Let’s finish up this topic with a light show before moving onto another topic on Monday. I’m just a troublemaker who doesn’t give a crap about the body of Christ. How is that for light fare? (Would you like some low-fat whipped cream to top that with?) That’s the accusation of a viewer of this series who—could you have guessed it?—is also a Tory.

Speaking of Tories, I am taken to task by this same woman—as well as a man named John—for coming up with the handle “Tory” to describe someone who overreacts to the false teaching of the Trinity by taking the Trinitarian plank of the pre-existence of Christ and trashing it—never mind the fact that Christ did actually preexist His earthly entrance at Bethlehem—but hey, don’t worry, at least they’ve shut down the Trinitarians. If a chief glory of Christ has to be demolished in the process—oh, well. Collateral damage and all that. (Kind of like finding cancer in the spleen and going into surgery to remove the spleen, the lungs, the heart, the brain, the liver—AND the spleen, just to make sure you get the spleen cancer.)

My handle for the Tories is not deragatory at all. It simply says what they do—what they ALL do whether they realize it or not. The woman who claims I don’t give a crap about the body of Christ points out that their side has not given our side a derogatory name. Which got me to thinking—what derogatory name could one possibly give to a person who believes that God created everything through Christ?

Paula of Kansas City jumps into the fray, being but the latest Tory to employ the popular logic fallacy of False Equivalence. All the Tories do this. They say that, a) since Christ was foreknown by God, and b) since we members of the body of Christ were also foreknown by God, and since c) we did not preexist, therefore d) Christ did not preexist. (Paula uses a different example but it’s the same fallacy.) This is like saying that, a) since Paul McCartney is a man and b) since I am also a man, and since c) Paul McCartney was a member of the Beatles, therefore d) I also was a member of the Beatles. This is just one example of the caliber of the logic of the Tories. The evidence they offer FOR their position is the best evidence AGAINST it.

In the comments, Mark Haukaas (the Pirate) refuses to answer my challenge to the Tories to please describe their position in three or four sentences using only Scriptural language. Mark refuses the challenge, he says, because it’s a “no-win” proposition before “a kangaroo court.” It certainly is a “no-win” proposition, but not because of whatever marsupial might be sitting on the bench, but because the Tory position is impossible to describe in Scriptural language. Without philosophy, voluminous explanation, and the employment of several logical fallacies, the Tory position is exposed for what it is: false.  

Besides, the judge in this matter, as I stated, would not be a kangaroo, but rather the body of Christ. I said that I would submit the explanations to you, the body of Christ. But no. No explanation is forthcoming. I guess none of the Tories want to be exposed before the body of Christ with no Scriptural evidence—no Scriptural evidence at all.

The Emperor, ladies and gentlemen, is naked.