Atheism's Real Problem with the God of Christianity

In the previous post where I reviewed Challenging the Verdict by Earl Doherty, I promised that I would address the deep rooted and real problem that atheists have with the God of Christianity. Allow me to catch you back up to speed. In his book, Doherty unknowingly revealed the inability of evidential apologetics to answer his deep rooted and real problem with Christianity, namely, that the God of Christianity is unjust and His method of atonement is both illogical and immoral. Doherty said, “Should we not expect a just Deity to fashion a punishment fitting the crime? . . . What, after all, was Adam and Eve’s purported ‘sin’? Eating fruit, even a forbidden one, hardly sinks to the depth of depravity” (124). A few pages later Doherty said, “But why did he require such an ultimate sacrifice in order to forgive humanity its sins? Is there not, indeed, some logical if not moral contradiction in ‘redeeming’ men of sins like murder through an act of murder on their part? Why did he not embody the act of redemption in something more exemplary, perhaps by having Jesus perform a few thousand hours of community service? What a moral example that would have set” (126). No amount of external evidence (empirical facts) can give an answer to these objections. God’s revelation of the meaning of these facts is needed to answer Doherty’s deep rooted and real problem with Christianity.

Since God is being accused of injustice, immorality, and ignorance for both His stance toward sin and His method of atonement, we must allow Him to speak and justify His actions (Romans 3:4). So to understand and see the justice, morality, and wisdom of God in both His stance toward sin and His method of atonement, we will have to consider God’s revealed meaning of redemptive history as it specifically pertains to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

First, the resurrection of Jesus means that God is Creator and transcendent Lord. This means that naturalistic evolution is false, because the resurrection of Jesus is only possible in an open system in which God intervenes and miracles are possible. The resurrection of Jesus, since it means that God is Creator and transcendent Lord, also means that there are no “brute facts.” The facts do not speak for themselves but must be interpreted only by God’s revealed meaning for them. As Dan Phillips says of God as Creator and transcendent Lord, “He created all things in heaven and on earth, including heaven and earth themselves. In doing so, God created all facts. And thus God assigned meaning, value, and significance to everything. That means, then, that there are no “brute facts,” only created facts, with their meaning designed and assigned by God” (Dan Phillips, The World-Tilting Gospel: Embracing a Biblical Worldview and Hanging on Tight, Kindle Edition, 91).

Second, the resurrection of Jesus means that Adam was the first man created by God as both the progenitor of and representative for all people born through his seed. This means that theistic evolution is false because of the solidarity of all people with one man. To believe in the resurrection of Jesus as revealed by God as the means by which He saves sinners from among humanity is to believe in solidarity with an original, historical, first man. There could be no solidarity on the basis of theistic evolution because there would be no definite, definable place where the head of the human race, as its sole representative, plunged the race into sin. Therefore no one would be born with a sin nature traceable to an original ancestor.

There would be no solidarity under the system of either naturalistic or theistic evolution. Without solidarity, Jesus could represent no more than one person. The ratio, without solidarity, becomes a one for one ratio. Each individual sinner would have to have a different individual Savior or else Jesus would have to continually come and offer Himself over and over again for each individual sinner.

Third, the resurrection of Jesus means that God is covenant maker who promises life for obedience to and death for disobedience of His covenant. One of God’s assigned meanings of the resurrection of Jesus is that He keeps His promises. He is a covenant keeping God. He is truth and in Him there is no darkness at all. It is impossible for God to lie since to get anything out of something, it has to be in it. There is a reason one cannot get “blood out of a turnip.” Since God is truth there is no lie in Him. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). God keeps His promises. He gives death for disobedience (Romans 6:23).

Adam, as the progenitor and representative of all men earned death for breaking God’s covenant and in order for God to remain true, death reigned from Adam on (Romans 5:12). On the other hand, Jesus, the progenitor and representative of all who have faith in Him earned life for keeping God’s covenant and in order for God to remain true, He raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24) and will raise all who are in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:21-23). God keeps His promises. He gives life for obedience (Leviticus 18:5).

Fourth, the resurrection of Jesus means that Adam was a covenant breaker who earned death for himself and all his offspring through their solidarity with him. Adam transgressed and disobeyed God’s command and became a covenant breaker. Adam became a capital offender. One may question why disobedience to God’s covenant is a capital crime. The human mind, even among atheists, can determine that murder is a capital offense that deserves capital punishment. However, “lesser sins” that the laws of the land do not consider capital offenses are considered capital offenses in God’s kingdom. From this truth the unregenerate human mind recoils and objects.

Why is murder a capital offense? Is it because there is something so unloving about the act of murder that it is hideous? Is it because the murderer is so unloving that he is dangerous to society? Is murder a capital offense because there is no greater display of hatred toward humanity? Murder is the greatest crime that can be committed against humanity because it violates the greatest commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” in the grossest manner and is therefore a capital offense deserving capital punishment.

What is the greatest crime one can commit? Logically, the greatest crime a man can commit is the violation of the greatest commandment. Is there a commandment greater than “love your neighbor as yourself”? Surely, and logically, the greatest crime that a man can commit is a violation of the greatest commandment against the greatest Being. What is the greatest commandment? Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment (Matthew 22:37-38).

Should the crime of murder, of not loving a fellow man, an equal being, be greater than any crime of not loving God, the greatest Being? Logic demands that there is no greater crime than not loving God and therefore any crime that violates love for God is a capital offense that deserves capital punishment. When Adam disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit he committed a capital offense because of the nature of his crime. Adam failed to keep God’s commandment, violated God’s covenant, and earned death because not loving and obeying God is a capital offense that is greater than not loving and killing a fellow human being. All men who are born naturally into Adam’s race naturally have the same hatred for God and His commandments.

Fifth, the resurrection means that Jesus is the second Adam, born without the agency of a human father in order to bypass imputation of Adam’s sin nature. In order to accomplish obedience to God’s covenant and thereby confirm the covenant promises of God, Jesus would have to live in perfect obedience to the Law of God. However, if Jesus were a natural born descendant of Adam, He would also inherit Adam’s sin nature. Here the purpose of the virginal conception of Jesus is made clear by the redemptive- historical context of the resurrection.

The virginal conception of Jesus also implies the divinity of Jesus. Here the mystery of the hypostatic union or the two natures of Jesus is revealed as one of God’s meanings of the resurrection of Jesus. He is the Son of man and the Son of God in one person. He is fully God and fully man in the one person of Jesus Christ. In order to accomplish God’s covenant with man, the Son of God, with supreme love for God, would have to become the son of man, without a sin nature.

Sixth, the resurrection of Jesus means Jesus is the covenant keeper and redeemer who earned life for Himself and all his offspring by their solidarity with Him through faith. “In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that he might redeem those who were under the Law” (Galatians 4:4-5). Jesus lived perfectly under the Law of God, kept His covenant, and earned life. Jesus lived in perfect obedience to God because of His perfect love for God doing what Adam did not do and what no natural born descendent of Adam could ever do. As Phillips says, “So we must recognize in Jesus the quality that every other human being since Adam has lacked: utter, comprehensive, all-consuming love for God that flowed from a sinless heart and issued in a flawlessly, perfectly holy life” (The World-Tilting Gospel, 117).

Adam failed to love God with all his heart and as a result he violated God’s command, became a capital offender, and earned death for himself and all his offspring. God’s covenant with Adam was that if he disobeyed he would die. The wages of sin is death. By implication, God’s covenant with Adam meant that if he obeyed he would live. The wages of obedience is life. This truth is expressed in God’s Law given to Israel before the time of Christ. “So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them” (Leviticus 18:5).

There is a one major problem though. Adam has already failed to love God and committed a capital offense. All of Adam’s offspring have inherited his sin nature to the point that none are able to obey God and therefore none can earn life (Romans 3:20, 28). All are doomed, unless God has a solution for the dilemma of how He can pardon capital offenders and give them life instead of death, while He remains true in the process.

Here is where the Gospel really becomes offensive and is viewed by those who are perishing as foolishness. God’s solution for the dilemma of how He can pardon capital offenders, giving them life instead of death, is through Penal Substitution. Someone would have to live a perfect life of loving loyalty to God and then suffer the penalty of capital punishment as a sacrifice for and a substitute of capital offenders.

Earl Doherty objects, “But why did he require such an ultimate sacrifice in order to forgive humanity its sins? Is there not, indeed, some logical if not moral contradiction in ‘redeeming’ men of sins like murder through an act of murder on their part? Why did he not embody the act of redemption in something more exemplary, perhaps by having Jesus perform a few thousand hours of community service? What a moral example that would have set” (126).

Others object and say that it is illogical and immoral to execute and innocent man and to set free a capital offender. How can God do this without committing two injustices? After all, God’s Word says, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15). The answer is the resurrection! The resurrection not only makes Penal Substitution logical and moral, it is an absolute necessity for God who is truth. God promised life for the one who obeyed His Law. Jesus did obey God’s Law perfectly. The death of Christ was at the hands of sinful men. Men in violation of God’s Law were responsible for the execution of Jesus so that it was not the Law that promised life executing Jesus but godless men (Acts 2:23). Since Jesus was innocent and was dying by God’s plan as a substitute for sinners, His resurrection from the dead was an absolute necessity and certainty (Acts 2:24). The Law of God based on the Word of God owed Jesus life and since it is impossible for God to lie, it was impossible for death to hold its prey.

Penal Substitution is a logical and moral impossibility for any court system in this world. No human court can accomplish justice through Penal Substitution. In its attempt, any human court would become guilty of two injustices. Executing an innocent man is unjust even if the innocent man is willing. Setting free a guilty man on the basis that an innocent man has died in the place of the guilty man is unjust. Without the power to raise men from the dead, Penal Substitution cannot be a justice serving means of pardon. However, with the ability to raise men from the dead, Penal Substitution becomes the only means by which a righteous God can pardon sinners while He maintains justice in the process (Romans 3:23-26).

Doherty’s solution for maintaining justice while pardoning a capital offender is “having Jesus perform a few thousand hours of community service” (126). However, even atheists know that justice has not been served when the punishment does not equal the crime. Doherty’s question, “Should we not expect a just Deity to fashion a punishment fitting the crime?” now needs to be asked to Doherty instead of being asked by Doherty. Under Doherty’s scheme of atonement, God would allow capital offenders to go free without the penalty matching the crime as Doherty claims God should do.

Jesus lived a perfect life under God’s Law to fulfill its precepts, died a sacrificial death to pay the penalty of breaking God’s Law for sinners, and experienced a supernatural resurrection to fulfill the Law’s promise of life for the one who obeyed it. Jesus earned life for Himself and all who have solidarity with Him through faith.

Seventh, the resurrection of Jesus means that He is both Lord and Judge. No explanation needed! God is just, moral, wise, and loving!

Book Review: Challenging the Verdict

Doherty, Earl. Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”. Ottawa Canada: Age of Reason Publications, 2001.

After opening the front cover of Challenging the Verdict, one finds an advanced review of the book written by Lee Salisbury, a former evangelical church pastor; now writer and speaker for atheist groups. In his advanced review, Salisbury claims that Strobel and his “expert witnesses” in The Case for Christ sacrifice intellectual integrity, speak half-truths and misrepresentations in defense of Christian doctrine. On the other hand, Doherty is praised by Salisbury for his reasoned refutation and maintenance of intellectual integrity. If Salisbury’s review is accurate then Doherty will have proved with reasoned refutations, truthful representations, and intellectual integrity that the Gospels are not history and that Christianity is a myth. Challenging the Verdict will have, as is claimed on the back cover, demonstrated the deficiencies, the fallacies, and the selective and misleading use of the evidence inherent in The Case for Christ.

Enough of the “atta boy” awards until the claim of Doherty’s superior reasoning powers are validated. Doherty has claimed that he will “expose the fallacy, distortion of evidence and extensive misinterpretation of the record inherent in the ‘case’ for Christian orthodoxy . . .” (2). He has claimed that Strobel’s “overall case has been marked by shallow argument and deficient reasoning; special pleading (meaning a selective adoption and interpretation of evidence); and techniques that can be said to be fundamentally misleading, in that a particular conclusion has been established ahead of time, and evidence and argumentation is often selected and applied in light of this desired conclusion” (6). It is only fair that the reader hold Doherty to the same standards of logic, honesty, and integrity that he claims Strobel violates.

Did Doherty achieve his purpose? No! Instead of reasoned refutations, truthful representations, and intellectual integrity, Doherty used shallow argument and deficient reasoning; special pleading; and techniques that are fundamentally misleading and violate intellectual integrity.

However, before establishing these failures of Doherty, his accomplishment in his book needs to be verbalized. Doherty unknowingly revealed the inability of evidential apologetics to answer his deep rooted and real problem with Christianity, namely, that the God of Christianity is unjust and His method of atonement is both illogical and immoral. Doherty said, “Should we not expect a just Deity to fashion a punishment fitting the crime? . . . What, after all, was Adam and Eve’s purported ‘sin’? Eating fruit, even a forbidden one, hardly sinks to the depth of depravity” (124). A few pages later Doherty said, “But why did he require such an ultimate sacrifice in order to forgive humanity its sins? Is there not, indeed, some logical if not moral contradiction in ‘redeeming’ men of sins like murder through an act of murder on their part? Why did he not embody the act of redemption in something more exemplary, perhaps by having Jesus perform a few thousand hours of community service? What a moral example that would have set” (126). No amount of external evidence can give an answer to these objections. God’s revelation of the meaning of these facts is needed to answer Doherty’s deep rooted and real problem with Christianity.

The failures of Doherty are threefold: (1) he failed to provide reasoned refutations, (2) he failed to provide truthful representations, and (3) he failed to provide intellectual integrity.

Instead of reasoned refutation, Doherty resorted to shallow argument and deficient reasoning. Doherty attempted to prove that changes have been made to the original text (also called by Doherty both original eyewitness accounts and source material) of which he admits we do not possess (7) through the postulated source document known as Q (12) of which he admits that we do not actually possess a copy of it (85). We do have copies of the Gospels; we do not have a copy of Q; and Doherty expects us to believe that he is demonstrating through reasoned refutation that the evangelists made wholesale changes to their source material (7). No thanks! I am not into myths.

Instead of truthful representations, Doherty resorted to special pleading. Here Doherty attempted to prove that the Scriptures are inconsistent and contradictory (145). Doherty presumed from the outset a fixed interpretation of the Gospels (146) to show them inconsistent and contradictory. He especially pitted the Gospel of John against the synoptic Gospels. Here is one of Doherty’s representations of inconsistency and contradiction in the Scriptures: the synoptic Gospels record that Jesus stumbled while carrying His cross to Calvary because of His weakened condition and had to receive help by Simon of Cyrene to carry His cross. Yet John’s Gospel says, “He went out, bearing his own cross” (John 19:17). Because of this Doherty said, “Yet another indicator, by the way, that John is fashioning his Jesus character the way he wants him, and not the way any tradition said” (151). ROFL – that means that I am “rolling on floor laughing.” Does “he went out bearing his own cross” contradict the other Gospels that record he began the journey carrying his own cross?

However, that is not the thrust of Doherty’s argument to truthfully represent the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Scriptures. To make his case, Doherty attempted to show that the Gospel of John is inconsistent with and contradicts the synoptic Gospels by claiming that the Gospel of John does not portray Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice for sin (17). Doherty’s argument rests on the assumption that the Lord’s Supper in John 13 is not the same as the Lord’s Supper in the synoptic Gospels because it lacks the Eucharist elements (229). But wait! The Gospel of John establishes that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system beginning with Him as the tabernacle (John 1:14), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and proceeds to Him making atonement on the Mercy Seat (John 20:12 compare to Exodus 25:18).

Doherty is under no illusion as to the significance of the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). He knows that it portrays Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice for sin and that it declares him to be that very thing (p. 17). Doherty even went so far as to say, “In fact, there are elements within the Gospels that are decidedly un-Jewish, such as the Eucharist, which involves the eating and drinking of Jesus’ flesh and blood” (p. 169). One wonders how Doherty can then say, “The establishment of the Eucharist…is notably missing in John and elsewhere” (p. 233), since John 6:54 says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This oversight by Doherty is so astonishing that one must conclude he is guilty of special pleading.

Instead of intellectual integrity, Doherty resorted to misleading techniques. Doherty completely ignores the literary genre of the epistles (that these are letters to churches or Christians) and treats them as though they should be the Gospels (Christological biography). This is a misleading technique that confuses categories for the sake of making arguments and marshalling evidence in ones favor. In so doing, Doherty is able to make the claim that the epistles do not speak of Jesus Christ as a historical, human figure but as a cosmic Son of God who shares in God’s nature. As an example, Doherty said, “The death and resurrection of their Christ is never placed in an historical, earthly setting. A crucifixion on Calvary and the empty tomb story, the rising from the grave outside Jerusalem, are not to be found outside the Gospels” (55). In this way, Doherty can postulate a mythical Christ in the epistles with a contradictory historical, human Christ in the Gospels as an “evolution in Christian traditions within the first few generations of the faith” (39).

Having conveniently confused categories, Doherty is then able to demand evidence from the epistles that does not belong in the epistles. The mantra in Challenging the Verdict becomes the Jesus of the Gospels is not the Jesus of the epistles because the epistles do not repeat the Christological biography of Christ (21, 24, 28, 29, 39, 55, 64, 66, 83, 94, 99, 101,103, 104, 105, 135, 139, 159, 162, 170, 171, 176, 200, 210, 218, 225, 231, 235).

Not only does Doherty violate intellectual integrity by conveniently confusing categories, treating the epistles as though they should be the Gospels, he also violates intellectual integrity by conveniently creating categories in which to put any opposing evidence so that it can be declared inadmissible. For instance, coherence becomes either reading the content of one set of documents into another (104) or “the evangelists constructed their story by drawing on scriptural elements in the process known as midrash” (134). Midrash is the practice of copying and reworking passages from the Old Testament in order to build up a new story based on old material (112).

Another conveniently created category by Doherty is close correspondences become plagiarisms. Speaking of the close correspondences between the Gospels, Doherty said, “Most scholars have concluded that the close correspondences between Mark and the later evangelists, overall and in many small ways, does indeed make them technically plagiarisms” (173). What happens when there seems to be no correspondences? No correspondences become radical revisions and contradictions (17).

Confusing categories by treating the epistles as though they should be the Gospels and creating categories by which to declare as inadmissible any evidence to the contrary, is an exercise in misleading techniques and is not intellectual integrity. Doherty has failed to provide reasoned refutations, truthful representations, and intellectual integrity. Naturalism will have to continue its search for its hero – Doherty has failed.

I have not forgotten Doherty’s deep rooted and real problem with Christianity. I will address that problem in the next post.

Why Atheistic Agnostic Apostates Maintain that Their Former Faith was Genuine

Any thinking person should ask and answer this question: why do atheistic agnostic apostates maintain that their former faith was genuine? If their new-found truth is real, that there is no God, why should it matter what one believes? Why doesn’t the atheistic agnostic apostate just say, “My former faith wasn’t of the biblical saving type?”

There is one primary reason that this type of apostate will never concede the truth that he never had the belief that saves – he would knowingly establish the veracity of the Bible and its Author. This he could never do because it would prove his present worldview false and the Bible and its Author true.

Therefore, the apostate MUST maintain that his former faith was genuine or else the Bible is true. Specifically the Bible says concerning this type of apostate, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). If he admits that his former faith wasn’t genuine he would now knowingly establish the truthfulness of the Bible.

So the apostate attempts to make people believe that there is nothing different from what he believed and what those who are genuinely saved believe. The reason is too obvious – if he admitted to not having believed then what reason would you trust his current belief? Therefore the apostate plays the “sincerity” card. He was sincere in believing and as such should have been just as much saved as anyone else. This means that his basis for salvation was his sincerity and not that God had actually shown him that these things are really true.

Now the apostate has double trouble. He wants you to believe that he was sincere when he claimed faith and love for Christ, faith and love for God’s Word, and faith and love for God. But now he admits that he was sincerely wrong then. How does he know that he isn’t sincerely wrong now? He doesn’t!

Be sure to get this – the apostate admits to being sincerely wrong about his former beliefs and wants you to believe him on his current beliefs because of his sincerity.

The apostate cannot and will not admit that his former faith was not of the biblical saving type because he would then establish the veracity of the Bible and its Author. The apostate can only claim that he was formerly sincerely wrong which means you have absolutely no basis for believing him now.

The apostate is unbelievable!

Unwittingly Establishing the Veracity of the Bible and its Author

This is a response to Ken Pulliam, Ph.D. over at Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity about his unwittingly establishing the veracity of the Bible and its Author in his post about Ken Daniels, A Former Missionary with Wycliffe Translators is now an Agnostic Atheist.

There are several problems in this post that are working against Ken Pulliam's truth claim rather than for it. Unwittingly he is establishing the veracity of the Bible and its Author instead of nullifying it. Both his testimony and Ken Daniels’ testimony are perfectly and accurately described in the Bible.

Ken Daniels said, “If I could patch things up by forcing myself to believe again, I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately I have tried that several times, only to be besieged again by doubt, and have come to the conclusion that attempting to will myself to believe that which in my heart I do not believe is futile.”

The Bible declares that no man can will himself to believe – “Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13 NASB). This verse not only does away with Daniels’ false notion that a man can believe of his own accord but also does away with his false credentials that you have put forward as evidence that Daniels was once a true Christian.

Daniels is right in this conclusion – “attempting to will myself to believe that which in my heart I do not believe is futile.” And what is necessary to be a genuine Christian? The Bible says, “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9 NASB). The word confess, means to speak the same and be of one mind (same logic), which means that confession of Jesus as Lord is to say the same thing about Him that God says about Him because of illumination and not imitation. It’s the difference between a parrot saying that Jesus is Lord without understanding what it is saying and a person saying that Jesus is Lord with full understanding and logic so that the truth he is declaring is inline with what he believes in his heart.

The part of Romans 10:9 that says, “And believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead”, is the part that gives rise to the confession of Jesus as Lord. There is no confession of Jesus as Lord without the accompanying belief in the heart that God raised Him from the dead. The only alternatives are for one to say, “If God raised Jesus from the dead then Jesus is Lord”, or, “I sincerely know that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is false.”

For the person that says, “If God raised Jesus from the dead then Jesus is Lord”, there is no belief in the heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and therefore there is no confession (speaking the same thing and being of the same mind) of Jesus as Lord but only parroting Jesus as Lord. The person that does not confess Jesus as Lord and believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead is not a genuine Christian. He or she may profess saving faith but does not possess saving faith.

One who professes faith but does not possess faith may be sincere in his belief that he is a true Christian and as such would classify himself a “sincere Christian” but would nonetheless not be a true Christian irregardless of his sincerity.

So the combined testimonies of Ken Daniels and Ken Pulliam are this: Ken Daniels, “Attempting to will myself to believe that which in my heart I do not believe is futile”, and, Ken Pulliam, “You cannot force yourself to believe something that you sincerely know is false.”

Now if either one of you claims that your confession of Jesus as Lord was a result of believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, how did that belief in your heart come about? Did you will yourself to believe for a while against all sound reasoning? On what did you base your belief in the heart that God raised Jesus from the dead?