Look, I get it. There are a growing number of Christians who love Jesus and do not want to give Him up, but they are also uncomfortable with some of the teachings of what we might call “mainstream Christianity.” Especially those teachings that challenge the big issues we have to wrestle with today. Things like social justice, gender quality, women’s issues, and sexual issues like LGBTQ+.
There’s a tension there, especially for those who care deeply about these issues and want to be right with God. I feel the tension, too. And it raises a legitimate question: How do we balance our faith and our love of Jesus with these other important issues?
One approach currently growing in popularity is to retain the Bible as an authority but reject the belief that it is inerrant. This gives us some wiggle room to hold on to both Jesus and our social positions. Rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible can help to resolve a number of thorny moral issues. We can, for example, conclude that the teachings found in Scripture against homosexual behavior are outdated, ancient notions that are no longer appropriate. (See my LGBTQ+ sensitivity statement.)
However, rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture also introduces some very tricky complications. At first glance, rejecting inerrancy seems to allow us to cut off those old, dead branches from Christian teaching that are no longer bearing fruit. But in reality, we end up sawing through the very branch that holds up our faith. Let me explain what I mean.
What is Biblical Inerrancy?
Biblical Inerrancy is simply the teaching that the Bible is without fault or error in everything that it teaches or affirms.
This is, by nature, a binary issue. The Bible is either inerrant or it is not. It cannot be “partially inerrant,” since that would be the same thing as being errant. The 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy captures the mainstream Christian position on this issue. For our purposes, here’s a simple definition of the two possible positions:
| The Bible is Inerrant | The Bible is not Inerrant |
|---|---|
| The Bible was written by men but superintended by the Holy Spirit and is, therefore, without error or fault in all that it teaches or affirms. | The Bible is a collection of writings from good but fallible men. Therefore, some of the things it teaches or affirms may be wrong. |
Let’s take a brief look at four aspects of this issue.
“God is inerrant but the Bible is not.”
Many progressive Christians subscribe to the idea that God is inerrant, but the Bible is not. That seems reasonable on the surface. But it opens up the proverbial can of worms.
If God is without error, was it His intention to give us a set of writings that He knows contains errors? Was God unable to use human authors to successfully communicate His truths inerrantly? Or maybe the Bible was an entirely human idea that God did not intend we should have created? If that’s the case, what can we as Christians know about God apart from Scripture?
In Romans 1, Paul teaches that we can know some things about God from His creation. This is what theologians call general revelation. From the “book of nature” alone we can learn that God is powerful, creative, intelligent, majestic, and so on. But does the “book of nature” reveal to us a God who is loving and merciful? If we only study nature, we might come to the opposite conclusion. The world can be a violent and unfair and unforgiving place. Creatures violently killing other creatures for food or fun. Indeed, without the Bible how would we arrive at the idea that God is inerrant? Wouldn’t we see the violence and injustice and suffering and evil in the world and conclude that God probably got a few things wrong?
Aside from God appearing and speaking to us directly, the Bible is our only source of direct knowledge about God — including His perfection and goodness. It offers what theologians call special revelation. Scripture is God’s witness to Himself. And if that witness is full of errors, what do we really know? Can we even conclude that God is inerrant?
The Problem of Objectivity
A progressive Christian writer named Derek Vreeland brings up a compelling point against inerrancy. In a 2019 article, he claims that “Underneath the arguments for biblical inerrancy is the desire for pure objectivity.” He goes on to point out that there is really no such thing as pure objectivity. Any interpretation of the Bible is going to be subjective based on who is doing the interpreting. To underscore his point, he asks some tough questions:
- Who determines the difference between what the Bible is recording and what it is affirming?
- Who determines the criteria by which we judge the correctness of our interpretation?
- Who determines the meaning of each biblical text?
Vreeland summarizes the problem of objectivity by pointing out the inherent difficulties it presents:
Fallible people have to decide what the Bible is affirming. Mistaken-prone human beings must do the hard work of interpretation. Imperfect people have to determine the meaning and purpose of Scripture.
Derek Vreeland
Vreeland’s observations are valid. However, what he misses is that problem of objectivity gets worse—much worse—if we reject the inerrancy of the Bible. If we accept the idea that the Bible is a collection of historical writings from good but fallible men and, therefore, some of the things it teaches or affirms are in error, we are left with a scarier set of questions. Then we have to ask:
- Who determines which teachings in the Bible are right and which are wrong?
- Who determines which verses or passages can be ignored because they’re outdated?
- What is our criteria for making such judgments?
If we accept the Bible’s inerrancy, the differences of opinion between fallible human beings are naturally addressed by comparing divergent opinions against Scripture. The text of the Bible becomes the arena in which the battle of interpretation is waged. On the other hand, if the Bible is errant, we can only appeal to the ever-shifting arena of public opinion to work out the differences.
The Authority of Scripture
Vreeland claims that the language of inerrancy grows out of an “evangelical anxiety of elevating a human critique of Scripture over the intended divine revelation within the text.” And he’s not wrong. We should have serious anxiety about elevating our own opinions over the teachings of Scripture.
If we get to decide what parts of the Bible are right and which parts are in error, we are putting the Word of God under submission to what even Vreeland would concede are the opinions of fallible humans. In other words, we’re putting subjective human opinions in a position of authority over the Bible. If Vreeland is right and the Bible is errant, we need to update his quote to read:
Fallible people get to decide what the Bible got right and wrong. Mistaken-prone human beings get to determine the meaning and purpose of Scripture.
If the Bible is regarded as errant in its teachings, the question of authority becomes far more complicated. Scripture no longer functions as the final court of appeal; instead, it must be weighed and sifted by some external standard. That standard—whether cultural consensus, personal conscience, or scholarly judgment—inevitably takes on a governing role. Each of us get to decide which teachings seem right to us. The parts we don’t agree with, or we don’t understand, or don’t “feel” right can be dismissed as ancient human errors. And, as Augustine so eloquently wrote seventeen centuries ago:
If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.
—Augustine
We cannot claim that Scripture is our authority and at the same time exercise our own fallible human authority over what it says by vetoing or rejecting certain teachings.
Recognizing Error
Think about this way: In order to recognize that the Bible got a particular teaching wrong, we would need to know what the “right” teaching is. In other words, we need to claim that we have some level of knowledge over and above the Biblical authors. How else could we recognize an error unless we thought we knew the right answer?
And that brings up a big question: On what epistemic basis do we know better than Scripture? Is it because our parents or a modern author taught us? Is it based on the consensus of a particular society at a particular time in history? And that begs the question posed in this article: If we know better than the Bible, how can we claim it as an authority over our lives?
Here’s the thing: Affirming biblical inerrancy does not eliminate disagreement among interpreters. Faithful Christians who all affirm an inerrant Bible can still disagree on doctrine, application, and meaning. The difference is this: when Scripture is regarded as inerrant, the debate takes place under the authority of the text rather than over it. The question isn’t whether Scripture is correct, but how it should be rightly understood.
To claim that Scripture is mistaken in a particular teaching requires more than recognizing cultural distance or historical context. It requires a judgment that the biblical authors were wrong in what they affirmed. That judgment must be grounded in some authority outside the text—an authority that is presumed to be more reliable than Scripture at that point.
In Sum
The questions that progressive Christianity asks are hauntingly similar to the question that the devil asked Eve in the Garden of Eden.
“Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Gen 3:1)
This is how our spiritual enemy began his campaign to draw Eve into disobeying God, and in the process, brought down the whole human race. Progressive Christianity uses that same question today: “Did God actually say ________?” Fill in the blank with whatever biblical teaching you don’t like.
If we view the Bible as errant, these questions are fair game for changing the teachings handed down by Jesus and the Apostles into a faith we’re more comfortable with personally. On the other hand, if we regard the Bible as inerrant, when we come to passages that rub our modern sensibilities the wrong way, we’re forced to wrestle with them. And in the end the question is this. Do we adjust our beliefs to align with what God teaches, or do we adjust what God teaches to align with our beliefs?
Barry Jones
the CSBI says the bible is inerrant “only in the originals”. But a classic inerrancy proof text, 2nd Timothy 3:16, not only wasn’t ascribing inspiration to the originals, the context supplied in v. 15 makes it reasonable to assume Paul was ascribing inspiration to the COPIES Timothy knew in childhood…which obviously couldn’t have been the “originals”.
How brutally would inerrancy die, if somebody discovered that the biblical authors ascribed inspiration to COPIES, and never expressed or implied the “only in the originals” caveat so distinctive of the CSBI?
Peter
What if the principal and context the scripture is given in is holy but the context changes. For instance the context of homosexuality…could have been different than one of union. Or the context of a woman teaching or speaking…..could have been rebellious or flaunting it. Or a man being head of house..the principle being that there needs to be a set order determined..woman didn’t work outside the home as primary breadwinners…Context and principle and then..we could appeal the the spirit within as the ultimate judge for us (and just us) on those things we disagree with…sound good ? lol
Thomas Mason
How can the Bible be perfect? It wasn’t written in English. There are words that don’t translate. Part of the message is lost.
The overarching themes of the Bible are positive. Our walk with God is personal. Why don’t these things help us navigate inaccuracies?
Billions of people enjoyed relationships with God and Jesus not aware of inaccuracies. Why can’t we?
That said, I’m not a scholar and I’m not particularly versed in the Bible. Be gentle.
Anonymous
So, I have a lot of thoughts on this, but here’s one of my most pressing: if for years, we had translations that said one thing, and then later, we come across earlier manuscripts that don’t contain the same content, then we *know* that humans can and did change what was originally written. (I am, admittedly, referring to what many claim were likely clarifying additions made by scribes, and that don’t change doctrine.) Now, just because their changes and additions may not have changes doctrine, doesn’t mean somewhere along the way, there weren’t any that did. We *know* human fallibility has come into the equation of God’s Word. So, here’s what I believe. I believe that God is capable of retaining the message of Who He is, and His character in the Bible. But texts regarding, for example, whether women can be teachers (that frankly contradict themselves elsewhere), could be simply human fallibility in determining whether the text should dependent on context, place, and time, or not. We also know that ancient texts, including biblical texts, contains a LOT of pseudoepigrapha. So there is no way to guarantee that what we consider Canon really was written by who the early church fathers believed them to be written by. (which is the major basis for determining whether something should be Canon in the first place.) And lastly, Jesus didn’t tell His apostles that He’d send a bunch of letters to His people to teach them. He said He’d send a Counselor. That’s the Holy Spirit. And every believer has it. THAT is how we know the character of God. I believe the Bible is useful for teaching, correction, and reproof. But I don’t believe those that read it, and interpret it, and often teach it, to be so. (That last statement was not directed to you, personally. It was a general statement about those that use and twist scripture for their own benefit, power, and greed. Which, if I’m completely transparent, I believe many of the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers may have done. We know it happened later. No reason to believe it didn’t happen earlier too.)
R. L. Solberg
Thanks! That’s a thoughtful and carefully framed concern, and I appreciate the distinction you’re making between God’s faithfulness and human fallibility.
A few points may help clarify where I (and the historic Christian position) would differ. First, textual criticism actually strengthens confidence in the Bible’s preservation rather than undermining it. The reason we can identify later additions or clarifying glosses is because we possess a large number of early manuscripts. This allows scholars to compare readings and recover the original text with a high degree of confidence.
Second, human involvement in copying Scripture does not imply doctrinal corruption. Christianity has never claimed the text fell from heaven untouched, but that God faithfully preserved His Word through ordinary, fallible means. Human weakness in transmission does not negate divine oversight.
Third, regarding canon and pseudepigraphy, the early church was well aware of forged writings and rejected them precisely because they lacked apostolic origin, theological coherence, and widespread usage. The canon reflects careful discernment, not blind acceptance.
Finally, I agree that the Holy Spirit is the church’s teacher. Where I would differ is in separating the Spirit from the Scriptures He inspired. Jesus promised the Spirit would remind the apostles of His teaching and guide them into truth, and the NT writings are the enduring fruit of that work. Scripture and Spirit are not competitors but belong together.
Abuse of Scripture for power or control is real and tragic, but misuse does not invalidate proper use. The same Scriptures that have been twisted have also been the means by which such abuses were confronted and corrected. Blessings! Rob
Tom
Solberg: “I’ll let you set the table and throw out the opening question/challenge:”
Context for the readers: I gave Solberg 16 points of dispute explaining what it is that causes him and I to disagree about the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship. Solberg declined to debate any of them, but invited me to come to this forum to begin a discussion on why I reject biblical inerrancy. So these posts are with a purpose toward showing that rejecting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship can be reasonable. Why I’m reasonable to reject biblical inerrancy would certainly be part of such a goal, since the bible most certainly asserts Paul to be a true apostle. I’m an atheist.
You plan on teaching me something about the gospel, since hopefully, as a Christian, you are not allowing this debate on inerrancy with an atheist to proceed merely because of the scholarly sparks it will generate.
“I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” (1 Cor. 9:23 NAU)
If you wish to “imitate Paul” (1st Cor. 11:1), then your ultimate motive in allowing an unbeliever to have a discussion with you about bible inerrancy, is with an eye toward convincing them the bible is true, thus Paul was a true apostle and can thus be trusted in his theological conclusions. Right?
My comments will never “refute” biblical inerrancy. They only refute your belief that it is always unreasonable for an unbeliever to reject the true gospel, or to reject bible inerrancy. Also, just like you can quote from early Mormons solely for the sake of argument, without thereby committing yourself to believing all such quotes are actual truth, I can similarly quote from the bible, solely for the sake of argument, and this does not commit me to accepting those quotes as actually truth. Yes, my argumentation will eventually draw conclusions such as “biblical logic often justifies drawing unbiblical inferences”. Arminians always accuse Calvinists of not going where Calvinist logic requires (i.e., that God is the author of evil). So the biblical authors’ errors may involve their refusal to go where their own logic leads.
Opening challenge:
On scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the “most dangerous”, how dangerous is it for an unbeliever to give serious consideration to bible interpretation originating with false Christians?
I say “10” for the following reasons:
1) Divine wrath awaits false Christians (Matthew 7:22-23), and thus, presumably also those who adopt the doctrines promoted by false Christians.
2) It doesn’t matter if a liberal can trifle that biblical hell is not eternal conscious torment (ECT). ECT has always been a major contender for the true doctrine of biblical hell, and its scholars continue to push back against that growing number of evangelicals who adopt Annihilationism. This forces the conclusion that ECT is at least a reasonable view on hell, even if not an infallible one. I think the doctrines of the apostle’s creed are reasonable, but I cannot grant reasonableness to the health and wealth gospel.
3) I can be reasonable to adopt, solely for the sake of argument, a “reasonable” view of biblical hell, and to thus presume that because I’m an unbeliever, I’m on my way to the ECT version of hell, and to therefore take steps to remove from my life things that are likely to send me to ECT hell.
4) You might possibly be too careful in your effort to avoid being deceived…if the effort was made to avoid being deceived by a person who asked you to loan them $1. After all, even if it was outright deception, you are out only $1. Of all the disasters and emergencies that dishonest people can create, cheating you out of a single dollar represents a trivially mild form of disaster and thus, most people would probably agree that you can possibly be “too” careful in your efforts to decide whether to loan somebody $1. You can make a reasonable decision on that without needing to miss work, skip meals or conduct biblical seminars about the state of modern Evangelicalism.
5) But, if biblical hell is ECT, which is the worst possible disaster to ever befall a human being, then he or she cannot be “too” careful when trying to guard against that fate. Making a reasonable decision on this greatest of all potential disasters may indeed justify the level of research that requires missing work, skipping meals and possibly conducting biblical seminars about the state of modern Evangelicalism. After all, our spiritual destiny, at least according to you, is always going to be more important than temporal earthly things.
6) If we can’t be too careful in guarding against ECT, then any effort that is reasonably calculated to protect me from ECT, is going to be reasonable, even if not infallible.
7) It hardly needs arguing that one way to avoid ECT is to give zero serious consideration to the gospel preaching conducted by false Christians. Thus Solberg would be forced to conclude that when I refuse to engage with a Jehovah’s Witness, a Mormon or a Oneness Pentecostal, such avoidance kills that present risk of them successfully convincing me to join their ranks and thus participate with them in that nasty surprise Jesus warned false Christians of in Matthew 7:22-23.
8) As an unbeliever, I lack ALL of the spiritually protective armor that Paul mentioned in Ephesians 6:13-17. I have no shield of faith, no helmet of salvation, etc., etc. If this is true about me, then I’m even more vulnerable to dangerous false doctrines than real Christians are…who are nevertheless known to adopt false doctrines. This then is ANOTHER reason to insist that the danger created when I give serious consideration to the preaching of false Christians is very high, and therefore, I do myself nothing but much-needed favors if I absolutely refuse to seriously consider the preaching of any false Christian.
Professor Solberg, would you agree with me that on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the “most dangerous”, it is reasonable for me to think it is “most dangerous” for unbelievers to give serious consideration to bible interpretations originating with false Christians? Or are you more liberal, and thus think that heretical preaching is somewhat less dangerous to unbelievers?
R. L. Solberg
Hi, Tom! If I were to accept all of your assumptions and presuppositions as true, it’s definitely a “10” for you. But from the Christian perspective, your question is confusing, if not nonsensical. You’re a self-avowed “atheist” (and I realize exactly what that means can vary), but I think it’s safe to say that an atheist, at a minimum, does not believe God exists. And if there is no God, there is no hell (ECT or otherwise), since hell is a concept tied to divine judgment and an afterlife.
So for an atheist to ask me to rate the danger of his going to hell strikes me as disingenuous. That’s like me asking you to rate the danger of my being attacked by a flying spaghetti monster (which I don’t believe exists). Your question suggests that either (a.) you’re an uncommitted atheist who is open to possibility that maybe there is a God after all, or (b.) you’re posing a hypothetical scenario as a philosophical premise in order to critique Christian truth claims. If it’s the former, I look forward to walking through this thought experiment with you. If it’s the latter, I would much prefer you were just upfront about what you’re trying to argue.
Here’s the issue from a Christian perspective: You said, “Divine wrath awaits false Christians.” But I think it’s more biblically accurate to say, “Divine wrath awaits unbelievers.” Because not believing is what makes a Christian “false,” not imperfect theology. “Whoever does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18; cf. Rom 8:1). Perfect theology is not a prerequisite for heaven. That’s something I’m grateful for every day; we’re all fallen, imperfect, flawed sinners saved by the grace of God, not by our theology.
From a Christian perspective, God can and does use imperfect (and sometimes even “false Christians”) to spread the truth of his Gospel. Not because the truth doesn’t matter, but because the power of the Gospel outweighs the motives of the one sharing it: “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” (Phil 1:18).
I suppose if you believe that your eternal salvation depends on you—specifically on your ability to distinguish “false” from “true” Christians and successfully avoid being deceived by the false ones—then it’s reasonable for you to perceive the danger as a “10.” But that’s not a biblical view. Our salvation isn’t found in other Christians (true or false) but in Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Don’t get me wrong: false teachers can confuse, mislead, and delay people (Matt 7:15; 2 Pet 2:1), so discernment matters. But the weight of salvation doesn’t rest on our epistemic vigilance; it rests on Christ’s faithfulness (John 10:27–29).
So I would say this: Since you’re an atheist, it is unreasonable for you to presume that the God you don’t believe exists is going to send you to the hell you don’t believe exists because of false Christians. But from within the Christian worldview, the danger is real—not because of false Christians, but because continued rejection of Christ results in eternal separation from God (2 Thess 1:8–9). God ultimately honors human rejection of Him by allowing that separation. That, biblically speaking, is what hell is.
Tom
Wow, I did not expect to be so misunderstood!
I have now deleted about 4 pages of point to point response. I can fix this miscommunication, now that I know it exists.
1) What view of hell do you espouse? Is is eternal conscious torment (ECT), Annihilationism (permanent extinction of consciousness) or something else?
2) Is it possible, or impossible, for a person who was never a Christian and who died in unbelief, to be given a second chance to get saved in the afterworld? Does anything in the bible permanently close off the possibility of second chances after death, the way so many conservative Protestant Christians think?
3) What danger does a person create, if any, when they convert from unbelief to Mormonism (three gods, salvation by works), or to Jehovah’s Witnesses (denial of the Trinity, Jesus is not god and didn’t rise bodily from the dead, salvation by works), or to Oneness Pentecostalism (God is one person, the Father, he became the Son, the Son became the Holy Spirit, i.e., Modalism, and ye are not saved unless ye speak in tongues) or to one of those groups which conservative Evangelicals routinely characterize as “non-Christian cults”? Does a cultist’s generic “belief in Jesus” suffice for salvation? Or can such belief in Jesus be so heretical as to result in no salvation at all?
4) You said “If I were to accept all of your assumptions and presuppositions as true, it’s definitely a “10” for you.” Ok, then forget my assumptions and presuppositions. Using only YOUR assumptions and presuppositions as gained from your bible studies, on a scale from 1-10 with 10 being most dangerous, what level of spiritual danger does my atheism create for me? Some danger, or the most danger?
There’s a specific reason why I ask for YOUR assessment. You think I’m unreasonable to reject the gospel and apostle Paul. I intend to change your mind. I intend to do that by showing you that YOUR assumptions and presuppositions actually do something you don’t suspect they do: they support the proposition that atheists can possibly be reasonable to reject the gospel and Paul. That’s why it’s so important that YOUR presuppositions about matters be put on the table. What you personally believe, is going to help support the reasonableness of gospel-rejection. NO, I haven’t shown how yet, but we aren’t there yet, I first need your answers to the above-questions.
“Your question suggests that either (a.) you’re an uncommitted atheist who is open to possibility that maybe there is a God after all, or (b.) you’re posing a hypothetical scenario as a philosophical premise in order to critique Christian truth claims. If it’s the former, I look forward to walking through this thought experiment with you. If it’s the latter, I would much prefer you were just upfront about what you’re trying to argue.”
———It’s “(b.)”.
I realize that you think God doesn’t demand “perfect theology”. But Trinitarian Christians have been screaming for decades that the “belief in Jesus” exhibited by JW’s, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals is not sufficient to save, because each type is afflicted with intolerable heresies. Paul cursed his former followers in Galatia because they replaced his gospel with the Judaizer gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and it is by no means clear that he was merely spouting insubstantive literary rhetoric solely for dramatic flair. He appears to be deadly serious, thus, if Galatians is god-breathed, then it was god who was deadly serious in curing the Galatians, not merely Paul the advocate of Greco-Roman rhetoric. Yes, it IS possible to confidently view yourself as a saved Christian, and yet be divinely cursed and unsaved regardless.
The words spoken by the people whom Jesus plans to condemn indicate they didn’t view themselves as unbelievers, but as Christian believers serving Jesus (Matthew 7:22-23), so I can be reasonable to assume it is biblically possible to convince yourself you are a real Christian, and yet to wake up on Judgment Day to discover, too late to fix, that you were never truly saved.
According to Paul’s logic, if you disagree with him about Jesus, you are not harboring merely a “different perspective”, you are harboring a “different Jesus”. 2nd Cor. 11:3-4 (i.e., a Jesus different than Paul’s, thus, a Jesus who cannot save). Paul is “afraid” that his Corinthian church would bear beautifully those who preach this “another Jesus”. Id. Why be “afraid”? Probably because this “another Jesus” doctrine had genuine capability of deceiving people into a false sense of salvation.
These passages strongly support the mainline Trinitarian viewpoint that “belief in Jesus” cannot save unless it possesses minimally sufficient orthodoxy. In other words, accepting Jesus as your Savior is dangerous, because it is actually possible to do it in the wrong way and only discover on judgment day (when it is too late to change) that you had only accepted “another” Jesus.
If you are one of those liberal Trinitarians who doesn’t see significant divine judgment upon Christians who are heretical about Jesus’ nature and the doctrines of salvation, my argument probably won’t have any effect on you.
R. L. Solberg
As I said in our initial exchange, our views of epistemology and the nature of reality differ radically. And I believe that’s where our discussion should be happening. But I’ll set that aside for now and answer your questions as succinctly as possible so we can see where you’re headed with this.
1) My view of hell: ECT
2) Are second chances possible after death? No
3a) What is the danger of converting to a belief system outside biblical Christianity? Losing one’s eternal salvation (Key nuance: salvation is lost through unbelief in the true Christ, not merely by institutional affiliation)
3b) Can a belief in Jesus be so heretical as to result in no salvation at all? Yes
4) What level of spiritual danger does atheism present? The most danger
Tom
“Hell is eternal conscious torment”
——–Then the risk I’m taking when I make a decision about Jesus, is far more dangerous than any decision I’d make about loaning somebody money, purchasing a car or getting married, since none of those decisions carry the potential to cause me experience ECT. Thus when I decide about Jesus, its reasonable to insist that I take far more precautions than I would take when I “risk” something limited to this temporal earthly life…like loans, cars and women.
“No second chances in the afterworld”
——–So it is infinitely important that I positively verify, before my physical death, that I’ve made the correct decision about Jesus. Getting such a thing wrong brings the greatest of all disasters. Verifying at a level that is less than absolutely positive, allows that risk of greatest disaster to continue looming. I reasonably do everything I can to prevent it from looming.
“adopting a belief system outside Christianity = no salvation”
——–Therefore I need to verify, also before physical death, that Christianity offers a better chance of actual peace with god than other religions do.
“yes, a belief in Jesus can be so heretical as to result in no salvation at all”
———Then when I make a decision for Jesus, I need to make sure it’s not one of those heretical views that is so theologically deviant as to produce no actual salvation. Since many such heretics exist and persist in their version of Christianity without any suspicion that they are headed for hell, I’m forced to the conclusion that not only could I possibly pick the a false Christianity, but also that doing so would probably enhance my natural tendency to always excuse or paper-over my belief’s faults….the way Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do.
“atheism creates the most spiritual danger for the atheist”
———Then the spiritual danger I’m in right now is as dangerous as danger can possibly get.
Wow, Professor Solberg: I’m in the most serious of all possible dangers from your God…and yet I’m also presented not only with numerous contradictory Christianities, I’m also presented with their respective Christian scholars, who seem capable of debating each other without hardly ever changing each others’ minds. That is, as an outsider, I can tell that if I do pick the wrong Christianity, further biblical study, to the extreme level that turns me into a “scholar” may very well cause me to overlook critical problems and feel smug and safe in a heretical view that is capable of resulting in no salvation at all.
You would probably say your god wanted us to have an infallible text minus the infallible interpretive key.
The question at this point is how you could possibly seriously think I’m being unreasonable when I demand that a Christian first demonstrate they can infallibly interpret the bible, before I will allow them to teach me any biblical “truth”. I don’t need infallibility to figure out whether the person who wants a dollar will repay, because the danger of their deception comes at no higher cost than $1, certainly not ECT. I don’t need infallibility to know that the women proposing marriage to me isn’t lying, because even if she deceived me, a failed marriage ends in mere divorce, not ECT. But if the Christian bible teacher convinces me to adopt one of those views about Jesus “so heretical as to result in no salvation at all”? You said it yourself: getting into that position heads me straight for ECT, and in a way that helps ensure I won’t suspect anything is wrong until it’s too late to change. So demanding infallibility more and more as the consequence for getting something wrong become more and more dangerous, is perfectly reasonable and rational. Where the decision is the most dangerous, the most certainty is reasonably required.
You will say the demand for a verifiably infallible interpretation of the NT is unfair or unrealistic. But that criticism is invalid: by your own admission, its very dangerous to accept Jesus, because its possible to do it in a way that not only offers no salvation, but creates a false confidence that is likely to persist until after I die, when it will be too late to change anything (no second chances in the afterworld).
You may say this demand is too high, because as long as Mormons and JW’s are sincere toward God, even they possess real salvation. But that would mean that my sincerity toward god is the key, I can be confident in my salvation due to my sincerity, etc. Two problems:
1) their sincerity toward god hasn’t motivated god to open their eyes to the theological truths of the Jesus’ full deity, and/or his bodily resurrection and/or salvation solely by grace. That tells me your god will “toy” with people despite their being sincere in seeking his “truth”. He often holds theological truth out in front of them like one holds a carrot on a stick in front of a donkey. That’s not a god I’m willing to put up with.
2) If sincerity toward god can make up for a heretic’s denial of Jesus’ deity, his bodily resurrection and salvation by grace, then you disagree with most Protestant churches, who insist that those three doctrines are among several that must be believed, for the believer to be saved (i.e., “essential doctrine”). Not only does that suggest more extreme doctrinal fracturing in the church (i.e., you people cannot even agree on what doctrines are “essential to salvation” thus suggesting the source material is too ambiguous to justify dogmatism), it also suggests that the only doctrine that is “essential to salvation” is getting your heart right with god.
So I’m gonna need your help in making absolutely sure that I absolutely avoid the most absolutely horrific disaster your religion says I absolutely potentially risk when and if I do this “accept Jesus” stuff. Please provide the name, address, telephone and email address of any bible teachers who teach the bible infallibly. I’m not taking ANY chances, and it’s not up to you or anybody else just how much precaution I take when dealing with the biggest potential disaster that could ever possibly befall a man. How much precaution YOU you take does not dictate whether the amount of precaution *I* take is “reasonable” or not. Thank you in advance for any help.
R. L. Solberg
Wow, that’s certainly an interesting way of looking at the issue. And it raises a question for me: If infallible certainty is required before any belief can be rationally adopted when the stakes are high, how do you avoid the conclusion that no belief about ultimate reality can ever be rationally held—including your current beliefs about God, justice, truth, or even what counts as “danger”?
Tom
“how do you avoid the conclusion that no belief about ultimate reality can ever be rationally held—including your current beliefs about God, justice, truth, or even what counts as “danger”?”
——–If you know I’m an atheist, then I don’t understand how you could possibly think you put me in a dilemma by arguing that my position trivializes concerns about “ultimate reality”. You apparently forgot that for the atheist, DAILY reality as it reveals itself to the atheists 5 physical senses, is far more important than “ultimate” reality.
First, you ask how I can know ultimate truth about “god”, but I’ve rendered god’s basic existence pointless. The issue is not whether god exists, but whether I can be reasonable to refrain from making a decision about the gospel until a Christian with ability to infallibly interpret the bible, starts helping me. God’s existence must always remain pointless unless and until you make him a “danger” to me. Just like I might be wrong when I deny that there is some guy in Japan right now wearing a pink hat…but why would it matter that such denial is “wrong”, unless you also argue that denying his existence creates a danger to me?
Second, as a Christian apologist, you cannot make your case for your ECT god, without using the bible. The “book of nature” does not provide enough doctrinal specifics. Since I’ve given a prima facie justification for ignoring biblical stuff until an infallible interpreter offers their services, you won’t be able to break through that justification by blindly quoting the bible. Such bible quoting might cause your followers to clap with approval, but you are also supposed to attempt convincing ME I’m wrong, not merely persuade those who already agree with you that I’m wrong. Inability to convince ME that I’m wrong might indicate a flaw in your apologetics or the bible, you cannot simply presume the flaw must be elsewhere. The Catholics cannot convince me of the divine inspiration of the Apocrypha. Is that because of a flaw in me, or a flaw in their apologetics?
Third, as for “justice”, why should it bother me that there is no “ultimate reality” about justice? I’m an atheist. I’ve previously concluded that morality is nothing but emotivism. Our desire for justice in the case of Jon Benet Ramsey is nothing but verbalized emotion.
Fourth, as for “truth”, the many denominations of Christianity seem to be doing just fine for each of their respective selves, despite the fact that sheer logic forces the conclusion that many of them MUST be wrong about biblical and thus “ultimate” truth. You need to tell me why I should care that my atheism doesn’t account for “ultimate truth”, when your own religion shows that a person can live a totally satisfying life even while they deny or contradict whatever you think is “ultimate truth”.
As for what counts as “danger”, my beliefs about “danger” are, consistent with my atheism, limited to what I’ve experienced in the past. I’ve experienced in the past not only many dangers, but also what to do, to avoid them and live comfortably. You are now bringing down ECT to the level of danger that an atheist could possibly anticipate in a purely naturalistic universe. No dice. If you don’t understand why I’m willing to leave the house and drive about town without having an infallible teacher as passenger, I’ll tell you why: it’s because I’ve decided that the potential for being murdered or hurt along the way is not sufficiently probable as to justify expending “infallible” effort to avoid it. Your analogy between ECT danger and temporal earthly danger fails, because as an atheist, I deny that any calamity that the temporal earth is capable of afflicting me with, is similar to your doctrine of ECT.
You would only be creating rabbit trails if you try to answer one of my above-observations on the merits. This debate not about whether whether I can justify denying objective morality, etc, etc. I could be wrong in ALL of my metaphysical naturalism, and such wrongness would not express or imply I was unreasonable to ignore the bible until I could learn it from a Christian who can interpret the NT infallibly. So your “raised question” needs to be hemmed in and not allowed to spawn other topics, unless you wish to give up the current debate and talk about something else.
If you think I’m unreasonable to demand an infallible interpreter of the bible, that’s YOUR criticism of me, so it’s YOUR claim, and YOU have the burden of proof. Please show the unreasonableness, or admit its not necessarily unreasonable.
R. L. Solberg
So, if I am following you, you’re saying that only empirical dangers justify belief, and ECT is not an empirical danger. Yet ECT must be treated as a catastrophic risk, therefore infallibility is required? It seems to me that either: ECT is a real danger (in which case fallible evidence may rationally warrant action), or it is not a real danger (in which case your entire safety strategy collapses).
Tom
“ECT is a real danger (in which case fallible evidence may rationally warrant action)”
——-First, my claim is that it is sometimes reasonable for a 21st century unbeliever to demand infallible interpretation before a person starts to bother with Christianity. So by logical necessity, the only possible “refutation” of my position is to show that only the opposite is true (i.e., the position you’d have to take in this debate), namely, that it is *never* reasonable for a 21st century unbeliever to demand infallible interpretation before they start to bother with Christianity. Your observation that “fallible evidence may rationally warrant action” does not “refute” my position, or show that my demand for infallible interpretation is unreasonable.
Second, the only reason your observation sounds reasonable is because of how often it would be true in THIS world, but that hardly justifies an automatic inference about realities outside of this world, such as the “spiritual” realm. Daily life does not afford us infallible knowledge of what physical realities are swirling around us. That our senses are not infallible, is proven to us many times every day. So if we all demanded infallible knowledge to justify action in THIS world, nothing would ever get done. Getting things done IN THIS WORLD would require that we stop demanding infallible interpretation of our daily circumstances. The problem then is that you are taking a principle that is reasonable in THIS limited material world, and automatically trying to argue that it would be good enough (i.e., “may suffice”) for problems that come to us from outside this world, such as biblical theology and specifically ECT.
Third, your observation overlooks that some of the reasonableness of my position used some of your Christian viewpoint as collateral: when I demand infallible interpretation, I’m not demanding anything more than you believe your God has actually supplied at the beginning of Christianity. When I demand infallible interpretation, this harmonizes with the NT model, which grounds all doctrine in infallible authority. When I demand infallible interpretation, I’m also reasonably guarding against soul-destroying heresy. As I said before, when I demand infallible interpretation, I’ve effectively killed all possibility of heresy becoming the reason I go to ECT. My method has positively eliminated one possible road to hell. That’s obviously a good thing, but you don’t dare agree, because otherwise you’d be admitting that my demand for infallible interpretation was good…and thus reasonable.
Fourth, the reasonableness of my view may also possibly be evaluated from the observation that it doesn’t contradict anything in the bible, which in your view MUST be a good thing even if it isn’t a full picture of paradise restored. A viewpoint that doesn’t contradict anything in the bible is, in your view, certainly at least a little bit more reasonable than a viewpoint which does. Well? You think the bible consistently teaches that those who are filled with the Holy Spirit cannot err, since it is your view that the biblical authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit, which is your theological justification for insisting they could not err (bible inerrancy). You also think there’s nothing in the bible expressing or implying that in the last days god will only fill Christians with the Holy Spirit to a less intensive degree than he did the apostles and biblical authors. My viewpoint not contradicting anything in the must count for something positive, even if it doesn’t achieve immoral bliss.
Finally, we can all tell what you believe and what you wish to prove, so let’s put all your cards on the table, so the reader knows exactly what burdens it would be proper to saddle you with here: You believe very strongly that, although your God had, in the past, given unbelievers access to infallible interpretation of scripture (theophanies, telepathy, Jesus, audible voices from heaven, apostles, biblical authors), he no longer does. You believe that God wants the 21st century unbeliever to learn biblical theology correctly, by means that demonstrably *lack* infallibility. You think your God wants me to listen to various Protestant Christian pastors and scholars, all of whom expressly disclaim infallibility and honestly admit they’ve misunderstood the bible in the past. You think your God wants me to employ the grammatico-historical method in the effort to correctly interpret a bible verse. You think your God wants me to pursue biblical truth in a way that is obviously guaranteed to produce error and much stumbling along the way. You think that the more sincere/humble I am toward your God about discovering truth, the more your God will “reveal” truth to me.
Alrighty then! (Almighty then?) You can “refute” my view by establishing all those things that you seriously believe, each of which militate so much against my demand for infallible interpretation.
Here’s your problem: Your bible appears to render reasonable a particular type of demand from me, one which you know perfectly well modern Christianity cannot deliver the goods on. You may have to consider Sola Scriptura might be a false doctrine, since I’ve apparently handed you a justification for ignoring the bible, which none of the biblical story characters or authors ever dealt with.
In the future, please honor your Protestant commitment to Sola Scriptura, and find something in “Scriptura” that effectively establishes the unreasonableness of the 21st century unbeliever who demands infallible interpretation of the NT before he considers converting to Christianity…or admit that I’ve created the kind of philosophical fortress that genuinely apostolic apologetics cannot penetrate.
Tom
correction:
“My viewpoint not contradicting anything in the **BIBLE** must count for something positive, even if it doesn’t achieve immorTal bliss.”
R. L. Solberg
Okay, so you’ve argued that when the stakes involve ECT, it can be reasonable for an unbeliever to require infallible interpretation before taking Christianity seriously. My question is this: Why should infallibility be required in this case when it’s required nowhere else in rational decision-making—especially when refusing to act is itself a decision with consequences?
Tom
“Why should infallibility be required in this case when it’s required nowhere else in rational decision-making—especially when refusing to act is itself a decision with consequences?”
——–Because the bible warns that the rational decision making of other people about Jesus ended up doing nothing to protect them from ECT. Matthew 7:22-23 (the condemned are not general unbelievers, but publicly professing Christians). With the danger so extreme, and with allegedly proven examples from the past that normal rational decision making wasn’t sufficient to gain protection from ECT, I am perfectly reasonable to demand something better than the less-than-infallible methods that you say had failed millions of others in the past.
If a person is notified that their car could violently explode the next time they start it, aren’t they reasonable to attempt getting as close to infallible safety as they can?
If a person is notified that their “accepting Christ” could end up being done in the wrong way and thus offer no protection against ECT, aren’t they reasonable to attempt getting as close to infallible safety as they can? Since you think god enabled 1st century people to hear infallible scriptural interpretation (Jesus, NT authors), you must first demonstrate that God no longer wants unbelievers to have access to infallible interpretation, and therefore, trying to obtain something God doesn’t want me to have, is inherently unreasonable. But if you use the bible in that effort, I’ll have to insist that you desmontrate ability to interpret it infallibly. I don’t care if you prefer to take chances with fallible interpretation. What level of certainty is minimally sufficient to satisfy you does not dictate what level of certainty should be minimally sufficient to satisfy me. You are also a sinner, and like many Christians, you might be afflicted with a zeal that exceeds knowledge. I have to worry that some Christian bible teaches are more relaxed about divine wrath than their own theology would allow.
Isn’t it true that as the level of potential danger facing you in some act grows more and more extreme, it become reasonable to expend more and more efforts to guard against that danger? If your car could possibly sputter 5 minutes after you start it, how much effort do you put into getting as close as possible to infallible certainty that it won’t sputter? Not much. Sputtering engines don’t pose an extreme danger.
If your car manifests signs suggesting a real possibility it could violently explode the next time you drive it, how much effort do you put into getting as close as possible to infallible certainty that it won’t explode? Likely more effort than what you deem sufficient to guard against the sputtering possibility. A violently exploding engine foists far more extreme danger on you than does a merely sputtering engine. Thus the demand to get as close to infallible certainty of safety is reasonable.
So…does the bible threaten me with ECT, the most extreme danger that could possibly befall any human being? You say yes.
So I don’t understand why you imply that I should be satisfied with less-than-infallible certainty about how to remove that danger. I’m not risking an overdue fine at the Library, about which I could possibly worry too much. I’m not risking getting sent to jail for something I didn’t do, about which I could possibly worry too much. I’m risking what you think is the most extreme possible danger, ECT, about which you think no unbeliever can possibly worry too much.
When a sinner “accepts Jesus”, they do so with a heart that is desperately sick and deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), and so you point to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as examples of how “accepting Jesus” may possibly be done in the wrong way, and thus confer no protection from ECT, which forces me to worry that if I “accept Jesus”, I could be equally as self-deceived as these otherwise honest hard working sincere people, and set myself up to receive a nasty surprise on Judgment Day. I reasonably seek something better than what my dangerously deceptive and imperfect mind tells me about my relationship to Jesus…and yet my mind IS me…I cannot distinguish something *I* perceive, from what my *mind* perceives. The basis of my confidence in Jesus can never go back to the bible, it can only go back to my imperfect interpretation of the bible, as illustrated by the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.
I can’t solve the problem by trusting the bible, because I can’t have “bible” except through imperfect interpretation, and imperfect interpretation proves itself, in your view, to often be sufficient to lead somebody into hell. And the “trust” is MY trust, a trust that is no less prone to deception than the trust experienced by other sinners. You may say biblical passages about salvation are not ambiguous or subject to “interpretation”, but given how Protestants disagree amongst themselves on Calvinism, Arminianism, Lordship Salvation and Free Grace (including how they also disagree with each other on which doctrines are “essential to salvation”), it seems to me that biblical passages about salvation are VERY subject to the problem of subjective and possibly false interpretation. The specter of false interpretation will always loom, and the doctrinal differences among Protestant Christian scholars proves that not even employing the objective-sounding “grammatico-historical” hermeneutic along with tons of sincere prayer for divine guidance will provide reasonable certainty about the true meaning of any bible verse.
I can’t resolve the ECT problem by “trusting Jesus”, as there is no way to trust Jesus except through bible interpretation, which is always prone to misinterpretation. Furthermore, you assure us that it is possible to “accept Jesus” in a way that falls short of actual salvation. Since you think it was disaster for thousands of people in history to accept less than infallible interpretation as a stepping stone to Jesus (much doctrine that constitutes less-than-infallible interpretation, constitutes heresy), then I’m very reasonable to view this whole business as very deceptive and to therefore demand infallible certainty about how to resolve the ECT danger. Less than infallible interpretation has proven, according to you, to result in permanent spiritual disaster. Isn’t that worth worrying about?
I can’t trust my heart, it is desperately sick and deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). And you’d cite the cases of unsaved Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to prove that personal confidence in salvation can be a deception, perhaps lasting a lifetime and subjecting the would-be Christian to a nasty surprise on Judgment Day (Matthew 7:22-23).
I can’t trust in Paul, as his original converts in Galatia later decided his gospel was false (Gal. 1:6-9), despite their having previously conversed with him personally and thus gained a far more comprehensive understanding of his actual gospel than we could ever get merely from 2000 year old writings. Apparently, not even Paul’s original converts exalted his views to the status of incontestably inerrant scripture the way today’s Protestants do. I’m arguing that today’s Protestants only do so because they are far less informed about the realities around Paul than the Galatians were.
So, Professor Solberg: Can I possibly be reasonable to demand that the Christian preaching to me first demonstrate ability to infallibly interpret the NT as condition precedent to me seriously considering the gospel message? Or do you insist that the fact that the bible cannot deliver the demanded goods, automatically and necessarily proves the demand for such goods to be unreasonably high? If I’m the one who stands to possibly roast for all eternity, what authority do you have to criticize my precautionary efforts as too extreme? If you were merely telling me how to avoid a parking ticket, I wouldn’t have much reason to care whether you were wrong or right. But you profess to tell me how to avoid a terrible spiritual fate. I endure that fate if I take your advice and you turn out to be wrong.
Stop viewing hell as ECT, and I stop being reasonable to demand infallible interpretation, since then the danger would be far less extreme and thus far less worrying.
R. L. Solberg
I like your car explosion analogy, but it misses the time-based element of unavoidable impending danger that ECT presents. Let me try a different analogy that seems closer to what you’re describing:
Imagine you’re locked in a room with a ticking time bomb. If handled incorrectly, it will destroy you. You don’t have infallible knowledge about which wire you should cut to defuse the bomb, but you do have credible, though fallible, information pointing toward one option.
In that situation, demanding infallible certainty before acting wouldn’t be caution, it would be paralysis, and paralysis left unchecked would guarantee destruction. The rational response to an extreme, impending danger isn’t to wait for certainty that may never come, but to act on the best available evidence.
Your approach treats waiting for infallibility as the safe option. But in genuine high-stakes scenarios—like ticking time bombs and ECT—refusing to act until certainty is achieved cam be the most dangerous choice of all.
Tom
Your analogy is flawed for multiple reasons:
a) Trinitarian Evangelical Arminian apologist Dr. Frank Turek (who believes in ECT) is on record specifying that Christians during evangelism should not push to get the sinner to accept Jesus ASAP, because there is a possibility that God doesn’t want that sinner to get saved that soon. If I can rely on Turek, then we’d have to modify your ticking time-bomb scenario as follows: I’m locked in a room with a ticking time-bomb, and the person who is in control of the bomb may not want me to defuse it right now. If so, that would create the possibility that I’m reasonable, according to your God’s timing, to avoid attempting to defuse the bomb.
b) You say I’m locked in that room with “credible, though fallible” information on how to defuse the bomb. But the reason I demanded infallible interpretation is because Christians disagree about whether the dangerous time-bomb even exists. There is nothing “credible” about a collection of equally born-again equally sincere equally smart Christian scholars who disagree with each other on whether a possible danger is actually dangerous to a modern unbeliever, and, if they agree the bomb is real, they also disagree with each other on the correct way to safely defuse it. The movie “The Abyss” illustrates the reality: a deep sea diver must descend to the bottom of the sea to defuse a nuke that has landed there, but because his main light source crashes, he has to use a different back-up light that makes it impossible for him to positively verify which specific wire among two he is supposed to cut to safely defuse the nuke. If you admit the information I have for diffusing the ECT bomb is “fallible”, then I’m faced with a choice to either
1) trust the fallible information, cut the recommended wire, and risk getting killed, or
2) do nothing, and wait for the experts to stop disagreeing with each other on whether the bomb even exists. In that case, since doing nothing could ensure the bomb’s explosion equally as much as attempting to defuse it could, there is no way to tell which solution has better than 50% probability of keeping me safe. Thus, doing nothing cannot be deemed any more unreasonable than the attempt to defuse the bomb using fallible information.
A more appropriate analogy, given that equally born-again Christian scholars disagree on whether such a bomb exists, is this: I’m locked in a room with an object. The experts on the object disagree with each other about whether it poses a genuine threat to me. At that point, there is no way to prove which possible solution has better than a 50% chance of keeping me safe, so if I decided against tinkering with the bomb and to just do nothing, that decision could not be proven to be unreasonable.
c) You allege that I have “credible” information on how to defuse the time-bomb, but conservative Protestants disagree with each other on what information is credible. Some Protestants are Annihilationist (the bomb creates no more danger than the permanent extinction of consciousness fate that all atheists have previously acquiesced to under naturalism); other Protestants are ECT (the bomb is real and very dangerous); other Protestants are Lordship Salvation (I haven’t defused the bomb unless I repent, make Jesus’ lordship explicit in all of my daily life decisions, and manifest moral transformation); other Protestants are Free Grace (Lordship Salvation is false doctrine, diffusing the bomb only requires confessing Christ as Savior, and does not require repentance or moral transformation).
Your analogy does not correctly represent the reality that the bomb experts disagree with each other on whether the bomb even exists. You unfairly privileged the ECT view to make the analogy suggest that waiting for better-than-fallible information was unreasonable.
How could you possibly think today’s unbeliever could be unreasonable to reject ECT? He is spiritually dead, but you would likely graciously grant that most of the Trinitarian Christian scholars who adopt Annihilationism are spiritually alive (i.e., you don’t think ECT is a doctrine “essential to salvation”). If even spiritually alive people disagree with each other on whether hell is ECT or Annihilation, isn’t it foolish for you to expect a spiritually dead person to manifest more accurate discernment of the matter?
Is there a bible verse that says god expects spiritually dead people to have a better grasp on biblical doctrine than he expects spiritually alive Christian scholars to have?
R. L. Solberg
The weight of your argument so far is built on the assumption that ECT (the time bomb) actually exists. And you now appear to be changing the rules of the game mid-argument by challenging my analogy based on whether or not the time bomb actually exists.
My analogy doesn’t introduce a new premise—it simply models the one you’ve already granted. You’ve repeatedly treated ECT as a real, catastrophic danger that justifies extraordinary precaution. A ticking time bomb is an accurate way of representing that kind of risk.
You can’t affirm ECT as a valid danger and then reject an analogy on the grounds that the danger might not be real, or that experts disagree about it, without changing the rules of engagement. If ECT is genuinely the kind of threat you’ve described, then the structural features that make the analogy work still apply.
Tom
“The weight of your argument so far is built on the assumption that ECT (the time bomb) actually exists.”
——-this “weight” label enables you to avoid the other arguments I gave which showed reasonableness of apathy even assuming ECT was real. I argued that Trinitarian Dr. Turek does not recommend that you push for the unbeliever to get saved ASAP, despite the fact that he affirms ECT. And yet your ticking time-bomb analogy tries to pretend the only reasonable thing to do is defuse the bomb (i.e., get saved) ASAP. Turek may advise its best if I don’t try to cut that wire ASAP as your bomb analogy tries to compel.
Does God want me to attempt to figure out which ECT advocate (you and Turek) gives me the “correct” solution?
What would you advise me to do, if I was having this exact debate with a Muslim, who capitalized as strongly as you did upon my “presume ECT is true solely for the sake of argument”, and then said the best analogy to the Muslim version of hell is me locked in a room with a ticking time bomb, and I have credible though fallible knowledge of how to defuse the bomb? Would you counsel that in such posture, I should do what he says and cut the wire (i.e., become a Muslim so Allah won’t cast me into Muslim-based hell)? It’s more than a little suspicious that you insist cutting the wire is only reasonable when considering acting upon biblical ECT, but if I’m considering non-biblical ECT, then suddenly, you insist that it would not be reasonable for me to act upon the Quaran’s solution. Either admit your analogy suffers serious defects, or admit you’d counsel somebody that converting to the Islam might be the most reasonable way for a person to justify ceasing to worry about Islamic Jahannam.
“And you now appear to be changing the rules of the game mid-argument by challenging my analogy based on whether or not the time bomb actually exists.”
——- First, see my comments on Turek. I showed apathy could be reasonable even while still believing ECT is real. But even if I changed the rules, I said I would assume ECT true solely for the sake of argument. I left all options on the table: my exploding car analogy allowed the possibility that staying away from the ECT source would be a reasonable response…which also allowed me to consult other car experts in the meantime (Christian scholars) and possibly discover that they think there is no basis for my fright, and that I should stop presuming ECT true solely for the sake of argument.
My presuming the threat to be true solely for the sake of argument obviously did not express or imply that I had infallible knowledge that it was exactly what I thought it was. I can also presume for the sake of argument lots of things I usually presume: that food from my local store isn’t toxic, or that my car will not blow up the next time I start it. But it would be foolish to insist that because I’ve assumed these things true solely for the sake of argument, I’ve therefore cut off all possibility of being proved wrong.
While my potentially exploding car keep all options on the table, you took all options off the table with your locked-in-a-room-with-a-ticking-time-bomb scenario, since such a constricted posture does not accurately model what I’m still free to do, even presuming ECT is true. In real life, even if I seriously thought ECT was real, I’d still be free to move about and consult other bomb experts (Christian scholars) who might say I’m wrong about this alleged threat. That is, a better analogy would have allowed me, locked in a room, to communicate through the walls with other bomb experts and possibly discover their belief that that the bomb is fake.
“My analogy doesn’t introduce a new premise—it simply models the one you’ve already granted. You’ve repeatedly treated ECT as a real, catastrophic danger that justifies extraordinary precaution. A ticking time bomb is an accurate way of representing that kind of risk.”
——-Not according to Turek, who tells other Christians to avoid constraining unbelievers to cut that wire asap. He advocates ECT, and he’s giving that advice to his followers, most of whom also advocate ECT.
“You can’t affirm ECT as a valid danger and then reject an analogy on the grounds that the danger might not be real, or that experts disagree about it, without changing the rules of engagement. If ECT is genuinely the kind of threat you’ve described, then the structural features that make the analogy work still apply.”
——-You tried to force me into a situation where my knowledge of how to defuse the bomb was both “credible” and yet also “fallible”. The problem is that putting fallible knowledge to use in the daily typical world doesn’t carry extraordinary danger. That’s why, although the car could possibly explode when we step on the gas upon seeing the traffic light turn green, we are not unreasonable to think the explosion probability is too small to justify worry. We have plenty of experience that food purchased from the store isn’t poisonous, so we are reasonable to take the chance and eat it despite the trifling possibility that it might be toxic.
I used the analogy from the movie “Abyss” to show that you can’t show that my cutting the wire is any more reasonable than a refusal to cut it, because with knowledge that is both credible and fallible, you cannot give me any greater than 50% likelihood of safety when you tell me to cut the bomb-wire. In the movie, when Ed Harris’ light crashes at the bottom of the ocean, he’s forced to use a backup glow stick that emits a more yellowish light, thus disabling him from visually distinguishing the blue-striped wire from the black-striped wire on the nuke, when the navy guy told him to cut only one specific wire, so there’s a tense moment when he has to take an unavoidable chance on death and cut one of the wires, despite his inability to reasonably discern that it is the safest wire to cut. He didn’t have better than 50% chance of cutting the correct wire, so the fact that he didn’t nuke himself in the act of cutting cannot be attributed to reasonableness, but only blind luck.
If you were locked in a room with a ticking time-bomb, and you knew incorrect defusion procedure would make the bomb explode, and you had credible though fallible information on how to defuse it, how could you prove that cutting one of the wires could move the safety-probability past 50%? You couldn’t. Your decision could only arise from pure desperation.
Another problem with your analogy is that it is too Jack Chick-sh. If I take your analogy seriously, that amounts to me, upon discovering that ECT is real, to immediately “accept Jesus” (i.e., cut the wire). But you Christians give us unbelievers possibly “credible” and yet also “fallible” and contradictory notions of how to successfully cut that wire. Staying with your analogy, the fact that Christian scholars who affirm ECT still disagree with each other on how to get saved (Lordship Salvation v. Free Grace), means, in the analogy, there I realized, before getting locked in that room with a ticking time-bomb, that various experts in that bomb disagree with each other on which wire is most reasonably the correct one to cut to safely defuse the bomb. So the fact that the bomb experts do actually disagree with each other about it is another obstacle that prevents you from showing your proposed solution moves the safety-probability meter any little bit past the 50% mark.
And if one of those bomb-experts was Frank Turek, he might say the person who planted the bomb (God) doesn’t want me to defuse it just yet. Because maybe the bomber knows that if I refuse to cut the wire, this will create a “ripple-effect” causing trillions of other decisions by other human beings, and will result in Eskimos safely cutting a similar wire in the year 7,552 a.d. (!?)
Now what are you going to do? Add more conditions, such as making the room soundproof and insisting I got into the room before I knew the bomb experts disagreed with each other? But then analogies cannot be pushed like that because they always break down.
Many apologists often assume, solely for the sake of argument, that atheism is true, in order to convince the atheist that a truly godless universe would be far more chaotic and miserable than the one we currently live in. Even if that is a valid argument tactic, that hardly means such apologist made a lifelong to commitment to uphold atheism, no matter what happens in the future. Reasonableness on the apologist’s part doesn’t require permanently foreclosing discovery of error in the future.
I would prefer that you honor your commitment to Sola Scriptura, and start presuming that the bible’s own answer to those who question ECT, is the most authoritative possible answer.
Finally, you didn’t specify in the bomb-scenario WHAT type of credible though fallible knowledge I have about how to defuse the bomb. That leaves open many doors you cannot now close: Perhaps my knowledge of the solution is “credible” because it comes from the bible, but also “fallible” because I perceive that solution to conflict with other solutions that also appear in the bible. Perhaps my knowledge of the solution is “credible” because it was confirmed as such by Solberg, but such knowledge remained “fallible” regardless because Turek came along and said the “accept-Jesus-ASAP” solution might not be the best solution. And in the real world, your god doesn’t turn off the bomb the very second the frightened sinner thinks he’s cut the wire. Plenty of conservative Trinitarian scholars, including Turek, warn that if you only cut that wire solely to receive the benefits of fire-insurance, this indicates your wire-cutting was not with genuine remorse for sin, and thus, the wire never actually got cut in the first place.
You also overlook that to have only credible yet fallible knowledge of how to safely defuse the bomb, leaves wide open the possibility that such knowledge says nothing about whether it is even safe to attempt cutting the wire. Maybe my knowledge was fallible because it didn’t tell me about the proximity circuit on the bomb, which causes it to explode is there is any movement around it to a distance of 3 feet. Again, your analogy allows for no way to determine which reaction, if any, is the most reasonable.
Your analogy breaks down quickly because it cuts off the options that the real world gives to a person who is assuming ECT is true. One way to cut the wire is Lordship Salvation, another way to cut it is Free Grace, and as you likely know, these groups give unbelievers contradictory advice on what acts would constitute successful cutting of that wire.
I think we’ve beaten this horse enough, and I’d like to move on to a different justification for ignoring Christianity/viewing Paul as a false apostle.
R. L. Solberg
Hi Tom. I want to remind you that (a.) you’re the one who put ECT on the table, and (b.) you explicitly told me to reason using my Christian presuppositions rather than yours, asking: “Using only YOUR assumptions and presuppositions as gained from your bible studies, on a scale from 1-10 with 10 being most dangerous, what level of spiritual danger does my atheism create for me?”
Therefore (regardless of Turek’s opinion), it seems to me that if we proceed under the presupposition that ECT is a real and present danger, then your argument that inaction is not epistemically worse than action falls apart. Because if one is trapped in a room with a ticking time bomb, inaction presents a 100% chance of destruction, whereas action (of any kind and with any level of infallibility) automatically reduces that risk (possibly by 100% if you cut the right wire.)
Tom
I’m ready to offer another challenge, so my last response on ECT will be as follows:
Dr. Turek’s belief in ECT, while discouraging his followers from trying to convince unbelievers to accept Jesus ASAP, strongly proves that an assumption of the truth of ECT does not mean “hurry up and defuse the divine bomb” is the only possibly reasonable response from the unbeliever. And if Turek is prohibiting them from attempting to close the sale so early, he cannot balk if, in light of no attempt to close the sale, the unbeliever in question does nothing at that point to defuse the divine bomb.
You ignored my application of your logic to the situation of the atheist dialoguing with a Muslim and presuming solely for the sake of argument that Muslim ECT (i.e., Islamic Jahannam) was true. I think most of the people watching this debate are confident that YOU would start changing the rules. You would probably insist there is no “credible but fallible” knowledge on how to defuse the Muslim bomb, because you insist the Qur’an cannot provide “credible” info on such a topic. But notice how your logic doesn’t allow the alleged unreliability of the Qur’an to enter. You said:
—-quote—if one is trapped in a room with a ticking time bomb, inaction presents a 100% chance of destruction, whereas action (of any kind and with any level of infallibility) automatically reduces that risk (possibly by 100% if you cut the right wire.)—endquote—-
Then your logic must also prevail with the Muslim situation: If I’m “trapped in a room with a ticking time bomb” (called Islamic Jahannam), “inaction presents a 100% chance of destruction, whereas action (of any kind and with any level of infallibility) automatically reduces that risk (possibly by 100% if you cut the right wire.)”
If you are correct that any action in that scenario to defuse is likely more reasonable than inaction, then under your own logic, the manner the Muslim recommends for me to defuse the bomb, is something I should do, and do quickly. That is my last reply on the subject of ECT. We are approaching redundancy, so I have no objection if you wish to have the last word on that subject.
But please also use your next reply to respond to my next challenge, which will be the first argument against Paul’s apostleship (relevant here, as the argument has potential to demonstrate error in the bible:
Proposition: “I am reasonable to believe that the original apostles of Jesus did not approve of any criteria for post-resurrection apostleship beyond the criteria specified in Acts 1:21-22”.
R. L. Solberg
Hi, Tom. You’ve introduced the concept of urgency into the equation, and I think that’s appropriate. In the analogy of being locked in a room with a ticking time bomb, is it reasonable for someone to take no action until they are absolutely certain how to diffuse it? Or to take some action, even if it’s based on fallible or unknown assumptions?
Urgency, then, is a byproduct of one’s belief about how much time is left before the bomb goes off. For example, if you (or Dr. Turek) feel fairly certain the bomb is not going to explode for another year, delayed action seems more reasonable. But is it actually less dangerous? Because the truth is no one truly knows when the bomb is going to go off. Inaction, then, becomes a calculated risk. And how much risk is “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. However, because the existential threat of destruction remains (the bomb will detonate at some point), the level of actual risk naturally rises over time.
So to the question at hand: How much danger does your atheism (i.e. denial that the time bomb exists) create for you from my Christian worldview? I would say it creates a real and immediate danger that grows by the minute. But, of course from your perspective, you’re just hanging out in an empty room with nothing to worry about.
P.S. Respectfully, I have no interest in debating what the original apostles of Jesus approved of with someone that doesn’t accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Life is too short.
Blessings,
Rob
Tom
If you mean that I’m no longer allowed to argue here for the reasonableness of rejecting full biblical inerrancy, please specify so.
R. L. Solberg
Hi, Tom. If you’re insinuating that you’re building a multi-step case and your argument about ECT was only step one, then I’d say two things: (1.) You have yet to established your primary argument about ECT, so it seems premature to move to the next step. You have not shown that demanding infallibility improves safety under assumed ECT. And (2.) I’m a little concerned about the complexity of your argument because you still seem a long way from the goal.
Taking a step back, the issue at the heart of our discussion is whether rejecting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship can be reasonable. That was your original challenge. You asked me to proceed by answering within my own beliefs and presuppositions. As a committed Christian who accepts Scripture as the inspired word of God, I hold that rejecting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship is, indeed, unreasonable.
And stated more broadly (in case it helps us get where you want to go more quickly), I believe such a position is unreasonable for a Christian, but not for an atheist. For an atheist who rejects the existence of God and the inspired nature of Scripture, accepting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship is what would be unreasonable.
Tom
“Hi, Tom. If you’re insinuating that you’re building a multi-step case and your argument about ECT was only step one, then I’d say two things: (1.) You have yet to established your primary argument about ECT, so it seems premature to move to the next step.”
——-You apparently don’t want to give up the debate, so I’m going to continue:
a) I’m satisfied that my reference to Trinitarian Protestant Dr. Frank Turek’s refusal to urge unbelievers to accept Jesus ASAP, shows that, assuming you and he are equally saved, then spiritually alive people disagree on whether it can possibly be reasonable for an unbeliever to delay accepting Jesus. I’ll need you to address that by either showing I misunderstood Turek, or that you think the way he reduces the level of urgency to get saved, is unbiblical. For now, if spiritually alive people disagree with each other on how urgent the danger of ECT is, they are fools to expect spiritually dead me to figure out which Holy Spirit filled person (Romans 8:9) is wrong and which is right. Please respond on the merits to my invoking Dr. Turek’s view. I’m pretty sure you want me to just forget he exists, but I cannot honor that request anymore than I could honor a request from Turek to forget that YOU exist.
b) I’ve analogized your bomb-analogy to Islamic hell then and asked whether the same exact argument you made to me, you’d also make to the person who presumed, solely for the sake of argument, that ISLAMIC ECT was real, and if you would thus advise them that cutting one of the wires (i.e., becoming Muslim as the credible but fallible solution to the threat) would be at least somewhat more reasonable than doing nothing at all. I must insist that you comment on this analogy on the merits. You don’t want the Islam ECT-fearing person to “do something” as they are locked in that room with Allah’s ticking time-bomb, so why do you pretend that when he is locked in a room with *YHWH’s* ticking time-bomb, then suddenly, action would be more reasonable than inaction?
c) I am very suspicious that while you wish to continue pushing your prior points in a debate not directly implicating Paul, without answering the Turek and Isalm analogy responses, you used a “life is too short” to justify your alleged lack of interest in moving to a discussion that DOES directly implicate Paul, when we both remember that the entire purpose of these dialogues was to find out whether a person could possibly be reasonable to reject Paul’s apostolic claims.
I was willing to do what most scholars do, and recognize the point at which redundancy has started. It started with your first and subsequent refusals to respond on the merits to my appeals to Dr. Turek and the person who presumes for the sake of argument that Islamic ECT is true. But since you continue to push your logic with regard to the specifically Christian version of the ECT time-bomb scenario, I guess I’ll follow your lead:
“You have not shown that demanding infallibility improves safety under assumed ECT.”
———-My goal wasn’t to improve safety, but to show reasonableness. THere is a possibility that before the injury is inflicted, the option that was less safe, appeared to be reasonable. You think your God gave people infallible scriptural interpretation in the 1st century, so you cannot pretend that demanding God act today consistently with the way he allegedly acted in the 1st century is “unreasonable”.
“And (2.) I’m a little concerned about the complexity of your argument because you still seem a long way from the goal.”
——-When I discovered that the time-bomb discussion arrived at redundancy, I tried to get closer to the goal (i.e., showing reasonableness to reject Paul’s apostleship) with my new proposition about Acts 1:20-21. You don’t think life is so short as to preclude you from pushing your less relevant ECT time bomb analogy, but you specifically stated that life IS too short to justify moving to an argument that more directly implicates Paul. The fact that you think I’m a long way off from the goal, doesn’t mean redundancy is still in the future. Redundancy in debate is often achieved despite the participants respective beliefs that the other guy has failed to make his case. So redundancy might be the proper point to introduce a more relevant topic, and it might the point at which continuing to beat the horse does not appear likely to favor either side.
“Taking a step back, the issue at the heart of our discussion is whether rejecting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship can be reasonable. That was your original challenge. You asked me to proceed by answering within my own beliefs and presuppositions. As a committed Christian who accepts Scripture as the inspired word of God, I hold that rejecting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship is, indeed, unreasonable.
———–Yes. But I also offered to show that your beliefs and presuppositions leave room for the possibility that those Christians or unbelievers who reject Paul can also be reasonable. Your presuppositions are not limited to full biblical inerrancy.
“And stated more broadly (in case it helps us get where you want to go more quickly), I believe such a position is unreasonable for a Christian, but not for an atheist.”
——–Then I’d be willing to discuss whether my criteria for reasonableness of belief is more objective or more subjective than yours. If you’d agree its possible for a Christian to be reasonable to walk into a room without thinking about Paul, you may not know it, but you are admitting they can possibly be reasonable to reject Paul. The trick is this: reasonableness is far more subtle and complex than simply prayer, loving others, obeying secular law and an unshakable faith in full biblical inerrancy. The vast majority of people spout off dogmatically, all day long, about what’s reasonable or unreasonable, when in fact, they don’t appreciate just how many realities factor into the decision on whether a belief or viewpoint is “reasonable”.
“For an atheist who rejects the existence of God and the inspired nature of Scripture, accepting the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship is what would be unreasonable.”
——–That’s nice to know, but the challenge was whether you, as a Christian, could allow that somebody else may possibly be reasonable to reject Paul, or whether such a person can only be unreasonable in such a belief. I was trying to show that even your own ideas about reasonableness do not permit you to classify the Paul-rejection position as unreasonable. But, of course, you don’t think there is any such inconsistency in your epistemology. That doesn’t mean there isn’t, that just means you are confident you didn’t miss anything. I wonder how many times Christian scholars with that attitude later discovered that they had missed something? Your belief that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God does not require the conclusion that anybody who denies the part of the bible saying Paul was true apostle, must necessarily be unreasonable.
R. L. Solberg
Thanks, Tom! You continue to press your Turek and Islam points, so let me respond to them directly before moving on:
(a.) I agree with you that Turek’s alleged refusal to urge unbelievers to accept Jesus ASAP shows that Christians can disagree about how urgent it is for an unbeliever to respond. And that establishes disagreement about what appears reasonable, not about what is true.
Which brings up a bigger issue: “Reasonableness” is a personal judgment based on perspective and evaluation under uncertainty, which allows for disagreement. So I have to ask why you chose to base your argument on the standard of “reasonableness” (which establishes a rather wide grey area as the target) rather than aiming for what is “true.”
I ask because, in matters of dire consequence (such as ECT or a ticking time bomb), most people care far more about what is true than what is reasonable—since “reasonable” judgments are ultimately attempts to get at the truth under uncertainty. And I’m sure we can both acknowledge that there are scenarios where the true option initially appears unreasonable.
(b.) I’m happy to concede that the same structural time-bomb logic applies in principle: If Islamic Jahannam were a real and credible danger within a worldview one actually inhabits, then inaction would also not be epistemically neutral there. And, of course, conceding the logical structure does not concede the credibility of the threat or the rational obligation to act across worldviews. You asked me to reason within my Christian presuppositions. Within those presuppositions, ECT is a live danger; Islamic Jahannam is not.
Regarding your statement, “My goal wasn’t to improve safety, but to show reasonableness,” that’s a fair point. Thanks for the correction. I agree that reasonableness and safety aren’t identical concepts. Yet, in the scenario you framed (where the object of deliberation is avoiding destruction) they also can’t be cleanly separated. What makes a course of action “reasonable” in that context is precisely its relation to the risk it carries (or mitigates). So while a less safe option might sometimes appear reasonable prior to injury, the challenge you posed turns on whether demanding infallibility is a reasonable response to a threat of destruction. If a method does not in fact reduce that threat, then its claim to reasonableness (in that context) would appear to most people less reasonable.
You also said, “I offered to show that your beliefs and presuppositions leave room for the possibility that those Christians or unbelievers who reject Paul can also be reasonable.” This has little appeal for me because, again, sincere people can disagree about levels of reasonableness. For me, it’s too squishy a target to be interesting. What would be interesting is if you were to offer to show that my beliefs and presuppositions leave room for the possibility that those Christians or unbelievers who reject Paul could be right.
But you’d have to do so based on philosophical and epistemic arguments, not Scripture. The fact that you reject Scripture as divinely authoritative virtually guarantees that we will find ourselves in an exegetical dispute in short order, which is a maze of rabbit trails that, from long personal experience, I’ve found to be unfruitful on all sides.
Tom
I appreciate your clarifications. Here are the reasons why, instead of offering to show that Christians who reject Paul could be “right”, I would offer to establish that they could be “reasonable” to reject Paul:
a) The bible doesn’t say atheism is merely wrong, it says atheism is “foolish” (i.e., unreasonable), Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:20. Although I could refute that assertion by proving that atheism is “true”, that is not the only possible legitimate refutation: I could also refute it by merely showing that atheism is “not foolish”. Proving atheism is “not foolish” is a more direct refutation.
b) The same logic applies especially to Paul. Paul was always equating his interpretations with God’s personal perspective. To disagree with Paul’s perspective of divine sovereignty is to disagree with God himself (Romans 9:19-20). To disagree with Paul’s view of table-fellowship is to engage in “hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:13). To disagree with Paul’s perspective constitutes “sin” and thus to manifest one’s self-condemnation (Titus 3:9-11). If an apostle disagrees with Paul, this was a “false apostle” (2nd Cor. 11:13). Again, since Paul accused his opponents of unreasonableness, his opponents’ showing they had the “truth” would not be the only way to refute his claims. If they could show they were “not unreasonable”, that would directly refute his claim, no need to show that his critics had “truth”. If the bible limited its criticism of non-Christians to just their being “wrong”, then we could not refute this unless we could prove we were “correct”. But because the bible engages in the more extreme form of accusation, this increases the likelihood that the accusation will be inaccurate, and the ensuing rebuttal will be correspondingly easier to establish.
c) in today’s apologetics climate, the questions often revolve around whether the Christian view is “reasonable” not merely “true”. See W. L. Craig’s website “reasonablefaith”. Most evidentialists, Licona and Turek being representative, always cast the resurrection of Jesus in terms of what’s the most “reasonable” explanation, or which explanation for the NT data on Jesus’ resurrection is the most “probable”. And indeed, historiography is an art, not a science, which is why most apologists and historians insist that (beyond banal things like Rome’s existence in the 1st century), historical “truth” comes to us in various degrees of probability. If Christians can feel satisfied by merely fulfilling a “reasonableness” standard that doesn’t necessarily prove a “truth”, they have no right to impose a higher standard on skeptics.
d) As you well know, Christian groups in opposition to each other (Catholics v. Protestants, Arminians v. Calvinists, Inerrantist v. Errantist, Lordship Salvationist v. Free Gracer, etc) have claimed “truth” at each other for years as they engaged in their their various schisms, and yet claiming “truth” did not appear to give anybody any more of an advantage than those who merely claimed reasonable interpretation. So the reason I don’t claim to prove my anti-biblical view is “true”, is because actual demonstrable “truth” about such matters is properly judged to be unobtainable, or if obtainable, still unverfiable, and as any philosopher would insist, because absolute proof beyond one’s experience of self-awareness is usually unavailable, it is more accurate to characterize what we deem “truth”, as instead being “reasonable” or as being the view that probability favors the most.
e) The way language works, “this proposition is true” sounds like a dogmatic insistence that all disagreement with it is “false”. So even when the careful Christian apologist admits he is open to being proved “wrong”, his constantly characterizing propositions in terms of “truth/falsity” still psychologically affect the listeners as a statement of dogmatism. In light of the fact that nothing about the biblical issues that divided Protestants from each other, can be proved absolutely, it is more accurate for a Protestant to say that his perspective on soteriology, spiritual gifts, inerrancy, eschatology, common grace, etc, is “reasonable”. If seeking mere “reasonableness” counsels against drawing sharp lines, that’s the proper and good consequence of truthfully realizing that the vast majority of what we believe only exists in degrees of probability, almost none of it is provable “truth”. If somebody could have stolen your car in the last 10 minutes since you parked it on the street and you haven’t looked at it again, it is less accurate to say “it is *true* that my car is parked on the street”, and more accurate to say “I am *reasonable to believe* my car remains in the same place I last parked it”. As a cynic, I realize that what is arguably “more accurate” will not faze most Christians. They wouldn’t “feel it” quite as much on Sunday if their pastor said “Let me give you my subjective interpretation of Paul’s statement in Romans 4, which I know that other pastors disagree with”. They go to church because the pastor typically says stuff like “Turn in your bibles if you will to Romans chapter 4, where God’s word has been clearly telling Catholics for 2000 years that their theology is heresy.” Such a sermon is precisely the sort of rhetorical pep talk that gives the pew-warmers the emotional rush that is the main reason they attend that church. Evolution outfitted us to prioritize dramatic body language and interesting vocal oscillations more than the generic content of the message. That is precisely why all psychologists agree that most people prioritize HOW you say something, not WHAT you said.
f) Insisting we have “truth” appears to be a fallacious survival mechanism that is naturally built into us. You see it in children and teens. If two teens are enemies, you never hear one saying to other “in my subjective opinion, which may be true or false, you overlook many facts that would prevent you from saying so many disputable things”. You always hear them saying “Yer an idiot!” or worse, i.e., attempting to characterize their enemy in terms of verified despicableness. It would be very easy, then, to argue that this innate tendency to exaggerate the accuracy of our views and the inaccuracy of our enemy’s views, is most of the reason why Christians do the exact same thing when it comes to bible interpretation. But in that case, “you are an idiot” becomes the more politically correct “you are wrong”. From this we learn that nature has inclined us to pontificate as “true” something that we don’t actually know to be true. We merely know that if we do in fact call it “truth”, that will satisfy our paying customers.
g) Yes, this “reasonableness” view seems “squishy”, and that doesn’t harmonize with a Protestant Christian’s desire to dogmatically assert biblical stuff he thinks is “true”, who thus loves to enforce that undeniable “us v. them” herd-think which conservatives and fundamentalists love to foster and nurture. But if you care about truth, then the actual truth might be that while a proposition is *ultimately* either true or false, what’s “ultimately” true isn’t necessarily available to our senses. Most of what we know from daily life and the bible does not justify the positive certitude that is always implied when we assert that some proposition is “true”. The truth might be that it is more accurate to say the proposition we believe in, *reasonably* derives from the known evidence. If thinking that way hampers your ability to positively condemn what you call “heretical” beliefs, well, your desire to positively condemn non-orthodox beliefs cannot by itself justify overlooking my arguments here and just continuing to blindly characterize as “truth” much of what you believe that actually doesn’t rise to the level of positively verifiable fact. It might very well be that yes, the history of Christian dogmatism/bigotry has missed a great truth: truth can only very rarely be known with positive certitude, and therefore, labeling our beliefs as “reasonable” is probably the better way to balance the competing concerns of accurate doctrine and honest humility. You want all your equally born-again brothers and sisters in Christ from the different Protestant denominations to stay open to the possibility that what they call “truth” is not truth, so if you are equally as sinful as them, and there’s nothing about you suggesting you have special divine abilities that override your natural tendency to misunderstand god, then consistency would demand that YOU ALSO remain equally open to correction. In all cases, only those who are inspired by God to the point of inerrant infallibility, can claim “truth” in matters beyond the banal.
Those are the reasons why I think dropping the “truth” descriptor and recharacterizing our take on controversial subjects as “reasonable” would be more accurate to reality.
But remember: I offered to show that some of YOUR presuppositions would allow for Christian rejection of Paul to be reasonable. I would not need to invoke atheism or Hume’s denial of miracles.