Methodology in prayer studies

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/testing-prayer/201203/how-should-prayer-be-studied

Anderson vs. Abasciano on John 3:16

James Anderson has responded to Abasciano on John 3:16.

Got questions?

Christian apologists have a stock repertoire of questions and objections they field. Nothing wrong with that. However, these  are somewhat canned questions and objections. If you Google certain theological questions, the search engine will often take you to Gotquestions.org. I don't know much about this site although it appears to offer generic conservative evangelical responses. 

What's instructive is the kinds of questions they get. Take their top 20:

https://www.gotquestions.org/top20.html 

Or take the FAQ archives

https://www.gotquestions.org/archive.html

Although of few of these are standard apologetic fare, many of them are not. So this functions as an informal poll of questions that many believers and unbelievers have. And that suggests that the range of topics which apologists typically cover may be too narrow. Believers and unbelievers are interested in the answers to a wider range of topics. I'll take a stab at the top 20 questions. Admittedly, I've discussed most of these before. In future, I may take a stab at some of the FAQs. 

Meltdown in progress

Apostate Dale Tuggy was really triggered by my review: 

http://trinities.org/blog/response-to-hayss-review-of-what-is-the-trinity/

This review is by the slandering, long-winded polemical blogger Steve Hays, of Triablogue - you can search and find this post. This sort of "critique" is what he thinks apologetics is. He's obsessed with me and my work, and loves to accuse me, as here, of being an incompetent weasel. 

i) The accusation of obsession is revealing. I often do posts defending the Trinity, Incarnation, deity of Christ that have no reference to anything Dale wrote, yet he frequently swoops in to comment, so who's obsessed with whom?

ii) It's best to douse a wildfire before it burns down the whole neighborhood, which is why I stay on Dale's case. The talent pool for unitarianism is about as shallow as a mud puddle. I focus on Dale because he's the best they've got. Not saying much, I know.  

'Apostate' is a wicked slander, as has been pointed out to him. I was born again and baptized in 1978, and have been following Christ in various churches since then. I have never at any point left the faith or denied my savior. 

i) Dale's reaction reflects his immaturity. He acts shocked that when he switched to unitarianism, that cut him off from the Christian community, as if this is just another one of those in-house debates like amillennialism/premillennialism or credo/paedobaptism. He lacks social intelligence if he couldn't anticipate that he'd be shunned when he took that step. Assuming his disillusioned reaction is sincere and not a rhetorical ploy, he's a babe-in-the-woods if he didn't realize that's a bridge way too far to maintain Christian fellowship. 

ii) The Incarnation is rock-bottom foundational to the Christian faith. Dale used to be a professing Christian who like all other professing Christians affirm the Trinity, Incarnation, deity of Christ. Now he denies it. That's textbook apostasy. Sure, he doesn't see it that way because he's a unitarian, but he's hopelessly native when he imagines that Christians will judge him by his adopted unitarian yardstick. It's like a sexually active "gay Christian" who expects evangelicals to affirm his piety. 

iii) And it's not like Dale quietly lost his faith. He's the stereotypical apostate who goes on the attack against his former faith. The stereotypical apostate zealot who evangelizes for his new position. 

'Propaganda' is vicious slander. The book is deadly serious, and is based on more than fifteen years of professional scholarship on this topic, with many peer-reviewed publications. It is packed with historical information and (I hope) helpful analysis.

Who said propaganda can't be deadly serious? 

It is at best a foolish mistake, at worst a lie, to say that the book is 'in defense of unitarianism.' That is my theology, biblical unitarian, which I don't hide. But the book doesn't argue for it, but only lays out a number of helpful historical and logical and theological distinctions which I claim can help Christians to make up their minds on this difficult topic. I have actually argued for my views on the basis of scripture in other places. But my aim in this book is really to stimulate Christians to informed, critical thinking on this topic, and ultimately, to re-visiting the scriptures with these distinctions in hand.

Dale is submerged in self-delusion if he sincerely imagines that his book isn't in defense of unitarianism. Of course it is. His book is a pop-level tract for unitarianism. Why does he even wish to deny it? Given his outlook, he should be proud to admit his agenda.  

'Deconversion' is a vicious slander. So is the comparison with the arch-anti-evangelical, ex-evangelical agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman. By many the common criteria, I am an evangelical Christian. There is no deconversion part of the book. 

Except for the central criteria like the Incarnation. 

This is where my family and I currently fellowship. 

How's that any different from a Kingdom Hall, where Jehovah's Witnesses fellowship? Unitarianism is a cult. Dale is a cult-member. Indeed, Dale is a cult-leader. Cults have fake churches. Why not show a picture of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, for all the difference that makes. 

BTW, I'm a bit unclear on how a resident of Fredonia NY regularly attends a unitarian shrine near Nashville TN. That's a ten hour drive, one-way. But I do appreciate the irony that it's about 666 miles from Fredonia to Nashville. The Old Serpent has a wry sense of humor by stamping the mark of the Beast on Dale's travel itinerary. 

Moving mountains or seedtime and harvest?

While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease (Gen 8:22; cf. 9:8-17). 

13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it (Jn 14:13-14).

He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Mt 17:20). 

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer (Mt 21:22).

Unanswered prayer is one reason some professing Christians lose their faith. And sometimes the catalyst is more specific than answered prayer. Rather, it's belief that God broke his promise. 

There is, however, a certain tension between prayer and providence. Between prayer promises and the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:8-17; 8:22). In principle, here are different ways to interrelate these promises:

i) Both prayer promises and the uniformity of nature are unconditional. But that's contradictory.

ii) Prayer promises abrogate the Noahaic covenant.

iii) Prayer promises and ordinary providence condition each other.

According to (iii), prayer promises are implicitly conditional. Promises regarding prayer and ordinary providence are relative rather than absolute. They qualify each other. If, on the one hand, God always answers prayer, including nature miracles, that nullifies ordinary providence. If, on the other hand, ordinary providence is ironclad, that nullifies prayer promises. 

Prayer promises need to be understood against the backdrop of the Noahic covenant. The scope of that promise is conveyed through a series of merisms, to express universality. 

We have two kinds of potentially conflicting divine promises: answered prayer and ordinary providence. Both can't be true all the time. For certain prayers require God to circumvent the ordinary course of nature. Prayer promises are only false if they were meant to automatically override ordinary providence. That only follows if Jesus intended to abrogate the Noahic covenant. And that would lead to an utterly chaotic world. Jesus often makes hyperbolic statements. 

The upshot is that these two kinds of divine promises counterbalance each other. We can't predict which takes precedence in any particular case. We find out when we pray. Sometimes prayer overrides providence; conversely, sometimes providence overrides prayer. Which is which is not something we know in advance. Rather, that's something we discover through prayer. 

Spiritual impressions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3oc735Ay2k

Although this is satirical, it illustrates how many Christians who are technically cessationists operate with a charismatic paradigm of spiritual impressions.

Marriage in crisis

1. Marriage was never risk-free, but it's currently a high-stakes game in which the odds are heavily against men. If a man fathers a child, the mother has the unilateral right to abort the child even if he wants to keep and raise the child. It's usually the wife who initiates divorce. Usually the wife who's awarded custody. Plus taking half the man's income, even if she initiated the divorce. Thanks to feminism, we now have a system where wives have all the rights while husbands have all the responsibilities. If social trends continue, many men will remain bachelors, play video games, have buddies, and sexbots.

Evangelical leaders are failing men, both inside and outside the church. The failure of evangelical elites is driving disaffected men into the arms of Jordan Peterson. 

The radiance of his glory

I'm going to comment on this article:

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/b-b-warfield-and-the-biblical-doctrine-of-the-trinity

where Swain takes issue with Warfield's reformulation of the Trinity. Although Swain makes an intelligent case for his position, I think Warfield had a more penetrating grasp of the issues.

From a linguistic perspective, relations of origin (i.e., eternal generation, eternal procession) gloss the personal names (i.e., Son of God, Spirit of God). From a metaphysical perspective, relations of origin distinguish the persons without dividing the essence—indeed, they are the only way of distinguishing the persons without dividing the essence. Grasping this point helps us appreciate where uses of terms such as “subordination” are appropriate or inappropriate in Trinitarian theology. When the term “subordination” is used, as it traditionally has been used, to refer to relations of origin (or to their temporal expressions in mission), then the term is licit. 

It's refreshing to see Swain admit that on his paradigm, there is subordination within the immanent Trinity vis-a-vis relations of origin. 

Can a true Christian have depression?

Christianity for Doubters

Christianity for Doubters by Granville Sewell is currently available to read for free here (pdf).

BTW, I’d say the scientific chapters are better than the theological ones.

Lloyd-Jones on the Christian life

Double agent for the dark side

I recently read What is the Trinity? by apostate Dale Tuggy, a self-published propaganda piece in defense of unitarianism, written in a duly serpentine style ("Come on–jump off the cliff. It won't hurt a bit. Promise!"). 

1. In the Bart Ehrmanesque intro, narrating his deconversion, Tuggy mentions how influenced he was by reading Arian polemicist Samuel Clarke during his postgraduate program. This indicates that Tuggy was already a double agent for the dark side at the time he was tapped to contribute the entry on the Trinity for the SEP. 

2. In chap. 1 he ominously mentions people who converted from Christianity to Islam because the Trinity made no sense to them. Although that's tragic, Islam is no worse than Tuggy's unitarian alternative. 

3. In the same chapter he has a theory about how many Christians don't reflect on the Trinity because the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian creed deter them. But how many Christians–especially evangelicals–ever think about the Athanasian creed?

4. In the same chapter he says children, the illiterate, and mentally handicapped can be saved without affirming the Athanasian creed. But what is that supposed to prove? The same groups can't grasp Paul's intricate reasoning in Romans, yet that doesn't mean we should disregard Romans. Of course, we make allowance for the cognitive aptitude of individuals.

5. Two chapters (2,7) devote time to expounding key words in the Nicene creed. I agree with Tuggy that the language is ambiguous and leaves tensions unresolved. As I've said on more than one occasion, I think there's room for improvement in Nicene theology. That said:

i) Creeds tend to be consensus documents that exclude some parties but paper over other differences. Creeds prioritize and compromise.

ii) Creeds aren't philosophical treatises. They affirm some things, and disaffirm other things, but they don't defend their claims. That's not their purpose or genre. 

iii) The Nicene creed was a blunt instrument that accomplished its purpose by squeezing out the Arians. And that was a very worthwhile achievement. 

6. One of Tuggy's demagogical tactics is to confound issues that are clearly separable. 

i) Take the question of whether the Bible teaches the Trinity. If you mean, does the Bible teach a philosophically articulated doctrine of the Trinity, finessing how God can be three persons in one, then the answer is no. There's precious little philosophical theology in Scripture on any subject. Rarely does Scripture define its terms. 

ii) However, the NT clearly teaches the deity of the Father and the Son. There's less material on the Spirit, but what there is is analogous to what is said concerning the Father and the Son. What is more, to possess even one incommunicable divine attribute entails possession of them all, so it isn't necessary for the Bible to check every box regarding the Holy Spirit to imply his deity and personality. Some things necessarily go together. 

iii) Likewise, does the Bible teach the Incarnation? If you mean, does the Bible teach philosophically articulated doctrine of the hypostatic union, then the answer is no. But the Bible can and does teach the two natures of Christ, without using philosophical jargon or explaining how, exactly, they are interrelated. 

As a unitarian, that's not how Tuggy reads the Bible, but he's not the touchstone for evangelicals. 

iv) This goes to the question of what Christians have always believed. But there's lots of individual variation in what Christians believe throughout the centuries, depending on their literacy, education, access to theological alternatives. That variation is not unique to the Christology. So Tuggy's objection either proves too much or too little. 

7. In chap. 4, Tuggy complains about equivocal usage regarding "deity", but he himself concocts bogus contradictions by resorting to equivocal language. 

8. In chap. 5 he makes the trivial observation that Greek MSS don't distinguish "Spirit" from "spirit", since everything is in capital letters. But that applies with equal force to "God/god" (theos).  

9. In the same chapter, he says the eternality and full divinity of Jesus and the Spirit weren't "obvious" to some Christians back in the year 200. 

i) But to begin with, some of them are simply heretics. They're opinion is not the benchmark. 

ii) Moreover, the ante-Nicene Fathers he cites don't believe Jesus was just a human being. So how does that hurt Trinitarians without hurting unitarians?

iii) In addition, what's "obvious" is person-relative. That's makes the reader the standard of comparison rather than the text, as if the text has no objective meaning. Tuggy's resorting to reader-response theory rather than authorial intent, as if that's the yardstick. But there are different kinds of readers. Good readers and poor readers. An author writes with more than one audience in mind: an ideal reader as well as an ordinary reader. Authors may say things a well-informed reader will catch that uninformed readers may miss. That's the nature of mass communication. 

10. Chap. 6 reviews different definitions of "person". 

i) The word has different connotations in patristic usage than modern usage. Modern usage is more psychological or Cartesian. And debates over AI have highlighted the first-person viewpoint as a defining feature of consciousness. In formulating the Trinity, I myself prefer the modern connotations of the word. 

ii) Tuggy says the modern definition poses a "tough dilemma" by "compromising" monotheism, which is supposed to be "nonnegotiable".  Of course, for a unitarian like Tuggy, monotheism means the Father alone is God. However, OT monotheism creates no presumption that the Father will be God rather than the Son (or Spirit). In the OT, Yahweh isn't the Father in contrast to the Son. In the OT, Yahweh is a father to Israel. It's a statement about his relationship to some of his creatures. It doesn't single out the Father as Yahweh, in contrast to the Son. It doesn't operate with that comparative framework. An explicit Father/Son comparison is something reserved for NT revelation. The OT fosters no expectation that the Father is Yahweh or God instead of the Son. 

11. Chap. 7 reviews different definitions of "substance". 

i) Although I affirm that Father, Son, and Spirit are "consubstantial", I don't think "substance" is the best word to employ. It has different connotations in modern usage than patristic usage. A complex linguistic evolution. There's what ousia means in patristic usage. I doubt it has a uniform meaning in patristic usage. Substance is a translation term for ousia, and is therefore a Latin word with a Greek meaning. But it then acquires additional layers when filtered through Thomistic or Scotist metaphysics. Same factors apply to hypostasis/persona. 

ii) I prefer to say that Father, Son, and Spirit are "consubstantial" in the sense that they share the same nature or attributes. Tuggy will object that this only gets you generic unity rather than numerical unity. But other issues aside, the question isn't whether "consubstantial" is sufficient to define the Trinity, but a necessary element. No one word or category will be sufficient. Like some other doctrines, the Trinity is a theological construct with multiple elements. 

iii) They don't share the same nature in the sense that each one is a property-instance of a common property. They don't exemplify a generic universal. Rather, it's like mirror symmetries where the whole image is contained in each reflection, rather than samples. 

12. Chap. 8 is the most intemperate chapter. Paradox gets Tuggy riled up. 

i) Unsurprisingly, Tuggy misstates the role of analogies in Trinitarian analysis. You can state the elements that comprise the Trinity without resort to analogy. Analogies are a second-level reflection that provide philosophical models for the Trinity. An attempt to explicate the relationship. 

ii) It's trivially easy to concoct a bogus verbal contradiction. Take a question like, "Are three sugar cubes one substance or three substances"? The answer is both. That's not even paradoxical. Yet you could arrange that claim in a way that makes it look contradictory. One of something can't be three of something! (unless it can!).

iii) Tuggy has a simplistic grasp of identity. If A and B are identical, what makes them identical? One way to unpack that might be intersubstitutability. A point-by-point matchup between A and B. 

But compare that to reflection symmetries. A corresponds at every point with B, yet there's a residual, irreducible difference between A and B because a right-handed image is not equivalent to a left-handed image. 

13. In the same chapter, Tuggy recycles the same obtuse objection he's been touting for years: It's "uncharitable" to impute a contradiction to a writer. 

i) Speaking for myself, I don't find the Trinity paradoxical, but even if I did, Bible writers have no control over what God is like. They simply report what they witnessed, or what God revealed to them. If that struck them as paradoxical, they'd still have to record it. 

ii) In addition, given the number of tenacious paradoxes in math, logic, and physics, paradox may well be an intractable feature of how humans perceive and process reality. That's what happens when finite minds encounter truths more complex than their finite minds. That's not unique to Christian theology, but a common phenomenon of human experience.

14. In chap. 10, Tuggy alleges that many Protestant theologians pay lip-service to sola Scriptura but in practice treat some of the "ecumenical" councils as inviolable. I agree with him. Ancient creeds should be scrutinized.

15. In the same chapter (pp133-34), Tuggy has a set of loaded questions. But there are no good answers to bad questions.  

Pansexual: Because Bisexuality Isn't Inclusive Enough

From an article about Janelle Monáe:

While Monáe, 32, initially identified as bisexual -- being attracted to both males and females -- she eventually settled on the seemingly more inclusive pansexual, which encompasses an attraction towards someone regardless of their sex or gender identity.

Shouldn't we have state recognition of polygamy to accommodate bisexuality, pansexuality, and whatever else? Isn't it bigoted to limit marriage to two people? We need a new Supreme Court ruling that will find state recognition of polygamy in the Constitution. Marriage equality. Love is love.

Atheist Philosophers Ignoring Their Opposition

This is from a recent edition of William Lane Craig's podcast. He's addressing the field of philosophy, but we see similar negligence in other fields as well:

I have had people who are Reasonable Faith listeners say that they just couldn't believe their ears when she trotted out the old Euthyphro Dilemma as though this were something new and devastating. It just shows the complete lack of engagement on the part of a very secular philosopher with Christian philosophy. The fact is that a lot of these people just don't read us. They don't read Christian philosophers. They are ignorant of what it says. So they rehearse these tired old objections over and over again. I recently had a debate with Erik Wielenberg on the best account for objective moral values and duties. Wielenberg is an atheist. He shared with me that one of the things that distinguishes his work is that he, unlike his colleagues, takes really seriously the work of Christian philosophers in this area – people like Robert Adams and William Alston and Steve Evans and others. According to Wielenberg, his secular colleagues just don't bother to read or interact with these Christian philosophers on these matters. That was so well illustrated by Rebecca Goldstein's ignorance of the response to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Soccer, atheism, and the problem of evil

Although Graham is an unreliable guide, this particular post nicely illustrates an important principle in Christian theodicy:

https://stephenjgraham.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/football-atheism-the-problem-of-evil/

A Reformed view of human dignity

http://thermidormag.com/be-thou-my-dignity-a-reformed-view-of-the-dignity-of-man/

Herd animals

The case of Alfie Evans is rightly getting a lot of attention. Here's a backgrounder:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/faqs-know-alfie-evans-controversy/

This case reflects two competing social philosophies: individualism and collectivism. It illustrates the dark side of universal healthcare. 

One perspective values freedom. Suppose you're a chain-smoker. That puts you at elevated risk of dying before a normal lifespan from cancer or emphysema. But unless you're directly harming others, what you do with your life is your own business. 

Same thing with compulsive gambling. It's your money to lose. You can prudent or reckless. I may not approve of your lifestyle. I make different choices. But that's the point. You and I are independent of each other.

Likewise, if you indulge in a high-risk lifestyle that causes a medical condition, and you can afford treatment, then it's a fee-for-service arrangement. Whether or not you seek medical treatment is up to you. You're a free agent. Good or bad, you make your own decisions in life. I'm not responsible for how you live your life. I can give you advice, but ultimately it's up to you. 

In addition, due to the inexorable fact of human mortality, many people take calculated risks–since everyone is going to die sooner or later. If we were immortal, but not indestructible, then we've be fanatically risk-averse since there'd be so much to lose, but since we're all going to die anyway, we all gamble a bit. 

Then there's the alternative perspective. You're a herd animal. That confers collective benefits. A safety net.

But there's a tradeoff. Sick, injured, aging herd animals slow down the herd. In a network of interdependent links, the weak link is a threat to the collective. You're hogging limited resources that the rest of us may need. When we're pooling our collective resources for the common good, we can't afford to let runts and weaklings become a drag factor that endangers the herd. When they're at risk, that puts everyone at risk. The welfare of the collective trumps the welfare of the individual. So the herd needs to be culled. Eliminate the stragglers. Survival of the fittest.  

Of course, humans are social creatures, so we don't want a pure sink-or-swim system, but that's where family and private charity kick in. Moreover, a capitalistic system produces the best medical R&D. And it enlarges the pie for everyone. 

Born under the law

Does vicarious atonement require an Incarnate Deity? Apostate Dale Tuggy denies that, although he fails to explain how the death of a merely human messiah can have any vicarious significance. What makes his death different than the death of any Christian martyr? Evidently, unitarians resort to theological voluntarism. The vicarious atonement is just an arbitrary divine fiat?

Let's compare that to Christian theology. God bears a different relationship to his own law than creatures do. The Ten Commandments are inapplicable to God–not because God is amoral, beyond good and evil, but because God isn't that kind of being. Likewise, there's a fundamental asymmetry. For instance, we have a duty to worship God whereas God has no reciprocal duty to worship us!

If we keep God's law for humanity, we're just doing what we're suppose to do. And if we fall short, there's no extra credit assignment we can do to make up for our deficit. 

If, by contrast, God chooses to be born under the law, to submit himself to the penalties of his own law, that's sheerly meritorious. God had no obligation to do that in part or in whole. 

Though dead they still speak

And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead (Heb 11:4).

There's a sense in which dying words aren't necessarily your last words. Have you ever noticed how many rich folks are buried? Some of them have ostentatious private family crypts or mausoleums. Even in death they are still striving to impress their neighbors. Even in death, they have a message for the living: "I'm somebody! I'm more important than you! I'm higher on the social ladder!" Even on the way out, that's how they want to be remembered.

Of all times and places, people should be humble in death. Death shows how powerless the powerful ultimately are, how worthless wealth ultimately is. Death is the great leveler.

People whose tomb makes a proud worldly statement aren't just signaling their neighbors, but signaling the God of the living and the dead. The very last thing a dying person should wish to do is flaunt his social pretensions before his Maker and Judge. It's striking to compare their attitude to John Calvin:

He was buried on Sunday in an unmarked grave at a secret location somewhere in Geneva. In one of the last commentaries he wrote, he commented on the death and burial of Moses, "It is good that famous men should be buried in unmarked graves."[1] This conviction guided his own burial. He rejected the superstitious veneration of the dead and wanted no pilgrimages to his grave. he had lived to make Christians, not Calvinists. He had perhaps written his own best epitaph in his Institutes ". . . we may patiently pass through this life in afflictions, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other disagreeable circumstances, contented with this single assurance, that our King will never desert us, but will give what we need, until having finished our warfare, we shall be called to the triumph." Robert Godfrey, John Calvin, Pilgrim and Pastor (Crossway 2009, 198-99).

Medical and state tyranny

I recently wrote about Alfie Evans here.

Ben Shapiro has an article "Who Controls Your Kids' Lives?" that's gold.

Over 100 U.K. physicians have signed the following:

Press release, regarding Alfie Evans: Medical and State Tyranny
From the Medical Ethics Alliance
14.00pm 24th April 2018

We are deeply concerned and outraged by the treatment and care offered to Alfie Evans. Wanting to withdraw treatment so that he will die, the medical authorities have taken Alfie to the High Court. At that point, and as a result of the hospital’s court action, the parents were stripped of their right to be decision makers for their beloved child. They could only advise the Court and look on as the High Court made decisions for Alfie.

The High Court decided that it was in the “Best Interests “ of Alfie to die and duly authorized the withdrawal of treatment. As a result the parents are being tortured as they watch the hospital take actions expected to lead to his death.

Despite a viable alternative being available (namely transfer by air ambulance for further assessment to a specialist hospital in Rome), the hospital and doctors responsible for his care insists that he remains under their care and on a pathway towards death. While he now has some oxygen and some fluid this has taken huge effort to obtain for him. He is offered sedation although (we understand) this has not been given at present. Sedation (if given) would mean that he would develop respiratory failure and die even more quickly.

Actions such as these have now brought the Alder Hey Hospital to worldwide attention and by extension bring our whole profession into disrepute.

Medical tyranny must stop. Poor Alfie must not be killed in this way. We demand that the authorities to allow Alfie safe passage to Rome.

With respect we insist that with immediate effect the GMC investigate the actions of doctors providing his care. Surely the doctors should refuse to implement such a tyrannical decision and allow Alfie to go to Rome.