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
Why They Left the Faith, part II
John W. Loftus recently made a post detailing why he and the Debunking Christianity staff left the Christian faith. I posted brief answers to the dilemmas that Loftus touched on here. At the end of the post, Loftus invites more deconversion stories in the comments. I thought I’d look at some selected deconversion stories. Starting with Lee, who said:
I left because I could no longer believe the old testament “laws” actually came from God . . . they’re too primitive, too unjust, too much like witch-doctoring. And my realization came when I was doing my regular “read through the Bible” routine. “Wait a minute–I don’t believe this–this can’t be true . . .” and then the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Starting off with argument from outrage. By what standard are OT laws “too primitive, too unjust, too much like witch-doctoring”? By modern standards. That means the underlying assumption here is that our society is right, and their society is wrong. Reading between the lines, Lee seems to be saying that they would have been better off if they were more modern–like us. This is known as cultural imperialism.
To understand the OT laws fully, we need to understand the context of the society in which they were written. Compared to other ANE cultures, the OT laws were head-and-shoulders above what the rest of Canaan was practicing. If you were a citizen of the Palestinian region in the time of Mosaic law, you wanted to be an Israelite.
Paul Copan has a great article answering this objection here. Read the rest of this entry
Media Sensationalism and the New Pedophile Priest Scandals
Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times about the Catholic pedophile priest scandals that seem to be a dime a dozen now. This piece first came to my attention via Atheist Revolution, writing:
A priest molested 200 deaf boys and was ignored by Ratzinger. 200 deaf boys. Just when I think this sick enterprise cannot possibly get any worse, we learn not only that this happened but that the victims have spent 30 years of their lives trying to get the church to pay attention to them!
Then Cardinal Ratzinger was informed about this abuse and chose to look the other way. How can anyone reconcile this with the whole infallibility thing?
Regular readers know that I’m not apt to defend the Catholic Church. I am deeply sickened by moving priests who molest little boys from diocese to diocese, hoping no one will actually catch on. I’m sympathetic to the missions of SNAP and BishopAccountability.org. I think that something needs to change.
That said, I also believe in correctly representing those that you criticize. Dowd isn’t doing that at all. Neither is Vjack.
But should it surprise me? Nope. I’ve proven Vjack wrong before, and he keeps repeating the same mistakes. I’m thinking that he’s not going to take the correction here, either.
With regards to “the whole infallibility thing,” papal infallibility should be properly defined.
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
And it goes on:
This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.
Not to mention that the actions which Vjack wishes to contrast with papal infallibility occured when Benedict was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, before he was Pope. This is not a valid comparison. Even so, no one has ever claimed that the Pope is free of sin, only that he cannot teach error (though I should remind everyone that I disagree with that position vehemently).
But, Catholic theology aside, what about the fact that the future Pope looked the other way when faced with this case? Thing is, he probably didn’t. This is being misrepresented by the media. Grossly. Jimmy Akin has analyzed the available documents and presents a more accurate version of events here.
Again, I’m no fan of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that some of the criticisms in the Father Murphy case are unwarranted. But, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this man did molest boys by his own admission. He still deserved more punishment than just being moved to another diocese, though since he had to live with his mother some may argue that may have been punishment enough.
Both the civil authorities and the Catholic Church are to blame here. The police knew about the case and had investigated, but nothing ever came of it. And the Church should have done much more than just move Murphy to another diocese and call it a day.
Was it really necessary to open a trial with the purpose of defrocking an ill and frail old man who is a threat to no one some 30 years after the offenses took place? If civil authorites built a case against a murderer who had killed someone 30 years ago and recently suffered a second stroke leaving him in poor health, no one would bat an eyelash if the authorities elected to not prosecute the offender. Why is this different? (I’m really looking forward to your answers.)
Summary View of Why They Left the Faith
John W. Loftus from Debunking Christianity made a post summarizing why he and other members of the DC team left the flock. Most of these are fairly typical objections to Christianity.
- Loftus left because he couldn’t reconcile the Genesis creation account with the scientific knowledge.
- Robert Price left because of New Testament textual criticism.
- Exapologist left because of the failed prediction that Jesus would return to the generation to which he spoke.
- Ken Pulliam left because there is no cogent explanation for the Atonement.
- William Dever left because of biblical archeology.
- Bart Ehrman left because of the problem of evil.
The trick is that none of these alleged problems are irreconcilable. Read the rest of this entry
James Hartline Nails It!
I follow James Hartline on Facebook. I’m not necessarily proud of that fact. I could cite numerous problems that I have with the man just from his status updates. But, every once in a while, he posts something that is dead-on. Here is his most recent status update (posted 3/24/10 at approximately 9:30pm EDT):
Jesus already built the kingdom. What He now requires is obedient servants to live in it. The Father in Heaven did not send His only son to become a bloody offering upon the cross so that human beings could claim heavenly benefits while wallowing in demonic rebellion.
Unfortunately, it is often the practice of the so-called “popular” preachers to claim that God wants to help us live better lives (yes, this is a direct reference to Joel Osteen), or that God wants to make known our purpose within the framework of his plan (yes, that’s a direct reference to Rick Warren). But that isn’t necessarily the case. Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 
