Daniel P. Barron

Daniel H.: You found the [messages]! ⁱ
Me: lol
Daniel H.: Phil has literally no ability to respond logically to the theological position of Darwin. It's unfortunate because I feel that a lot of people could benefit.
Me: Phil who? ⁱⁱ
Daniel H.: Phil Johnson was the person I was [messaging].
Me: Oh, I recognize that name. He's the one who did atruecult.
Daniel H.: He's part of the reason Darwin ended up quitting the church. ⁱⁱⁱ Yeah exactly. But he only provides diatribe and personal insult. Your posts were definitely causing issues for people in my [chat room] :stuck_out_tongue:
Me: Cool, may God save them.
Daniel H.: I've since grown to care about you and have more patience for the content on "a true church". I think a lot of it is accurate, I think however that some of the posts there aren't completely formed yet, but it's taking a while to research myself because I'm new to the faith (that is to say, I thought I was a Christian my whole life, but only experienced true repentance a couple years ago). I take the approach the Bereans did. It has shocked a lot of people just how much we have been taught about the bible which is twisted or patently false.
Me: What do you still find fault with on our site?
Daniel H.: I'm still formulating, but I think the Calvinist Arminian article is premature. I think it doesn't take into account 1 Cor 15:20-28 ^iv and doesn't really form a decent summary of what scripture says. It refutes Arminianism and Calvinism well, but doesn't come to a conclusion.
Me: The conclusion is that neither is in the truth.
Daniel H.: Well to say "hey this isn't right and neither is this" without providing a final "this is what the bible says in sum total" leaves the reader going "okay it's wrong, but now what?"
Me: Each article is about a different thing; there is no one article that can summarize the whole Bible, short of "believe it or die."
Daniel H.: But it can be summarized topically. So far it seems to me that a good summary would be:

1. Calvinism and Arminianism fails to articulate the full-picture of God's redemptive plans and thus contains heresys
2. Jesus was sent by the father (John 3:16 ^v)
3. God desired that all should be saved (1 John 10:10 ^vi)
4. Jesus' death defeated death itself for all (1 Cor 15:20-28)
5. Only the elect will continue to have eternal life (John 3:16 when interpreted correctly [if I remember correctly] says that whoever continues believing will not perish but continue having everlasting life) (Romans 8:29-30 ^vii)
6. The elect are those that continue believing (Hebrews 12:1-3 ^viii)

Me: I'd say it's more like: there is no "free will" to act outside of God's power. He creates the elect for eternal life, He creates the wicked for hell (some of whom once truly believed in Him), and yet still died for them all.
Daniel H.: Yeah I agree with that too. There's a little understood concept in Calvinism called "free moral responsibility". It's basically that like you said, we all are entirely subject to God's will and power, and we are given choices that are bound to that will, and we will choose according to the bias we've been given (aka slave to sin or slave to God). Also, I'd no longer call myself a detractor and I don't believe Darwin could be considered a false teacher.
Me: That's good. Although plenty of people might agree there [who] still do not believe, on the basis that "we agree on essentials" or "we can't judge who is in the truth" etc.
Daniel H.: The only thing I disagree with is how you come across to others.
Me: I get that a lot.
Daniel H.: At the core of "A true church" is Acts 17:11 ^ix and that's something that I'm 100% on board with. It's what started my Journey to true repentance. I want to know what the bible ACTUALLY says, not what people tell me it says.
Me: Have you read our other articles?
Daniel H.: I haven't read much, because one article is enough to have me searching scripture for weeks. :stuck_out_tongue: But I read most of what you send through. Takes a long time to read and verify.
Me: Oh, well then I expect you'll find more to disagree over soon enough. Ah, if you've been reading my blog then maybe not. I hit on most of the controversial topics there.
Daniel H.: Oh right, I've been reading the blog as well as the truechurch articles as well.
Me: Thanks for the comment, by the way. I don't get many of those.
Daniel H.: That's okay. :smiley: If your heart is to see people saved and to see people who think they're Christians saved then I think we are on the same page, just have different journeys. The reason I take issue with your approach is mostly from verses such as: Proverbs 15:1, ^x Proverbs 15:18, ^xi Ephesians 4:2 ^xii
Me: That is not a command to be soft in answering.
Daniel H.: What do you mean by soft?
Me: Oh, nkjv says "A soft answer turns away wrath," and this is true. When I need to avoid a big scene, a soft answer is wisest. But I am contending online; I do not mind wrath of the people.
Daniel H.: Nor do I.
Me: I don't mind stirring up anger (provided it was the truth that stirred it up). Anger sometimes brings more clicks when people make a big deal of it.
Daniel H.: Perhaps Ephesians 4:2 is more appropriate to what I'm trying to address... When you tend to enter a discussion it comes across as lacking humility.
Me: I think that one is specifically about how believers should treat each other. But we are commanded to love our enemies. And it wouldn't be very loving of me to not warn someone who is perishing. I am more concerned with the many people I do not get to warn, either because of things out of my control (forum and chat room rules and banning me) or because of my own cowardice (it's a lot harder to do "in real life"). Not that I had a hard time contending at the Harvest Crusade in front of thousands. But it's somehow much harder in day-to-day life when going about errands. Let the ones I did get to warn think I'm not humble or that I'm arrogant. I don't care how they see me, at least they got warned. And they deny John 7:24 ^xiii by judging me by "how i come across" rather than by the veracity of the things that I tell them.
Daniel H.: Well yes and James 1:19, ^xiv but I don't think that justifies your approach. Jesus' entire life is a solid example of how he approached people. The only people he was rude to was the Pharisees ^xv and the rest he patiently taught on specific issues. Whereas you tend to do a drive-by shooting:

• You're going to hell
• You're wrong on your opinion
• [link to an article/page that no one will now read because you've not come in with care]

However you could do almost the exact same sort of thing by modifying your speech a little and I think people would be more receptive:

• I say this because I care about you: Unless you believe only in the word of God you are going to hell.
• I'd love you to look into it, because I think you'd find that scripture actually teaches __
• This link is a really good resource and better explains what I'm trying to show you [link]

Does that make sense? You're still being effective, you're still warning people and you're still pointing them to God, but done with more tact so that it is still soft but poignant and hits at the heart of the issue. People outwardly will likely respond similar either way, but I believe you'll find more people willing to listen. I just humbly ask you to consider what I'm saying. I know Darwin seems to be very to the point as well, but I'm hoping even if you ask him that you could both agree, adding some tact and taking a softer approach will yield better results.
Me: I use this tactic as well. People still find fault. They still say I'm "mean." "Arrogant." It's the gospel they find to be offensive. No matter how you go about it, "doubting someone's salvation" is a "personal attack." When I first heard of atruechurch.info, it was from Darwin's daughter Qadoshyah. She and her sister did a live stream for Ron Paul back in 2012, and she ended every broadcast with something like "check out our website. God will destroy you in hell if you don't believe the whole Bible." I didn't get offended. I checked it out.
Daniel H.: I know the gospel is offensive enough as it is, so why add to the offense?
Me: How am I adding by stating bluntly what the gospel is? You should see the way many of the people on [some forums] talk about the Bible. In an attempt to not offend anyone they end up saying a paragraph where a sentence would have sufficed. And then they still get [disliked] for being offensive.
Daniel H.: I prefer a verse or two and maybe explanation or how it applies. But some people go overboard. I think this is a good example of being kind: http://danielpbarron.com/2019/you-shall-surely-perish/
Me: Yeah that's a new tactic I've been trying on IRC. ^xvi
Daniel H.: Looks really good to me.
Me: There's a channel that doesn't want me posting "the same URL ^xvii over and over." So when I see a new nickname, I start a direct message with them and open like that.
Daniel H.: Oh, nice.
Me: Seems to have better results than "don't go to hell like the rest of the world" so far. But I still get plenty of snide comebacks and cuss-outs.
Daniel H.: Yeah because I think it assumes that the other person doesn't aim to believe the entirety of scripture. Or at least it appears to. Like you said something similar to me so I dismissed you initially thinking it was a cults mentality of "if you don't believe our particular opinion on X you're going to hell" rather than the more appropriate "If you don't believe all of scripture you're going to hell."
Me: Well it should be the same thing.
Daniel H.: Unfortunately it's not interpreted that way.
Me: Obviously we think that we believe all of scripture. But I think I usually word it like the second way you put it, and people interpret this to mean the first way.
Daniel H.: Lol. That's sucks. Cults have made it hard to preach scripture.
Me: Apparently it's not necessarily wrong to call us a cult.
Daniel H.: But like the bible says, all have denied the knowledge of God.
Me: Not that I'm going to open with "hey join our cult!" Although maybe that would be a funny ice breaker.
Daniel H.: Well yeah I guess because worldly advice is that you are a cult.
Me:

Darwin: Actually, we are according to the world's idea of a cult and Joshua is our cult leader. We are the "sect" (cult, if you will) that is "spoken against everywhere." (Acts 28:22)

Daniel H.: Yeah I saw that in one of your blog posts.
Me: The one you just linked.
Daniel H.: Why is Joshua the cult leader? Or who is Joshua?
Me: Joshua is Jesus.
Daniel H.: Ah.
Me: A more literal translation of His name.
Daniel H.: Isn't it Yeshua?
Me: I don't remember why, but Darwin explained that the most accurate way to say it in English is Joshua. Oh, I think he said that it's literally the same name as the prophet in the old testament. ^xviii
Daniel H.: :thinking: Weird, cause they are two different languages... So I wonder how that can be for certain. ^xix
Me: Yeah, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not the language expert. When I'm contending I try to stick to saying simply "Christ."
Daniel H.: That's okay, neither am I. :stuck_out_tongue: Yeah maybe add a note in your blog cause I don't think everyone would recognize Joshua as Jesus.
Me: They can ask. I wish more people would comment.
Daniel H.: It's a cool format that blog, I'm not sure how many people get to the bottom though. https://scrolldepth.parsnip.io/
Me: I get accused of "spamming" when I link to my blog, but my dashboard of new comments awaiting moderation contains true spam, which is literally bots that submit nonsensical blocks of text, often in non-English character sets.
Daniel H.: If you use Google analytics.
Me: Ew no, that probably uses javascript.
Daniel H.: Oh yeah.... Why don't you just parse them through akismet. Front end JavaScript yeah?
Me: Yeah, not interested in serving javascript to my readers.
Daniel H.: Not back end. Oh really? Why's that?
Me: It's bad form.
Daniel H.: (I'm a web developer) Bad form how?
Me: A web page is not a program. It's crazy that it ever became popular to just run arbitrary code that gets run automatically when you visit a web page.
Daniel H.: Well... It's sandboxed. :stuck_out_tongue:
Me: I'm happy with a web page being just HTML ^xx and CSS, ^xxi and loading the same in lynx ^xxii as it does in chrome. ^xxiii (I run linux and sometimes code things)
Daniel H.: Nice! I get your philosophical frustration with it. I think running a browser you effectively are opting in to the web as a dynamic programmatic information medium and if you want simple pages to stick with ebooks and physical books. In saying that I am a big believer in a web application being just as functional and informational on one platform to another as is reasonable. Like Google uses a ton of javascript but it's just as usable in elinks ^xxiv as chrome.

I wonder if you could make money releasing part of your blog as a book (conversations with the world)
Me: My philosophy on this matter originates in part from something called "The Most Serene Republic of Bitcoin" where most of the members are extreme purists when it comes to how computers should be.

I would never sell such a thing. And no, it wouldn't sell anyway. My blog doesn't get much readership. Not since I was removed from feedbot ^xxv that posts articles in TMSR's IRC channel (which does have a large readership). And soon to be removed from the lordship.
Daniel H.: What's the Lordship? And interesting about the bitcoin stuff... are you a big bitcoin fan?
Me: The lordship is made of people who are called lords in a government called TMSR. As a lord, I currently still have the power to give people voice in the IRC channel. And I'm sorta a fan. Started buying it 2013. Now it funds my ability to stay at home contending all day. I fell out of favor with them because of this. Perhaps it wouldn't have been such an issue if I also was contributing to their efforts, but I have to admit I'm not qualified to work on their level. My expertise is in contending for the faith. I can code. Things like hacking the wordpress that runs my blog. And a little bit of c++ to hack the Eulora client. barely. (Eulora is a bitcoin MMO ^xxvi made by people in TMSR) That and they pretty strongly advocate for prostitution and against marriage. At some point it becomes a matter of "serving two masters." ^xxvii
Daniel H.: Advocate for prostitution and against marriage? You or they are?
Me: They are.
Daniel H.: Ahhh. You had me worried for a moment haha.
Me: I found it harder over time to enthusiastically promote the republic, and to work for it.
Daniel H.: Totally fair. I had a ton of bitcoin back in the day and bought a single pizza with it. Biggest regret.
Me: Yeah right. ^xxviii
Daniel H.: (worldly regret that is) How did you first get into bitcoin?
Me: I first heard about it from a friend who said, "hey there's this way to buy drugs online."
Daniel H.: hahaha
Me: And I guess he didn't explain it well enough for me to take it seriously; that must have been back when it was trading at 1 USD. ^xxix
Me: I found it again in 2012 and got my hands on 5 BTC ^xxx in exchange for donating 35 dollars to the Ron Paul campaign, via a tweet. Lost that to bitcoinica. ^xxxi Got back into it again in 2013, and from there I found #bitcoin-otc ^xxxii and eventually the group that became known as the republic. I had been using linux and IRC for many years before all that, so it was a natural fit.
Daniel H.: Nice. And how did you come to be saved?
Me: I don't know. I grew up atheist and God made me believe. I went through a brief phase of pantheism ^xxxiii in my early 20s. At some point the Christ thing just clicked. Then it was a few years later that I found A True Church.
Daniel H.: Awesome! I feel like it should just be called "The way."
Me: And then another six years to move here. ^xxxiv
Daniel H.: Considering that's what the apostles call it. ^xxxv
Me: Heh, Taoism.
Daniel H.: Is that what Taoists call themselves?
Me: Tao means "the way."
Daniel H.: Oh! Haha that's funny.
Me: "The way that can be named is not the eternal way."
Daniel H.: That's not biblical. Since the apostles called it that right?
Me: Right, it's the beginning of the Tao Te Ching. ^xxxvi I was into that and the I Ching ^xxxvii during my pantheism phase.
Me:

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 78
Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water.
Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better;
It has no equal.
The weak can overcome the strong;
The supple can overcome the stiff.
Under heaven everyone knows this,
Yet no one puts it into practice.
Therefore the sage says:
     He who takes upon himself the humiliation of the people
          is fit to rule them.
     He who takes upon himself the country's disasters deserves
          to be king of the universe.
The truth often seems paradoxical.

I think this describes Christ fairly well, although it is from a false religious text. And it's debatable that's even the right English translation of the classic Chinese it's originally written in.
Daniel H.: Interesting. False religions still contain some spiritual truths... Otherwise they would not be attractive because like the bible says, we deliberately suppress the knowledge of God.

1. 
   

   James White: I’m cuing up stuff from Steven Anderson’s comment about the KJV issue. And I feel like I’m wasting my life. I only have at best like 36 years left…what portion of that am I investing here? :-)
   Daniel H.: I'd really appreciate comment on Darwin Fish's ideas (http://atruechurch.info ). Some of his acolytes are causing issues in Christian communities (E.g. http://danielpbarron.com ). A younger generation it's impacting 30yrs or younger.

   Phil Johnson, you might be able to collaborate on this? You did a bunch of work refuting Darwin Fish; I've seen a resurgence of his teachings in the younger reformed online communities causing confusion for many so It could be helpful to tackle it again for us young folk.
   Phil Johnson: See Matthew 7:15-20. If someone looks at the fruits of D. Fish’s teaching and doesn’t conclude he’s a false teacher, I’d say you’re suffering from a strong delusion and I’m probably not going to be able to help you. But check the Internet archive: http://www.atruecult.com/dfishfaq.htm

   Me: Thank you for hosting that. It was instrumental in my determination that Darwin Fish is in the truth. He has a much more Biblically sound argument than his detractors such as yourself.

    ^

2. I hadn't looked past Daniel's first message mentioning my website URL. In fact, that's how I stumbled upon the conversation in the first place; I was searching for atruechurch.info to see if anyone was talking about it. ^
3. Grace Community Church; not A True Church. ^
4. 1 Corinthians 15:
   

   20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

    ^

5. John 3:
   

   16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

    ^

6. There is no 1 John 10:10 that I know of, and I'm not sure what verse was meant here. ^
7. Romans 8:
   

   29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

    ^

8. Hebrews 12:
   

   1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

   3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls.

    ^

9. Acts 17:
   

   11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

    ^

10. Proverbs 15:
    

    1 A soft answer turns away wrath,
    But a harsh word stirs up anger.

     ^

11. Proverbs 15:
    

    18 A wrathful man stirs up strife,
    But he who is slow to anger allays contention.

     ^

12. Ephesians 4:
    

    2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,

     ^

13. John 7:
    

    24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

     ^

14. James 1:
    

    19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath;

     ^

15. 
    

    Darwin: He missed the lawyers (e.g. Luke 11:45-52). Moreover, this all comes down to what you consider "rude." Some standards of "rudeness" would also fit Jesus' comments to those present in Luke 13:1-5. Or, how about John the Baptist's statement to " the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him" (Luke 3:7)? "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Or Jesus' statement to the multitudes in Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

     ^

16. "Internet Relay Chat." ^
17. "Universal Resource Locator." aka a "link." ^
18. 
    

    Darwin: Correct. It is the same name as the book of Joshua in the OT and the Joshua who brought Israel into the promised land.

     ^

19. 
    

    Darwin: Note Acts 7:45 in the KJV, "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David". Context makes it clear Stephen is talking about Joshua. KJV translates it Jesus, because it is the same exact name. See also Hebrews 4:8 (compare KJV with NKJV). Also, in the OT the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) uses the same exact name for Joshua as is used in the NT for Jesus.

     ^

20. "Hyper-text Markup Language." Used to describe the content of a web page. ^
21. "Cascading Style Sheets." Used to style the content of a web page. ^
22. Lynx is a linux-based command line web browser. Linux is an alternative operating system to things like Windows and OS X. ^
23. Chrome is Google's web browser. ^
24. I think "elinks" is another command line web browser. ^
25. Feedbot is an IRC bot that checks various RSS feeds and automatically posts new articles in the channel. RSS is a format for serving content not unlike HTML, except that it's usually used for automated purposes. ^
26. "Massively Multi-player Online." Usually followed by "RPG" meaning "Role Playing Game." ^
27. Matthew 6:
    

    24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

     ^

28. Sarcasm here. Is this guy really claiming to be Lazarus?? I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. ^
29. "United States Dollar." ^
30. Short for bitcoin but usually used to indicate the units of currency rather than the network itself. ^
31. A scam bitcoin trading web site that let users trade on margin. The way it works is, they wait until a bunch of users take a certain position (either buy or sell, it doesn't matter) and then dump the users own funds into the market to cause the positions to liquidate, thereby making it so they don't owe you for the funds since you no longer have any. ^
32. A channel for trading bitcoin on IRC. "OTC" stands for "over the counter." Meaning, trades are between users as they please; not via a central service. ^
33. Pantheism is the belief that everything is God. Or as I used to frame it: "I am God looking at myself through the eyes of a human." ^
34. "Here" : Oklahoma. ^
35. Acts 9:
    

    2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

     ^

36. "Tao" : way. "Te" : virtue. "Ching" : text or book. ^
37. "I" : changes. "Book of Changes." Describes how to interpret a particular divination process that results in 64 different outcomes. ^