Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick’s Heretical Beliefs Outed By Anthony Rogers (Updated)
As expected, Anthony Rogers is now in damage control. Last night I posted an article indicating that most Christian polemicists do not care about their theology, using their very own words. In that article, I included a discussion with Anthony where he declared that a specific belief contradicted Christian orthodoxy. I immediately pointed out that two of his colleagues, Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick, openly use (to defend Christianity), believe in and promote this doctrine.
Realising that he had just called his close associates heretics, he quickly turned the discussion to a typo I had made in spelling a Latin phrase. True to form, he later himself made a typo in spelling that same phrase, but as an adult, unlike the mentally inchoate Rogers, I chose not to spend several minutes writing three paragraphs about an obvious spelling error. I insisted that he address the issue that a belief he claimed ‘contradicted orthodoxy’, was believed in and promoted by his fellow Christian colleagues. After having duly embarrassed himself by having a rabid rant over a typo and declaring his friends heretics, he quickly left the conversation. In trying to do some damage control after my article had gone public, he’s posted some of the conversation and strangely enough, continued his fixation with the typo.
So, let’s have some fun. What did Rogers say?
However, Tony Costa does not believe in this doctrine of the “communicatio idiomatum” (nota bene: the Latin word is ‘idiomatum,’ not ‘idiomatium’), and that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed (q.v. “inconfusedly,” and “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH NATURE BEING PRESERVED…”).
According to Rogers, the doctrine of the ‘communicatio idiomatum’, ‘is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation’. This doctrine, contradicts orthodoxy. This is otherwise known as….heresy! A belief that goes against, or contradicts orthodoxy is heretical. A person who believes in heresies is a heretic. Simple so far? Yes, but maybe not for Rogers.
If a person believes in a doctrine that contradicts orthodox beliefs, they are heretical. Simple.
Do Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick believe in this doctrine, promote it, or use it to defend Christian beliefs about the incarnation? Yes, they do. In this article, Sam Shamoun uses it to defend the incarnation. Similarly, in this article, Matt Slick promotes this doctrine and considers it orthodoxy. All in all, Rogers called a belief heretical, and his colleagues, believe, share and promote that heretical belief, thus making them heretics.
Well done Rogers.
Rogers updated his blog post with continued ad hominem attacks, while continuing to demonstrate his inability to understand the consequences of his own statements, and his disability of knowing how to spell.
1. Rogers as an adult, thinks that making a typo in a YouTube comment means I can’t spell a word.
2. Rogers as an adult, also later made a typo in spelling the same Latin phrase.
3. To absolve himself of abject embarrassment, of #1 and #2, he later argued, that although his spelling of the Latin was wrong, in the English it ‘still meant the same thing’. If you made a typo in the Latin, you got the Latin wrong. I think that’s common sense, not so for Anthony (nota bene: spelling ‘social’ in Spanish as ‘socials’, even if ‘socials’ is a word in a completely different language like English, does not make the wrong spelling in Spanish correct. It’s still wrong in Spanish.) Thus, it’s apropos that Rogers would conflate the two.
4. Rogers tries to excuse himself of referring to Sam and Slick as heretics, by claiming he was responding to ‘my’ definition of communicatio idiomatum. Yet, this is not what his very comments said, to quote him:
…that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed…
No two ways about it. Rogers has been caught out. Trying to lie isn’t going to help him now.
5. Rogers continues to be deceitful, placing words in my mouth, claiming that I have taught that Jesus’s attributes were ‘mashed together like a sausage’, it would be honest of him to not place words in my mouth to suit his audience and Christian needs, but is Rogers the kind of man we can expect that from? No, he isn’t.
6. It’s cute that he thinks I don’t know what the doctrine teaches. However, as have been noted by his crass comments, uneducated claims and ad hominem attacks, it would clearly seem as if he has not acquainted himself with any modern work of Systematic Theology. One of note, is by Louis Berkhof who writes:
1. UP TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Reformation did not bring any great changes in the doctrine of the person of Christ. Both the Church of Rome and the Churches’ of the Reformation subscribed to the doctrine of Christ as it was formulated by the Council of Chalcedon. Their important and deep-seated differences lay elsewhere. There is one peculiarity of Lutheran Christology that deserves special mention. Luther’s doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper led to the characteristically Lutheran view of the communicatio idiomatum, to the effect “that each of Christ’s natures permeates the other (perichoresis), and that His humanity participates in the attributes of His divinity.” It is held that the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of Christ at the time of the incarnation.
Thus, it’s not a case of me interpreting Christian beliefs wrongly. Rather, it’s a case of Rogers not being educated about what Christians other than himself, believe.
Will Rogers publicly correct himself after putting words in my mouth? No, he most definitely will not.
Will Rogers publicly correct himself for misspelling a Latin phrase important to Christology? No, only his typos are typos, mines are somehow, intentional.
Will Rogers concede that what he’s labelled as characteristically “my interpretation” of Christian beliefs, is actually a belief of Christians “other than himself”? He won’t, even with the quote given above.
Will Rogers take down his post now that he’s been absolutely refuted? Definitely not.
Do I have further time to waste on Rogers? Nope.
(What’s strange is that Rogers, along with speaking with the Holy Spirit, Sam and Slick, somehow believes I interpreted Slick’s belief in the communicatio idiomatum. I merely referenced the article and asked Rogers if he agreed with Slick’s belief. Somehow, Rogers takes asking a question about his belief, as interpreting Slick’s. Dishonest? Quite so.)
and God knows best.
Anthony has responded to your comment on Answering Muslims blog. Now you have to either delete this post or reply back, let see how much more drivel you can come up with, fella?
Anthony has responded, but that neither makes him correct or truthful, rather it shows that he is uneducated about Christological controversies, and as conceded, he holds a different Christology to that of his friends.
You may be unaware, but I replied to Anthony in another post and on his awful article, in which his close friend Robert placed crass words into Anthony’s mouth – you may have missed that.
May God guide you, if you consider Christological controversies drivel, maybe Christianity isn’t the religion for you.
lol, You are putting words in my mouth just like you put words in Anthony’s mouth. By drivel, I mean your distortion and twisting of things. You know what I meant still distorted it. You should be a comedian.
Maybe you Misunderstood, What I was trying to say Anthony responded to the comment that you left there(as calling Christians.com) on Answering Muslims’ Blog.
@Jonhny, that’s the point of banter. Watch me do it again. I am a comedian, I write about Christianity. See, this is how it works.
@Johny, yes I misunderstood, I took your comment to mean you hadn’t seen the later comments. While he did respond, he still hasn’t recanted the view that his friends follow a variant Christology, and despite claiming Robert’s views did not represent his words, he still approved the comment.
Hope that helps.