What happens when you read Atheist websites

I've been browsing Atheist websites this afternoon. I like to keep up with things and see what the other 'side' is up to. I think it's a good thing to do, as long as you don't get sucked into obsessive debating and arguments. I generally just read - responding to anything I read is generally a bad idea, because Internet debates go nowhere, fast.

Two things strike me as I peruse these sites:

1) The level of righteous indignation from the Atheists. In a way, I envy the way in which Atheism seems to have completely missed being influenced by postmodernism. They are the least tolerant people on the Internet these days. Well, perhaps Independent, KJVO Baptists still have them beat, but atheists are pretty close. I'm not necessarily faulting them for it, because I think that at a certain level we need to have an intolerance for wrong ideas. If Religion (as if one can simply lump all those ideas under one banner and treat them all the same) is truly responsible for all the awful things that atheists claim it is, it well deserves to be abhorred and not respected.
What I find most interesting is not that they are intolerant, but that they have such a self-assured sense of righteousness (I use the word loosely) about it. Read "god is not Great" and you will be shocked by the high-handed moral pronouncements about the pure evilness of the concept of God. It fascinates me that the atheist will deny the existence of absolute values, but has no problem using absolutes to disprove their very existence.
I can just hear an atheist saying "It is absurd to claim one needs to have religious set of beliefs in order to be a good, moral person." I agree, wholeheartedly. Any Christian who argues this needs a spanking. Atheists are, indeed, some of the most 'moral' people around. They will be the first to point this out. That is not the issue. The point is, they are using something the basis for which they deny.
In essence, it would be like me claiming that one does not need to believe in light in order to see. This is true. I can flat out deny that light exists and still see perfectly well. However, light is absolutely necessary for me to see. Attempting to say that God is not necessary for moral values to exist and proving my assertion by having moral values and not believing in God, does nothing for me. I still have to explain why I can see; I still have to explain why there is right and wrong in a binding, moral sense. The Phenomena of sight does not work without light; The Phenomena of morality does not work without an absolute, transcendental standard.
To sum up this point, this is not a 'slam-dunk' argument for or against Christianity of Atheism. It may be that the binding morality is actually an illusion and a product of evolution; The point is that the atheist cannot consistently claim religion is immoral all the while denying the very basis for making that claim.

2) The second, and more important observation, was the Christians. Or at best, the so-called Christians. To be fair, the current crop of atheists delight in picking up on the dregs of religious followers and setting them forth as normative. But to read the letters that Dawkins has on his website that he has received from, for the most part, Christians, is painful. There are mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, intellectually brain-dead people who think that atheists are devils incarnate. They have no clue what they are talking about, and are obviously not reflective in any way of Christianity. They are the Ann Coulter types, and they say things like, "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell." That Dawkins et al. even bother with such people and portray them as accurately representing Christianity is embarrasing and taking cheap shots - but not entirely his fault. You see, the reason Dawkins can get away with doing this is because there is no outrage against these people from within Christianity, no distancing ourselves from their message.

Anyway, that's an aside. There will always be jerks in the world, and Richard Dawkins (and Hitchens, Harris, et al.) shows himself to not be a truth seeker by engaging the 'Christianity' of these people as if it were the actual Christian religion. If he were honest, he would ignore anonymous Internet users and engage Christianity as it has been presented through the ages.

But getting to my real point, with apologies for rambling on rabbit trails, I know that anyone reading this is not a jerk. You are not a foul-mouthed twit. You serve Christ as your Lord, and want to do your best to bring him to a dead world.
"OK, here it comes. Now he is going to tell us it is our responsibility to argue with atheists, because Christians really have the only basis for rational thought. We ought to argue with evolutionists, because science is on our side."
At the risk of seeming to contradict what I've said in previous posts, no, that's not what I am going to say. Just the opposite. I can tell you right here and now that no one reading this (or writing this, for that matter!) would have any place debating Richard Dawkins about evolution. He would eat us alive. Why? Because he is a better debater than you or I? Well, sure, but mainly because he knows what he is talking about and you and I don't. The second type of Christian you come across on the Internet in comment boxes is the Arrogant Christian. This is the Christian who feels that because he is a Christian it gives him the right to make definite statements in areas he knows very little about. And this is the one I want to talk about, because this is me. I am the Arrogant Christian. I daresay if you look at yourself, you'll see the Arrogant Christian there, too.

The Arrogant Christian is the guy who reads Answers in Genesis and thinks that he is thereby qualified to argue science with evolutionary scientists because 'He's a Christian, and he has the truth.' The Arrogant Christian thinks he is automatically qualified to make statements on complex social issues because 'He's a Christian, and he has the truth.' The Arrogant Christian feels that he is the last word on doctrine - and he has no fear in contradicting those who disagree, because 'He's a good Christian, and he has the truth.'

It seems the right way of saying anything is to make sure you clarify by stating what you do not mean. What I am not saying is that Christians are disqualified from engaging in scientific, social, doctrinal or political discussions. I believe that God is the God over all creation, and thus his dominion extends into all areas of life. I am not saying Christians are not allowed to have their opinions and convictions in certain areas. What I am saying is that being a Christian does not make you an expert in all fields and in all areas. Being a Christian makes you a child of God, privy to his eternal purpose as revealed through Jesus Christ. This does not mean you are a scientist.

Let me give you an example. I quite like Ray Comfort. I believe he has a gift for evangelism and preaching the gospel. However, he and Kirk Cameron recently challenged some atheists to a debate, in which they promised to prove God without the Bible. I honestly did not watch the whole thing – it was just too painful. They got shellacked. Neither one of them was very well qualified to discuss what they were debating. Ray attempts to prove that the universe is designed by using a banana. It is terrible. Now, am I saying Christians ought not to debate Atheists? Must one be an expert to understand atheism? No, to both questions. But one must be an expert to be an expert. You must be a scholar to give a scholarly rebuttal. If you are going to prove God scientifically, you have to be able to do it. (As an aside, you can't, so don't try!)

Christians very often mis-use I Corinthians chapter 1 in this context. I cannot recall how many times I have seen an Arrogant Christian use the following reasoning. I know it well enough, because I've used it myself.

“Well, the Bible says that God's wisdom is foolishness to man – so of course you think I'm foolish and mis-interpreting 'science'. I'm glad you think I'm foolish, because you confirm the Bible. What you don't realize is that in fact you are the one in the dark.”

Obviously, you aren't going to see it presented quite that way, but I'm sure you've seen something similar (or maybe used it yourself, as I have). It's actually a great way of ending an argument you are losing, until the validity of it is examined. There is actually a good possibility you are looking like a fool in a discussion because, in fact, you are a fool. Your arguments may sound weak and un-convincing because, in fact, they are weak and un-convincing. When Paul is talking about the 'foolishness' of God, he is talking about the message of the cross, not creationism vs. evolution. This is my point: The Christian religion lays the foundation for all knowledge and inquiry into every facet of creation. It does not make one privy to all that knowledge. There has to be a humility in our belief – Not a humility like the world has where they wonder about there is truth at all, but rather, a humility where we are honest about how much truth we ourselves know. We need to admit that reading one of Ken Ham's books does not make us an expert in science. We need to realize that because we've read one of Richard Dawkins' books we are not now an expert in answering atheism. Because we read a book by Dave Hunt, it doesn't make us the last word on Calvinism. Going to Bible School does not make you the last word on Bible interpretation.

Part of the problem is that we have accepted the world's standard for belief that unless you personally have examined the evidence relating to Science, Textual Criticism, Archeology, Philosophy, Anthropology, Physics and all the other areas of knowledge, you cannot really claim to have any truth at all. They say that belief in Christianity is completely invalid and absurd if you cannot the objections raised by Science or integrate it into your beliefs. The Arrogant Christian feels he has to be able to have a final say in all these areas before he can justify to the world his beliefs. So what we do is that we develop shallow, silly, superficial arguments and answers to these questions in order to justify to ourselves why we believe in Christianity, and thus appear to the world to be fools who babble about that which we know nothing. Of course, the world has it's fair share of fools babbling, but I'm not talking to them - I'm talking to you, I'm talking to me.

Now, again, I am not talking about going all postmodern and wondering if we can even know the truth at all. Nor am I calling for Christians to retreat from every area and stick to 'Religion' and leave 'Science' to the professionals. What I am calling for is you to know what you are talking about, and not arrogantly presuming to know more. Because you don't have to. Our faith is based not on our ability to objectively and accurately take all the information around us and process it in such a way that we arrive at certain conclusions, i.e., that Jesus Christ is Lord and died a substitutionary death in our place. It is based on the fact that while we were yet sinners, while we were turned away from God seeking our own way, Christ died for us and saved us. It is in the fact that a man dying on a tree made us alive, without our prior consent or volition. It had nothing to do with how intelligent you were or how spiritually aware you were. If you were using your reason, it was to escape from God, not draw closer to him. It is about God doing as he pleases. This is the absurdity that Paul is talking about. This is the fundamental absurdity of our religion, the weakness and humanly embarrassing scandal. If you want a religion that depends on you, there are plenty of them out there. Christianity is not the one of them. James Denney said,

“No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save”

Now here's the funny part: In spite of the conclusion you might draw from what I just said, it's a reasonable faith. It's not a blind leap of faith, one which we say, “In spite of all contrary evidence, I'm going to believe it anyway.” Although we didn't come to the faith because we were smart, if we had been smart, we would have. Christianity is reasonable. It provides the very framework to explain such things as logic, science, and philosophy. The beauty of this is that our faith rests on 'nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness', but we are also freed to look into every facet of knowledge with confidence that there, too, we shall find God. Losing the weak and shallow 'canned' arguments we tell ourselves and others removes the barriers to truly greater knowledge of God and his creation. If your apologetic research is merely a tool by which you convince yourself that you are right, you have missed the point. If the only thing keeping you a Christian is the conviction that Richard Dawkins' doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about when it comes to Christianity, you'll be sorely disappointed. He doesn't, but that's besides the point.

To sum up, what I am asking for is that we do not feel like we have to be experts in every field in order to justify our beliefs. Do not feel like you have to stand up every time you hear someone talking about evolution and rebut them – You may do more harm than good. If you can, that's wonderful, and I hope you can. I'm not asking for dumb Christians who respond to every question with, “Well, I don't know about that, I just know.” That's not a good apologetic, nor is it very glorifying to Christ. Your personal conviction is never a reason someone else should believe. The truth is out there, so go find it. And when you do, tell others about it and stick to it. All the while remembering that your faith does not stand or fall on whether the universe is expanding or contracting, but on the person of Jesus Christ. His work provides the basis from which all other true knowledge flows. This is the base that allows us to say, “I don't know, but if we study enough, we'll find the answer.”

PS – I realize this is another looong article, but it's also insufficient to cover everything I wanted to. Please, if anything is not clear, I will do my best to clarify.

PPS – Just in case there is any doubt, I do like AIG and Ken Ham.

Calvinism and Arminianism - Oh my!

I bumped into a friend today, and what started as a “How're you doing?” conversation ended 50 minutes later, having covered such diverse topics as Hell, Mercy, Infinity, the absence of Christ from the Church's message, and being a good husband. I, for obvious reasons, being a silent listener on the last topic.

In the course of our all-too-short conversation, my friend made the comment that Truth always lies between two positions. Not surprisingly for many of you, it was in reference to 'Calvinism & Arminianism' – A subject I try not to bring up, lest I be accused of forcing anything. However, I have acquired the title of 'Calvinist' (the fault is mainly my own, of course) and once people know that, they are constantly bringing it up. I don't HAVE to bring it up, the conversation follows me around like a dog that knows I have a treat in my pocket!

Anyway, our conversation actually wasn't primarily about that subject, and this brother is not by any stretch making an ignorant comment, but it got me thinking. I have heard that sentiment expressed on a number of occasions. The truth always lies between two opinions. The Calvinists are right - somewhat. The Arminians are right - somewhat. Both have just grasped one side of a two-sided truth, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Any side-taking is sectarian and involves too much pride in thinking one has things figured out. Besides, the gospel is so simple a child can understand it. Who needs Calvinism or Arminianism, anyway? Who needs to know how we got saved, as long as we are saved?

Now, my object in this article is not to argue for the Reformed perspective over and against the Arminian/Semi-pelagian viewpoint. Obviously, I have a position that I believe in strongly, but the question has been debated for a very long time and I'm afraid I'd not add a whole lot by getting up on a soapbox thinking I'd convince you all (All two of you, that is!) in one blog article. My object tonight is to show you that truth is not an ambiguous, fuzzy entity that we can never be quite sure about; that the idea of synthesis is not compatible with Christianity; and that it is your responsibility, as a Christian, to think through some of these issues of the Christian faith. Not to decide if you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, but to decide for yourself what the Bible says about certain topics.

Now some people take a very 'team' approach to theological questions. They view things like this:

Arminianism = Bad, Calvinism = Good.
John Wesley = Bad, Jonathan Edwards = Good.

They do get caught up in names and terms and labels. As for me, I would just as soon do away with labels if I could, seeing as they are so prone to mis-understanding. However, until we find a completely different way of communicating our ideas, we are stuck using words, terms and definitions. So, I am not using the word “Arminian” as a sort of theological swear-word, but to summarize a particular idea concerning certain topics of debate. I do not care what you are called – it is ideas I am concerned with. If you call yourself a Kookamunga, and mean by that what I mean when I call myself a 'Christian', all is well. It may just be that you will often find yourself having to explain yourself. So, if you get caught up in the labels, just substitute, “A particular idea appertaining to a certain question, meaning such-and-such.” Obviously, it is easier to use terms and definitions. It is your responsibility to find out the meaning behind certain terms – that is the task and the responsibility of anyone who reads the Bible.

Before I go any further, I just want to let Charles Spurgeon summarize for me my own position about Calvinism, lest you think I am abandoning Christ for John Calvin:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.ⁱ⁠

Now, why all the fuss? Why not take a reconciliatory, middle-of-the-road approach? Why bother at all? Is it not enough to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross in our place, and we need to repent of our sins? I reply that yes, indeed, that is enough to be saved. I ask you, “What is needed to be born?” An infant needs to do very little indeed, and needs to know even less, to be born. Being born is a very simple process. None of us understood much about anything when we were born, nevermind the complex progress through which we had passed from conception, to being nourished by our mother's bodies, to the actual birth. In the same way, the Bible says, For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Rom 10:13, Acts 2:21) Birth and Salvation are things that we were at no point beforehand qualified or powerful enough to accomplish on our own. Thank heavens we did not have to understand how it all worked before we could experience them.

So, if that's salvation, why am I writing this article? Well, I guess for the same reason the Bible is not three sentences long. The Gospel itself is not simple. It does matter, it hugely matters, what you believe. I am not talking about making a long list of things one needs to understand before you can be saved. That would be as absurd as making a patient write an essay as to how medicine would help him before the doctor would administer it to him. I am not writing this for patients, though, but for those who have already been helped by the medicine and are called to be doctors. If doctors are required to study arduously to learn how best to help men's temporal bodies so that they do not make fatal flaws, how much more care ought we to take when we deal with men's eternal souls? We are not playing at games.

And this brings me to the question under scrutiny tonight. Instead of glibly calling ourselves 'Calminians' in order to cover our laziness, we need to be examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11) Now, please realize I am not saying that you are a good for nothing, lowdown stinker if you have not come to any conclusions. We all have areas in our theology that we are not sure about. What I am saying is that you are a stinker if you think that theology does not matter. If you have come to the conclusion that the whole debate is a useless waste of time, based on your careful examination of the scriptures, then I commend you. However, since the debate centers primarily on what role God plays in our salvation, it is doubtful you will come away with this conclusion. A dismissal is more likely based on a laziness and an apathy rather than a real confusion or inability.

As to the assertion that 'the truth lies in between', I must gently say that in this case, there is no between. It is true that on either side of truth there is error. This does not mean, however, that truth lies between one position and another idea that is antithetical to it. In other words, compromising between two positions is not a good way to determine the truth. This is the methodology of German philosophers (namely, Hegel), not of Christianity. That is the methodology of those who do not have any basis for knowing truth. As Christians, we have God's truth revealed to us in written form in the Bible. We can know the truth; not completely (for then we would be God), but we can know what we know, truly. That is to say, while we cannot be certain of all things, we can still be confident that what we know is true.

Arminianism and Calvinism attempt to answer certain questions concerning the Bible. These questions include, What does Romans 8 mean that we are dead? What is predestination? What is God's involvement in salvation? What is our role in our salvation? They answer them in ways that are not compatible with each other. There is no merging of the two together. One answer is that we are dead and unable to come to God. The answer of the other interpretation is that we are sick and have to come to Christ lest we die. There is no middle ground. One answers “yes”, the other “no”. The only compromise is the answer of “maybe”, which is not an answer at all. Part of the problem is that the perception is that Calvinists believe in predestination, and Arminians believe in Free will. “Since both are true, I'm gonna call myself a Calminian.” The fact of the matter is, the issues are far deeper and more fundamental than that. They will affect how you think, how you live your Christian life, your witness, and how you share your faith.

Do not think that you can sit on the sidelines. You cannot. Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God — what is good and well-pleasing and perfect. ( Rom 12:2) You cannot be a neutral observer – there is no such thing as a static Christian. And I am not talking merely about your 'walk with the Lord'. What I mean is that you are always being influenced by something. You live in a culture. That culture is based on certain ideas, some of them stretching back into ancient history. You are a product of your environment. If you are not being transformed by the vision of Christ that you are seeing in the Bible, you will be being conformed to the world. There is no two ways about it. You will not know the extent to which your thinking has been shaped by the world until you try to get your head out of it.

I am not pushing you to 'choose a side'. I am pushing you to become educated about your faith, through which process you will come to conclusions. If you become an Arminian, we will argue, but I would rather an Arminian who knows his Bible than a Calvinist who does not. Do not tell me you do not have time. Look at the way you have spent your time thus far today and tell me that you could not have spent it better in careful reading of your Bible, listening to a sermon, or reading a book on theology (the latter two activities, of course, subjected to the former!). The Christian religion is a wonderful thing, my friend. Discover it. Put away your toys, the things that distract you. Think – have your mind blown. Struggle – interpreting the Bible properly is hard work. Why do you think so few do it nowadays?

With such resources as the Internet and the incredibly cheap books, we ought to be the best educated, knowledgeable Christians. Incredibly, it may well be that this generation (of whom I count myself) may well be the most ignorant bunch of Christians ever. I am not talking about 'extra' knowledge or silly questions. We are ignorant of the very basics of Christianity itself. Do you know:

Why the Trinity is so important to Christian Theology, and how to define it?

Do you why belief in Christ brings eternal life – and only to those who believe?

Do you know why men sin?

Do you understand what Christ did on the cross?

Do you know the difference between Justification and Sanctification?

You may have answers to those questions – but do you understand? Not fully, but do you struggle, do you fight, do you THINK about this stuff? Do not complain that you are a 'simple person' who can't understand the Bible. Has not the Lord promised to reveal things to you, as Paul exhorts Timothy: Think about what I am saying and the Lord will give you understanding of all this. (II Ti 2:7) You know, as well as do I, that the problem is not with the Lord, but in the fact that we do not do the thinking that is required of us. Sure, we are not all John Calvins or John Wesleys, but the Bible was written for all of us, not just those who are geniuses. Examine yourself and see if what you have been blaming on inability or lack of time is not actually laziness and apathy.

Here's another question: Can you name 12 players from your favorite sports team? Or, if that's not your thing, twelve characters from a movie or a book? OK, now can you tell me the names of the twelve disciples? The point is, we know what we spend time at.

Do you wonder why you have no passion for Christ? It is because you do not see him for who he is, and what he has done. Go, he is to be found in the pages of Scriptures, and he is beautiful beyond all compare. Ultimately, he is what it is all about. If you are just filling your head with Bible verses and missing Christ, you are a fool that ought to be pitied beyond all men.

Now, for damage control :-) I am not saying Arminians are not Christians. I would say that Arminian THEOLOGY is not consistent with historic Christian beliefs and is damaging to the name of Christ. Therefore, Arimianism is not Christian. However, I saw a saying once that has stuck with me “Narrow in Theology, Wide in Grace” I believe that what we believe and how we approach the Bible has profound impact – And yet, I believe in a God who is gracious and merciful towards his children.

I do think that a weak, watered down Arminian theology is partly responsible for the problems in the churches today, and that a return to the historical roots of Christianity is the only way we will see revival. But that is a post for another day. What I intend for this is not so much to encourage you to start researching Calvinism and Arminianism on the Internet and choose which side you are on, but to not allow yourself to slip into apathy concerning the scripture and what it says. If I stepped on your toes, I am glad – I am sure they needed stepping on. You do not give Bible reading the effort or the thought it deserves. It is not God you are denying of any pleasure, either. By not looking at him and adoring him, you are robbing yourself of the greatest pleasure a man can ever wish to experience.

Soli Deo Gloria!

i Charles H. Spurgeon, “A Defense of Calvinism,” http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm