Re: Matt Slick's efforts to act like John Calvin the murderous Protestant Pope of Geneva. If he can't kill you, he will ban you instead of engaging the discussion.
http://www.carm.org/troy-brooks vs. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm
Matt Slick would like you to think he has been misrepresented, but it's not the case. He thinks it is not essential to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated and that all you need to do is assume you were irresistibly regenerated. Oh the pride of life!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Slick
Exposing false teachers, false Christians, is stalking them? Christian Research Apologetics Ministry (CARM) is just another place with a Christian name but to martyr Christians and silence the voice of "little flock" (Luke 12.32) to put more money in Matt Slick's pocket. I sell nothing in His name. Matt Slick is appealing to 1.2 billion Roman Catholic amillennialism, at least a couple hundred million gibberish babblers and several hundred million more Calvinists. It would seem most of Christendom that teaches man is bipartite, not tripartite spirit, soul and body (Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23).Quote:
Normally, I ignore wackos who can't think straight. But, Troy Brooks just doesn't want to go away. I've asked him to stop bothering me, to not go to my discussion boards, and to leave me alone. But, he repeatedly ignores my requests and continues to malign me. Personally, I feel like I am being stalked. In his criticism of Calvinism he demonstrates a mediocre knowledge of its teachings and then applies an appalling, convoluted logic to it in attempts to refute it. Honestly, I've rarely encountered what is, in my opinion, such an arrogant and poor-thinking individual as Troy Brooks who has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be incapable of receiving correction.
Where did I lie? The Holy Spirit wants me to expose the cult of Slick, his amillennialism, gibberish babble false tongues, Calvinism and the dualism of the fallen bipartite view of man. This is false Christianity. He is feeding people what they want, an easy-believism, knows nothing of regeneration and the dividing of spirit, soul and body, because he is not a child of God.Quote:
Now, on the CARM discussion boards (http://forums.carm.org/vbb/index.php) there are rules such as no personal attacks, no imposters, don't post links until a certain condition is met, etc. One of them is that when you are banned, you will not return under another name. Now, I expect unbelievers to lie and break the rules when they sign up. But, Troy Brooks, who claims to be a Christian, seems to have no problem signing up on the CARM private boards (you must agree to the rules when you sign up) and disregarding the rules. When he has been banned, he has returned under another name, violating the rules and then posts personal attacks against me.
Prove it. Self-declarations are for dullards.Quote:
In my opinion, Troy Brooks from biblocality is not to be trusted. I believe he is unstable in his thinking, misrepresents me repeatedly, misrepresents Calvinism, and is conceited as he considers himself to be qualified to teach with an authority he does not possess.
Matt Slick attacks people all the time. Why the double standard? It's true many Calvinists would rather just shut their minds down and martyr Christians on forums.Quote:
Following is a post by him on my discussion boards (in violation of the rules against personal attacks, posting links, etc.). His post was followed by many people again condemning his rule-breaking, misrepresentations, and personal attacks. They know who he is and are also tired of him. Since the board rules state CARM can use the posts submitted there, I have reproduced his post here in its entirety. Following the post is the actual transcript from the chat discussion he mentioned.
This is the sort of lame excuses and accusations labeled used to avoid dealing with the heresy of Calvinism. Typical.Quote:
Troy likes to come into our discussion forums and chat room and quickly post links to his website. This is against the rules and we've asked him not to do it. He ignores our rules and continues to break them. Actually, we find better compliance with the rules from unbelievers than we do with Troy Brooks.
There is a difference between worshiping an evil god who sends people to Hell for eternity from birth without any opportunity for salvation and my exposing Matt Slick to help people not be deceived by him.Quote:
Now, please note that in the chat dialogue that follows, Troy Brooks condemns the idea of saving someone against their will (which isn't what Calvinism teaches, btw. Instead, generally, Calvinists teach that God first regenerates a person and then they are able to put their faith in Christ.). Anyway, he condemns what he considers God forcing someone on people against their will, but he has no problem at all doing the very same thing to me. I have repeatedly asked him to not email me, not sign up on the boards, banned him, and to leave me alone. Yet, he seeks to force himself upon me, CARM, and forums, against my will. Now, doesn't that show you what kind of a person he is?
There is a difference between between worshiping an evil god who irresistibly forces salvation on people without giving them the choice in the matter and my working underground to expose a heretic.
Notice the doubletalk by Matt Slick. He claims "God first regenerates" is not "saving someone against their will" and "isn't what Calvinism teaches." Of course it is, because the person didn't have to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. How selfish! God never regenerates someone so they can believe, but they are regenerated because they believe in Him. Amen.
Watchman Nee said it best on page 42, volume 1 of The Spiritual Man,
"THE MAN GOD FASHIONED was notably different from all other created beings. Man possessed a spirit similar to that of the angels and at the same time had a soul resembling that of the lower animals. When God created man He gave him a perfect freedom. He did not make man an automaton,controlled automatically by His will. This is evident in Genesis 2 at the time God instructed the original man what fruit he could eat and what not. The man God created was not a machine run by God; instead he had perfect freedom of choice. If he chose to obey God, he could; if he decided to rebel against God, he could do that too. Man had in his possession a sovereignty by which he could exercise his volition in choosing to obey or to disobey. This is a most important point, for we must realize that in our spiritual life God never deprives us our freedom.Unless we actively cooperate, God will not undertake anything for us. Neither God nor the devil can do any work without first obtaining our consent, for man’s will is free."Why accuse me of forcing? I have simply documented the facts. I am not like Calvin who grabbed people and killed them. What I do as the underground Church is expose false Christians such as Matt Slick who is definitely not born-again. One must learn to see this to be delivered from his false teachings. The New City for Matt Slick is a bunch of arrogant pompous people who declare they were irresistibly regenerated and continue in their gibberish babble of false tongues and deny the millennial return and reign of Christ on earth, because he teaches that the 1000 years is now, for he believes in amillennialism. The 1000 years is not now, nor eternity future, but the period of time between this dispensation and the New City. Clearly verses prove this such as Rev. 20.2-7; Zech. 14.4, Acts 1.11, Rev. 1.7. And Revelation 20.3 says the nations won't be deceived in the 1000 years. Obviously they are still deceived today.
Isn't it interesting how Matt Slick time and again briefly enters the discussion before he bans me again even though he alleges we are not allowed to talk about it on his forums or chat. More doublestandards!
Slick only recovered this exchange after I made a beef about it and responded to what I could remember about. He would have kept it hidden. He knows he cut me off in our conversation when he was exposed again, and I held him accountable with the above words, so his conscience made him bring it out as though that somehow helps his case. Funny.Quote:
---------------
[following is troy brook's post]
Discussion with Matt Slick at CARM Chat on Dec. 24, 2009 (I am paraphrasing because I was banned before I was able to copy the Chat text, and it was subsequently deleted. I didn't expect him to ban that quickly to cover up).
I reached out to Slick to ask him, is it not evil to irresistibly impose salvation on someone and deny others the opportunity to be saved when it was not their fault since they were born that way? He responded by saying in a vile way, Is it wrong to let your mother poison herself? To which I replied, is it wrong to lock your mother up in a cage all her life so she won't take the poison? Obnoxiously, he repeatedly said, answer the question. I told him, I already did. Obviously, the answer is, it is wrong to lock her up so it is wrong to force her. Evading this point, he moved onto, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1.13). Can man save himself, he asked? I said, of course not, but that he was misreading this passage, because this passage doesn't say man has no free-will or free-choice. Rather, the will of the flesh refers to man's passion, will of man to man's planning. God is the one who does the saving, but He doesn't save unrighteously.
As I continued to try to lead him to Christ, I asked him, Don't you think about how a person is saved? He said, God does it. To which I replied, of course, but how? By his will, Slick said. I agreed, obviously, but again I asked how does He? Can you get more specific? He had no answer. So I told him, God is not an evil tyrant in which He irresistibly imposes salvation, for any monster can do that. Hitler did that. What God does is predestinate by foreknowing your free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. God is relational and personal and synergistic.
Again, belligerently and obstinately, Slick said to answer the question. I told him I already did. I added further, I told him he has a doublestandard, because if we were to read the passage the way he does, then Slick is not saved according to his own beliefs, since by his own free will he chose to assume he was regenerated without any prior repentance and faith in Christ to be saved by grace through faith. It was at this point he banned me and several of my posts on the forums, especially video presentations.
Clearly, we can see because he erects this idol he calls Total depravity which says he can't repent, can't freely obtain the gift of repentance, can't believe, can't freely obtain the gift of faith, that therefore, he can't repent and believe in Christ, so he doesn't and he won't. This is the first major sin of Calvinism. See the 6 Major Sins of Calvinism here,
http://bibl....(url removed) [http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3681]
He is afraid to let go of himself. In order to gain your soul you are going to have to lose it first. And this is what keeps him eternally separated from God. He trusts the evil spirit's facsimile of irresistibly imposed salvation and the idol of Total depravity which he claims he claims makes him unable to respond to God. So his innerman remains unregenerated and is not quickened one iota to be given the sensitivity to commune with God. For Slick, it is all in his head.
This is the evil the Church is up against as these false teachers sell their products and raise money from you to promote this lie. You are guilty if you continue to affiliate yourself with and support these false Christians worshiping a false Christ. A copy of this message for future reference is found here,
http.... (url removed)
-------------
Following is the actual dialogue which occurred on 12/24/09. "deeperchristian" is Troy Brooks.
deeperchristian: CARM General Chat
Matt Slick: you take yourself WAY to seriously. You are extremely ignorant and illogical
Matt Slick: you are self deceived
deeperchristian: I disagree.
Matt Slick: you just don't know enough.
deeperchristian: Do you think it is not possible you worship an evil spirit?
Matt Slick: let me ask you. Did God choose us for salvation?
deeperchristian: Because his standards are lower than man's.
deeperchristian: To your question, do you ask yourself how God chose for salvation?
Matt Slick: Did God choose us for salvation?
deeperchristian: God chose me for salvation. I don't believe He has chosen you as you are now. So to my question, Do you ask how God chose?
Matt Slick: God chooses by his sovereign will
deeperchristian: Of course He does, that's not in issue. The question is how.
Matt Slick: by choosing
deeperchristian: Does He irresistibly impose as Cavlinism teaches or does He provide sufficient grace to all to give us the choice?
Matt Slick: he chooses. it does not depend on man's will
deeperchristian: Yes, God does the saving, but isn't it evil if He irresistibly imposes salvation on someone?
Matt Slick: why?
deeperchristian: Because it is evil for us to behave that way.
Matt Slick: why would you say it is evil for God to save someone?
deeperchristian: His standard are not less than ours.
GnarlyOcelot
GnarlyOcelot: CARM General Chat
deeperchristian: If someone doesn't want to be saved, then it is wrong to force yourself on another.
Matt Slick: hi go
GnarlyOcelot: hey
Matt Slick: so if someone doesn't want to be saved out of a fire and we do, then that is evil?
Matt Slick: so if someone doesn't want to be saved from committing suicide, and we do..that is evil?
Matt Slick: so YOU have saving people being evil?
deeperchristian: If someone wants to be eternally separated from God then it is wrong to force them to be saved.
Matt Slick: why?
deeperchristian: Just as it is wrong to not provide sufficient grace to people to give them the opportunity.
GnarlyOcelot: How does one "force" another to be saved?
Matt Slick: why is it wrong for God to save someone who wants to be damed?
GnarlyOcelot: Its wrong to present evidence and reason? If your mother is about to drink poison, is it wrong for you to try to show her video footage of it being poisoned, show her poison tests etc.?
deeperchristian: Because it is wrong for us to irresistibly impose ourselves on another also.
Matt Slick: would it be wrong for force your mother not to drink poison?
deeperchristian: Instead of gangbanging me just let Slick talk.
deeperchristian: You can't lock her up in a cage all her life.
deeperchristian: That's abusive.
Matt Slick: deep, please don't be vile.
Matt Slick: would it be wrong for force your mother not to drink poison?
deeperchristian: What you are proposing is abusive. And you vilely mentioned a mother drinking poison.
Matt Slick: Would it be wrong to save your mother against her will if she wants to drink poison?
deeperchristian: Is it wrong to lock a person up in a cage for life so they don't drink poison?
Matt Slick: please answer the question
GnarlyOcelot: Matt, its even worse for deeper than that.. because in the scenario, you arent stopping her from drinking poison.. all thats being done is you're giving her the best reasons you can for her not to drink it. Nothing is forced.
Matt Slick: it relates to your complaint
deeperchristian: I answered already.
Matt Slick: good point go
Matt Slick: where's the answer?
Matt Slick: Would it be wrong to save your mother against her will if she wants to drink poison? yes or no?
deeperchristian: Recall what I said.
Matt Slick: can you please answer yes or no?
deeperchristian: I answered by asking you is it just to lock your mother up in a cage all her life so she won't drink poision?
Matt Slick: oh, so you didn't answer.
Matt Slick: now you're dodging
deeperchristian: You're avoiding.
Matt Slick: it wouldn't be wrong to lock her up to save her.
deeperchristian: If it is wrong then it is wrong.
Matt Slick: now answer.Would it be wrong to save your mother against her will if she wants to drink poison?
deeperchristian: I answered already.
Matt Slick: yes or no
Matt Slick: or be banned permanently
deeperchristian: Locking up your mother in a cage all her life is yes or not?
deeperchristian: No obviously.
deeperchristian: You propose locking your mother up in a cage for life.
deeperchristian: Christians consider that evil.
deeperchristian: You are not born-again Matt.
Matt Slick: then why do you complain against God for saving someone against their will if it is not wrong to save someone against their will?
GnarlyOcelot: i dont see the relevance of the cage illustration.
Matt Slick: i don't either go, but he does htis alot
deeperchristian: I don't complain about God saving.
Matt Slick: misdirects and can'
Matt Slick: t see it
Matt Slick: then why do you complain against God for saving someone against their will if it is not wrong to save someone against their will?
deeperchristian: I complain about your misrepresenting how God saves.
Matt Slick: i didn't say "saving" i siad "saving against their will."
Matt Slick: then why do you complain against God for saving someone against their will if it is not wrong to save someone against their will?
deeperchristian: God doesn't save someone against their will.
Matt Slick: we are born against NOT of our own will, john 1:13
deeperchristian: That's your mistake assumption.
Matt Slick: you're still unable to think clearly
deeperchristian: God does the saving, the will of man is man's plans.
deeperchristian: You still need to take of the water of life freely.
Matt Slick: we are born again NOT of our own will, john 1:13
deeperchristian: Believe and ye shall be saved, but you are unwilling.
GnarlyOcelot: deeper, can you make an argument for us to evaluate? a syllogism (1. 2. 3. Therefore)?
Matt Slick: yeap, great calvinist verse
Matt Slick: we are born again NOT of our own will, john 1:13
Matt Slick: d, look at john 1:13
deeperchristian: By your will you assume you are regenerated, so by your thought, you are not saved.
Matt Slick: it refutes your position
deeperchristian: Your approach is self-contradictory.
deeperchristian: And it is a doublestandard but you don't have a conscience to see it.
deeperchristian: Because your spirit is dead to God.
GnarlyOcelot: deeper, help me out, what is your argument?
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will, john 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: By your own will you assumed you were regenerated.
deeperchristian: So you are not saved.
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will, john 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: According to your usage of John 1.13 you are not born again.
Matt Slick: i notice that it is extremely difficult for you to answer questions.
Matt Slick: read the verse.
Matt Slick: do you agree iwth it?
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will, john 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: Of course I agree with this verse.
Matt Slick: so you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: Do you see how you by your own will assume you were regenerated without prior repentance and faith?
deeperchristian: So according to John 1.13 you are not born-again.
Matt Slick: answer or be banned
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will, john 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: Why are you asking me. I already answered.
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
Matt Slick: answer THAT
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: You're being obnoxious. What did I say?
deeperchristian: Try to be Christlike.
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: Don't be a clanging bell.
deeperchristian: What was my answer?
Matt Slick: last chance
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: Don't be a clanging bell.
deeperchristian: You're obnoxious and avoiding the answer.
[I banned him at this point]
GnarlyOcelot: heh, he had it coming
----------------
Notice if you don't answer exactly how Slick requires, he threatens you with martyrdom. Very abusive personality! That is how the murderous Pope of Geneva acted.
I trust the explanation above of our discussion matches the discussion itself. Do you see what Slick has troubles seeing? It's ok for Slick by his will to assume he was irresistibly regenerated and pride himself over others with that, but it is not ok for a person by his will to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated according to Slick's twisted theology by erecting that idol called Total depravity which says he can't. Remember what I said about John 1.13...
deeperchristian: God does the saving, the will of man is man's plans. AND deeperchristian: You still need to take of the water of life freely.
To take of the water of life freely is free, not forced or made to do it by being irresistibly regenerated. Do you see how Slick is confusing the "will of man" (man's plans) with "free-will" (sovereign choice)? The act of saving itself is God's doing, but God requires our heartfelt response since God is relational, synergistic and compatible. He set up this condition in dying on the cross for the sins of the whole world. He wants fellowship and communion with us. We need to use our volition, for we are not automatons. Our choice is not the salvation, but God does the saving; nonetheless, He requires our choice, for the salvation follows sufficient grace, our volition, repentance and faith. You wouldn't want it any other way.
So you can't plan your salvation nor be saved by the passions of your flesh, but God still requires your response and free-choice. Slick he has an inherent doublestandard he can never escape because it's ok for him by his will to assume he was irresistibly regenerated, but Christians are not allowed to repent and believe in Jesus to be regenerated according Slick. You can't have it both ways. God is the "Savior of all men, specially those who believe" (1 Tim. 4.10) NOT "Savior of all men who believe, specially those who believe" for that makes no sense. It's nonsensically redundant. The word "Savior" here must embrace everything including the sufficient grace give to us all. It cannot exclude Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the whole world. Amen.
We have to ask ourselves what kind of person would avoid continuously dealing with the above mentioned false teachings and still try to pawn them off as Christian when there is no support for them in God's word. Someone that evasive is being coy.Quote:
On 12/29/09 Troy Brooks spammed the New CARM discussion boards in violation of the board rules. He registered with more than 20 different usernames in a short period of time and spammed the boards posting the same post under different names, with different titles. He did this more than 50 times. Troy Brooks is certainly entitled to his disagreement with Reformed Theology. But, he is not entitled to harrassment. I've asked him to stop the harrassment. He has refused. I do not trust Brooks, his ability to abide by rules, his ability to actually understand the Calvinism he criticizes (he doesn't). We have to ask what kind of a person would spend the time to register more than 20 accounts in order to spam Christian forums, so that he can attack and insult others?
We were discussing and I was defending Jesus not as a man outside of time and space, but that Jesus only became a man in our likeness to atone for our sins and relates to us because God is full of grace and mercy. He is a man at the right hand of the Father but not outside time and space.Quote:
Normally I don't bother with people like Troy Brooks who really don't know what they are talking about, but I looked on his website and found something very interesting. At http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm he said,
"The Slick System is for the seared conscience. For example, you can only join his group membership if you affirm these false statements: "That Jesus Christ is presently true God and true man" ... I don't know any Christians who believe that Jesus is presently man [outside of time and space]. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and presently not man [outside time and space]."
This is most interesting since he denies one of the basic doctrines of Christianity: Jesus is a man. Troy Brooks claims to know Christian theology yet he denies one of the basics? Obviously, he doesn't know what he's doing. Here is another quote by him at the same webpage:
When God saves it is deserved in man, since that is how God set up the redemptive design, saving those who choose God, having the ability to do so being made in His image, and having that right that God gave in the creation of man.
Christianity does not teach "When God saves it is deserved in man..." This is false teaching. We do not deserve salvation (Eph. 2:3; Rom. 3:10-12). How can Troy make such a blatant mistake? Obviously, he doesn't know Christian theology which further explains his other misguided attempts to teach me and others what "real" Christianity is.
I believe Jesus is a man for eternity for us.
Of course you deserve salvation if you repent and believe in Christ but you're a Calvinist. How evil that would be if you had truly repented and believed in Christ then God sent you to Hell anyway. Ephesians 2.3 and Romans 3.10-12 in no way, shape or form tell us a person goes to Hell anyway. Man is fallen and in need of grace which God amply supplies so you can respond. Stop lying to people telling them they can only be saved if they are irresistibly regenerated which then forces them to believe. You're a bad man Slick.
Having reread each of these statements, they are FACTS since there is nothing in God's word to support Calvinism. Man is fallen, not Totally depraved since God provides sufficient grace to all enabling us to respond. Here is that link again Slick removed showing the 6 major sins of Calvinism,Quote:
Here are some more brookisms from the same page attacking me:
It is no wonder that with statements like these, Troy Brooks isn't taken seriously by anyone. Neither should you.
- "M. Slick is unregenerated for he believes he was saved another way which we may call his false fruit."
- "Under the CARM calvinism belief, you are persevering because you are like a zombie."
- "...living your life in your preselectionism pride."
- "This is man's attempt to replicate justification by faith when deep down inside that person does not really believe, though they will lie straight to your face in saying they do, but they are just being sly, slick and inveterate."
- "I protest of the historicalism taught by Slick and the RCC, gibberish babble of Slick and the Montanists, bipartite view of Slick and the fallen man, pride of being premade for salvation of Slick and so-called Reformers."
- "Not every last calvinist is unsaved, but the vast majority are not our brothers and sisters in Christ."
http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...s-of-Calvinism
We need to be very clear here, in Slick's entire response, he was unable to defend any of the 5 points of TULIP. All he managed to do is to prove that he avoids and continues to exalt his pride in thinking he was irresistibly selected and if you are not, there is nothing you can do about it. What evil! Slick is nothing but a pawn of Satan that false accuser, so slick labels many accusations, but never actually deals with the issue at hand to defend his false teachings.
I've got Christian giants on my side, e.g. Watchman Nee and Dave Hunt, whom believe in OSAS Arminian, premillennial, kingdom rewards, tongues as languages, Calvinism is evil, our being tripartite and dividing spirit, soul and body.
