Atheist Renounces Atheism
British writer and avowed atheist A.N. Wilson, author of Jesus: A Life, has recently annouced that he is returning to his Christian faith.
This is exciting news, and what I hope is the herald of other similar conversions. I think that it would be very glorifying to God if he drew several avowed atheists to himself, especially public figures like Wilson.
Welcome back to the family of God, Mr. Wilson!
Am I Still a Calvinist?
James White had a thoughtful post on the 12th about the theological issues faced in deciding whether or not one is Roman Catholic. Reading that post, and listening to his extended edition of the Dividing Line here has made me re-re-evalutate my stance on the Reformed position.
Although I’ve been coming away from the Reformed position, it has been nagging at me somewhat. What about the problem of evil? How is it to be answered in light of Arminianism? The only answer that Arminians have is that evil exists becauase of free will. That means three things.
First, evil is senseless. If evil exists because we define it and carry it out, then this is simply senseless.
Second, evil is out of God’s hands. Because evil is there due to the free will of man, and God either can’t or won’t stop it, it means that God has, in some sense or another, washed his hands of evil completely.
Third, evil is pointless. As the happenstance of existentialism, if we are caught in something evil it is because of that reason and not for any other.
Now consider Chapter 3, paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
From this, evil is not senseless or pointless, and it is not out of God’s hands. It exists alongside good for the purpose of glorifying God by God’s eternal decree. But notice the final thoughts of this paragraph: “neiter is God the author of sin . . . nor is the liberty or contigency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” Evil still exists by our free will, but our free will is subject to God and therefore he is still in control without being the author of sin. But sin is still included in his plan. And, guess what? We are still responsible for choosing that evil over good.
By Arminianism, sin cannot be included in God’s plan and is therefore out of God’s control. Well, not the God that I worship. Like the shirt says: CALVINISM: When a finite God won’t do.
I’m convinced that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in-between Calvinism and Arminianism. But for now, I’m afraid that I must remain on the side where God is in control of what happens on earth. I choose Calvinism.
This is likely to disappoint a great number of people who frequent this blog, like the commenter who goes by “rey” but is in reality “Beowulf2k8” from other Calvinist blogs and has his own rarely updated blog. My friend Caleb, who thought that I put the Westminster Confession above Scripture (and who might be mad at me for linking to him). I know this will disappoint the pastor of my church, since he, too, has a certain distaste for Calvinism (he spent an entire series in Sunday school–three weeks–preaching against predestination).
On the other hand, this will probably make other readers happy. Craig French, TurretinFan, and James White (if he reads this blog). Most readers probably won’t care too much. Hopefully this will solidify my apologetics, which have been faltering as of recently. Owing in no small part to my brief departure from sound theology, most likely.
To those I disappoint, sorry, but I’ve made up my mind. James White is right: Theology Matters. So, in answer to the question posed by the title, YES, I am still a Calvinist.
Where are You on this Handy Scale?
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins promotes the idea that beliefs are predicated on a continuum, with seven checkpoints along the way. For convenience, I condensed them into five:
- I know there is a God with absolute certainty.
- I think there is a God. I believe that the evidence points to a God, and I live my life as if there is one.
- I don’t know if there is a God.
- I don’t think that there is a god. I believe that the evidence for one is lacking, and I live my life accordingly.
- I know that there is no god with absolute certainty.
Dawkins would be at #4, heading into #5. My wife, my grandpa, and several others I know would proudly count themselves into category #1. Dawkins and I agree that category #5 would be almost empty, while category #1 is very full.
Most people who call themselves theists believe without the benefit of philosophical or natural evidence. Most people who call themselves atheists leave the possibility of God open until they see more evidence.
Believe it or not, I fall into category #2. I believe that the intricacies of creation require a creator. I believe the philosophical arguments offer an excellent cumulative case for God. I believe the historicity of the New Testament, which means that the fantastic claims of Jesus must be dealt with. I believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb–which means that Jesus died and rose again. All of this, to me, makes a great case for God, and an even better case for the God of the Bible.
Where are you, readers?
Inanna: Prototype of Easter?
Several atheist websites carried the story today: an interview with Dr. Tony Nugent of Seattle University conducted by Valerie Tarico of Huffington Post reveals that Easter has its origins in ancient Sumeria. In a myth constructed circa 2100 b.c., the goddess Inanna dies and rises after three days. Although on the surface, the myth sounds similar to the story of Christ, there are a number of significant differences that you will fail to hear about if you just take the word of Ms. Tarico.
First, this epic takes place thousands of years before human beings, and has nothing to do with human beings. The myth is to explain the cyclical seasons, and as is common in many myths of this type, the goddess dies and rises in a cyclical fashion. The myth takes place wholly in the realm of the gods, and has no proof of its historicity as such.
The story of Jesus, on the other hand, takes place within human history and is verifiable historically.
Second, Inanna is raised if she can find someone to take her place. In this case, she chose her husband who failed to moun her. Her sister-in-law pleaded to take his place, and so it was settled that Inanna’s husband would take half the year in the underworld and his sister the other half. This myth explains not a victory over death, as Jesus’ story does, instead it depicts the cyclical seasons.
In Jesus’ case, he rose only once (not cyclically) and no one had to take his place. In fact, no one could take his place, for Jesus lived a sinless life. It is well-established by a look at the Bible and human history that no one else has lived a sinless life. The fact of the empty tomb is also verifiable historically. Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig all have articles and books on that subject.
Third, Inanna is killed attempting to conquer the underworld. This is a significant departure from the Jesus story. This is goddess turf war, and has nothing to do with salvation.
Jesus, on the other hand, died on the cross to save mankind from his sins. This story has everything to do with salvation and nothing to do with the cyclical nature of seasons.
Fourth, there is no betrayal by someone close to the goddess in the Inanna myth as Dr. Nugent claims. He is simply wrong about that detail. Inanna was betrayed by her sister, the ruler of the underworld, but the two were not close. Their enmity is well-documented by other Sumerian myths.
Dying and rising gods usually signify something about the seasons, not anything to do with salvation and victory over death. Jesus died to secure salvation for the elect, to end the reign of death. He doesn’t continually rise again and again so that the seasons work in a cycle. Sorry, guys, but there are far more differences than similarities in the story.
Read the Wikipedia entry for Inanna; as of April 12, 2009 the details of the details of the story line up with my presentation above and not Dr. Nugent’s presentation.
Also read the brief entry at pantheon.org; it confirms some of the details above.
Moral Landscape
It seems to me that evangelical Christians are afraid of offending people. Look at the recent fiasco with Rick Warren on Larry King Live. Warren is thinking about the numbers in his church, and not the Law of God. We shepherds are not tending our flocks the way that we should, and we are doing everyone a disservice.
This is the point of a very excellent post from James White. Wake up, pastors! It is time to start preaching the gospel, and not the watered-down pop culture crap that passes for Christianity these days!
Statement of Faith II: The One True God
In The Jewish Approach to God, Rabbi Neil Gillman cited that Jews believe that God is echad, which means “one.” He spent an entire chapter discussing that concept at great length, and I will touch on a few brief points in this post.
First, there is the shema. Jewish men recite the shema daily. It is Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The word for “one” in that passage is the Hebrew word echad, which implies more than just a number. It means more than, “God is a single unit,” although it means that, too. Echad means that God is uniquely God. God is unique because he is God.
So, now my atheist readers are raising an eyebrow and saying, “Ha! You worship three Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! How does that jive with ‘God is one.’ Christianity loses, atheism wins!” Well, dear atheist reader, I’m going to try to explain it to you. Wipe the drool from your lower lip and continue reading.
I have outlined in this post that there is a fundamental difference between the polytheism of Indian religions like Hinduism and the monotheism of Christianity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each echad–uniquely God–while retaining their individual identities. Some atheists assert that we are worshiping three Gods in One. We are not: we are worshiping three Persons in one God.
Nothing about “personhood” suggests that it must be unique to an individual essence or soul. One could easily make the argument that an essence or soul could have multiple persons attached to it. That is not the case with humans, God’s image-bearers. Our essence contains only one person attached to it. Not the case with God; his essence carries three Persons attached to it: Father, Son, and Spirit.
Why, if we are God’s image-bearers, then do we only have one person attached to our souls while God has three? Would it not make sense that we should have three persons attached to our soul? Well, that is actually a very good question, and tough to answer. Scripture is silent in this regard, so we must be careful when attempting to draw inferences from it. The best, and most reasonable, explanation is that God chose to attach only one person to a human soul instead of three. That is our ontology, the way that God made us, and why he didn’t make us another way is simply a mystery.
One last point bears touching on before I close the discussion of the Trinity. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion, rivers of ink (and blood) have been wasted trying to explain the Trinity and Dawkins complains that much of it remains a mystery. So I ask, “Why the double standard?” Science accepts abiogenesis as a potential theory about the origins of life, despite failing in every way to substantiate it. The origin of life remains a mystery. Yet many hold out that one day, we will substantiate abiogenesis and solve the mystery of life. Why, I ask again, are you allowed to have mysteries of science, but I am not allowed to have mysteries of faith? I am doing the same thing as you are doing with abiogenesis, but for that you label me a “fundie” or “deluded.”
In The God Delusion, Dawkins explains that a certain agnosticism is warranted when the evidence is scant. Just like atheists can remain agnostic about the origin of life and still be called reasonable, we can call the Trinity a mystery and still be reasonable.
God, though three, is really one (echad). This is one of the great mysteries of faith, and instead of filling us with skepticism it should fill us with wonder. The wonder of echad is that God is the only God (see Is 44:6).
Harris & Russell Make a big Mistake
Atheism is Dead has an excellent post about a mistake being passed around by Sam Harris. In The End of Faith, Harris writes that Bertrand Russell:
had it right when he made the following observation: ‘The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.
‘No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals….’
I find it amazing that “No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action.” I would like to know, first, what Harris’s definition of “orthodox” is, then I would like to know what definition of “logical” that he is working from.
Without that knowledge, Mariano provides the answer in Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” Now, this is kind of dangerous. First, he doesn’t know what definitions of the terms “orthodox” and “logical” that Harris was working from. Second, he leaves himself open to the usual suspect charges of genocide in the Bible. Now don’t worry, Mariano, I’ve provided commentary on God-ordered genocide in the Bible right here.
Mariano then has a lengthy commentary on the Great Commision, which I agree with wholeheartedly. The purpose of the Christian is to baptize and then teach, not to baptize and then kill. That just doesn’t make any sense at all.
Great post, as usual, from the good folks over at Atheism is Dead. I highly reccomend reading it, as my summary doesn’t do it any justice. The post touches on themes that I’ve been blogging about over here for the last couple of weeks–that atheism has no grounds for morals. That’s not to say that atheists themselves are immoral, but that atheism itself provides no grounds for an absolute or universal moral law. We all know that one exists, there’s no point in denying it. The existence of such a law points to the existence of a Lawgiver: God.
Which makes me wonder: why are atheists always complaining that there is no evidence for God? If they mean empirical, scientific evidence, then I would say that there is plenty. Namely, the universe itself. Atheism has no answer for the ultimate philosophical dilemma: Why is there something rather than nothing? The apostle Paul said that men are without excuse for not knowing about God, because nature provides all the evidence that you need.
On the other hand, there is also much philosophical evidence for God. The moral argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological argument (which, contrary to popular opinion, has not been refuted completely).
Yet, point any of this out, and the atheist rationalizes it all away, still complaining that there is no evidence for God.
Atheism Strengthens Faith
Here is an interesting article from my own hometown Toledo Blade on how atheism strengthens the believers’ faith.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 Illustrated
Atheist Revolution’s VJack has a very interesting post about whether or not atheism is voluntary. Atheism, it seems to VJack, is “less voluntary than many other beliefs.” It seems that atheism is something that someone is left with after exploring all other beliefs.
VJack says:
Sitting here today, knowing what I know, experiencing what I have experienced, living the life I have led, I am not sure that I could now convince myself to believe in the Christian god or associated dogma even if I desperately wanted to do so. It is as if I have passed a point of no return. (source, emphasis added)
I think that it is interesting that he chose that particular phrasing. Because the Bible teaches that there is, indeed, a “point of no return” for the faithless. Consider this:
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)
This means that, eventually, God will allow you to believe what you choose to believe about him. And moreover, he will send you a powerful delusion so that you will always believe that, no matter what happens. This is God’s judgment on the sinner.
It seems that VJack has crossed a line, and now can no longer believe in God. This is very sad news. VJack has, through his life, brought a strong judgment from God upon himself.
It doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love VJack. Quite the opposite–God loves everyone, including VJack. It means that VJack can still repent of this and turn his faith to God, and God will welcome him with open arms. Unfortunately, VJack’s own words seem to preclude this possibility, and God has judged accordingly.
The line has been drawn. I hope VJack knows what he’s doing.
Handling Marcion
Marcion appears to be going off the handle in the comment section of this post with regard to homosexuality. I’ve written on this topic before, and I want to make it very clear that my view of homosexuality isn’t the same as Marcion’s.
Marcion takes his name from one of the first Christian heretics. Marcion set his own canon of Scripture and believed in a form of dualism; saying that the God of the Old Testament was evil and that the God of the New Testament is good. As far as I can tell, this appears to be what our anonymous commenter also believes.
My question to my readers is this: should I ban this character, restrict him, or take no action?
Comments are welcome, either below or via e-mail.
Back Rome Again 