Category Archives: Apologetics
Reasons Christians “Dislike” Atheists
I think it’s unfair to say that Christians dislike atheists, as Mark of Proud Atheists seems to think.
Rather, Christians are attempting to speak the truth in love to our atheist friends. We are trying to communicate to them that God is real, not an outmoded concept that science has killed. We are trying to communicate the message that humble repentance before God is the only action that can save your soul.
I don’t think that hell is the best way to evangelize. While the topic shouldn’t be avoided all together, neither should it be our first resort. Christians are accused of being judgmental, holier-than-thou, or just plain unloving to even think that someone will go to hell for living life without repenting before God.
The idea of hell should motivate us to evangelize more out of love. When George Carlin died, I read a memorial thread on TheologyOnline where the Christians were rejoicing that Carlin is now in hell. That is unloving. We should never rejoice over a soul in hell. We should mourn the lost opportunity.
“Threatening with hell” seems to be a common reason that atheists think Christians dislike atheists. But we really don’t. We care enough about someone’s eternal soul to speak the truth of hell in love, to try to give that person a chance to avoid the inevitable results of a rebellious lifestyle.
Mark, however, thinks that we Christians dislike atheists and offers the following suggestions as to why: Read the rest of this entry
Did John Piper Say that God was the Author of Sin?
I’m getting numerous hits from search engines that indicate people are looking to see if John Piper said that God is the author of sin. I can’t find the source of this controversy, or who made the charge, or why people seem to be looking for this topic right now. As near as I can figure, it comes from this article, dated January 1, 1993. Nothing like dealing with current events, right? Read the rest of this entry
Wow!
Steve Hays (I’ve disagreed with him in the past) of Triablogue has posted twice about this comment from Ben of Arminian Perspectives:
Wrong. J.C. has never said that God is dependent on our choices. What he has said is that God’s knowledge of our choices is dependent on those choices. How could it be otherwise? If God never created us, would he know anything about us? Of course not. So God’s knowledge of us is dependent on their being an “us” to know something about.
Fascinating. And dead wrong.
The key here is the sentence “If God never created us, would he know anything about us? Of course not.” As a Reformed thinker, I don’t agree with Molinism, but there is something to Molinism’s levels of knowledge that is important here.
The first level of knowledge is God’s natural knowledge. This includes all that ever could be created, without restrictions. Without this knowledge, God would simply not be God.
The second level of knowledge is middle knowledge, that which God knows will come to pass given the right circumstances. This represents how humans will exercise their free will, but middle knowledge is not dependent on God’s action or inaction. It grows out of the act of creation itself.
The third level of knowledge is God’s free knowledge, which is God’s ability to intimately know every aspect of the world that he created. And I should mention at this point that this description of Molinism is extremely simplified; and likely inaccurate on at least a few points.
Note that us Reformed philosophers grant God both natural and free knowledge, while denying that middle knowledge is even necessary to explain divine sovereignty versus man’s free will.
God’s divine foreknowledge, even in a system like Molinism that is needlessly complicated, doesn’t depend on human movements subsequent to the act of creation. God knows what is possible before a single act of creation is undertaken (natural knowledge), and he knows what will follow from any act of creation (free knowledge) given the circumstances that a creature finds him or herself in (middle knowledge).
No one denies this–not the Molinist, not the Calvinist, not the Arminian. Except for Ben. So maybe this wasn’t facetious after all?
Bruce Waltke’s Dismissal from RTS
Professor of Old Testament Studies Bruce Waltke’s dismissal from Reformed Theological Seminary is making its rounds on the Internet these days. For those that haven’t heard, Waltke posted a video on the BioLogos website where he argues that evolution is compatible with Christian orthodoxy. In part, USA Today reports that he said:
If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness. (source)
I want to seize on what I think is the key phrase in that, that not believing evolution “make[s] us a cult. . . some odd group that is not really interacting with the world.”
There is no doubt that we should interact with the world. However, there is a huge danger in adopting a worldly belief system, just so we don’t seem like a cult. The apostle Paul exhorts:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2)
James writes:
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (Jms 1:27)
And later states:
Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (Jms 4:4)
The apostle John weighs in as well:
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 Jn 2:15-17)
The conclusion is best stated by saying that we should be in the world, but not of the world. It seems as though Warnke is saying that we should accept the scientific conclusion that man evolved from other organisms, in a branching tree of life that eventually whittles down to a single common ancestor for every life form. And we should accept that scientific conclusion so that we don’t seem so different, so set apart from the rest of the world.
Well, the Bible states that we should be separate from the world. The apostle Peter says:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet 2:9)
If we become like the world, how then are we supposed to witness to it? We are supposed to live a holy life, dedicated to God. If there is no difference between us and the average pagan, how will anyone see a clear difference in being Christian?
I will close with one of my favorite quotes from St. Francis of Assisi: “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”
Eternal Security
Eternal security, also called “perseverence of the saints” and better known as “once saved, always saved (OSAS)” has drawn the attention of Ben, who goes by kangaroodort on the blog Arminian Perspectives. Ben has noted an item from Jeff Paton on the August of 2009 George Sodini debacle. Ben and Paton both believe that the Sodini is the textbook problem with eternal security.
Sodini, prior to his killing spree, wrote the following on his blog (December 31, 2008):
“Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!”, as pastor R— K—- [redacted by raincoaster] would proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him. Call him at [redacted by raincoaster]. If no answer there, he should still live at [redacted by raincoaster]. In any case, guilt and fear kept me there 13 long years until Nov 2006. I think his crap did the most damage. (cited here)
Note that Sodini states “you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven.” The pastor convinced him of this. A quick scan of his church’s website (the doctrinal statement wasn’t available when I went there, but they did have a table of contents) appears to confirm that it teaches OSAS. So, it is very possible that Sodini believes that his ticket is punched and he will go to heaven regardless of his beliefs and practices leading up to his death.
Paton appears to be blaming the mass murder itself on Sodini’s complete misunderstanding of the OSAS doctrine. Witness: Read the rest of this entry
Did I Just Agree With an Atheist?
Bruce Gerencser, who keeps the blog Restless Wanderings, had this to say about the recent article by Pastor Jim Elliff:
Doubt should not be discouraged. In fact, it should be encouraged. Questions should be heartily encouraged. A faith that withstands the onslaught of the modern/postmodern world must be able to answer the questions the modern/postmodern world presents. Perhaps, that is the real issue. The Christian faith has run out of answers. All that is left is warmed over dogma from years gone by, irrelevant and no longer satisfying for the needs of humanity. (source)
I agree with him, in principle. But I should qualify that. Doubt should be encouraged. Doubt should be faced squarely. I say this because I believe that the Bible, and with it Christianity, can withstand doubt.
More and more, seminary students aren’t being equipped with basic apologetics skills, nevermind the average pew sitter! If someone who was strong enough in their faith to enter seminary to study for the pastorate, they should (in theory) be able to withstand a critique of Christianity. Of course, Jim Elliff seems to think otherwise:
At last week’s debate, for instance, there were many people from the public who were not even believers. Some young people also attended, and some seminary students who are not yet prepared for the effects of doubt-producing verbiage.
We overestimate how well some seminary students can shield themselves. Some are new, having no real background in apologetics. They’ve read a couple of Chuck Swindoll books and His Utmost for His Highest, but really know precious little up to this point. I know that several students from a nearby secular college also attended, some of which were unconverted. The assumption was that they would see Ehrman lose the debate and the Christian view would triumph. It didn’t happen. Now the work in evangelism by the friends who naively brought them is that much harder. (source, emphasis added)
He might be right. But, I think that at that point in your education, you should have had some exposure to apologetics. Maybe we’re the ones that need to re-examine how our students in seminary are equipped to defend their faith. They should be able to rebut Bart Ehrman; I’ve never actually seen significant challenges to Christianity in his works. But, his works do produce doubt, and if people aren’t aware of apologetic answers to him, or unable to formulate any on their own, then you have a receipe for disaster.
YouTube Skeptics: 6 Questions for All Christians, part II
In my last post, I answered three of the six questions posed by Carlos, a YouTube skeptic who goes by the alias “otherwisesaid.” We saw that the questions were nothing but rhetoric, designed to throw Christians off their game. And, sadly, it probably has worked in the past.
Now, I will answer the remaining three questions.
Are you in sync with Mark 16: 17-18? I’m not. Mark 16:9-18 isn’t found in the earliest MSS, which means that these verses are not inerrant because they are not meant to be in the Bible in the first place. Therefore, if you handle a poisonous snake, you’ll get bit and die. No surprise there.
Why are you Christian, and not Muslim? Do you think you’d be a Muslim instead of a Christian if you were born in Pakistan? The Bible actually predicts this sort of thing. Proverbs 22:6 reads “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” The reason that few people “jump ship” into another religion or even atheism is because they have been taught to believe these things from a young age, and that means that they will not let it go easily.
Combine that with the fact that Islam is a theocracy that forbids evangelizing its adherents (and punishes infractions with death), and you have a near-impossible task in trying to convert the average Muslim to Christianity. The Great Commission commands us, however, to bring the gospel message to all nations, and the sad truth is we’re just not fulfilling Christ’s command very well in this case.
I am a Christian because I’ve studied the issues and have concluded that Christianity is truth. Objections to it melt when the Bible is properly understood. Most people are in the religion that they’re in because they’ve been taught not to look at it, to give it a pass on critical analysis (YES, I just agreed with the skeptics here). I believe if they critically analyzed their religion, comparing it to Christianity, there would be more Christians.
Can things be added or removed from the Bible? Considering how the Bible was compiled, Revelations 22:18 becomes irrelevant to this question. First off, dude, the book of the Bible is Revelation, not “Revelations.” That is one of my biggest pet peeves coming from critics of the Bible. Get the stinkin’ name of the book right, or you shoot your credibility with heavier firepower than favoriting the Mr. Deity videos!
Second, I agree with the interpretation that Revelation 22:18 is meant only to apply to the book of Revelation. Trying to apply it to the entire Bible is a real stretch.
That said, the canon of Scripture would be a fallible collection of infallible works. The canon was decided upon by the bishops of the universal church in council, and these men are fallible. I do believe that they have correctly recognized God speaking through the words of the New Testament writers. I don’t think there is reason to suppose that anything in the Bible is wrongly placed there. But, some of the other works not in the Bible, such as the Shepherd of Hermas or Paul’s letter to the Laodicians, may be inspired and should have been included.
I don’t see a reason why the church would need to add to Scripture. Scripture contains the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, the full and final revelation of God to mankind.
Rhetorical questions designed to challenge one’s faith. Typical skeptic. Surely he hasn’t sorted through the issues himself. He probably got inspired by Why Won’t God Heal Amputees and decided to make his own video. Nothing here is earth-shattering to a believer with a firm foundation of faith.
YouTube Skeptics: 6 Questions for All Christians
YouTube appears to be an untapped resource of materials that I can blog about. The whole site seems to be filled with critics of Christianity, and they aren’t shy about keeping vlogs about their doubts. I should have looked more seriously at YouTube months ago, when Caleb started deconverting due to materials that he saw via YouTube.
So I searched a bit and found some interesting materials. I thought that I’d answer a video every now and then. I’m going to try for ones that really make a person think, but I might take on a capitally stupid one just for amusement purposes every now and again.
This video caught my eye first, because I like to think deeply about my faith. Videos that ask questions, though usually rhetorical, make me think more deeply and I believe actually strengthen my faith in God, though they’re intended to do the opposite. Read the rest of this entry
Plain Stupid
Mark from Proud Atheists (who I’ve bashed in a few recent posts; boy, I need some new reading material!) has just made an argument against the use of billboards to advertise for Christianity. He posts this picture of an atheist billboard contrasted by this video highlighting the use of billboards for Christianity. Then, he asks two questions to close the post:
* We already know about Christianity. Will the Christian billboards prove the divinity of Jesus?
* Will a billboard depicting “The Flintstones” make the show any more valid or real? We know the Geico cavemen on billboards weren’t really cavemen.
My head is reeling from the stupidity. When you argue against something a certain way, you have to first make sure that your own position is immune from the same criticisms. Atheists in many countries have posted billboards. The purpose is to bring more atheists into the fold, to let the unbelieving community know that they are there, and to foster community among unbelievers. And, perhaps, to instill some doubt into the heads of the believers.
Pretty much the purpose of theistic billboards in reverse.
Therefore, the same questions apply in reverse:
- We already know about atheism. Will the atheist billboards prove there is no God?
- Will a billboard depicting atheistic arguments make atheism any more valid or real?
Of course, I’m the theist, I’m making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on me, yada, yada, yada. But I always point the atheist who says that to Romans 1, because it neatly predicts and answers this type of argument:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
In their sin and rebellion, atheists are effectively supressing the truth. God is plain in the things that are made, but atheists seem to want more than that. They want to see the hand of God in something. The problem is that they’re not looking for it precisely because of the rebellion against God in the first place! Paul drives that point home in the next part of the passage:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
As punishment for their rebellion, God has given them over to their lusts and allows them to continue suppressing the truth. The more times you sin, the easier it gets. The quieter your conscience becomes. Eventually, it seems that God hardens your heart and you become completely immune to further evangelism (2 The 2:11).
But, when someone dares to counter your claims about God with the truth that Jesus is risen, as these billboards are attempting to do, it becomes necessary to attack this campaign. When a Christian does something like this in faith, God will reach out to the hearers of the message and reveal himself. The pangs of conscience that result in unbelievers like Mark are necessary to quiet. Thus, the attack and belittlement of the effort.
Seems like it’s more effort than it’s worth to be an atheist. Let’s pray that they submit to the Lord before it’s too late.
Things God Can’t or Won’t Do?
The more I read Proud Atheists, the more I get the impression that its writer, Mark, is a spoiled child. Somewhere, in the all the confusion and doubt that often inspires people to walk away from their faith in Christianity, we get the idea that God owes us something. God owes us nothing.
Modern Christianity seems to give us the impression that God owes us something. Chris Rosebrough, who studies and critiques the purpose-driven church movement, thinks that a follower of modern Christianity is defined thusly:
Someone who has made the decision to be an emotionally well adjusted self-actualized risk taking leader who knows his purpose, lives a ‘no regrets’ life of significance, has overcome his fears, enjoys a healthy marriage with better than average sex, is an attentive parent, is celebrating recovery from all his hurts, habits and hang ups, practices Biblical stress relief techniques, is financially free from consumer debt, fosters emotionally healthy relationships with his peers, attends a weekly life group, volunteers regularly at church, tithes off the gross and has taken at least one humanitarian aid trip to a third world nation.
Notice that it is all about what God can do for us: giving us purpose, removing fears, granting a healthy marriage with a better sex life, recover from all hurts, habits, hang ups, relive stress, relieve debt, etc. Rosebrough laments this definition, because it applies to a broad category of people who are not necessarily Christians. He says:
Tradgically, the “Jesus” that is presented in the sermons that promote this definition of being a Christ Follower isn’t the savior of the world who died on the cross for the sins of the world and calls all nations to repentance of their sins and the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the Cross. Instead, the “Jesus” that is presented in these sermons is a “life coach”, a training buddy and the supreme example of an emotionally well adjusted risk taking leader who lived the ultimate life of significance and purpose. This purpose-driven “Jesus” is there to help you achieve what he achieved and invites you to follow his examples and methods so that you can be Christlike too.
Since modern Christianity has failed in teaching its adherents that humility, repentence, and submission to God are all necessary to live a life like Christ, it is no wonder that the critics of Christianity raise the objections that they do. These objections are based primarily on the assumption that God actually owes us something. If you start with the idea that God owes us nothing, then most of these objections disappear. Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 