Lost in Simplicity

[bdavidc]

@PeterC

I don’t believe that the first part of this is true. I found out early that the simple things of God are not so simple as you think, to those who do not know God. As for the rest, Amen. As @Johann pointed out.

Peter, I think we may be talking about two slightly different things.

When I said it’s not complicated, I wasn’t saying the natural man finds it easy to accept. I fully agree that apart from God’s work in the heart, the gospel is rejected. The issue isn’t intelligence. It’s resistance.

What I meant is that the message itself is not complex. Jesus did not present layers of philosophical abstraction. He said, “repent ye, and believe the gospel” ~Mark 1:15. That’s direct. Clear. Understandable.

The difficulty is not in decoding the message. The difficulty is in bowing to it.

So I’m not claiming the unregenerate heart naturally embraces it. I’m saying the call itself is plain. A child can grasp what repentance and trust mean. The natural man refuses it because he does not want to repent, not because the grammar is confusing.

I think we’re closer here than it might have sounded.

[bdavidc]

@PeterC

I suggest you rewatch the video. You definitly Got this worng. The whole point was to refute these statements. It was a pretty good video.

Peter

PeterC, I did rewatch it, and I’m not guessing. Those statements are in the video, spoken by the presenter, right at the start. At 0:06–0:27 he says, “If God didn’t want her eating from it, why did he put it there? Why did he make it tempting? If anybody is deceiving here, it’s God.”

At 0:27–0:33 he continues, “It seems like it wasn’t Adam and Eve who bestowed upon humans a tendency to sin but God himself. Since that tendency was already there before the fall and indeed was responsible for the fall.” So no, I did not “get this wrong.” Those are the exact claims I quoted, and they are biblically false.

Here’s why, from Scripture: Calling God a deceiver is forbidden by what God has plainly said. “God is not a man, that he should lie” ~Numbers 23:19. Also, “it was impossible for God to lie” ~Hebrews 6:18. The video’s line “If anybody is deceiving here, it’s God” (0:27) contradicts Scripture.

Saying the tendency to sin was already there before the fall and came from God (0:27–0:33) shifts the blame away from man’s transgression and the serpent’s lie. But Scripture places the blame on disobedience and deception. “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” ~Genesis 3:13. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” ~Romans 5:12. The fall is not blamed on God putting sin in man beforehand.

Now, you might say, “But later he tries to answer skeptics.” I heard that. He does later talk about the serpent twisting God’s words around 22:24–23:32. But the problem remains that he put blasphemous accusations in his own mouth and presented them as a serious framing, instead of immediately condemning them as lies against God.

So I’m not denying he tries to pivot later. I’m saying the video is not biblically safe because it openly states, on record, that God is deceiving and that God is responsible for man’s sinful tendency before the fall. Scripture says the opposite. That’s why I called it out.

It was not a good video because it verbally frames God as potentially deceptive (0:06–0:27) and as the source of sinful tendency before the fall (0:27–0:33), which contradicts ~Numbers 23:19, ~Hebrews 6:18, and ~Romans 5:12

[PeterC]

@Hungry

From the least to the most. Ive noticed in my life everyone seem to be growing at there own pace. Its like the song, god is great beer is good and people are crazy. Why because we realy dont understand. Who better to teach us but the king of gods house. However he chooses. For each one of us. That to me is a king. All for one one for all.

Never heard the song, but the rest that you said, Amen! Yes, He is King of all. Yesh He knows all. Yes, He wants a personal relationship with all. That is the invitation. We have the gift of free will to accept it or not. He will not force any.

Peter

[PeterC]

@bdavidc

PeterC, I did rewatch it, and I’m not guessing. Those statements are in the video, spoken by the presenter, right at the start. At 0:06–0:27 he says, “If God didn’t want her eating from it, why did he put it there? Why did he make it tempting? If anybody is deceiving here, it’s God.”

At 0:27–0:33 he continues, “It seems like it wasn’t Adam and Eve who bestowed upon humans a tendency to sin but God himself. Since that tendency was already there before the fall and indeed was responsible for the fall.” So no, I did not “get this wrong.” Those are the exact claims I quoted, and they are biblically false.

I understand. Yes, they are in there. EXACTLY as you said. But the whole point of the video is to disprove these statements. In a debate or when teaching a lesson, your opening is where you lay the foundation for everything that follows. Think of it as building the frame of a house: if the frame is weak or unclear, nothing you add later will stand strong.

When you open a debate, you’re doing more than just stating your opinion. You’re establishing the core structure of your argument so the audience understands: What the issue is, why it matters, and how you’re going to prove your position. I’m thinking that as soon as you hear these statements, you turn it off. Yes, they are biblically false. That is the point.

@bdavidc

What I meant is that the message itself is not complex. Jesus did not present layers of philosophical abstraction. He said, “repent ye, and believe the gospel” ~Mark 1:15. That’s direct. Clear. Understandable.

Amen. Thanks for clarifying your position. We do agree.

Peter

[Johann]

Good job explaining the pillars of a debate @PeterC .

J.

[bdavidc]

@PeterC

I understand. Yes, they are in there. EXACTLY as you said. But the whole point of the video is to disprove these statements. In a debate or when teaching a lesson, your opening is where you lay the foundation for everything that follows. Think of it as building the frame of a house: if the frame is weak or unclear, nothing you add later will stand strong.

When you open a debate, you’re doing more than just stating your opinion. You’re establishing the core structure of your argument so the audience understands: What the issue is, why it matters, and how you’re going to prove your position. I’m thinking that as soon as you hear these statements, you turn it off. Yes, they are biblically false. That is the point.

PeterC, I understand rhetorical framing. My concern is that statements attributing deception or sinful tendency to God are so serious that they must be handled with extreme clarity. Scripture leaves no ambiguity about God’s character: “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” ~1 John 1:5, and “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” ~James 1:13. When language suggests otherwise, even as setup, it requires immediate and unmistakable correction.

[bdavidc]

@Johann

Good job explaining the pillars of a debate @PeterC .

This isn’t about debate structure. It’s about doctrinal clarity. My concern has been how statements about God’s character are framed. That’s the only issue I’ve addressed.

[bdavidc]

@Johann

You have publicly misrepresented the positions of Bob Utley, Nate Sala, Wise Disciple, and myself. That is not a minor disagreement over interpretation; it is a serious mischaracterization of what has actually been stated and defended. Accuracy matters, especially when discussing theology in the name of truth.

You have made a serious charge. You said I publicly misrepresented you. That is not a light thing. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” ~Exodus 20:16 cuts both ways. If I have lied, prove it. If you are accusing without proof, you are the one treading on that commandment.

Do not wave verses like a banner and then refuse to lay evidence on the table. Scripture says, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” ~Proverbs 18:13. If you claim distortion, then show the exact words. Quote them. In context. Line by line. Let it be examined in the light.

I have not attacked personalities. I have tested doctrine. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” ~1 Thessalonians 5:21. That is not accusation. That is obedience. When statements are made that touch the character of God or the meaning of His Word, they will be measured. Every time.

You referenced “the accuser of our brethren.” That is a heavy implication. Revelation 12:10 speaks of Satan accusing before God day and night. That is not what is happening here. This is not whispering slander in the dark. This is open examination of public teaching in the light of Scripture. “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light… But he that doeth truth cometh to the light” ~John 3:20–21. If what was said is sound, it will stand inspection. If it cannot endure comparison with Scripture, that is not misrepresentation. That is exposure.

So here is the plain path forward. If I have misstated your position, produce the quotation and demonstrate the error. If you cannot, then the charge falls to the ground.

The issue is not tone. The issue is truth. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” ~Amos 3:3. If we are going to speak in the name of Christ, then let it be clean, documented, and anchored in the Word.

[Hungry]

Hate to even adresses this. But i could not resist. why would anyone actualy wory about how gods frame is addressed. If god has a personal relationship with everyone in gods creation, how could you possibly say your view is the right/only one. For he came to devide. So our views would have to be grains of sand. Can anyone put a puzzle together without all of the pieces?

[bdavidc]

@Johann

@PeterC has already demonstrated that you misrepresented Nate’s position. At this point, the record is clear.

Frankly, I am tired of the continued targeting and monitoring of my activity online by you. Especially when you have your own forum elsewhere.

Johann, I am not targeting or monitoring you. The reason I addressed this is because the statements were publicly made and publicly defended. When someone says, “If anybody is deceiving here, it’s God,” that is not a minor phrasing issue. That directly touches the character of God. Scripture says, “God is not a man, that he should lie” ~Numbers 23:19 and “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” ~James 1:13. That is why it was addressed.

Any other posts I have commented on were because you were handling Scripture in a way that changes its plain meaning or elevates men’s opinions as though they have authority over Scripture. If Scripture is handled in a way that changes its plain meaning or elevates men’s opinions above it, I will continue to respond by pointing back to the actual text itself.

This is not about personalities or forums. It is about what was actually said and whether it aligns with Scripture. If a position is publicly stated, it should be publicly examined. That is not targeting. That is accountability.

If something misrepresents God’s character or twists what the text plainly says, it will be corrected from Scripture. That is the standard. I do not have to leave this forum simply because you do not want to be corrected when Scripture is mishandled. I have shown examples of this in multiple posts.

As for your statement, “PeterC has already demonstrated that you misrepresented Nate’s position.” At this point, the record is clear.” The record shows I quoted Nate accurately with timestamps. The statements, “If anybody is deceiving here, it’s God,” and that the “tendency to sin” was from “God himself” before the fall, are in the opening of the video exactly as cited.

The video later argues against that framing. I never denied that. My concern was not that Nate ultimately teaches God deceives. My concern was that such language, even as rhetorical setup, requires immediate and unmistakable clarification because Scripture is explicit: “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” ~1 John 1:5 and “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” ~James 1:13.

Quoting the opening statements is not misrepresentation. It is citation. The disagreement is over whether that rhetorical method is wise or clear, not over what Nate ultimately affirms.

Since you edited your post, I will respond to it in another comment.

[bdavidc]

@Johann

Frankly, I am tired of the continued targeting and monitoring of my activity online by you. Especially when you have your own forum elsewhere.

You added a second video, and I did listen to what you posted. The general warning against earthly-mindedness is biblical. Scripture plainly contrasts those who “mind earthly things” with those whose “conversation is in heaven” ~Philippians 3:19-20, and it also says, “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” ~Colossians 3:2. So yes, believers should take that warning seriously.

But posting a long exhortation about worldliness does not answer the actual issue you raised about “misrepresenting Nate,” and it does not turn this into a character trial. If you claim I misrepresented something, then demonstrate it from the record by quoting my words and showing the contradiction. “The record is clear” is not evidence without the receipts.

Also, quoting men, even eloquent ones, is not authority over Scripture. The standard here is the text of Scripture itself ~Isaiah 8:20. And Scripture is exactly why I object to any framing that leans toward blaming God for deception or for sinful tendency, even if it is later qualified. God’s character is not a rhetorical prop. God’s character is not something we borrow temporarily to make a dramatic point and then correct later. It is not a storytelling device. It is not a hook to grab attention. It is holy ground. God’s character is not something to experiment with for the sake of rhetoric. It must be stated clearly and guarded carefully from the outset.

“God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” ~1 John 1:5. “God is not a man, that he should lie” ~Numbers 23:19. “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” ~James 1:13.

So I’m not arguing against holiness, and I’m not “targeting” anyone. I’m doing what we all should do in a public doctrinal discussion: measure claims by Scripture, keep God’s character clear, and refuse to elevate men’s opinions above what is written.

If you want to defend the rhetorical method in the first video, defend it on the merits. If you want to discuss earthly-mindedness from ~Philippians 3, I’m happy to discuss the Scripture. But don’t use a new video to dodge the original point or to imply motives that you cannot prove.

[bdavidc]

@Johann

If necessary, I can provide the full transcripts for verification. However, on your forum you consistently restrict substantive engagement while repeatedly accusing me of twisting or wrestling the Scriptures. In reality, my arguments have been grounded in grammatical analysis, syntactical structure, morphological detail, and immediate literary context.

Sure, post the transcript and show me where I was wrong. No problem with me there. I have been asking you to show me where the things you are acusing me of anyway, and you never do.

Stop reframing this as personal. You posted the video here. I responded to what was posted here. That is not “following you around.” It is participating in the same public thread.

If you claim I misrepresented the video, then demonstrate it. Quote my exact words and show where I altered the meaning. Simply repeating that Peter “demonstrated” it does not make it true.

Throwing around terms like grammar, syntax, and morphology does not automatically prove your conclusions are correct. The issue is whether the interpretation aligns with the full testimony of Scripture. That is the standard.

Also, your claim that I “restrict engagement” on my forum is not accurate. Anyone can visit BTF. It is a public forum. They can read exactly what was said and judge for themselves. The record is visible, and so are the rules, which state: “All teaching and correction must be shown directly from the text and supported by other passages. Posts that redirect readers away from what is written into interpretive systems, frameworks, scholars, or methods that control the meaning of the passage are not permitted. Explanations must clarify the text, not replace it.”

You chose to come there and post. No one pursued you privately. No one forced you to engage. If there was disagreement, it was over doctrine, not personality. Responding to what you posted is not “starting an argument.” It is answering what was written.

If there is “no fruit,” then stop engaging. But responding to doctrinal claims in a public forum is not crossing boundaries. It is normal theological discussion. I am allowed to post what Scripture actually says just like anyone else.

If you want to move forward, deal with the actual text and the specific claim. If not, repeating false accusations does not advance anything.

[PeterC]

@Johann

Already proven your baseless accusations false, deal with it.
I pray @PeterC will follow these four posts from you and deal with you accordingly.

Yes, I would encourage both of you to relax and maintain a spirit of brotherhood and love. This type of interaction can be off-putting to others and may deter potential members from joining.

@Johann

If necessary, I can provide the full transcripts for verification. However, on your forum you consistently restrict substantive engagement while repeatedly accusing me of twisting or wrestling the Scriptures.

Now I’m sorry, I do not know what that forum is, but if you guys want to continue to jump on each other, then another place is welcome. I understand the desire to defend the Word. I understand the desire to show someone the error of their ways. I also understand that it is human nature to desire to be “right.”

As I said, I would not like to lose anyone here, and banning someone should be a last resort. I think you both have a lot to bring to the table. Let’s do so with respect and kindness. As for this video, I think everone that cares can watch it and judge for themselves. Can we just move one on? Start fresh, and leave the animosity behind? Please?

Peter