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.