Yes, story-time abounds in apostate land. John Loftus quotes for us an excerpt from his book. I very much hope that this is not meant to be representative of the rest of the content in his work. I’m very curious why he hasn’t given us a preview of the rigorous argumentation that he supplies for us in his new book Why I Rejected Christianity. Or perhaps, the rest of the work is indeed like this, where we read page after page of the precious opinion of Mr. John Loftus. Hopefully, Mr. Loftus has not spent so much time and hard work to merely broadcast atheistic presuppositions that can be found anywhere on the internet. Surely, Mr. Loftus has given us something new, something exclusive, something a little more than that which can be found at any rest-stop on the secular web. Or perhaps he hasn’t.
On a tangential thought, the guys at Debunking Christianity are indeed an interesting group of folks. They combine the art of “tag-team” and the opposing art of “every-man-for-himself” quite skillfully. On the one hand, they have no problem with defending one of their buds against opposition. But on the other hand, they are terribly unwilling to pick of the scraps of their leader’s refuted arguments and defend them for themselves. And they disquise this tactic quite skillfully. They’ll come over here and reply to one of Steve’s responses to one of Loftus’ pieces, but rather than defend Loftus’ statements that have already been so clearly destroyed, they’ll come at Steve from a completely different angle and question him concerning why he hasn’t answered questions that have not been raised. When this happens, I just take this as their realization that their leader’s arguments remain in the can.
But their skill does not end here. Then there’s the approach of repeating an already-refuted argument in a different context to a new audience. If a professional magician never repeats his tricks, should we not expect Bozo-the-clown to do the same? These guys are smart enough to know that the lighting and mirrors are not always precise enough to pull off the same trick twice to the same audience. So, on their way out of the door they collect the left-over pieces of their argument, get out some tape and super glue, only to put the baby back together for another audience to enjoy debunking.
Anyway, what Johh Loftus tells us is insightful:
What if I’m wrong about Christianity?
What if I’m wrong about Christianity? What then? Well, then I will go to hell, however conceived, when I die. And what did I do to deserve to go to hell? I sinned and I didn’t believe in Jesus’ atonement, however conceived, and in his bodily resurrection from the grave.
Notice that from the beginning, Loftus is placing the blame for his unbelief on somebody else. He uses twice the phrase “however conceived,” acknowledging different views on this subject. In other words, the underlying, unstated assumption is “Why can God hold me accountable for truth if some people can’t put their finger on truth?” But the question lies in faulty, unbiblical assumptions (we necessarily note that they are “unbiblical” because Loftus has entered somewhat of an internal critique with the statement, “What if I am wrong?” yet he is always ready to fluctuate in and out of the internal critique). The Bible states clearly that creation itself leaves Loftus without excuse to suppress the truth. And, as far as I know, Loftus doesn’t subscribe to any atonement theory. So, you can’t remain sitting on the sidelines blaiming the football game that you never entered because it was overly rough. Loftus has made no attempt to jump in. Rather, he’s made an active attempt in the opposite direction, and he can only blame himself for that.
Whose fault would this be? Mine?
Yes, it would be your fault for living in sin with no desire of righting yourself before God. Mr. Loftus, you remain in Adam, and you are clenching your hands to the walls of his federal headship. You seek no mediator.
I have honest doubts.
And thus Loftus fluctuates out of the internal critique.
Am I to be blamed because I couldn’t understand Christianity?
1. You are to be blamed for your sin. The fact that you live in an atmosphere that has been affected by sin–the fact that you, as a result of sin, have a mind that is unable to accept the things of the Spirit–is your own fault.
2. Loftus forgets to differentiate between simplicity and ease. The claims of Christianity, especially the central components of the gospel, are quite simple. They are not at all hard to understand. They are simple, but they are not very easy to accept. I could give you precise instructions concerning a 747 jet that I wanted you to fly. The instructions would be plain and simple, but the task would not be easy. Therefore, Loftus can only blame himself that his sinful pallette cannot easily accept the simple claims of Christianity.
I tried with everything in me. I even spent several years earning three master’s degrees and studies in a Ph.D. program to figure my faith out.
Giving up? Is that your fault or God’s? How often, Mr. Loftus, do you ask the Holy Spirit for illumination? And when a truth of Scripture is made clear, are you ready to accept it, or reject it on the basis of atheistic assumptions?
If I tried to figure it out and I wasn’t supposed to try, then maybe educated people don’t have a chance to be saved. If, however, I’m just not smart enough to figure it out, then only intelligent people who study it out have a chance to be saved. Maybe the only people who have a chance to be saved are those who aren’t educated or who aren’t very intelligent? But who gave us our mental equipment in the first place? Didn’t God create us? Does this mean that when we’re born some of us are condemned from the start because of our mental equipment leading us to believe, or not? And if God gave it to us, and if only unintelligent people can be saved, then it’s set in stone the day we’re born what the possibilities for each one of us are.
All of this can be answered by stating two facts:
1. No one deserves to be saved, and if apostates like Loftus continue to reject the faith that has been clearly demonstrated, they can only blaim themselves.
2. God will save his elect unfailingly, and he will do so through monergistic regeneration.
What if I’m simply deceiving myself? What if my doubts about Christianity and my atheism aren’t honest at all, and my claim that they are is disingenuous?
Indeed, this is the case. So, Mr. Loftus, let me tell you, “This is the case.” Now, someone has revealed this to you. What excuse, now, do you have?
Perhaps unconsciously I’m rebelling against God.
Actually, you rebel against God actively and naturally, and this has both conscious and unconscious manifestations. Why are you asking questions that Scripture has already answered? What, specifically, have you found unsatisfactory about the Bible’s answers to these questions?
Well, I’m simply not consciously aware of any attempt to rebel against God, nor am I consciously aware of any attempt to deceive myself at all.
Yes, I guess the zombies overtook Loftus and forced him to create a blog called “Debunking Christianity.”
But what if I’m being deceived by the traditional devil to have these doubts? Maybe he is playing tricks on me, making me think my doubts are honest ones, when they are not? Well, if that’s so, then I have no chance to win a debate with him.
That is, apart from regeneration. Loftus is quick to take one Scriptural principle into account, but then ignore all of the rest.
According to the traditional faith he’s much too intelligent and powerful for me to overcome. If he deceives me, then I am deceived. The question is why an all-powerful God didn’t help me. The devil wouldn’t have a chance against God, but why does God do nothing to help me overcome my doubts?
If you are one of God’s elect, he will not fail to save you. He will bring you to saving faith. He provides for his people, and salvation is wholly and completely his work. God saves all whom he wills.
And yet, on the other side of the coin, we cannot forget about human responsibility: Mr. Loftus actively rejects the faith.
BTW. You argue as if it's merely a matter of intelligence why you believe. You often write that it is my lack of intelligence why I don't believe, despite all of your protestations to the contrary. Just the way you try to demean me is surely indicative of this. But then you also will argue that it's not a matter of intelligence but of God's will and of the Holy Spirit's pull. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstand both arguments. Firstly, I don't think you are an apostate because of your lack of intelligence. I think you are an apostate because of your deadness in sin. But I also think that this is intellectually dishonest. The reason why you and I will have intellectual discussions is not because you in particular need more intelligence to believe, but that your beliefs cannot be intelligently justified and are therefore incorrect.
Secondly, your unregenerate state is due to your own sin, not a lack of God's work. Indeed, if God would regenerate you, you would willfully accept him. But he is not obligated to regenerate you. Therefore, apart from his work, you remain with a mind that is hostile towards God (Rom 8:7-8) and does not understand the things of the Spirit (2 Cor 2:14).
So do you see both sides of the coin? On the one hand, your rejection of God is intellectually dishonest (according to me). Yet on the other, it is altogether natural (that is, according to your nature), apart from a working of the Holy Spirit. I stated in my post in the last paragraph, "If you are one of God’s elect, he will not fail to save you. He will bring you to saving faith. He provides for his people, and salvation is wholly and completely his work. God saves all whom he wills. And yet, on the other side of the coin, we cannot forget about human responsibility: Mr. Loftus actively rejects the faith."
Yet, you continue to argue as if I don't understand what you believe such that if I did understand what you believe then I'd believe what you believe
Not quite. Rather, when you enter an internal critique, I hold you accountable to that internal critique. That is, whether or not you accept or reject Christianity, if you are going to start a discussion that assumes that you are wrong and that the Bible is right (with the phrase "What if I am wrong?"), then I am going to make sure that you consistently use Biblical assumptions. For instance, you can't take into account the doctrine of Satan without taking into account other doctrines. Either critique it internally by assuming all of the Biblical principles, or don't enter it at all.
Evan May, a few points to consider, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteThere are women that post at Debunking Christianity as well. I know “guys” is a common phrase, but I would hope you prefer to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.
It is funny that you say we bring up already-refuted arguments. I make the same accusations against Christians. When I think I have brilliantly devastated any hope of recovery of an argument, and the person brings it back up, my first thought was, “Huh. Not very honest, after I showed all the incorrect points.” I realize, though, that no matter how great my argument was, no matter if it was even correct, the person I was talking to obviously was not persuaded their argument was refuted.
Welcome to humanity! You may think a post completely refutes a position; we are not persuaded in the least. We may think we have destroyed a post; and you are unconvinced. I then try and re-word it, or re-phrase it, in case my point was missed, or I was not clear enough. If I was, and the person is simply not persuaded, I leave it. Not all battles are won.
All we can do is hope that others may have learned through the process, or remember it for the future and address it more carefully.
One thing I appreciate (others may not) is how many atheists approach doubts as compared to many Christians. In these Christians I see that doubts are bad, a sin, a path to evil, to be avoided at all costs. And anyone that HAS doubts is not right with the God at that moment. We even see people say, “I had doubts, but now, thankfully, do not.” As if having doubts was a bad thing that once arrived, one must not stay.
Christians view doubts as a weakness. Many atheists view doubts as a strength. Not speaking for John W. Loftus, but doubts give me a moment to reflect. To pause and think, “HAVE I thought of everything? Do I need to go over this again? Rather than rush right it with what I have, maybe another look?”
My “doubt” signal goes up and it is a thermostat that gives me notice something may not be right.
A doubt gives me a chance for a new opportunity. To explore, and discover. To ask questions of others, learn, and even change my mind upon new information. When a doubt hits, I know that this is the start of path. It may end at, “I have studied this to the best of my ability and still don’t know” but it has provided me that chance, and in the future, keep my eyes open for new information and new study.
Not as a criticism, but I see atheists as more honest about their doubts. Very, very few would not believe in a God, given the right information. We would give up atheism in a heartbeat with proof. Can a Christian say they would give up their beliefs? Or is that a road to “doubt”? Faith requires strong belief. Christianity is built on faith, and therefore must reject any questioning belief. Doubt is shunned.
Can you doubt, Evan May? Is that allowed? If not, I fear you are missing out on one of the greatest parts of being human—the ability to re-think, change and grow in new directions.
‘Course you may not be convinced by that. ;-)