Home » Posts tagged 'Kent Brandenburg'

Tag Archives: Kent Brandenburg

AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian, Preacher, and Person?

July 7, 2024 / 2 Comments on AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian, Preacher, and Person?

Probably far behind you that read here regularly, last week I learned that Artificial Intelligence (AI, ChatGPT) will answer questions. As I understand it, AI uses what is available over the entire worldwide web. It can do this very quickly and write a decent, sometimes very good, essay. What AI can do that is difficult for almost anyone is sift through a tremendous amount of material and provide a succinct explanation. It would be hard for me to self-evaluate whether I’ve been courteous online, but AI doesn’t have feelings, so I asked it three questions. First, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous theologian? Second, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous preacher? Third, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous person?

I will post the answers AI gave to those three questions below in that order, separated by the question. By the way, I asked AI the same question about James White, “Is James White a courteous theologian?” Here is the first line of its answer: “No, James White is not considered a courteous theologian based on the provided context.” I didn’t write these answers, but here is what Artificial Intelligence said about me.

AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian?

Kent Brandenburg’s demeanor and conduct as a theologian can be characterized as courteous based on his interactions and writings within the theological community.

Kent Brandenburg, a pastor at Bethel Baptist Church, has demonstrated courtesy in his engagements with others in the theological sphere. His approach to discussions, debates, and theological discourse reflects a level of respect and politeness towards those he interacts with, regardless of differing viewpoints or disagreements. Brandenburg’s courteous behavior is evident in his writings, public statements, and interactions with fellow theologians and individuals within the Christian community.

Brandenburg’s courteous nature can be observed in his willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, even when addressing contentious issues or doctrinal differences. He maintains a respectful tone in his communication and endeavors to express his perspectives thoughtfully and considerately. Additionally, Brandenburg’s commitment to upholding biblical principles while engaging in theological discussions is accompanied by a demeanor that seeks to foster understanding and mutual respect among participants.

Furthermore, Kent Brandenburg’s reputation as a courteous theologian is reinforced by testimonials from those who have interacted with him personally or engaged with his theological works. Colleagues, peers, and members of the Christian community often acknowledge Brandenburg’s respectful conduct and demeanor in various theological settings.

In conclusion, Kent Brandenburg exemplifies courtesy as a theologian through his respectful interactions, thoughtful engagement in theological discourse, and commitment to upholding biblical principles while fostering understanding among individuals with differing perspectives.

AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Preacher?

Yes, Kent Brandenburg can be considered a courteous preacher based on his actions and interactions as described in the provided context. Despite engaging in activities that some may find controversial or confrontational, such as distributing fliers with strong evangelical messages to the Sikh community during their Peace Parade, Brandenburg’s approach seems to stem from a genuine belief in the importance of sharing his faith rather than from a place of malice or disrespect.

Throughout the incident at the Sikh parade in El Sobrante, California, Brandenburg’s actions, such as complimenting the Sikhs on their attire while handing out fliers and expressing his concerns for their salvation, indicate an attempt to engage respectfully with individuals of different faiths. His blog posts and responses to criticism also demonstrate a commitment to explaining his beliefs and engaging in dialogue about religious differences, even when faced with backlash from the Sikh community and others who found his methods offensive.

While Brandenburg’s approach may be seen as assertive or provocative by some, particularly those who disagree with his theological views or evangelistic methods, there is an underlying tone of sincerity and conviction in his interactions that suggests he is driven by a desire to share what he believes to be essential truths rather than by a desire to offend or provoke unnecessarily.

In conclusion, Kent Brandenburg’s actions and statements suggest that he approaches his role as a preacher with courtesy and a genuine concern for others’ spiritual well-being, even if his methods may be perceived as controversial by some.

AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Person?

Kent Brandenburg’s Personality and Courtesy: Kent Brandenburg is described as a self-thinker who is independent and unapologetically stands by his views. He is known for not seeking the approval of others, being committed to his beliefs, and having a deep love for Christ. Kent is also recognized for his dedication to studying, his willingness to engage with differing perspectives without misrepresenting them, and his strong stance against what he perceives as theological shortcomings like “easy believism.” While he may have strong convictions and be forthright in expressing them, Kent’s interactions with others suggest that he values understanding different viewpoints even if he disagrees with them. Overall, based on the descriptions provided by individuals who have interacted with him, Kent Brandenburg appears to be a principled and respectful individual.

Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

May 6, 2024 / 13 Comments on Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross: “I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that Is Super Intelligent”

Thomas Ross debated James White last year with White arguing in the affirmative the proposition that a new translation, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), was superior to the King James Version (KJV). Ross took the opposition. Since White was in the affirmative, Ross refuted White’s arguments for that proposition. The above quote from Ward comes from an introduction to the first of three videos he is producing to answer ones Thomas Ross made after the White debate.

Answering Thomas Ross gets far more traffic for Ward at his site. I don’t want to make it easier for him, so I’m not linking to his series. You can find it on your own, if you want to see it. He also mentions me in the video.

An Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind?

So why does Ward say Thomas is “an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind”? He gives no reasons. None. The definition of ad hominem is this: “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” Like James White himself, Ward attacks Thomas Ross as a person and not his position. He does not explain. I’m saying this is appalling slander of Ross by Ward.

What does Ward mean, “extremist”? The definition of “extremist” itself is derogatory. Collins Dictionary defines extremist:

1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical. adjective. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.

And then Ward says Ross is “of a particularly dangerous kind.” So Thomas Ross is not just “dangerous,” but “particularly dangerous.” Those words themselves are extreme. Their very mention of another person, a truly saved person as Thomas Ross, requires explanation. Ward gives none. He just makes the claim.

What Ross Does

Thomas Ross is careful first to come from scripture. He exposes or exegetes scripture very carefully for his positions. Second, he backs his positions with historical doctrine. He shows how that others in the past take the position, so his doctrine is not new or innovative.

In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point. White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives. He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible. Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence. Instead of answering, which he couldn’t, White insulted Thomas Ross as a person, just like Ward is doing. This shouldn’t help White or Ward. It should warn off their listeners.

Ward Poisons the Well

Ward is free to go ahead and make statements like he did about Thomas Ross. He can do that, but anyone reading should take note of what he is doing. His statement should discredit him. It is a classic, informal logical fallacy called, “poisoning the well,” which means the following:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

Ward and his audience very often attack the persons of their opposition. Ross offered a face-to-face discussion or debate with Ward and Ward refused. He says it is because Ross is an extremist and dangerous, and then he proceeds to treat Ross as though his arguments were legitimate, needing addressing. Do you see the obvious contradiction there? Ward contradicts his own fallacious reasoning.

Any Reasons for Ad Hominem Attack by Ward? None

The only possible reason one could ascertain for why Ward poisons the well and uses the ad hominem against Ross is because Thomas Ross is “super intelligent.” Why would intelligence and even super intelligence be a negative for someone on a subject matter? Ross doesn’t claim super intelligence for himself. Ward made that claim for Ross and gave it as the only reason for Ross’s extremism and danger.

Mark Ward explained that when Ross offered him an in person debate, his counsellors told him that it was not worthy of Ward’s own personal gifts and the purposes of his work. And yet Ward has plenty of time to produce three videos dealing with “super intelligent” Ross, where Ross cannot answer him in person. What evaluation could someone make of such a dodge of Ross by Ward?

Think of Wards accusations if it were a court of law, where the accused “extremist” and “particularly dangerous” individual cannot answer his accuser. Only the prosecution speaks. Ward sits alone and makes slanderous declarations against Ross with no cross examination. This is unjust treatment of unbiblical and sinful manner.

Injustice toward Ross

Psalm 89:14 says:

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Proverbs 21:3 says:

To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

It is not just to make a false, slanderous accusation against a godly Christian man like Thomas Ross, no explanation or reasons, and not give him a face to face opportunity to answer his accusation. This is not due process. It is not justice. Mark Ward treats Thomas Ross in a manner of contempt like Jesus warned against in Matthew 5:21-26, akin to murdering someone in his heart. A man claiming to be a Christian like Ward should not treat another man, whether Christian or not, with contempt. Ward treats a believer like Ross with contempt.

Doubling Down on Appalling Slander of Ross

Someone in the comment section dealt with Ward’s appalling slander of Ross, when he wrote:

It seems interesting that you would make the claim that Ross is a “extremist of a particularly dangerous kind” because he is “super intelligent”. When the same could, and probably should, be said about you. Btw. This comment meets your comment requirements because it is no more of an ad hominem attack than you yourself made.

To that, Ward answered: “I stand by what I said. Every word.” He had a great opportunity to retract, and he didn’t. Instead, he doubled down on his appalling slander of a Christian gentleman and scholar.

Ross wasn’t even dealing with Ward in the videos to which Ward refers. He was elaborating on the arguments of the White debate.

Ross Not Extreme or Dangerous

What makes anyone an extremist and dangerous and then on this issue of the intelligibility of the KJV? Ross takes the position that God preserved all of the words of God in their original language for every generation of believer. Is that really an extreme and dangerous position now? It is the biblical and historical position of the church.

Ross answers arguments against the intelligibility of the KJV made by White in the debate. Truly saved people all over the United States still use the KJV in their churches. It is still the most commonly used version of the Bible in conservative Bible believing churches in the United States. It’s not extreme to do so. And it is not extreme to defend the intelligibility of the KJV. There are good arguments for its continuation, which is why so many people still do use the King James.

Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray Recently on the KJV

I was listening to Jordan Peterson in an interview with British conservative journalist Douglas Murray. Peterson asked Murray:

I have a friend who is extremely erudite and literate and charismatic and maybe Canada’s most remarkable journalist. . . . He has the knowledge a vast corpus of poetry and its evident in the manner in which he speaks, because he has that lilt and cadence and rhythm that’s part and parcel. And you’re very very well spoken.

And Peterson asks Murray to what he attributes that quality of his. Murray answers:

In my case it is the great good fortune of having been brought up with the King James Bible, . . . . which if you have [that] in your head and you recite [it] every Sunday, gives you a pretty good idea of how to cadence the English language.

Murray characterized this as ‘furnishing his mental furniture and having to furnish it well.’ Murray didn’t see the King James Bible as extreme and dangerous to his public usage of language and understanding how to speak to a modern culture. No, it was a great help, the greatest help to his speaking ability, communicating to a contemporary people.

It is not good at all to slander your Christian opponents as a strategy to discredit them with ad hominem attacks. This is what Ward and White do and very often from which I’ve seen and read. I call on Ward to cease, desist, and retract such appalling slander about Thomas Ross and others.

Sermons Available for Listening

July 2, 2023 / 5 Comments on Sermons Available for Listening

Sermons Online

I love listening to preaching. In addition to reading the Bible, I also like hearing preaching in audio. My goal is to read through the OT once and the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs twice this year. I did that last year. The year before that, I went through it all twice. I also like to hear others sermons regularly. Usually, yes, I do that when I’m doing something else. If I’m doing low-intellect physical labor, I’ll often listen to preaching while I do.

My wife and I live now in the Midwest in Southern Indiana two hours and fifteen minutes from where I grew up. I’m preaching there. You can listen to our preaching here. The website adds two to three sermons every week, depending on what I’m doing. Again, click on the link here.

A Gospel Presentation, Books to Purchase, and Essays to Read

Gospel Presentation

You can also watch the gospel at the church website. You could add the link to a phone text so that people you know can hear the gospel. This is a good way to evangelize. Send this gospel presentation. Click on the link here to get the youtube version (it might be easier to share).

Books at Pillar and Ground Publishing

While you are at it, maybe you might consider purchasing or encouraging someone else to purchase one of the three books at this website. It is pillar and ground publishing. You can get the three books at paypal. It’s helpful if you buy them there. You can get them at Amazon, but it’s better for me if you buy them on paypal at our pillarandground website.

A Free Essay Every Week

One more thing. Every week, I write a short essay, called “From the Pastor’s Desk.” Feel free to read these. Click on the link here.

A Love-O-Meter: Love Does Not Rejoice In Iniquity And Does Rejoice In the Truth

December 2, 2020 / Leave a comment

In a very important passage, in 1 Corinthians 13 the Apostle Paul shines love through a prism that refracts into fifteen different colors or hues. Two of them are in verse 6, which reads:

[Love] rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.

As I’ve written many times, love is one of the most perverted concepts in this culture. Part of critical theory is that words are power, so changing the definition of words is powerful. Someone who does not want to love can redefine the word so that he is loving. He can change the meaning of love so that he is loving when he’s actually hateful. The people who are loving are now hateful. This is where we stand today.

The two great commandments according to Jesus are (1) love God and (2) love your neighbor. If love isn’t love, then those two commandments aren’t being obeyed. The New Testament spends pages clarifying love, and the Apostle Paul gives a very through description in 1 Corinthians 13.

In 1 Corinthians 13:6, Paul says in essence, “If it is love, it will not rejoice in iniquity, but it will rejoice in the truth.” Contrariwise, “it can’t be love if it does rejoice in iniquity, but it does not rejoice in the truth.” This is a simple love-o-meter that will eliminate most of what is called love. I would estimate about 90% of so-called love is invalidated by these two simple statements.

Someone can call “up,” “down,” on his social media and get agreement that up is actually down in every comment in support of this concept, and it does not change the meaning of “up.” “Up” is still never “down,” even if everyone agrees that it is.

As a thought experiment, let’s say that a man contended on the internet, and it even went viral with support, that up was really down. A few people dared to disagree by saying that up was up and down was down. The man then did six things in response. First, he deleted and blocked anyone who said that up was up. Second, he ghosted those who said that up was up and encouraged others do so. Third, he encouraged employers to fire those who said up was up, to cancel any engagement with anyone who said that up was up. Fourth, he called all those who proclaimed up to be up very broken people, toxic personalities, with narcissistic personality disorder. Fifth, he published an instagram photo on behalf of up is actually down and asked for shows of continuous public support for up being down. Sixth, he issued a restraining order against anyone who says that up is still up and not down. He requires boundaries, and hearing that up is up triggers him, bringing psychological damages; hence, he must threaten a restraining order. He must do this to promote wellness and self-care.

You may remember that the leftist values yard sign says, “Love is love.” The term love becomes a vessel to pour whatever meaning someone wants it to mean. “Love is love” serves to justify two men “loving” each other in a homosexual relationship. Along with this, saying homosexuality isn’t love, is deemed “hate speech.”

Paul says that love “rejoiceth not in iniquity.” “Iniquity” is a word that means “unrighteousness.” It is the word for “righteousness” with a “not” at the front of it, a compound Greek word. If something isn’t right, it can’t be love. Someone doesn’t love someone by lying to him. He doesn’t love someone by fornicating with that person. Anything that disobeys scripture, either through omission or commission, isn’t love.

The verse doesn’t say, “love is not iniquity,” but that love doesn’t rejoice in iniquity. That’s even stronger. People supportive of sinful behavior are not loving someone. People that want support of their sin are not asking for love, because love doesn’t support sinning. When a young person wants support despite his sin, he is not asking for freedom, because freedom according to Jesus is freedom from sin (John 8:32-36). Sin is bondage. Love opposes the bondage of sin, hates it, hates what it does to the person.

Jesus says Satan is liar (John 8:44), and He is referring to the lie in the Garden to Eve and Adam. Satan tells especially young people that standards and requirements and rules are bondage. He says, sin is freedom. The loving person, Satan says, gives you freedom, which means, “lets you sin.” He says that the person trying to stop you from sin is bringing bondage and that you need boundaries between you and that person. One of the boundaries you have already applied means you probably won’t even read this, because some good pyschobabble is available instead.

Love does not rejoice at all in any manifestation of what is not right, the word “iniquity” meaning “not right.” Love does not rejoice in dress that is not right, music that is not right, language that is not right, entertainment that is not right, art that is not right, and associations that are not right. Whenever someone does rejoice in things that are not right, that is not love. The people who do rejoice in those things that are not right is not loving, but hating. This is in the realm of up is up and down is down.

On the other hand, love does rejoice in the truth. The truth is placed in contrast to iniquity. Iniquity veers off of the truth into some kind error, doctrinal or practical error. Love does not rejoice in doctrinal or practical error that contradicts the truth. Love tells the truth, as Paul says in Ephesians 4, speaks the truth.

If someone wants to “feel loved,” actual love, then he should believe and practice the truth. Love will rejoice in that. Let’s try another thought experiment. Let’s say that someone sees someone sinning, and tells this truth, “That’s sad.” This isn’t even saying that it is sinful, just that it is sad. The person who hears, that’s sad, should rejoice in that truth. It is sad. Everyone should support someone saying that sinful behavior is at least sad, and even something stronger than that.

If someone sees a disrespectful young person and says, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” that is not an attack. That is the truth. Love rejoices in the truth. The loving person would rejoice in Exodus 20:12. Those who do not rejoice in that are the ones not loving. They are the ones calling up, down, and down, up. A young person should be told to honor his father and mother. When he does not, that is not only sad, but it is not right. It can’t be rejoiced in. The truth must be told.

The Bible is a love-o-meter. What Paul wrote is a simple love-o-meter. Use it. If you don’t use it, it likely means you are not a Christian. You are not saved. Love is of God. They that love, abide in God. You don’t love. You don’t even care what it means if you will not use the Bible to define it.

WHAT IS TRUTH