成人论坛

Bartley is right. They differ only in style. Phelps is just following through on the implications of the same theological view more directly and, it would have to be said, more offensively.

It seems to me that if they really had wanted to challenge "hate churches" they would have condemned both the Catholic and Anglican churches which fueled hatred that kept the conflict in Ireland going for what, 400 years?

Although the members of Westboro Baptist Church are, in my view, utterly obnoxious and are clearly intoxicated with a religion of hatred, they are actually applying consistently a certain understanding of the Christian faith.

There is a particular understanding of "original sin" which states that "the whole human race is under the eternal judgment of God" and that everyone who fails to become a Christian (i.e. the right kind of Christian) will go to hell by default. This default position was established when Adam and Eve sinned. Many Christian publications state confidently that we all "deserve" to go to hell on the basis that we are all "sinners". And we are all "sinners" because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Therefore every person is "damned" from the moment of conception, according to this thinking. So even a baby who dies (and who thus has failed to "become a Christian") would go to hell. If that is true it is impossible to believe that "God is love", but rather that "God is hate".

Some Christians go further and state that God doesn't actually want some people to avoid the fires of hell, and he has deliberately planned that some should go there, and there's nothing they can do about it. In other words, he hates these people's guts, as he has created them for no other reason than to go to hell. This is the doctrine of predestination, which is part of "mainstream historical Christianity".

Now it is no good holding to these doctrines in church on Sunday and then acting differently on Monday towards people, who may not share one's faith. WBC are simply expressing openly what many so-called Christians believe privately or amongst each other.

So the real message of WBC to Christians (and I speak as a Christian myself) is: are we prepared to hold to an interpretation of the Bible that we can actually live by? Are we prepared to be consistent with what we believe? And if we are consistent with our beliefs will we have to act like Westboro Baptist Church?

I, myself, believe that it is right to love people, as Jesus taught (although I admit I fail miserably at it). Why? Because I believe in a God of love, who loves all people, and who does not damn people by default on the basis of original sin.

So the Evangelical Alliance (after having denounced WBC) needs to do some serious soul-searching concerning its own doctrinal position, in the light of WBC's behaviour.

Regarding the statement: it misses the mark. By taking the views of WBC seriously, these people have made the mistake of legitimizing them and their movement. In the United States, Fred Phelps is regarded as a lunatic and an oddity, not representing anyone but himself and his fringe group of weirdos. He's laughed at, not engaged with. By engaging with him, the statement actually legitimizes - as serious discourse - the views of WBC. That's the wrong approach.

People like Phelps will always exist: the real response is not to ban him, not to debate him or reason with him, not to make statements about him. It's to allow him to continue exercising his freedom of speech while mocking his doing so and, even better, ignoring him entirely.

Have I just been accused of a thoughtcrime? I can't take the Biblical or Traditional view of sexuality seriously without hating and/or fearing someone?

A few questions. If there is love and care in the relationships in question

a) Why does monogamy matter? Why put that limit on any romantic/sexual realtionship?
b) Why does commitment matter? Why can't a person just move on?

If sexuality has an objectively normative purpose, and that purpose is only constrained by the quality of the relationships, I'm afraid that Mr Bartley is intolerably heterosexist. He will only tolerate relationships that approximate the heterosexual norm. And he does not specify why that should be any more acceptable than limiting sexual relationships to a heterosexual norm.

If sexuality has an objectively normative purpose that is related to creating and sustaining families then faithfulness and monogamy seem a reasonable obligation.

I have far more time for John Wright's libertarian approach to relationships than desperate attempts to acclimatise Christian sexual morality to secular norms. Apart from anything else I can disagree with John without him discerning my hidden psychological motives. And he has a consistent position that I can follow and understand. Which may be why he is more tolerant of me than a Christian Think Tank.

G Veale

So the real message of WBC to Christians (and I speak as a Christian myself) is: are we prepared to hold to an interpretation of the Bible that we can actually live by? Are we prepared to be consistent with what we believe? And if we are consistent with our beliefs will we have to act like Westboro Baptist Church?

It is *not* a virtue to "be true to your beliefs". It is a virtue to challenge your beliefs, and if those beliefs/principles/whatever turn out to be obnoxious crud (as they do in the case of WBC and others), GET RID OF THEM.

Respect for the right of other people to hold a particular point of view is not the same as respect *for* that point of view.

-H

helio, I think that point was more about consistently holding beliefs, and thus living according to them, rather than about unquestioningly holding beliefs no matter what.

I'm becoming quite a fan of LSV here, although I think some of his views on original sin might possibly have more implications than he allows for.

Unfortunately I've very little time at the minute to fully engage, but, LSV, your views are very interesting, and well expressed, and I'd hopefully like to discuss them at some stage.

I like LSV's posts in general. My impatience is with soundbites and press releases. Don't like 'em.

However, as an Evangelical (for want of a better term) and as someone coming from a Reformed perspective, I can't help feeling that I've been caricatured somewhat by post 3. That's not my understanding of Original Sin, it's not my understanding of Predestination, and it is not my understanding of Hell. Like Bernard, I'll need to come back to these issues on the morrow.

GV

#42 - gveale -

This is a reply to your #42 post on the other thread (Jeremy Marks and the Ex-Gay Movement), as you wanted me to continue the discussion over here. I apologise that this post is really rather long and rambling, and therefore I have split it into two posts.

I take your point, Graham, about the random blogspot (#32 on the other thread), but the counter on that website is a little illustration of much of what is wrong, in my view, with a certain type of evangelical Christianity. I was accused (by our friend OT) of expressing views which he (or she?) deemed to be marginal to the church, and ridiculously irrelevant. This was just an example to counter (no pun intended) that view.

The use of that "population counter" seems to be based on the thinking that the vast majority of people dying today are entering hell by default - i.e. simply because they are not professing Christians (or the "right" kind of Christians). The alternative to "damnation by default" is "damnation as a result of having wilfully rejected the love and mercy of God" (deliberate choice - see Deuteronomy 30:19). If we understand condemnation as being the result of deliberate conscious choice, then it is impossible to assume that most people go to hell. Why is that? Because we would not know how many people die not having made a deliberate choice and therefore die in ignorance of the gospel (see John 9:41!), or who have a low level of accountability before God due to mitigating circumstances (the obvious corollary of "To whom much has been given, from him much shall be required" is "To whom little has been given, from him little will be required" - see also Matthew 11:20-24, suggesting a measure of mercy on the day of judgment to those who were ignorant).

Some Christians simply work out (somehow) that a certain percentage of the population of each country (as in the evangelical handbook "Operation World") are Christians (or the subset "Evangelical Christians") and then infer that everyone else is off to hell. I am arguing that this is naive and dangerous thinking, since it impugns the character of God - his mercy and indeed his justice.

There is a popular evangelistic booklet I read recently which states: "You are a sinner by birth, by nature, by practice and by choice." And the booklet goes on to make very clear that we all "deserve" to go to hell, because of our inherited sin nature from Adam. The problem is that there is a contradiction inherent in this. It is impossible to be something both "by birth" (and therefore "by nature") on the one hand and "by choice" on the other. You can't have it both ways! Either we are sinners "by birth" OR we are sinners "by choice"!! The writer appeals to our choice to argue that "hell is fair", but also wants to believe that we are condemned because of our nature from birth.

We are being asked to believe in a square circle. It is impossible. It is like George Orwell's novel "1984" in which the main character Winston Smith is tortured in order to bring him to the point where he "willingly" accepts that "2+2=5" if Big Brother tells him it is! But the sum "2+2=5" is meaningless. It achieves nothing. It means nothing. Likewise, the idea of calling God's judgment "just", when he condemns people on the basis of their inherited sin nature, is, to my mind, meaningless! It cannot possibly be called "just" by the standard of any concept of justice known to the human mind. It is a completely useless and vacuous notion on a par with 2+2=5.

To be continued...

...Continued from previous post of mine...

And this so-called "judgment" forms the justification for the doctrine of infralapsarian predestination - the view that God does not directly choose to damn the reprobate ("supralapsarianism"), but actually does so indirectly by choosing to not save them, and they then go to hell on the basis of their inherited sin nature. It's a cynical attempt to sanitise Calvinism, and here is an example of it from the website of the Anglican evangelical movement "Reform":



This article states that "God would have been perfectly just to condemn all people ... His decision to bypass some is based purely on justice; His decision to choose others is based on free grace."

Let's just unpack this for a minute and spell it out. This is what the author is actually saying (contrary, by the way, to 1 Timothy 2:4):

1. God creates a certain person.
2. God chooses for that person to be born into a fallen world.
3. That person has, therefore, no choice but to be born into a fallen world.
4. God knows that that person, as a result of being born into a fallen world, will automatically inherit a sin nature from Adam, and therefore come under eternal condemnation because of it.
5. God has already decreed before all time that that particular person will not be offered any grace - any hope of escaping the unavoidable consequences of his inherited sin nature.
6. That person therefore cannot do anything to avoid going to hell.
7. So, therefore, before God created that person, he knew full well that that person would inevitably go to hell, yet he still decided to create him.

This therefore amounts to a conscious and deliberate decree on God's part to send that person to hell. To use the language of "neglect" (infralapsarianism) rather than "intent" (supralapsarianism) is simply a deceitful way of sidestepping the grotesque injustice of the decree.

I am aware that some people accept this doctrine of predestination for reasons of personal comfort and security (and there is, of course, a genuine doctrine of predestination in the Bible with a much more limited application - e.g. Romans 9 concerning Israel). I have no intention of undermining anyone's sense of spiritual security, but I feel that it is much better to build a sense of security on the knowledge that God's character is consistent and not fickle, and that he loves each person, because, as the Bible clearly states "God is love". I find it hard to understand how people can find comfort in a God who determines (either directly or indirectly) that some should go to hell, come what may.

Concerning the organisation Reform, I find it fascinating that they take a strong principled and, in their view biblical, stand against homosexuality - especially in the C of E, but yet they don't seem to mind being exceedingly liberal with verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 ("God desires all people to be saved...") or Romans 3:24 ("being justified freely by His grace" referring back to "all" in the preceding verse - therefore all can be saved). Such hypocrisy makes me very angry, to be honest.

I notice that you say that the plain reading of Scripture is to be followed. As far as I can see all the passages supporting God's desire for all to be saved are clear, whereas the predestinarian arguments are less clear. You may disagree, but I cannot see what could be clearer than, for example, 1 Timothy 2:4. It definitely does NOT say "all types of people", as Calvinists have asserted, nor are the incredible exegetical acrobats of R C Sproul particularly impressive when he tries to harmonise the idea of God "desiring" all people to be saved with decreeing that some can never be saved!

As far as I am concerned 2 + 2 can never equal 5, and Big Brother (in the guise of all the intimidating, austere and menacing theologians of past and present) will not force me or guilt-manipulate me to accept absurdities and contradictions!!

LSV, you would be a good atheist. Come over to our side. The air is clear and pure, the joy more complete, and the craic eminently finer. Theology is pining for the fjords!

-H

#11 - Heliopolitan - "LSV, you would be a good atheist. Come over to our side."

Thanks, but no thanks!

No matter what the religion, which issues they tend to spotlight and which they put on the back burner, whether their admonitions are soft peddled or condemnations to eternal hellfire and brimstone, they all have one thing in common, they define the "us" and the "other." This is how they win and keep adherents who donate their time and money to keep them sustained like parasites. Their carrot is eternal pleasure in paradise after death. Their stick, ostracism, public condemnation, and the promise of eternal agony in hell after death. Since both heaven and hell occur after death, there is no way to prove whether or not their product is a fraud. That makes it easier to sell to an endless stream of customers over millenia but often, the sales pitch has to begin before the customers are old enough to have the power to think critically and independently without being intellectually bullied if they disagree.

Heliopolitan

"Come over to our side (atheism.) The air is clear and pure, the joy more
complete,"

I wouldn't say so. No loving father. No salvation with eternal life and pleasure in heaven. No meaning to life itself. No immortality. Actually ultimately a purposeless existance for the briefest of moments in an indifferent unconscious universe without end. But the sunlight of it does provide the freedom from guilt, self judgement, or judgement by others giving them the power to force you to live your life according to their dictates. You can kiss them off without a second thought leaving them to their delusions. That alone makes it worth it. At least if you can't be an athiest, try to get rid of your religion. It's not actually facing facts and reality squarely but at least you can get rid of whatever psychological baggage they try to saddle you with.

LSV

My reply will be long and rambling also. Don't worry about that, I'm the prime culprit around here

1) Yes, Calvin is the great-granddaddy of Reformed Theology, but there have been many twists and turns since the 16th Century. Few reformed evangelicals would be comfortable with the views of the magisterial reformers on Church and State. ("Evangelical" is a term that is rapidly losing its meaning in Britain, but until someone proposes an alternative I'm stuck with it.) Anyway, the views that I'm outlining below are taken from writers like Paul Helm, Timothy Keller, and Millard J Erikson. A quick "Google" should establish their credentials as mainstream Reformed and Evangelical theologians. I'm not being idiosyncratic, and my understanding seems rather close to your own.

2) CS Lewis鈥� discussion of Hell in "The Problem of Pain" and "The Great Divorce鈥�"has had a deep influence on Evangelicals in the post-war period (which isn't that surprising, as he, in turn, was influenced by Milton). Lewis viewed Hell primarily in terms of loss. It is that aspect of Hell most conservative Evangelicals writers that I know of see as the primary function of Hell. The underlying idea is that human beings have been given the power to reject God's will. That is to say, humans can refuse His love. The choice is either to be with God and all that requires or to reject that option. Our freedom to choose is honoured, and if we cannot say to God "Thy will be done" he will say to us "*Thy* will be done." All that are in the state of Hell choose Hell preferring their idols (eg. autonomy, self-determination, pride, concupiscence) to salvation. No-one who would rather have God will lose Him.

3) Timothy Keller, a graduate of Gordon-Conwell and Westminster Theological Seminary (it's difficult to get better conservative evangelical credentials) and a Presbyterian minister describes the doctrine this way.
"It is a travesty to picture God casting people into a pit who are crying "Im sorry! Let me out!" The people [in Hell]would rather have their freedom, as they define it, than salvation. All their humility is gone and so is their sanity. They are finally, utterly locked in a prison of their own self-centredness, and their pride progressively expands into a bigger mushroom cloud. They continue to go to pieces for ever, blaming everyone but themselves. Hell is that, writ large" "Hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity."


4) Calvin explicitly identified Hell as being "cut off from all fellowship with God"(Institutes 1559 ed. 3.25.12)and explicitly identified the flames as metaphorical (as opposed to, say, Loyola's view that Hell inflicted suffering through all five senses). Aquinas could differentiate between pain due to punishment in Hell, and the pain that is due to the loss of the "vision of God." The "loss" model of Hell is not a recent apologetic development,intended to soothe the concerns of humanitarian Westerners. (I know you'll agree, but any skeptic skimming through this might accuse me of special pleading.)


5) The New Testament does not describe Hell in detail, and the various conflicting images (darkness, fire, death, banishment, weeping, imprisonment, estrangement) have the same referent. As no coherent picture of Hell can be drawn from the language used by Christ and his apostles we can put the picture of the mediaeval torture chamber to one side. Those of us who hold to the doctrine need to content ourselves with concepts. Hell is a permanent state of self-destruction. This explains the New Testament references to destruction and punishment (2 Thess 1v9 for example). The idea simply being that shutting out God means shutting out the only source of beauty, love and goodness. The desire for God and all he offers will inevitably vanish once all contact has ceased. Human nature must wane in such circumstances. Whether such a person would be aware of their own misery is debatable. Whether or not they could properly be called a person anymore is not clear. The "Loss" model of Hell is not an attempt to whitewash the doctrine, nor an attempt to ignore the witness of the New Testament to God鈥檚 judgment.

6) In fact, as Jonathan Kvanvig has pointed out in a series of excellent philosophical pieces, the punishment model of Hell is suspect for two reasons. (i) It cannot explain why *everlasting* punishment is appropriate for a finite amount of sin. (ii) Hell is the opposite of Heaven. Yet Heaven is *not* a place of reward. That would imply that some humans deserve Heaven and others do not. Heaven is where God鈥檚 grace is accepted. It is where we enter into loving Fellowship with God, where we see Him face-to-face. If Hell is Heaven鈥檚 complement, it's opposite, and if each is to be understood in terms of the other (as conservative Christians generally agree) then it follows that Hell is the rejection of God's love and fellowship.

7) This is not to say that Sin is not punished by Hell. Simply that finite punishment is due to finite sins. So the unrelenting nature of Hell does not seem a necessary consequence as its function to punish wrongdoing. Hell is the consequence of choosing life, but life without God. Would the merest peccadillo warrant the unrelenting destructiveness of Hell? Hellishness is the state of unrelenting rebellion and hostility against God. If peccadilloes are not included in that, they are not punished by Hell.

8) Am I consigning babes and the unevangelised to Hades for want of opportunity for saving faith? Hardly. WGT Shedd, a nineteenth century Reformed Theologian dealt with the issue of those who had not heard the Christian gospel. Rather than assuming that they were lost by accident of birth, Shedd simply pointed out that an adult can desire salvation and trust his maker to provide it. In politically incorrect terms Shedd reasoned "Pagan morality, like all morality, is imperfect; and nothing but perfection can justify鈥he most virtuous pagan has an accusing conscience at times, and must acknowledge that he has come short of his duty". Shedd was clear 鈥� salvation by good deeds is impossible. In fact, the effort to do good reveals our problem. We are beings designed for good who have gone bad, and we cannot repair ourselves with self-effort. This knowledge is available to all, as is the sense that we are dependent on a transcendent creator. So the desire for saving faith can be found anywhere at any time. Quoting the Helvetic Confession Shedd reasoned 鈥淕od can illuminate whom and when he will.鈥� The 鈥渄isposition of faith鈥� (saving trust, a dependency of God for salvation) can obviously be found in an adult who has never heard of Christ. Paul Helm, a very sharp philosopher, but bit of a die-hard old-school Calvinist, defends Shedd. Anyone saying "Most merciful one, have mercy on me"is describing a property that necessarily belongs to God, and necessarily belongs to God only. The speaker has referred successfully to God,no matter what the source of his belief. If they are sincere, their prayer will be answered.
9) As for babes 鈥� Original Sin (the biased and defective will, anxiety and shame we inherit from our predecessors) is not the same doctrine as the Imputation of Guilt,or the idea that we inherit guilt from our ancestors. We can join in the rebellion only when we can choose to do so. Zwingli and the New England Calvinists taught that human depravity inevitably leads to sin, but is not sin per se. Original Sin is a "isease"(Zwingli) but only "transgression" (a conscious informed choice to do wrong) leads to the imputation of guilt. Similar views have been defended by Evangelicals (Wesley) and Reformed Theologians (recently Henri Blocher).

10) As for Predestination, a more Lutheran response would be to refuse to systematise. Predestination remains a mystery. As I understand our predicament, it is *not* true that we should do our best, and that God will do the rest. Human wills are in bondage, turned back in on themselves in such a way that they do not spontaneously choose God. We will not surrender our autonomy.
Unless God intervenes, unless he "speaks" to an individual directly, no individual would ever choose God. When God does intervene all we can is not resist His influence. We do not thereby actually choose God or, of ourselves, turn to God, since it is only God Himself which motivates us to disfavor sin and to favor good.
Now why do some "choose" to resist, and others do not? That remains mysterious. We don't know enough about our souls or God's nature to give an answer. God speaks to everyone, and genuinely calls everyone to return to him. (That is no-one has damnation as their purpose. Everyone has heaven as their purpose. Everyone can choose to reject their purpose.)
All that the doctrine of Predestination protects is that God remains in control, and that salvation remains a gift, and not a merited reward. God need not speak to everyone in the same way, and the result will be that some accept the gift who would have rejected it if God had spoken to them differently. (It does not necessarily follow that there are individuals who refuse God's gift who might have accepted it if God had spoken to them in a different manner). That is all that is needed for the doctrine of Predestination.

Graham Veale

"Predestination remains a mystery."

Not to an athiest who is a scientist. To that sort of person, predestination is the only possible reality as it is the direct consequence of cause and effect starting at any point in time and going backwards or forwards. That human beings have independent autonomy over their actions and can choose to sin or not to and seek salvation is an illusion useful for selling religion.