Blog Archives
Danelle Ice on Total Depravity
Image via Wikipedia
Danelle Ice (Dangerous but Good) has a post on the “dangers” of Calvinism. I find her reasoning problematic for two reasons. First, she has an interesting philosophy behind what Christians can teach as truth:
We know that we can never teach something that isn’t scriptural. So, even if I firmly believe something with all my heart (exaggerating example: that John the Baptist had 12 toes!) I couldn’t teach it to my family or other Christians as truth if there is no scripture in the Bible to back it up. I may think it makes sense, and I may really believe it, but as a minister and a Christian, the burden of proof from the scriptures is on ME before I open my mouth and talk about it.
I once knew a Christian (I’m not identifying this person by any designator other than “a Christian” because of how embarrassingly stupid this position is) who believed that Jesus never got sick, ate, or went to the bathroom because there is no Scripture that directly says he did any of those things.
What does Scripture say about the humanity of Christ? That Jesus shared our flesh (Rom 8:3) and was tempted the same as we were (Heb 4:15, referring to Mt 4:1-11). If Jesus essentially “emptied himself” of divinity to become a humble and obedient human servant (Phil 2:7-8)–and it is anathema to say otherwise (2 Jn 7)–it’s not a stretch of the imagination to assume that Jesus may have gotten sick, or had to eat, or used the bathroom at some point during his 33 (or so) years on earth. We don’t have Scripture that actually says Jesus ate, got sick, or went potty, but I think that we can take it for granted that he did.
Image via Wikipedia
There is no Scripture (except for 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV) that directly teaches the Trinity, either. I would assume that Danelle believes that implicitly despite the fact that the Bible never refers to God as a Trinity. If Danelle is going to be consistent, she has to reject the Trinity since we, as Christians, are only allowed to teach truth based on Scripture.
The apostle Paul, of course, didn’t limit truth to the Hebrew Scriptures of his day. Paul quoted pagan plays and poetry quite regularly. He told the Greeks that the “unknown god” to whom they built an altar is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Danelle’s point isn’t biblical, and the apostles certainly didn’t buy into it.
The second problem inherent in Danelle’s reasoning is that Danelle isn’t arguing against Calvinism proper; she is creating her own version of Calvinism and trying to beat that down. This becomes obvious when reading her definition of total depravity:
We will use the first point of Calvinism to illustrate the point: “Total depravity”, that people are not naturally inclined to love and serve God, but must be forced to. We know this is not scriptural, because man was made in God’s image, and God is love. Even though we fell into sin, sin can’t change the essence of what God designed and created us to be: loving, praising, worshiping beings.
First, it should be quite obvious that people are not naturally inclined to serve God. In the Bible, for example, you will see numerous prayers to incline one’s heart to serve God:
- And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. (Num 15:39)
- The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers. May he not leave us or forsake us, that he may incline our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his rules, which he commanded our fathers. (1 Kgs 8:57-58)
- Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain! (Ps 119:36)
- Do not let my heart incline to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with men who work iniquity, and let me not eat of their delicacies! (Ps 141:4)
The fact that the people of the Bible are praying, both personally and corporately, for God to move them to obedience and faith indicates that they don’t believe that it is the natural tendency to have faith and be obedient to God. The natural tendency of man is opposition to the laws of God (see Rom 7:14-20, especially v. 18).
While Romans 7 sums up the spiritual battle quite well in verses 7-25, the most succinct teaching of total depravity is Ephesians 2:1-3:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
We are dead in sin, according to this verse. Paul also says in Romans that we are unable to carry out the desire to do good (7:18). This adds up to a powerful biblical case for total depravity, despite what Danelle is trying to say.
Second, God doesn’t force anyone to love him. Some have accused Calvinism of teaching this, but that isn’t so. God, from the foundation of the world, chose certain individuals to whom he would reveal his full glory and who would fellowship with God in heaven. The choice of these individuals is inherent in God’s character and has nothing to do with the individual so elected.
A general call goes out with each preaching of the gospel, but an effectual call goes out only to God’s elect. Upon hearing this effectual call, the elect are quickened by the power of the Holy Spirit and are regenerated to life. The only logical response to this quickening is a free will choice to put faith in Christ, and in so doing love and serve God. This isn’t coerced at all, the effectual call simply doesn’t go to everyone in the entire world.
Third, it is no wonder that Danelle would think that man is generally good (Prv 16:2). Apart from the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, we humans generally lack the objective ability to see our own sin. Generally, non-Christians don’t see mankind (by extension, themselves) as inherently evil. They see mankind as inherently good. Some see mankind as misguided in some way, but many (especially atheists) don’t think that mankind is in any way broken or in need of repair.
The problem that Danelle isn’t seeing is that sin does change us–so completely, in fact, that a new birth is required in order to follow God (Jn 3:3). This new birth is a total 180-degree switch from what we once were:
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God (1 Pet 1:22-23; see also 2 Cor 5:17).
Danelle is correct in stating that we were made in the image of God, and she is also correct in thinking that we do retain something of that image. It is this that gives humans an inherent dignity above that of an animal (1 Cor 15:39); it is the reasoning behind the commandment to not murder; it is the reason that we have the free will to love at all (1 Jn 4:19).
I’ll Never Understand This
Image via Wikipedia
Okay, it is time for me, once again, to put on my “naive religious person” hat and wonder why on earth people get offended over the stupidest things.
It has nothing to do with the recent decision to ban cross memorials for fallen state troopers in Utah because it allegedly is Christian proselytization forced on innocent motorists driving down the highway. That was a bit outrageous, and those judges should have their heads examined. The cross isn’t a Mormon symbol, and both the folks who erected the monuments and the troopers to whom the monuments were dedicated were Mormons. The cross has come to mean “grave marker” just as much as it symbolizes Christianity. For more information on that, see the related links below.
No, the subject of this post is one of far greater concern to me. Vjack of Atheist Revolution has written a post decrying prayers being offered for Christopher Hitchens’s recovery from cancer. He discusses why prayer, in this specific case, is offensive, then treats the broader issue of why prayer in general is offensive. Read the rest of this entry
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Illustrated
A new believer named Ronni needed some relationship advice, so she did the only logical thing and turned to Pat Robertson.
Robertson is giving a biblical answer for a change. He’s referring to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
It’s not a blanket prohibition on “hanging out” with unbelievers. How are we supposed to evangelize if we’re not permitted to hang out with unbelievers? The idea of a “yoke” is a rabbinical term referring to various interpretations of the Hebrew bible. A rabbi was said to teach and follow a specific “yoke.” It’s similar in terms to a Christian denomination of today, but not exactly. For example, a rabbi who came up with a new yoke (rather than teaching an existing one) had to have his new yoke blessed by the laying on of hands by two other rabbis.
What “unevenly yoked” means is that a person shouldn’t have a very different set of beliefs than their spouse.
My wife is an Arminian, and I’m a Calvinist. I’ve heard that that doesn’t work very well. But that hasn’t been my experience so far. Calvinists and Arminians agree on the basic premise that faith in Christ alone is what is necessary for salvation, and that is exactly what my wife and I plan on teaching our kids. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is in how the person arrives at saving faith–through God’s action alone (Calvinism) or by God’s response to a free will decision (Armininism).
The real problem for Ronni in the video is that her fiancee is an atheist. It probably isn’t impossible for such a marriage to work, but my concern would be for any future children that the couple would have. How does one decide what religion the children will be raised to believe?
Ronni’s fiancee, as an atheist, probably believes that the Bible is a collection of myths rather than historical facts. He also likely denies the Resurrection (perhaps even the historical person of Jesus). Ronni, as a Christian, is going to want to teach her children about the existence of God and Jesus, that the Bible is a reliable history book, and that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day to defeat sin and death.
I don’t know many atheists who would want their children to be taught such “nonsense.” In that scenario, mom teaches one thing, then dad undermines it behind mom’s back. The kids are going to be confused.
An additional problem presents itself. The church, as a whole, fails in apologetic instruction. I doubt much that Ronni has any way to counter the arguments that her fiancee will expose the kids to: contradictions in the Bible, Jesus never existed, there is no evidence for God, evolution removes the need for God, and other atheist talking points. The kids, in this scenario, are far more likely to be atheists since the atheist is able to present and defend his reasons for being so, while the Christian is left with “You just have to have faith.”
Unless the fiancee is going to agree to not interfere with the religious upbringing of the children, and if he is going to agree to be supportive of Ronni’s Christian faith, then this might be fine. But I don’t know many atheists who are willing to do such a thing. At least, the impression I get from the commenters on this site.
So, what say you, atheists? Am I wrong? Could you be supportive of your spouse if your spouse was religious and wanted to bring the kids up in that religion?
Three Videos are Up!
I’ve resolved to do at least one proof or video per week. It looks as if I’ve outdone myself this week, as I’ve put up three videos in the last two days!
First, I took on “Why Does Every Intelligent Christian Disobey Jesus?” The video lists five commands that Jesus gives Christians but that allegedly no Christian obeys. Only one of the commands is a legitimate command, which is to love everyone. Another was given to a single person in a special circumstance and not meant to be a general command. The other three were never given by Jesus anywhere in the Bible. Verses have to be ripped grossly out of context to make them into commands. Read the answer here.
 |
| ANSWERED! |
Second, I took on the short video “Proving God’s Plan is Impossible.” Even though it was one of the shorter videos, the refutation took quite a bit of work. The video pokes at God’s eternal decree, twisting it to mean that murders shouldn’t be punished and rapists should be rewarded since they are only following God’s will. It fails on many levels, primarily when one realizes that there are twin purposes in each action. God has an overarching good purpose for all he decrees, but the intent of the moral agent who performed the action cannot be overlooked. God’s purpose is always accomplished, but the rapist or murder still committed a heinous sin and God won’t overlook that.
 |
| ANSWERED! |
Third and finally, I took on another short video, “Proving the Pope has Never Read the Bible.” Even though this video is half the length of the usual 10 minute videos that GII puts out, it still required a lengthy answer. To suggest that the Pope has never read the Bible is just ludicrous. Just to become a parish priest requires a master’s level degree in theology, and most bishops have the equivalent of one or more doctorates. The life of the presbyter is centered on the teachings of the Bible, and how much more central the Bible must become to at the episcopal level.
Further, the examples of gratuitous violence given by the video to suggest that God is repulsive are taken out of context. “Violence” is unwarranted force against someone who doesn’t deserve it. By reading the context of the stories, one realizes that God is punishing humans for their sin in each one, he is not simply committing an act of capricious murder for the fun of it. God is not a serial killer.
Well, that’s been my night. The short videos have produced unexpectedly lengthy answers. I can hardly wait to see the length of answer that I have to develop when tackling the full-length 10 minute videos!
Blog for WWGH Summed Up in the Comments Section
The Blog for WhyWon’tGodHealAmputees has a post on the declining condition of Evangelical Christianity here. As of this writing, there are three comments that sum the entire blog up perfectly.
First, from Burebiesta:
Got admit American Christianity is not well in America. Just like the Hebrews in the OT, when things went well they turned there back on God. America is doing the same.
Anne Rice did not turn her back on Christ, she denounced all the false Christianity which is wise. being aware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The Tea party bomb is just a delusion. No evidence there but when you can’t beat their arguments drop the race card on them. A favorite of the real racist that make up the Black caucus and the Black panthers which as we all know are components of the DNC.
It is a good idea to read the links since our moderator really likes to twist his posts to the point of a pretzel.
Next, from A Christian Guy:
As far as Rational thinking goes, this video is far from it. Every verse and quotation from the bible was taken extremely out of context.
“Our moderator really likes to twist his posts to the points of a pretzel.”
Completely so.
Finally, from Charles:
CG,
If you think that video is twisted visit the godisimiginary sister site. I can’t believe anyone takes any of it seriously but some like to reference it.
Agree, agree, agree. The video in question, “Why Does Every Intelligent Christian Disobey Jesus,” had to be one of the most egregious examples of strawman argumentation ever constructed! Though it scarcely needed a response (intelligent people would see it for the steaming pile of excrement that it is), I did reply here.
Typical Atheist Arguments
In my much derided “No Heavyweights of Theology” post, a commenter named Karen Leonard posted the following comment:
It is very difficult to be a “heavyweight” in theology. There is so much mythology, misogyny, racism, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, mixed messages, and down right nonsense within the bible, that the only people you can address that will sit through your oratory would be those whose minds are so fearful of death that they would believe ANYTHING that gave them hope to the escape the grave.
I was rather nasty in my reply:
Do work really hard at in-the-box-atheist-groupthink, or does it just come naturally?
This prompted commenter Enoch Sherman to stop following my blog, concluding that I don’t encourage rational conversation.
What, exactly, was rational about Ms. Leonard’s comment? NOTHING. Every point she made in that comment has been refuted, either by me or by another apologist. Those charges have stood refuted for years.
I already left these links in the comments, but since Ms. Leonard’s charges are so common, I thought I’d leave them here for your perusal.
- Mythology: This is rather broad, but J.P. Holding has a series on whether Jesus was borrowed from ancient pagan mythology.
- Misogyny: Glenn Miller has an extended treatment of women in the heart of God.
- Racism: A single verse refutes this.
- Sexism: I have a response here.
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment: It’s not cruel if you understand how the ancients thought about it.
- Mixed Messages: Despite all the information about resolving apparent contradictions in the Bible, this charge still gets brought up over and over, and all responses ignored.
- Nonsense: This is too broad to address.
Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part II
Mike from the blog Finding Bliss has objected to Calvinism. He says, “I find it spiritually abusive,” calls it “reckless [sic] doctrine”
In my previous post, I showed that Mike isn’t objecting to Calvinism proper. In that vein, I will answer some of the objections he then comes up with in the latter section of his post, most of which can be defused by appealing to what Calvinism actually teaches, not what Mike thinks it teaches. First objection:
How many nights have people laid awake at night questioning whether or not God chose them first? Or if like me you first believed and then you fell then that could very well mean that I was never truly saved in the first place. Read the rest of this entry
Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part I
Mike of the Finding Bliss blog demonstrates why some people hate Calvinism. They hate a strawman caricature of it, and they don’t understand what the five points really teach. This is why I plan to make my musings on the topics of the five points of Calvinism available as an e-book.
Let’s look at what Mike got right, and what he got wrong. Mike writes, “I’ve attempted to present the 5 points as a Calvinist might present them which is not easy to do, I don’t agree with it and what’s worse I find it spiritually abusive.” It’s important to note that Mike is attempting to present these points accurately. He failed in a few places. Read the rest of this entry
Crucifixion
Termed one of the most cruel and humiliating deaths that a person could undergo, crucifixion originated with the Persians in the seventh or sixth centuries b.c. and continued until the Roman Emperor Constantine abolished it. An article that appears on The Blog for WhyWon’tGodHealAmputees offers some doubt that Jesus Christ actually died in this fashion.
One should note that the contributors to that blog have repeatedly asserted that Jesus Christ is not a real, historical person. So why they would have interest in a scholar who debates the existence of crucifixion is unknown.
It looks like Gunnar Samuelsson, a newly graduated Swedish theologian, has asserted that it is unlikely that Jesus died by crucifixion. Samuelsson has underwent a three year study of the ancient literature and doesn’t find it probable that crucifixion was used at that time. He only finds references to suspending a person (or part of a person), but no references to actual crucifixion. Even the Bible itself doesn’t actually say that Jesus was crucified, only that he carried a staurus and was hung on it.
Interesting, and wrong. In the Gospels of Matthew, several times Jesus’ execution is referred to as being “crucified” between chapters 20 and 28. Mark also refers to Jesus’ execution as a crucifixion between chapters 15 and 16. Luke refers to crucifixion throughout chapters 23 and 24. John also in chapters 18 and 19. Acts also refers to crucifixion in the death of Jesus, primarily Peter’s first sermon (Acts 2, but again in Acts 4). Paul talks quite extensively about Jesus’ crucifixion in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.
The Bible definitely uses the word “crucifixion” extensively to talk about Jesus’ death. Other historical documents that fit into the time period that Samuelsson allegedly studied also mention and describe crucifixion, most notably the works of Josephus. There is also some archeological evidence to back up the documentary descriptions, as we have discovered victims of ancient crucifixions in tombs. Their wounds testify to the accuracy of the description in ancient literature, including the Bible.
However, Saumuelsson is quick to say that he isn’t attempting to undermine Christianity. He’s just trying to arrive at the truth of an ancient tradition, much like the rest of us. “Samuelsson — who believes that ‘the man who walked this earth was the Son of God, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead’ — says this accusation is simply ‘stupid.'” (source)
So, let’s not let this news get us all bent out of shape.
No Wonder This Guy’s an Atheist
Yahoo! Answers user James Matthew posted this question in Religion/Spirituality: “Is this the most insane form of Christian delusion?” He expounds:
I asked my internet Christian friend how she is able to believe something that does not have any evidence for its existence.
She gave me the following answer.
“I leave all my logical reasoning and thinking capability and go to HIS throne like how a child goes its father. He is the potter and I am the clay in HIS hands. If so, how can I question HIS existence and authority to prove my logical reasoning??”
With Christian friends like this, no wonder he’s an atheist.
Recently, I posted something on the second greatest commandment. I’d like to note that the Greatest Commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:37). I think it is terrible when Christians actually tell people that they check their minds at the door wherever God is involved, as Matthew’s friend has done in this case. Read the rest of this entry
Back Rome Again 