Archive for December 11th, 2013


About a month ago someone commented on my post concerning Jaeson Ma’s New Song “Rise and Fall” being unbiblical.  The issue is with my charge of Jaeson Ma being Pelagian.  The original comment can be read by clicking here.  The commentator, a “James Jordan” whose blog name is Descriptive Grace, is no stranger of commenting on our blog and displaying irrationality.

Here’s my response to his comment:

Hey James,
Please read carefully and don’t misrepresent others and engage in ad hominem. You have a history of doing this on our blog (my previous response can be found herehttps://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/a-fallacious-versus-a-proper-use-of-ad-hominem-argumentation/). This is your second strike and with the thIrd strike you’re out.

1.) “Are you sure you realize this? Because I don’t think you do.”

Response: If you think that I’m expecting a three point sermon from his song, marshal forth a quote demonstrating that I expect that of Jaeson Ma. Please don’t twist my words either.

2.) “Whatever happened to I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me”? I guess you Marcionites removed that from your copy of the Pauline Corpus. Its in your nature to mutilate scripture.”

Response: First off I don’t know what’s with the straw man fallacy you are committing when you charge me with being a Marcionite as I don’t believe that verse should be removed from Philippians (or the Bible for that matter). Nor does my post here even imply anything of that sort. I believe what Philippians 4:13 teaches by the way. Secondly, what does this passage have to do with the subject at hand in a post dealing with Jaeson Ma’s music video being heretical? Ma didn’t cite that verse in the song nor paraphrased it, so obviously I didn’t bring up Philippians 4:13 either. I don’t know what’s your thinking here, but if you think this post was silent on Philippians 4:13 imply I don’t believe in the truth taught there then you are committing a fallacy of argument from silence buddy.

3.) “If this was Pelagian, would he admit that we all fall short?”

Response: I see you are implying in your argument that if Jaeson Ma admit all fall short morally/spiritually then he cannot be a Pelagian. But the song’s topic of “fall” isn’t talking about sin or a moral fall per me but a much more general fall in the sense of a disappointment or being “down.” Jaeson Ma clearly says “we all fall short” between 2:27-28. But did you listen to the context? It’s sandwhiched in a verse beginning in 2:15 that talks about the will to rise and get up, be courageous (an activity of the will), etc. Thus, it’s not a fall of Romans 3:23 (of sin). Note again the emphasis on the will.

4.) “You knee-jerk jerks just like caling everone Pelagians, like little kids who just learned a new big word.”

Response: First off, where did I call everyone else Pelagians? Secondly, what’s with your ad hominem attack of calling me “knee-jerk jerks” and “little kids who just learned a new big word”? Thirdly, I don’t know why you are addressing me in the plural. I assume you are attacking those who blog here and not just myself, the writer of this post on Jaeson Ma. Way to go with your guilt by association fallacy for the other two guys. Fourthly, say for the sake of the argument I am a little kid who just learned a new big word. Is this the right way and godly response?

5.) “But I don’t like the song. In fact, it sounds Calvinist to me, and that’s why I hate it. Paraphrasing the song “We rise and fall, no big deal, nobody’s perfect, we’re all born sinners, so sin is nothing, no big deal, cheap grace will handle it–we rise and fall–get over it.””

Response: First off, what you paraphrase don’t sound Calvinistic (in popular usage of the term). I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Calvinism essentially subscribes to the belief (a) “sin is nothing,” as in “no big deal,”(b) “cheap grace will handle” sin, (c) and regards to whatever that ambiguous “rise and fall” is in Calvinism (which you need to clarify), we should “get over it.” Secondly, your paraphrase of the song is inaccurate; for instance, where in the song does Jaeson Ma assert “we’re all born sinners”? At 54-55 seconds, Jaeson Ma did say “We may have sinned…” but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that therefore means all have sinned in the same way Pelagians can believe there are those who may sin but that doesn’t mean all have sinned (to go back to response 3 to your own admission about all having sinned is incompatible with Pelagianism). Also, where in the song does he mentioned cheap grace at all? Or quote what lines that lead you to assume “cheap grace”? I might have missed it so help me out if I’m mistaken which can happen.

6.) “The non-Christian worldview is the Calvinist worldview secularized: sin ain’t no big thing. Pelagianism viewed sin as a big deal.”

Response: Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this mispresentation of Calvinism seeing sin as no big deal. By the way do you think that your sins committed here of misrepresenting others and personal attacks “ain’t no big thing?”

7.) “You Calvinists have perverted the term ‘Pelagian’ like you pervet so many terms (Sovereignty comes to mind) so to you Pelagian means some limp-wristed doofus who says ‘just be a moral person.’ That’s not what Pelagius himself or any of his associates taught.”

Response: Jaeson Ma’s gospel here is Pelagian in the sense that it believes in the power of the will, which he assumes reside generally among his listening public (Christian and non-Christian). Jaeson Ma’s song is essentially Pelagian in that regards. See below #8.

8.) “so to you Pelagian means some limp-wristed doofus who says ‘just be a moral person.’ That’s not what Pelagius himself or any of his associates taught. You’re using the term ‘Pelagian’ to mean a Deist. Pelagius was no Deist.”

Response: Technically Deist refers to those who view a God knowable by reason with the rejection of God’s supernatural revelation. Should I assert the same kind of rhethoric you use here against yourself (how ironic) that you “pervert” this term? But I get what you mean by the popular term Deist to refer to those who thinks the point of God and religion is just to be a moral person. My observation of how you use the handle “Deism” in popular parlance leads me to ask the question: Why is it there a double standard on your part when I use the common understanding of the term Pelagian?

9.) “Pelagius believed that you had to believe in Jesus and be baptized. He just believed you did those things by free will.”

Sounds like Jaeson Ma’s belief matches Pelagius, knowing of his Passion Church baptizing people and the theme of his song here on the will (not to mention his preaching). It’s just he focuses and emphasize everyone having the same will power able to exercise the will to rise–or fall and rise after the fall.

10.) “he was a credobaptist”
Pelagius was Credo-Baptist? Help me to document this from his writing. I thought his letter to Innocent I repudiate the charge that he didn’t baptize children: “”there are certain subjects about which some men are trying to vilify me. One of these is, that I refuse to infants the
sacrament of baptism,” and “”[I have been] defamed by certain persons for [supposedly] refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ’s redemption. [I have] never heard even an impious heretic
say this about infants. Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an
affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish
to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?”

Again, your comments is far from being descriptive of grace and care.

Read Full Post »