Thursday, April 20, 2006

Oh My, Mr. Hafley

I just received my DVDs from the COC debate. I not only got the whole debate. I'm thankful that we can receive them free from the COC. I also got the three sessions that Mr. Hafley and his assistant spent debriefing his crowd in Texas about the debate. I have watched about 20 minutes of it. Let me tell you Mr. Hafley's Tall Tales. I was wondering what he might do, and I have my answer, and I hope a whole lot of people will read this blog to get this information. Let me give you a few.

Mr. Hafley said that I said that the people of Galatians weren't Christians. When you go back to look at the debate, you'll see that wasn't true. I said it was a mixed crowd, some having been deceived by a false gospel. He again leaves out Galatians 1:6-9 in presenting that some of these in the audience were not saved. He said that I said that God did the restoring in Galatians 6:1. Wrong again. I said that if it was salvation in Galatians 6:1, then God would do the restoring. Since it isn't salvation then it is us that does the restoring. Do you see how Mr. Hafley is just reinventing what I said? But you'll see that in the debate tapes that fortunately haven't been tampered with, except for leaving out Thomas Ross, our moderator, and his speech at the beginning. They didn't want the debate tape to include mention of our church.

When Mr. Hafley got to Hebrews 10:28, 29, one of the texts he used to spin one could lose his salvation, he told several tall ones. He said that I said that the blood in v. 29 was animal blood. To be fair, with limited time, the first time I dealt with this at the end of a 20 minute time allotment, I said it was referring to the the sprinkling Moses did of the blood. I also said that "sanctified" does not always speak of salvation, which it doesn't in Hebrews 10:28, 29. I came back and clearly explained what I meant later, which he just skips over. I said that it was Christ's blood, but I said that Christ's blood sanctified Christ like the animal blood sanctified the nation Israel, Moses, and the Aaronic priesthood. I said that "he" in v. 28 was Christ. You'll see that in the debate DVD. I said that the nearest antecedent, proximity, rules "he," and that the person is not saved in Hebrews 10 who has rejected Christ and His blood. I said that Hebrews was written to Hebrews. I said that because he said that Hebrews was written to Christians. I said that it was a mixed audience in Hebrews and that the warning passages in 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10 were written to unbelievers. He basically either totally left out or slaughtered what I said, but you will see that in the debate tape. He called me a dishonest man who had thought of my answer in five minutes. I have preached through Hebrews 4 times in my life. I know the book well. Look at Friday, the last day in the debate tape to find out what I said. It's probably 7 or 8 if you received it. He never dealt with my rebuttal.

Along the same lines, he said that I said that Hebrews 3:1 was talking about unbelievers. I never said that. I said that "brethren" were Jews. I said that the text differentiates between "holy brethren," saved Jews, in v. 1 and only "brethren" in v. 12, potentially unsaved Jews. All of these misrepresentations were either just blatant lies or some form of delusion or mental distortion. I'll choose the latter to be kind.

Another big lie is the one he said I made about implications. On Revelation 3:5, he said that I said that God doesn't speak through implications. I never said that at all. You'll see in the debate that I said, even had a chart for it, that we don't make our doctrine from implications. We get our doctrine from statements. Revelation 3:5 is a promise to overcomers that their names will not be blotted out of the book. He made Revelation 3:5 teach, through implication, that we can have our names blotted out. The Bible never says we can have our names blotted out. So that was another lie. When he read Rev. 22:18,19, he kept interchanging the word "part" with the word "name." It says the persons part will be blotted out. We showed with a study of "part" how that this was a prospective. He misrepresented us totally and then didn't state the real argument and our question remains unanswered: Who will be taken out of the holy city who is already there? He doesn't want his people to see this. He instead talked about some illustration his assistant gave him about a part taken out of a will, so we get authority by means of crummy illustration. We look at Scripture to make our points, not an illustration.

Anyway, after 20 minutes I got 6 Hafley lies or mental distortions. Just make a note of that if you are someone watching the debate. He goes back to his people and outright lies or tells them what is a figment of his distorted imagination as a means of defending his point. I would like to take this exact debate to him in front of his own people in Texas. Maybe that will happen.

7 comments:

Christopher of the 3rd Grade Variety said...

It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths one would go to prove a point... Even when the material dosen't A: Support you... and/or B: Runs out quickly...

It is a curious thing though that he accused you of making up arguements on the spot... Did he acknowledge the fact that he did too? And if he did, what was the point of the accusation? Afterall, he was the one who a lot of the time, kept turning off his slides, using his verbal time to look for passages in his Bible, read them, and then "explain" (?) them... Of course, he had you programed though... Or was it the other way... Seeing as you had slides that were on subject, clear and didn't need to take your verbal time searching for verses, because you had your arguementation well thought out and planned... Planned so well, I believe, that anything Mr. Hafley threw (and yes, I mean the verbal threw) at you, you had already put up the anti-slime coating... Well, I look forward to seeing that debriefing, I could probably use some entertainment, of course it is also sad, that so many people can follow one guy down such a skewed path.

Through it all though, I still believe I am the winner of the debate. According to Mr. Hollbrook (I think I spelled it right, sorry if I didn't) who said that if you were there, listened with an open mind to the discussion of the Bible, and came to the right conclusion (or something to that effect) you are a winner. Well, I came, I listened, took notes, talked afterwards, and above all else... Got my faith and resolve in my belief of eternal security strengthened... And I owe it to both Pastor Brandenburg and Mr. Hafley... Yes, I am serious both... I thank Pastor Brandenburg for his presentation, the multitude of verses, and the logical connection and disection of verses (just like the frog and pig I'm going to do today). I also thank Mr. Hafley for strengethening my faith in eternal security... How? By helping me realize that if this is the best argumentation that the other position has and they depend on style, rhetoric, and murkeness and not scripture (without any of the aforementioned qualities). Then it is definetely something I shouldn't believe in... So thanks.


Congrats Pastor Brandenburg!

Christopher Myers

Guillermo Alvarez said...

Mr. Brandenburg,
Some comments about your post.
“But you'll see that in the debate tapes that fortunately haven't been tampered with, except for leaving out Thomas Ross, our moderator, and his speech at the beginning. They didn't want the debate tape to include mention of our church.”
1) I did the recording, I would not tamper with the recordings, but can only record what is actually recordable. If you notice in the first two nights, the reason why I did not record the introductory comments from both moderators, was because they did not pick up the microphone, and thus all that you would have seen would be both moderators moving their mouths. If you want people to get your contact information on the DVD, make your own copies, put your address label on it, and give them out free of charge, and lots of people will have your contact information.
If you feel that we are taking advantage of you by not promoting you enough, you are welcomed to take your own camera, have one of your men record every word you say in the discussion, and distribute the debate as freely as you can.
“I would like to take this exact debate to him in front of his own people in Texas. Maybe that will happen.”
2) Instead of mentioning about another debate in Texas, just sign the propositions given you and lets have the discussion. Remember, there is a great gap between saying and doing.
Also, try to get a Independent Baptist Church in Baytown to open their doors for this next discussion, there are two in Baytown that claim to be Independent Fundamental Baptist congregations. We would love for you to expose us in front of your people.

Hope to see you in Texas.

Guillermo Alvarez

Anonymous said...

Well..Pastor B..I have finished watching the "debate', and I use the term loosely. When I was a kid growing up we had two little roosters. On a daily basis they would spar for anything in sight. Neither of them ever won because while they were sparring the chickens got the feed. But, they indeed made a lot of noise and created quite a stir in the chicken yard.
Such was the debate. The bible speaks for itself and doesnt need a lot of explanation. If you accept it, so be it. There will always be people who wish to "explain" it to you....another interpretation...if you will, but that will never change what God said. Like watching the ball game and then the recap of "this is what happened". I applaud your efforts and biblical knowledge, maybe not so much your methods. Mr. Hafley is an embarassment to whomever he represents.
I will say your attempt at humor of the "hairs on the head' was good. I hope He knows your better than that, cause you'd loose in that. And, much less hair than your picture here....but who's counting besides God?
Best wishes..
ILA

Ruth said...

Hello in the audience. I watched as much of those "debates" as one can given the repetitious nature and shouting, sarcasm exchanged by two grown?? men. I would wonder how many young adults were in the audience? Was this a "Christ" setting example? My Bible teaches me to be "slow to anger; speak with kindness and turn the other cheek"? Am I incorrect?
Reminds me of the Disciples questioning who would be the greatest in the Kingdom?
Ruth

Kent Brandenburg said...

OK, ILA and Ruth,

I'm back after being gone all week. ILA, you didn't like some of my methodology, but we must earnestly contend for the faith and it is very serious. I would rather not use certain rhetorical devices either, but consider that Jesus calls the Pharisees, serpents, whitened sepulchres, and even tells Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan." I had to meet him rhetorically to some degree. I do think debating this is good, even as we see others reason from the Scriptures.

And Ruth, I think this is far afield from the disciples questioning who would be greatest in the kingdom. This is a debate about who will be in the kingdom period, and an error on this would result in the damnation of many souls, extremely serious, eternal life and death matter.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Guillermo, Fair enough. I will let Mr. Ross know his conspiracy theory is inaccurate. I think we misrepresented you there. I would wonder if you are concerned about the lies on the follow up tapes to the debate that Mr. Hafley did. Loyalty to those lies would not speak well of honesty. I would like to think better of that, for you.

I'll be glad to debate him on eternal security in front of his home crowd. After getting one debate under my belt, I think I could streamline and use my time better than the first.

Plus, I had a lot more arguments I would like to give.

Ruth said...

Well...welcome home Preacher. Touch'..job well done. You are so correct aboout the disciples and I retract that comment.To go to Texas to a COC debate would be suicide for you, but you seem to like that edge. I will say your skills at debating would no doubt be better.....tho' you'd have no more hair. (Sorry, I thought that was good!)That ole dog saying could be used as "let a man preach once and he goes on forever". You're a little crazy but quite good.
Ruth