24 Comments on “Ineffectual Grace: A Reply to John Samson”

1. John Samson says:

   December 19, 2011 at 11:56 pm

   Paul,

   It would seem that my concerns about you are sadly confirmed. I hardly threw a tantrum. You are obviously blind to how you come across in your communication and your emotional rhetoric makes further discussion extremely difficult.

   Just for clarity – I posted the video of the debate before I had watched the second video in which Steve said that God died on the cross. Steve may have great Christian credentials, especially teaching at Spurgeon’s College (I am an admirer of C. H. Spurgeon), but his theopassianism evident in the second video is a heresy that has been roundly rejected by the Church for the very reason that it denies His immutability. There has never been a change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time. “I am the Lord, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6)

   I wish to use my blog to futher the cause of orthodox Christian ministry and because of your very underhanded attack on Scripture (totally off subject) and Steve’s blatant theopassianism, I felt the best thing was not to allow this confusion to be something promoted from my website. Surely you can understand this. I believe there are far more helpful and useful debates out there that accurately represent both sides. You look for other motivations in my heart that would prompt such an action on my part but I can assure you there were none.

   Reply
2. Free Lover says:

   December 20, 2011 at 2:00 am

   It is very unfortunate that Paul’s patience was rewarded with such rudeness, though I must point out that Samsons’ xenophobic opening remark showed off his true nature. He comments that the debate could not take place in the Muslim world and was due to the freedom of the West, which he no doubt believes is a direct result of the ‘Christian Values’ of the ‘West’. Perhaps Paul could remind him of how ‘debate’ of the Christian Orthodoxy was met with in the past, and of the treatment and ‘understanding’ meted out to the various Christian denominations throughout the history of the ‘tolerant west’.

   Or perhaps we should talk about the treatment of the Jews…

   Reply
   • Paul Williams says:

     December 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm

     public debates between Muslims and Christians do take place in the Muslim world today. Yahya posted a comment on John Samson’s website detailing this – but that too was deleted. Its a shame really the way he deals with opinions he doesn’t like…

     Reply
     • John Samson says:

       December 24, 2011 at 8:27 pm

       Once again, may I make it clear, I deleted the debate from my site because once I saw the second video of the debate (the rebuttal period) I was totally astonished to see the Christian promote the ancient heresy of theopassianism. I in no way wish to propogate such a doctrine on my own site and so in deleting the post, all comments went along with them (including my own). Those are the facts.

       Regarding the issue of debate in the Muslim world, I wonder just what freedom is allowed to a Christian in such a forum. I notice the word “dialog” is used to describe these events rather than debate. May I ask, in an Islamic country, has the Christian the freedom to call into question the truthfulness of the Qur’an or the prophethood of Muhammad or call Islam a false religion? I would be surprised to learn this was indeed the case.

       In outlining the orthodox Christian view concerning the crucifixion of Christ, theologian Dr. R. C. Sproul writes:

       “We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.

       God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.

       Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.

       We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.”

       I hope the above clarifies my motivations in this matter.
3. Rebuttals to Muslim Paul Williams | Effectual Grace says:

   December 24, 2011 at 8:06 pm

   [...] Rebuttals to Muslim Paul Williams Posted on December 24, 2011 by John Samson This week I was singled out for attack by a former professing Christian apostate Paul Williams now Muslim here. [...]

   Reply
4. Paul Williams says:

   December 25, 2011 at 11:25 am

   John, just one point – I agree wholeheartedly with you that the idea of God dying is horrifying. But, I am sad to say, I am equally horrified by your pagan and thoroughly unJewish idea that God requires a human sacrifice before he can forgive our sins! This is contrary to Jesus teaching in the synoptic gospels about forgiveness being freely available before his alleged vicarious death on the cross. I cited multiple examples of Jesus teaching to this effect in my debate. Jesus alleged atonement on the cross is soteriologically irrelevant to our salvation….. according to Jesus himself!

   Reply
5. Free Lover says:

   December 26, 2011 at 6:58 pm

   Samson, stop being a low life and repeating your Evangelico – Fascist assertions about the Muslims. That kind of weak jive may go unchallenged in a crippled democracy like the US but it carries no weight here in the UK. Face facts you loser: you can’t provide any references for you ‘impermissibility of debate in the Muslim world’ (the same ‘Muslim world’ which is actually sustained by your current unfortunate hosts the US, or did we all hallucinate the close ties between the US and the Saudis?). And you know full well how the Christians have suppressed ‘heresies’ (read: debate). I have one word for you: INQUISITION. Heck, do you know there was even an inquisition in the New World?! In fact, look at how Christianity was spread throughout Europe and the New World: BY FORCE – Constantine, King Cnut and on and on. And I suppose the Crusades was just an attempt by the Christians at ‘peaceful preaching’. Ditto the colonial enterprise of the European powers such as Spain, Portugal and England, onto whose colonial excesses Christian missionaries often railroaded their missionary enterprise (to be fair, often through no fault of their own). And not to mention the internecine fighting and persecution BETWEEN the Christians and the suppression of various sects and heresies by force (or are the various schisms and their bloody aftermaths also a figment of our imagination?)

   You are clearly a dishonest un – Christian liar evidenced by the way you deleted the post from your site about how debate IS allowed in your so – called ‘Muslim world’ (actually a creation of the West, see the support they provided for everyone from Sadaam to Ghaddafi through Ben Ali and Mubarak). And you tried to overlook that fact by talking about Christian doctrine.

   You are a sad propagandist and the only religion you know less about than Islam is Christianity. You are a disgrace to the good name of Christians with your insincere behaviour.

   I would encourage any Muslims reading this site not to be unduly angry about hate mongering psuedo – Christians such as Sam Shamoun and Samson, as they are not representative of the vast majority of Christians. They are also a lot uglier than the vast majority of Christians.

   Reply
6. Doc says:

   December 27, 2011 at 6:12 am

   To Mr. Samson,

   Firstly, in response to your comment regarding Christians debating or questioning the Qur’an in the Muslim world, I find it interesting how you have side-tracked to something which not directly related yo the topic of ‘Salvation’. I would like to remind you Mr. Samson that you are granted the privilege of debate in a ‘secular’ country, let’s remember that this does not qualify it as a ‘Christian’ freedom that we are granted in the West. When you talk about a ‘Muslim’ country please be honest and clear in distinguishing between a country densely populated by ‘Muslims’ and a country that is purely ‘Islamic’. There is no shortage of scholars who will inform you of the fact that ere is no such thing as an ‘Islamic’ county at this current time. At best, it can be argued that some countries selectively apply some Islamic practice/laws.

   In Islam we are taught to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah. Sunnah is understood to be the practices or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Now, either you are well-informed/educated Mr. Samson, or else you choose to remain ignorant of the following fact when it comes to Christians debating in ‘Muslim’ lands (and remember that there can be no land more Islamic than Madina during the time of the Prophet Muhammad):

   The Prophet’s first important encounter with Christian clergies was in the 9th year of Hijra (AD 631), one or two years before his death. Prophet Muhammad had been sending official letters to different countries and their rulers, inviting them to Islam. Among these were two different invitations that had been sent to Najran with Khaled ibn al-Walid and Ali ibn Abi Talib. At that time the Najran Christians had a highly organized religious life. Before Islam, foreign teachers had even visited the town, such as the Italian priest Gregentius, which had deepen-ed their religious knowledge. Few of the Najran Christians converted to Islam; the majority of them did not change their religion after these invitations. Prophet Muhammad sent a representative to them, Mughira ibn Shu’ba, who was sent to explain the invitations and the religion of Islam. After discussions with Mughira, the Christians of Najran decided to send a group of people to visit the Prophet. The delegation was made up of about 60 well-educated Christians: A bishop, his 45 scholars, and 15 men. Their intention was to learn the nature of the revelations Prophet Muhammad was receiving.

   When the Najran delegation reached Madina, they debated with the Prophet in an investigatory dialogue for two or three days in the mosque (Masjid) of Madina. Prophet Muhammad allowed them to pray in the mosque (Masjid al-Nabawi) where the Muslims prayed. The whole incident was the first occurrence of peaceful dialogue between Christians and Muslims; it was the first time that Christians prayed in a mosque. Prophet Muhammad warmly welcomed the Najran delegation and provided them with a place to stay in Madina, in a secure place close to his mosque. He even ordered that their tent be pitched for them by the Muslims. However, the Najran delegation and Prophet Muhammad were not able to reach a solution in theological terms. At the end of these exchanges, the Najran Christians told the Prophet: “O, Abu al-Qasim, we decided to leave you as you are and you leave us as we are. But send with us a man who can adjudicate things on our properties, because we accept you.” The delegation was granted their request and a written assurance was provided by the Prophet that their lives, property, and religion would be protected. He made witnesses sign this undertaking.

   Finally, with regard to the debate on ‘Salvation’ between Mr. Paul Williams and Dr. Steve Latham, you obviously feel more qualified to debate from the Christian side. I would therefore invite you to step forward to debate with Mr. Paul Williams to demonstrate your knowledge/understanding on this subject rather than taking refuge behind a few blogged rants.

   Regards.

   December 24, 2011 at 8:27 pm

   Reply
7. Free Lover says:

   December 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm

   Told you this guy was a coward.

   All guys like him are good at is running their mouth and flapping their gums with unqualified statements.

   Reply
   • Tom says:

     January 1, 2012 at 4:42 pm

     I’ve read through this tawdry thread and I have to say that from my touristic vantage point, most of the xenophobia and rudeness has come from you Free Lover. You show no commitment to a spirit of collegiality at all.

     Also it’s telling that in response to people pointing out that debates such as this only take place within the Christian west (I’d be interested to see that deleted email by Yahya that you mention Paul- could it be posed here instead?), you make trite recourse to medieval Europe! Contemporary examples please.

     Reply
8. Free Lover says:

   January 1, 2012 at 11:34 pm

   Well, why should I provide any contemporary examples, you don’t have any Christian countries that you can hold up as an example of tolerance, like the Muslims all you have are Christian majority countries which are under a secular system which is very distantly (if at all) related to Christianity. It certainly is not related to the system of Evangelical Christianity which Samson holds to.

   And as for todays’ ‘examples’, Christian majority countries like France and Switzerland don’t even allow freedom of religious EXPRESSION. What good is DEBATE if you can’t even express your faith by wearing a piece of cloth (hijaab ban, France, Singapore, Belgium etc.etc.) or building a minaret (‘neutral’ Switzerland, neutral when it comes to anything other than Islam of course)?

   Also, I never said I wasn’t rude. I am always rude to dumb-asses like yourself who don’t know the meaning of the word ‘xenophobia’ and can’t look at all the debates taking place in the modern Muslim world posted on this very site.

   And look up the meaning of the word ‘medieval’ while you are at it, unless you class the entire colonial period of the European powers as having taken place before the 15th century. In fact it did not even start until AFTER the medieval period, and the excesses of the Christian powers were not confined to Europe, as you well know.

   Reply
   • Tom says:

     January 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm

     ‘Well, why should I provide any contemporary examples, you don’t have any Christian countries that you can hold up as an example of tolerance, like the Muslims all you have are Christian majority countries which are under a secular system which is very distantly (if at all) related to Christianity.’

     I wouldn’t hold up any ‘Christian’ countries as examples of ‘tolerance’. Rather I’d offer the UK, Canada, Australia (just for starters) as examples of secular western countries (with Judeo-Christian foundations) that promote EQUALITY- something Islam never claims to offer. I’m sure you’ll now dig deep into a store of anecdotes for evidence to the contrary, but it is inescapable that in the UK people of all persuasions can LEGALLY express themselves freely. No creed or prophet is safeguarded by blasphemy laws and capital punishment, and every religion is free to proselytise. Thus Islamic dawah, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ door-to-door calling, Hare Krishna street work, etc, etc all take place throughout the country every week, protected by the law. There are fascists within UK society who have a history of intimidation and violence towards such groups, but they represent a tiny minority of the population and are abhorred by the vast, vast majority. Contrast this with the state-sanctioned vigilantism that operates on the streets of Lahore.

     Like you I am entirely opposed to minaret and hijab bans, and indeed any such restrictions, as they offend my sense of equality, threaten the plural identity of a society I love and impinge upon the people’s rights. But seeing as the debates in question aren’t taking place in Switzerland or France, we can safely assume that John Samson was referring to neither.

     ‘And look up the meaning of the word ‘medieval’ while you are at it, unless you class the entire colonial period of the European powers as having taken place before the 15th century.’

     I used the word medieval because you referred to Knut, but yes I was also using it in its normative sense as a synonym for the middle ages running until (roughly) the first half of the 16th century, and thus encompassing the establishment and heyday of the Inquisition (though not of course its entire manifestation), to which you also referred. I can see why you might take issue with that so please read ‘middle ages’ where I used ‘medieval’ if you find it less problematic. Of course I don’t class the entire colonial period of the European powers as having taken place before the 15th century- I am not a ‘dumb-ass’.

     Anyway, in answer to your question, you should do so in order to debunk the original claim convincingly- simple as that. I thought you might jump at the chance to do so.

     It’s a shame that you wear your rudeness as a badge of honour- it undermines your initial post on this thread, runs contrary to islamic and christian values, and to socratic dialogue. What’s more, i’m surprised and a little dismayed that Paul Williams, director of this initiative and supposed defender of academic collegiality, doesn’t take issue with your insults (‘dumb-ass’, ‘loser’ etc), though he is quick to do so with (less intemperate) others, and indeed to post private emails on public forums (behaviour that no university ethics committee would allow).

     I am not an Evangelist, and I certainly don’t align myself with either John Samson’s or Paul Williams’ positions. But while JS was terse and hostile and PW provocative and a little underhand, only you were downright offensive. It was your rudeness that compelled me to comment.

     Reply
     • Paul Williams says:

       January 3, 2012 at 8:21 pm

       Tom

       How, pray, was I underhand? And whose private emails have I published on public forums?
9. Tom says:

   January 3, 2012 at 9:18 pm

   ‘About 10 minutes after I posted this comment on his site I discovered that Samson had deleted the 2 videos of the debate, and deleted all my comments and his reply. Shortly after that I received the following email from Samson’

   This clearly suggests that you published a correspondence that he sent to your email inbox; in other words, a private message from him to you, as opposed to a post made public by John Samson himself. If I’ve misunderstood, please explain.

   To make another person’s private email visible to a wider audience is surely underhand, unless of course you asked John Samson for permission to do so, and only posted it once that permission had been granted (in fact, it might even be illegal, as emails are considered as literary works, though I might well be wrong on this). If you did ask for and receive permission then I’m sorry for calling you underhand.

   May

   Reply
10. Paul Williams says:

    January 3, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Sampson did not say his email was in any way private and in subsequent conversations with him – during which he found much about my alleged behaviour to complain about – he never once mentioned this as an issue. I felt his behaviour needed to be exposed and not just hushed up as Samson would clearly have preferred. Therefore your complaint is baseless.

    Out of interest, do you not have anything better to do with your time than going around judging others?

    Reply
    • Tom says:

      January 3, 2012 at 10:56 pm

      Thank you for that delicious slice of irony Paul! I was simply contributing a two-penneth to a thread of yours in which netiquette and scholarly cricket are prominent themes. Your initiative clearly prides itself on each of these; I had thought a spirit of ‘keep it clean’ might be welcomed, but I was clearly wrong. I enjoy many of the debates and discussions taking place here, but they are marred by rudeness and disrespect. You obviously find complaints re conduct more objectionable than rudeness itself, which is a shame. Any thoughts on my other points, or was underhandgate the only significant aspect? Incidentally, most of us receive emails every day and don’t presume that the absence of an explicit declaration of privacy is an invitation to publish! If you like I can recommend you some ethics literature to add to your reading list.

      Reply
      • Paul Williams says:

        January 3, 2012 at 11:39 pm

        no thanks, I suggest you go and bother someone else with your ‘ethics’.

        Btw, it is not my role to police these discussions. Apart from fussing over other peoples behaviour what is your purpose visiting the MDI site? Do you have any actual thoughts to contribute? So far your contribution has been patronising and negative. If you like I could send you a link to some helpful literature on Understanding Your Communication Style
11. Tom says:

    January 4, 2012 at 8:20 am

    It’s unwise to recommend literature unless you’ve read it. If by negative you mean going against the forum status quo of peurile hostility and mudslinging then I’ll take it as a compliment. As for my reasons for visiting mdi, it is because I find the issues interesting- I have made some comments the relative free speech and debate, though I’m sure you find them negative on account of their disagreeing with you. Anyway, you’ll be delighted to know that I hope to contribute to further discussions, but please don’t think me negative if I don’t aprejoice and applaud every piece of pseudo-scholarship.

    Reply
    • Paul Williams says:

      January 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm

      OK but try and refrain from the ad hominem comments

      Reply
12. Paul Williams says:

    January 5, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    So Tom, do you have any particular religious affiliation?

    Reply
13. Tom says:

    January 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Anglican, but many Anglicans would probably consider me an atheist.

    Reply
14. Regular John says:

    January 9, 2012 at 6:33 am

    Greeting to Mr.Paul Williams in The name of “Our” God Jesus Christ

    Just want to comment concerning Mark 10 7 Matthew 19

    Everyone who read with a clear mind and conscience will admit , The main theme of both chapters is : To inherit Eternal life we have to be GOOD, apparently ONLY ONE THAT CAN BE GOOD

    In this verse Jesus wants to teach that NO ONE CAN BE TRULY GOOD and DO TRULY GOOD, ACCEPT God, and if one still try to prove that , Jesus openly challenge this young man to abandon his wealth. And then this young man eventually admit & realize that he can’t be GOOD as Law of God requires ( Love your God with all you heart,soul and might)
    ==================================================================

    It seems Mr.Williams had taken almost exact position as this young rich man, which is “BEING GOOD AS LAW OF GOD REQUIRED WAS ATTAINABLE”

    Jesus actually exposed the hidden thing of this “religious” young man which was his lustful bond to his wealth

    Everyone person has it own hidden “bond” that would make him/her unable to fully fulfill the undisputed requirement of The Law “Love your God with all your heart, soul & might”

    Until any person (regardless of their religion, even a Christian) fully admit and realize this in their heart&soul , they would never ever humbly come to the foot of the cross

    Jesus in His magnificent wisdom actually preparing this young man’s heart to receive the later revelation which is “Forgiveness of Sin through the Cross”

    Many people who still in the darkness often use these both chapters to allegedly accuse Jesus denying His Divinity, when the fact is otherwise..THOSE CHAPTERS ACTUALLY AFFIRM JESUS DIVINITY

    in co-relation with Mark 10 it is clear that by the question “GOOD teacher(mark 10), how can i be GOOD” (matthew 19) to inherit eternal life ? …That this young rich man consider Jesus as a mere human being with virtue (Goodness) that could also be attained by this young man. That’s why Jesus replied ” Why do you call me GOOD”? This was not an expression of denial but a true question ,which questioning this young man’s perspective on defining Jesus Virtue (Goodness) in which this young man considered it attainable

    And Jesus directly give answer Himself to this “reflective question” (Mark 10 & Mat 19) Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. This is a FIRM Affirmation that The VIRTUE (GOODNESS) that this young man saw in Jesus was not a mere human virtue but THIS VIRTUE WAS DIVINE.

    PEACE&BLESSING IN THE NAME OF JESUS “OUR” GOD…AMEN

    Reply
    • Paul Williams says:

      January 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      I’m sorry but that is terrible exegesis and transparent special pleading. Your arguments are so weak they are not worth replying to.

      Reply
15. Regular John says:

    January 10, 2012 at 3:30 am

    Peace & Blessing In The Name Of Jesus “God of Us ALL”

    Asalamualaikum Mr. Williams,

    Mr. Williams said “Your arguments are so weak they are not worth replying to.”

    RJ : So, why bother replying by writing this REPLY statement Sir ? ” “Your arguments are so weak they are not worth replying to.”

    I hope you were not making this “REPLY” statement out of desperation regarding how “strong” my argument was, Sir…

    Thx,
    SMILE.. JESUS “GOD OF US ALL” LOVES U..

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.