And They say Christianity has no Respect for Women
I’ve written and podcasted on the fact that the Bible uplifts women. Now it looks like the Pope has joined me.
In an address yesterday, the Pope expressed a commitment to respect the dignity and vocation of women everywhere. He recalled the past teachings of the Catholic Church that call for the respect of women’s dignity.
Now, who says that the Christian church disrespects women?
Statement of Faith I: The Bible
Despite all of the liberal theologians that I’ve been reading as of late (John Shelby Spong and Oliver “Buzz” Thomas), I still hold to the premise that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I believe that it is fully authoritative in all matters of faith and morals, however I do not believe that it is the only source of faith and morals. I believe that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and morals–there’s a difference.
Inspired
Inspiration is such a tricky subject. I don’t believe that God dictated the Bible to its human authors. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write as they did, and what they did. But some things may have just gotten lost in translation or modified because of the understanding of the writer.
That isn’t to say that our copy of the Bible is untrustworthy. Far from. I believe that the Bible is fully trustworthy. What it does mean is that the Bible was written at a specific time for a specific people, and you have to take that into account when reading it. It was not written yesterday for you.
Inerrant
The Bible, in its original autographs, contained no error or contradictions. But we’re not dealing with the original autographs, we are dealing with copies of copies of copies. It appears that God, for his glory, has chosen not to superintend the process of copying the book. Preserving the Bible appears to be solely a human responsibility, and we haven’t always gotten it right.
Again, this doesn’t mean that we can’t trust the Bible that we have in front of us. There is a mountain of manuscript (MS) evidence that the Bible has been preserved as accurately as mistake-making humans can preserve a text. In fact, the New Testament alone has almost 6,000 MSS from different years and geographic locations that attest to the overall accuracy of the text.
But mistakes can and do happen, and are almost certainly present. However, none of the mistakes affect doctrine or practice of faith.
Authoritative
God has chosen to reveal himself in two ways: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is nature itself–we can learn a lot about our Creator by studying his creation. Special revelation is the inspired, inerrant Bible that we hold in our hands.
I have established that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. That means that it is authoritatively binding on all Christians. The Bible contains, first and foremeost, the stories of man’s interactions with God. That means that the revelation is progressive; new details supercede old ones. For example, we are no longer bound to the laws in Deuteronomy; they exist solely for our instruction. They served their purpose in history, and now they have passed on. The new covenant is one of grace in Christ.
The Bible, though difficult, is still to be read and wrestled with by Christians today. This is God’s final and authoritative Word, and great care must be used in its interpretation and application.
The Rational Response Squad: Where are They Now?
When I first started doing apologetics almost three years ago, I remember wanting to take on the Rational Response Squad. At the time, they seemed like the most worthy target. But now, there is literally nothing going on with them. Of the core members, the most active appears to be Hambydammit, followed next by Brian Sapient. Kelly O’Connor and Rook Hawkins (read the comments carefully) have both left. Greydon Square got kicked out after Sapient got punched out.
Their blogs haven’t been updated in months. Their YouTube channel has a last sign-in date of two months ago, and their most recent video is from one year ago.
So, should I offer a moment of silence for the Rational Response Squad, or is it too early yet?
Open Letter to Frank Walton
The following has also been sent to the last known e-mail address for Frank Walton. I hope that he gets this message one way or the other. My previous posts bashing Frank Walton have been removed.
Frank,
I know I’ve blasted you in the past, and I want to apologize for that. After dealing with atheists these past few days on my blog, I now see why you were so confrontational with them. Some times–lots of times–they deserve it. No matter how many times you refute the same points about their understanding of Christian theology, they still use the same arguments. I’ve been asked by several of them if I condone slavery, even though I’ve written and linked to articles that refute the notion that the Bible is pro-slavery. I’ve been asked by them if I favor the stoning of disobedient children, even though I’ve written extensively on the fact that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. The list goes on.
Anyway, I now see that you just got tired of refuting the same tired old points again and again, and just got mean. I think that I might start doing that now, too.
Anyway, I just wanted to apologize for my blasting of you now that I understand a little bit more of why you did it.
In Christ,
Cory Tucholski
Deconversion Story
Johhny Bradford, a guest poster over at Unreasonable Faith, has posted his essay on why he no longer believes. It’s filled with all of the usual things for which I thought Christian apologetics have provided adequate answers, but I suppose not since I repeatedly see these same tired old arguments popping up in deconversion story after deconversion story. Let’s analyze this one and see if we can clear matters up.
The first one is typical: how could a loving God send people into a state of eternal torment for simply not believing in him? Well, the problem with that notion is Bradford’s theology of man. He believes that people are basically good, that we begin life with an “A” and gradually decline in points until we have an “F.”
But that isn’t what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we are dead in sin. Keeping with the grading scale metaphor, we are born with an F. But it goes deeper than that: we can’t earn an A, no matter what! Hell isn’t what God wants for us, hell is what we deserve. A fair and just God would send any human being that comes before his judgment to hell.
Thank God that he is also merciful. Because it isn’t his will that any should perish, but that all reach repentance, he has sent his only Son Jesus to pay the penatly for us and die in our place. All a person has to do is have faith that God has already accomplished his (or her) salvation, and that’s it.
The Old Testament sacrificial system pointed the way to the New Testament’s single sacrifice for all of our sins. The book of Hebrews makes that quite clear. So this sacrifice was necessary in order to appease the justice of God, which demands that he take action against sin rather than ignore it.
People go to hell on their own merit. I read once on a T-shirt that free will never brought anyone to heaven, but it sent a lot of people to hell. I forget now who said that (I want to say it was Spurgeon), but there is much wisdom in that saying. Whether you believe in Christ or not, you still sin and God must punish sin. Any sin, no matter how minor, makes you hell-bound. It has nothing to do with believing in or not believing in God. Only by placing your faith and trust in the finished work on Calvary can you avoid hell.
Which leads us to Bradford’s next point. Christians behave the same way as their non-Christian counterparts. The fancy terminology here is hypocrisy. Here, I agree with him. According to the intro to dcTalk’s song “What if I Stumble,” the speaker says that “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowlege Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.”
Christians aren’t suddenly made perfect by belief in Christ. Salvation is a once-in-a-lifetime event, but sanctification is an ongoing process that is often neglected. I blame the church in this case. There is a servere lack of discipleship in the church today. The main congregations are measured by baptisms, not retention. In reality, both should be a factor in determining the health of the congregation. In this, Bradford should take some of the blame as he is termed a “recovering Christian pastor.” So, as shephard of a flock, what did he do to help out with that problem? We wonder.
The atrocities of the Bible are discussed at great length here. The justification for what can only be described as mass genocide lies in the same theology of man previously discussed–man doesn’t start life with an A, he starts it with an F. Since the penalty for sin is death, those deaths were deserved. No one can stand innocent before God.
Of course, if I believed that hell was unjust, that hypocrisy was part of the case against the church, and that the atrocities of the Bible were unwarranted, then I would discard this faith, too. But I don’t believe in any of that stuff. Nor do I believe the typical atheist mischaracterization of those things, as Bradford clearly demonstrates that he does.
In all, I stand amazed that ministers of the Word can be duped by the secular opinion of the Bible and its contents. After all, we are taught that the world sees the Bible through a darkened lens, that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness doesn’t understand it. Yet, these same criticisms keep popping up over and over again, even though they are answered by apologists like myself.
Former Believers Had Severely Underdeveloped Theologies
Daniel Florien, curator of Unreasonable Faith, proves once again that former believers never actually took the time to understand theology. By quoting Robert Price, another ex-believer who also lacks a full understanding of good theology, Florien unsuccessfully tries to make the point that religious belief (specifically Christianity) stunts people’s moral, intellectual, and personal growth.
In the morality department, Florien once again cites fear of hell as the only reason that Christians are moral. No good for goodness sake; only goodness because of a reward in heaven.
I have a newsflash: Christians have nothing to fear from hell. The Christian’s faith in Jesus removes all need to fear going to hell. All of the good done by a Christian should never be because of fear of punishment. Instead, it should flow naturally from a heartfelt desire to please God. This is what saving faith is really about.
Christianity stunts a person’s intellectual growth, according to Robert Price, because wrong beliefs about theology will send you to hell. The safest path here is to not question anything. But this just isn’t right. I’ve said it time and time again that we go to hell because of our sins, not because of mismatched theology. It doesn’t take believing in something, it takes faith in Christ for eternal life.
I should point out that right doctrine and theology pleases and glorfies God, as C. Michael Patton argues here. That goes along with loving God with all of your mind. But it isn’t the main point–the main point is still faith in Christ.
Finally, Christianity stunts personal growth by teaching others a party line of morality instead of teaching them to think for themselves. In this post, I’ve argued that mankind is born into sin. We deserve the penalty for sin even when we’re fresh from the womb. Our entire nature is sinful. So, according to these guys, I’m supposed to adopt my own set of morals and beliefs based on what exactly? My sinful flesh? That’s a great idea.
A look at history should satisfy anyone that humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Ever. Not without a moral compass or some sort of guide. To the Christian, the Bible is that moral compass. Thinking for oneself when it comes to morals is just dangerous. This is moral relativism and the idea is a major philosophical failure.
How does atheism, on the other hand, promote moral, intellectual, and personal growth? Atheism has no moral compass, so it must rely on either moral relativism or some other philosophical system of morality. Usually, atheism assumes a Judeo-Christian system of absolute morality while trying hard to distance itself from God. So it looks like the Bible may be the atheist source of morality after all, they just don’t want to admit it. See this essay.
Friendly Atheist once posed the question If a miracle occured, would you believe in God? to its atheist readership. For humor, it added a webcomic where one character, a theist, asked another character, an atheist, what would it take to make him believe. The atheist said that if God printed a personal message to him in the stars, that would work. The next night, that happened and the atheist still found a reason not to believe. The comments section of that post was filled with agreement–the atheists almost universally declared that there is nothing that would make them believe–not even witnessing a bona fide miracle.
My point is this: who is more close-minded? Religion doesn’t close minds, atheism does.
Mass Genocide in the Bible
This is one of the ten most viewed posts of all time. To read all ten, download this free e-book.
Although it is rarely taught in Sunday School, there can be no doubt that mass genocide occurs with alarming regularity in the Old Testament. Just crack open a copy of Michael Earl’s self-published wonder Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You and read a few chapters. Over and over again, Israel kills not just the soldiers of the territory they invade, but the women and children, too.
All of this takes place at the behest of God himself, who is the one that orders the killings to take place. God very often indicates that he wants no survivors left.
This, according to our most scathing critics, leaves a huge moral dilemma: how can we continue to call the Bible the “Good Book” if it contains more violence than the average video game? Was the bloodshed and violence necessary?
Can You Sue God?
Ernie Chambers attempted to sue God in 2007. The Nebraska Court of Appeals has recently thrown it out on the grounds that courts don’t decide “abstract, hypothetical, or ficticious” issues.
Can a person sue God? I would say that the answer lies in Scripture:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Rom 13:1, emphasis added)
What that means is that, no matter what anyone may say, our courts exist because God instituted them, and they have only the authority that he has given them. All authority derives first from God.
That means that God isn’t subject to the rule of any court, since they derive their authority from him in the first place. How quickly we sinful humans forget our place before the Lord. And what hubris to say that this is an “abstract, hypothetical, or ficticious” issue! This is an issue of authority, and who is subject to whom.
10 Things Your Minister Can’t Tell You
Reverend Oliver “Buzz” Thomas has written an engaging but extremely light book entitled 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job). In the book, Rev. Thomas asks 10 questions but supplies no real answers. Which just goes to prove that liberal Christianity has no answers for the tough questions of today.
Liberal Christianity doesn’t start from the premise that the Bible is the Word of God, as I’ve discussed in my review of John Shelby Spong’s book, The Sins of Scripture. In his section on the Bible, for example, Rev. Thomas dismisses that the Bible is the Word of God based on numerous perceived contradictions and errors in the Bible. Any skeptic would be proud to see that his usual objections top Thomas’s list: valuing pi at 3, Genesis and Acts confusing the detials of Abraham’s departure from home, the gospel of John standing alone as having Jesus’ death occuring on the day of Passover, contradictions in the Resurrection accounts, and whether God or Satan inspired the first census of Israel.
Thomas is on dangerous ground. He, like other liberals, claims that the Bible is neither inerrant nor inspired, but maintains that the book is still authoritative. The problem with this position is: which parts are authoritative, and which parts can we safely ignore? The answer is obvious: whichever parts don’t fit with Thomas’s theology can be ignored. This is a recurring theme throughout the book, and is punctuated in the chapter on homosexuality.
Not surprisingly, Thomas concludes that homosexuality is not sinful. He does so by appealing to the now-famous “Open Letter to Dr. Laura.” The intent is emotional rather than logical and presents no biblically-based arguement in favor of homosexuality. That is because there is none possible.
Also not surprisingly, Thomas concludes that Christianity isn’t the only pathway to God. He casts doubt on John 14:6, and emphasizes that the message of the gospel is that we are saved by grace through faith. Good, but he begs the question: faith in what? Faith must have an object, and in Christianity Christ is the object of our faith.
Thomas is correct that Christianity wasn’t intended as a coerced religion. It only became so after Constantine. Authentic Christianity is choice: faith in Christ is the only way to please God, and from this faith flows love of God and love of neighbors. So you choose to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus, or you choose to isolate yourself from your Creator. God has offered us no other path to him; but man-made religions offer pleanty of ways to attempt to please God through works. No, you don’t need to be a Christian to love God and love your neighbors, but as C. Michael Patton points out here, right doctrine pleases God. This concept seems lost on the liberals, who are more focused than ever on doing something to please God, when all God asks for is simple faith.
He Made Me a Believer Again!
C. Michael Patton is a writer I can’t recommend enough. His excellent Parchment and Pen blog had an especially great offering today. I started by disagreeing with the premise, but by the end, he had me believing his thesis wholeheartedly.
I think that good works are often neglected in the course of our salvation. I believe that good works are not only important, but a necessary part of salvation. I believe this next to writers like J.P. Holding, who attempt to view the Bible through the lens of first century Judaism. Holding writes that believers are saved not just through faith, not just through works, but through the Semitic totality concept of both faith and works cooperating with one another. This is the camp I sit in.
Please understand one very important thing: I am not saying that good works are the way that one is saved. I’m saying that good works are related in a very special way to the salvation of the worker. Good works flow from one’s salvation naturally. Holding says:
Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:
The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.
Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. “Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered — the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity.” [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]
Put another way: You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. If you are a committed Christian, your life and attitudes are going to show that. If you aren’t, then your life and attitudes will show that. The work of the Spirit will manifest in the true believer.
But Patton forgoes all the discussion about works and instead says that right knowledge and right doctrine are pleasing to God in and of themselves. It seems to Patton, God wants first to be understood.
And that makes sense. We’ll never fully understand God, but we can endeavor to know him personally through Jesus Christ. And in the end, that is what will truly matter. As the prophet Jeremiah said:
Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD. (Jer 9:23-24)
Although I agree with Patton in principle, in practice we would do well to heed one of his commenters:
An article like this one may be entirely correct, but it provides “theological cover” for those who are looking for yet another reason to spend nearly all of their institutional resources (money and time) on “faith” and almost none on “love”. (Yes, those should not be separable, but they often are.)
The fact is, it ought not to be possible to believe correctly about (let’s say) prayer, and not actually pray. But it is very much possible. It’s possible to devote enormous resources to learning the theory and theology of prayer, and not actually do it much.
Heed the Lord’s brother James: Faith without works is dead (Jms 2:17, 26). While Patton’s post is correct, and knowing God is the ultimate goal of faith, faith without works creates some serious problems. To the first century Jew, as noted above, faith and works were a total and unified concept. However, today they are clearly not. As the commenter points out, it is possible to develop a strong belief in something without actually practicing it. This is the error that James’s epistle was addressing in part in the first place.
So don’t just say that you love Jesus. Get out there and demonstrate that love. Don’t just study the Word; apply what you know to your life. If you need help, follow the Discipleship 101 link on the left side of the page and start to work through that Bible study.
Back Rome Again 