A Response To Zack Ford

     In case anyone has missed it, there was a recent study released in the New Atlantis Journal, detailing the findings of a study of over 200 scientific, peer reviewed papers on the entire "lgbtqaaip" spectrum. (That acronym isn't a joke, that's what it's actually expanded to now. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Asexual, Ally, intersex, Pansexual) Now this report (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf) is compiled by two well accredited doctors in the field, including Dr. Paul McHugh, the man who created a firestorm by simply reporting the findings of a 30 year study on transgender surgery, and it's negative or at best neutral effects on the suicide rate among transgender people. This current report has created an angry furor on the left, while those of us who have been saying for years that there is no scientific evidence for "being born gay", etc, are simply vindicated. This however is construed as "hateful" or that we're "anti-lgbt bigots", as if when they thought science was on their side it was just science, but now that it's not, science and the advocacy of science is now "hateful". Take for instance this article from thinkprogress.org. A far left internet rag that routinely employs such nasty rhetoric. While trying to find more information about the New Atlantis article, I unsurprisingly came across this "article". (https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5) Now I mentioned, as soon as the publication of the New Atlantis article was made public, that this sort of "journalism" would come screaming to the fore. I was not disappointed. However, in true emotional fashion, this piece is fraught with problems. Instead of reading what the scientists released, it was merely a hit piece attempting to poison the well for any information one may glean from it. I've already downloaded the article, as I fear it will soon be removed from publication, since the response from those who deny God tends to be to tear down that which they find "offensive". Never mind their offensive remarks and attacks on those of us who hold to God and His revelation, that doesn't count in their book. Of course our friends on that side of the issue are nothing if not inconsistent! Let's begin shall we?

     "Anti-LGBT conservative outlets have been abuzz this week about a new report that seems suspiciously designed to make it look like those who oppose LGBT equality have science on their side.

They don’t."

     Right away we have the attempted poisoning of the well, the attempted painting of "conservative outlets" as "anti-lgbt". It never crosses Zack Ford's mind that instead perhaps we're pro-sanity? Pro-not redefining all of society to appease the extreme minority? Perhaps that we're actually pro-science? Nope, in his mind, anyone who isn't all for every single sexual deviancy they come up with, is automatically "anti-lgbt". Children think like this. Children also come up with conspiracy theories to hand wave away facts and reality when it smacks them in the face. Such as here where we open up with painting the science as being "suspiciously designed" and that if you disagree with them you're "anti-lgbt equality". Please name a single point at which anyone in the Rainbow Letter Gang, are somehow unequally treated? Except of course for when they get preferential treatment as a "minority". Now Zack seems to think the science isn't on our side? Let's see if he bothers to expound and prove us incorrect, aside from simple ad hominem attacks on the scientists who wrote the paper, or somehow calling their credibility into question. I'm not holding my breath in case you're wondering.

     "The “Sexuality and Gender” special report, published by The New Atlantis, claims to undermine the belief that LGBT people are “born that way.” It purports to be a thorough analysis of the research on LGBT identities that just so happens to lend legitimacy to many of the arguments against affirming LGBT people and protecting them under the law"

     And here we are with yet more conspiracy theory jargon. Where, in any place in the entirety of the U. S. of A., are those who claim to be "lgbtqaaip" not equal? He can't come up with anywhere, or he would've cited them in this article. Also, if the science shows that those who claim to be "transgender" are actually mentally ill, or have some other treatable issue that, once treated, can help them live happy and productive lives, why does he fight so hard against it? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the suicide rate go down to zero, or as close as is possible for these people. Yet those who attack the science seem to think that just because we had a 30 year long study proving that mutilating one's body in an effort to make it conform to what you think it should be doesn't lessen the rate of suicide an iota, that doesn't mean we should find an alternative or find the real cause, because that's just "hateful". Let that sink in for a second. Leaving the astronomically high suicide rate where it is, isn't hateful, but looking at the facts and trying to get to the bottom of the problem is. That's called insanity.

     "But the report has no new information, no new arguments, and — despite its 143 pages of analysis — is still more notable for what it doesn’t say."

Of course the report doesn't have new information! It wasn't a new study, but a compilation and examination of past studies! Over 200 in fact! The whole point is that while the Rainbow Letter Gang has been running around touting that their position is the scientific one, these scientists actually compiled the science, and showed them they are wrong!


     "The report’s conclusions include the following:

•Sexual orientation is not biologically fixed."

     Actually, it states there is no "gay gene" so that it cannot be claimed homosexuals are "born that way".

"•Non-heterosexual people seem more likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse."

     A stat which most of the scientific and mental health community have been saying for decades yet has been largely ignored.

"•Gender identity is not biologically fixed."

     Here's a direct quote from the study: "*The suggestion that we are “born that way” is more complex in the case of gender identity. In one sense, the evidence that we are born with a given gender seems well supported by direct observation: males over-whelmingly identify as men and females as women. The fact that children are (with a few exceptions of intersex individuals) born either biologically male or female is beyond debate. The biological sexes play complementary roles in reproduction, and there are a number of population-level average physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. However, while biological sex is an innate feature of human beings, gender identity is a more elusive concept.*" So let's not play at trying to twist what's being said in the study. That's dishonest.

"•Both non-heterosexuals and transgender people experience a higher risk of negative mental health outcomes — and stigma and stress don’t seem to fully explain it."

     Again, something the scientific and psychological community have been saying for decades, yet people would rather ignore this fact and continue letting the mass suicides continue!

"•Nothing supports affirming children as transgender."

     Again, I just feel like saying "DUH!" It's a well established fact that over 80% of those who claim to be "transgender" outgrow it by the end of puberty.


     "In addition to these claims, digging a bit deeper into the report’s origins supports the idea that it’s little more than anti-LGBT propaganda."

     You heard it here first folks. Science is now "anti-lgbt propaganda"! Will we see any evidence of this, or is this another conspiracy theory?

     "One of its co-authors is Dr. Paul McHugh, the retired Johns Hopkins University professor who is generally the only scientist whom opponents of transgender equality ever cite and who has his own history of overt anti-LGBT bias."

     Ok so who had the sixth paragraph in the pool on when they'd run to the ad hominem attacks? Cause you just won the pot! Dr. McHugh's "history of overt bias" stems from the fact that he ended gender reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins when it was finally realized that it wasn't helping the transgender people who would come to them for help! So remember, trying to help and trying to find the proper way to deal with transgenderism is hate and bias, but applauding a ridiculously high suicide rate and affirming that which leads to that suicide is not. Don't bother trying to wrap your head around that. There isn't a shred of logic to be found there. The entire point is, that if "transgenderism" isn't normal, if there is something we can do to help these people, then the entire stance of "equality" goes out the window. Unless you think there needs to be "Body Dysmorphia equality"? Or perhaps "Schizophrenia Equality"? How about "Bulemia and Anorexia Equality"? See how ridiculous it is? Why is it in these cases, the people need help, yet in a related issue, we must simply embrace it and call that "loving"?


     "The report was published in The New Atlantis, a journal that is affiliated with the anti-LGBT Ethics and Public Policy Center and prides itself on not being peer-reviewed."

     And yet more conspiracy theories and no direct refutation of the science! As well as a dash of guilt by association. Of course as I pointed out before, if the Ethics and Public Policy Center ever disagreed with not completely falling all over themselves to affirm every aspect of the Rainbow Letter Gang, then that's all it takes to be labeled "anti-lgbt" anyway, so this "accusation" holds no weight. You can only play the "bigot" card just so often before you become the boy who cried hate. Oh, and as to it not being peer reviewed, of course not! You said it yourself that there was no new information! They're reviewing the peer reviewed material! A third peer review would be beyond redundant!

     "And when it was released on Monday, the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal was ready to promote the report and the fancy featurette video that accompanies it — one that looks suspiciously like plenty of other Heritage-produced videos."

    So still no response to the science or the findings, just more conspiracy theories? Isn't it just possible that Daily Signal got wind of it, and reported on it? We've certainly heard almost nothing from what we would consider "mainstream media" about this. A lot of smoke has been thrown up so far, and I'm betting a good deal more is to come. If this keeps up, I may simply end this response early. There's nothing to really respond to if all we have is inane conspiracy theories.


     "Moreover, the authors are well aware their conclusions will be perceived as anti-LGBT. “We anticipate that this report may elicit spirited responses, and we welcome them,” they wrote. McHugh’s co-author Lawrence Mayer also explains in his preface that some researchers didn’t want to even be acknowledged in the study because they “feared an angry response from the more militant elements of the LGBT community.”"

     Actually this speaks more loudly about the Rainbow Letter Gang than it does about the scientists. So even though these people knew that folks like those at "Think Progress" (though honestly I've seen no thinking AT ALL yet in this article) would react negatively, even to the point that some who helped work on the study didn't want to be named, they still published it any way, and that's somehow a mark against them? They even say they welcome the response! That's what scientists are supposed to say! You welcome the responses and criticisms because it points out any errors in your work, and it can then be corrected! That's the scientific method! That's science! Only a left wing ideologue so deeply buried in their narrative they can't see above it, would claim that scientists welcoming criticism is somehow "anti-lgbt".


     "What’s interesting about the report is that most of the analysis is respectable. Mayer and McHugh examine a lot of valid studies and write about them in fair ways, with most of the necessary caveats to avoid distortion."

     Remember this in a moment, the fact that Zach admits that the analysis is respectable. He's about to contradict himself again.


     "Where it goes wrong is in the research that it omits and the conclusions it draws that seem to completely ignore how LGBT people live their lives, despite claiming not to “discuss matters of morality or policy.”"

     Here is a glaring example of emotionalism overriding clear, logical thought. The study looked at over 200 papers! There wasn't anything "omitted" or at least one example would've been cited. Also, how someone lives their life, is irrelevant to science. There's where the emotionalism comes in. It's the "Well I know a transgender person and they're a great person" line. Anecdotal experience is not science. I could easily say the same in reverse. (I actually could. There is a pre-op male to female transgender that lives near me, and while he suffers no bullying, in fact quite the opposite, he freely admits he's extremely unhappy.) The entire idea of avoiding the morality is shown in the very fact that they don't take such anecdotal evidence into account! Zack here is apparently unaware of how science actually works.


     "In some places — particularly the case of transgender children — it openly rejects affirmation of LGBT identities, but in many other places it simply lays out all the dots for a reader to connect them that way. As such, instead of serving as any new resource about LGBT lives, the report seems to function more as a litmus test for anti-LGBT bias."

     So if one does not start by affirming your position, it's somehow unscientific? That's called begging the question. Again, if this were the case, then an example would've been cited. I'm writing this with the report open in another tab, and referring to it often. As I pointed out before, the vast majority of children who claim to be transgender, outgrow it by the end of puberty. Also, if this study shows that transgenderism is somehow a mental disorder, or like it says, not an inborn trait, then reinforcing the notion of pumping children's growing bodies with dangerous and harmful chemicals, chemicals that shorten their life spans by decades, only to have them grow out of it a few years later is gross misconduct and child abuse! Perhaps the well being of the person should be kept in mind, and not the furthering of a left wing agenda? Instead we see more buzz words like "anti-lgbt bias". Like I said, put the people above the narrative just once!


     "The main thrust of the New Atlantis report is the paired questions of whether sexual orientation is a “fixed and innate biological property” and whether gender identity is “fixed at birth or at a very early age.” In a sense, these are straw man questions that Mayer and McHugh set up to knock down, because their answers are not particularly insightful."

     Umm that's not a strawman. Zack's characterization of their argument is a strawman. And he seriously work for a "news" agency? Also, simply because he disagrees, doesn't make them "not insightful", it just means Zack couldn't get passed their bias to see the science. By the way, still waiting for the refutation of the scientific information!


     "On the question of “sexual orientation,” the authors expound at length about how the very concept is so “ambiguous.” It’s not clear, they argue, whether the term is always being used to describe “sexual desire,” “sexual attraction,” or “sexual arousal,” noting that “sexual orientation and identity are understood not only in scientific and personal terms, but in social, moral, and political terms as well.” That’s true, and likewise, many people’s sexual orientations don’t fit neatly into discrete categories of heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality."

     Actually they do, except folks such as Zack seem to be of the mind that there are as many genders and orientations as there are people. All of them fall into one category or another. Either homosexual, or heterosexual. I'll even give you the third option of bisexual. If you are attracted to people of the same gender, its homosexuality. If you're attracted to people of the opposite gender, it's heterosexuality, if you're supposedly attracted to both then it would be bisexuality. There isn't another category, and I would argue that bisexuality would fit more closely in the homosexual category anyway. There is no other option, and that bares out in that again, no examples are given. Even things like "pansexuality" would still fall under the "bisexual" category.

     "Despite this ambiguity, the available evidence they provide from twin studies and genetic research nevertheless leads them to the conclusion that a person’s genetics likely does inform their sexual orientation. But, they insist, it just doesn’t tell the full story. For example, it doesn’t explain how sexuality can be fluid over time, nor does it explain one particular study that found that heterosexuality seemed to be more “stable” over time, fluctuating less than other sexualities."

     Ah yes, the twin studies. While it's true that fairly often when one twin is homosexual, so is the other. What sinks this as the "silver bullet" for a genetic cause for homosexuality is those instances where the twins are not both homosexual. In fact, this study concludes that while there may be a predisposition towards homosexuality, that it's more likely directly effected by ones environment and experience. This takes it firmly out of the "gay gene" realm. Now as to the idea of other sexualities being "more fluid" it's really quite simple. Heterosexuality is the norm. It is stable because that is how humanity is designed. All other sexualities are a deviation from this normal state, and therefore are unstable by nature. This is borne out even by Zack's own admission to what the study says.


     "As Warren Throckmorton points out, they notably omit a massive recent review of research on sexual orientation, which found that generally only women’s sexuality is fluid, and that there is “considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes.” Whereas the researchers behind that massive review concluded that “sexual orientation is an important, fundamental trait that has been understudied because it is politically controversial,” Mayer and McHugh suggest instead downplaying the importance of identifying with sexual orientation:

   *We may have some reasons to doubt the common assumption that in order to live happy and flourishing lives, we must somehow discover this innate fact about ourselves that we call sexuality or sexual orientation, and invariably express it through particular patterns of sexual behavior or a particular life trajectory. Perhaps we ought instead to consider what sorts of behaviors — whether in the sexual realm or elsewhere — tend to be conducive to health and flourishing, and what kinds of behaviors tend to undermine a healthy and flourishing life.*

It’s these kinds of dogwhistles that undermine the report’s attempts at impartiality."

     Except the study Zack cites says basically the same thing, they simply add more emphasis to twin studies, which as I explained above has a major flaw. Namely that it isn't 100% of twins that will both be homosexual. "*No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females).*"

http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/2/45.full.pdf+htmlf

     Add to this, the "dog whistle" comment, and you have all the makings of an article built on confirmation bias. This is a fallacy where one cherry picks ideas or evidence to suit their agenda, while ignoring the rest. I'd like to point out that the single study cited (versus the over 200 by the one in contention) is selected because Zack believes it bolsters his worldview. It does not. Mr. Ford also ignores the point behind the passage (ripped out of context) of the rest of the study. It's saying, "Instead of just blindly accepting that which may be harmful and lead to a miserable life, we need to focus on that which is harmful and attempt to help correct it." Of course Zack is apparently much happier with the idea of astronomical suicide rates and people living vastly diminished and sickly lives, all in the name of "equality". A term that is never actually defined.

     "For years, religious conservatives have used “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric to try to distinguish identity from behavior, as if loving a person in spite of their orientation is on par with loving a person, including their orientation. Anyone who believes that people shouldn’t identify with their sexuality or that gay sex is unhealthy will feel affirmed in those beliefs by this conclusion."

     How is loving someone enough that you don't want to see them go to hell, rhetoric? If a man is walking blindly off of a cliff, do you let them go and say "It's their choice! I don't want to limit their freedom!" Yet when someone cares enough to call out and say "Hey buddy! There's a cliff there watch out!" You'd say "How dare you deny him his equality!" We also know, based on both the study Mr. Ford is misrepresenting, and the one he cited, the entire spectrum of the Rainbow Letter Gang is not healthy! Incredibly high suicide rates, incredibly high disease rates, incredibly high mental illness rates, etc, etc. If this is healthy, then what do you consider the converse of the lgbtqaaip equation when these things are an outlier as opposed to lgbtqaaip lives where this is the core? Loving a person is being willing to tell them when what they are doing is wrong or dangerous. You don't let children play with matches, you don't let blind men walk near open pits, you don't let people go to hell without at least having heard the truth. The fact that people like the writer of this article are so angry and railing so hard against it, seems to lend weight to the point.

     "Another dogwhistle reinforces a trope frequently used by proponents of ex-gay therapy. Mayer and McHugh cite research that shows that LGB people tend to have experienced higher rates of childhood sexual abuse. They then speculate as to whether this suggests that such abuse causes a non-heterosexual orientation, finding no conclusive answer. They don’t bother to mention that such speculation does nothing to explain the majority of LGB people who never experience such abuse."

     Here we are again with the conspiracy theories. Using terms like "dog whistle" to try to impugn the people reporting on the facts, and those who attempt to help homosexuals turn from their homosexuality. The fact that it does work (not in every case of course but in some) seems to be irrelevant to the proponents of the Rainbow Letter Gang. I wonder if it ever occurred to Zack if the point isn't in explaining all cases of homosexuality, but those that actually have a correlation to instances of sexual abuse? This never seems to dawn on him. The fact that they report they found no direct link and admit such, seems to also be irrelevant. Why mention a possible causal link between homosexuality and sexual abuse in those who are not sexually abused? Especially when you've just admitted there is insufficient evidence to support the idea? How is this admission a "dog whistle"?


     "Likewise, Mayer and McHugh show absolutely no evidence that there is any way to manipulate people’s sexual orientation, either as children or adults, openly acknowledging that it’s not a choice and not even mentioning ex-gay therapy. But that doesn’t stop them from insinuating otherwise:

*The most commonly accepted view in popular discourse we mentioned above — the “born that way” notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are biologically innate or the product of very early developmental factors — has led many non-specialists to think that homosexuality or heterosexuality is in any given person unchangeable and determined entirely apart from choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts. However, as the following discussion of the relevant scientific literature shows, this is not a view that is well-supported by research.*"

     They show absolutely no evidence huh? Too bad Zack stopped his quote right before the research was cited! "*For example, in 2000, psychologist J. Michael 
Bailey and colleagues conducted a major study of sexual orientation using 
twins in the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 
Twin Registry, a large probability sample, which was therefore more 
likely to be representative of the general population than Kallmann’s.33
The study employed the Kinsey scale to operationalize sexual orientation 
and estimated concordance rates for being homosexual of 20% for men 
and 24% for women in identical (maternal, monozygotic) twins, compared 
to 0% for men and 10% for women in non-identical (fraternal, dizygotic) 
twins.34 The difference in the estimated concordance rates was statisti-
cally significant for men but not for women. On the basis of these findings, 
the researchers estimated that the heritability of homosexuality for men 
was 0.45 with a wide 95% confidence interval of 0.00–0.71; for women, 
it was 0.08 with a similarly wide confidence interval of 0.00–0.67. These 
estimates suggest that for males 45% of the differences between certain 
sexual orientations (homosexual versus heterosexuals as measured by the 
Kinsey scale) could be attributed to differences in genes.
The large confidence intervals in the study by Bailey and colleagues 
mean that we must be careful in assessing the substantive significance of 
these findings. The authors interpret their findings to suggest that “any 
major gene for strictly defined homosexuality has either low penetrance 
or low frequency,”35 but their data did show (marginal) statistical signifi-
cance. While the concordance estimates seem somewhat high in the mod-
els used, the confidence intervals are so wide that it is difficult to judge 
the reliability, including the replicability, of these estimates.*" And this was just in the first couple of paragraphs after he decided to end his quotation. They even used the debunked "Kinsey Scale" giving an even greater advantage to the proponents of sexual deviancy! (http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/23/0956797615598617.abstract)

     There are more instances of dishonesty of course but the existence of one example is enough (if the rest of the article wasn't) to show us all we need to know about the writer of this article. He is untruthful. No that's too lenient. Zack is an outright liar peddling false information under the guise of journalism to promote his social justice worldview, and to defend his homosexuality! Sorry Zack, we're not buying it! I gave the link to Zack's original piece for those who wish to torture themselves further. I'll leave you with this screenshot of Zack's Facebook post promoting his "article", and an excerpt from his blog. I'll point out one thing; the "I read it so you don't have to" line is in short deceptive. I'll tell you straight out, read his article, read both studies I linked to, make your own decision. I won't demean your intelligence and hope to blow a smokescreen. That line is designed to stop thought, not encourage it. If Zack truly believed that the study was faulty, or created a false narrative, he'd have you running to the study instead of cherry picking quotes out of context, and then telling you not to check for yourselves. Don't take my word for it, I urge you to read for yourselves. God bless!

     "People who blog anonymously or write anonymous letters but expect to be taken seriously do not get a whole lot of respect from me, because it seems to me they are more or less cowards." (http://zackfordblogs.com/whoiszackford/)

     There's a reason many of us blog anonymously Zack, and its because people like you have no compunction about doc dropping and fomenting hatred and attacks against us. You can find me on G+ with the same handle, as anyone can, and you'll notice I leave my comments section open. Feel free to drop by for a free journalism lesson and a strong does of the Gospel!

**UPDATE**

     It had occurred to me while writing this that someone had recently interviewed Mr. Ford on a similar issue, and pointed out his hypocrisy and errors quite well. I found it in the form of a Steven Crowder clip on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=22Hg2zRCRYg

Taking Out The Meme Trash

     All too often I've been forced to say "atheists are their own best evidence as to why atheists should not engage in theological discussions." Time and again I've run into atheists who took only a surface level view of any part of a theological point. Everything from simply ripping a verse or passage out of context, to deliberate addition of words or concepts to make some aspect of the Bible or a theological concept seem evil or hateful. Well nowhere is this more evident than in the recent spat of atheist memes I've run into. Now admittedly memes are shallow by their nature, but these really take the cake. That said, it's high time I deconstructed a few of these. Here we go:

     This one is a bit less "atheist" and more pro-lgbt, but the point is the same. Seriously? Persecution? And people claim Christians have a persecution complex. That's what this meme represents, a complex whereby if you do not full embrace and condone every single deviancy thought up by the ever expanding rainbow letter brigade, you're somehow persecuting them. I've never seen a less persecuted group in my life. They are extremely over sampled in the media, so much so that though the actual lgbt population in America is actually less than 4% (and even lower in areas of higher education, imagine that! http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx ) they make up approximately 25-33% of those on television and in the media. Their "gay pride" events are not mobbed with people beating them up or gunning them down, and as it turns out, the actual violence against the lgbt community comes from within! (http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue) While violence does occur from time to time (eg the Florida shooter) it is no way at "persecution" levels. The Jews in Nazi Germany were persecuted. Christians in Islamic countries are persecuted. The Afghani's under Russia were persecuted. Just because you get your feels hurt when someone disagrees isn't persecution. Also, there aren't "straight pride" events for two reasons. 1) Because heterosexuality is normal, whilst homosexuality (and the other letters) is abnormal, and deviant. We don't need to celebrate normalcy. And 2) one time someone tried to hold a "straight pride" event, the lgbt community completely lost their minds over it and protested. Its called the "tyranny of the minority".

     I've never understood the point to simply quoting one ignorant man as if it somehow lends credence to your own ignorance. It's called the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. The idea that the Bible taught people to rape, murder, and be cruel? Well then what was the excuse for all those in the past that never picked up a Bible? Or how about all those who committed such acts prior to its compilation? You see, even some of the most intelligent people in history are guilty of incredibly shallow thinking when it comes to Christianity. In fact, one of the most ridiculous claims of Paine was "The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed." This statement is laughable, and adds yet even more weight to my point that atheists should remain out of the realm of the theological. The Bible is the most heavily examined (and most well attested) book in history! Too bad Mr. Paine chose not to take his own advice and examine the Bible. He may have become a Christian then.

     This one had me laughing. I simply wonder if the person who put this one together bothered to stop and think about the fact that Albert Einstein was a deist (that's s type of theism folks!), and said that the more he studied the universe, the more convinced there was a God. He rejected the God of Christianity because he said (and I'm paraphrasing of course) that it was too easy. That the God that created the universe couldn't possibly be so easy to know. I would've asked Albert, why would God not want to be known? Why create the universe, complete with life and all its wonders, and then just walk away? Now, back to the meme. I also wonder if this meme creator realizes that most of the major branches of science were started by Christians? This is of course ignoring the fact this is a complete strawman. Christians don't deny technology. Although I guess I could say to atheists, next time you need to get medical imaging done, stay away from getting an MRI. I mean, that was invented by a young earth creationist Christian after all, and well since you deny creationism, you can't use the technology created by them. See how the logic falls apart?

     Oh the idiocy! To simply slap the label Of "Christian" on a list of torture devices and try to poison the well, or build strawmen. These devices may have been used by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, however, first Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity secondly, these devices weren't invented by Christians, third this is the fallacy of the unrepresentative sample, and fourth these devices were used on Christians! Of course most of us wouldn't be macabre enough to want to go digging into the history of torture devices, but for the sake of this article, I did. Let's break this down one device at a time.

Judas Chair: This image is not of a Judas Chair, also known as a Judas Cradle. The Judas Chair is only alleged to have actually been used. There is no hard evidence it ever was. The image is of something called an inquisitors chair, and was used as a psychological "torture" though it is in fact more akin to a bed of nails. The threat of applying pressure once once was sat in the chair was the catalyst. The fact that they just grabbed an image of what they thought it might be, tells me they did far less research into this than I did.

Torture Rack: while used by the Roman Catholic Inquisition (Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity by the way) it's invention actually dates back to emperor Nero. You know the guy who tortured and killed Christians? Tacitus mentions it's use in 65 AD on a woman. She later committed suicide because of her injuries.

Coffin: This device was used not just by the Inquisition but also by rulers of the time, and usually as a death sentence for a rather serious crime. To claim it's a "Christian" device is absurd.

The Wooden Horse: This more closely resembles the Judas Chair from before, and was actually from the Roman empire. You know, again those crazy guys trying to kill Christians?

The guillotine: First, this isn't even a torture device. It was an execution device made famous by the French Revolution, wherein the people overthrew the French monarchy and beheaded the nobles. It was created as a more humane means of execution, as it was quick and lacked the possible human error of an axe. At times the axeman would miss, not completely severing the head, the victim being left alive and suffering until another blow could be struck. The guillotine got its name during this time, but was in use elsewhere in Europe in different forms for centuries. This takes it out of the idea of it being a "Christian torture device".

Neck torture: The name given this is extremely vague, and the only reference I could find to a similar device was used by the courts during the medieval period, as the Roman Catholic Church disdained the shedding of blood during its questioning.

What does all this mean? Basically that whoever three this meme together had a serious axe to grind and wasn't above lying and slandering Christians to do so. Even the last line: "Where would Christianity be without these" shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking. Christianity would be right where it is today. A handful of reprehensible people using such devices in the name of their religion, does not reflect negatively on that religion unless they are following it's tenets. Since torture is not a tenet of Christianity (seriously, love they neighbor as thyself anyone?) these people were in direct violation of Christianity. Just as atheists don't like it when people like Mao or Stalin and their atrocities are brought up as a negative reflection on atheists and atheism, so too with the Inquisition.

     This one is so simple I'm ashamed for humanity that it is even still around. Species is a human construct that has, at my last count, somewhere around fourteen different definitions. To simplify, a species would be like an individual breed of dog. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both different species. However, biblical "kinds" are not at the species level but lies more closely to the Family or Genus level. That said, Noah didn't bring two of every Chihuahua on board, but a single pair dog kind. There is a great deal of science behind this, and it's been shown that using this delineation, rather than the absurd species delineation, the Ark would've easily fit all the animals aboard. (http://creation.mobi/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark) Oh and before I get the "Yeah but it couldn't float!" argument, let me quote something for you: "“You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work,” said Thomas Morris, one of the students who worked on the project, in a statement." (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/) Actually I find it surprising that though the Bible isn't a science textbook, whenever if speaks to a scientific idea, it has yet to be proven wrong, and despite that, these people are working under the assumption that it's always wrong. Ah the seared mind of the secular scientist.

     Now this one REALLY got me cracking up! Oh the old emotional "problem of evil" canard. Firstly, as an atheist, you'd have no standard by which to judge whether something is evil or not. Without that foundation, you literally are spitting into the wind! Your argument requires an objective standard of morality, something naturalistic materialism can't account for. Now, atheists demand that humans have a "free will" yet here it seems that when they have it, they'd rather blame God for humanity's evil choices? You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's like a parent giving a child of driving age a car, the child crashing that car and blaming the parent because they gave them the car. It's circular, illogical, and childish. Evil exists because mankind is a fallen creature. Our nature is to sin and love it. This is why we have the self-centered, self-absorbed "me me me" culture we have today. You atheists believe in evolution right? Then why not evolve a backbone and take responsibility for yourself.

     Again, back to the idea that Christians deny science. This strawman is used and abused so often it looks like the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz after the flying monkeys have had at him. We do not deny science, we are not willfully ignorant of science. Most of science is founded by Christians. I think I'm becoming a broken record on this point but it never seems to sink into their skulls. What science are Christians willfully ignorant of? Abiogenesis? That's not science, it's wishful thinking. Even purely secular science has abandoned it as indefensible. So seriously, what science is it that Christians are willfully ignorant of? I'll wait...

    This one made me wonder a bit. I'd heard all the rhetoric surrounding Chik-fil-a when the owner said they were pro biblical marriage, but I was unaware that they openly supported the Westboro Baptist wackos- I mean Church! That is what the signs are made to look like. The signs those nut cases (all twelve of them) carry around. So I did a little fact checking. Turns out, it's absolute horsefeathers. The "hate organizations" mentioned in the meme, are groups like Focus on the Family! The "hate organization" moniker was placed there by the Human Rights Campaign, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.(http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-controversy-shines-light-on-companys-charitable-giving/) Both extreme left wing groups that paint everything short of outright celebration of their views as "hateful" and have even gone so far as to call Dr. Michael Brown (one of the most loving Christians to the lgbt community) an anti-lgbt extremist! (http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/02/13/the-splc-owes-me-an-apology-too-n1956946) Once you dig just a bit deeper, you even find out that Chik-fil-a doesnt directly give to any charity, but gives the money to an agency that then gives that then funnels that money to different charities. Here's a headline from the "fact sheet" from the HRC: "Chick-fil-A anti-gay: Company funnels millions to anti-equality groups". So you can see exactly what I said. It isn't that these people are being fair or taking a balanced approach to their little "fact sheet" but starting out poisoning the well, and because they don't adhere lockstep with their particular worldview, it's somehow "anti-equality". As I asked before, what persecution has the lgbt community undergone that people such as myself haven't undergone our whole lives? I dealt with the bullying all through my childhood, and even into my early twenties. So do millions of people every day. Jerks are a fact of life. You realize either they grow up and become decent people, or they don't and you ignore them! These people have become the bullies instead of fighting them. I encourage you to read the articles above as they will shed a great deal of light onto what I'm talking about.

     I think, after all the other memes I've taking to the curb to await the garbage truck, this one takes the cake. Looking back at this article, it should be quite easy to see who isn't using their critical thinking skills. Instead, what shouldn't be admired is the willingness to turn ones brain off at the juncture where your worldview is challenged by the idea of someone or something greater than yourself. (Bill Maher has been called out for such numerous times, so I won't open that particular can of worms.) This is typical of atheists. Now let me make a clarification. When I say atheists, I do not mean the ones who are happy to live side by side with theists and have no problem interacting with and talking with us like a rational human being. I'm talking about the atheists, probably more accurately known as "anti-theists" or "misotheists". Those would be the ones who happily ignore the facts to have created this trashcan load of nonsense and piled it into a meme. Ever been having a perfectly reasonable and productive discussion with someone, and then a their party jumps in with something ridiculous and horrible? That's who I'm talking about. The ones who are so childish that they cannot help themselves. The ones who know God is real, yet are so angry that they know it, that they will lash out at anyone and anything that reminds them of it. This may be subconscious, or it may be deliberate, but the outcome is the same. We need to pray for these people, we need to give the Gospel to these people, and we need to make sure to keep their lies in check! As Johnathan Swift once wrote "Falsehood flies and truth comes limping after." We must be the ones to give truth a ride! God bless!

A Response to "Bonnie"

     Just when you'd thought you'd put an issue to bed, someone comes along and starts the conversation up all over again. In case you're unaware, I recently received a comment on the introduction to my series Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty. It was not a nice comment. Apparently one of our friends from the CAHCT was content with simply throwing me out for *gasp* challenging them to be honest. They left their name as "Bonnie" so I will address my reply as such. Why not simply respond in the comment section you may ask? Because I want this out where it will be seen by many, because it adds weight to the assertions I made about CAHCT. Let's begin.


     "Andrew, did you read all of the files in that Facebook group? Did you follow the rules posted in the group? You know, if you don't like to play by the rules, you're not allowed on the playground - that's how it works in the real world. "

     Notice the condescension? The animus? No, in the real world people aren't allowed to slander or libel anyone they like for the "crime" of believing differently. Yes, I did read all the rules, including the one that states that Calvinists aren't allowed to defend themselves or their beliefs if it isn't allowed by the OP of a thread. How very open and honest of them! (End Sarcasm) "Christians" Against the "Heresy" of Calvinism and TULIP, is a hate group, pure and simple. They needed to be called out for their hate, and I did so by showing them a mirror. Did you read any of the articles in my series where I show screenshots of their hate and ignorance? Judging by this comment, no, you didn't.

     ""They reveled in their ignorance"; and are you not also reveling in your "vast knowledge" and yet calling them out? And WHO is being a little smug, since you also call THEM a cult."


     It isn't reveling in knowledge to correct hate, slander, ignorance, and misinformation. The only one being smug so far is yourself. And yes, they are a cult. They show a good number of cult-like tendencies. In fact, in case you were unaware, one of the most prolific posters and moderators there also belongs to the cult of King James Onlyism. How about we list some of those cult-like tendencies, shall we?

     Do they honestly evaluate their position as well as the other side's? Obviously not, so there's strike one.

     Are experts or historical figures that disagree with their position labeled with derogatory names? Yes. Strike two.

     Is information or people, that contradict the teaching of the group removed without explanation? Yes. Strike three.

     Does the group have an "us versus them" mentality? Yes. Strike four. And so on and so on. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...you get the idea.



     "I've not yet found a Calvinist who doesn't claim to be be misrepresented. How does that work? Is everybody but a Calvinist just plain incapable of understanding the vast mysteries of the "doctrines of grace"? Is everybody else just that stupid, do you think? Or is it only the "elect" who are granted that privilege? "

     No, it's just that its far easier to build a strawman of the truth rather than confront it. If you don't have the correct information, try doing something novel. Learn what it is you're criticizing first. I've shown about a dozen instances of blatant misrepresentations in my series, yet you still claim it isn't happening? Or is it just that we're all liars as you seem to be insinuating?


     "By the insulting "tone" of this blog post, I don't see why any of them would take the trouble come over here and read what you have written, as it is all old news to them anyways."

Insulting tone! You actually have the gall to talk to me about the "insulting tone" of my blog post while the group you are a part of regularly insults Calvinists for sport, and then bans them when they get upset about it?!?! Your lack of self awareness is astounding! Hypocrisy thy name is CAHCT! Also, if these arguments are so old and they've heard them all before, then why are they still getting them so wrong? It should be easy to refute these "old arguments" they've supposedly heard so many times, yet instead they ban people for broaching them. Its also funny that they leave the group as open to see, yet you have to be accepted into the group to post there. Then when you try to correct their ignorance they ban you. This is deliberate antagonization.

     "Fear actually has nothing to do with it. It's called discretion. It's understanding what a profitable use of time is. John Calvin wrote his Institutes before he was 30 years old, a baby in the theological world. Non-Calvinists who have studied them are perfectly capable of understanding and debating them if they thought it was a profitable use of their time."

     So instead they think it's a profitable use of their time to misrepresent and mock Calvinists? And discretion? It isn't discretion, it's called cognitive dissonance. To my recollection I never mentioned fear. Also, your point on Calvin doesn't logically follow with the rest of your point. Stephen Hawking was in his early thirties when he discovered black hole mechanics, does that make him somehow incorrect? Of course not. And I know of many "non-calvinists" who understand the doctrines of grace, and I routinely debate them. They're polite, cordial, and I readily call them my brothers and sisters in Christ. Your group can't seem to grasp that concept. If you don't believe lock step as they do, you're a heretic.

     "By the way, if you want to learn anything about hatred, Calvin is your man. "


     Oh boy, when in doubt the Arminian always screams "Servetus!". (Yawn!) Also, because you appearing know this, Calvinism is simply shorthand for the Doctrines of Grace. We don't blindly follow John Calvin as if he were somehow infallible. Oh, and what you've done here is called the genetic fallacy.


     "True love is gentle when it needs to be, is strong when it needs to be, and it always rejoices in the truth."


     Yet there is no love in the group you're defending! Turn those words back on the hate group known as CAHCT! There is no gentle love or even firm love, it's straight hatred for Calvinism and Calvinists! It's well documented in my articles, from their own keyboards!


     "If you are going to accuse other people of being ignorant and smug, maybe you should first practice what you preach, Mr. Metal Minister. Seems you are a quite proud of yourself. Did you read what you wrote about yourself, as if you have the truth all nailed down?"

     First, I didn't write anything about myself, and second it isn't smugness to point out error. This is an appeal to emotion, and an attempted ad hominem towards me. I am not "proud of myself", but I will not let anyone detract from God's holiness and sovereignty in an attempt to insult and spread hatred of others. You seem incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, and are defending the very ones who in their smugness and pride are spreading that hatred and venom. Do you see that? Is there any call to repentance on their page? Any preaching of the Gospel? No, there isn't, yet I ended every article with a call to repentance and faith. You'd have known that if you'd bothered to read any of them. Sadly you're as caught in the cult-think as any of the others.


     "Honestly now, DID you read their group files and try to understand their position, and abide by the group rules, or did you barge in there demanding your own way, like many other Calvinists who have gone in before you?"

     Defending the truth and correcting lies isn't "trying to get my own way". Do you think about this emotionalism before you type it? If demanding honesty is demanding my own way, then yes, I'm glad to say I demand honesty.


     "You did understand the group's purpose, right? It wasn't to defend Calvinism, but to REFUTE it, not to pat your backs and congratulate you for what they consider doctrinal ERROR."

     If they simply viewed it as error, then we could've had a good discussion, like I do regularly with other Arminians, however their purpose isn't to refute anything if they don't even have a proper understanding of what it is they're trying to refute! It's pure arrogance to claim to have all the answers when one doesn't even understand the question. I've debated Arminians many times, I know the arguments well, yet you and the others in that group don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that perhaps you're incorrect on Calvinism and it's teachings. Instead, as i pointed out, you seem to revel in the ignorance, and post it freely and repeatedly no matter how many times your strawmen are exposed. I don't expect a "pat on the back" (more snide condescension on your part) but I do demand honesty.


     "Not to apologize for their position, but to defend it against yours. That means you should expect to be offended by the position they are taking, right? "

No, I shouldn't be offended by their position, and the fact that you believe that speaks volumes. I expect to disagree with their opinions, not be offended by their outright hatred of me and those who believe the way I do. Had there simply been a disagreement between us, I would've happily engaged in civil discussion with all of them, but it is a group of hate and vitriol that needed to be called out for their very unChristlike manner.

     "If you believe in any "ism", you are following a man-made system, and that is a problem in and of itself. Think about it."

     Perhaps you should think about it as well, since you belong to two "ism's". Arminianism and Synergism. The "man made" aspect is not denied, it is simply shorthand for what we believe the Bible, and God are teaching.  One last thing to consider, I certainly don't begrudge anyone having a Facebook group where they can go and gripe about people they disagree with, but it's the height of arrogance to openly insult and call satanic those who are brothers and sisters in Christ. It borders on the unpardonable sin! If you wish to have a discussion, then you must allow the back and forth of normal discourse. However if you wish to have a safe place to vent frustrations and blow off steam, then make it a closed group where no one else can see what's being posted. Otherwise expect people to call you out for it your hatred and bigotry. It's arrogant, and lacking in honesty to create a group based on an incorrect understanding of others, then to broadcast hate and silence those who attempt to correct you. It's tyrannical and smacks of cultism. I still pray that God blesses you and them Bonnie, but I will not tolerate dishonesty being attached to God or other Christians.

     If I'm wrong, and you are not a part of CAHCT, then I sincerely apologize and I also urge you to follow the link in my introduction to the series to their Facebook page, and read the rest. It will spell things out vividly.

(Comment Originally Posted Here:http://etchedinsteel.blogspot.com/2016/06/was-recently-pointed-to-facebook-group.html?m=1 )

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty: Conclusion

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty

Conclusion

     The Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty. Heavily misunderstood, greatly and rabidly hated, yet hopefully in this series, I've shown you that they are biblical to their core. It occurs to me that the bulk of our time in the Scriptures was when we were defining, supporting the Doctrines, and  responding to our friends of CAHCT. That the only deviation seemed to be in the words of those who despise us and claim us as anti-Christ's and the sons of Satan. I only point this out for its contrast, not as an attack on them. Our CAHCT friends need prayer and correction, and hopefully they will receive it through these articles, if God so wills. I plan on posting these articles in the group, and offer a formal debate challenge to those who would care to defend their position, and to offer a loving discussion and help in understanding the Doctrines of Grace to those who wish it. It has been my desire to edify and lift up those who have read this series, and I pray that God will use them to further His glory, however He has deemed that to be. I've closed every article with a call to repentance and faith, and I would be remiss to leave that out here. If you've read these articles, and feel the call of God, please pray now for your salvation! God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, came to earth, willingly veiled His glory and took on a human nature as Jesus Christ so that He could live a sinless life teaching and calling people to Him. He was crucified having committed no sin, the Father poured out His wrath against sin onto Jesus, as He died on the cross for us. He was buried in a dark tomb, but three days later He rose again, defeating death and breaking it's hold on those who would believe on Him! Remember, no one has a name tag that says "elect" on it. We don't know who is, or who isn't elect, so we must preach the Gospel to every ear! If you've read this all the way through, you know the good news of Christ and salvation. Pray to Him now, acknowledge and repent of your sins and He is so loving He will forgive you! Please find a solid, Bible based church in your area, and join fellow believers so that you can grow in your faith, and feel the love of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. If you have questions, or need help finding a church, don't hesitate to ask. God bless and keep you!

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 6: Perseverance of the Saints

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 6

Perseverance of the Saints

     One of the most misidentified of the doctrines, its often confused with Once Saved Always Saved. There is a major distinction however. Perseverance of the Saints is the doctrine that teaches that those whom God regenerates, will persevere to the end and go to heaven. This is a process that involves a continual increase in sanctification in the person's life as God changes them to conform to the image of Jesus. Once Saved Always Saved however, is the idea that once you give the proverbial hat tip to God, you're in the kingdom of heaven no matter how ungodly you live your life. This is an over simplification, but not by much. While there is very little biblical evidence against the Perseverance of the Saints, why don't we first look at the verses that teach this doctrine.

     Ephesians 1:13-14: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.". Honestly there isn't much here that needs to be expounded upon. It's rather straight forward. The basic gist is that after first hearing the gospel, and believing, you are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the glory of God. If you're sealed by God, who can unseal you?

     Philippians 1:6: "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." Again, fairly straightforward. Paul is stating that the good work, our salvation, was begun by God and will be perfected, or fulfilled, in heaven.

     John 6:35-40: "Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” I know, I know, I've used this passage a number of times now, but it's because the Doctrines of Grace are so consistent that I can turn back to these passages again and again, and they always give evidence to them. Here we see in verse 35, those who come to Jesus will never hunger or thirst. If one will never hunger spiritually, then they cannot fall away from the source of that spiritual nourishment! In verse 37 Jesus plainly tells us that those who come to Him, He will not cast out. Now I know what you're thinking, "Just because He won't cast us out doesn't mean we can't walk away!" This bit of eisegesis might be true, save for one thing. Jesus said "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19) It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Only those who remain in Jesus are truly saved.

     Now, back to the earlier verses, 39 and 40 are reiterations of the same point. All that the Father gives to the Son, are saved, Jesus loses none of those given to Him, and He raises them up on the last day, in other words, brings them to glory in heaven. If Jesus loses none, does that denote that He might lose some? That some could "walk away" from those that the Father gave Him? Obviously not. He specifically says "I will lose NONE of them".

     One major misunderstanding of PotS, is that those who believe it will somehow "slack off" or just continue to follow a sinful lifestyle. However, just as I pointed out above in Philippians 1:6, God began a good work in those whom are saved, and He will continue that good work until the saved are called home to heaven. Also, as it states in 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." This is stating that the bondage to sin has been broken, and that the new nature in Christ wants only to grow, please and glorify God. This isn't possible in one who remains in their original human nature.


     Now, for the final time in this series, I will address some serious errors by our friends at CAHCT. Here is the first:

     Did I not just address this earlier? As I said, there's little to no Biblical rebuttal to PotS, so people go to Google, type in Perseverance of the Saints, scroll around until they find the wording they like, and then pounce on it. In this instance, as far as they know, the discussion might've been a refutation of that very idea, but they saw the thumbnail offered by a Google search and ran with it. This is the definition of shallow.

     After seeing this very first line, I knew nothing that followed after it could be good. This is typical of our friends at CAHCT. They tend to invent strawman definitions and positions so they can beat the stuffing out of them, whilst telling reformed or Calvinist folks they aren't allowed to post there to help correct their errors. This is typical cult-think. Now, we do not believe that one must persevere to be saved. That is works salvation and a heresy. We do however believe that those whom God elected will persevere to the end. It's funny that this person quotes Arthur Pink, but still misses exactly what he said in the quote. That we are granted our perseverance from God, and that we cannot persevere without it. This refutes his earlier claim that we believe we must persevere to be saved. I'm wondering at the reading comprehension level of our friend here. Also, we know exactly what we've embraced. God's sovereignty over all things, the idea that you've  abandoned in favor of a man centered theology based on your idol, your "autonomous free will".

Finally we have someone at least attempting to go to the Scriptures to defend their position. It's not a good attempt, but I give them props for at least going to God's word. However, what we have here is not a discussion of people who walk away from the faith, which Jesus addresses in 1 John 2:19, but rather false teachers, whom Peter is telling us will receive a far worse punishment for deceiving and attempting to turn people away from God. By pulling this passage out of context, we can clearly see the shallow nature of the "refutation". The final paragraph makes no sense. How is the gift of perseverance from God as we saw earlier from Arthur Pink, holding Him over a barrel? We see this is just another attempt at the "carnal Christian" line, but it falls well short. If God grants us what we need to persevere to the end, how is it that we hold anything over God when His will has come to pass? It's this level of shallow, hateful thinking that makes me believe our friends at CAHCT here may be the very ones Peter was describing in the passage given in this screenshot.

     I've closed all of these with a call to repentance and an urging of the reader to know Jesus as their saviour. This is no different. It is a wonderful, freeing and humbling feeling to know that when God chose His elect, He gave them that which they needed to persevere to the end and remain faithful to Him. If you'd like to know that feeling, don't wait! Fall on your knees, acknowledge your sin, repent of it and pray for salvation in the name of Christ Jesus. God bless!