Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Atheism Part 3

Tonight, we’re going to look at Loftus’s reasons for atheism that he gives. I’ve already given my reason why I don’t think the universe is ambiguous. Apparently, Loftus does think it is though and somehow thinks it should be properly interpreted in an atheistic way. We’re mainly going to look though to see if there is any reason given for atheism.

Loftus begins by telling us how chance events can produce order and we know this.

It’s news to me….

Some example would have been nice….

He quotes Pascal talking about looking at the world of nature and seeing obscurity and how nature offers nothing but matter for doubt. Loftus tells us that it cannot be figured out with reason and initially, it can’t. Loftus tells us that the best we can say is that random chance events can’t be figured out in hindsight. Loftus accepts that nature is ultimate and the universe is just a brute fact.

Then he comes out and says “I am an atheist. There is no God.” Please take note people. This is phrasing the negative in an absolute. This isn’t the weak atheism that is just trying to say “I have no God belief.” This is the clear affirmation that there is no God. He thinks this he says because the universe is absurd and just can’t be figured out.

How many readers really think this universe is absurd?

It’s puzzling at some times and hard to understand but absurd?

For someone who thinks so much of the laws of science and how we have things figured out, to come out and say the universe is absurd in the end is astounding. If there’s something we don’t understand, it’s not the fault of the universe. It’s our fault for being ignorant. One supposes that Loftus would like to say what he knows based on what he does not know. Quite interesting….

Loftus gives an amusing suggestion that Christians are atheists to all other gods. He just rules out one more. Fair enough. However, we all do this as well. I am a non-believer in all worldviews except my own. I can’t say “I’m not going to believe my worldview.” If I say that, then my new belief actually does become my worldview.

Loftus speaks of his wife Gwen, who is an atheist also, and says her question is, “If God exists, then why doesn’t he show me?”

Pray tell why he should?

It’d be for the greater good for God to just have a grand revealing party? I don’t think so. I think God has good reasons for his supposed hiddenness and I’m looking for the atheist to tell me why God should reveal himself.

And I say supposed hiddenness because I don’t believe he’s hidden himself at all. I tend to agree with Paul. (Hey. I’m a Christian. Agreeing with what you believe to be the words of God is quite easy.) The creation makes the existence of God plain. It’s the brute fact, in fact, that Russell and Loftus both cannot explain, but somehow know God didn’t do it…..

In the end of looking at this chapter, I really see no reason given for atheism. Even if the universe is absurd, it doesn’t rule out the existence of a god. I don’t think the Christian God would work with an absurd universe, but it does not rule out the existence of any god whatsoever. Also, if Loftus really believes this universe is absurd, I urge him to live out that worldview. See how long he can be consistent with it.

I don’t think it will be very long.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Atheism Part 2

We now continue with the emphasis on the second part that the universe is religiously ambiguous. The claim is made of John Hick. The idea is that the evidence we see can be interpreted in anyway. Theistic and anti-theistic arguments are inconclusive. The evidences to which each appeal can be understood in a contrary worldview. Thus, we have religious ambiguitiy.

It makes one wonder if the idea that the universe is ambiguous is ambiguous.

Can this idea be interpreted in light of the notion that the universe is not religiously ambiguous?

Now at the same time, I’m not saying everything is cut and dry. There are still some puzzles to figure out. However, I would not say that it’s ambiguous. There are some interpretations that are right and some that are wrong. (Who knows though. Maybe Hick thinks God is postmodern and it’s up to the reader to give the text of the universe the meaning he thinks it ought to have.

In fact, I could question whether Hick really believes this. He interprets the world as Loftus says in the guise of liberal Christianity. Would he think I’m wrong? Of course. Would he give reasons? Of course. What’s he appealing to? The world around me. The only way he could say I’m wrong is that if he thinks his interpretation of the world is correct and mine is incorrect. I wouldn’t expect less.

This is the same with any work. (Interesting that at the points of Scripture, Loftus complains about NT interpretation of the OT. When it comes to the universe though, any interpretation is sound….) What is Loftus’s whole point about the problem of evil? That the correct interpretation of the world is to say there is no good God behind it.

Don’t misunderstand this. I’m not saying that he’s wrong to do that. I think it’s good to appeal to the evidence of the world in making a case. I’m saying that as soon as you do that, you are admitting that the universe is not ambiguous. In fact, you are admitting that your opponent should not think that either because you think if he is thinking right, he will see the correct way to see the world.

Does the world come with a giant label that says “Made by YHWH. Trust Jesus.”? No. I’m not saying either. I believe there is enough evidence in this world to convince a true seeker that God does exist and further that if he keeps seeking he will find that he has revealed himself in Christ. I also believe there’s not too much evidence so that someone can deny him, but I do not see that as rational. It is not rational to ignore the evidence that we have.

That’s my response. I don’t see it as ambiguous. I see the problem in man who often wants to resist that which is plainly set before him. Tomorrow, we shall see Loftus’s answer and how it measures up.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Atheism Part 1

Friends. This will be short. We had a friend come over and stay late with us discussing apologetics. This has been an exciting evening for me in many ways and a stunning one. However, I am fighting right now to keep my eyes open. Thus, I will only tackle one part of this chapter where Loftus tells us why he’s an atheist. Let’s see if the reasons establish atheism even if true. Please note this is also why he’s not an agnostic.

The first is the relationship between faith and reason.

Loftus starts by saying how there are two views that seem to present us with absurdities. Either something always existed or something popped into existence out of nothing.

I only see one of those as absurd. Guess which one it is….

The latter is treating nothing as if it is something. Nothing is nothing and something is something. Nothing is not something. It’s simple law of identity. They see it as absurd rightly because all things that begin to exist need a cause. (Hmmm. What about causality? Is it eternal?) Everyone believes in something eternal. I just happen to believe that it’s intelligence and personality.

I happen to enjoy how Sam Harris is quoted as saying “Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists.”

I find this interesting. The why question is raised rather than the how. This is something we’ll get to when discussing other issues. Why does the universe exist. However, I think an intellectually honest person can admit that he is sure how it came about. That is by the creation of God. Of course, Harris would say I am either not honest or intellectual or that I am ignorant.

That has yet to be established.

Don’t you just love this atheist game? We don’t know implies that supernatural explanations are already ruled out a priori. I have no problem with naturalistic explanations, but for the sake of argument, let’s suppose the universe did begin fiat by God at the Big Bang? If that’s the case, you won’t find a naturalistic explanation.

But you do enjoy the assumption that there must be a natural explanation.

It’s so nice to be a theist and not have to have a natural explanation for everything a priori and being open to both natural and supernatural causes and getting to choose which best fits the evidence. Good thing our worldview doesn’t pre-commit us before we study something.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Christianity’s Achilles Heel

People who have Loftus’s book will notice I skipped over a couple of chapters. I need to explain. Most anxiously, I’m sure some were looking forward to the review on the chapter on the Problem of Evil. I chose to not do that actually at this time because I have written a research paper on the topic focusing on natural evil and using Loftus’s arguments and explaining why I think they’re fallacious. It is being reviewed by some English major friends of mine and then I’ll edit it and turn it in and after I get it back, I plan on putting it up. It could be a month or two so there will be waiting. Rest assured though, it is one I am looking forward to.

There is also the chapter on Calvinism. I did not review that simply because I am not a Calvinist and I will leave it to the Calvinists to defend Calvinism. I will put up one critique of it though here. I was surprised because in all the writings that I found there, I did not find one quote from John Calvin. I would think a critique of Calvinism would include some of his statements.

For now though, we move to what Loftus calls the Achilles’ heel of Christianity. That is the difference between the modern mind and the ancient mind.

Odd. I find that the Achilles’ Heel of modernity. (What happened to that Outsiders Test?)

He says we must either canonize these standards that are primitive thinking, come to a half-way house in-between, or reject them.
Or we can just realize they’re not primitive thinking. It’s simply Chronological snobbery.

In speaking of the slave being beat for instance, Loftus doesn’t understand that discipline would be used at times and the owner was given the benefit of the doubt. It’s unlikely he’d want to kill a slave. (It’s also worth noting that this was for a theocracy.) Slavery in those days was hardly anything like it was in the Civil War period. In fact, it was Christianity that ended slavery. (Loftus. Go look up Bathilda, wife of Clovis II or get a book like “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark.)

As for science, Loftus says science runs on the assumption that there is a natural explanation for every event. (Page 262) Yes friends. Watch that. It’s an assumption. I don’t see Loftus’s assertions here. I can see God working through natural events just as much as supernatural ones. Even with a grocery store down the street, I can still pray for my daily bread.

Let’s remember the main part though. This is an assumption? Can it be demonstrated? No. He takes it on faith. (Has he read C.S. Lewis’s essay on the Laws of Nature in God in the Dock?) Why should the world be granted as rational? Why should it be that my mind that is the result supposedly of an accident somehow corresponds to a world that is accidental as well? (For an excellent look at this, see Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great About Christianity?”

Of course, he complains about God in the Gaps. Loftus. Who was the first to despise the God of the Gaps idea? It was Christians! Check a Methodist layspeaker named Charles Coulson as an example. While I am generally against it, let something be admitted. If God did do something fiat, then we are not going to be able to close that gap. We should not ask “What is the best natural explanation for X?” but “What is the best explanation?”

As Loftus goes on, it’s more of the chronological snobbery that we’ve already seen and dealt with. If this is the Achilles’ heel, we are in good hands.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Hell Part 2

I hope my readers remember what I said last night. I said that when we discuss Hell, we have to make sure that we are being rational and not emotional. Let’s keep that in mind as we go through.

We start with Loftus speaking of Copan’s view as an evangelical conservative. On page 232 he says, “And while it appears Copan is trying to soften the horrors of hell, if correct, such a viw of hell is still a horrible fate for a loving God to inflict upon human beings. The punishment does not fit the crime, period. No thinking person should believe this is what our so-called “sins” deserve.

Unfortunately, there is nothing rational. There is simply an appeal to emotion. Loftus wants you to feel the way he does, and this is evident especially when he speaks about “so-called sins.” Let’s consider this though with the biblical revelation in mind and having its claim of God being who he is granted for the sake of the argument.

If God is who he is, then he is the most awesome, lovely, wonderful, beautiful, holy, etc. being that there is. All sin then is a denial of who he is. It’s an attempt to take his throne. It’s saying that he is not who he claims to be and that we are the ones who deserve that place. It’s divine treason, and I’m guilty of it everyday. Unless you live a perfect life, so are you.

What is God to do with those who commit this? Just say “boys will be boys?” It’s interesting that Loftus complains about the problem of evil so much, but when it comes to God judging and punishing evil, he complains about that as well. What does he want? God’s evil when he doesn’t do something about evil. He’s evil when he does do something about evil. Sorry Loftus. Sin is not breaking an abstract law hanging out there. It’s a violation of God’s very being.

He makes this later quote about God letting us go our own way on the same page:

“However, I find this almost absurd that the Christian God blames us for living our lives as if he didn’t exist, because there simply isn’t enough reason to believe in him over any of the other gods, or no god at all, especially when we usually adopt the religion we were born into! I furthermore find it absurd that God is so upset that we don’t acknowledge him. If he is omniscient, then he knows why we do what we do and why we believe what we do, and I fail to see how such a God cannot empathize with how we live our lives. We all do the best we can do given our environment and brain matter.”

I guess that settles it.

First off, Loftus is complaining that God is unjust. At this though, he needs a moral standard of justice. Where does he get it from? The very thing he’s complaining about is dependent on the very thing that he says doesn’t exist.

Second, he speaks of us choosing the religion we were born into. Was Loftus born into naturalism? He can’t use that excuse for his own beliefs. Also, is this justification? If I am born into a belief system that says that Hell is entirely justified, what’s Loftus to say? Is he to say I should believe it just because I was born into it? No. While we may be more prone to those beliefs, we are not locked into them. I’ve disavowed many beliefs I grew up with.

Third, God does know why we do what we do and if our reasons are no good, he knows it. If there are any excuses we could use for our sins, he knows them better than we do. C.S. Lewis has a marvelous essay on this in The Weight of Glory.

Finally, we don’t all do the best. Much of the time, we all know something is wrong and we do it anyway. If one reads Loftus’s book, it’s clear that he did this. I’ve done things I’ve known are wrong before also. I’m quite certain so have you. The point for us as Christians is that we are to repent and seek forgiveness and move on. Let’s not say we are doing our best though. We’re falling dreadfully short. (That’s what makes grace just so awesome.)

Copan also speaks of the gates of Hell being locked from the inside. Loftus thinks this is absurd. Why would someone choose the anguish of Hell? Unfortunately, Sartre said he would choose the same thing. In a work of his when he and others are in Hell and a door opens, none of them go out. They choose to acknowledge the choice of their freedom.

How would Loftus know otherwise? Is he saying he would be filled with overwhelming love for God in Hell? You want to know the joys of Heaven? The joy of Heaven is God himself. If you have hatred for God himself that you’ve built up over this lifetime, why on Earth would you want to be with him? Look at how Loftus describes God all throughout this book. He suddenly thinks it’d be a joy to be near him?

Loftus thinks if people knew the truth about God with certainty, they would change their minds. Not at all. There are many things we know the truth of any way today but do them. Many of us know that it’s wrong to cheat on our taxes, but it’s done anyway. We know it’s wrong to be lazy, but we’re lazy anyway. Also, this is the time we have to repent. We’re not promised another moment.

Loftus also uses the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This parable is not meant to tell us about the afterlife per se. It is about how circumstances are differentiated. The Jewish person would have seen the rich man as having God’s blessing and the poor man as God’s curse. It is by seeing the afterlife that we see that that is not the case. Notice though that the rich man anyway never does repent and we have a strong statement about belief. If they do not believe Moses and the prophets, a resurrection won’t convince them either.

Loftus wants to know what if Allah exists? Sure. If Allah exists, I’m in a lot of trouble. (Taking Allah to refer to the specific Muslim deity and not simply the Arabic title for God. Christian Arabs could legitimately call God “Allah.”) Loftus says that no intelligent being would demand that we believe things about him in order to get to Heaven.

Really? How come?

Loftus says that this is an age of diversity. We tolerate many opinions. (Excepting the opinion that people should go to Hell apparently and the opinion that we shouldn’t tolerate many opinions.) I find this absolutely astounding. What you tolerate is not truth. You tolerate error. If we tolerate some beliefs, then we are saying they are false. If we don’t bother to have true beliefs about the most awesome being of all, how seriously are we taking him?

The remedy also is not simply to believe the correct things. The remedy is to believe and live them out. Even the demons believe and tremble. All Christians can indeed say with James that faith without works is dead. I am not saying that works save us, but that true faith eventually produces true works.

I said at the start that we should watch for emotional appeals. We have seen several. Unfortunately, the rational aspect was lacking. So we shall see as we continue.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Hell Part 1

This is a difficult topic to write about. It’s not because it’s a hard argument to defend rationally. I don’t think it is. It’s because there is such an emotional argument. I think Dwight L. Moody once said that you’d better not preach about Hell unless there are tears in your eyes. I also recall the day Saddam’s sons were killed and someone IMed me on PALtalk and was telling me about it and said it was such good news. My thought I told them was “It’s good that the terror they brought is at an end, but it’s sad because they’ve entered an eternity with no hope.”

That’s really my view. I don’t believe in Hell because I like it. I don’t. I believe in Hell simply because I believe the Bible teaches it and then of course, my Lord teaches it, and if I believe that they teach it, then I, as a Christian, am obligated to agree. I believe it’s just and I believe it’s proper. It does not mean I enjoy the thought of it. Still, I will defend the doctrine. We start by the three options Loftus gives us on Hell.

I will agree with the first view. Hell is not described literally any more than Heaven is described literally. I believe the fires and the worms described indicate a greater reality. They indicate the judgment of God. The remains of sacrifices would be eaten up by worms and the garbage of Jerusalem would be burned at Gehenna, which is where we get our word for Hell.

Hell is a cosmic dump basically. It’s where humans go when they cease to fulfill their potential. It is where God ultimately leaves people alone granting them their wish. C.S. Lewis was one of the best writers on this topic and I highly recommend people read The Great Divorce and the Hell chapter in the Problem of Pain. (For contrast of course, read the Heaven chapter as well. Peter Kreeft’s book of “Heaven: The Heart’s Deepest Longing” is the best book I have ever read on Heaven.)

What about Annihilationism? I don’t believe that simply because I do not see my Lord teaching it. I see Hell in the Bible consistently as conscious punishment. Is language of destruction used? Yes. That language though more refers to ruin than the cessation of existence.

I also believe God is a respecter of the free choices of man and those who hold his image. He will let them live with the choice that they have made rather than destroy that which is good, which is his image. I see passages where the duration of Heaven and Hell are placed alongside each other and both are seen as unending. I also see people described as gnashing teeth in Hell, a picture of great sorrow, indicating consciousness. (For the record, I do not see the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as giving us the furniture of the afterlife but contrasting the view that rich people have the blessing of God and the poor have the curse of God.)

Lastly, there is Loftus’s view that it doesn’t exist. It developed among superstitious and barbaric people.

Now was the idea of Hell developed rather late in biblical chronology? Yes it was. I believe though there are shades of it, but there was never a need to expound nor really a place to do so. The message was simply on getting Israel back on track in the now and not on track for what was to be in the future aside from the coming of the Messiah.

Of course, readers know the real argument will be on the emotional appeal and how this is unjust. We shall look at that tomorrow.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Prophecy Part 4

Today, we finally conclude this section and tomorrow, that means we start looking at Hell. So how does Loftus wrap up his argument on prophecy?

Loftus is correct that the prophets were the ones that wrote “Thus sayeth the Lord” and others didn’t really do that. Is there any doubt in Jewish thought though that the words were not the words of God? There was no need to say it there. The prophets were saying it because they were standing out and announcing in the face of false prophets that they were giving the words of the Lord. Their writings weren’t seen as Scripture unless their prophecies came true.

Now we agree that prophecies are conditional in the sense that if people respond, God will not send his judgment. (Or if they are promised blessing and turn, he will not send it.) I don’t see the problem this poses with Deuteronomy 18. There would be prophecies that would clearly be seen as fixed. Some things did take place and the cases where they didn’t are the ones we do see a change on the part of the people.

We are told also that the OT prophecies weren’t much. They could be made by a newspaper columnist of the time. My thought to that is “Name one that would have been made that way.” I especially think of the destruction of Tyre being prophesied. What newspaper columnist in Judah would also write that the temple would fall to the Babylonians?

Loftus also wants to know that if God is telling the future, why not talk about DNA or a global network of computers? This is an argument from Sam Harris.

Right. God should have made prophecies centered on our time just to satisfy curiosity. Why would the church carry around a manuscript for 2,000 years talking about DNA? It would have been seen as nonsense by the church.

If the skeptics do not accept what is given, they won’t accept something else.

And it seems Loftus pretty much argues here the way he usually does. He’s started out with a weak case based on theology, thinking he’s trumped all others he gives a mild look at biblical prophecy, following that, he gives a small small small scattering of interpretations of the OT in the NT, and then thinks he’s refuted his case.

It doesn’t take a prophet to know we’re not convinced.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Prophecy Part 3

In our third look at this chapter, we are going to be doing exegesis today and looking at how the NT uses the prophecies of the OT. Of course, this constantly changes in skeptical circles. First, the prophecies are changed to make it look like Jesus is the Messiah, then the prophecies are misinterpreted, then the fulfillments are written after the fact, etc.

Now Loftus is sure that he’s shown the Virgin Birth and incarnation to be nonsense and that not even God can predict the future. For the first part, he hasn’t. For the second, we’ll have to look and see for there are several of these that the more we study them, the easier it is to say that prophecy has been fulfilled. Loftus wants to play the card that the verses were taken out of context. We’ll see as we move along.

Loftus complains about the Psalms. King David though believed that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him even in his prayers. (2 Samuel 23:2) I have no problem believing God guided the praises of his people somehow any more than I have a problem believing that God guided the thinking of Paul and the other writers of the epistles.

Psalm 2 is next on the list. It’s a hope. Yes. That’s correct. That assumes though that a hope can have no predictive fulfillment at all. It’s not an either/or. Psalm 110 is another one which was also seen strongly as messianic in Jewish circles of the time. David is speaking about someone who is greater than he, and this is obviously going beyond his son Solomon.

A humorous example is that Jesus is riding both a donkey and a colt in Matthew 21:2 based upon a misunderstanding of Zechariah 9:9. First off, the passage is actually Matthew 21:7. Secondly, hear what Craig Blomberg says about this passage in the New American Commentary on Matthew.

“The second ‘them’ in verse 7 has as its nearest antecedent in Greek the ‘cloaks’ of which probably more than one were put on each donkey, so there is little or no justification here for the common accusation that Matthw has created an absurd picture of Jesus straddling two animals.”

Please note that all it took was just a couple of minutes with a commentary to find a good explanation for what Loftus finds so unbelievable. Let’s also give the ancients the benefit of the doubt. They would know that one man could not straddle two animals like that at once. These people were probably much more familiar with animals than we are.

The next one we’ll cover is Matthew 2:14-15 with “Out of Egypt, I called my son.” Matthew is accused of misusing the text.

This is simply pesher interpretation which was accepted. Matthew sees Jesus as a new Israel as it were and sees the history of Israel taking place again in Christ. Let’s also consider this with Matthew. He’s writing to convince Jews, and these are Jews that do know their old testament. He’s not going to make a huge blunder like Loftus accuses him of if he’s trying to do that. Now we can say he’s wrong in his interpretation if we want, but let us not say he was ignorant of the OT. This is the same type in the use of Jeremiah with the slaying of the children in Bethlehem.

The last one is Matthew 2:22-23. This is one of my favorites as it talks about the word fulfilled through the prophets that he would be called a Nazarene. There is no direct text. I agree. However, when I studied this once, I noticed something. Every other time, Matthew speaks of “the prophet.” Here, he says, “The prophets.” What’s the point? I think Matthew is trying to show that according to the prophets, the Messiah would be lowly and rejected and Nazarene fits in quite well with that.

Now Loftus is upset about this saying that we wouldn’t use this method today or interpret by it. Oh my. Does anybody remember Loftus talking about the Outsider test and how one needs to begin with the worldview one is examining and understand it from their perspective? Apparently, the Outsider test doesn’t apply when it’s a worldview opposed to atheism.

It’s amazing that in all of this, only a few prophecies are seen. A websearch could give a list of several prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ. A key one would be to go to Daniel 9 and see how Jesus came at the exact time. I also think it’s convincing to look at Matthew 24 and see how Jesus accurately prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. (So accurately most people think it was written after the fact!)

We shall conclude this section tomorrow.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Prophecy Part 2

This will be a short one again. I’m only going to cover a couple of pages. I was out late tonight with some friends from Seminary seeing the movie “Expelled.” I’ll go on and say that I think it’s excellent and everyone else should see it. I want to see it again. However, since I’ve done that, it is late and I am tired so I want to only write on a little portion to do due justice.

Thus, we’re only going to be talking about what prophecy means in a biblical sense. Not the discussion of usages of various prophecies or whether they’ve been fulfilled necessarily or not. It’s simply going to be that how does prophecy relate to the idea of God biblically?

First off, we are told that the Bible says God is eternal. This does not mean though that God always existed or always will exist.

Really?

I’m afraid I don’t know of any other definition of eternal. Now you can make it mean something else I suppose, but it sure would not be eternal. Does the Bible compare God’s existence to man’s existence? Yes it does. It’s done to show how small man is compared to the utter greatness that is God.

I do agree that before and after doesn’t apply to God. How does he act in time then? I’m not sure why this is a problem. I don’t really view it as God being outside of time so much as time being as it were kind of inside of God. There is nothing outside of God in a sense. Because he exists, all else that exists exists. It’s hard for us to imagine of course, but that is a far cry from saying that it cannot be done.

God is said to be unchanging but in those same passages, he is also described as repenting or changing his mind often. What is the case then? One is an anthropomorphism and one isn’t. The one that is describing actions is most likely anthropomorphic. Now we have a quote of Pinnock saying God should be like a dancer responding to us.

He is!

He is eternally responding to us. Every moment I’m at, God is eternally there and eternally giving me all of his love and grace. God eternally knows my heart and thoughts. When I turn to him, he is always there and when he gives his blessing to me, he has always been doing such. It is a far greater God than the God of Pinnock.

As for Impassibility, what’s so hard about that? God is not passive in his emotions. He’s active in them and they’re eternally in accord with his nature. God is not acted on. He is the actor. We are often subject to what goes on around us in our emotions. God is not like that. God is unchanging in his essence and is always acting in accordance with that essence.

Loftus tells us that God cannot know out future free-will choices. No reason is given why though. If God is in eternity, it would seem he can. Loftus wants to ask other questions like “Can God create a rock so big that he can’t lift it?” This answer goes back to Gary Habermas, but I’d like to pass it on to you all. It’s the most profound answer I know to that question.

“No.”

Now we’re ready to move on.

Loftus says that even from a biblical perspective, predictive prophecy can be explained in three ways.

#1-God is telling what he plans to do.

We can agree to a point. However, this is only if God has perfect knowledge of the future. Anything less and there is no agreement.

#2-God knows people so well he can predict what they’ll do and since he knows them so well, he can predict what they’ll do.

Which obviously includes knowing what they’ll name their kids (Cyrus) or where they’ll give birth (Bethlehem) or when or other such details.

#3-It’s a warning and conditional and thus based on human nature.

Please note this. Jonah is mentioned here as an example of how it’s conditional. Please note on page 125 Loftus says that since Jonah’s prediction didn’t come true, then can we really say Jonah was a true prophet? He then tells us there to see his section on prophecy and biblical authority and there, he makes the exact opposite argument that the prophecy can be conditional.
Talk about talking out of both sides of one’s mouth….

You really have to wonder…

And wonder we shall until tomorrow night when we continue.

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Prophecy Part 1

Hello all my readers again. We will be going through this section in parts. The first part will be the problem itself of prediction. Can God predict the future of free-will human beings? I think at this time of Ravi Zacharias’s quip of “Prediction is always hard to do. Especially about the future.” Is it hard for God though? Let’s find out. (And of course readers, I am no open theist.)

The first question is how does God know the future. One answer Loftus gives is that he sovereignly decrees or determines what will happen. This is not my worldview so I will not be defending that aspect. If a Calvinist that holds to that wishes to do so, then let them. Already though, I think there could be a sense of hyper-Calvinism here instead.

I would instead hold to a timeless God in eternity. We can’t even say God sees the present from his perspective as Loftus does. God sees all things at once in an eternal now. It is true that 2005 B.C. and A.D. are simultaneous in God’s eyes but not in ours. How is this a problem? We are temporal and so bound by time it is hard for us to see outside of it.

The idea of a timeless God assumes all change is bad or good we are told. We want a watch to change to reflect the correct time after all. Yes. We want it to change to reflect that time. That is a change for the better. If it stops reflecting that time, that is a change for the worse. The change is more continuous in the former, but the watch is still changing.

And if God is completely perfect, then how can he change? Can he gain a perfection he did not have before? Then he was not perfect. Can he go to less perfect? Then he is no longer perfect. Either way, there is no need for change, especially if the case is that God is pure actuality. If he is pure actuality, then he has no potential and is incapable of change.

We are told when God began to create the universe, he changed. This is begging the question. To say that God began to do something is assuming that God is linear and in time. God is eternally creating the universe and eternally judging the world. He is actively doing all things at once in an eternal now. You might say you have a hard time grasping such a thing. Join the club.

We are told that to say that God has no new thoughts, does nothing new, or thinks nothing new has him static. Not at all. He’s totally dynamic. He is constantly in action. That action is simply always ongoing. He need not think new thoughts. He eternally has all thoughts going through his mind.  He does not need new thoughts to think. He thinks constantly on all that is knowledge.

The other arguments are views that I do not hold. The first is more open theist and the other is just that God has it innately because he is omniscient. If others hold these views and wish to defend them, fine. Let them do so. I see no need to defend the truth of a view I do not hold. If a view is misrepresented, that is one thing. If not though, then I will not defend it.

We shall see some of how this works on Scripture tomorrow.