"Presuppositionalists, Don't Even Start!"

“Talk to the hand.” “Brick wall.” Remember these? Of course, the response was always to pull a “Free Willy” and jump over the brick wall (you haven’t forgotten third grade already, have you?). Well, John Loftus, with his ever-growing team of story-time apostates (twelve of them now!), has given us a good reminder of third grade. In asking the question, “Is there any view of hell that has Biblical support and at the same time passes the moral test?” he commands:

[Presuppositionalists, don’t even start. If you cannot see that it’s plausible that the traditional view of hell is unjust without having an ultimate moral standard, then you’re just not thinking].

Translation: “Presuppositionalists, talk to the hand. If you cannot see that it’s plausible for someone to have an ultimate moral standard without having an ultimate moral standard, then you’re just not thinking.”

This is Loftus’ way of plugging his ears to any critique of his statements before they are even presented. “Maybe if we close our eyes they’ll go away.” He wants us to pretend that the glaring subjectivity of his statements is simply non-existent. But I’m going to pull a “Free Willy” and jump over Loftus’ “Brick Wall.” What is the basis for the “moral test”? In Loftus’ post, he never tells us. In fact, what is the “moral test”? What are the questions? What are the correct answers? Who grades the score sheet? Loftus may tell us to “talk to the hand,” but he never once tells us what the “moral test” is. How are we supposed to interact with his statements if they are merely doughnut holes?

It is quite entertaining how the self-debunking-apostate-crew fluctuates in and out of the internal critique. One day, they’re examining Christianity on its own grounds. The next, they tells us their mere opinions and act as if we are supposed to consider them as scholarly objections to the Christian worldview. And these, of course, are on the days when they aren’t giving us bed-time deconversion stories and mounting their case for atheism autobiographically. But to Loftus, these are all blemishes which a little make-up and third grade attitude can overshadow.

John Loftus knows what my response will be. He knows that he cannot answer it. Therefore, he shuts his ears to it before it is even stated. Loftus: what is the basis for your “moral test”? Why should other worldviews accept it? Does it critique the claims of Christianity on their own grounds? If not, then how is it not merely your subjective opinion opposing my subjective opinion? Is the “moral test” objective? Is it universal? If “yes,” then where did it come from? If “no,” then why should Christianity accept it? These are all questions which Loftus hopes that his readers will ignore. So he puts up a brick wall from the beginning and tells the critical thinkers to talk to the hand.

Is there anyone out there who still accepts the traditional view of Hell?

Yes, I do. Most Christians do. This is what the Bible teaches. Does Loftus think that the Bible teaches otherwise?

Is there any view of hell that has Biblical support and at the same time passes the moral test? Does annihilation? How about death by lethal injection? Limbo and/or Purgatory? What then do you say about all of the carnage of lives who are snuffed out of existence?

I’d say that no view of hell will pass Loftus’ personal, subjective “moral test.” Why does he even ask? How should we know what particular views are tasteful to Loftus’ individualistic, autonomous basis for morality?

By the way, Loftus cites Clark Pinnock stating, “Any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test.” It isn’t a surprise that the liberal, open theist Pinnock shares Loftus’ low view of Scripture. To Pinnock, it doesn’t matter what the Bible actually teaches. It doesn’t matter what the Holy Spirit originally communicated to the Scriptural authors. The only thing that matters is whether or not Biblical doctrine agrees with the Teddy Bear understanding of God. And believe me, Open Theism doesn’t allow for a God who doesn’t come in plush and can’t be bought from Toys-R-Us.

So Loftus allies with theological liberals and tells us that Christian doctrine disagrees with his presuppositions. Big surprise? Not at all. Loftus is an apostate, last I heard. I would suppose that he rejects Christianity because he rejects Christianity. “Thank you, Captain Obvious.”

Evan May.