Issue #133-Critique of a Pros Apologian Article, A

Biblical Errancy Issue #133-Critique of a Pros Apologian Article, Are Humans Pieces of Dung, Christian Intolerance, The Frontal Assault Method, Why God Isn't the Author, Hit and Run

Nov 10, '08 6:32 AM
by Loren for everyone












Issue No. 133




January 1994





On pages 15 and 16 of the publication entitled Pros Apologian, published by Rev. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, is an article entitled "Rebellious Lumps of Clay and the Praise of God's Glorious Grace." In this article White is essentially trying to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will, and only succeeds in painting himself into a corner. He states, "...before the very creation of the world, God chose His people in Christ Jesus, not on the basis of what they did or would do, but solely on the basis of His mercy and grace. He makes them holy and blameless in his sight by His Spirit and power (Jude 24-25). They are predestined to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, not according to their works, but according to His pleasure and will. Because this predestination finds its basis completely in God's will, not in man himself, it is all of grace, for it is freely given to us in the Beloved One, Jesus Christ." Later he states, "...we truly are God's creatures, at His disposal, to be used for His glory." In effect, White is saying that God and God alone determines who is saved and who is damned. Man has no influence on the decision whatever. As we have shown in several issues of BE, this position is biblically sound, although in conflict with God's alleged justice, and morally detestable.

But on the next page White says, "There is the objection that is heard over and over again. If God truly has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He hardens, then how can God still hold us responsible? Paul's answer provides us with the second part of our answer.... Paul's words are harsh, unloving, and repulsive. Why? Because Paul's answer is so clear: we are clay, God is the potter. We are the creation, He the Creator. We have no right to judge God. God has every right to judge us. We cannot put Him 'in the dock' and accuse Him." Apparently, White doesn't realize he has unsatisfactorily answered the question, and is on the horns of a dilemma. If people are free throughout their entire lives to act as they please, but their fate was determined by God long before they came onto the scene, then behavior is irrelevant to salvation. If behavior is irrelevant to salvation, then justice is irrelevant also, and many of those who will be saved will be among those who are least deserving. On the other hand, if the behavior of people is completely determined by God from beginning to end, then how can God be just, as is alleged in Deut. 32:4, when he condemns some people to hell for doing that which he forced them to perform? How can God judge or condemn those who have no freedom? White evades the whole issue by relying on Paul, and alleging man has no right to pass judgment on God's behavior, no matter how unjust it may appear. That's analogous to saying: Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes? From White's perspective, any act of God is proper, regardless of the degree of injustice involved, and that's no justification whatever. In essence, he wants people to make a tremendous leap of faith and accept his unsubstantiated allegation that God would never do anything that was unjust, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. He offers no proof; just preachments. We are supposed to accept because of our unworthiness to criticize. Working on that theory, no act of God would be reprehensible no matter how heinous. Every despicable act of God listed in the commentaries of Issues 115 through 120 of BIBLICAL ERRANCY would be justified, and that would, indeed, be the ultimate in religious faith and indoctrination. Every contemptible deed of the Almighty could be defended on the supposition that God's ways are above man's understanding. Individuals entangled in that loop resemble those who believe that the failure of prayer lies in more prayer. They are so blinded to reality that they wouldn't believe god's behavior was reprehensible, even if Paul, himself, returned from the dead and said so.

On top of everything else, White later says, "We are, after all, rebellious lumps of clay, and what an incredibly foolish thing it is for lumps of clay to rise up in rebellion against the Potter!" If all acts by man are determined by God from the beginning, then how could man rebel to begin with? He would only be performing that which God determined. If, on the other hand, he is free throughout his entire life, but his ultimate fate is determined, then what difference does it make whether or not he rebels? He is going to Heaven or Hell, regardless of his behavior. His fate was sealed ab initio. Either way, the situation is fixed and ridiculous.

Anyone who takes White's theory seriously might as well devote his life to wine, women, and song, because the outcome is foreordained. If the outcome is set in concrete, White should live it up and forget about preaching: the die has been cast.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #554 Continues from Last Month (Part l)

McKinsey is wrong here yet again when he delivers himself of the opinion that Christians regard each other as so much rubbish or dung. I can't speak for other religions, but Christianity teaches that all people have dignity, worth, and beauty because they are made in God's image and because they are loved by God. Jesus commands us, in fact, to value each other to the point of giving our lives for each other. To say that we regard each other as pieces of dung is to confuse us with the secularists and humanists like B.F. Skinner, who regards man as nothing more than an animal with no intrinsic worth beyond what he can contribute to the common good....

The twentieth century has certainly paid in copious quantities of blood for this sort of thinking, as tyranny after tyranny has striven to expunge any theistic basis for human rights and human dignity from the societies they oppress....

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part l)

You are only perpetuating the ridiculous mythology that has enrapped the Christian community for centuries, SF. In the first place, you have chosen to ignore the teachings of Christianity's real founder, Paul, who said in Romans 7, "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing that I hate.... For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh, I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.... I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Clearly, Paul looks upon himself as carnal and having nothing good dwelling within; he is wretched and captive to the law of sin. Are you saying you and the rest of humanity are somehow better? Are you saying your moral character exceeds that of a saint? Other verses could be quoted, but the point is that Martin Luther's reference to man being little more than a piece of dung is biblically sustainable. Second, the Bible refers to man being made in the image of God, but could you cite chapter and verse where the Bible specifically applies the words "dignity," "worth," and "beauty" to man, rather than having them eisegetically read into the text? In other words, do you have specific citations, or are you just drawing conjectures from words that are present, and one lone verse in particular? Third, could you also cite chapter and verse to substantiate your assertion that Jesus commanded us to give our lives for each other? One of the most common illnesses of nearly all Christian propagandists lies in their repeated tendency to embellish the biblical story. They just can't help but add to the text anything that makes it more astounding, more colorful, more indicative of the message they seek to convey. I have sat through many a sermon, wondering where on earth he was getting that from Scripture. A couple of Christmas movies I recently viewed entitled Sodom and Gomorrah and Samson and Delilah reek with addenda. Fourth, as far as the reference to pieces of dung is concerned, I think you will find that Martin Luther, the most influential of all protestant theologians, is far more in tune with biblical teachings than yourself, and more likely to refer to man as a piece of dung than B.F. Skinner. Fifth, your observations with respect to the twentieth century are little short of ludicrous. I challenge you to find any group on this planet that has been involved in bloodier and more costly conflicts than the world's Christians. All the European countries swim in a sea of Christian indoctrination, and yet they have been the source of the bloodiest internal and colonial conflicts in world history. In this century alone, tens of millions have paid the supreme sacrifice in wars in which major Christian leaders and organizations clearly supported both sides. The Christian record is nothing short of abysmal. And lastly, as far as governments are concerned, those which have oppressed their citizenry the most are precisely those that have been most closely allied with religion, churches, and the propagation of Christianity. Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Somoza in Nicaragua, Duvalier in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam, Hitler in Germany, and Mussolini in Italy are prime examples.

Letter #554 Continues (Part m)

McKinsey says that believers will not be open to new ideas because they believe that there are some eternal truths. This is too ridiculous a charge to merit a response.

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part m)

Why don't you try, anyway? Probably because you know that eternal truths are, by definition, not open to alteration, modification, or revision; they aren't subject to adjustment. And insofar as they are not subject to renovation, believers are not open to new ideas. And to the extent they are not open to new ideas in such key areas as morality and Christian dogma, the tendency to be closedminded in other areas is heightened dramatically, because everything is interrelated. If there is any aspect to which the word ridiculous can be applied, it lies in your subtle attempt to provide an aura of complete mastery through abrupt evasion.

Letter #554 Continues (Part n)

He argues that believers tend to be intolerant of others because they believe they have the Truth. Unfortunately, there are indeed some Christians who are guilty of a kind of religious chauvinism. But what has this to do with the correctness of their beliefs about God? The fact that some people are intolerant does not mean that their beliefs are incorrect. The fact that some who believe God exists display little liberality in their dealings with others certainly does not mean that God doesn't exist.

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part n)

You ask, "What has this to do with the correctness of their beliefs?" I would ask you, What has your response to do with my question? We aren't talking about the correctness of their beliefs or their belief in the existence of God. Whether their beliefs are correct or incorrect or God does or does not exist is irrelevant to my original assertion. The fact is that believing they have the "Truth," whether they have it or not, tends to make them intolerant. If the extraneous verbiage in your answer is removed, your real defense includes the assertion that intolerance is only displayed by some Christians. You don't realize that Christians displaying religious tolerance as opposed to intolerance are doing so despite biblical teachings, not because of them. I strongly recommend for your enlightenment the commentaries on Pro- and Anti-intellectualism in Issues 80, 81 and 110.

(To Be Concluded Next Month)

Letter #560 from TG of Arlington, Texas

Dear Dennis.
You're doing excellent work. Even the hard core biblicists who won't be persuaded by the obvious must realize that their position is not so strong as they thought when they encounter your arguments. So I hope you take the following in the spirit in which it's offered.

Biblical criticism is useful and important. But, as you say, "You have to deal with people where they are, not where you would like them to be." And many MANY people, unfortunately, are not going to be separated from their Christian indoctrination by Biblical criticism, for the simple reason that an awful lot of them aren't the least bit interested in such matters. Most of these are "liberal" Christians who would readily agree with us that the Bible is not inerrant, and to most of them, Dennis, the intellectual arguments against their faith just aren't that important. Moreover, most people can readily see that choosing to abandon religious superstition will cut them off from friends and family and isolate them in a way that can be very uncomfortable. I'm convinced that this is why so few freethinkers are women. Men can more easily afford to go their own way, whereas social attachments and acceptance are very important for most women.

This is why the frontal assault that you are so accomplished at is not the whole solution. This is also why "preaching to the choir" should not be at the very bottom of our priorities. You certainly don't see the Christian churches attracting their main following by holding picket and protest activities. Sure, they draw on a vast pool of people who've been indoctrinated since birth in religious superstition. But the pull of common sense is very strong, too. It's just too strong to overcome the desire to "go along to get along." Many people whose religious beliefs are tenuous at best join churches simply because they don't see any alternatives. This is especially true of couples with young children. And let's not kid ourselves. What we endure is not seen as an acceptable way of living by most people, and the greater part of this has nothing whatever to do with logic and reason.

I don't know what the whole solution is, Dennis. What you do is a part of it. But it doesn't stand much chance of getting us all to where we ought to be. Where we ought to be is in freethought communities that sponsor regular events, open to the public, concerning matters of wide appeal. We freethinkers, and not the fundagelical crazies and peddlers of irrationalism and mysticism, ought to be the ones sponsoring public lectures, workshops, and classes on things like being happier, improving our marriages, raising more self-reliant children, and so on and so on. We can build a better mousetrap, and people will beat a path to our door if we do.

P.S. How about a 4-5 page instead of a 3 page BE?

Editor's Response to Letter #560

Dear TG.
Please accept my response in the spirit intended, but your letter is plagued with beguilements. You wouldn't believe the number of suggestions I have received over the years on how to conduct, write, direct, and manage this publication, much of which is calculated, either wittingly or unwittingly, to lead us down a side path that is little more than a cul-de-sac, if not a slippery slope to oblivion. In regard to your points: First, you are correct. Many people are not as interested in biblical criticism as are others, but as we have stated so often, our focus should be on those who are most in opposition to our position and most actively propounding biblical inerrancy and religious superstition. Insofar as the amount of work that needs to be done is concerned, this group has barely been touched. You want to move on to another group, when this one is yet to be dealt with in any meaningful way. Second, liberal Christians aren't nearly as immune from biblical contradictions and problems as they have been led to believe. As we have noted before, Adam and Eve, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, Original Sin and a host of other issues impact as much on liberal Christianity as the fundamentalist wing. The former are in the loop, whether they like it or not. Third, if I internalized your comment that people are not going to choose "to abandon religious superstition" because "it will cut them off from friends and family and isolate them in a way that can be very uncomfortable," then I might as well abandon all biblical criticism and close up shop, because that would apply to individuals on every side of the Christian spectrum. Although your statement no doubt applies to some, it is by no means applicable to all. Fourth, no doubt some women in the audience have something they would like to say in regard to your comment that "few freethinkers are women." Fifth, I have never said that the "frontal assault" is the whole solution, only that it is far ahead of whatever is second. Sixth, you don't think that "preaching to the choir" should be near the bottom of our priorities? I suggest you talk to some propagandists for the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, if you don't think much is to be gained by "spreading the word." All you are doing is submitting another version of the "you can't change those people" argument, TG, and I don't buy it. I'm sorry. I have attended many atheist and humanist meetings over the years, and virtually everyone present came out of some kind of religious background. If they can do it, so can others. And I know from letters and phone calls we have received over the years that BE has significantly altered the religious beliefs of many people. Seventh, you support the "preaching to the choir" approach by saying that "where we ought to be is in freethought communities that sponsor events, open to the public, concerning matters of wide appeal." But what could be of wider appeal than the Bible! Have you looked at your television or turned on your radio lately? Good grief, my friend, where on earth have you been! The media is saturated with hallelujahs to the Bible in general and Jesus in particular. Eighth, you say that "we freethinkers, and not the fundagelical crazies and peddlers of irrationalism and mysticism ought to be the ones sponsoring public lectures, workshops, and classes on things like...." But TG, how many times have I said that biblicists are NOT, I repeat, they are NOT going to come to our events when they are convinced they already have the truth? It just isn't going to happen. You are living in a dream world if you think religionists are going to appear in droves to hear an atheist, humanist, or freethought speaker. You are going to have to go to them, if you want our numbers to increase dramatically. Don't expect them to come to you. And lastly, you say that "we can build a better mousetrap, and people will beat a path to our door if we do." Why do you say "we can," when we already have. We have had a better mousetrap, at least ideologically, for centuries. That's a done deed; yet, they're not beating a path to our door. No, my friend that's not how it works. Just because you have the truth does not mean your cause will prevail. By no means! If that were true, Falwell, Swaggart, Graham, Roberts, Robertson, and a host of other purveyors of perfidy would never see the light of day. Financial backing, political access, influential relationships, censorship, sympathetic media, educational control, escape from despair into phantasia, yet-to-be-demonstrated promises and threats, and general domination of the scene are far more important. And nobody's going to race to a door they don't even know exists. The situation resembles that noted by a political candidate discussing a controlled election who said, "It's not who has the votes; it's who counts them." Unfortunately, TG, it's difficult to avoid the impression that you are trying to justify doing little and avoiding conflict by rationalizing everything.

As far as your comment regarding expanding BE to 4 or 5 pages is concerned, time and resources just aren't available. In fact, with so many irons in the fire, we are taxed to the max already. But thanks for the suggestion and encouragement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #561 from MJ of Andover, Mass.

If God wrote a Book, it would be clear, concise, and intelligible, and not filled with muddled thinking masquerading as spiritual mysteries. It would not be filled with contradictions in claims, in accounts, in advice, and in logic. It would not constantly assert mutually exclusive ideas are both true, such as emphatically claiming the end is near and then extending this claim century after century (Mark 9:1).

It would not contradict known facts (Job 39:13-16). It would not present obviously mythological stories as literal truth (Gen. 7 & 8, Noah's Ark). It would not depend on miracles as a key to legitimacy (Matt. 11:3-5). It would not contain prophecies that failed, nor claim fulfillments of prophecies which were clearly talking about unrelated events (Ezek. 26:7-21 & Acts 21:3, Acts 1:16 & Psalm 41:9, 41:4).

It would have a real sense of justice. It would not favor one nation over another (Deut. 7:6). It would not discriminate against handicapped people (Lev. 21:16-23). It would not condone slavery (Ex. 21:20-21). It would not preach hatred toward gay people (Lev. 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-10). It would not be cruel. There can be no justification for the slaughtering of infants and animals, who cannot be guilty (Psalm 137:9, 1 Sam. 15:3). It would be appalled at the idea of eternal punishment for anyone, just because a person won't accept screwy theology (John 3:18, 3:36, Matt. 25:46, Mark 9:44). It would not hold people responsible for the sins of someone else (2 Kings 5:27, Romans 5:18-19). It would provide a better answer to the problem of evil than the Book of Job, which answer amounts to, "You have no right to ask, you puny human" (Job 40:2).

Its ethics would show some wisdom and maturity. It would not hold up an atrocious character such as David as a hero (Acts 13:22, 2 Sam. 6:20-22). It would not regard obedience as a greater virtue than understanding. Obedience is not an intrinsic virtue (Gen. 2 & 3, Adam and Eve; Ex. 24:7).

It would understand the nature of real faith--the will to find meaning in life--and not hold up simple-minded credulity as such a virtue (John 20:29). It would not claim that what a man believes is the critical factor, rather than how he treats people (Romans 4:5-6). It would have an understanding of forgiveness, and not demand a blood sacrifice, a barbaric concept at best (Heb. 9:22). Its teachings on marriage and divorce would be clear and humane, and not change from the OT to the NT or from gospel to gospel (2 Sam. 5:13, Mark 10:11, Matt. 19:9). It would teach that men and women, though different, are equal in value, with equal rights (Lev. 27:3-5, 12:1-4, 1 Cor. 11:3). It would celebrate life, not deny it (John 12:25).

Its chief spokesperson (the Son of God) would have realistic ethics, and not make utopian statements advising people to forgive endlessly, to take no thought for the morrow, and not to resist evil (Matt. 18:22, 6:34, 5:39). It would inspire us to work for the ideals of humanity, rather than to trust in wishful thinking and the adequacy of passivity (Matt. 17:20, 21:22, Psalm 37:3-11). It would reveal a God of compassion, understanding, and justice, not an egotistical, jealous, vengeful character (Job 40:2, Ex. 20:5, Nah 1:2). The essence of its God would be reason and compassion, rather than a desire to dominate and control.

In short, if God wrote a book, you can be sure the Bible ain't it....

Letter #562 from PD of Mesick, Michigan

Hi Dennis.
I answer all ads I see on TV and in printed media offering free religious materials. This material is invariably followed by a visit from the local clergy of the sponsoring denomination. So I get experienced biblical apologists on my home turf, with all of my notes and biblical materials readily at hand. What a wonderful opportunity to test out various BE arguments before chancing making a fool out of myself in public!

This practice gets me ready for various radio talk shows which do not screen their callers. (Those are getting more common every day.) As soon as I hear a Bible quoter call in, I call in to oppose his verse with one or more of my own. The host often asks me why the other caller's scripturally supportable position is any less valid than mine. I reply with a sigh, saying, "Well, I guess this is another example of biblical inconsistency and self-contradiction. Anyone can find verses to support whatever he wants to believe." The host is usually desperate to avoid straying off the day's topic with a never-ending biblical argument, so he quickly expresses agreement and terminates the call. Then, regardless of any subsequent Bible defense by angry callers, the damage has been done. Thousands of on-the-fence listeners have been exposed to information which seriously discredits any claim of biblical inerrancy! Many thanks for your help in all this. P.S. Can you please publish a source for an up-to-date BE index?

Editor's Response to Letter #562

Dear PD.
Keep up the good work, and stay on the offensive. Using our material to expose the Bible is sorely needed. However, I do have a problem with your strategy. A major weakness of your hit-and-run approach is that when you are no longer on-the-air any number of callers can attack, twist, distort, pervert and "correct" everything you have said with impunity. Who is going to show them the error of their ways? Who is going to tell them where they went awry? After hanging up, you become fair game and anything goes, as I have experienced on several occasions.

As far as inviting apologists into your home is concerned, that is an excellent strategy for those who are fully prepared. But remember, they are not going to send their dummies for idle chit-chat. Sending you propaganda and propagandists is costly, and they intend to get their money's worth. More than likely you will be visited by either skilled propagandists or ordained clergy. In any event, let me know what is most effective and I'll relay the message.

As far as a textual index for all biblical verses in BE is concerned, we have been distributing one for several years at $10 a copy. A Tennessee subscriber with computer expertise sends us an updated version every year.