Exchange Between Gene Frost and Herb Evans

THE FROST/EVANS EXCHANGE – THIRD LAYER

Gene Frost: This is the third layer of our exchange. The exchange begins with Herb Evans’ article, “He Took My Place,” to which I responded with “Jesus Died for Me, So That I Might Be Saved.” These articles stand alone, printed in black type and without any interruption of comments. This is the first layer. On the basis laid in this initial exchange, Evans adds his comments interspersed within my article. These injected comments he printed in blue type. My response, following suit, is printed in brown type interspersed within the text. This is the second layer. Evans has now added comments to his comments (in blue) and to mine (brown type). This begins the third layer before you, the reader. To distinguish between his second layer and third layer, he has converted the second layer (which was his response to my article in black type) to italics and bracketed and left the third layer non-bracketed in bold blue type. To distinguish my third layer comments from his comments, I have set the present comments in green.

I know that this is confusing. It is not to my liking, but without consultation or agreement to the format, Evans thrust it upon us. I hope that the reader will be able to sort out the comments. Contributing to the confusion of multiple colored typefaces is the confusion of thoughts caused by the insertion of comments. Attention to these distractions will be found in the text of this response.

Egregious Corruptions of the Text

FROST:Of particular concern is the liberty he takes with our articles and comments. He begins his latest comments assuming possession and control of our exchange: “This is my exchange…” He says he will publish it, in spite of the fact that his revisions corrupt the text. To this I have objected in writing:

EVANS: I include in my version of the exchange my format with comment designators and shades of colors to distinguish who is saying what and when for the reader to be able to follow. I separate my paragraphs as well as Frost’s to respond to the different points. For the most part, I do it in paragraphs and sentences rather than chop everything apart in phrases as Frost does, interjecting his comments between the chops. If I can, I avoid Frost’s Mickey Mouse format! He can give his version to his readers and me to mine.

Herb Evans has taken the liberty, in his article of March 30, 2011, to substantially alter our exchange prior to that date, by—

1. Omitting his original response, “He Took My Place,” (response to Gene Frost’s three audio tapes of lectures delivered in March 2000); without this article, the exchange is not complete. (I have restored it.)

2. Changing the format of my article of December 2010, “Exchange between Gene Frost and Herb Evans”—Evans admits: “I changed the format…”

3. Making unilateral additions and changes to the text—highlighted words to appear as Frost’s emphases.

4. Changing the fonts, and by adding and deleting italics—“I changed some of Frost’s italics” (removed them); also replaced words with bold type. (Therefore, I have upgraded my previous regular text to bold text.)

5. Reformatting paragraphs, thus altering the thoughts—some paragraphs are combined as one—“I run some of Frost’s paragraphs together”; some paragraphs are divided into two or more—“I split some of them,” e.g. in the March 2011 perversion, one paragraph of 17 lines is altered into 18 paragraphs (this cannot be read as a single, free flowing paragraph); some are spread interspersed over several pages. To aid the reader in keeping track of broken up sentences, I place a ►GF at the end of the line to signify a break in the paragraph. To pick up the sentence, the reader must look forward to a ►GF at the beginning of a sentence. This signifies the continuation of a sentence broken off some time before. (In connecting sentences, take care to match lines of the same color.) In this way we can show continuity within what was a paragraph, but which is now disjointed lines. As for breaking the flow of text from paragraph to paragraph, we have no solution except to read paragraphs in succession, as to content, according to color.

6. Injecting comments, interrupting or altering sentences.

—all of which have the effect of disrupting a train of thought or argumentation, of shifting attention from the focus of the thought to an irrelevant subject. This is unacceptable. What is thus presented, as what I believe, is a perversion.

I remind you that what I write is protected by copyright law. Herb Evans does not, nor does anyone else, have the right to alter what I have written in any way without my permission. (The complete correspondence is available.)

When Evans sent his second response—my article interspersed with his snippets, I was mindful to refuse it and insist upon a standalone article as were our first articles. However, I considered that he would capitalize upon my refusal to accept his changed format, to claim that I had refused because of an inability to refute his argumentation and he would boast a triumph of his presentation. I anticipated his strategy, and lest the truth should suffer, I decided to respond in kind, interspersing comments within his response. I thought surely he would see the folly of producing such a disjointed and confusing exchange, and that he would return to the normal format of our first articles. Instead, I find that he is delighted to produce such a muddled and difficult exchange which most readers will lay aside without reading it.I feel that from the reader’s viewpoint this exchange is a trial of patience, and that only a very few will have the interest and fortitude to follow the flow of argumentation. At this point, we need no more snippets. A full discussion is much more to be desired, which Herb Evans declined.

EVANS: Frost, after scolding me, sent me on November 11, 2010 his reformatted version of our discussion with the point/counterpoint discussions. Then on February 11,2012, he sent this present version of our discussion in his new format which differs from his first reply that took him several months to reply. I will follow his format where possible and change it to make it easier to follow. Still, I have reduced the margins to one half inch an reduced the type font to 11 point Times Roman to save space and reduce the enormity of the size of the exchange. Since one of the readers is color blind, I am adding poster name captions every where necessary. I have removed some of the bold on older comments except for the commenter names and also removed the bold in Frost’s comments. Since the page numbers now differ from Frost’s original, I have removed them since they would change anyway with my new replies. They are still available in his original. It may be noted that in point/counterpoint debate, steps must be taken to make the discussion easy to follow and readable with discernment as to who said what and when.

FROST:The arrogance of Herb Evans astounds me. He claims: “What you write and send to me belongs to me.” He assumes the right to make alterations, and says he “will have further alterations when I change it to a booklet format for publishing.” I caution him upfront: formatting does not allow alteration of text, deleting, addition, changing, or rearranging the order of presentation, of the text. The textual integrity of this exchange is subject to United States copyright laws.

EVANS: In regard to copyright matters, Frost thinks that I do not have the right to altar the format for expediency and comment differentiation for my people, while he thinks that he can change the format for his people. He does not realize that he is using my comments in his publications. How does that square with the copyright business. I wonder how Frost thinks that he can copyright my comments. Frost has done a good bit of restructuring of the exchange, as well, and I wonder if he can stand up against copyright laws. I have his versions of the exchange. They will be available upon request. In Frost attempts to reconstruct my composite post, he mixes everything up and reinserts the things the way that he thought they should be, making it impossible to follow.

THE GREAT EVANS/FROST EXCHANGE

Herb Evans: Attachments are prior postings/exchanges with Gene Frost for purpose of reference. Blue Italics equal Herb Evans’ previous comments. Bracketed blue Herb Evans equal Herb Evans’ additional comments which reply to Frost’s black comments. Non-bracketed blue equal Herb Evans reply to Frost’s Brown comments. I changed the format slightly to accommodate my non bold blue italics from my previous post. I added the writers’ names in front of their comments for clarity. Also, I reduced the margins to a half inch and reduced the font to 11 point and still come up with many (93) pages. I also changed some of Frost’s italics to straight print to keep them from being confused with my italics. No doubt, Frost will whine about all this. Not only did I run some of Frost’s paragraphs together (his complaint); I split some of them up to get around page lap over. Also, since Frost likes to nit pick my punctuation and English, I thought it only fitting that I should reciprocate by adding my blue SIC’S to his English boo-boos throughout my reply. This is my exchange with a Church of Christ Campbellite, Gene Frost.

FROST: As for his blue SICs to my copy, I find them sick. A [SIC] means “this; so” to show that a quoted passage, esp. one containing some error or something questionable, is precisely reproduced. Herb uses it to note my “English boo-boos,” he says. However, some he uses to refer to a punctuation which is a matter of taste. Often he is absolutely wrong—it would be interesting to learn his justification for using it. Others are used simply for a pause, to divert attention. In any event, if he copied the quotation accurately, it is mine, and I ask patience in the reading that the message be not lost.Anyone reading this exchange would expect a fair and honest presentation of opposing arguments and concepts, out of which the truth would prevail. But this is not the case in this exchange. The first sentence, under the sub-heading above (The Great Evans/Frost Exchange) by Herb Evans, is a misrepresentation, not an inadvertent or unintentional mischaracterization, but a deliberate act which can only be described as a lie. He calls me a “Campbellite,” which I am not nor have I ever been.In this very first sentence Herb Evans calls me a “Campbellite,” which I have repeatedly shown to be a lie. Yet he persists. Where is the evidence for such a charge? I address this more fully presently.

EVANS:Frost wants to argue the BIBLE ISSUE and these kinds of things, but I would rather discuss the Substitutionary Atonement. I am willing to debate the KJB issue in another venue. Yes, Frost is a Campbellite, which I will demonstrate from Alexander Campbell’s own wordsin subsequent exchanges.

Exchange between Gene Frost and Herb Evans -Order of the Exchange:

1. Gene Frost, in March 2000, delivered three sermons on the Calvinistic theory of substitutionary atonement.

2. Herb Evans responded in an article, entitled “He Took My Place (The Substitutionary Atonement.)”

3. Gene Frost responded with “Jesus Died For Me, So That I Might Be Saved.”

4. Herb Evans responded, not in a second article, but within the text of “Jesus Died For Me…” by Gene Frost, reproduced in this article. Evans’ comments are inblue type.

5. Gene Frost in this same article responds to Evans’ comments (blue type) with his (Frost’s) comments inbrown type. – Gene Frost

Jesus Died For Me, So That I Might Be Saved

Response to “He Took My Place (The Substitutionary Atonement)” by Herb Evans

Reply to Herb Evans’ Response by Gene Frost

Gene Frost: As unpleasant as is the task before me, and as difficult as it has been to have a rational discussion with one who has proven himself to be ignorant and malicious, still we have made progress.

FROST: Herb emphasizes the words ignorant and malicious with red type face to reflect the definition and use of “Campbellite” according to the Encyclopedia of Religion, to which we referred earlier (found in first layer of the exchange, page 7). We have made two points basic to this issue, propositions which undermine the foundation and superstructure of the KJV-only contention.

Herb Evans: This is typical of Gene Frost’s ad hominem and pontificated arguments and his claims of victory that contain more insults and name calling than they do facts or Bible. As with many cultists and apostates, [the sentence ends abruptly – Frost]

[EVANS: There was a typo, and there should have been a comma behind Bible and a small “a” in as thereafter. Triflers are drawn to that sort of thing.]

FROST: Interesting that things of which we have accused Herb, demonstrating the factual evidence thereof, he now charges us as being guilty, with no proof, just his assertions. Where did we refer to his person (ad hominem) without reason? The proof of our argumentation we have presented in Scripture, only referring to his person in charging him with sinful conduct; e.g. when he persists in calling us a “Campbellite,” without any evidence to justify the charge, and after we denied it numerous times. When did we make an argument in a dogmatic manner, expecting it to be accepted solely on the basis I said it? The opposite is the truth of the matter. We accused Herb of expecting us to accept his dogma, with nothing more than his assertion.

EVANS: YAWN! Argue with yourself over this; I am not writings a book on trifles.

FROST: Evans now identifies the Landmark Bible Baptist Church as “Bible Correctors.” He seems ready to condemn “Bible Correctors.” So, by all means, he needs to expose and censure the Landmark Baptists as heretics. But will he? I seriously doubt it.

What is a “Church of Christ-er”? I know what a “Church” is. And I know who “Christ” is. But what is a “Christ-er”? This is the language of Ashdod! If you are trying to refer to me, I am a “Christian”; neither a Church nor a Christ-er.

EVANS: Unfortunately, Frost does not want to be called anything by way of affiliation; he would rather remain non-denominated or nameless. If the truth be known, he cannot get along with most Campbellites regardless of their denominated names.

EVANS: Nevertheless, I prefer to discuss that Bible issue separately as I indicated in my first response. This discussion is supposed to be about the “Substitutionary Atonement.”

FROST: in consigning men to their eternal destiny. I am just thankful that Herb Evans is not my judge, nor will we be judged by his theology. (James 4:12, John 12:48.)

Gene Frost: The question still remains, what evidence do we have that the King James Bible is inspired? Even when the apostles and prophets received and wrote the revealed word by direct revelation, proof was needed before an unbelieving public would believe that what they taught was revealed from and by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:3-5). And so “they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.” (Mark 16:20; emphasis added.) Miracles attended their revealing of the inspired word. Was the claimed inspiration of the KJV confirmed with miracles and signs? The answer is, no!

Herb Evans: What “word” were they using when they confirmed it with signs and wonders? Was it he spoken word or the written word? Was Mark 16:20 written then? Does Frost confirm the word with signs and wonders? Did the apostles and prophets always “write” the scriptures? Or did they dictate them to scribes, who wrote down the dictations. And did such scribes add there own words, such as Tertius, who wrote down Paul’s words as well as words of his own?

FROST: These questions are designed to undermine the inspired revelation of God’s word. They are typical of modernists. Herb, do you really not know the answer to your quibbles?

God confirmed the word that was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, whether spoken or written. (2 Thess. 2:15)

EVANS: NO! They were designed to show that Frost cannot answer without destroying his distorted view of inspiration as to only what was originally written.

EVANS:Rom 16::22 I Tertius,who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

FROST: What’s your point if not to challenge the thought that Paul’s epistle was inspired? Do you deny that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do you deny that what Tertius penned was approved by the Spirit? Do you know that Tertius did not have the gift of prophesy? Would Paul have to write every word in his letter for it to be Spirit-approved? Is Rom. 16:22 cited to contradict the statement I made that the writings of the apostles and prophets were inspired, that here was a portion of his letter not inspired? What is your point, and how does your quibble differ from the modernist who makes the same?

EVANS: My point was that Tertius’ words were inspired as well as were the oral, written, copied, and dictated words of God.

FROST: Tertius was Paul’s amanuensis. Often Paul authenticated his dictated letters by writing the salutation with his own hand: