The Great Frost/Evans Exchange,Substitutionary Atonement -Foreword
Initially, I critiqued Campbellite Gene Frost’s audio tape denying the substitutionary atonement. I answered Gene Frost’s audio tape with an older article of mine, “He Took My Place.” I adapted my article to Gene Frost’s audio and sent it to him. This resulting several point/counterpoint exchanges between Campbellite Gene Frost and myself has evolved into a composite discussion with great difficulty due to Frost’s failure to always post serially and because of his repeated interjections, destroying the continuity of the discussion.
I had to reformat the exchanges due to the point/counterpoint nature of the debate to Frost’s Chagrin. I reduced the margins to a half inch and reduced the font to 11 point and still came up with only 260 plus pages (including my latest answers and addendums) compared to Frost’s 304 pages without these latest answers. Not only did I run some of Frost’s paragraphs together (his complaint), but I split both many of his and my paragraphs up to get around excessive page over lap. Much of my latter reformatting was also due to Frost’s butchering up my comments and interspersing and mixing his comments among mine.
The most recent of our comments are in Green and Bold, Last Name Caps. Earlier comments from both Frost and me both have bold and non-bold full names and various colors and many are from different discussion time frames. I left much of my Italics to distinguish my former comments from my later ones. I also left Gene Frost’s arrowed initials but added his and my full names to indicate older comments. Brackets indicate interjections where possible.
There was no conspiracy involved in all this to reduce the effectiveness of Frost’s comments. These changes were merely a necessary practicality to make the discussion readable and to make it to flow. We have each included our separate format versions on separates CDs per our own formats. Upon, request, Frost’s CD version of our discussion is also available upon request for postage and handling charges.
Frost insisted on debating the BIBLE ISSUE and other things by interpolating them into the original SA topic, but I tried to keep the discussion on point to the Substitutionary Atonement. Still, I was willing to debate the KJB issue in another separate venue. So, after Frost refused to desist in off point discussion, I omitted parts of the Bible issue discussion per Frost because of Frost’s refusal to do it separately. Still, I have included some parts of the off topic peripheral tangents of the Substitutionary Atonement discussion which include:
1. The Main Topic, the Substitutionary Atonement, Denied by Frost.
2. Some Bible Issue Objections and Exchanges by Frost and Evans..
3. Water Baptism to obtain the Remission of Sins, affirmed by Frost, denied by Evans.
4. The Inherited Sin Nature of Adam, denied by Frost, affirmed by Evans.
5. Frost’s Hebrew and Greek Gymnastics as well as rebuttals by Evans.
Note: My proof reading of this was interrupted by my Quad heart bypass, making that proof check and this subsequent proof read less than perfect. -- Herb Evans, 157 Patties Place, Portersville, PA 16051
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 colors to distinguish who is saying what and when for the reader to be able to follow. I separated my paragraphs as well as Frost’s to differentiate each of our different points plus replies. For the most part, I do so 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.
FROST: 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 changing it only for esthetics and 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 name captions on each poster everywhere 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 and rearrange the format for his people. How does that square with Frost’s copyright claims; how does Frost think that he can copyright my comments? Frost has done a good bit of restructuring of the exchange, as well; how can he claim copyright on that. 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 almost 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 nitpick 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 words in 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 withinthe text of “Jesus Died for Me…” by Gene Frost, reproduced in this article. Evans’ comments are in blue type.
5. Gene Frost in this same article responds to Evans’ comments (blue type) with his (Frost’s) comments in brown type. – Gene Frost
6. Latest Comments by Evans (bold Green) and Frost Non-Bold Green
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 with.” 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.