Holding Skeptics Accountable For Their Claims

One of the implications of what I discussed in my last post is that critics have to pay a price for something like assigning a late date to a gospel. For example, though I've argued elsewhere that Luke and Acts were written no later than the mid 60s, it's possible that a companion of Paul, like Luke, lived until later and published his work later than the mid 60s. If a skeptic assigns Luke/Acts to the 80s, let's say, he still has to allow for the possibility of Lukan authorship (or authorship by some other companion of Paul), and pushing the documents a couple of decades later pushes them that much closer to the later sources who comment on authorship in one way or another. That closer chronology adds credibility to those later sources. (And that's also true for other matters, like genre and historicity, not just authorship.) Skeptics are often schizophrenic about this kind of thing. They'll disregard the implications of what they said in a particular context when acknowledging the implications would be unfavorable to their conclusions in another context. I've written elsewhere about how they sometimes do that with certain Christmas issues, for instance, like the virgin birth and the Bethlehem birthplace.

I Want Consistency Too

In his condemning of Islamicize Me, James White said https://youtu.be/eUUDEZz0yiY?t=52m1s

It is the portrayal of obviously sinful action. 

Yet on Twitter, someone jokingly suggested that he show clips from Islamicize Me to the class at TMS, and White responded (source):

There are few of the episodes I could actually show in public. The adoption one possibly.

Because Dr. White has been so adamant that consistency is one of his primary goals, then we must conclude by this that he believes kicking your adopted son out of the house in the middle of the night with no shoes on his feet is not obviously sinful.  I mean, if it was obviously sinful then surely he would not have excluded it.

I wonder if his elders know he holds to that position?

An Unanswered Question

In the comments on my initial post, I posed a question that has not been answered yet.  It’s not overly surprising given that really none of my posts have been answered yet at all by those who made the charges against Wood, Malone, and McCray (although I’m grateful for the readers of Triablogue who have discussed them nonetheless), but I wanted to highlight this particular question because I think it is important in determining consistency, which is not only important but also is a primary focus of those who have been attacking the videos.

My specific question was this: 

…have you ever watched a movie or TV show where a character was murdered in the show? Murder is sick and perverted. Was the movie or TV show sick and perverted because it happened to one of the characters? I mean, I'm not talking about gorey [sic] movies. Think about John Wayne westerns where the bad guy kills someone which is why John Wayne has to go after him.

Is that immoral? Or do you give it a pass. Because it seems to me that murder is actually a sin…

When a murder is staged for a play, movie, or television show, we do not condemn that as sin, because it’s obvious that the actual actions that are being done are not, themselves, sinful.  For example, pulling the trigger of a prop gun aimed at another person, having a blank go off, and even simulating blood on a person’s shirt, are all actions that are not sinful.  But these non-sinful actions are metaphorical representations of an actual sinful action.  They do not somehow take on sinfulness simply because the actual action would have been sinful, because no one committed the actual action.

If we do not condemn videos that show murders, or theft (such as a bank heist), or even movies that contain jaywalking (for we are supposed to obey non-sinful laws) then what is the basis by which we condemn Wood’s videos?  Again, the two videos that are getting the most flak over are the urination video and the breastfeeding video.  But the actual actions that they did are as follows: in the first case, they squeezed apple juice through a squeeze bottle.  In the second, they drank cow’s milk while sitting in front of a fully clothed woman.  Clearly, neither of those actions are sinful themselves.

But equally clearly, those actions are representing other actions, which some people might claim are sinful (I still have not seen any actual evidence that they are sinful, but that’s a different topic).  The actors are simulating urine and breast milk respectively.  Yet if simulating a murder does not make an action immoral, then why would simulating urine or breast milk make an action immoral, even if the urine and breast milk were actually sinful in and of themselves?

But I’m actually going to up the ante a bit.  What is the most grievous sin you can imagine?  And yes, it’s okay to put on your Sunday school caps, because the answer is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  So, I ask: is it sinful for movies like the Jesus movie, or the Passion of the Christ, to depict the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross?  The perfect, unblemished Lamb of God being put to death at the hands of sinful man—there is no greater sin possible!  If simulating that does not transfer guilt onto the actor, then what would?

Consistency demands an answer here.  If you oppose Wood’s video, do you also oppose every single form of media that depicts sinful actions?  If we go to your DVD collection, are we going to find movies with any violence in them, including minor violence (after all, it is sinful to unjustly strike another person)?  Will we find books on your shelf that have characters who lie?  Will we find video games with characters who are evil in them, even if just the ones that kidnapped the princess who’s at the end of the level?

Are you consistent?  Do you condemn all those things?  Do they offend you, or is it only your brother in the Lord who you feel offense toward? 

Are you consistent with your judgment or not?

God, the Cause of Evil?

sic

“God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause…” (Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, 122)

et non

From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist . . . MUST say (althought they do not always say) that the ultimate cause of evil is God. (Roger Olson)

http://rogereolson.com/2010/09/01/god-and-evil/

Hopeful Universalism, and then some

Currently, the debate over "hopeful universalism" seems simplistic. The only issue considered is this:

[HU] All Christians should at least hope that universalism is true.

Universalism here means the view that all people will eventually be reconciled to God, some only after serving some time in a purgatorial, rehabilitative hell. Call this UR, universal reconciliation.

The idea is that [HU] is the moral high ground, Christians who don't hope for UR are morally deficient. It's the proper thing to do. Moreover, if one believes that the Bible teaches that there is a hell and some people will be in it forever, these people should at least hope that they've misunderstood the Bible on this matter.

But on this assumption, shouldn't those who push the above claim push other states of affairs to hope for?

For example, the above ad hominem (not in a fallacious sense) argument against traditionalists without the hope in UR can be applied to other areas, like:

• Hope that no human who has or will ever exist spends any time in hell? Universalist Robin Parry writes,

  "Historically all Christian universalists have had a doctrine of hell and that remains the case for most Christian universalists today, including Bell. The Christian debate does not concern whether hell will be a reality (all agree that it will) but, rather, what the nature of that reality will be. Will it be eternal conscious torment? Will it be annihilation? Or will it be a state from which people can be redeemed? Most universalists believe that hell is not simply retributive punishment but a painful yet corrective/educative state from which people will eventually exit (some, myself included, think it has a retributive dimension, while others do not)."

  But shouldn't we at least hope that no human will have to spend any time in this "painful" place? Surely it would be better for them to go straight into heaven. Shouldn't universalists hope they're wrong even about their own conception of hell?
• Hope that pluralism (all roads lead to heaven) is true? Since it would be more probable that more people would go straight to heaven without spending any time in hell if pluralism were true, shouldn't we hope for it? Hope we've misread the exclusivist passages?
• Hope that the OT reports of harem warfare are myths, and thus hope that inerrancy is false? Shouldn't we at least hope we've read those passages wrong and Israel never killed thousands of men, women, children, and animals?
• Hope that the story of the flood is a myth? Same reasons as above.
• Hope that the story of the sin of Achan is false? Achan sinned, and his family and livestock were burned and stoned. Shouldn't we hope this didn't happen? Hope we have misunderstood the text at least?
• Hope that the story of Samson is false? Hope we've misread about an all-knowing God giving Samson his strength to bring down the Philistine temple and kill many more in his death than in his life?
• Hope that Old Earth Creationism, with all the millions of years of animal death, is false? Doesn't YEC have millions less cases of animal and human death and suffering? Isn't this better? If a loving God could have avoided millions of cases of death and suffering, wouldn't he? YEC would be one way to achieve this.

These are just some examples. Shouldn't those who push [HU] also push the above? Aren't those who at least hope that the above isn't the case more pious or moral than those who don't? Aren't the same reasons for why all Christians should at least hope for UR applicable to the above?

Really Hopeful Universalism vs. Not-So-Hopeful Universalism

A few corners of the Blogosphere are discussing the topic of "hopeful universalism." This recent discussion took off because of James K. A. Smith's post on the subject.

In its most basic form, the idea behind hopeful universalism is that we should hope that all men will be saved. We may hope that if a man doesn't repent now, he will have a chance to repent in the after life, after being subjected to the pains of hell for a time. It is suggested that all Christians should at least hope for this. If you do not, an eyebrow or two is raised in your direction and questions about your moral character are posed.

Even the claim by hopeless universalists that Scripture positively teaches that there is a hell and that there will be some people in hell for an endless duration and so hoping that all will be saved is irrational, doesn't cut it. Hopeless universalists find this odd. They tell stories like this: Suppose you received a news report from a very trustworthy source that a dirty bomb was detonated in a city and some people died. Suppose you believe this source. Given this, it would be irrational to hope that everyone lived. If you believed that not everyone lived, and so you didn't hope for it, would you be immoral?

But the hopeful retort that while you may believe this, you should hope that you're wrong. After all, can you say with epistemic certainty that the Bible teaches this? Perhaps you've misunderstood things. So you can believe that not all will be in heaven, but you should hope that your belief is wrong, hope that you've misunderstood things. On this view, it seems we should likewise hope that every news report is false. So, when we watched the events unfold on 9-11, we should have all hoped that some lived. After all, we didn't have epistemic certainty about the matter. Perhaps we misunderstood things, there is that chance. The hopeless find this an odd way to live they prefer to be realists. This approach to life has the making for a very unsavory epistemic position to have to live in.

But let's answer this objection on its own terms. Almost all hopeful universalists that I am aware of believe that all will be saved, but some only after some time in a remedial, restorative hell. They all claim that their hope is that all those who go to hell will be saved out of it. But this seems like the taxi cab fallacy (arbitrarily getting out of the taxi when you don't went to go any further). I think all hopeful universalists, if they want a hearing from the hopeless, should hope that there does not exist a human who has spent any time in hell. All humans go to heaven immediately after they die.

Every hopeful universalist argument employed against the hopeless can be applied by the really hopeful against hopeful universalism lite, and then some. Not only can the really hopeful claim that it is more moral and loving to hope that none spend any time in hell, they may also raise an eyebrow or two at the moral character of the not-so-hopeful. The really hopeful will ask things like this: "Hell is horrible, and I cannot imagine a loving God sending any of his children there. Indeed, what of my child? If I knew my own child were going to spend some time in hell and I could do something about it, I would. Well then, since God is our loving father, he should do the same. And, we know that God can do so. He may need to intervene and bypass the free will for a moment, but that is worth it, you see. After all, if you knew your own child would use her free will to seriously harm herself, even if temporarily, would you, as a loving father, take action to stop this?"

But the really hopeful universalist can go further with this mirroring. For instance, if the not-so-hopeful claim that the Bible does indeed teach about the existence of hell and that some people will spend some time in it, the uber hopeful universalist will just ask, "Really, and you're sure about this? You know it with epistemic certainty?" Moreover, they will claim that the Bible seems to support their view. They may point to passages like 2 Peter 3 (a favorite passage of hopeful universalism lite). They will point that God desires none should perish, and so that is why he is delaying his return, so that all might be saved from what is to come after his return. So God wants none to see the judgment that awaits after his return. The passage says nothing about an endless hell, just a Day of Judgment. Indeed, in the Bible, salvation from judgment always applies to the here and now, and what all men are saved from is what begins at Jesus return.

Or take Romans 5. This speaks about all men, claim both groups of universalists. The really hopeful universalist points out that this means that all men are saved from "the judgment that follows" the transgression. Since all men are in Christ, then all men reign in life and are saved from the judgment to come. The really hopeful find it incredible that Paul could think some people united to Christ and thus destined to reign in life after his act of law keeping, would nevertheless spend some time not reigning in life at the Day of the Lord. The one act of the Lord resulted in "justification" for all people, and Paul would find it incredible that those justified would be in hell on the day of Judgment. Thus some really hopeful universalists claim, not without warrant, that they are dogmatic really hopeful universalists, insisting that a truly loving God would send exactly zero of his children to hell for any time at all.

Some who hold to hopeful universalism lite still claim that some horrendous people will need to spend some time in hell. But dogmatic really hopefuls respond that if we take seriously the notion of Jesus' death for all men, they claim justice has been fully satisfied for even these people. They claim that there is now no condemnation for them. They point out the arrogance in thinking that Hitler needs to spend some time in hell for what he did so that he could really appreciate the harm he did, when those who claim this don't think they will also need to spend some time in hell for all their impure thoughts and genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in the form of hating them (which Jesus said is murder). If Hitler is caused by God to believe in Him before he dies, surely he will evidence remorse for his crimes once in heaven, admitting how horrible he was. So there's really no need for hell if we take the universalism texts seriously.

So with all this talk of hopeful universalism, let's make sure the hopeful universalist is really following his own strictures and living under the hope that there has never been a human who has spent any time at all in hell. In fact, one would like to see more universalists becoming dogmatic really hopeful universalists. Until then, the hopeless universalist will continue to think universalists—hopeful and dogmatic—don't have the nerve to take their position to its logical conclusion.