Pages

Monday, March 27, 2006

"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.

23 comments:

  1. Now, obviously, the Christian concept of hell passes the "moral test" on the grounds of Christianity. This is the importance of an internal critique. Given the assumptions of the Christian worldview, hell is a just God's means of rightly punishing sinners.

    Now, this might not pass Loftus' subjective "moral test," but where did this test come from? What, exactly, is the test? He never tells us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't read Loftus but my guess is that the test is, "conforms to most people's standards of morality". For example, if you are my boss and I am late to work 1 time out of 100 you are not going to describe me as being habitually late and worthy of severe punishment. But to an unbeliever this is what the doctrine of hell appears to teach. Roasting for eternity because you failed to walk an old lady across the street once does not seem "just" and so a "God" who imposes that kind of standard also seems unjust.

    As a Christian who does believe in hell I am not really sure what to say to someone like that. They obviously don't accept the possibility of an all-holy God so an all-holy standard isn't going to make any sense. And until that standard is genuinely felt or observed in some way by that person, the forgiveness offered by Christ will not seem to be of any profit. You can argue the ill logic of their position until you're blue in the face but I submit that you will accomplish nothing until they feel the conviction of sin.

    So fellow Christians, be holy, not to save yourself but so that others might be saved. If your gentleness, patience, meekness, and reverence shine into their lives they will get a taste of God's holiness that might lead them into the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If your gentleness, patience, meekness, and reverence shine into their lives they will get a taste of God's holiness that might lead them into the truth."

    Do you really think any of these qualities "shine" from anything posted on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Still don’t get it, eh? I’ve heard the presuppositionalist’s argument, debunked it along with others, and I’ve moved on. You presupps answer most every argument of ours with the same monotone note. We’ve rejected that note. Move on. It’s that simple.

    Hey Loftus:

    Still don't get it, eh? I've heard your argument, debunked it along with others, and I've moved on. You apostates answer most every argument of ours with the same monotone note. We've rejected that note. Move on. It's that simple.

    I suppose you're just going to cover your ears, put up a brick wall, and never tell us what the "moral test" is. Where did it come from? What are the questions? What are the answers? Is it objective? Is it universal? Or is it subjective? Why should Christians accept it? C'mon, Loftus, give us some answers. Don't just come by here and make assertions.

    Besides, have you actually done a study of what God’s holiness means?

    I'm kinda a Christian.

    Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Isn’t that interesting?

    It sure is interesting. The Bible is full of interesting things. Too bad your ears are too deaf to hear them.

    And when it comes to hell, there is no love in casting someone who lived his or her life as a good person in an everlasting hell.

    Oh, so now we've moved from the "moral test" back into the internal critique, eh? You apostates never cease to fluctuate between the internal critique and your personal opinions.

    But who says God loves those (in a redemptive sense) whom he condemns to hell? Did I say that? Does the Bible say that? If you're going to critique Christianity, you might want to learn about it.

    Study it. Tell us what it is. You can do it!

    Back up your assertions. Remain in the internal critique. You can do it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you really think any of these qualities "shine" from anything posted on this blog?

    If you're willing to give me anything other than rhetorical questions, I'm willing to answer them.

    Otherwise, don't rip passages concerning ignorant pagans out of their contexts and apply them to apostates. It doesn't honor the Word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If you're willing to give me anything other than rhetorical questions, I'm willing to answer them."

    Is that a yes or a no?

    "Otherwise, don't rip passages concerning ignorant pagans out of their contexts and apply them to apostates."

    Or else what? You'll huff and puff and blow your own house of cards down? Do your worst.

    "It doesn't honor the Word of God."

    Honor it deserves not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is that a yes or a no?

    It wasn't an answer. I'm not here to answer rhetorical questions.

    Or else what? You'll huff and puff and blow your own house of cards down? Do your worst.

    I assumed that you were a Christian. If you are, then you should not take the Word of God lightly, and you should mishandle it only in fear.

    If you aren't, then why are you citing Scripture to support your statements anyway? If you're trying to show me as inconsistent, you must demonstrate this by exegeting the passage and showing how it applies here. Don't just assert without benefit of argument.

    Honor it deserves not.

    Oh. I see. Sorry, but I don't take Spiritual advice from people who talk this way about Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and by the way, anonymous Ted, you aren't exactly a cupcake when it comes to interaction. So why do you have such soft skin when it comes to my statements?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "you should mishandle it only in fear."

    Fear is your guide, not mine.

    "If you aren't, then why are you citing Scripture to support your statements anyway?"

    Where do you think I was "citing Scripture"? I simply asked kaffinator if he thought what appears on this blog exemplifies any of the qualities he cited. Then you got all hot under the collar about it. I have my answer.

    "If you're trying to show me as inconsistent, you must demonstrate this by exegeting the passage and showing how it applies here. Don't just assert without benefit of argument."

    To prove to whom? To someone who checked his mind at the door to the church? I know better than that, Evan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fear is your guide, not mine.

    The Holy Spirit is my guide, not yours.

    Where do you think I was "citing Scripture"? I simply asked kaffinator if he thought what appears on this blog exemplifies any of the qualities he cited. Then you got all hot under the collar about it. I have my answer.

    I didn't get all "under the collar." I just stated that I wasn't going to asnwer a rhetorical question. Then you asked for my answer.

    To prove to whom? To someone who checked his mind at the door to the church? I know better than that, Evan.

    Loaded language, nothing more. People who come by here to merely assert are not welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ted asked > Do you really think any of these qualities "shine" from anything posted on this blog?

    Sadly, I must say, not very often.

    I believe that our hosts truly seek the best for everyone, and certainly have a passion for the truth. But frankly I would be embarrassed to send any kind of non-believer here, for the insults and tit-for-tat and condescension that would likely be leveled at them in the name of Christian apologetics.

    Even so, I hold out hope that our hosts will one day discover a better way, one that looks less like a turf war and more like a personal invite to the kingdom of heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But they sure think they are, don't they? Where's the humility, especially when it comes to people who share the same Christian faith?

    I suppose you do not understand the difference between arrogance and affirming the clarity of God's Word.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also, there is quite a significant difference between the manner in which we treat apostates and the manner we treat Christians with whom we disagree.

    Apostates who have given the finger to the church they once deceived should not expect to receive the same treatment as our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is Biblical. Apostasy was taken seriously in New Testament Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Evanmay > Also, there is quite a significant difference between the manner in which we treat apostates and the manner we treat Christians with whom we disagree.

    If there is a difference, I’m sad to say I haven’t seen it. Take for example a discussion I had with Steve a while back. I stated outright that I was a Christian but that I wasn’t buying Steve’s argument on a particular point and challenged him to clarify it. Steve’s response began:

    > I reserve a fathomless well of contempt for “Christians” like the Kaffinator.

    Just because I disagreed with Steve, he felt I deserved not caution, not even suspicion, but contempt. And with his scare quotes he suggested that I am not even Christian.

    Evanmay > Apostates who have given the finger to the church they once deceived should not expect to receive the same treatment as our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is Biblical.

    It is biblical to disfellowship apostates, it is biblical to refute unsound doctrine advanced within the church, and it is biblical to reason with unbelievers in the hopes of bringing them to the truth. But show me the verse were it says we should scorn, mock, ridicule, and abuse those who disagree with us.

    Evanmay > Apostasy was taken seriously in New Testament Christianity.

    Indeed it was, and it should be today. If you truly care about apostasy, then undertake the Biblical prescription to prevent and alleviate it:

    “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses [and escape] from the snare of the devil […]” (2 Tim 2:24-26, my bolds of course)

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://veritasredux.com/?p=120

    ReplyDelete
  16. I read that page, it is very well written and I agree with every word.

    However I do not understand how it comes to bear on this discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It demonstrates the difference between my posture toward believers and my posture toward apostates.

    By the way, I generally repond to arguments in kind. An ad hominem argument can only receive an ad hominem response, or nothing at all.

    But perhaps you could help by pointing out specifically what you feel is an unbiblical posture in this particular article?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The article is called "Biblical Unity in Disagreements" and does not describe anything regarding your position towards apostates.

    Evanmay > By the way, I generally repond to arguments in kind.

    Is that really a good standard, to just engage in whatever debate tactic our opponents used? Christ taught us to love our enemies and to bless them that curse us, not to respond in kind. If God had responded to sinners in kind where would we be?

    Please don't think I'm claiming that I always turn the other cheek. I don't, and I always regret it. For example I'm pretty sure I crossed the line in the discussion with Steve myself and for what it's worth, Steve, if you're reading, I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The article shows my posture towards Christians with whom I disagree. I believe my posture towards apostates is made evident in my other writings.

    Anyway, please point out specifics in this article ("Presuppositionalists, Don't Even Start"). Otherwise, I generally don't like it when folks come by here only to make generic statements but never specifically show me a point of disagreement.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK, I will oblige you, Evanmay.

    You are talking about people who at some level were involved in Christianity, and for one reason or another ran into a stumbling block for their faith. They seem to be sharing their stories with others with all of the honesty, integrity, and powers of reasoning they have at their disposal.

    Your response seems to be to mock them with terms like "third-grade attitude" and "bedtime deconversion stories". You claim John's statements are "merely doughnut holes".

    I think any argument (including mine) deserves to be inspected, criticized, even debunked if necessary. And in fact it is a biblical requirement that Christians be prepared to make a defense when appropriate, but (you know what is coming) with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15). The terms you used above convey something entirely different: an attitude of dismissiveness and arrogance. You may not feel that way but that is how it reads--if you doubt me just ask the persons toward whom your text is aimed. What do you hope to accomplish with invective like that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1. I stated that Loftus displayed "third-grade attitude" because that is what he has displayed. Do you disagree? How involved have you been in my last 21 or so responses to John Loftus?

    2. "Bed-time stories" illustrates the fact that their work is permeated with an autobiographical defense of atheism. Why should we be atheists? They point us to their own lives. And in doing so, they open up their lives as a basis of a defense.

    3. "Doughnut hole" illustrates the emptiness of his "arguments." They are simply lacking in substance. He never once tells us what this "moral test" actually is.

    I believe that these statements, though perhaps satirical, are simply honest representations of what is being presented. Really, I stand behind Steve in scratching my head over the fact that you tend to rally behind the atheists and oppose those Christians which have gone to great lengths to make a defense to the propaganda of apostates (Triablogue has put out at least 60 or so responses to Loftus and crew), and who have already received persecution for their beliefs (been around the blogosphere on the subject of abortion before, Kaff?).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Evanmay > I stated that Loftus displayed "third-grade attitude" because that is what he has displayed. Do you disagree?

    The grade level of Loftus’ attitude is irrelevant. What IS important is how you represent the Christian faith in your public correspondence with him.

    Evanmay > Why should we be atheists? They point us to their own lives. And in doing so, they open up their lives as a basis of a defense.

    Similarly, the faith and practice of Christians are on display for all to see, particularly in a forum like this. What will non-believers see when they look? A heart for the lost, or an endless and unwinnable quest for one-upmanship?

    Evanmay > Really, I stand behind Steve in scratching my head over the fact that you tend to rally behind the atheists and oppose those Christians which have gone to great lengths to make a defense to the propaganda of apostates […]

    I don’t oppose you, but I can see why you would think I am “stumping for the other team”. In fact, I am trying to support you by calling you back to the scriptural mandates for gentleness, patience, humility, and reverence that should characterize all Christian apologetics. (Believe me I am all too familiar with the temptation to descend into the kind of mudslinging that gets everybody dirty.) If you can honestly say before God and this audience that you are engaging in these discussions according to the standards of 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Tim 2:24-26, then I have nothing further to say.

    In the end, Christ is not glorified by an argument answered, but by hearts turned towards Him. As Paul wrote, “If I have [the gift of] prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; […] but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).

    ReplyDelete
  23. (1) God is holy
    (2) Holy means perfect and without sin
    (3) God determines what is good, what is perfect, what is sin
    (4) Therefore God's "holiness" is the same thing as God's "Godness" and the same thing as "wofwelwkdqmwqo"

    (1) Yahweh's justice is perfect (on the basis of the authority of Scripture and tradition)
    (2) Men sin (on the basis of the authority of Scripture and tradition)
    (3) God's determines "death" is the penalty for sin (on the basis of the authority of Scripture and tradition)
    (4) Greeks invent concept of hell
    (5) Jews adopt much of Greek philosophy, because their religion hasn't worked out so well for them
    (6) By the time Jesus arrives, (post Maccabean revolt) Jewish thought is "contaminated" with the concept of hell
    (7) Jesus preaches the pagan doctrine of hell (on the basis of the authority of Scripture and tradition)
    (8) Followers of Yahweh now believe Yahweh is only just if "sinners" are tortured for eternity
    (9) Therefore, sinners go to hell (on the basis of the authority of Scripture and tradition, and the corruption of the original Scripture and tradition)

    Hmmmm...

    ReplyDelete