Beyond a reasonable doubt

John W. Loftus said:

“You guys don't merely see things differently than I do, you really fail to understand what I'm saying. You can misconstrue my thoughts all you want to if it makes you feel good, but you're not dealing with what I believe.”

Actually, we understand perfectly well what you’re saying.

“What I'm saying is that I have never seen an event in my expereience which requires a supernatural explanation--that is, something which science cannot explain based upon the laws of nature.”

i) Ah, but you didn’t say that before. You see, we can only understand what you say, and not what you leave unsaid. Terribly limited of us, I know.

ii) I also disagree with where you affix the burden of proof.

I’ve never seen an event in my experience which “requires” a natural explanation.

As I said before, science can only deal with appearances. It can peel back one phenomenal layer to uncover another appearance, but it’s appearances all the way down. So science can never rule out a supernatural explanation.

iii) As to the “laws of nature,” it’s true that natural events ordinarily have an automated quality to them, so, they don’t require an supernatural explanation at the level of secondary causation, just as I can explain certain car parts by immediate reference to robotics rather than human intervention.

However, automation presupposes intelligent intervention in the design stage. Someone had to plan it and to build it.

iv) You act as if one needs extraordinary evidence instead of ordinary evidence to believe in God.

But that’s like walking into an empty, automated factory, and then exclaiming that there’s no evidence of design since everything is done by the law-like regularity of the mindless machines.

Well, the evidence is all around me. The factory is, itself, evidence of design even if the designer is off-site.

One doesn’t need a special omen.

v) I’d’ add that while there’s no event that ever demands a strictly natural explanation, there are events demanding a supernatural explanation.

“You don't realize it but you are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. You claim to have personally experienced God, answered prayer, and maybe an astounding event (or even miracle), and so you conclude that since such a thing happened to you that it could happen in the past also. If I'm being irrational (which is a very large claim...the larger the claim the harder it is to defend it) then so are you!”

I don’t conclude that miracles have happened in the past because miracles have happened to me.

Although I’ve had a few encounters which I’d classify as preternatural, that was after I already became a Christian.

I am aware of God’s providential hand in my life, but you need to be a Christian for some time for that pattern to emerge.

As I said before, one doesn’t need any extraordinary evidence to believe in God, and one can believe in extraordinary events (miracles) on the basis of second-hand evidence (credible testimony).

“Maybe Christian theologian I. Howard Marshall is irrational then?”

Well, we do have to make allowance for the fact that he’s an Arminian! J

“I. Howard Marshall argued that our particular framework (worldview, or set of presuppositions) and the historical evidence ‘stand in a dialectical relationship to one another.’ ‘We interpret evidence in light of our presuppositions, and we also form our presuppositions in the light of the evidence. It is only through a ‘dialogue’ between presuppositions and evidence that we gain both sound presuppositions and a correct interpretation of the evidence. The process is circular and unending. It demands openness on the part of the investigator. He must be prepared to revise his ideas in the light of the evidence, for ultimately it is the evidence which is decisive.’”

“Okay so far?”

It will do for now.

“He's right about this. This is the best that a human being can do. But even Marshall admits that while the Christian should be prepared to let his worldview be altered by the evidence, ‘his world view is part of the evidence, and cannot be simply laid aside.’ And while Marshall argues that a modern day personal experience of ‘the risen Lord’ is a ‘relevant factor’ in assessing the historical facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus, ‘if a person fails to have a personal experience of the risen Lord, this may prove to him that the biblical evidence does not support belief in the resurrection of Jesus.’ [I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 98-101.)]”

The formulation is misleading. In this life we know Jesus by description rather than acquaintance.

A Christian has a personal experience of God’s grace and providence, but he doesn’t enjoy direct contact with the risen Lord.

“Anon. You believe in an uncaused being who didn't gain his complexity the only way we know how, incrementally, but that he had all knowledge and power and presence as a three in one being.”

The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex without having achieved its complexity by incremental steps or stages. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot be incrementally realized. It’s a given totality.

“I believe in a quantum wave fluctuation which, while unexplainable, is much simpler. That's what I prefer, especially when it comes to your God who reveals himself in ways we don't understand…”

As a rule, God does, indeed, reveal himself in ways we understand. That’s the point of having a revelation in the first place—to disclose his purposes to man.

What we don’t understand is what he has chosen to keep to himself, although we understand why it’s necessary for God to keep his own counsel.

“Demands that we believe or be damned for slighting him even though there isn't enough evidence to believe’”

A tendentious claim.

“And in spite of the fact that he shows no sign of averting the many kinds of sufferings we experience.”

That doesn’t count as evidence against the existence of God unless revelation fostered the expectation that God would do otherwise, which is not the case.

There is no promise in Scripture that God will avert all our sufferings. To the contrary, we are told that we will suffer in this life.

“And even creating some of it (the poisonous plant, spider, snake)”

These creatures serve a natural purpose in the ecosystem. This is not a surd or gratuitous evil.

“And blames all of this misery on us when he created us with such propensities and even knew in advance we'd follow our instincts.”

God doesn’t blame us for following our natural instincts. Sin and nature are hardly the same thing.

Debunking Reading Comprehension

John, John-boy Loftus has been kicking against the pricks in his most recent attempt to justify his unbelief. John-boy has many similarities to Homer's Cyclops. He blindly gropes around, trying in vain to grasp on to something which might make his voyage of unbelief more safe. But as Loftus sails through the seas of doubt he hears the sirens calling him to be rational. As John-boy sails towards the beautiful sounds which he thinks will give him comfort in his unbelief he finds that in seeking after rationality, and trying to maintain his unbelief simultaneously, he eventually crashes on the sturdy Rock of Christianity.

The latest example of Loftus' misuse of reason has been to undermine the faith by claiming that it arose from stupid and superstitious people. Since people in the days of Christianity were superstitious rednecks, then we can psychologize about why they believed the claims of Christianity. Loftus' argument is yet another example of the philosophically shoddy work he engages in - all in the name of rationalizing one's unbelief! Unbeknownst to Loftus, though, is that his blogs and arguments (not worthy of the name) serve to bolster the faith of Christians. To those who want to live a full and examined intellectual life, the requirement of Loftus to commit intellectual suicide serves as a useful barrier to those who would otherwise give his claims a fair hearing (fair in the sense that he has something substantive to offer).

Those who read Loftus' blog entry, as well as read the counters by Engwer, Hays, and myself, will be impressed with Loftus' amazing inability to comprehend the arguments of other’s. His post (above) is virtually irrelevant to the arguments we've put forth. He does not succeed in debunking Christianity, but in debunking reading comprehension. John-boy does not really offer hope that one can leave Christianity and keep his rationality, but he does offer hope that one need not be able to comprehend what one reads in order to get a Masters degree.

Before we look at Loftus' blog it will serve us well to look at an example of the distorted reasoning Loftus engages in. John, John-boy Loftus tells us that his rational reason for not believing in the miraculous claims found in the Bible is because,

"My views are based upon every waking moment of my life. I have never seen God's working or his miracles, so I am every bit rational to conclude he didn't work in the past. What's so hasty about that?"

Thus we see that Loftus reasons from his particular experience to the totality of experience. He asks, "What's so hasty about that?" He seriously does not believe that this is fallacious, yet he has told me that he teaches logic at college! We should all agree, though, that a fallacy has been committed. Loftus is making a claim about the totality of experience. He's making a claim about the totality of what has (or could have!) happened throughout history. The larger the claim the larger the sample should be. John's limited experience is not nearly enough to make conclusions about the totality of what has happened in the entire history of the planet earth.

Furthermore, this begs the question against the Christian worldview. All of creation and history testify to "God's working" in time. So, only if this were false could Loftus say that he's never “seen" God's working. Now, John-boy could be using "see" in a very restrictive sense such as: "I've never seen God's working like I've seen a construction worker working." But notice on this interpretation that John, John-boy Loftus is "every bit rational" to conclude that there are no laws of logic since he's never "seen" them in the sense that he's seen a construction worker working.

Now, Loftus continues to mock the Christian worldview, and uses as evidence against it, by arguing that it only arose because of the stupid, ignorant, and superstitious people that lived back then. But as Hays, Engwer, and myself have argued, we have superstitious people as well as skeptical people then as well as now. But let's look at some nasty problems Loftus creates for himself:

(1) Materialism sprouted out of ancient Greece by teachers like Democritus, therefore materialism is most likely false since ancient, stupid, and superstitious people believed it. Loftus may retort that materialism has become more refined than in the days of the atomists, but the same goes with Christianity. It's conception of miracles, along with a sovereign God who providentially governs all events, is more advanced than, say, Zeusian conceptions of deity.

(2) Loftus proposes what he calls an outsider test which says "that when examining any religious belief, skepticism would be warranted..." The problem here is that Pyrrho, that stupid, superstitious ancient started the school of philosophy known as skepticism. Indeed, Sextus Empiricus, in whom much of our knowledge of ancient skepticism is found, tells us of the five modes of skepticism. Those modes are: Discrepancy, Relativity, Infinity, Assumption, and Circularity. We see that Loftus' outsider test employs the first mode when he writes that we should be skeptical "since the odds are good that the [religion] you are investigating is wrong." Therefore Loftus should drop his Outsider Test since skepticism is something that arose from stupid and superstitious people. Loftus even uses an Argippian mode, which originated from an ancient.

(3) The belief that one species became another species (evolution) can be found first in Anaximander. Anaximander believed that fish evolved into men. Thus Loftus should regard the theory of evolution as myth since it originated with stupid, ancient, and superstitious people.

(4) Logic was first formalized by Aristotle. Thus John, John-boy Loftus should reject Aristotelian logic (in tota) since it originated with an ancient, superstitious Greek. Indeed, all forms of formal logic were birthed by Aristotle, thus John should reject logic.

Having embarrassed Loftus thoroughly let's now turn to his most recent blog entry. Loftus writes,

"Many Christians claim that ancient people were not that superstitious compared to our own age. They do this in order to help bolster the purportedly historical claims of their faith."

No, we do it because it's correct. As Steve Hays told you before you wrote this: "People are no different today than they were in the past. You have credulous people today, just as in the past. You have skeptical people today, just as you had in the past." As Engwer told you before you posted this,

"Remember, the issue here isn't whether twenty-first century people have some advantages over first-century people. In some ways, they do. Similarly, in some ways forty-first century people will have advantages over twenty-first century people. They'll probably have better technology, more advanced methods of research, etc. We don't conclude that forty-first century people therefore can dismiss what twenty-first century people reported by making vague references to the alleged gullibility of twenty-first century people."

And as I cited for you before you posted this,

"Just like our own culture today, the ancient world was an intellectually mixed-bag. Like us, it had its share of superstitious and mystically minded people; as we do, it had people whose thinking was ignorant, misinformed, lazy, stupid, illogical and silly. But also like our own age, the ancient world had plenty of people who were skeptical and cynical. (Indeed, those were even the names for two prominent schools of ancient Greek philosophy in the period of the New Testament!) Plenty of people in the ancient world were critically minded about reports of natural wonders and magical powers. Many not only doubted claims to miracles and found them incredible, but even precluded the very possibility that such things could occur."

Thus we see that rather than debunking Christianity you're debunking people's confidence in your ability to comprehend what you read. The rest of Loftus' post takes an example of someone who Loftus says was superstitious and then uses that to conclude that the vast majority of people, save a few, were superstitious idiots. Aside from this being another hasty generalization, the problem is that none of the people Loftus is arguing with deny that you'll be able to cite examples of superstitious people. Indeed, we admitted that there were superstitious people back then. But, for every "superstitious" person you can cite, I'll cite "rational and skeptical" people. Just like today, for every "rational and skeptical" person you find, I'll fine you two to one of the other.

What's more embarrassing is that Loftus'own blog just posted on how gullible and scientifically backwards the majority of people are. We live "in a society where a large majority of the population has no grasp on basic scientific principles and methods..." Look at what Loftus' fellow self-debunking buddy, "Brother Danny" concludes,

"So there's always plenty of superstition to fill in people's heads when knowledge and reason are absent. I don't see religion going away anytime soon, so long as general scientific illiteracy abounds and pervades."

Thus it looks as if Loftus' own team can't get on the same page. But(!), it's worse than that. John, John-boy Loftus argues that today is not like the ancient days, where superstition prevailed. In Engwer's com box Loftus writes: "Just ask yourself, is there anything like that in today's world?" Got that? Loftus is asking whether the majority of people are superstitious today, but then in "Brother Danny's" post Loftus writes,

"Prof James Strauss has documented that whenever there is a crisis in the dominant metaphysical belief system of a western culture then people will gravitate towards the occult, and all kinds of superstitious beliefs looking for answers. We are in such a crisis now."

Thus we see the utterly confused mind of Loftus. When he argues with us he says, "are there any superstitious people now?" But when he strokes his buddy's ego he agrees by writing about how many superstitious people there are now! So many that we are in "a crisis." This is the effects of the fall on Loftus' mind. Loftus continues to make himself, and team atheism, look like the ancient dummies he rails against.

Next thing we know Loftus might agree with Democritus and tell us that the soul is really "fire atoms." He already agrees with Anaximander in saying that men evolved from other species. He already agrees with Agrippan skepticism. Thus it looks like we have a case of projection here. Loftus is a modern-ancient and he’s projecting his gullible and naïve intellect on Christians!

Lastly, what's worse is that Loftus' post is totally disanalagous. He uses a non-Christian's belief to argue that the Christian's beliefs must have been equally superstitious. This would be like me saying that atheists believe stupid things because some deist said something stupid.

We can all agree, then, that this is yet another example of the absurdity of Loftus' "arguments" against the faith. Loftus continually helps the Christian cause by giving concrete evidence, empirical evidence if you will, of the Psalmist's claim:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

The Memphis Declaration

Before reading this, please read here about the Memphis Meeting: http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/
and here: http://www.twelvewitnesses.blogspot.com/ .

For the record, I was not part of this. Some of my written work was. You may hear more about this in the near future if you are in the SBC. This meeting was diverse. Men and women attended. Young and old attended. Some of the "Old War Horses" were present. Several, young and old, including these repented of past deeds done. Some said that, had they known then what they know now, having seen the increasingly shrill tone, they would never have signed up. Many were Calvinists, some were from the Founders movement. Some were not. Some were from the larger churches. Some were from smaller ones. Some were invited but could not make it. Others wanted to come but did not for fear that they too would be attacked as "disloyal to the cause." They are trustees, pastors, denominational figures, and others. They each are "conservative" in the theological framework of the SBC. They vary in their methods. They vary on non-essentials. They are committed to not only the recovery of the formal principle but also the material principle of the Reformation in the SBC. They are united in this pledge. This is a start. It may be that some of this becomes resolutions at the next SBC next month. We'll see. May God bless these men and women.

____________________________

We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering. We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.

We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:

1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.

2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.

3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them. Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.

4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy. Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.

5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.

6. We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.

Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

7. We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.

8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.

Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.

Insufferable unbelievers

The plight of hamsters as evidence for the nonexistence of a Supreme Being
By Sis. Sobsister
Guest editorialist.

Having read Bubba Blubber’s shocking confession over at Triablogue, I’d like to thank Steve Hays for giving me the chance to comment on the tragic fate of Dimples.

What strikes me as the most compelling evidence against the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent deity is the status of hamsters in the world today. One might think that the sheer number of people in this country alone who profess devotion to the ideals of Christianity would have the effect of making unbelievers more compassionate towards the suffering of our furry little friends. Sadly, this is not the case.

On July 1, 2004, there were approximately 20 million pet hamsters in the US. A day later there are 19,999,999. This is not due to disease or natural catastrophe, but to the pinchfisted cruelty of Bubba Blubber.

Now what kind of god would create these creatures with the foreknowledge of their agony at the hands of cruel humanists? How could any of this suffering be needed in any way?

Either God was able to save our hapless hamster, but unwilling—in which case he ceases to be benevolent—or else he was willing, but unable—in which case he ceases to be omnipotent.

In a perfect world, every hamster would be a wanted hamster.

It seems to me that our religious language is at a loss to conceive any reasonable explanation for an omnipotent and benevolent deity permitting an atrocious atheist like Bubba Blubber to darken the face of the earth. And this is not an isolated case.

More to come...

The day my hamster died

Remembering Dimples
By Bubba Blubber
Guest editorialist

Having read Joe’s tragic tearjerker over at Debunking Christianity, I want to thank Steve Hays for giving me the chance to post my own three-hanky at Triablogue.

January 2, 2004 was the worst day of my life. Never has a day come close to equaling it in sheer horror and regret. I would give my very life to take back the pain I caused and felt on that dark, loathsome day.

Many regretful things can happen in a person's life. If I cared to, I know I could rack up a list of lesser tragedies, like the day my dad was burned alive in a car crash, or the time my kid brother was run over by a drunk driver, or the morning my older brother lost his battle with leukemia.

This was something different. On that day, I took a life. I put Dimples, my pet hamster, to sleep.

We called her Dimples cuz when she ate her cheeks went all chipmunky.

Like her father before her, Dimples had severe hip dysplasia which made it difficult for her to walk, so when she got excited, instead of running on her exercise wheel, she would sort of gallop around the yard in a wild, horse-like manner. She was cute to watch. She developed many other health problems though, miscellaneous in nature, and virtually impossible to treat. There came a time when this affected her behavior to the point where she was rambunctious and out of control. As she grew, she was in greater pain from her hips growing more and more crooked. We couldn't afford to have the surgery to replace them, and their was no guarantee it would be successful anyway. So after a long period of thinking over the matter, we decided it was best to have her put down.

So what's the big deal, Bubba? Sick beloved pets get put down all the time. It's a painful part of life, but one that we all get over, right? Here's where things went woefully wrong.

Being a cheapskate I was way too chintzy to have her put to sleep by a Veterinarian. I thought it would be so easy, so over and done with! There was no way I could prepare myself for what was to happen, not in a thousand years.

I won't go into the graphic details. That would be unnecessary. Let me just say, the cutlery and household appliances did not exactly do what they were supposed to do in bringing about a quick death. Everything that could have gone wrong that night did.

First I tried to nuke her in the microwave oven, but the circuit blew. Then I tried to gas her in the garage with the car running, but she escaped through a rat-hole back into the living room. Then I doused her in lighter fluid and set her on fire, but she dove into the dog’s water dish. Then I tried to decapitate her with a meat cleaver, but I couldn’t see straight through my tears, so I kept chopping away, an ear here, and paw there, until I gave up. Then I tried to feed her through a meat grinder—tail first—but the grinder jammed, so I had to extract her, minus the tail.

Dimples suffered so as to make anyone watching pass out in disgust. I am surprised I didn't. I can still hear her groans, and see her twitching in anguish, while profusely panting. The agony and unparalleled shock that filled her eyes was probably the worst part of it all. I distinctly remember trying to comfort her, and at the same time, trying to hurry and get it over with. Her accusing eyes glanced up at mine with a question from her I only wished I could have answered, "Why, master, did you have to be such a cheapskate?"

Finally, her last spasm came and went, and she died. I can remember staring non-responsively at her now motionless body before digging her grave.

The goriest horror movie had nothing on this occasion. I was literally covered in blood. I remember the horrible sight of torn flesh and the smell, that awful, unmistakable smell of burning flesh, carbon monoxide, and blood spilt. It stayed in my nostrils for two months it seemed. Sometimes I think I still catch a whiff of it. If only I could be so lucky as to forget that event, but I know I never will.

This broke me psychologically. I was shocked beyond words while it was happening. It was as though my mind was outside of myself, watching things happen. I couldn't believe it was going on. I drove back home in a state of delirium from what had transpired, hating myself for thoughtlessly and carelessly causing this because I was too damn stingy to do things the assuredly humane way. I now had an intimate acquaintance with death like never before. I slept for two straight days upon arriving back at the house. I couldn't eat for about a week. Nightmares and tears were a regular part of my life for the next few weeks.

As life went on, this came back to haunt me from time to time. On several occasions I was taken suddenly in tears, this on more than one occasion. I wandered over to Dimple's grave and found myself talking in the air to her, as though I believed she was still around me and listening as I told her I'm sorry and wished she could have understood. There were those initial moments of absolute desperation, when, holding out my hand, I found myself hoping that maybe, just maybe, Dimples would come through the veil of the netherworld and nose my hand with her spirit snout. Of course, that never happened. I knew better than that anyway, but grief messes with your head.

That event changed me forever. But I don't need sympathy, nor encouragement. I am a stoic person, a realist. I deal with what life sends my way. Indeed, I have no other alternative. I've counseled many in grief and know to apply to myself what I preached to others, that no matter how bad one may feel, life will still go on. My life has gone on like I knew it would. Each new day comes and goes all the same. Sometimes I think back on the sadness of that night, and the whole memory of the experience engulfs me like a stormy cloud of doom for a time until I can shake it from me. At other times, and for the most part, I put it behind me and go on with my life, chalking it up to just another unfortunate thing of the past.

I came to terms with the fact that I was the cause of Dimple's suffering. I also came to terms with the fact that I will never see Dimples again. I have only her memories left, and no matter how bad I would love to believe that I will someday see my loved ones again, I have no reason to assume I will. Just because I want, like anything, to believe something, just because a certain ideal would bring me fabulous inner-warmth and great comfort, and just because the alternative is grim and disheartening, does not give me just cause to subscribe to irrationality, such as the idea of "life after death." The grave is the end for us all, yet instead of getting depressed about it, I have made the decision to not only expect it, but even appreciate it.

I'll admit that I am setting myself up as a positive example here of allowing reckless emotion and sentimentality to hold sway over sober reason, but this is not the goal of my article. The point of my article is to make clear to the readers and commentators of Debunking Christianity that infidels, like anyone else, can be hypocritical, cold-hearted cads.

Our Father

From our friend, Scripture Searcher in email today:


Our Father who art in Heaven...

YES?

Don't interrupt me. I'm praying...

BUT YOU CALLED ME.

Called you? I didn't call you. I'm praying. Our Father who art inHeaven...

THERE, YOU DID IT AGAIN.

Did what?

CALLED ME. YOU SAID, "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN..." HERE I AM.WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND?

But I didn't mean anything by it. I was, you know, just saying myprayers for the day. I always say the Lord's Prayer. It makes me feelgood, kind of like getting my duty done.

ALL RIGHT. GO ON.

Hallowed be thy name.

HOLD IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

By what?

BY "HALLOWED BE THY NAME."

It means... it means... good grief, I don't know what it means! Howshould I know? It’s just part of the prayer. By the way, what doesit mean?

IT MEANS "HONORED," "HOLY," "WONDERFUL."

Hey, that makes sense. I never thought about what "Hallowed" meantbefore. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is inHeaven.

DO YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

Sure, why not?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Doing? Nothing, I guess. I just think it would be neat if you gotcontrol of everything down here like you have up there.

HAVE I GOT CONTROL OF YOU?

Well, I go to church. Stop picking on me! I'm just as good as some of the rest of thosephonies at the church.

EXCUSE ME...! I THOUGHT YOU WERE PRAYING FOR MY WILL TO BE DONE. IFTHAT IS TO HAPPEN, IT WILL HAVE TO START WITH THE ONES WHO AREPRAYING FOR IT. LIKE YOU, FOR EXAMPLE.

Oh, all right! I guess I do have some hang-ups. Now that you mentionit, I could probably name some others.

SO COULD I.

I haven't thought about it until now, but I really would like to cutout some of those things. I'd like to, you know, be really free.

GOOD, NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE. WE'LL WORK TOGETHER.... YOU AND I.NOW, SOME VICTORIES CAN TRULY BE WON. I'M PROUD OF YOU.

Look Lord, I need to finish up here. This is taking a lot longer thanit usually does… Give us this day our daily bread.

YOU NEED TO CUT DOWN ON THE BREAD TOO... YOU'RE OVERWEIGHT AS IT IS.

Hey, wait a minute! What is this, "Criticize Me Day?" Here I was,doing my religious duty, and all of a sudden you break in and remindme of all my hang-ups.

PRAYING IS A DANGEROUS THING. YOU COULD WIND UP CHANGED YOU KNOW.THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET ACROSS TO YOU. YOU CALLED ME, AND HEREI AM. IT'S TOO LATE TO STOP NOW. KEEP ON PRAYING. I'M INTERESTED INTHE NEXT PART OF YOUR PRAYER...

WELL, GO ON.

I'm scared to.

SCARED? OF WHAT? I KNOW WHAT YOU'LL SAY. TRY ME AND SEE.

Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.

WHAT ABOUT JOE?

See I knew it! I knew you would bring him up! Why he's told liesabout me, cheated me out of money... He never paid back that debt heowes me. I've sworn to get even.

BUT YOUR PRAYER...WHAT ABOUT YOUR PRAYER?

I didn't mean it.

WELL, AT LEAST YOU'RE HONEST. BUT IT'S NOT MUCH FUN CARRYING THE LOADOF BITTERNESS AROUND INSIDE, IS IT?

No, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even. Boy, have I made someplans for ol' Joe. He'll wish he never did me any harm.

YOU WON'T FEEL ANY BETTER. YOU'LL FEEL WORSE. REVENGE ISN'T SWEET.THINK OF HOW UNHAPPY YOU ARE ALREADY. BUT I CAN CHANGE ALL THAT.

You can? How?

FORGIVE JOE. THEN I'LL FORGIVE YOU. THEN THE HATE AND SIN WILL BEJOE'S PROBLEM AND NOT YOURS...YOU MAY LOSE THE MONEY, BUT YOU WILLSETTLE YOUR HEART.

But Lord, I can't forgive Joe.

THEN I CAN'T FORGIVE YOU.

Oh, you're right! You always are. And more than I want revenge onJoe, I want to be right with you... All right! I forgive him. Helphim to find the right road in life, Lord. He's bound to be awfullymiserable, now that I think about it. Some way, some how, show himthe right way.

THERE NOW! HOW DO YOU FEEL?

Hmmm... not bad... Not bad at all, In fact I feel pretty great. Youknow, I don't think I'll have to go to bed uptight tonight for thefirst time since I can't remember. Maybe I won't be so tired from nowon because I'm not getting enough rest.

YOU'RE NOT THROUGH WITH YOUR PRAYER... GO ON.

Oh, alright... And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us fromevil.

GOOD...GOOD. I'LL DO THAT. JUST DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN A PLACE WHEREYOU CAN BE TEMPTED.

What do you mean by that?

QUIT HANGING AROUND THE WRONG PLACES, WATCHING INAPPROPRIATE MOVIESAND TELEVISION, LISTENING TO SINFUL CONVERSATIONS; HANGING AROUND THEPLACES WHERE PLAYBOY AND PLAYGIRL ARE SOLD. CHANGE SOME OF YOURFRIENDSHIPS. SOME OF YOUR SO-CALLED FRIENDS ARE BEGINNING TO GET TOYOU. THEY'LL HAVE YOU COMPLETELY INVOLVED IN WRONG THINGS BEFORELONG. DON'T BE FOOLED. THEY ADVERTISE THEY'RE HAVING FUN, BUT FOR YOUIT WOULD BE RUIN. DON'T USE ME FOR AN ESCAPE HATCH.

I don't understand.

SURE YOU DO, YOU'VE DONE IT... LOTS OF TIMES. YOU GET CAUGHT IN A BADSITUATION, YOU GET INTO TROUBLE AND THEN YOU COME RUNNING TO ME."LORD, HELP ME OUT OF THIS MESS, AND I PROMISE YOU I'LL NEVER DO ITAGAIN." YOU REMEMBER SOME OF THOSE BARGAINS YOU TRIED TO MAKE WITHME?

Yes, and I'm ashamed Lord. I really am.

WHICH BARGAINS ARE YOU REMEMBERING?

Well, when the guy next door saw me backing away from theneighborhood bar... I told my wife I was going to the store... Iremember telling you, "Lord don't let him tell her where I've been. Ipromise I'll be in church every Sunday."

HE DIDN'T TELL YOUR WIFE, BUT YOU DIDN'T KEEP YOUR PROMISE, DID YOU?

I'm sorry Lord, I really am. Up until now I thought if I just prayedthe Lord's Prayer everyday, then I could do what I liked. I didn'texpect anything to happen like it did.

GO AHEAD. FINISH YOUR PRAYER.

Oh yes... For Thine is the kingdom and the power, and the gloryforever and ever. Amen.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BRING ME GLORY? WHAT WOULD MAKE ME REALLYHAPPY?

No, but I'd like to know. I want to please you. I can see what a messI've made out of my life, and I can see how great it would be toreally be one of your followers.

YOU JUST ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

I did?

YES, THE ONE THING THAT WOULD BRING ME GLORY IS TO HAVE PEOPLE LIKEYOU TRULY LOVE ME. AND I CAN SEE THAT HAPPENING BETWEEN US. NOW THATSOME OF THESE OLD SINS ARE EXPOSED AND OUT OF THE WAY... WELL,THERE'S NO TELLING WHAT WE CAN DO TOGETHER.

Lord, let's see what we can make of me, OK?

YES, LET'S SEE.


- Author Unknown
Inspiration Journal

Seeing is believing

John W. Loftus said:

“My views are not based upon a hasty generalization. My views are based upon every waking moment of my life. I have never seen God's working or his miracles, so I am every bit rational to conclude he didn't work in the past.”

So if Loftus has never seen ball lightning, then it’s rational for him to dismiss the testimony of others to the existence of ball lightening.

“The problem is that I won't live that long, nor have I lived in the past. I can only judge things by what I have experienced in the present. And in the present times miracles do not occur. So I have every right to think they did not occur in the past either, and that claims of them cannot be substantiated with evidence.”

i) Nothing could be more irrational than to make one’s personal experience the yardstick of what’s possible or real.

ii) The only reason Loftus takes such an extreme position is that by excluding all testimony, he can thereby exclude religious testimony.

iii) To claim that miracles don’t happen at present is a bare assertion which disregards a great deal of contemporary testimony to the contrary.

“So tell me, how many events have YOU experienced that require a supernatural explanation?”

This is an arbitrary standard of evidence. A rational rule of evidence is the best available explanation of a given event, not the only explanation or necessary explanation.

Once again, Loftus must resort to special pleading to preempt any evidence that would undercut his atheism.

First he limits probative evidence to his personal experience.

Then he limits probative evidence to only what is absolutely required to account for a given event.

“It's just interesting to me that Christians must argue that ancient people were not as superstitious as they really were, and then they have to downplay our knowledge today, arguing that science isn't solid enough. Do you use a computer?”

i) Of course, Jason never contended that ancient people were not as superstitious as they really were.

ii) Rather, Jason has argued that Loftus exaggerates the gullibility of the ancients.

People are no different today than they were in the past. You have credulous people today, just as in the past.

You have sceptical people today, just as you had in the past.

iii) Why is Loftus appealing to science? Science makes many claims about the past, present, and the future which fall outside the scope of Loftus’ personal experience.

iv) How is computer science relevant to his claim?

There’s a difference between technology and scientific theorizing.

Is science a window onto reality? Hard to say. Science deals with appearances.

It may deal with appearances at the microscopic and macroscopic level, as well as naked-eye observation; it may artificially enhance our sensory perception, but it is still limited to appearances.

It works at the level of appearances. Of phenomenal relations. Of how things appear to the observer.

But that tells us nothing of the degree to which appearance and reality correspond.

“And I can't think of a properly interpreted OT prophecy that unequivicably pointed to the nature or mission of Jesus that wasn't misapplied to him, or that wasn't based upon a nebulous hope of theirs. The so-called messianic psalms, if interpreted correctly by the grammatical-historical method, and not through midrash or pesher, were merely psalms of hope and anguish from the writer's perspective alone.”

This is another blanket claim, shorn of any supporting argument.

“And as far as the superstitious people in the Bible goes, I have done a unique analysis of the Bible in my book (my longest chapter) and found superstitions everywhere. That is, taking the Bible at face value, as you might do, I document the various superstitions among those people. I will post something on our blog from my book today to show you the kind of superstitiousness there is in the people of the Bible. Just ask yourself, is there anything like that in today's world? I'll share only one incident...there are many many many more of these. Here goes....”

Why is Loftus making claims about the past? He has told us on numerous occasions that it is rational for him to disbelieve anything that falls outside the scope of his personal experience.

By definition, events from the distant past fall beyond the purview of his own experience.

Why does he dismiss past (as well as present) testimony to the occurrence of the miraculous while he appeals to past testimony regarding the extent of superstition in the ancient world?

For Loftus, past testimony is reliable if it happens to agree with him, but unreliable if it happens to disagree with him.

Meat machines

At 9:08 AM, May 03, 2006, John W. Loftus said...

“Hey Joe, here's a thought to break your heart again. Christian thinkers throughout the centuries believe that animals do not have souls. Descartes argued that because they don't have souls they can feel no pain. Yep. That's right. They can feel no pain. Sure they'll yelp when kicked and whine when sick, but they're just automata, machines. So people used this as an excuse to experiment on them in gruesome ways, because hey, they have no souls and can feel no pain.”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/remembering-mandy.html

Hey, John, here’s a thought to break your heart again. A secular scientist doesn’t believe that an animal has a soul. It is just a meat machine. So a secular scientist will use this as an excuse to experiment on animals in gruesome ways, because hey, they have no souls and can feel no pain.

“Pain” is just a relict of folk psychology. But as card-carrying materialists like Rorty, Dennett, and the Churchlands have taught us, there is no such thing as pain.

Right-brained atheism

J. E. Holman, over at the Debunkers, has penned a tearjerker about the death of his dog. His excuse for this is, he says, to show s that unbelievers have feelings to. They aren’t clones of Mr. Spock.

It’s often amusing to compare and contrast a man’s self-image with his public image. Holman labors under the self-indulgent conceit that just because he regards atheism as a rational outlook on life, Christians will second his self-image by regarding the average atheist as a hard-hearted rationalist.

This is, of course, a classic case of projection. We don’t view the average atheist as a clone of Mr. Spock. To the contrary, it’s quite obvious that many unbelievers reject the Christian faith for emotional reasons. Their own testimonials document that subjective incentive.

It would be more accurate to say that atheism is a left-brained philosophy for right-brained unbelievers. That’s the point of tension.

And this is what is unwittingly illustrated in Holman’s tearjerker.

Holman had a pet dog. He formed an emotional bond with his dog. As his dog got old, she was in pain. Holman decided to put her out of her misery. But it was messy, gut-wrenching experience for dog and owner alike.

Now, let’s put on our atheistic spectacles at view this event through the “clear” and “corrective” lens of atheism.

A dog is just a meat machine. And a dog owner is just a meat machine.

We can form an emotional attachment to our pets. This is a carryover from evolution. It confers a survival advantage to bond with our own species—especially our mate or our offspring.

And this same genetic conditioning has a spillover effect when it comes to household pets. It’s is a side-effect of our evolutionary programming.

But this is nothing more than biochemistry. A chemical reaction between the brain chemistry of a dog and the brain chemistry of its owner.

It’s not any different than other forms of chemical dependency, such as an addiction to chocolate ice cream. And the withdrawal symptoms are the same.

Moreover, even if his pet dog felt a sense of betrayal at the last moment, yet once it’s dead, it no longer feels betrayed by its master. Once it’s dead, it no longer feels a thing. It doesn’t remember how its master put a bullet through its brain.

Furthermore, the whole business about feelings is just a quaint and antiquated relic of folk psychology.

Remember, I am a meat machine. And my dog is a meat machine. My brain is the byproduct of a purely physical process of natural selection and genetic drift.

There is no soul. There is no “person” behind the eyes, like an observer staring out the window.

Consciousness is an illusion. Society is just one big necropolis.

The mausoleum may be “occupied,” but no one is home. There isn’t any one “there,” because there isn’t any there there to begin with.

The dog is a zombie, and the owner is a zombie. There appears to be an emotional bond, but that’s a trick of the “mind” generated by our smart genes. A survival strategy.

So Holman is at war with his own worldview. His heart tells him one thing, but in becoming an atheist he’s undergone a brain transplant.

Now let’s remove our atheistic spectacles and put on our Christian spectacles. Why do we become attached to our pets?

To begin with, Holman’s reaction is a natural reaction taken to an unnatural extreme. It’s really rather decadent to get quite that carried away over the death of a pet dog.

From the way he writes you’d think he lost a child to cancer. Let’s retain a sense of proportion.

That said, love is a theological virtue. For this reason, God has instantiated love throughout the world, in many different forms and occasions.

In their varied and finite ways, they exemplify the attribute of divine love.

They exist to remind us of a greater love, as transient tokens of a higher good.

They serve as a means to an end, but they are also good in their own right.

Life is like a shipboard romance. You fall in love, yet you must leave the beloved behind when you disembark.

But this also raises the question of whether, in the world to come, there will be a restoration of all we lost.

The answer to that question has not been fully disclosed. There will be a general restoration, but not a universal restoration. There will be a partial reunion. And there will be compensations.

For a Christian, every good will be better in the world to come. Here we see the shadow, there we see the sun. The best is yet to be.

You can’t take it with you. But nothing is lost to God.

Yet what-all that amounts to remains to be seen. Heaven is full of surprises. Pleasant surprises.

Testing Gullibility Claims

In recent days, John Loftus has been posting here on the subject of the alleged gullibility of ancient people. Paul Manata has made some good points in response, and I want to recommend, again, a resource I mentioned earlier. Glenn Miller has a good article on this subject that addresses the claims Loftus is making, including some of the Biblical material Loftus has cited. Miller goes into a lot of detail. If you don't have time to read all of it, though I'd recommend reading all of it, then at least read the list of summary conclusions at the close of the article. If you want further information on any of the conclusions, use the Ctrl F feature to search the article for whatever you're interested in. Miller makes many points that Loftus and other critics of Christianity repeatedly neglect. While Loftus often makes vague assertions without any supporting evidence, Miller goes into a lot of detail. Notice that Miller cites scholars who specialize in these areas confirming his conclusions. Scholars of ancient history don't think it's sufficient to dismiss what ancient sources said with a vague reference to how gullible ancient people allegedly were.

Just as people like John Loftus can emphasize the supernatural beliefs of ancient people spanning hundreds of years, combine all of those beliefs together, ignore or underestimate all qualifying data, and conclude that ancient people were too gullible for their testimony to have much significance, we could do the same with the modern world. Ignore the modern educational system. Ignore the work done by scientists, historians, and other scholars. Ignore the motives modern people would have to investigate truth claims. Just emphasize all of the supernatural beliefs of modern people (consulting psychics, belief in ghosts, belief in reincarnation, etc.), combine all of those beliefs together, ignore or underestimate all qualifying data, and conclude that twenty-first century people are too gullible for their testimony to have much significance.

Remember, the issue here isn't whether twenty-first century people have some advantages over first-century people. In some ways, they do. Similarly, in some ways forty-first century people will have advantages over twenty-first century people. They'll probably have better technology, more advanced methods of research, etc. We don't conclude that forty-first century people therefore can dismiss what twenty-first century people reported by making vague references to the alleged gullibility of twenty-first century people.

Remember, also, that not all of the supernatural elements of Christianity depend on accepting the testimony of ancient Christian sources. Prophecy is an example. If you acknowledge something as basic as the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion, you're acknowledging the plausibility of His fulfillment of highly unusual passages in the Old Testament (Psalm 22:16, Isaiah 53:4-6). If you acknowledge a basic fact like the timing of Jesus' death, you're acknowledging that His death occurred within a narrow window of time that would fulfill Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27). If you acknowledge a basic fact like Jesus' historical influence on Gentile nations, you're acknowledging His fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation of an ultimate servant of God who would become a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6-7, 52:15). Facts such as Jesus' death by crucifixion, the timing of His death around 30 A.D., the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D., and Jesus' influence on the Gentile world are widely accepted facts, acknowledged even by atheists, agnostics, and other people who are far from holding a Christian worldview.

But even as far as the claims of the ancient Christians are concerned, we have to evaluate charges of gullibility on a case-by-case basis. Does the apostle Paul's educational background suggest gullibility? Does his background as an enemy of Christianity suggest gullibility in believing Christian claims? Does his former position as a religious leader of Israel around the time when Jesus and the apostles were alive suggest that Paul would have been ignorant of arguments against Christianity? Does Paul's practice of traveling around the world and initiating discussions with philosophers, religious leaders, and other people he disagreed with suggest that he never saw his beliefs challenged and never had to give any defense of those beliefs? When we read a passage like 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul acknowledges that Christian faith is worthless if he's wrong about the resurrection, in which he refers to hundreds of other witnesses who support his testimony, in which he's following the lives of those witnesses so closely that he knows what portion of them are still alive or dead (1 Corinthians 15:6), does such evidence suggest that Paul was highly gullible? Or does it suggest that he was significantly discerning?

It's easy for somebody like John Loftus to make vague charges of gullibility. It's something else to go into the sort of detail Glenn Miller has gone into, the sort of detail I've outlined above.

A Modest Proposal or a Grand Dream? A Brand New Baptist Confession

Yesterday, I posted over at Wade Burleson's blog . The response has been, how shall we say, interesting. Some agree. One argued that since 99.9 percent of Southern Baptists don't know what I was talking about or care (ditto for unbelievers), the Convention didn't need a new confession, and it only needed a confession that covered essentials. In a response, I reminded "anonymous" that if that was the case, we could basically quote the gospel from 1 Corinthians, toss in an article on the Trinity, one on inspiration, an anathema of Roman Catholic views on Scripture, an affirmation of justification by faith and be done. We should disinclude the ordinances, polity, family, religious liberty, the attributes of God, providence, etc. since they are not really "essential" for salvation itself, and the others guarded against the most common errors in history. I then reminded "anonymous' that by disincluding articles like a statement on God's Providence, we should just call Greg Boyd and ask him and his buddies to join, since we'd be allowing for Open Theism. I'm still unsure how glorying in ignorance is a justification for a bad confession. Maybe anonymous was mad because I used big words in the proposed outline. For the record, I assume some level of competence from blog readers. If you can use the internet, you can look up the big words on Google.

Anyway, here's what I posted. I offer this to generate discussion, nothing more nothing less.

Wade said:

However, we get into trouble when we began to either place in our confessions specific interpretations of doctrines not essential for salvation, or when we demand as a convention conformity in the interpretation of doctrines that are not addressed by our Baptist confessions of faith.

Now, before I post what I said in reply, I want to be clear. I think the SBC is so large now that a confession like the BFM, which functions rather like the 39 Articles in that a Calvinistic Anglican and an Anglo-Catholic can read their own doctrines into it is not really useful. As long as there is a confession in the SBC that is worded vaguely, unclearly, or imprecisely, people will dispute over the interpretation; especially if they are as ignorant as many of them are about what it means anyway. The BFM's are all iterations of the New Hampshire Confession. So, what we're dealing with is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy that has been changed slightly each time. A confession like this does not alleviate the problem Wade has described. If people can't agree over the meaning of, say, the soteriological articles, what makes anybody think they will not abuse the confession on issues not in it? If you want examples, head to www.baptistboard.com and ask questions about the different articles of the BFM and watch the feeding frenzy. Likewise, as I said above, if we place only articles "essential for salvation" in the BFM, then we may as well call Greg Boyd and ask him to join.

Here is my proposal:

Historically, Baptists in general did quite well when the FWB's had their own confessions and the rest used the 1689, Charleston, or Philadelphia Confession. They were often quite specific and elaborate, but folks knew their confessions and what was meant. They also had some give in the Associations as to who they would allow to join if they didn't use that precise language but got the gist of the matter correct. The churches that formed the SBC in 1845 all held to the Philadelphia or Charleston Confessions (which were basically identical). The Abstract of Principles is fairly simple, but the explanation (Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology) explains the Abstract of Principles in detail for us. The SBC functioned quite well on these confessions.

The problem, in my opinion, is not really in placing specific interpretations of doctrrnes not essential for salvation into a confession. I think that's the immediate , but not the long term cause. The latter problem is using confessional language that is intentionally vague in the hopes it will be "inclusive." While that is a nice sentiment, I think it creates more problems than it solves, because two groups see different doctrines in one statement. Take monergistic regeneration. That alone assumes a particular ordu salutis that is not at all compatible with synergistic regeneration. These two sides are thus mutually exclusive at the conceptual level. They can't therefore, really coexist in a single propositional statement on paper. If they do, people read their conceptual scheme into the document. Currently, with both sides appealing to the BFM, we have a growing controversy brewing in the Convention.

Allow me to explain and illustrate:

The purpose of human language is, first and foremost, to communicate truth about God and His truth. This includes confessional documents. Our confessions should not be so broad that two different groups can come to one or more sections and both see their own doctrines in them. They should be clear and articulate the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is the way to write an inclusive confession. On the controversial portions, if the SBC wishes to be a big tent, spell out x,y, and z in no uncertain terms. I've said it once, I'll say it again, I believe the SBC needs to revisit the BFM and come up with a better, more clear confession. For example something like:

On Salvation: Southern Baptists affirm that all people must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved, repenting from their sins and turning to Christ alone by faith alone for their salvation, to receive forgiveness of sins and obtain a righteous standing before God. This is a standard affirmation of Sola Fide, justification by faith, and, by implication, imputation.

Spell out the classic definitions of Justification, sanctification. glorification, and regeneration with no mention of the place of election, calling, and regeneration in the ordu salutis or their definitions.

Then say something like:

Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the ordu salutis and, at the conceptual level, the soteriological framework within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

Monergist (define monergism)

1. Spell out the Calvinist doctrine, any historic clearly Calvinist Baptist confession will do for the words; I knowTom Nettles could write this section anew to make the old confessions more concise but more precise than the NHC and BFM's.

2. Spell out the Amyraldian doctrine, identical to the above with atonement excepted (if a mention of the atonement is in a separate header in the confession, see below. If atonement is not placed here, then, because the Amyraldian and Calvinist agree on the state of man, election, effacious grace, and perseverance of the saints, one need not include this as a section).

Synergist (define synergism)

3. Spell out the Arminian doctrine, emphasizing penal substitution, not the moral govt' theory.

4. Spell out what the current BFM says and be sure it is couched in clearly synergistic terms.

--Here is where you discuss calling, election, regeneration and/or perseverance of the saints/eternal security, maybe the sinful condition of man and its effects on the will, if that is part of the framework presented.

Each of these is acceptable in the SBC now, except perhaps the Arminian scheme, since it denies eternal security. If 3 is thus eliminated, then graft the first 4 articles of that scheme unto the doctrine of eternal security (since that is the gist of the scheme most prevalent in the SBC) and then eliminate the last header based on the current BFM, though redefined and have either two, three or four division headers with the requiste number of sections and paragraph headers as needed for each one. One could even include a statement that allows for diversity among these points, e.g. "or any combination of the above positions" as long as it is supportable from Scripture. IMO, in the SBC, when it comes to election, regeneration, and effacious grace we are really only dealing with 2 positions anyway, 3 if you count the real Amyraldians, and they agree with the Calvinists on these 3 points, only differing over the atonement.

You could also spell out what is "disorderly'" in a final section that denies particular doctrines, though it is rare to find confessions that anathematize doctrines in Protestantism. One could say something like:

Errors and Excesses to be Avoided.

1. Spell out clearly the definiton of hyper-Calvinism and its differentiation from traditional 5 Point Calvinism and Amyraldianism.

2. Define the moral government theory of atonement and other theories deemed dubious.

3. If classic Arminianism is left out, define the denial of eternal security as an error to make this rejection certain.

4. Works salvation (any position which makes salvation a work). If this article appears, it should define what it means by "works" (baptism, good works, circumcision, etc.)

For Spiritual Gifts- Affirm the current BFM's statement. Add: Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the distribution of spiritual gifts within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

1. Spell out the cessationist doctrine.

2. Spell out the semi-cessationist doctrine and its bounds.

3. Spell out the charismatic doctrine and its bounds.

4. Spell out what is "disorderly" (a, b, c. etc.)

For the Atonement. Clearly state the doctrine of penal substitution. Then: Add: Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the scope of the atonement, within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

1. Spell out the Calvinist doctrine (particular atonement).
2. Spell out the non-Calvinist doctrine (general atonement)

--The language should be clear and non-polemic and can even simply refer to other works on the atonement for further study.

This pattern would be repeated in the confession over other articles where there is recognized diversity in the SBC as it exists today. Notice that this isn't suggested simply because the SBC is diverse and we need to include anybody and everybody. On the contrary, certain views can be listed as errors. Rather it is suggested because these are all orthodox positions to hold and the already exist in the SBC as it is now. In our own church's confession, we have a * by articles that we consider non-negotiables. The new confession could * those statements or include: This is non-negotiable. For example, the doctrine of God, the Trinity, Scripture, Sola Fide, the plain defintions of justification, sanctification, and glorification, a repudiation of Open Theism. Either * them, or for clarity say: Unless otherwise noted these are not negotiable items. Items where we accept and affirm diversity are clealy delineated. It's long and elaborate, but note that this structure is actually clearer and still more forgiving than, say, the 1689.

Yes, this makes for some very hard work.

Yes, this makes for a long confession.

It surely would give the churches in the Convention teaching material for years to come, and the Convention would certainly, if the confession was taught well, have a better educated membership.

No, nobody as ever made such an attempt.

But...nobody else attempted a program like the CP, and look at the horsepower it has provided our missions work!

But...it would do the job and eliminate some of the tension in the SBC over these issues. The problem is in getting people to pass it.

The SBC would very likely be the first group to attempt such a confession, but somebody has to go first. The last really elaborate Baptist Confession was written in the 18th century. It modified the one in 1689, so it wasn't very original. It's about time to draft another. There hasn't been a really good new confession in a few centuries now.

Southern Baptists have some of the best theological minds in the world in teaching at the seminaries and, in my opinion, its pulpits. God's people have gotten lazy when it comes to confessions and stating them well. We should repent and draw up a new one, a truly excellent one that is clear and not to be misconstrued but presents an acceptable range of beliefs in no uncertain terms.

They're Creeping In! Pt. 1

(from my Strange BaptistFire post)

I’ve had my eye on this article that basically seeks to warn Southern Baptists of ministries such as the Founders that have “crept” into the church. In so doing, the anonymous authors of “BaptistFire” explore what they believe to be “deceitfulness” on the part of the “tactics” of certain Calvinists. I wish to deal with this article quite extensively so that these anonymous authors will not complain that I have ignored any of their arguments. Every Scripture citation will be explored; every assertion will be questioned. Therefore, today we’ll only look at the opening paragraph, and I’ll only be responding to the first sentence:

“Crept in Unawares …”
Calvinists want to take over your Southern Baptist church
a BaptistFire special report
(Updated: Sept. 26, 2005)

What Calvinists Believe

Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone (contrary to John 3:16). They do not believe that God wants to save everyone (contrary to 1 Tim. 2:4). Most do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (contrary to 1 John 2:2). Not only are these doctrines contrary to the Bible they are contrary to what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe.

This section is entitled inappropriately. Rather than being titled “What Calvinists Believe,” it should be titled “What Calvinists Don’t Believe,” for each of these statements starts, in the negative, with “they do not believe…” Obviously, the anonymous author had no intention of honestly explaining to the readers the doctrines of Calvinism in this section. Rather, this is simply another means of casting the Doctrines of Grace into the negative light, telling us the ways that they are supposedly unscriptural. But let’s look at each of these (this post will only focus on the first):

Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone (contrary to John 3:16).

This is simply two false, unqualified assertions in the same sentence:

1. This anonymous author fails to distinguish between different kinds of love. He (or she) simply incorrectly states that “Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone.” He doesn’t distinguish between redemptive love and a love that comes from common grace. Do Calvinists believe that God redemptively loves those whom he condemns, so that God must be eternally disappointed because he failed to save those whom he wanted to save? Well, no. But if God did not love his creation enough to impart to it common grace; the human race, in its depravity, would have murdered itself out of existence by now. To live in a world in which common grace is absent would certainly be a terrifying experience.

It is certainly noteworthy that people like the contributors of “BaptistFire” wish to make the Creator lower than the creature. Why is it that it is good and right for us to distinguish in our love, but wrong for God? Why is it right for me to love my wife in a manner that is different in extent and intensity than how I love other women, but wrong for God to love his church differently than those who are not his people? The answer is that synergism is a soteriology that is constantly seeking to dethrone the King and place man as ruler of his own destiny. In essence, the Creator is brought lower than the creature.

2. The anonymous author states that the Reformed doctrine is “contrary to John 3:16.” Firstly, John 3:16, contrary to this contributor’s assertion, does not state “God loves everyone in the same way.” Rather, it starts by stating that God loves “the world.” It is, of course, assumed that the terms “world” and “every single person” are equal. But you simply won’t find that in John’s writings. When John tells us not to love “the world” (1 John 2:15), is he telling us to not love “every single person”? Or when in verse 17 of chapter 3 John states that God sent his Son “into the world” does he mean that God sent his Son “into every single person”? Surely the knee-jerk, dogmatic notion that the only definition of “world” is “every single person” is an unwarranted assumption. What, then, determines the definition? Context. God’s love for “the world” results in something. And what is that? It results in the saving of those who believe ( πας ο πιστευων). God sent his Son with the purpose that (ινα, “hina”) all of the believing ones (πας ο πιστευων) might be saved. So God’s love is love that extends to a certain group, not love that is generically spread over the earth like peanut butter that results in the salvation of no one apart from the autonomous will of man.

In addition, we should certainly begin to wonder what type of love it is that these anonymous “BaptistFire” contributors are promoting. What kind of love is it that would grant autonomy to depraved creatures? Apparently, God’s will to allow people to authoritatively choose their own condemnation trumps his will to save them. In order to avoid universalism, hidden beneath the supposedly noble principle that God wills to save every individual is God’s somehow-stronger will to grant them autonomy. While the anonymous “BaptistFire” authors love to promote the emotion-targeted viewpoint that God does not have the freedom to love and save whom he pleases, as he pleases, what they really love about synergism is the synergism; though they might claim that the supposedly “chief attribute” of God is love, what they really like about God is the notion that he has released them from the absolute sovereignty of his will and replaced it with a will that desires most to see man exercise his will autonomously. For the synergistic God, what he wants most is not to see everyone saved, but to see everyone exercise his will in an ultimately authoritative manner–whether that results in their condemnation or in, if by some reason in them, their salvation. To use a Dave-Huntian expression, “What love is this?” I cited this Steve Hays quote in my article “The Philosophy of Monergism” recently:

[Synergists] … say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God … But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular. Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it’s the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done?

The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?

We’ll look at the next sentence in the next post, and hopefully then we’ll be able to cover more ground

Evan May.

Debunking John Loftus: Part n.

Our friend, John, John-boy Loftus, stopped by and commented on this post of mine.

"Christianity claims things that are way out in right field, to use a metaphor."

Atheism claims things that are way out of the ballpark. And, I think the metaphor is "you're out in left field."

"My view is, was, and will be, is that the view requiring the fewest unexplainables is the one to be preferred."

My view is, was, and will be, that John Loftus' rejection of the triune God doesn't allow him to explain anything.

"Go ahead explain the atonenment [sic]. I have been waiting. Anyone there at Triablogue up to it?"

Yeah, sure thing, here's from my 6 yr old’s catechism we went through a couple years ago:

Q. 48. What is meant by the Atonement?

A. Christ's satisfying divine justice, by his sufferings and death, in the place of sinners.

You know John-boy, if you'd like me to arrange a radio debate between you and my 6 yr. old I'd be happy to do it.

"And your alternative is to believe in the brute unexplainable fact of an eternally existing trinue [sic] God who never had a beginning and who decrees all of the suffering we experience in the world because that brings him more glory."

1) I said that you have asked us to explain things and when I have asked you to explain things you've said you don't have to. So, which is it? This doesn't address my claim, at all. It's not even in "right field." If not everything can be explained, then why is this a problem, at all?

2)What do you mean by "unexplainable?" What is it to "explain" something in your worldview? Is it causal? Mechanistic? Philosophical? Basic? Non-basic?

3) Your alternative is to not be able to explain anything.

4) Your problem is that you have to presuppose the brute unexplainable fact of an eternally existing triune God who never had a beginning and who decrees all of the suffering we experience in the world because that brings him more glory, in order to make sense of your experience.

"Was logic created by him,"

Depending on what you mean by logic, no.

"or must God abide by some standard of Logic?"

You must have meant, must God abide by some standard of logic outside Himself? In that case, no.

"To say Logic is God's very nature does not tell us whether his logic is true or not...it just is...because there would be no higher standard of logic to test God's logic."

1) God cannot lie, that's a presupposition of the Christian worldview. So, all you've done is to presuppose that Christianity is false in order to say it's false. Terribly uninteresting, John-boy.

How's this: since God exists, how can you say atheism is true?

2) So, does one need a "higher" standard of logic do determine if "lower" logics are "true?" If so, then how do you determine your human logic? If you have no higher standard than human logic is just to say "it's there." You wouldn't know if it's true or not because you'd have no higher standard by which to judge it.

If you have a higher standard, then how do you judge that higher standard? By a higher one? Ad infinitum.

Hey, don't complain, you did that to yourself (I can do that with math et al.).

3. What if God is the highest standard and whatever he says is "righteous and true?" Seems like you'd have to presuppose the Christian worldview as false in order to even bring up your charge. So, I guess if you want to leave out relevant details to make your case, take that low road then.

"How can you even think of saying that your view is preferable to mine?"

'cause yours is stupid.

"There is faith for both sides, since on one can be absolutely sure."

You "absolutely sure" 'bout that?

Anyway, thanks for admitting that atheism is faith-based. I'm sure the boys (and girl!) at the Secular Outpost liked that one.

Here's the humdinger: my faith saves knowledge and rationality, yours destroys it.

"But still, the simpler theory is to be preferred."

1) Well, here's my theory: God's right and John-boy's wrong. Simple enough?

2) The simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything.

3) Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.

4). This objections assumes, many times, that only physical or naturalistic explanations can be given or accepted.

5) Hume destroyed empiricism and appeal to necessary causes, so how can you explain anything?

"And when I read the Bible it contains far too many things which are out of sync with today's world--far too many."

1) Those being?

2) So your little sliver of experience, in "today's world," allows you to make claims about what is possible or impossible in the totality of it all?

3) That's called a hasty generalization, a fallacy, John-boy.

4) You ditched your critical thinking class didn't you? You and the other kids who have now since apostatized were all down at the arcade playing Donkey Kong and drinking soda pop while the other kids stayed and learned logic.

"The explanation that God was doing things differently back then doesn't wash."

1) Oh, God can't run His universe in a way unlike he ran it before? Nice of you to be so humble. Does God need to ask your permission to do something, or stop doing something?

2) If people cannot do things different than they did in the past, then John, John-boy Loftus cannot have deconverted.

3) If John, John-boy Loftus cannot have deconverted then he's still a theist.

4) If Loftus is still a theist then we've finally proven Steve Hays' claim that Loftus is really an under cover theist trying to make atheists look bad!

"And the evidence we do have of the past is that ancient people believed in magic, gods and godesses, [sic] sacrifices, divination, God insired [sic] dreams, incarnations, and...and...and... Unbelievable [sic] stuff."

How many times is Loftus going to bring up this slandering the past fallacy? Lewis called this one, Chronological Snobbery.

I've pasted Greg Bahnsen's little answer to Loftusian type claims before, but ole John-boy never responds. I guess he thinks he can just ignore counter evidence and argumentation and pretend that his thesis still stands. It looks as if he just plugs his ears and chants "my theory is simple, my theory is simple."

Well, here's Dr. Bahnsen again (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa165.htm),

****************

Slandering The Past

You will notice in the hypothetical challenge to Christianity's credibility which is expressed above (meant to be representative of the actual negative mindset and comments of unbelievers which we encounter), there is an unquestioned and arrogant assumption that a critical mindset about miracles is the exclusive property of "the modern world." The philosopher David Hume snidely remarked that it forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors....[1]

Over and over again you will find non-Christians who simply take it for granted that people in the ancient world believed miracles took place, to be blunt, because: (a) they were too scientifically stupid to know better, (b) they were gullible and naive, and/or (c) they were fascinated and eager to find anywhere they could traces of magic in their experience.

Of course, on those three scores we should wonder if the enlightened modern world has any reason for pride, really. It is not the least bit difficult today to locate scientifically stupid people, even college graduates. Watch them try to "fix" things with a hammer, deal with an unwanted cockroach or rationalize their smoking; listen to their home-cures for a hangover. And as for gullibility and magic! In our oh-so-smart "modern" world have you ever heard about get-rich-quick investment schemes, diet fads, lottery fever, or the wonder of crystals (or pyramids, etc.)?

Or listen to all those respected entertainers on TV talk-shows telling large, attentive audiences about their "former lives," or about the healing power of meditation, or about "social karma" and "mother earth," or about the "human face" of communist tyranny in our century, etc. These are hardly evidences of a critical mind or superior rationality.



Believe It Or Not, Skepticism Has Been Around

Clear-thinking people should beware of sloppy and self-serving generalizations about, or comparisons between, one age (or culture) and another.

Even more, they should refrain from manifesting the kind of historical ignorance which imagines that people who lived before our enlightened, modern age were, in general, never critically minded or were readily fooled (or more easily than we would be) into accepting tales of miracles. After all, what is the source of the expression occasionally still used in our day "he's just a doubting Thomas"? Remember Thomas, called Didymus (the "Twin"), from the gospel of John's account of Christ's resurrection (John 20:24-29)? Down through subsequent history he has come to be called "Doubting Thomas" just because of his skeptical mindset regarding one of the greatest miracles in the Bible. Thomas would not readily accept the testimony of the other apostles that they had seen the resurrected Savior.

And he was not alone in that spirit of disbelief. Even those who personally encountered Christ after He rose from the dead were not excitedly awaiting or jumping with eagerness at the opportunity to believe that a wonder had taken place. Two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31) as well as Mary Magdalene (John 20:1, 11-16) were so disinclined to believe such a miracle that they did not even recognize Jesus when they saw him. (Gestalt psychology helps us understand that kind of experience, which all of us have had when "seeing" somebody we know, but not recognizing him "out of normal context" or in an unexpected setting.) Matthew relates that even in the presence of the resurrected Lord and knowing who He was supposed to be, "some doubted" (Matt. 28:17).

When the gospel of the resurrected Savior was taken out into the ancient world, there was then - even as now - a general antagonism to the credibility of such claims. Paul proclaimed the resurrection of Christ before the Council of Areopagus in Athens, but the Greek poet Aeschylus many years before had related, in the story of the very founding of the Areopagus, that it was there declared that once a man has died "there is no resurrection." The ancient world knew its share of skepticism and denunciation of miracles. Luke writes that when Paul's address to the Areopagus brought him to the claim about Christ's resurrection, his audience could hardly be characterized by general gullibility and a predisposed willingness to affirm the miracle! Instead: "now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked," and others more politely put Paul off to another time (Acts 17:32). Ridicule of miracles did not begin in the modern world of enlightened science.

Just like our own culture today, the ancient world was an intellectually mixed-bag. Like us, it had its share of superstitious and mystically minded people; as we do, it had people whose thinking was ignorant, misinformed, lazy, stupid, illogical and silly. But also like our own age, the ancient world had plenty of people who were skeptical and cynical. (Indeed, those were even the names for two prominent schools of ancient Greek philosophy in the period of the New Testament!) Plenty of people in the ancient world were critically minded about reports of natural wonders and magical powers. Many not only doubted claims to miracles and found them incredible, but even precluded the very possibility that such things could occur.


The Truth Claims Of Christianity

This was so much the case that you will notice the apostle Peter felt it necessary to make this declaration in his second general epistle: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). Peter knew that it would be easy for people to "write off" the claims of Christians as just so much more idle chatter and story-telling; he knew that people in his own generation had dismissed the church's proclamation about Jesus because they would not believe such claims regarding miracles. Far from being stupid and gullible, Peter's contemporaries had to be assured that apostolic accounts of Jesus were not cunningly devised fables, but the eyewitness truth.

It was important for the Christian testimony in the midst of an unbelieving culture that followers of Jesus have a reputation for not "giving heed to fables" (1 Tim. 1:4) or entertaining "old wives' tales" (1 Tim. 4:7) - that is, fictitious accounts which are the very opposite of "the truth" of Christianity (2 Tim. 4:4). The hostile world of unregenerate men would only too gladly dismiss the claims of the gospel narrative as being of the same mythical nature - fabulous, unreliable, exaggerated.

The point here, very simply, is that contemporary critics of the Christian faith who automatically dismiss and ridicule the miracle-claims of the Bible because of the alleged widespread ignorance and gullibility of the ancient world only bring shame to themselves for their own ignorant prejudices and unwarranted generalizations. Like today, defenders of the faith in the ancient world encountered significant opposition and negativity about the alleged occurrence of miracles - hostility ranging from sophisticated philosophical repudiations to gut-level mockery. If people living in those days came to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick and was raised from the dead, it was not because they categorically were weak-minded and ignorant fools, ready to believe any and every fable that came their way.

***************


"Unbelievable [sic] even to YOU if someone were to tell the same kinds of stories in today's world."

What, you mean like if someone told me that "Once upon a time (read: billions and billions of years ago) a frog turned into a prince (read: species turned into other species)." You mean like that?

Or, like when people tell me that non-rational matter somehow turned into the rational?

Or like when people tell me that what was once not-living became living?

Or like when people tell me that two-way lungs evolved into one-way avian lungs?

John-boy, that's qualities turning into their opposites. That's alchemy You know, trying to turn lead into gold.

The Devil's Chaplain

Deconversion testimonials have become a traditional hazing ritual in the nullifidian fraternity. To join their unholy frat house, the candidate must be able to furnish a personal deconversion story.

However, there’s an amateurish quality to these accounts that stands in stark contrast to the rigorous quality-control mechanism of mass evangelism.

It’s vitally important that the prospective deconvert be properly grounded in the old time irreligion. Otherwise, a babe in Antichrist remains at high risk of suffering from a false assurance of damnation, and eventually backsliding into state of grace.

It is therefore urgent that the junior apostate be adequately catechized and discipled in deviltry.

Just as The Billy Graham Christian Worker’s Handbooks gives tips on how to evangelize an unbeliever and catechize a new convert, I’d like to share some elementary pointers with our struggling dubitantes to bring a sorely lacking and much needed degree of professionalism to their impious and ill-meaning, but sadly incompetent, efforts.

THE SCREWTAPE DEVIL-WORSHIPER’S HANDBOOK

STEPS TO MISERY WITH SATAN

NOTE: If the individual is immediately ready to receive the Devil into his heart, skip the four steps and go directly to the section titled, “To receive Lucifer you need to do four things.”

1. Satan’s Plan—Torment & Misery.

The devil has a perfect plan for your life. He hates you and wants you to experience his misery and torment. The BIBLE says: “The Devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8); “Then the Devil was enraged with the woman and went off to make war with the rest of her seed” (Rev 12:17).

2. Satan’s Problem—The Cross.

The love of God bridges the gap of separation between you and him. When Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave, He paid the penalty for the sins of his people. The BIBLE says: “He personally carried the load of our sins in his own body when he died on the cross”(1 Peter 2:24, TLB).

3. Satan’s Remedy—The World, the Flesh, & the Devil.

The devil plays out the clock with a variety of carnal distractions, and worldly intoxicants until it’s too late for you to be saved. The BIBLE says: “The God of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4); “For all that's in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is passing away” (1 Jn 2:16-17.

4.Our Response—Receive Lucifer

You cross a bridge into the kingdom of darkness when you receive the Old Serpent by personal invitation. The BIBLE says: “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me” (Mt 4:9).

*To receive Lucifer you need to do four things:
i) DENY your spiritual need. “I’ okay, you’re okay.”
ii) DEFY God and be willing to embrace your sin.
iii) BELIEVE that Old Horney wants you to die for him.
iv) RECEIVE, through prayer, the Foul Fiend into your heart and life.

THE SINNER’S PRAYER:

What to Pray:

“Dear Father of Lies, I know that I am a sinner and need forgiveness. I believe that you want me to die in my sins. I want to embrace my iniquity. I now invite you to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow you as my personal Lord and Tempter. In Belial’s name, Amen.”

*After leading the inquirer in this prayer, discuss with him or her the following pages, “Confirming the Decision to Receive Satan.”

CONFIRMING THE DECISION TO RECEIVE SATAN You prayed, committing your life to Satan. What does the Bible say happened?

1. You are hell-bound. The BIBLE says: “Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction” (Mt 7:13).

What will happen when a person enters through the wide gate (receives Satan)?

He or she will go to perdition.

2. You are a child of the devil. The BIBLE says: “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s will” (Jn 8:44).

What happened when you received Satan?

I became a child of the devil.

3. You shall enjoy everlasting punishment. The BIBLE says: “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the best and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Rev 14:11).

Now that you put your faith in Satan, what can you be certain of?

I shall enjoy everlasting punishment.

To summarize, emphasize the following questions and answers: Hell Eternal Punishment Damnation

Follow-Up Steps
After presenting the Devil’s pact and confirming the decision, suggest these follow-up steps:
1. Take a firm stand for deviltry; make your life count. Tell someone about your decision.
2. Read and study the Humanist Manifesto
3. Swear every day.
4. Identify with a coven, cult, black mass, mainline denomination, “Free Grace” church, or chapter of the ACLU for Sabbath-breaking, instruction, fellowship, and service. Contact the National Council of Churches for local listings.
5. We would like to send you John Spong’s study booklet, Living in Sin, which will help you in your ungodly life and future witness. What is your name and address?

FINDING ASSURANCE OF DAMNATION (For a person who has received the Devil, but has doubts.)
CLAIM THESE PROMISES:

1. The BIBLE says: “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries” (Heb 10:26-27).

What must you do to possess everlasting torment? Live in sin.

What does God promise you? Judgment and fiery indignation.

2. The BIBLE says: “Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

If you deny Christ, what can you know with certainty?

He will disown me on Judgment Day.

SEEKING SATANIC FORGIVENESS AND RESTORATION (For a person who has received the Devil, but has failed him and now seeks infernal forgiveness.)
1. Repent and Confess to Lucifer. The BIBLE says: “Then the unclean spirit goes and brings with it sever other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that man is worst than the first” (Mt 12:45).
2. Make Wrong Any Known Rights. It is important not only to revel in sin, but also to undo any good deeds we may have inadvertently committed in the past.

Follow-Up Steps
After guiding the inquirer to demonic renewal, share these follow-up steps:
1. Take a firm stand for deviltry; make your life count. Tell someone about your decision.
2. Read and study the Humanist Manifesto
3. Swear every day.
4. Identify with a coven, cult, black mass, mainline denomination, “Free Grace” church, or chapter of the ACLU for Sabbath-breaking, instruction, fellowship, and service. Contact the National Council of Churches for local listings.

We would like to send you John Spong’s study booklet, Living in Sin, which will help you in your ungodly life and future witness. What is your name and address?

UNCERTAINTY ABOUT ONE’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SATAN

Start by asking the basic question: “Has there ever been a time in your life when you trusted the Old Serpent as your personal Lord and Tempter?”
1. If the answer is YES, ask him or her to tell you about it in order to determine just where he or she really is.

A. If you feel that he or she has made a commitment, but is uncertain, go over “Assurance of Damnation,” page 15.

B. If the person seems firm in the commitment, perhaps he or she needs help with some other spiritual problem. Go over the section called “Seeking Satanic Forgiveness and Restoration,” page 17.

2. If the answer is NO, then share “Steps to Misery with Satan,” page 11.

3. If the answer is vague—“I have doubts,” “I’m not sure”—then ask the question: “If you were to die tonight, would you go to hell?”

A. If he or she doesn’t know, share “Four Easy Steps to Misery with Satan,” page 11.

B. If the person believes that he or she might be in grave danger of going to heaven, then share “Assurance of Damnation,” page 15.

C. If he or she is still vague, using such phrases as “I have always voted the Democrat ticket,” or “I’m doing the worst I can,” or “I try to be a dissolute person,” etc., then say: (1) “Let me share with you how you can know for sure that if you died tonight you would go to hell.” (2) Share “Four Easy Steps to Misery with Satan,” page 11.

4. Always close your conversation with an imprecation. Remember to offer the Bishop Spong study booklet, Living in Sin, which will help in the caller’s ungodly life and future witness.