John Loftus,
You studied under William Lane Craig? And you don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus?
Aw man. You've gotta be one of the heaviest disappointments in WLC's life.
Since you're an atheist apostate, I guess it's senseless to ask whether you think you were once a true believer who fell away and lost salvation (Arminian view) or a never-was-believer false convert (Calvinist view).
3/27/2008 12:38 PM
Blogger John W. Loftus said:
Well, truth since this interests you we've written on this question several times to be found here, (questions 3-7).How utterly incoherent:
1. If you were a *true* believer, you actually fell away.
2. If so, then Arminian theology would be true, at least theoretically.
3. That, in turn, commits you to LFW.
4. Yet, as a believer in determinism (of the naturalistic sort), you deny LFW; or at least you would if you were consistent.
5. If LFW is not true, Arminian theology cannot be true. Why? Because the premise that believers can fall away is predicated on the exercise of LFW.
6. So, if you were consistent, you'd just admit that you weren't truly a believer. You were simply self-deceived. In the end your biological or sociological imperative won the day. Determinism won out over LFW.
7. That would commit you, at least in theory, to Calvinistic theology, that is to at least admit that, if Christianity is true, Calvinistic soteriology is true. Yet you go out of your way to deny this, both as an Atheist and as an Arminian.
And look at the way you argue for the "reality" of your faith. In essence you say, "I was really a believer, I really, truly was, because I felt I was and I did these things. My faith was "sincere."
Theresa, whose work I'm presuming of course you endorse, since you pointed "Truth" to it as an answer to his question writes:
I used to have a devotional time every morning where I prayed for my friends and family and myself, I read the Bible from cover to cover numerous times during my devotions. I witnessed to my family and they were saved (except my dad, no matter how hard I prayed), I brought up my kids as Christians and led them in the sinners prayer, I spoke in tongues and gave prophecies, I went to prayer meetings and Bible studies, I studied the Bible and prayed with my Christian friends. I believed God had a plan for my life, I believed he would help me through any situation, I believed I had a personal relationship with him. I lived my life for him.
1. Having morning devotions is not proof a person is a believer.
2. Reading the Bible is not proof.
3. Witnessing to others is not proof.
4. Rearing your children as Christians is not proof.
5. Praying the sinner's prayer is not proof - neither is it an instrument of conversion to justification. It's a tool, not a magic formula, and never, ever does it appear in the Bible. Faith, which may be expressed as a prayer, is the instrument - and that is evidence of regeneration, not its cause.
6. Speaking in tongues is not proof.
7. Prophesying is not proof. (More could be said about that too...).
8. Praying and studying with Christians is not proof.
9. Believing God has a plan for your life is not proof (of what the plan actually is, it seems).
10. You believing you had a personal relationship with God is not proof you have one.
11."Living your life for Him," is so vague it could mean anything.
These are all "proof" of a credible profession of faith. But a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith aren't the same. They intersect, but they aren't the same thing. You would think that a man who had been to seminary would know that. The fact that you measure the "reality" of your past faith by these things is a testimony to why you fell away. Your faith was shallow and largely content free, likely drawn from the well of Evanjellyism and Easy Believism.
But the Bible never says our feelings of sincerity are a measure of assurance. The Bible never says that we should accept an apostate's testimony that he was "sincere" about his faith.
But this is precisely the way that Arminians (and other Libertarians like "Orthodox") have argued their position on the perseverance of the saints. In order to maintain that true Christians can (and do) "lose their salvation," they wind up ignoring what the Bible actually says about assurance and the distinctions it actually draws regarding true and false faith, all due to their "will worship."
Once again, then, we have Arminianism / Soteriological Libertarianism proving itself to be convertible with Atheism. Arminians, this should give you great pause. Why is it that when Arminians argue their soteriologicy, they agree with the Orthodox (whom they should, as consistent Protestants, say cannot give a credible profession of faith), and Atheists.
Yet Arminians are not Atheists....Another reason I'm not an Arminian.
I was going to respond to this as well, but you already beat me to the punch, Gene :-)
ReplyDeleteI would note the follow in addition to what you've pointed out.
1) As an atheist, Loftus does not believe Christ has saved Loftus.
2) Loftus claims that he used to believe that Christ had saved Loftus.
3) But Loftus also believes that when he believed that Christ had saved Loftus, that belief was a false belief.
4) Therefore, Loftus believes that Christ never saved Loftus, even during the time that Loftus thought Christ had saved Loftus.
5) Therefore, Loftus agrees with the Calvinist that Loftus was never saved by Christ.
6) If a Christian is someone who is saved by Christ, then Loftus would have to admit that he was never a Christian.
7) Of course, Loftus could claim that no one is actually a Christian since no one is actually saved by Christ.
8) But this means that Loftus is defining who a Christian is by the simplistic "A Christian is someone who thinks he is saved by Christ."
9) Jesus said, "Many of you will say to me, 'Lord, lord' and I will respond, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.'"
10) Therefore, Loftus's definition of a Christian contradicts Jesus's definition of a Christian.
I'll further point out that since Christians are Christians and not Loftusians, it's Jesus's defintion we will be going with, not Loftus's.
And finally, one other thing to consider. Given that James tells us that the demons believe God is one, the fact that Satan himself quoted Scripture and knew truths about the Messiah (during the temptation of Christ), and finally given the fact that none of the disciples knew that Judas was the "son of perdition," in order for Loftus to have a leg to stand on he must demonstrate:
1) What he believed about Christ was more intimate than what the demons believe,
2) his Scriptural prowess is better than Satan's,
3) and his "deconversion" was more startling to his friends than Judas's betrayal of Christ was to Judas's friends (the Eleven).
How utterly poor reasoning. In your first point, "if you were a *true* believer, then you actually fell away", you import meaning into the definition of "true believer" that Loftus never enunciated and probably doesn't believe. "True believer" does not mean one who has been "saved" or "cleansed in the blood of the lamb," but simply somebody who believed in the evangelical Christian theological system. As an evangelical, he undoubtedly thought that he was "saved." However, that does not mean that he was really "saved", or that the Christian God exists, or that there is such a thing as "the elect" at all. Therefore your second point, "Arminian theology must be true", is a complete non-sequitur.
ReplyDelete9) Jesus said, "Many of you will say to me, 'Lord, lord' and I will respond, 'Depart from me, I never kbnew you.'"
ReplyDeleteIn that case, nobody alive today is a Christian because nobody knows Jesus. How do you define "know"? If it is the "spiritual" sense, then Jesus' assertion is meaningless because non-believers, being convinced that Jesus is NOT God, would not extend to him any supernatural powers that would make it possible for people to "know" him after his life. Given, therefore, that nobody knows Jesus in the way Christians claim because he is a dead mortal, then it may be that there are no true Christians, even if self described "Christians" believe that they are Christian.
bbbThis leads to a complete reductio ad absurdum. Using the same logic, we could say:
ReplyDelete1) X, an ex-Muslim, does not believe in Allah
2) X used to believe in Allah
3) But X also believes that when he believed in Allah, that was a false belief
4) Therefore, X believes that he never submitted himself to Allah, even during that time that X thought that he submitted himself to Allah
5) Therefore, X believes that he never submitted himself to Allah
6) If a Muslim is somebody who submits himself to Allah, then X would have to admit that he was never a Muslim
7) Of course, X could claim that no one is actually a Muslim because no one actually submits himself to Allah.
8) But this means that X is defining who a Muslim is by the simplistic "A Muslim is someone who thinks he has submitted himself to Allah."
9) Mohammed said, "A Muslim is one who submits himself to Allah."
10) Therefore, X's definition of a Muslim contradicts Mohammed's definition of a Muslim.
I'll further point out that since Muslims believe that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah and X is not, it's Muhammad's defintion Muslims will be going with, not X's.
Lyosha said:
ReplyDelete---
bbbThis leads to a complete reductio ad absurdum.
---
It's clear you don't know what a reductio ad absurdum is then. If a Muslim wanted to use the same argument, I wouldn't care. For that matter, if an atheist wanted to use the same argument I wouldn't care.
The thing you need to realize is that it's not those who reject a system that get to define who is in the system. That is, even ignoring the question of whether it's true or not, Christianity defines who is a Christian and who is not; Islam defines who is a Muslim and who is not; atheism defines who is an atheist or not.
I mean, if I said: "I'm an atheist; I believe in Zeus as a real God" you would be right in pointing out that a believer in Zeus as a God does not fit the definition of an atheist.
Now Jesus has said that not everyone who thinks they are saved actually is saved. There will be tares among the wheat. The Apostle John tells us that those who left demonstrate that they were never part of us. Therefore, the founders of the religion included "not falling away" as one of the marks of determining who a Christian is. If you fall away you are, by definition, not a Christian.
You may not like this, but I don't care what you like. This is the way it is.
And again, at this point it has nothing to do with even questioning whether or not Christianity is true. The simple fact is that perseverance has been important to determining who is or is not a Christian from the beginning.
Add to that the fact that if Christianity is true, then what Jesus said is true. In which case, part 7 of the above argument doesn't apply in the first place. Part 7 assumed the atheist rejoinder was accurate when it says "Of course, Loftus could claim that no one is actually a Christian since no one is actually saved by Christ."
The point of including 7-10 is merely to show that even if Loftus's view is right, his conclusions do not follow.
And you still haven't even begun to touch the counter argument regarding the demons, Satan, and Judas. Even if some Arminian types might think Judas was actually saved at one point and then lost his salvation, no Christian believes the demons or Satan are Christians at all. Again, what has Loftus believed that is different from what Satan believes.
lyosha07: How utterly poor reasoning. In your first point, "if you were a *true* believer, then you actually fell away", you import meaning into the definition of "true believer" that Loftus never enunciated and probably doesn't believe. "True believer" does not mean one who has been "saved" or "cleansed in the blood of the lamb," but simply somebody who believed in the evangelical Christian theological system. As an evangelical, he undoubtedly thought that he was "saved." However, that does not mean that he was really "saved", or that the Christian God exists, or that there is such a thing as "the elect" at all. Therefore your second point, "Arminian theology must be true", is a complete non-sequitur.
ReplyDeleteVytautas: If a man believed in the evangelical Christian theological system, then he would believe that he has been saved or cleansed in the blood of the lamb. A true believer of the Christian religion would have those beliefs. You saying Loftus probably never believed those beliefs. Thus, Loftus was not a Christian.
Loftus never enunciated the definition of true believer. True believer means that the person believes the evangelical Christian theological system, and then you say that as an evangelical, he undoubtedly thought he was saved. So if you believe the evangelical Christian theological system, then you undoubtedly think you are saved.
So Loftus was not a Christian and he undoubtedly thought that he was saved, unless you can be a Christian without its essential beliefs. Thus, Loftus was a nominal Christian meaning he was a Christian only in name and not in reality.
4) Therefore, Loftus believes that Christ never saved Loftus, even during the time that Loftus thought Christ had saved Loftus.
ReplyDeleteThis is Anselmian sleight of hand... If you and Loftus can't agree on a definition of Christianity because you insist on inserting God's actual existence into the definition, you'll just talk past each other.
1) What he believed about Christ was more intimate than what the demons believe,
2) his Scriptural prowess is better than Satan's,
3) and his "deconversion" was more startling to his friends than Judas's betrayal of Christ was to Judas's friends (the Eleven).
1) Loftus presumably believed he was saved and presumably this faith included (at least a nominal) love of God and righteousness. The same cannot be said of the demons.
2) irrelevant, since you'd have to admit there are saved people whose scriptural prowess is less than satan.
3) Who knows what was in Judas' mind? I doubt Loftus' faith consisted of a belief that Jesus was an earthly messiah who would deliver him from Roman tyranny and make him a king or a general.
How utterly poor reasoning. In your first point, "if you were a *true* believer, then you actually fell away", you import meaning into the definition of "true believer" that Loftus never enunciated and probably doesn't believe.
ReplyDeleteHe's argued many times here that he was really and truly a Christian, and he's never, not one time asserted that we could say otherwise using our own definitions.
"True believer" does not mean one who has been "saved" or "cleansed in the blood of the lamb," but simply somebody who believed in the evangelical Christian theological system.
You just said that he never enunciated this definition and probably doesn't believe it. Now you're supplying the defintion and acting as if believes it. Which story is true?
Truth is the one who actually invoked those terms, not Loftus. Loftus answered by linking to those posts on his blog. Loftus did not dispute Truth's defintions, so why shouldn't I assume that he stipulated to them?
The defintion you supplied refers to somebody who held a credible profession of faith. It would be applicable equally to nominal and genuine believers.
As an evangelical, he undoubtedly thought that he was "saved." However, that does not mean that he was really "saved", or that the Christian God exists, or that there is such a thing as "the elect" at all. Therefore your second point, "Arminian theology must be true", is a complete non-sequitur.
Pay attention. I'm speaking to the way that Loftus has chosen to frame his arguments against Calvinism at the *theoretical* level. That *does not* require that God exist or for Loftus to have been *really saved.* Go back and read what I wrote. I stated this quite explicitly. If so, then Arminian theology would be true, at least theoretically. and That would commit you, at least in theory, to Calvinistic theology, that is to at least admit that, if Christianity is true, Calvinistic soteriology is true. Yet you go out of your way to deny this, both as an Atheist and as an Arminian.
In that case, nobody alive today is a Christian because nobody knows Jesus. How do you define "know"? If it is the "spiritual" sense, then Jesus' assertion is meaningless because non-believers, being convinced that Jesus is NOT God, would not extend to him any supernatural powers that would make it possible for people to "know" him after his life. Given, therefore, that nobody knows Jesus in the way Christians claim because he is a dead mortal, then it may be that there are no true Christians, even if self described "Christians" believe that they are Christian.
Why don't you consult a standard commentary before offering such insipid and easily answered objections?
Loftus never enunciated the definition of true believer. True believer means that the person believes the evangelical Christian theological system, and then you say that as an evangelical, he undoubtedly thought he was saved. So if you believe the evangelical Christian theological system, then you undoubtedly think you are saved.
So Loftus was not a Christian and he undoubtedly thought that he was saved, unless you can be a Christian without its essential beliefs. Thus, Loftus was a nominal Christian meaning he was a Christian only in name and not in reality.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Thnuh said:
ReplyDelete---
This is Anselmian sleight of hand... If you and Loftus can't agree on a definition of Christianity because you insist on inserting God's actual existence into the definition, you'll just talk past each other.
---
I specifically excluded "God's actual existence" from the definition there and demonstrated that Loftus is still wrong. Thanks for playing.
Thnuh said:
---
Loftus presumably believed he was saved and presumably this faith included (at least a nominal) love of God and righteousness. The same cannot be said of the demons.
---
This is completely irrelevant to the point of why I brought up demons in the first place. Loftus claims to have read the Bible, to have studied under William Lane Craig, and to know all sorts of things about Christ as if that's evidence that Loftus really used to be a Christian. Since James has pointed out that even the demons know this stuff, this knowledge of Christ and Christianity counts for nothing for Lofuts's claims.
You said:
---
irrelevant, since you'd have to admit there are saved people whose scriptural prowess is less than satan.
---
See the above point. Loftus is the one who predicates his knowledge of Christianity as evidence that he was a genuine believer. That someone can have less knowledge and be a genuine believer in no way means that someone with more knoweldge is a genuine believer.
Thnuh said:
---
Who knows what was in Judas' mind?
---
Judas's mind had nothing to do with the point. The fact is that none of the disciples knew Judas was going to betray Jesus. That's why they asked the disciple whom Jesus loved to ask Jesus, "Who is it?"
Loftus has made the claim that when he was a "Christian" we would have prayed and worshipped with him. Again, this is Loftus's claim. I point out that if we were one of the Eleven, we would have prayed and worshipped with Judas, but that didn't make him not the son of perdition.
Yowsa! I'm immensely pleased that I inadvertently helped to inspire a post here on Triablogue!
ReplyDeleteI'm tickled pink that both Gene Bridges and Peter Pike were able to get a two-fer on this one! First, to show the intellectual inconsistency by John Loftus. And second, logically demonstrating how Arminianism / Soteriological Libertarianism proves itself to be convertible with Atheism (as Gene Bridges says).
Blam!! One shot. Two targets down. Very efficient. Well done team triablogue.