeal, embark on a voyage that is dishonest, misinformed and lacking solid, exegetical reference. Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. My fear is that these “internet theologians” feel as if somehow they are defending the faith but one thing for sure is that the Holy Spirit will NEVER tell you to do something which will violate any of the 10 Commandments. Misrepresenting someones views is at best probably just a misunderstanding but at worst it is bearing false witness against thy neighbour. Sometimes I think we should really pray for the Lords prompting BEFORE we attempt to write a theological rebuttal, lest you partake in the spread of deception and false witness amongst the brethren.Ladies and gents, let us approach the Scriptures with deep reverence and if you ever want to “critique” a theological stance, make sure you are guided by the Spirit. Preparing a “critique” that is filled with errors and “straw-man” arguements is very telling, it severely undermines your motives and is direct evidence that you were NOT guided by the Spirit because the Spirit knows Truth from error.——————————————————————————–

  2. RoLDaN says:

    I feel your pain Trey……Gee thanks Jason LOL!

  3. kingneb says:

    It’s really hard for me to take this dude seriously. I did not see any footnotes whatsoever. Just random, generic assertions from who knows where. When someone does not put in the time and present themselves professionally, then i would not expect their interaction to be any better.Have fun with that one! lol.

  4. RoLDaN says:

    ooooops…I accidentally deleted Justparadox’s comment so here it is again.”This is true… “the Holy Spirit will NEVER tell you to do something which will violate any of the 10 Commandments. Misrepresenting someones views is at best probably just a misunderstanding but at worst it is bearing false witness against thy neighbour.” and was done here… read my response.”

  5. RoLDaN says:

    Paradox, feel free to respond here bro….

  6. djnoyze says:

    I feel that you made some good points here. When I first read dude’s original critique, I kinda felt like others did where he SAID he was being fair and balanced, but wasn’t for real.Anyway, I still feel like some of the arguments that he and others make are a distraction from what’s really real sometimes. This is mainly due to me being not THAT in to church history as I am His Story. I think church history is interesting and it’s important to get to truth when you’re talking or debating church history. However, as it relates to my relationship with Jesus and my father God, the Holy Spirit was there when it all went down, so I can always check my history with His Story, and come out on top. I figure we’ll all know what’s up when he cracks the sky (unless the Amillennialism people are right) and no… I’m not really an eschatology buff either. I’m doing good just to read the actual bible on a consistent basis, yet alone a lot of other people’s writings on the debates in history.

  7. d.hyde says:

    Big ups on the site. I look forward to more!

  8. Jeramiah Paradox Giehl says:

    Okay so I know that I write things to challenge people to think and consider what they have not. However when someone refuses to consider the points at hand the usually start with character assassination to demote the person to justify ignoring the message therein. This is a response to such a persons false claims, false accusation and false judgment of me. I will let the facts that I have presented and can be seen speak for themselves.Character Assassination AttemptsSo the first thing this critique does is seek to assassinate who I am so that you will listen to him once he’s made the point that I’m a charlatan. You know I have friends who are pastors who read this blog and um lets just say that they don’t believe I’m a charlatan but hey everyone’s entitled to their opinion right? As for the false claims about “internet theologians” I pointed out to the author that I have spent 3 1/2 years in Bible college and over 10 years in ministry, over the time I have done much study, research and have read quite a few books on the related topics and other non related topics. So that’s a moot point (I’m no internet theologian) that is only made to degrade the audience from considering what I’ve said. Still the solid points of what I say remain. He quotes Romans that says those G-d “Foreknew” He “predestined” but doesn’t even deal with the points I made on that topic of foreknowledge. Overall it’s a weak, inaccurate critique that lacks the facts he spouts that I should include. I thought maybe he was going to I don’t know actually pull out a book he claimed I didn’t read and quote it, which by the way I did quote some authors accurately. Hmmm… So he takes my statement about balance and pairs it up against a statement I made about Martin Luther seeking to remain Catholic, only seeking to reform the church. If that was meant to show I wasn’t balanced that’s a #fail.He Missed The Point All TogetherI did point out errors in Arminianism as even and Arminian found issue with some of the content because I’m neither so my view is more balanced its just not swinging toward either side which is what the critique completely missed and seems to not understand. The assumption is that if I disagree with Calvin then I must be Arminian. Despite 1,500 years of church history without Calvin and Arminian, they act like you can only be one or the other. I’m neither so if you assume that I’m not making your point means I’m Arminian that’s a false assumption thus you miss the point. As I stated we need to return to “pre-Catholic biblical faith.” I’m neither Arminian or Calvinist, both find disagreement with what I’m saying and that’s good and my point.So Lets Get This Straight?First the guy starts of arguing against the order of salvation and then argues for it. Wait, you argued against my mention of it but then back it up. Repent and believe is the biblical order of salvation. To as many as called on His name He gave the right to be children of G-d. So the rest is conjecture and a moot point in a real biblical debate. And fails to note that Martin Luther himself said that his treatise on the bondage of freewill and the catechism are the only two works he cared to have published. The fact that the Ordo Salutis is taught is affirmed in the critique and that itself makes the point I made, thank you. Nothing further needs to be said.False Accusations Aren’t Becoming Of Intelligent DebateFalse accusations of “omniscience” leaves out the fact that I’ve studied, shared information that I know to be true. He may not have done the same study, may not want to study it out, he rejects it because he disagrees and therefore makes salacious claims to make his point seem valid which its not when you use those kind of tactics. Stating that I’m “omniscient” which I’m not is just absurd, just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t have fact to back up what I’m saying. If as stated he doesn’t want to have a proof text war then he shouldn’t make false claims.Martin Luther The Catholic ReformerMartin Luther started the “reformation” he sought to reform the Catholic Church that is a historic fact. I’ve have read some of his writings and its clear that he never intended to leave the Catholic Church. Martin Luther did not have a full revelation of G-d’s word as I stated in my last article no man does only G-d. Martin Luther still held Catholic beliefs, he rejected some, wanted to reform some, these are historic facts. We have since learned more about G-d’s word and come further along. Martin Luther was a step in the right direction to some degree in regards to sacraments and beings saved by grace through faith. This is not a discussion about the just living by faith though it’s a discussion about predestination. The points about Calvinism are solid, the five points of Calvin and Arminian are presented factually. The commentary isn’t really a critique as its just a rejection of any point of view that’s not Calvinist. There have been many revelations about the scriptures, the translators and translations, much of which I deal with in this blog. The process of biblical truth or even reformation isn’t complete, that’s my point. As scripture says “until the restoration of all things.” There have been pieces in the puzzle. I’m not discussing the foundational principle of justification by faith. The point is on another topic that isn’t as fundamental. Martin Luther sought to REFORM the Catholic Church thus the name REFORMATION. That’s a historic fact. Protestant brings the idea of protesting against. Seeking to REFORM or REIMAGE the Catholic Church is not the goal. Getting back to purely scriptural faith.I Have Years Of Personal Related Experience In This TopicSomething that this critique doesn’t realize doesn’t know about Jehovah’s Witness and 7th Day Adventist is that they had bible studies together in their inception. He doesn’t know that they were reacting to Predestination as it was taught by Calvinist. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness and since have come to the L-rd, yet I have studied their Church history. The JW and 7th Day Adventist in their birth stages where tied together by their leaders, bible studies and students they shared. They parted ways eventually, the fact is they did share common views, a rejection of Hell and Predestination was a major point they agreed in and that brought them together. Calvinism is what created the schism they responded to. Charles Taze Russell the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness left bible school because he disagree with Calvinism and that is why he started the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, when he started of he was having bible studies with the leader of the 7th Day Adventist movement. That is where they got all their failed end time date prophecies based upon a false view and interpretation of the Mayan calendar. Given that this critique didn’t know that fact before critiquing me he should have asked why I said that before rejecting it claiming that I’m “omniscient” or whatever. That’s an actual fact. Like it or not it happened that way. Do the research you claim I didn’t do before you critique something I know intimately about. Being raised a Jehovah’s Witness I know their history and have studied it out for myself. I have also spent almost fifteen years study Church history, the first ten years it was primarily the reformation, the past five to ten its become more of an early church research. I don’t provide all the source because I don’t have the time and I’m not a paid researcher. I would love to go back through the books I’ve read and go through libraries and provide research evidence. This is a blog and I have a family and a life. I don’t have the time to devote to re-inventing the wheel when I have done the research for many years. The fact is I do know what I am speaking about and its based in fact. Despite the claim I am far from and “internet theologian” I felt a call to start writing blogs about what I believe because people need to know things I’ve learned that many aren’t being told. I’m just sharing the truth as I learn it. If you disagree that’s your choice. As my wife said you don’t have to read my blog. You can skip to the next one if you don’t like what I’m saying. Its one thing to disagree with a point its another to accuse me falsely of being and “internet theologian” or “omniscient.” Just because I’ve posted my writing on a blog doesn’t mean that’s where I get my theology from. I’ve read the bible from cover to cover and study and research history a lot. I’m always watching the History and Discovery Channel, reading up and researching historical information. Now when I write I write my opinions views or slant or understanding of that. Much of my blog was originally written as papers for classes I was taking in bible school, some where sermons and messages I’ve actually preached. For now this blog is one of the ways I preach the good news. With the amount of people who view this blog daily and monthly it is a pulpit to reach people. I seek to inform, inspire and encourage people. I do seek to set the captives free with the liberating truth in Yeshua that resonates throughout the word yet many preachers don’t speak it. So there it is. Why I do what I do. As the critique rightly says the cults appears a few hundred years after Calvinism was first postulated, no duh. What came first the chicken or the egg? Calvinism had to exist for them to reject and respond to it right? Oh okay glad we got that clear. Yes 7th Day Adventist and JW’s are Arminian as a response and reaction to Calvinism. Calvinism is connected to Calvin right? The idea started with him the five points are based off his teaching, right? I was rebuked for saying Calvin instead of Calvinism oh so sad. The point matter more than conjecture and bad critique. Calvinism is a response to Arminianism. The vile way the Calvinist bishops defrocked the Arminian bishops smacks of Catholic witch hunts and quackery. Anyways, I really don’t want to talk about the horrible way that they handle the council or Dort. I left that out because we’ll I was trying to keep it on the points of agreement, contention and potential growth.The proof Is In The PuddingI have personally known a few Calvinist, I have known a few pagan’s and Christian’s who feel away from the church because how they were treated by “elitist” acting “Calvinist.” I don’t feel I need to put a lot into that I’m not trying to do an expose on how those who think they are the “elect” act like the 144,000 elite of the JW’s the better than us class of super Christian’s who we can only hope to attain to their level or specialness. Whether you agree or not the facts are that people who don’t understand how a loving G-d can predestine sinners to hell or how the “elect” act to crude, turn away from G-d and to paganism or fall into sin, really isn’t the point. Again that’s just part of the baggage that comes with creating an “elite” super class of “elect” Christian whom let others know they are elect and their not. I could go on to name names and point out people and situations I’ve lived through and know of and have read but I refuse to if you don’t want to accept that fact then move on. Next point.Calvin Is The Founder Of Calvinism Right?So associating him with the doctrines come from him would be natural. Sorry for saying Calvin in the place of Calvinism. The facts remain Calvinism is present as I stated it was. I built a solid case on what is actually believed and taught whether Calvin said it himself or it was formulated by his minions and followers.Overlooking History Is A Bad IdeaSo I got rebuked for bringing up that the followers of Yeshua where called the “way” or the “sect” of the Nazarene. Um that’s a historical fact that can be proven. Whether one wants to study that out or not is on them. If they reject that point because of the Calvin / Arminian debate that’s just wrong. That point isn’t either Calvin or Arminian since they existed way before either ideology or person existed. Yes, Paul called believers saints, what Paul called believers in his personal letters to them isn’t even the point. Believers where mockingly called “Christian” and it wasn’t until Rome made the followers of Yeshua an official part of their “Universal” (Catholic) Religion that the title “Christian” became accepted. But that point has NOTHING to do with predestination so I’m not really going to reinvent the wheel I have dealt with the topic of the Nazarene’s and the Universal Roman Religion enough here to not have to make that point over again. Given some of the points I make I’ve made over and over and you’d have to be an active reader of my blog to see the research. As many times as I’ve discussed it I don’t need to keep posting the same comments and content. It becomes redundant. So if someone wants to research out a point go ahead. Don’t tie one point that is a general statement to and overarching statement. The foundation of the scriptural Church we need to get back to that’s not a Calvin or Arminian point it’s a fact.The Truth“Reformed theology has spawned the Jehovah’s Witness and Seventh Day Adventist, because the hard line they take both cults reacted to Calvinistic over reactions. Bet you didn’t know that.”Is historical as I have shown already. If one doesn’t seek to search out the truth and rejects it doesn’t mean its not historical just means the person doesn’t know. And since he accuses me of not doing my research um well the fact is he hasn’t done his research on that statement or the factuality of it. I have personal experience as a Jehovah’s Witness and studying their history as stated. Pick up a book and don’t claim someone is an internet theologian who isn’t especially when you end up being found guilty of all the things you call “internet theology.” So really who is the internet theologian? Not I.Calvin A Reformed CatholicSo why does the Lutheran, and Episcopalian churches look like mini-Catholic churches without the “pope” oh wait because they still hold Catholic doctrine. All Roman Catholic doctrine is errant based in a pseudo-Christo Pagan Cult based in Mithraism and Platonianism, another point I’ve clearly made over and over so I won’t reinvent this wheel again. Pick up a book and do some research outside of your little circle or club. Read unbiased opinions not just one sided debates. And don’t start accusing people of stuff you yourself do. Character assassinations don’t make good debates.“Until the restoration of all things.”The fact that REFORMERS where trying to REFORM the Catholic Church is a fact. Protestants where protesting the Catholic Church. Sometimes people where both Protestant and Reformed, some where either / or. They aren’t always synonymous sometimes they are though. However that’s not the point. Not rejecting bad Catholic doctrine all together and completely is. Reforming some isn’t the point. In my blog on “Did the reformation complete its goals” I thoroughly deal with the fact that the reformation didn’t complete its goals, it made some good changes but didn’t complete its purpose.Some Solid AdviceDo your homework before falsely accusing someone of all the things I was accused of. Don’t try character assassination. Keep it on the point and don’t demean the person. Before you falsely claim to know what someone thinks or why they say something or even that they are wrong, you should discuss with the person before calling them out in public and by name. Especially when you get everything wrong in your critique. Keep it on the points. False accusation and character assassination are counter productive and show the weakness of your point. As I’ve presented a defense against the accusations I will let the truth of what has been said stand for itself. Blessings and SHALOM (PEACE).

  9. RoLDaN says:

    Sigh….well, I was going to reply to your comments Jeramiah but all you did was reiterate all the historical errors I already pointed out all over again. Once again you have presented ZERO evidence for your assertions; No footnotes, no sources, no quotes, no nothing. You actually want people to just take your word for it? Cmon dude, you wanting to pursue in the field of Editorial and Journalism should know better than that bro. As for you claiming that I attacked your character, I did no such thing. I said nothing to your character but in fact did comment on your technique as a writer those are two different things sir. And your claim that I did not present any biblical evidence, lol, I am not even done with all the parts of my paper. This part of my critique was only to show your historical fallacies no more no less to which you still have yet to prove me wrong. I’m not the only one who has been telling you this so please take heed the the wise and sound counsel cats have been giving you. There is a better way of doing these things but just making empty and vain assertions doesn’t help in discussions nor does it help in attempting to teach truth.Grace and PeaceRoldan

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s