Troy Brooks

Troy Brooks from biblocality has been a persistent and annoying critic.  He has repeatedly misrepresented what I say, what Calvinism is about, mistakenly elevates non-essential doctrines to the level of essentials, and posts on the internet false and accusatory statements about myself. 

Normally, I ignore wackos who can't think straight.  But, Troy Brooks just doesn't want to go away.  I've asked him to stop bothering me, to not go to my discussion boards, and to leave me alone.  But, he repeatedly ignores my requests and continues to malign me.  Personally, I feel like I am being stalked.  In his criticism of Calvinism he demonstrates a mediocre knowledge of its teachings and then applies an appalling, convoluted logic to it in attempts to refute it. Honestly, I've rarely encountered what is, in my opinion, such an arrogant and poor-thinking individual as Troy Brooks who has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be incapable of receiving correction.

Now, on the CARM discussion boards (http://forums.carm.org/vbb/index.php) there are rules such as no personal attacks, no imposters, don't post links until a certain condition is met, etc.  One of them is that when you are banned, you will not return under another name.  Now, I expect unbelievers to lie and break the rules when they sign up.  But, Troy Brooks, who claims to be a Christian, seems to have no problem signing up on the CARM private boards (you must agree to the rules when you sign up) and disregarding the rules.  When he has been banned, he has returned under another name--violating the rules--and then posts personal attacks against me. 

In my opinion, Troy Brooks from biblocality is not to be trusted.  I believe he is unstable in his thinking, misrepresents me repeatedly, misrepresents Calvinism, and is conceited as he considers himself to be qualified to teach with an authority he does not possess.

Following is a post by him on my discussion boards (in violation of the rules against personal attacks, posting links, etc.).  His post was followed by many people again condemning his rule-breaking, misrepresentations, and personal attacks. They know who he is and are also tired of him. Since the board rules state CARM can use the posts submitted there, I have reproduced his post here in its entirety.  Following the post is the actual transcript from the chat discussion he mentioned. 

Troy likes to come into our discussion forums and chat room and quickly post links to his website.  This is against the rules, and we've asked him not to do it.  He ignores our rules and continues to break them.  Actually, we find better compliance with the rules from unbelievers than we do with Troy Brooks.

Now, please note that in the chat dialogue that follows, Troy Brooks condemns the idea of saving someone against their will (which isn't what Calvinism teaches, btw.  Instead, generally, Calvinists teach that God first regenerates a person and then they are able to put their faith in Christ.).  Anyway, he condemns what he considers God forcing someone on people against their will; but he has no problem at all doing the very same thing to me.  I have repeatedly asked him to not email me, not sign up on the boards, banned him, and to leave me alone.  Yet, he seeks to force himself upon me, CARM, and forums against my will.  Now, doesn't that show you what kind of a person he is?

---------------

[following is troy brook's post]

Discussion with Matt Slick at CARM Chat on Dec. 24, 2009 (I am paraphrasing because I was banned before I was able to copy the Chat text, and it was subsequently deleted. I didn't expect him to ban that quickly to cover up).

I reached out to Slick to ask him, is it not evil to irresistibly impose salvation on someone and deny others the opportunity to be saved when it was not their fault since they were born that way? He responded by saying in a vile way, Is it wrong to let your mother poison herself? To which I replied, is it wrong to lock your mother up in a cage all her life so she won't take the poison? Obnoxiously, he repeatedly said, answer the question. I told him, I already did. Obviously, the answer is, it is wrong to lock her up so it is wrong to force her. Evading this point, he moved onto, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1.13). Can man save himself, he asked? I said, of course not, but that he was misreading this passage, because this passage doesn't say man has no free-will or free-choice. Rather, the will of the flesh refers to man's passion, will of man to man's planning. God is the one who does the saving, but He doesn't save unrighteously.

As I continued to try to lead him to Christ, I asked him, Don't you think about how a person is saved? He said, God does it. To which I replied, of course, but how? By his will, Slick said. I agreed, obviously, but again I asked how does He? Can you get more specific? He had no answer. So I told him, God is not an evil tyrant in which He irresistibly imposes salvation, for any monster can do that. Hitler did that. What God does is predestinate by foreknowing your free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. God is relational and personal and synergistic.

Again, belligerently and obstinately, Slick said to answer the question. I told him I already did. I added further, I told him he has a doublestandard, because if we were to read the passage the way he does, then Slick is not saved according to his own beliefs, since by his own free will he chose to assume he was regenerated without any prior repentance and faith in Christ to be saved by grace through faith. It was at this point he banned me and several of my posts on the forums, especially video presentations.

Clearly, we can see because he erects this idol he calls Total depravity which says he can't repent, can't freely obtain the gift of repentance, can't believe, can't freely obtain the gift of faith, that therefore, he can't repent and believe in Christ, so he doesn't and he won't. This is the first major sin of Calvinism. See the 6 Major Sins of Calvinism here,

http://bibl . . . (url removed)

He is afraid to let go of himself. In order to gain your soul you are going to have to lose it first. And this is what keeps him eternally separated from God. He trusts the evil spirit's simulation or facsimile of God's salvation with Satanic grace and baptism of the evil spirit to implant ideas in his head to gain strongholds in his mind which say he can't because he is Totally unable, so his innerman remains unregenerated and is not quickened one iota to be given the sensitivity to commune with God. For Slick, it is all a head game.

This is the evil the Church is up against as these false teachers sell their products and raise money from you to promote this lie. You are guilty if you continue to affiliate yourself with and support these false Christians worshiping a false Christ. A copy of this message for future reference is found here,

http . . . (url removed)

-------------

Following is the actual dialogue which occurred on 12/24/09.  "deeperchristian" is Troy Brooks.

deeperchristian: 199.126.244.209
deeperchristian: CARM General Chat
Matt Slick: You take yourself WAY to seriously. You are extremely ignorant and illogical.
Matt Slick: You are self-deceived.
deeperchristian: I disagree.
Matt Slick: You just don't know enough.
deeperchristian: Do you think it is not possible you worship an evil spirit?
Matt Slick: Let me ask you. Did God choose us for salvation?
deeperchristian: Because his standards are lower than man's.
deeperchristian: To your question, do you ask yourself how God chose for salvation?
Matt Slick: Did God choose us for salvation?
deeperchristian: God chose me for salvation. I don't believe He has chosen you as you are now. So to my question, Do you ask how God chose?
Matt Slick: God chooses by his sovereign will.
deeperchristian: Of course He does, that's not in issue. The question is how.
Matt Slick: By choosing.
deeperchristian: Does He irresistibly impose as Cavlinism teaches or does He provide sufficient grace to all to give us the choice?
Matt Slick: He chooses. It does not depend on man's will.
deeperchristian: Yes, God does the saving but isn't it evil if He irresistibly imposes salvation on someone?
Matt Slick: Why?
deeperchristian: Because it is evil for us to behave that way.
Matt Slick: Why would you say it is evil for God to save someone?
deeperchristian: His standard are not less than ours.
GnarlyOcelot
GnarlyOcelot: CARM General Chat
deeperchristian: If someone doesn't want to be saved, then it is wrong to force yourself on another.
Matt Slick: Hi, go.
GnarlyOcelot: hey
Matt Slick: So if someone doesn't want to be saved out of a fire and we do, then that is evil?
Matt Slick: So if someone doesn't want to be saved from committing suicide and we do . . . that is evil?
Matt Slick: So YOU have saving people being evil?
deeperchristian: If someone wants to be eternally separated from God then it is wrong to force them to be saved.
Matt Slick: Why?
deeperchristian: Just as it is wrong to not provide sufficient grace to people to give them the opportunity.
GnarlyOcelot: How does one "force" another to be saved?
Matt Slick: Why is it wrong for God to save someone who wants to be damed?
GnarlyOcelot: Its wrong to present evidence and reason? If your mother is about to drink poison, is it wrong for you to try to show her video footage of it being poisoned, show her poison tests etc.?
deeperchristian: Because it is wrong for us to irresistibly impose ourselves on another also.
Matt Slick: Would it be wrong to force your mother not to drink poison?
deeperchristian: Instead of gangbanging me just let Slick talk.
deeperchristian: You can't lock her up in a cage all her life.
deeperchristian: That's abusive.
Matt Slick: Deep, please don't be vile.
Matt Slick: Would it be wrong for force your mother not to drink poison?
deeperchristian: What you are proposing is abusive. And you vilely mentioned a mother drinking poison.
Matt Slick: Would it be wrong to save your mother against her will if she wants to drink poison?
deeperchristian: Is it wrong to lock a person up in a cage for life, so they don't drink poison?
Matt Slick: Please answer the question.
GnarlyOcelot: Matt, its even worse for deeper than that.. because in the scenario, you arent stopping her from drinking poison . . . all thats being done is you're giving her the best reasons you can for her not to drink it. Nothing is forced.
Matt Slick: It relates to your complaint.
deeperchristian: I answered already.
Matt Slick: Good point, go.
Matt Slick: Where's the answer?
Matt Slick: Would it be wrong to save your mother against her will if she wants to drink poison? Yes or no?
deeperchristian: Recall what I said.
Matt Slick: Can you please answer yes or no?
deeperchristian: I answered by asking you is it just to lock your mother up in a cage all her life so she won't drink poision?
Matt Slick: Oh, so you didn't answer.
Matt Slick: Now you're dodging.
deeperchristian: You're avoiding.
Matt Slick: It wouldn't be wrong to lock her up to save her.
deeperchristian: If it is wrong then it is wrong.
Matt Slick: Now answer.Would it be wrong to save your mother against her will if she wants to drink poison?
deeperchristian: I answered already.
Matt Slick: Yes or no or be banned permanently.
deeperchristian: Locking up your mother in a cage all her life is yes or not?
deeperchristian: No obviously.
deeperchristian: You propose locking your mother up in a cage for life.
deeperchristian: Christians consider that evil.
deeperchristian: You are not born-again Matt.
Matt Slick: Then why do you complain against God for saving someone against their will if it is not wrong to save someone against their will?
GnarlyOcelot: i dont see the relevance of the cage illustration.
Matt Slick: I don't either go, but he does this alot.
deeperchristian: I don't complain about God saving.
Matt Slick: Misdirects and can't see it.
Matt Slick: Then why do you complain against God for saving someone against their will if it is not wrong to save someone against their will?
deeperchristian: I complain about your misrepresenting how God saves.
Matt Slick: I didn't say "saving." I said "saving against their will."
Matt Slick: Then why do you complain against God for saving someone against their will if it is not wrong to save someone against their will?
deeperchristian: God doesn't save someone against their will.
Matt Slick: We are born against NOT of our own will, John 1:13.
deeperchristian: That's your mistake assumption.
Matt Slick: You're still unable to think clearly.
deeperchristian: God does the saving, the will of man is man's plans.
deeperchristian: You still need to take of the water of life freely.
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will--John 1:13.
deeperchristian: Believe and ye shall be saved, but you are unwilling.
GnarlyOcelot: deeper, can you make an argument for us to evaluate? a syllogism (1. 2. 3. Therefore)?
Matt Slick: Yeap, great calvinist verse.
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will--John 1:13.
Matt Slick: d, look at John 1:13.
deeperchristian: By your will you assume you are regenerated, so by your thought, you are not saved.
Matt Slick: It refutes your position.
deeperchristian: Your approach is self-contradictory.
deeperchristian: And it is a doublestandard but you don't have a conscience to see it.
deeperchristian: Because your spirit is dead to God.
GnarlyOcelot: deeper, help me out, what is your argument?
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will--John 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: By your own will you assumed you were regenerated.
deeperchristian: So you are not saved.
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will--John 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: According to your usage of John 1.13 you are not born again.
Matt Slick: I notice that it is extremely difficult for you to answer questions.
Matt Slick: Read the verse.
Matt Slick: Do you agree with it?
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will--John 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: Of course I agree with this verse.
Matt Slick: So you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: Do you see how you by your own will assume you were regenerated without prior repentance and faith?
deeperchristian: So according to John 1.13 you are not born-again.
Matt Slick: Answer or be banned.
Matt Slick: We are born again NOT of our own will--John 1:13, "who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God." Do you disagree with this verse, deep?
deeperchristian: Why are you asking me. I already answered.
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
Matt Slick: Answer THAT.
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: You're being obnoxious. What did I say?
deeperchristian: Try to be Christlike.
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: Don't be a clanging bell.
deeperchristian: What was my answer?
Matt Slick: Last chance.
Matt Slick: Do you agree we are born again NOT of our own wills?
deeperchristian: Don't be a clanging bell.
deeperchristian: You're obnoxious and avoiding the answer.
[I banned him at this point]
GnarlyOcelot: heh, he had it coming

----------------

On 12/29/09, Troy Brooks spammed the New CARM discussion boards in violation of the board rules.  He registered with more than 20 different usernames in a short period of time and spammed the boards posting the same post under different names with different titles.  He did this more than 50 times.  Troy Brooks is certainly entitled to his disagreement with Reformed Theology.  But, he is not entitled to harrassment.   I've asked him to stop the harrassment.  He has refused.  I do not trust Brooks--his ability to abide by rules, his ability to actually understand the Calvinism he criticizes (he doesn't).  We have to ask what kind of a person would spend the time to register more than 20 accounts in order to spam Christian forums, so that he can attack and insult others?

Normally I don't bother with people like Troy Brooks who really don't know what they are talking about, but I looked on his website and found something very interesting.  At http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm he said,

"The Slick System is for the seared conscience. For example, you can only join his group membership if you affirm these false statements: "That Jesus Christ is presently true God and true man." I don't know any Christians who believe that Jesus is presently man. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and presently not man."

This is most interesting since he denies one of the basic doctrines of Christianity:  Jesus is a man.  Troy Brooks claims to know Christian theology, yet he denies one of the basics?  Obviously, he doesn't know what he's doing.  Here is another quote by him at the same webpage:

When God saves it is deserved in man, since that is how God set up the redemptive design, saving those who choose God, having the ability to do so being made in His image, and having that right that God gave in the creation of man.

Christianity does not teach "When God saves it is deserved in man . . . "  This is false teaching.  We do not deserve salvation (Eph. 2:3; Rom. 3:10-12).  How can Troy make such a blatant mistake?  Obviously, he doesn't know Christian theology which further explains his other misguided attempts to teach me and others what "real" Christianity is.

Here are some more brookisms from the same page attacking me:

  • "M. Slick is unregenerated for he believes he was saved another way which we may call his false fruit."
  • "Under the CARM calvinism belief, you are persevering because you are like a zombie."
  • " . . . living your life in your preselectionism pride."
  • "This is man's attempt to replicate justification by faith when deep down inside that person does not really believe, though they will lie straight to your face in saying they do, but they are just being sly, slick and inveterate."
  • "I protest of the historicalism taught by Slick and the RCC, gibberish babble of Slick and the Montanists, bipartite view of Slick and the fallen man, pride of being premade for salvation of Slick and so-called Reformers."
  • "Not every last calvinist is unsaved, but the vast majority are not our brothers and sisters in Christ."

It is no wonder that with statements like these, Troy Brooks isn't taken seriously by anyone.  Neither should you.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison
 
 
CARM.org
Copyright 2014

CONTACT US:
CARM Office number: 208-466-1301
Office hours: M-F; 9-5 pm; Mountain Time
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: CARM, PO BOX 1353, Nampa ID 83653