Editorials‎ > ‎

VS. A&O Ministries: Orthodoxy

This is a transcript of a discussion I attempted to have in the official IRC channel of A&O ministries, a heretical Calvinist orginization.
I am in the chat under the nick name Ignatius.

My commentary within the discussion will appear in this color to distinguish it from the original conversation.

Note: [Much, though not all ;) ] Irrelevant chatter has been ommited from the log of this discussion.



[Apr 10 17:57:51] *    Now talking on #prosapologian

[Apr 10 17:57:51] *    Topic for #prosapologian is: Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. (Proverbs 4:7) http://www.aomin.org/

[Apr 10 17:57:51] *    Topic for #prosapologian set by Tur8inFan at Thu Apr  8 19:30:51 2010

[Apr 10 17:57:51] -CStar-    Beware: Calvinists Ahead!


This is the sort of pride filled (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7) warning you are presented with upon entering the room. This comes from a quickness to kick and ban, and a complete unwillingness to discuss their heresy on a level playing field.


[Apr 10 18:03:14] <Ignatius>    I'm reading the Chat rules here and I have a question.

The "chat rules" in question are as follows, at the time of this discussion (quoted from here warning, heresy within):

[Apr 10 18:03:28] <Ignatius>    "The emphasis is #prosapologian is biblical study, apologetics, etc., with the assumed audience to be Christian and orthodox."

[Apr 10 18:03:29] <mutato>    Yes, Ignatius?

[Apr 10 18:03:40] <Ignatius>    Does that mean James White thinks Calvinism is "orthodox"?

[Apr 10 18:04:16] <MrP>    yes. not EO, or RO

So in other words not in any even remotely true or accurate sense of the word.

[Apr 10 18:05:17] <Ignatius>    So is there a historical account that can confirm that people thought as Calvin did prior to Calvin (other than convoluted exegesis on Augustine)? Suppose I asked for evidence of this after the death of the Apostle John but before the 10th century.

The point that will go unanswered here, is that nobody prior to Calvin taught the concept of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), otherwise known as eternal security, thus refuting the claim that Calvinism is "orthodox".

[Apr 10 18:05:31] <Ignatius>    ?

[Apr 10 18:05:49] <Lane>    There is no implied warranty of habitability here.

Already the threats have begun, as if some imagined authority over me matters to my mission of witnessing for Christ.

[Apr 10 18:05:51] <MrP>    more in the sense of Gal 2:14

[Apr 10 18:05:53] <Ignatius>    Or is this merely a consensus thing.

[Apr 10 18:05:55] <skyman`>    Such questions are clearly being offered in an ad hominem spirit.

Total misuse of "ad hominem". The substance comes from the claim on their website. The substance is the claim that Calvinism is "orthodox". The substance will not be defended. It is these Calvinist heretics who try everything but to address the substance of the question.

[Apr 10 18:06:00] <MrP>    ~na26 Gal 2:14

[Apr 10 18:06:02] <Gutenberg^>    Galatians 2:14 αλλ οτε ειδον οτι ουκ ορθοποδουσιν προς την αληθειαν του ευαγγελιου ειπον τω κηφα εμπροσθεν παντων ει συ ιουδαιος υπαρχων εθνικως και ουχι ιουδαικως ζης πως τα εθνη αναγκαζεις ιουδαιζειν (NA26)

A curious quote is pasted to the channel. Here I offer Catholic exegis.

Galatians 2:14 
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Ver. 14.But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. The Greek word used here denotes literally to walk straight, without turning to the right hand or to the left.
If thou being a Jew lives after the manner of the Gentiles. To live as a Gentile is to partake indifferently of the same food, and thereby to show that the ceremonies of the law are dead, if not deadly, now that the Gospel is being preached. Having done this, why do you now avoid the Gentiles, and so compel them to Judaise? (Lapide)

Obviously the intent does not match the context, so I did not address this odd quotation.

[Apr 10 18:06:19] <skyman`>    I'll be happy to direct your way out if that is how you wish to conduct yourself here.

Again more threats.

[Apr 10 18:06:28] <klet-PBUH>    is Ignatius evading a ban?

[Apr 10 18:06:44] <Ignatius>    ad hominem? I'm adressing specifically the substance of a statement representing Calvinism as "orthodox".

[Apr 10 18:06:59] *    CStar gives channel operator status to skyman`

Already the decision to ban has been made, nay, when my question was asked. These people claim to be witnessing for Christ?

[Apr 10 18:07:02] <Ignatius>    The claim is orthodoxy.

[Apr 10 18:07:15] <Ignatius>    Instead of proof you offer...?

[Apr 10 18:07:18] <skyman`>    ad hominem-> other than convoluted exegesis on Augustine

[Apr 10 18:07:45] <Ignatius>    Yes skyman`, I'm not interested in debates about Augustine's Catholicity.

The comments I made about Augustine were made preemptively to address the common claims of Augustine's theology aligning with Calvinism. This phenomena is a perfect demonstration of the Cafeteria style "Christianity" that Calvinists practice, though they are mistaken about Augustine, as Augustine did not hold that one could know if he were "elect" with certainty. Something that directly contradicts Calvinism, among other things, such as Augustines wider theology regarding the Blessed Virgin and so forth.

[Apr 10 18:08:13] <klet-PBUH>    he really meant convoluted exegesis on biblical text

No, I wasn't interested in them pushing their private interpetations. This only demonstrates what they currently believe, though in place of this protest, I would have accepted within my timeframe, an interpretation of scripture from a historical source which agreed with Calvinism as proof for it's supposed pre-Calvin existence.

[Apr 10 18:08:16] <MrP>    i like Gal 2:14. "according to the truth of the gospel"

[Apr 10 18:08:16] <Ignatius>    So the intention there was to say "other than quoting augustine, what is your precedent"

[Apr 10 18:08:30] <Ignatius>    klet-PBUH: I said after the death of the Apostle John.

[Apr 10 18:08:33] <MrP>    Rome is poor on defining the gospel

[Apr 10 18:08:36] <MrP>    not orthodox

Here the topic change is attempted, knowing that I am Catholic, rather than address the substance of my question, they intend to switch subjects.

[Apr 10 18:08:42] <Ignatius>    Nobody's talking about Rome.

[Apr 10 18:08:43] <skyman`>    There is no debate about Augstine's catholcity, only whether he was a papist or Romanist.

To the contrary, as stated above, Calvinists and indeed other protestants commonly try to claim Augustine in spite of his very Catholic views (refuted at length here).

[Apr 10 18:09:08] <klet-PBUH>    is Ignatius evading a ban? <----- answer my question chuckles

[Apr 10 18:09:37] <MrP>    i am. you're Romanist, right?

Note "Romanist" a deragatory term for Catholics. Much like calling an African American the "N Word".

[Apr 10 18:09:53] <Ignatius>    We're talking about there being a precedent other than your Calvinist consensus on the interpretation of scripture which can demonstrate Christians prior to Calvin held his views (after the death of the Apostle John, before the 10th century).

[Apr 10 18:10:11] <klet-PBUH>    bye ignatius

[Apr 10 18:10:14] <MrP>    what's the gospel, Iggy

[Apr 10 18:10:16] <MrP>    ?

[Apr 10 18:10:25] <skyman`>    No, you declared you were not interested in that.

[Apr 10 18:10:25] *    You have been kicked from #prosapologian by klet-PBUH (klet-PBUH)

**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Apr 10 18:10:25 2010

Final Thoughts:

I had no impression that the Holy Spirit was present in any of the folks I was dealing with in that channel. Only an eminent rejection of intellectually honest discussion.

What's not unique about A&O Ministries is their claim to have restored what apparently Jesus Christ was unable to preserve without interuption (cf. Matthew 16:18). Though, it's clear from this interaction and the reading of the website, that they clearly think the Apostles were Calvinists, an insurmountable absurdity.

I wasn't asking for their interpretation of Scripture, or Augustine. What I was asking for was a historical precedent for the doctrines they claimed to be Orthodox, within History, after the death of the Apostle John but before the 10th century. In short, I was asking for proof in history that someone shared their interpetation of scripture or Augustine. This should be an ample window to demonstrate someone, anyone in history holding to their "orthodox" views of Christianity. This is quite simply another generic application of my "Protestant Challenge". Which remains unanswered as of writing this (April 10th 2010).
Comments