Category Archives: God

What is True Christianity(tm)? (part 2)

I did part 1 of this a long, long, time ago but never quite got to part 2.

In the last post, I basically said that we should bow to the weaker brother and let him have his ritual.  If he thinks that we must be baptized by triune immersion in a lake, then let him get baptized that way.  If he thinks all Christians should abstain from alcohol, then don’t crack open an ice-cold Corona with a lime wedge in front of him.

In the non-essentials of faith, let the weaker brother abstain.  Don’t try to talk him out of it.  Don’t insist on giving him a glass of wine, stay clear of it in front of him as well.  Don’t force him to use a baptismal, offer to drive him to a lake yourself.

But, there are times when you have to come after fellow Christians and tell them they are wrong.

For example, in my extended review of John Shelby Spong’s Sins of Scripture (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7), I handed the good bishop his butt.  I fought for the traditional deposit of faith, above Spong’s redefinition of all the terms.  I did that because, as James White often says, the gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit.  Spong completely changes what it means to be a Christian, and how a Christian ought to approach the Scriptures.

Spong basically denies every fundamental of the faith that I listed in the previous post, to wit:

  • Existence of God as a Trinity
  • Preeminence of Christ over his creation
  • Mankind fell into sin, and is now utterly enslaved to it
  • Death of Jesus making atonement for the sins of mankind
  • Resurrection of Jesus on the third day
  • Future return of Christ to judge the living and the dead

Currently, a Christian is doing this same thing to me, here.  I might be wrong, because I’m not infallible.  I believe that faith is more than belief, that it is also good works.  In other words, faith is loyalty to God manifested by both belief and good works.  Mike, however, doesn’t think so.  We are both trying to come to some sort of common ground with each other.

Which raises the question: When do I get to call an error “error?”

I think there are three categories of theological error.  Let’s discuss them. Read the rest of this entry

Lack of Posting

It’s been a while since I’ve last posted, but I’ve still been hard at work.

Back in May of 2010, John W. Loftus began what he called a “reality check” series:

I’m going to start a series of posts describing what must be the case if Christianity is true. When done I’ll put them all together so Christians can see the formidable obstacles there are to their faith at a glance. (source)

In other words, assume:

  • Christianity is false
  • Naturalism is true
  • Liberal interpretations of archeology are accurate and they prove the Bible 100% false

Those, of course, are all prospects that must be argued rather than assumed, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.  Loftus ended up with 30 propositions in that series and promised more as of 7/2010, but none materialized.

I had planned on answering all 30, even though I have noted several are not arguments and have no bearing on the truth of Christianity, nor on anyone’s interpretation of reality.  I think Loftus believes all are self-evidently nonsense, and once stated immediately show how false they are.  Which leads to a few questionable items, such as #2 — which is neither an argument nor a physical impossibility.  Rather, it is one possible interpretation of God, most often associated with open theism.

I had copied all 30 into an open document text file, did some fancy bells and whistles with formatting (I’m particularly proud of the cowboy hat graphic that accompanies each of the top-level headings, since Loftus’s trademark is the cowboy hat), and prepared to answer them.

Then did absolutely nothing.

Now, over a year later, I decided to dust off the e-book file and actually complete it.  I’ve been answering one or two at a time, and posting them on the e-book sharing site Scribd, under my account.  A link now appears under promotional links on the right, but here are the documents so far:

  1. Nature of God
  2. God’s Eternal Decree
  3. Nature of Satan
  4. The Fall
  5. Existence of Similar ANE Mythology Disproves the Bible

That’s what I have so far.  I may not have been active here, but I’m always writing.  Check those out and give me some feedback, as when I complete all 30 I’m planning on releasing a final e-book copy, collating the full collection.  Updated, of course, to reflect criticisms of my replies.

On the Desire to Erase Hell from Christian Doctrine

God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases.

If I’ve learned one thing from studying hell, it’s that last line.  And whether or not you end up agreeing with everything I say about hell, you must agree with Psalm 115:3.  Because at the end of the day, our feelings and wants and heartaches and desires are not ultimate — only God is ultimate.  God tells us plainly that His ways and thoughts are infinitely higher than ours (Isa. 55:9).  Expect then, that Scripture will say things that don’t agree with your natural way of thinking.

— Francis Chan, Erasing Hell, p. 17

Clearest Example of the Unforgivable Sin

On this very blog, we have a clear example of the Unforgivable Sin.  In fact, the clearest ever offered here.  Alex said this:

It needs to be mentioned that the definition of nature is what science can measure and the reason we call your god’s being and doings supernatural is that when we measure, there is no god there, only natural explanations such as physics and chemistry. (source)

The Unforgivable Sin, from Mark 3:22-30 or Matthew 12:22-32, is the denial of the Spirit moving in our world.  It is through the movement of the Spirit that we can see evidence of God acting in our world.

So, a little context.  I deny the categories of natural and supernatural.  Alex is saying that when we measure the doings of God, we find no God, just natural movements.

The first problem is that our instruments aren’t going to measure or detect God, who exists outside of the time and space we know how to measure.  Instead, what we’re going to see are the effects that God creates, which are accomplished by the Holy Spirit.  This is the evidence of God.

Denying that what we have seen is the movement of the Spirit is the Unforgivable Sin.

For example, Alex looks at biochemistry.  The amazing complexity and well-oiled interactions of the various systems of our bodies, the ability of our bodies to obtain the raw ingredients our cells need to produce energy in the foods we eat and the drinks we consume all bear evident marks of design.  The well-defined stages of growth humans go through, the inherent curiosity to learn and flourish, shared ability to define morality, to know what is is not what ought to be; these are the hallmarks of a being who can impart these things to us.

Alex, however, looks a this design and says, “Nah, random mutation acted on by natural selection — not a personal, intelligent force — created this.”

And that, my friends, is the Unforgivable Sin in a nutshell.  The Pharisees saw the work of the Spirit in Christ as he drove out demons and cured disease, and they attributed it to Satan.  Alex sees the work of God in chemistry and biology and attributes it to chance and natural laws.  Both deny the Spirit’s efficacy, and both have severe eternal consequences.

Natural vs. Supernatural

I don’t believe in distinguishing “natural” and “supernatural.”  Sounds weird, I know.  But just think about it for a moment.

A “supernatural” explanation is a suspension of natural law and explanation.  For an explanation to be truly “supernatural,” it must defy all attempts to explain it inside the natural system, and must come from totally outside the natural system.  It must create a pure miracle, a suspension or violation of the natural order.

Here is why nothing is ever “supernatural:”

If I pick up a box and hold it over a table, that doesn’t violate the law of gravity by supernatural intervention.  By the same token, if God suspends that box, that doesn’t violate the law of gravity, but people have the need to label that “supernatural.” A box floating in midair seems to be a violation of the law of gravity, right?

But is it any different than the human holding the box?  The human creates a situation contrary to what we expect (the box falling to the ground) by normal and natural interactions of agents.

So I believe the same is the case for God holding the box.

Therefore, when God monkeys with nature, he isn’t “supernaturally intervening.”  He is making a change or interrupting the natural flow, but he isn’t rewriting the laws of physics when he does it.  It’s as natural as the human holding the box up in the air.

Natural and supernatural are actually points of view, simple as pie.  What exists in the encapsulated system of space and time that we occupy is “natural” to us, what exists outside of that is “supernatural” to us.  That makes us “supernatural” from God’s point of view.

Did God Cause 9/11?

In honor of the victims who lost their lives on September 11, 2001 and the brave heroes who rescued many survivors, I wanted to take on a common objection to the Christian model of God.

Objectors typically point out that God is omnipotent and omniscient according to the Bible, and either of these is grounds to believe that God is behind every evil action, either directly (by omnipotence) or indirectly (by inaction despite knowing the event in advance through omniscience).

Which leads to two questions:

  1. By virtue of his omnipotence, did God cause the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
  2. By virtue of his omniscience, does not halting the attacks make God as guilty as the planners?

No and no.  Let’s find out why.

The first is fairly easy to dispense with.  The capacity to do something isn’t the same as actually doing it.  I can throw in a load of laundry and do the dishes, but I don’t do either very often.  If the dishes or the laundry are done at my house, I’m not necessarily the cause (even though I’m more than capable of doing a load of laundry).  Odds are, if either of those tasks are done, it was my wife who accomplished both.

So it is with God.  Though God is capable of bringing about terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11, that doesn’t mean he did.  In fact, as we’re about to discover, it is quite doubtful that he had anything to do with them.

From a Reformed perspective, isn’t God is the ultimate cause of everything?  Not exactly — that’s actually a strawman that Arminans throw at Calvinists.  Properly, God has foreordained that which will come to pass, and most think that Calvinists teach that God’s decree is one dimensional.

In the model that most non-Reformed folks attack, if life were Red Riding Hood, God is David Leslie Johnson.  If life were Spider Man or Mission: Impossible (how cool would that be?), then God is David Koepp.  If life were a 007 movie (best scenario yet!), then God is Neal Purvis.  If life were Inception or Memento, then God is Christopher Nolan.

Get it?  Those guys are screenwriters.  Life, however, is most certainly not a screenplay, and God is not a screenwriter.  The decree of God for this earth is not so one-dimensional that it can be reduced to a pile of 112 white, 8.5 x 11″,  typed in Courier New, 1″-margin pieces of paper.

God’s decree has more flexibility than a shot list and George Lucas-style unrealistic dialogue.

Part of God’s eternal decree is the free will to choose our paths apart from him.  Our liberty is not forfeit, neither is the responsibility we bear for our choices (despite their contingency).  And,  moreover, God is not the author of sin.  Mankind is wicked enough — we don’t need help creating sin!

The Calvinist affirmation: God is sovereign, yet we are responsible.

Which means that the 9/11 terrorists chose, apart from God, their paths.  And those paths are to destruction, as are all paths chosen apart from God.  Unfortunately, their destruction led to the forfeiture of many more lives than just their own.

Freedom to do horrendous evil sometimes, unfortunately, means that we do horrendous evil.

Is God, then, responsible because — knowing 9/11 would happen — he did nothing to halt it?

Nope.  As I’ve argued above, God’s gift of free will means that curse of moral responsibility.  God is not obligated to clean up our messes.

Which actually raises another interesting question.  If God did stop sin, how would we ever know?  We wouldn’t.  So, then, is God the restraint on sin that Paul speaks of in these verses?

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessnessis revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (2 The 2:3-8)

And there is at least one biblical example of God staying someone from sinning, despite that person having a prime opportunity.  In Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham lied to Abimelech and told him that Sarah was his sister rather than his wife.  So Abimelech, smitten with Sarah, tries to take her as a wife.  I think we all know what that means (wink wink, nudge nudge!).

Yet, Abimelech never had the ceremony, nor consummated the relationship.

When the truth came out, and Abimelech pointed out that he was innocent, duped, and didn’t do Sarah, did God congratulate him for keeping it in his pants?  Uh, nope.  God said, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her” (20:6, emphasis added).

Interesting.  God stopped Abimelech.  There is precedent, both in the apostle Paul’s passage and in this earlier example, of God restraining mankind’s sin so that it isn’t as bad as it could be.

The bottom line is that we notice the ones that God lets by, like 9/11.  But we can’t fathom how many he might hold back, essentially saving us from ourselves.  The ones he stops might be worse than 9/11.

But why let any through?  Two main reasons, I think.

First, perfection of the saints’ faith:

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (Jms 1:2-4)

Second, revealing pretenders:

A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.  He who has ears, let him hear. (Mt 13:3-9, explanation at 13:18-23)

A third reason, not in the Bible, is the display of compassion.  Look at what happened post-9/11.  Every country rallied to the U.S.  Everyone sent relief to the victims.  Volunteers to clean the rubble weren’t in short supply.  Blood donations soared.  When President Bush announced the War on Terror, the armed forces suddenly had more recruits than they knew what to do with.  Chain stores were out of American flags.

Patriotism was no longer out of style.

Truly, a person is refined in fire and tribulation.  If you have it too comfortable, then you will never know what you’re truly made of.

So, Augustine summed it up the best when he wrote, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.”  If God has a great reason to let the evil through, then we can hardly hold him responsible for the results since the results are the good things intended for us, and the suffering perfects our faith and our humanity.

Other Posts in the Coordinated Blogging Event:

Case Against the Case for Gay Marriage, part 4

David, an atheist who is dedicated to exposing Christianity for what it is, has begun a new blog that I discovered quite by accident.

Though he deleted the post that this series is replying to, I am still running my series.

David lays out the following argument in favor of gay marriage:

  1. Homosexuality is not unnatural. (answered)
  2. Neither homosexuality nor its acts have been proven inferior to heterosexuality or its acts. (answered)
  3. Marriage is a basic human right. (answered)
  4. Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.
  5. Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.

These get easier and easier to answer.

Premise (4) is a nominal attempt to say that homosexual unions aren’t given full rights through a fallacy of special pleading.

However, that’s not the case for three reasons.  First, we have shown that homosexuality isn’t the typical order of things.

Second, we have demonstrated that heterosexual unions are superior by simple utilitarianism — which is the typical philosophy of right and wrong espoused by supporters of gay marriage (see NotAScientist’s comment for a great example of utilitarianism in action).

Third, marriage rights are regulated for perfectly valid reasons.

Therefore, it is easy to conclude that there is no special pleading going on.  Recall for something to be special pleading, there can be no valid reason for differentiating it from other cases.  In the case of gay marriage, there are big differences between it and heterosexual marriage, which is exactly the reason its forbidden in the first place.

This means (4) is out of gas.  And, it means I’m done without having to address (5) as a conclusion.  David has uber-failed to establish any of his premises as true.  In fact, they are all false.  Therefore, the conclusion is faulty and I will let this series stand, unless David cares to defend himself.

Case Against the Case for Gay Marriage, part 3

David, an atheist who is dedicated to exposing Christianity for what it is, has begun a new blog that I discovered quite by accident.

Though he deleted the post that this series is replying to, I am still running my series.

David lays out the following argument in favor of gay marriage:

  1. Homosexuality is not unnatural. (answered)
  2. Neither homosexuality nor its acts have been proven inferior to heterosexuality or its acts. (answered)
  3. Marriage is a basic human right.
  4. Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.
  5. Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.

Now we tackle premise (3), which is (like its predecessors) demonstrably false. Read the rest of this entry

Case Against the Case for Gay Marriage, part 2

David, an atheist who is dedicated to exposing Christianity for what it is, has begun a new blog that I discovered quite by accident.

Though he deleted the post that this series is replying to, I am still running my series.

David lays out the following argument in favor of gay marriage:

  1. Homosexuality is not unnatural. (answered)
  2. Neither homosexuality nor its acts have been proven inferior to heterosexuality or its acts.
  3. Marriage is a basic human right.
  4. Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.
  5. Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.

Premise (2) pretty much deserves a rhetorical “Are you kidding me?” in reply and nothing more.

David’s incoherent explanation:

According to the American Psychological Association, it has officially been declared that homosexuality is not a choice or a decision. (source)

Which we already acknowledged in the refutation of premise (1).  The issue with premise (1) is that homosexuality was immoral, not that it is “unnatural;” it is certainly found within nature and is likely a part of our human nature.

But that doesn’t make it “good.”

Now, this premise takes it that we haven’t proven it “inferior,” but it never takes the time to define what would constitute the act being inferior. Read the rest of this entry

Case Against the Case for Gay Marriage, part 1

David, an atheist who is dedicated to exposing Christianity for what it is, has begun a new blog that I discovered quite by accident.

It’s actually a funny story, which I’ll tell even though it has nothing to do with the actual argument that I’ll be critiquing from the site.  I was trimming my RSS feed and noticed that, very long ago, John W. Loftus had started a blog called Counter-Apologetics Master Program.  He intended to create a degree program to combat Christian apologetics.  I noticed that it hadn’t been updated in a long time, so I visited the site to see if it was even still active.

Turns out, the blog address had been abandoned by Loftus, but claimed by David.  David started his blog as a counterpoint to Matt Slick’s ministry CARM, even calling his blog by the same acronym.  Probably to get accidental traffic.

So, anyway, I literally wandered into this by total accident.

In a deleted post, David challenges CARM to reply to his argument in favor of gay marriage.  I don’t know if David deleted the post because it’s a terrible argument, or because he’s attempting to refine it.  However, I’m still going to answer it, a piece at a time, in this series.

Even though I’m not affiliated with CARM.

Read the rest of this entry

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started