Apologetics Thursday – Alpha and Omega Ministries’ Intellectual Dishonesty

By Christopher Fisher

Part of my reoccurring work is on exposing intellectual dishonesty. There are several signs of intellectual dishonesty: Refusal to debate. Refusal to make monetary bets. Refusal to answer simple questions. On Facebook, there are two universal telltale signs of intellectual dishonesty: deleting comments and threads. If a belief cannot be transparently questioned, if critics must be censored, then the advocate is intellectually dishonest.

This week, Alpha and Omega Ministries censored Bob Enyart when Enyart replied on their Facebook page to an article that James White wrote against Bob Enyart. If that censorship does not show the rampant intellectual dishonesty of James White and Alpha and Omega Ministries, then I will present my own exhibit. I was censored and banned for asking questions. The intellectual dishonesty is apparent on several levels. Straightforward questions are ignored and instead were censored.

The entire Facebook exchange between me and the A&O Facebook admin, Richard C Pierce, is available for all to read. It should be noted that I make zero theological arguments the entire “debate”. I take no stances and advocate no views. Instead, I ask questions. Questions are a chance for individuals to explain what they believe, to clarify. Instead, Pierce, hyper-reacts. He becomes belligerent. It is obvious he is afraid of the question. This is not unlike White’s handing of the question and answer period during the White Enyart debate. White and company are very afraid of questions. Their beliefs do not hold up to simple scrutiny. Pierce then bans me. I do get to, in the end, point out the intellectual dishonesty of A&O Ministries, which is very apparent by Pierce’s refusal to answer questions and his belligerence towards those asking questions.

Part of the exchange is obscured because I didn’t expand some comments before the copy/paste. Pierce can release the rest of those comments if he can be prevailed upon to do so. All the relevant parts are still intact:

Richard C Pierce ROFLing

I removed Bob and Will’s posting privileges because I got tired of their ignoring James and my responses. Unfortunately, when you do that on this kind of FB page FB ‘hides’ all posts from those individuals. This is certainly not my favorite f…See More

Like · Yesterday at 12:01am · Edited

Richard C Pierce Chris Fisher my only other option here is that if I were to receive assurances that Bob and Will can behave themselves from here on, I would lift the block. Without that assurance, I will keep it in place for the near future.

As for Bob Enyart’s blog…See More

Like · Yesterday at 12:07am · Edited

Chris Fisher Personally, I would like to see what the answer is to Duffy’s question:

Is Jesus the second person of the trinity?…See More

Like · Yesterday at 1:41pm

Richard C Pierce Chris Fisher How many times would you like to see it answered? James answered in this very post. The answer is yes, has always been yes and has not been anything other than yes. Perhaps you need to ask again to see if it changed?

Unlike · 1 · Yesterday at 3:47pm

Chris Fisher So, if Jesus is the second person of the trinity and Jesus took on human nature, then isn’t that God changing? God is going from God+Jesus (no human nature)+Holy Spirit to God+Jesus (with human nature)+Holy Spirit?

Like · Yesterday at 3:50pm

Richard C Pierce No, but again, Dr. White explained this, so why are you acting like he hasn’t? This whole ‘playing dumb’ act from your group is getting very tiring.

Like · 19 hrs

Chris Fisher No seriously. No one understands it. Explain how God can incorporate human nature and yet not change.

Like · 18 hrs

Rachel Troyer So… the second person of the trinity has a divine nature and a human nature, but before the incarnation did not have a human nature… right?
Isn’t this what James White believes?

Like · 17 hrs

Richard C Pierce Jesus is ‘fully’ God and ‘fully’ man. This is called the hypostatic union. The natures are not a ‘mixture’ therefore God is not changed. But of course, Bob Enyart knows that is what we believe. He is ignoring that in order to prop up his straw man – false case.

Like · 8 hrs · Edited

Richard C Pierce I am sure that I could find something in Bob’s teachings that I could twist into something that he doesn’t actually believe and then play dumb while repeatedly poking at him about it and then acting like he can’t respond. Such is not honest communication.

Like · 9 hrs · Edited

Chris Fisher Here is where I think our communication breakdown may be happening: was the part of Jesus with human nature fully God?

Like · 7 hrs

Richard C Pierce Sigh. Again, the playing dumb act isn’t flying anymore. I just stated that there is no ‘mixture.’ This entire line is a straw man designed to tie up and waste time. The real problem here isn’t communication, it is that you don’t like the answer. Well, it is what it is so get honest with it. If you want to disagree with what we ‘really’ believe then do so. Otherwise, enough with the straw man argument.

Like · 6 hrs

Richard C Pierce All: Before you decide to chime in for some more ‘ring around the straw man rosey’ I suggest you read the rules for this page.


Like · 1 · 6 hrs · Edited

Rachel Troyer “Jesus is ‘fully’ God and ‘fully’ man. This is called the hypostatic union. The natures are not a ‘mixture’ therefore God is not changed”
So, I totally agree that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
But, the second person of the trinity (Jesus/Son of G…See More

Like · 6 hrs

Rachel Troyer I read the rules and I listened to the posts but it’s still confusing… James is trying to say that there is no change with God because God can not change in any way. So, he is saying that the incarnation was NOT a change… right?

Like · 6 hrs

Rachel Troyer Richard, I think it is purely communication. I don’t think it’s a “straw man” argument. It seems to me that everyone thinks the same thing but some refer to it as a change and some don’t.
the Word became flesh, so at one point it wasn’t flesh and at another point it was flesh… right?

Like · 6 hrs

Chris Fisher It is a yes or no question. There is no “playing dumb” on my part. Either your view is comprehensible or it isn’t. You should be able to explain it if it is. Instead of typing two or three letters you chose for a paragraph ignoring the question:

Was the part of Jesus with human nature fully God? …See More

Like · 6 hrs

Richard C Pierce I am sorry that you are both so confused. Somehow, generations have been able to understand this for 2000 years. Perhaps someone has bewitched you?

Like · 6 hrs · Edited

Chris Fisher Was the part of Jesus with human nature fully God?

Like · 6 hrs

Richard C Pierce Answering for the last time. He who has ears to hear…


Jesus’ Two Natures: God and Man

by Matt Slick


Like · 4 hrs · Edited

Chris Fisher Sir, do you believe that answers my question? If so, copy and paste the sentence that explains if Jesus’ human nature was fully God. It feels to me that Slick and White avoid simple questions and defer to distractions that do not answer critical questions. Intellectual honesty calls for transparent answers to direct questions.

Like · 4 hrs

Arlin Edmondson “Was the part of Jesus with human nature fully God?”

What is incomprehensible is your question, Chris….See More

Like · 4 hrs

Chris Fisher It seams to me that you want to say “no”. So I will help you out. You can copy and paste this sentence: ” The part of Jesus’ nature that was human is not God. ”

Like · 3 hrs

Rachel Troyer Richard,
The Word became flesh. At one point the Word (God- the second person of the trinity) was not in the flesh and now the Word (God-the second person of the trinity) is in the flesh. For 2000 years+ Christians have professed Christ as dying and…See More

Like · 3 hrs

Richard C Pierce Guys, argue all of the little conundrums that you want. Your argument is not with me, James White, Matt Slick or a host of others. It is with scripture. You can repeat your case all that you want, you are denying the direct teaching of scripture.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Like · 2 hrs

Chris Fisher It is a yes or no question. I am not arguing anything. I have never seen someone so afraid of answering questions:

Was the part of Jesus with human nature fully God?

Like · 2 hrs

Micah Burke > Was the part of Jesus with human nature fully God?

This shows a startling lack of understanding of the hypostatic union.

Like · 2 hrs

Chris Fisher Micah, yes or no. From what I gather is that you and Richard would say “no”, and then talk about the hypostatic union. But you are too afraid to write out your beliefs.

Like · 2 hrs

Chris Fisher The fact that you will not say “yes” suggests you do not believe “yes”. You do not believe Jesus’ human side was divine. But you also do not want to say ” no” because you understand how heretical that would look. My conclusion is that you both are intellectually dishonest.

Like · 2 hrs

Rachel Troyer Micah, was there a point before the hypostatic union where Jesus was not the God-man?
From Gotquestions.org it says,
“Jesus always had been God (John 8:58,10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man.”
This is similar to John Piper’s article on the hypostatic union.
“AT the incarnation, Jesus became a human being
Word became flesh”

So, my question is simple, before the incarnation, was Jesus a human being? was there a human nature along with the divine nature? or did this “addition” become so at the incarnation?
If so, then this is a change in God… right? Because Jesus is fully God… always was and is and will be… but wasn’t always human… right?


Bible Questions Answered

Bible Questions Answered by GotQuestions.org! Fast and accurate answers to all your Bible…


Like · 2 hrs



  1. Is the mono-dyo-physitism conundrum even relevant when one bekieves that Humanity and Divinity are not united in a nebulous kystery, but united because none of their components intersect?
    Perhaps God became human, not because he forced divinity into humanity, but because no part of being human stops God from being God?
    Wine and Bottle are not the same thing, but Wine does not stop Bottle from being Bottle, nor vice versa, yet Wine Bottle is still an imaginable thing that exists.
    What ancient heresy am I proposing? I’m sure I’m not the first person to come up with this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s