You will find the following plagiarized excerpt in Antonio da Rosa’s current article at his REDEFINED Free Grace Theology blog. The article posted on Friday, March 20. Antonio addresses what he perceives to be flaws in Dr. J B Hixson’s soteriology.
Here is the plagiarized item in da Rosa’s article,
“They cannot both be the gospel! One or both of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel!” (bold added to reflect the plagiarism)
You will find the following on p. 40 of Dr. Charles Ryrie’s classic So Great Salvation (SGS),“The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.” (bold added)Antonio offered NO attribution to Dr. Ryrie or SGS of any kind, anywhere in his article.
This is no mere coincidence or innocent misstep! This is the third time that da Rosa has been found to be plagiarizing the work of other men. I suspect that in his current attack piece against Dr. J. B. Hixson and Pastor Tom Stegall additional examples of plagiarism may exist.
We have a Grace Evangelical Society Crossless Gospel advocate repeating a deliberate act of plagiarizing the work of another man. Last year we witnessed Mr. Jim Johnson committing plagiarism on a massive scale. See- ReDux & UpDate: Jim Johnson’s Massive Plagiarism in “Destroying Free Grace Theology”
I have archived a copy of da Rosa’s plagiarized article in its original form. I suspect he will claim that there has been no plagiarism, remove or revise the plagiarized section and any others that may exist before they can be uncovered. The archived copy will be researched for additional examples of plagiarism by Antonio da Rosa.
In any Bible college deliberate acts of plagiarism typically result in the student’s expulsion for a semester, possibly longer, depending on the severity of and/or repetitive acts of plagiarism. Antonio da Rosa is a known three-time plagiarist.
Antonio is scheduled to conduct two workshops at the upcoming Grace Evangelical Society (GES) National Conference, March 30 - April 2.
LM
UpDate: See comment #9 in the thread below for a reaction by da Rosa to his plagiarism of Dr. Ryrie's So Great Salvation.
Please forward to the OPEN LETTER to ANTONIO da ROSA, aka, The (Mr.) Truth Detector
I think the count is higher than three, but when confronted, Antonio has said that the blogosphere is not a college/seminary classroom. Hence, it appears that he doesn't think it is wrong to plagiarize outside of academia or publishing circles. I think he stated that on his blog when Matt Waymeyer confronted him on plagiarizing, or maybe it was another time. After repeated confrontations I think Antonio did say he would never do it again, but it looks like that was not the truth. Sad.
ReplyDeleteJonathan:
ReplyDeleteYour recollection is right on target. Readers can see his plagiarism at your blog being exposed by Matt at THIS LINK followed by his (da Rosa’s) absurd sloughing off of his plagiarism.
This was your response, “Matthew, thanks for pointing out Antonio’s plagiarism. I've noticed on his blog before where you have caught him plagiarizing material. It is quite ironic that he does this in light of his criticism of me at his blog. I wonder if he would accept this behavior from the students he is teaching?”
Follows by this evasion from da Rosa, “That this isn't a classroom is apparant to me. Zane Hodges puts it into words better than I could in a more precise way. Yet, let us not so hastily detract from the points that have been made, MW.”
To which you replied, “Antonio, it is absolutely amazing to me that you will not admit wrongdoing here. Plagiarism is unethical - it is sinful.”
And Jonathan- Antonio NEVER apologized until he was confronted with it again much later when at that time he said he did apologize, which was proven by you to be a lie on his part. When he did apologize, if you can call it that, his apology filled with a string of highly vitriolic personal attacks. His apologies and type of repentance (sorrow) are ONLY expressions of his being sorry for getting caught.
As for the count of 3 incidents, it is certainly MUCH higher than that. In 2008 (at the Baptist Board) I caught him plagiarizing a large portion of another Crossless gospel advocate’s published work. And again he brush it aside as no big deal, totally unrepentant and launch another string of personal attacks to redirect attention away from his sinful plagiarism.
I often read articles of his that demonstrate samples within a broader text that are a clear departure from his usual writing style. You know when you are reading someone else’s work because of the departure in writing style. If those are not his own outright thefts of another man’s work, he has a ghost-writer feeding him sections. It is obvious to me because the apparent non-Antonio portions are far more accomplished in style composition and grammar and syntax and than Antonio is capable of.
Thanks for substantiating that da Rosa is a compulsive, habitiual plagiarist.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteThe precise location of Antonio's plagiarizing Dr. Ryrie appears as the third paragraph under his section heading, Leaving the realm of objectivity
It is still there at the time of this comment posting.
LM
...but when confronted, Antonio has said that the blogosphere is not a college/seminary classroom. Hence, it appears that he doesn't think it is wrong to plagiarize outside of academia or publishing circles.
ReplyDeleteThe scary thing is that he thinks plagiarism is limited to an academic setting. If we were at a picnic meal together, I wouldn't take your food off your plate and eat it myself without your permission simply because we weren't in a restaurant. If he appreciates Hodges wording he should site him out of plain common decency and respect, irrespective of setting. What he has done is just stealing.
And in any case, isn't the blogosphere considered a publishing setting?
JanH
Jan:
ReplyDeleteIMO, he never thought “plagiarism (was) limited to an academic setting until” he got caught and needed an alibi. Common sense tells any thinking person that plagiarism is stealing.
Plagiarism is always wrong and sinful and da Rosa has become desensitized toward and habitual about it.
I’m just wondering when Bob Wilkin and other GES leaders will put da Rosa on the shelf. You’d think responsible leadership would have done so by now after so many gross lapses in ethical behavior, this new episode of plagiarism being only the latest example.
What we have, however, is Wilkin show-casing Antonio at the upcoming GES National Conference.
LM
If an author or a blogger whom I admired had done such things I would no longer admire him/her. Unforunately his little following will again circle the wagons, and come to his defense with no visible admonishments for him to confess or repent. They will even be worshipful. Sad.
ReplyDeleteMark:
ReplyDeleteThat has been the pattern.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteThis article is not going to be a long running issue. It simply demonstrates the latest example of Antonio da Rosa's habitual pattern of lapses in ethical behavior.
On Tuesday morning I am going to publish part two of Phillip Evans' article, Out on a Limb To Protest Too Much.
LM
At his REDEFINED Free Grace Theology blog Antonio posted the following (excerpted) comment:
ReplyDelete“I admit the line is from Ryrie. I would now write his name in, but there is no reason to.
I did not malisciously or intentionally fail to ascribe to him that sentence and a half. I did not intentionally write that wishing to gain credit for that meanial sentence. I have used that sentence so often that it has basically become my own.
To all who are offended by my use of Ryrie without noting him, I apologize.” (March 25, 2009 5:40 PM)
Make of it what you will. I’ll reserve comment for now.
LM
The scriptures are clear - as often as a person repents, as I believe Antonio just has in his comments above, we are to forgive him. Now that he has confessed my hope is that the debate can continue, engaging theological concepts.
ReplyDeleteMark:
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure what more needs to be debated with the GES Crossless gospel advocates.
How much more can it be shown to be a radical reductionist assault on the content of saving faith?
LM
I have just come from reading the comment thread over there where A's confession is posted.
ReplyDeleteI must say I am amazed at their perspective on this issue. I don't think I have ever seen so many straw men in my life. The situation and our position as they describe it are almost unrecognizable. They have grossly distorted the issue and the complaints against them. At one point AdR likened us to LS proponents. Right after that he said this:
The doctrine of Assurance is at the heart of this debate. How can one find assurance of eternal life when evangelized by the FFG? There is no passage that they can turn to! Since the COSF is derived from a synthesis that has been formulated through the subjective and traditionalistic criterion of the particular evangelist, they do not have an authoratative pronouncement from the Lord. How does one know that he has believed enough doctrine or believed it correctly? Many people in Grace churches have struggled this way!
The most pertinent part of this is bolded. Apparently for all their harping on John's gospel they forgot 6:51-58. Here Christ says 4 times that he who eats of "this bread" will have eternal life, and once unless you "eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you." Verse 54 puts it the most succinctly: "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." There is your passage of assurance in the plainest, most simple terms. If you eat His flesh and drink His blood you are guaranteed eternal life. If you don't you are guaranteed lifeless. What is to be unassured of?
And I would like to know who are the "many people in Grace churches [that] have struggled this way." I don't believe they exist.
JanH
Hi Jan:
ReplyDeleteYou are relatively new to the debate with the GES Crossless advocates. I can understand how you can be stunned by the way they portray the position of any believer who rejects their reductionist heresy. All they have is the straw man and no matter how times, no matter how many ways, no matter from whom it comes they will not concede and agree to address what we believe without putting their absurd spin on it first.
Just as they do to the Scriptures they force into or extract from views outside their own whatever they must to give themselves an advantage.
I have been dealing directly with these reductionist people for nearly two years. I am not desensitized to these extreme, antibiblical teachings. It still stuns me at times that they have fallen into such gross error.
Distortion is all they have! IMO, they have been so deceived and have repeated the GES mantra for so long they actually believe their own distortions.
Don’t forget the last article by Zane Hodges: The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism. Hodges and GES believe that any one who preaches a message of salvation through belief in the Son of God who died and rose from the dead is preaching “legalism.”
They have a series of mantra straw man arguments and they will not abandon them. When they at first engaged us from the Scriptures their reductionism was thoroughly trounced. So, all they have left is GES mantra. Did you notice how they quote Hodges almost to the total exclusion of the Scriptures, apart from a few verses in John that they first twist out of shape to suit their reductionist needs?
Next week they meet for their annual (national) GES conference. Imagine a group of believers meeting to celebrate and encourage one another in a reductionist assault on the content of saving faith. BTW, Bob Wilkin of GES is giving da Rosa two workshops. Once we have the recordings of these workshops I’m sure we’ll have a whole, new set of extremes to publish and discuss.
I could go on, but why bother? The blessing is that the GES is now widely known as a shrinking cell of theological extremists far out on the fringe of Bible-believing Christianity. I have done a great deal of work to alert believers over a wide cross section of evangelical Christianity about the GES and their Crossless gospel. No one outside their own group of Hodges followers even takes them seriously any longer.
My hope and prayer is that they continue to isolate themselves through increasing egregious assaults on the Gospel. As I noted above, the GES has become irrelevant, they just don’t know it yet.
Lord willing the GES will NEVER gain any traction out side the cell of Hodges followers in the GES. We must remain diligent that they do NOT make any new inroads anywhere in evangelical circles.
Lou
I wonder what will be covered in these workshops at the conferance. I don't know, of course, but I wonder if their subject matter is limited to the reductionistic "gospel" presentation (all this talk of "theological legalism", and such) and the Bema Seat. These subjects seem to be at the core of that group's very existence. It is where they differ from the rest of orthodoxy. Take these two subjects away and you essentially rip the very backbone away from their existence. In just these two areas if one holding the GES position were to adopt a more orthodox view of the scriptures they would no longer be a part of the GES. These distinctions are the heart and soul of the GES. Without them there is no GES, and no reason to have a conferance.
ReplyDeleteMark:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "In just these two areas if one holding the GES position were to adopt a more orthodox view of the scriptures they would no longer be a part of the GES."
Exactly! And those who do have a balanced, orthodox view of the Bible are immediately repulsed by what GES (Wilkin) is teaching. And also why the GES has lost MANY members and supporting churches. They have on their own accord reduced themselves to a tiny cell of reductionist extremists.
BTW, there are some new projects in development to deal with GES on the BEMA. I am not doing those projects but good men are.
BTW, you can go to the GES site and see the subject matter. The are featuring da Rosa for two workshops, which tells you much about the lack of men with formal training to fill the schedule.
I am looking forward to getting those recordings. Other men will be reviewing other sessions.
LM
Yesterday, a woman attending the current GES National Conference posted this to me from her blog:
ReplyDelete"Also, you were right. Today in one of his sessions brother Antonio confessed to the thing which you have broadcast. I'm thankful to clear that brother's rep in my mind. It was at the start of his session and a sound guy walked up a little bit later and turned his mike on, so it may not show up on the mp3."
Which; plagiarism or his libel and defamation of a brother in Christ?
1) His (Antonio da Rosa's) plagiarism, which I did broadcast because he is a habitual (unrepentant) plagiarist? Or...
2) His heinous public and criminal libel and defamation against a brother in Christ, under another alias he used, The (Mr.) Truth Detector, which Wilkin and GES have been made aware of.
LM
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI am unsure what Michele means by, "I'm thankful to clear that brother's rep in my mind." (By "rep" I assume she means "reputation"?) Posting under an anonymous "sock puppet", and then covering it up for several months after, was bad enough. But this is a whole new level.
Michele, do you realize what Antonio just confessed to? Posting anonymously (and emailing others as well) to falsely accuse another brother of a terrible sin! He completely made up that accusation! I realize we all have our sins. But what kind of attitude must reside in the heart of one who would do such a thing?
It would be one thing if it was "only" in the past, and now it's caught up with him and he's confessing and apologizing (still waiting on that apology to Ron Shea, though). But as recently as 3 months ago, at JP's blog, Antonio was asked directly about this issue and he said this (although JP has since deleted almost everything at his blog, I still have this comment archived):
"Concerning your question about Ron Shea, I have never posted any anonymous comments, at all: good or bad, concerning this man. Until now, I have not heard of such a thing, nor have read anything remotely resembling anonymous slandering of this person."
This was a flat-out, bold-faced lie! Yet Antonio posted this within a comment in which he was talking all about how he's changed, and is sorry for past sins, etc. etc.
I'm all for thinking the best of people, and I'm trying really hard with Antonio here. But does anyone seriously think that he would have confessed to this at that conference if it wasn't for the efforts Lou has made? Not for the purpose of "getting" Antonio, but for calling a brother to account for a very public sin, as well as to clear another brother of a public false charge. Yet somehow things get twisted so that Lou is the "bad guy" and Antonio is the victim.
Then there's this from Michele above: "It was at the start of his session and a sound guy walked up a little bit later and turned his mike on, so it may not show up on the mp3." Perhaps it was coincidence that his mic wasn't working during the confession, but frankly I find that hard to believe. Which only makes things worse, not better.
It is very discouraging to read of this, and unlike Michele, it does not clear Antonio's rep in my mind in the least... to the contrary, it makes it more difficult to think the best of him. He certainly doesn't answer to me, but the consistency with which he commits unethical, sinful acts, then covers them up, lies about them, and/or justifies them as long as possible, only confessing when trapped in a corner, has made it supremely difficult to trust that Antonio has really changed and can now be trusted to engage in a reasonable dialogue without those types of actions popping up.
Again, he doesn't answer to me and probably doesn't care a whit what I think. But for whatever it may be worth: Antonio, please, toss me a bone here. Give me some reason to trust you. Show us you can change. Publicly confess to these evil deeds (the false accusations for the purpose of making your theological opponent look bad, plus the lies to cover it up) and publicly apologize to Ron Shea personally, as well as the rest of those observing. Is all this really worth whatever you think you've gained?
Rachel:
ReplyDeleteI am going to give Michele permission to interact with you here in regard to your note above. I will send it to her via e-mail, and to her blog with a link back here so that she can discuss this with you.
Lou
PS: I am going to send to others in the discussion.
Please forward to the OPEN LETTER to ANTONIO da ROSA, aka, The (Mr.) Truth Detector
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of piracy, if you visit the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site and click on "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," you will discover something akin to the "Mother of All Plagiarism"!
ReplyDeleteIrv:
ReplyDeleteI took a quick scan. Not sure what to make of it. Would need case-by-case proof positive to substantiate that all of these men plagiarized other men.
Antonio da Rosa is a proven habitual plagiarist.
To date, I have never seen or heard the likes of Jim Johnson's (2008) massive plagiarism of various articles.
Lou
Some incredible side-by-side plagiarism can be found in one Googles "Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal" which is an appendix in Dave MacPherson's book "The Rapture Plot" which I obtained at Armageddon Books online.
ReplyDeleteIrv:
ReplyDeleteI'll take a look. Do you have a link?
If you want to see the most extreme example of plagairiam I have ever encountered in Christian circles it would be by Jim Johnson, who is another advocate of the GES Crossless gospel heresy.
To see the series on this shocking example of plagiarism go to-
Jim Johnson's Massive Plagiarism
BTW, Johnson has never admitted to or apologized for this gross breach of ethics. His friends in the GES camp like Rose of Rose's Reasonings ran cover for him as well.
Anyway, both Johnson and da Rosa have departed the blogging scene, just too many behavior issues with them, especially da Rosa.
Lou