Agnosticism On Controversial Issues Before The Reformation

Just as people are often undecided about religious issues in our day, the same was true in past generations. That category of agnosticism is often, I'd say typically, ignored in discussions of historical theology, especially pre-Reformation church history.

We'll be told that everybody before the Reformation held such-and-such a view, but the fact that some individuals were agnostic on the subject won't be mentioned. (Probably often because the person making the claim about what everybody believed isn't aware of that agnosticism.)

For example, as I've mentioned before, some individuals were agnostic about whether Mary was assumed to heaven. That agnosticism persisted even into the second millennium of church history. See, for example, the entries on Aelred of Rievaulx, Isaac of Stella, and Peter of Celle in Michael O'Carroll's Theotokos (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988).

Another example of this kind of thing is discussed in Craig Atwood's book on the Hussites, The Theology Of The Czech Brethren From Hus To Comenius (University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009). On page 180, he refers to some pre-Reformation Hussites who "wanted to leave up to God the question of whether the [eucharistic] bread changed or remained bread".

We see this sort of thing frequently in our day, with predestination, eschatology, church government, and whatever else. We need to keep in mind that people were sometimes agnostic on religious issues prior to the Reformation as well. People tend to focus on opposition to a belief when thinking about an alternative to the claim that everybody held that belief before the Reformation. But we need to remember that agnosticism is another category that's relevant. The people who were agnostic about the subject shouldn't be grouped with the people who affirmed the belief in question.

Miracles On Video: Some Examples

People often ask for video evidence of miracles (atheists, agnostics, cessationists, etc.). Some individuals even demand video of miracles, or come close to demanding it, as if any other evidence would be insufficient. I want to provide some examples of miracles caught on film and other forms of evidence for miracles involving video.

But I'm going to offer some qualifiers first. There are some background and interpretive issues that should be addressed.

Regarding the principles involved in evaluating the credibility of witnesses, including those involved with videos, see here. For an outline of my view of the paranormal, see this post. Expectations are important in judging the videos I'll be discussing below. People often bring false expectations to this kind of discussion, which distorts their judgment. I can't address all of the relevant issues here. But it may be helpful to some readers to briefly outline some of the explanatory options for paranormal phenomena.

Not every paranormal ability or event has to be either good or evil or have come directly from a being such as God or a demon. An ability or event can be neutral in some sense. An ability can be something somebody was born with or developed over time, akin to having an unusually good memory or eyesight or a musical talent. It's neutral in the sense that it could be used for good, evil, or neither. A paranormal ability could be latent, then be manifested later in a person's life for whatever reason. Not every paranormal ability or event has to involve some kind of strength. It could be a weakness of some sort, a result of the malfunctioning of a person's soul and/or body. You can't assume that something allegedly paranormal is fake or demonic, for example, just because you find it disgusting, nonsensical, or objectionable in some other way. And so on. I can't go into these issues in a lot of depth at this point. But given how little our culture discusses these things and how much bad reasoning there is on these matters, it's useful to lay out some of the explanatory options for those who haven't given these issues much consideration. Some of the resources I'll be citing below expand on these themes.

Agnosticism

I'm going to expand on a point made by philosopher Christopher Kaczor in a recent interview. A problem with agnosticism is that either we live as if God exists or we live as if God doesn't exist. So the agnostic is living out the answer to that question just as much as the Christian. 

Even if, intellectually, the agnostic suspends judgment, he can't suspend judgment in practice. He must live as if one answer is true while the other is false. Although he can be agnostic in his head, he can't be agnostic with his feet. 

To be consistent with how he must live, an agnostic should try harder to resolve the indecision. His actions ought to match his beliefs, and vice versa.  

Atheism and Agnosticism

Graham Oppy is commonly regarded as the top atheist philosopher of his generation. By that I mean, not necessary the best philosopher who happens to be an atheist, but a philosopher who specializes in the defense of atheism. I'm going to comment on some statements he made in his recent book: Atheism and Agnosticism (Cambridge 2018).

3.7 Anomaly

Some people think that theism can have an explanatory advantage when it comes to reports of the occurrence of miracles. Religions are replete with such reports, in their accounts of the lives and deeds of their founding figure, in the episodes recorded in their central texts, in the accounts passed down in their oral traditions, and, often enough, in their contemporary deliverances.

i) That's a serious overgeneralization. In Islam, the central text is the Koran. That attributes no explicit miracles to Muhammad. Supplemented by the Hadith, there may be two alleged miracles (midnight ride to Jerusalem, splitting moon). 

ii) Not all religions have founders. Hinduism has no founder.

iii) Accounts of Buddha were written long after living memory. 

iv) There are questions regarding the historicity of Lao-Tzu:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/

Is he even considered to be a miracle-worker? 

In general:

http://bib.irr.org/jesus-zoroaster-buddha-socrates-muhammad

v) Are the Gospels based on oral tradition? 

In order to assess this claim, we need to consider the wider background. True enough, if miracle reports were accurate, they would pose severe challenges to naturalists: miracle reports typically describe events that defy explanation by well-established science. But it should be remembered not only (a) that all religions have their own miracle reports...

Does Oppy think non-Christian miracles are somehow inconsistent with the truth of Christianity? If so, how so? 

...but also (b) that there is a vast range of other reports that are prima facie challenges to well-established science. Consider, for example, reports across the extraordinary range of conspiracy theories, alternative medicines, and cryptids (creatures recognised only in folklore, such as chupacabras, sasquatch and yeti) that are prima facie challenges to well-established science.

Depends on how these are classified. For instance, if the sasquatch existed, what kind of entity would it be? Natural or supernatural? What's possible or probable for a natural entity isn't the same for a supernatural entity. Different rules. 

Likewise, conspiracy theories usually involve human agents (unless you include ufology), so we evalulate conspiracy theories based on what's likely given human psychology. 

It is obvious to pretty much everyone that almost all of these reports of ‘anomalous’ entities and events are cut from the same cloth, and it is obvious to pretty much everyone that almost all of these reports are false. 

See above. In addition, alternate medicine sometimes has a placebo effect. And occasionally, folk pharmacology is genuinely therapeutic. 

Moreover, it is obvious to pretty much everyone how these reports are to be explained. We are all fallible; we all make lots of errors. We all like to have tidy explanations; we are all disposed to make stuff up. We are all prone to false attributions of agency; we are all prone to seeing agency where there is only happenstance. 

Oppy is attempting to dismiss all reports without having to examine any reports. But the rational procedure is to examine the cases with the best prima facie evidence. 

Moreover, we are all disposed to believe what we are told by those we take to be authoritative, and we are all disposed to pass on things that we are told by those we take to be authoritative. 

To begin with, Oppy assumes that evidence for miracles is confined to testimonial evidence. But many people claim to believe in miracles, not because they were told that by someone "authoritative," but based on their personal experience or the report of a trusted friend or family member. Not a religious authority-figure.  

It is entirely unsurprising that there is local uptake of falsehoods, including, in particular, minimally counterintuitive falsehoods, i.e. falsehoods concerning entities and events that are strikingly different from familiar entities and events along just one or two dimensions. Inevitably, some falsehoods become entrenched in particular communities; inevitably, some falsehoods become attractors for further theorisation; inevitably, some falsehoods receive institutional support. While it is never the case that these falsehoods are supported by well-established science, and while it is never the case that these falsehoods have global acceptance, these falsehoods can become deeply entrenched, and they can be accepted by large populations for millennia.

How does Oppy know these reports are never supported by well-established science? What has he actually studied? What about medically verified miracles? 

Naturalists suppose that something like the above account – which everyone accepts for some range of cases – applies to all cases. All reports of miracles and sightings of cryptids, and all conspiracy theories and alternative medicines, that constitute prima facie challenges to well-established science should be rejected. Given their provenance, it would be absurd to give significant credence to reports of any of these things. 

Notice that he's bluffing his way through the issue with airy generalities. 

No one has the time to exhaustively trace the histories of all of the reports of these things, no one has the time to exhaustively weigh the relative merits of the cases that can be made for each of them, but it would be impermissibly arbitrary to accept some without having checked – with at least the same degree of sympathy and attention – whether there are better cases for others.

But that's a straw man. You pick the best examples. And there are collections (e.g. Craig Keener, Robert Larmer).

Given the entirely uniform account that naturalists give of the full range of reports of entities and events that are anomalous with respect to well-established science, it is highly implausible to claim that there is an explanatory disadvantage that accrues to them. 

What if a uniform account disregards specific evidence to the contrary? 

When theists from different religions disagree about who really worked miracles, and about which texts accurately record miracles, and about which contemporary events really are miracles that support particular religions, it is clearly an explanatory advantage for naturalists to be able to chalk all of this disagreement up to special pleading.

How much does he actually know about comparative religion and the state of the evidence? Take The Cambridge Companion to Miracles. The evidence is not on a par. 

3.9 Scripture

Some people think that theism can have an explanatory advantage when it comes to the existence and content of the central texts of theistic religions.

Some people suppose that there is evidence for the non-natural origins of the central texts of given religions in (1) alleged literary merits of those texts, (2) successful detailed predictions of future events in those texts, and (3) confirmation of the material that is found in those texts in (a) the alleged superiority of the distinctive moral and social teachings in those texts, (b) the advanced scientific knowledge that is contained in those texts, and (c) the inclusion of information in those texts that could not possibly have been possessed by the authors of those texts.

These considerations are all very weak. (1) Most central religious texts are canonical literary works for adherents of those religions; judgements about the literary merits of those texts is hopelessly controversial. (2) Given what we know about the redaction of these texts – and the uncertainties involved in dating their initial composition and subsequent redaction – there is no consensus on even one successful detailed future prediction in any central religious text;

What does he actually know about the history of their central religious texts? What secondary literature has he studied? With respect to the Bible, has he studied both sides of the argument? 

(3) Given the many barriers to confident interpretation of these texts, the many uncertainties about their redaction and reproduction, and the depth of disagreement about moral and social matters, there is no consensus that any of the central religious texts is marked by any distinctive kind of superiority.

Atheists are typically quite confident in their interpretation of the Bible. They think it's often mistaken. Can't have it both ways. 

Some people have claimed that, because there is evidence in the historical record for the existence of natural entities and the occurrence of natural events that are recorded in those texts, we have evidence for the reliability of those who compiled them, and hence reason to accept the claims that they make about the existence of non-natural entities and the occurrence of non-natural events.

This argument is also very weak. Even if there were evidence for the reliability of the authors of these texts with respect to the existence of natural entities and the occurrence of natural events, that would be negligible evidence in support of the claim that the authors are reliable with respect to the existence of non-natural entities and the occurrence of non-natural events. 

Why? If they're trustworthy reporters when recording natural events, what suddenly makes the same reporters untrustworthy when recording supernatural events? 

Moreover, typically, there is hardly any evidence that the authors are reliable in connection with the existence of natural entities and the occurrence of natural events. Sure, the texts sometimes refer to genuine historical events involving genuine historical figures in genuine historical locations. But that does not come close to establishing that the authors are reliable recorders of the existence of natural entities and the occurrence of natural events. What are missing from the historical record are multiple independent confirmations of detailed descriptions of the existence of natural entities and the occurrence of natural events – and the existence of non-natural entities and the occurrence of non-natural events – in central religious texts. 

What does Oppy know about archeological confirmations of John's Gospel or the Book of Acts? If these were written by authors out of touch with the historical setting, how can they be so accurate? 

Even where there are multiple detailed descriptions of entities and events in different central religious texts, we always have compelling evidence that the texts were not produced independently of one another.

What's his compelling evidence that that's the case? 

There is nothing in the existence and content of central religious texts that favours theism over naturalism. Every best big picture says that almost all central religious texts, insofar as they are taken to be truth-assessable descriptions, are full of historical, moral, social, scientific, philosophical, and theological falsehoods. Every best big picture must explain the existence and content of all central religious texts. Best naturalistic big pictures have a uniform story to tell about all central religious texts. That leaves them very well positioned, and not in the least in need of engagement in the kind of special pleading characteristic of best theistic big pictures that claim support from the central texts of theistic religions.

He seems to be winging it from start to finish. 

"I leave this life with no regrets"

It's been however many years since I used to watch Charles Krauthammer on Fox News. Nowadays I get my news from the Internet. Admittedly, I sometimes read his essays. 

1. In libertarian circles he will forever be remembered and reviled as a Neocon warmonger. I'm not saying that's fair. As I've remarked in the past, I think where the so-called Neocons went awry is because they were more rational than the enemy. It's like that old Star Trek episode ("The Galileo Seven") where Spock tries to use logic on the ogres. Rationality is wasted on an irrational adversary. It's not that Muslims are unintelligent. They range along the same Bell Curve as everyone else, but Islam is intellectually stultifying. 

2. Krauthammer brought cool detached rationality to news analysis. That's so lacking in today's knee-jerk, hysteria driven culture, with the social media lynch mobs, academentia, and crazed Democrats. The culture has become so reactionary and polarized. 

3. In a sense, the very best minds are wasted on news analysis because the news is so ephemeral. Krauthammer has affinities with other Jewish intellectuals who focus on politics, viz. Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard Posner, Milton Friedman, Paul Wolfowitz. Very cerebral, rather aloof pundits. 

4. Krauthammer was a conflicted agnostic. I don't know why he was agnostic. It may simply be that he saw no evidence of divine activity in human history. 

5. Because atheism/agnosticism are so unsatisfying, there are two opposite approaches one can take:

i) Because this life is all there is, you can't afford to fritter away your opportunities. Every battle is mortal combat. There are no second chances. So fight to the death. Make your mark. Make your life count. 

ii) Because this life is all there is, don't become too invested in anything. Don't take things too seriously. You and your ideological opponents are headed to a common oblivion. Nothing lasts. Nothing ultimately matters. 

Perhaps that accounts for the detachment of secular Jews like Krauthammer and David Berlinski. Rather like Buddhism. Avoid making enemies because, in the long run, nothing makes any difference. A certain kind of detachment may reflect a tragic outlook on life. A resignation to futility. 

Krauthammer was a very rational man. But high IQ is worthless on your deathbed. 

To my knowledge, his final public words were:

I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.

I can't relate to people who say they have no regrets. It's striking that someone so analytical, so reflective about human affairs and our place in the cosmos, was apparently so lacking in self-reflection, self-examination, that he had no regrets. And that from a psychiatrist! 

Perhaps, though, that was part of his agnosticism. Have low expectations. All is fleeting. There's not much to hope for, so why waste time on soul-searching?  

“I don’t believe in God, but I fear Him greatly.”

KRAUTHAMMER: He asked, “Are you religious?” I said, “I don’t believe in God, but I fear Him greatly.”

So, the point I was trying to make is I’m not, I’m not a sort of traditional theist. I can’t say I believe in even the God of Judaism, or Christianity, Islam, sort of the – I’m not sure I can believe in a God of history, who is really interested in our little lives, and who listens to us.

But I’m not – I mean, the one theology that I reject more than any other – I’d be willing to accept a lot of others – is atheism. Especially the village atheist who is so sure there is nothing that he wants to proselytise, humiliate, and unfaith people of faith. That I find appalling.

For two reasons, intellectually, I think it’s sort of the most illogical of all because there’s so much in the real world, in the physical world that we cannot explain, and can never explain, and we simply have to confess that the human beings they are inexplicable. I’m willing to call them transcendent, I have no idea what they are, but I fear it, in other words.

People who say the universe has always existed. What does that mean? It violates every principle of our own logic causation. You look at the atoms of the table, the seats we’re sitting on right now, well predate all of history, they go back to the big bang, so you’re going to tell me that this sort of spontaneously happens?

And they say, “Well, it’s the laws of quantum mechanics, they imply that this has to happen.” Well, where do these laws – You always go back to the origin question? Where do the laws come from? The idea – So the feeling I have is I think it was Newton who once described himself as, I feel like a snail on the shores of an ocean, being charged with figuring out the tides.

A snail is not going to be able to figure it out. We clearly are not capable, no matter what we say or do, and how much wordplay we engage in can penetrate the mysteries. Einstein, of course, was the sort of, the great propagator if you want, or the great philosopher of this view of the deity, or of transcendence, or metaphysics. You know he said when he rejected quantum mechanics, he said, “God does not play dice with the universe.”

What he meant, he didn’t mean it was the God with the beard, who hands out commandments, he meant there’s a beauty, there’s an inherent logic, and a simplicity which is what always impressed him which sort of made him tremble to the universe, that is so impressive, and that tells you that there, I don’t know if it’s a being, it doesn’t have to be a being.

But simply to say this is where our logic stops, and where you have to have respect for what’s beyond it, so that’s, I mean that’s a long way of saying, “I don’t know.” It’s sort of a complicated agnosticism.

But the other thing that goes with it is a deep respect for people of faith. My father was, and perhaps it’s because of filial devotion that I’ve just retained that. It’s not an act of will, I just always respected the way he lived his life, and the beauty of it.

Now, it turns out to me that faith is a gift, and I don’t have it. And I don’t think you can will it.

I’d sort of like to will it, it would make things a little more clear for me, but you can’t will it, it either comes to you or it doesn’t. So I don’t have it, but it doesn’t mean, and the other humbling thing is that some of the greatest minds in history, I think overwhelmingly were theists of one kind or another.

Who am I to say that Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, and Newton who was a believer were fools, like atheists do? So I have respect for them, in a sense I feel a certain absence in my life by not having it.

But I do find it hard to believe in a God of history, or a God who takes a personal interest in one. I respect people who do, and I’m waiting for the call. My line is always open, or maybe I’m thinking of it the wrong way. I should call Him? But I get a busy, I don’t know what to –

He’s busy.

http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/charles-krauthammer-transcript/

Looking for God in the wrong places

TBlog was asked to comment on this:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/05/dont-believe-god.html

Cowen is an academic economist. To his credit, he's even-handed. He concedes that his reservations about theism apply to atheism as well. So he's undecided. 

1. He says he doesn't think "God" or "theism" is well-defined. It's unclear what that means. Systematic theologies define God. Likewise, philosophical theology delves into detailed expositions and analysis of the divine attributes. 

So his statement may mean he hasn't read the relevant literature. He doesn't know where to look.

But it's possible that he doesn't think the definitions are intelligible. Or maybe he thinks the definitions seem to imaginary. Cowen may share a materials bias where anything that isn't physical is nonsense. However, that issue isn't confined to theology. In metaphysics, you have the issue of abstract objects (e.g. numbers, possible worlds). 

2. He comments on the heritable aspect of religious belief. The implication is that religious faith is due to social conditioning. 

But isn't that consistent with the truth of theism? Humans are social creatures. If God exists, why wouldn't religion have a heritable aspect? 

In the case of Christianity, which is grounded in historical redemption and revelation, the Christian faith is something you must learn about. It's not just something you can intuit. It requires historical knowledge. And it's natural for that to be handed down from one generation to the next.

That said, Cowen has a point. Clearly, there are people whose religious faith is just a historical accident. If they were born at a different time or place, they'd espouse a different religion or no religion. 

3. He says "I am frustrated by the lack of Bayesianism in most of the religious belief I observe."

i) What I think he means by this is that he uses Bayesianism in economics, and he applies that yardstick to religion. One danger with that is making your area of specialization the standard of comparison, even though it may be inappropriate to a different discipline. 

ii) There are, of course, Christians who do use Bayesianism (e.g. Swinburne, Lydia and Timothy McGrew).

iii) For reasons I've stated on more than one occasion, I'm dubious about the use of Bayesianism in Christian apologetics.

4. There's more than one way to approach the issue. Many intellectuals are massively ignorant of what Christianity is. In some cases, a starting-point is to acquire rudimentary, firsthand knowledge of the Christian faith. Nowadays, there are intellectuals who haven't even read the four Gospels. That's a place to start.

One could follow up with a theological introduction to the Bible, like Tom Schreiner's The King in His Beauty (Baker, 2013). That will give a novice the plot of the Bible. 

That could be combined with a simple introduction to Christian theology, like J. I. Packer's Concise Theology: A Guide to Historical Christian Beliefs (Tyndale 2001).

5. Moreover, we shouldn't underestimate the power of attending a good church, where the faithful gather to worship and pray. 

6. Another way to approach the issue is by process of elimination. Instead of proving Christian theism, we can disprove atheism. That's a useful first step. 

The standard paradigm of naturalism (among modern Western thinkers) involves commitment to physicalism and causal closure (i.e. the world as a closed-system). 

Many ontological naturalists thus adopt a physicalist attitude to mental, biological and other such “special” subject matters. They hold that there is nothing more to the mental, biological and social realms than arrangements of physical entities. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MakCauDif 

In the final twentieth-century phase, the acceptance of the casual closure of the physical led to full-fledged physicalism. The causal closure thesis implied that, if mental and other special causes are to produce physical effects, they must themselves be physically constituted. It thus gave rise to the strong physicalist doctrine that anything that has physical effects must itself be physical. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#RisPhy

According to the standard paradigm, all mental activity occurs in the brain. That rules out mental action at a distance, and the ontological independence of the mind in relation to the body. On that definition, a way to disprove atheism is to disprove physicalism and causal closure. There are various lines of evidence that undercut or falsify naturalism, viz.

i) Miracles

ii) Terminal lucidity

iii) Apparitions of the dead

iv) Near-death experiences

v) Out-of-body experiences

vi) Demonic possession

vii) Precognition

viii) Psychokinesis

ix) The hard problem of consciousness

Although it's necessary to sort and sift, there's some good literature on all these topics. Jason Engwer and I have posted beaucoup material on all this.  

7. Which brings me to the final point. People like Cowan who lack specific knowledge about the topic at hand fall back on general rules of thumb. It can be useful to point them to specific evidence for Christianity, such as the historicity of the Gospels. Useful writers on the subject include Paul Barnett, Richard Bauckham, Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, and Craig Keener.

A response to Cowen's "Why I don’t believe in God"

Sanct asks:

Off-topic, I apologize, but any chance one of you Tbloggers could comment on this? http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/05/dont-believe-god.html

Cowen doesn't have formal training in philosophy to my knowledge, but is a widely celebrated public intellectual.

First off, I'd like to say I appreciate Prof. Cowen's sincere and inquiring spirit in his post. It's in this sincere and inquiring spirit that I'd like to respond as well. Also, he would probably eschew the label, but it sounds like he's more an agnostic than anything else.

FWIW, if anything, here's my response:

Horton's agnosticism

In his systematic theology, Michael Horton seems to endorse the Eastern Orthodox distinction between God's essence and his energies. As I've noted in the past, this leads to radical agnosticism:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-illusionism.html

UNCG Outreach Report 12-2-2010

Introduction: Today's outreach lasted about 2.5 hours and consisted of both open-air preaching and one-on-one evangelism. During some of the one-on-one conversations I noticed a few people standing around to eavesdrop in on the conversations. These conversations focused on sin, righteousness, judgment, truth, the gospel, various worldviews, what is tolerance, etc. I tried to focus my open-air preaching on exalting Christ and proclaiming Him as the only solution for people's sin problem and intellectual problems. As expected, there was some mockery from some unbelievers walking by and yelling nonsensical things. However, I was surprised to have no hecklers given the fact that while it was a little chilly, the weather was pretty nice earlier in the afternoon. Nevertheless, many people stopped and stood around to listen to the open air preaching.

Our Question of the Day was:

What must a person do to be reconciled to God?

I was encouraged to hear several people answer this question correctly and as usual, it led to many great conversations having to do with the things of God and the gospel. However, as usual, we found that most people answered with a view of God akin to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and/or they didn't care either way. I've found that some people simply try to avoid me after I've already done open-air preaching. I work on being especially loving and compassionate in my open-air preaching, but I never shy away from preaching the whole counsel of God, especially when it comes to sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. After preaching, I had some friendly conversations with a few folks who were standing around in the area and only one of them refused to take a business-sized tract with our church contact information on it.

Two Agnostics

I saw two people with piercings, tattoos, and frankly, I couldn't tell whether one of them was a male or female (I'm not trying to be offensive whatsoever, just stating the facts). I hate it when I'm in that situation because I don't know whether to call them "sir" or "ma'am". I wonder if they care about that too? I've often wondered if they would get offended if I called them "sir" and they were a "ma'am" and I then asked, "Why are you offended at me calling you by the wrong gender when I can't tell what gender you are?" Oh well, I digress.

I courteously approached the one that I could discern was a man and asked him what he thought of my preaching and he said, "You're wasting your time on me, you can say whatever you want and you're not going to change my mind." I said, "You're right, I can't change your mind, and thankfully, that's not my job; but I would like to ask you one question: Why do you reject the gospel?"

He and his friend both responded that they were agnostic and that they thought its impossible to know which religion, if any, is true since all religions claim to have the truth but all their truth claims are mutually exclusive and contradictory. In light of that I then asked, "Given what you've said, do you believe that God could reveal some things to people in such that they could know them for certain?" His friend said yes, he said no. So I asked him, "Do you know that for certain?" He seemed to get confused, so I asked him this, "Do you believe that you are certain that you can't know any religious truth for certain?" He didn't seem to get it, so I asked it again, and the third time he seemed to understand what I was getting at as I could tell by his body language that he felt like he was being intellectually backed into a corner, so I then said, "Dude, I'm not trying to purposefully trip you up, but I'm demonstrating that if you don't believe in the God of Scripture and you reject the gospel, you really have no grounds for knowing anything at all because when you reject the gospel, you are left with futile thinking." I then gave other examples from logic, morality, science, etc. I then attempted to tactfully explain that he lives like he knows he's living in God's world (i.e., depends upon logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, absolute truth, etc.) yet takes all these good gifts that God has given him for granted, is ungrateful for all these good things that have been freely given to him and that this is another manifestation of his sin. It was then that he said, "Yeah, but didn't men write the Bible?" and I said, "Yes, but we believe in dual authorship, for the Bible says that men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). If you reject the Bible simply because it was written by men then you would have to reject any other writing produced by men and you'd have to reject your own arguments against the Bible because they were produced by you, a man. If the criteria for rejecting the Bible is that any religious document can't be true simply because it has been produced by men, then that's a self-defeating argument." I then briefly gave testimony of my conversion from atheism to Christ and he responded with "You're not changing my mind" and then he started calmly walking away. I then said, "I know, but I know the One who can, for He changed mine 15 years ago." I thanked him for his time and told him that I appreciated him listening to me even though he really didn't want to.

Namby-Pamby Preaching

When finishing up for the day, I was walking back to the car, I saw a guy who was standing around listening to my preaching and I asked him, "What did you think of my preaching today?"

He said that he was a Christian and attends a gospel-preaching church, but he was concerned that my preaching was driving the students away instead of reaching them. He said, "I would characterize you as a Hell-fire preacher." I said, "Thanks, John the Baptist and Jesus were too!" I then asked him, "Since you think the message is driving people away, what do you think I should say to get these people to think about the judgment that awaits them should they fail to repent?" He said, "Good question, I hadn't really thought about it like that." I then asked, "Where in the pages of the New Testament do you find Jesus or the Apostles telling people that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives?" He then admitted that he couldn't think of anywhere that Jesus or the Apostles told lost sinners that. I then said, "What was the basic message that Jesus and the Apostles preached to lost people?" He didn't really know what to say so I said, "Dude, the preaching in the New Testament was repent of your sins and turn to Christ or perish. That's the basic gospel message of the New Testament."

I then explained that many churches today are filled with preachers that tell the people what they want to hear instead of what they really need to hear and that this was prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. I graciously explained to him that his statements to me are to some degree, a reflection of that. He appreciated my comments, and I encouraged him to re-read the book of Acts to get an idea of how the apostles preached to lost people.

IN CONCLUSION, I think that evangelical churches are confusing Biblical meekness with political correctness and removing the offense of the cross in the process. Woe to us. May we repent and return from our pandering to the philosophy of the age through our fear of man and preach the word, whether it's convenient or inconvenient, with great patience and instruction (2 Timothy 4:2).