Tag Archives: Belief

What Is True Saving Faith?

Leave a reply

Simply believing in the gospel message doesn’t amount to saving faith. There’s something more.

When the Apostles proclaimed the gospel in the first century, it had a certain content.

People could reject that content. But they could also accept it as true.

They could even believe in it.

Yet, that still left them with out true saving faith.

Listen: Accurate content and sincere belief in that content doesn’t amount to saving faith…

Those are necessary elements–but not sufficient elements.

There’s one more element.

Let’s address the first two elements before we get to that last one.

Notitia–the First Element of True Saving Faith

One, we must make sure that content is accurate. No use believing in something that isn’t true or heretical.

As you probably know, there’s something dreadfully wrong with this statement: “It doesn’t matter what they believe–as long as they are sincere.”

 was sincere in his belief that he was called by God to abduct children, murder entire families and displace over a million Sudanese so he could establish a theocratic kingdom.

Sincerity can go awfully wrong.

The same is true for Christians: It’s meaningless to be sincere in our belief but not know whether our belief is accurate or not.

We risk heresy if we do otherwise. Thus, the first element of saving faith is accurate content–notitia. Let’s look at the second.

Assensus–the Second Element of True Saving Faith

Second, we must believe that content is true. We must assent to it. This is assensus.

But it’s still not enough to redeem us.

I believe that Augustine wrote the City of God. However, that doesn’t redeem me. There has to be something more.

Fiducia–the Third Element to Saving Faith

The third element to saving faith is fiducia–personal trust and commitment in the accurate content we believe.

This is when a Christian accepts, receives and RELIES on Christ alone.

Granted, the message of that content is important. I could put my trust and commitment in Augustine–but it wouldn’t do me any good.

He’s not offering salvation. Only Jesus Christ is.

What Saving Faith Does to Our Lives

We look to Jesus [not Augustine nor any man] for justification, sanctification and eternal life.

With saving faith, we tremble at the commands of God…yield in obedience to the mandates of Christ…and put our trust in the promises of God for now and for the future.

In essence, it radically rearranges our lives. Christ becomes our object of delight. Our obsession.

And we long to do nothing more than please him. [We don’t always succeed, but that’s another story.]

Here’s the core content we we confess as true, deserving of our belief and worthy of our submission:

That Christ was born, willingly and perfectly lived under the law of God and died as an atoning act. We believe he was dead, buried and rose again.

Only when we believe that information is accurate and trust it holds the power to save us can we safely say we are born again.

Anything less and Jesus is not saving us.

Demons: Can We Still Believe in Them?

Leave a reply

 

In 1998, four psychologists interviewed twenty hospitalized psychiatric patients from the Hebei province in China.

Chinese physicians diagnosed these patients as hysterical.

The patients, however, believed their bodies were .

In other words, possessed.

Samples of Spirit Possession

One woman spoke of her dead aunt walking through her house as “a white person, but without a head.”

At times she actually believed the spirit occupied her body.

Another women–a 40-year old peasant women with five children and a Buddhist background–complained of chronic possession (some one suggested by a turtle) in which she blacked out and couldn’t remember the episode.

Here’s the million dollar question: Are these patients really possessed? Or severely psychologically disturbed? Let’s explore.

Dismissing the Doctrine of Demons

In today’s world, belief in demons is usually brushed aside as primitive–in company with elves and a flat earth.

In fact, one of the conclusions from the study above was that individuals who lacked education were more susceptible to folk beliefs.

They also raised the question of “whether the possession experience is a socially sanctioned mechanism that allows individuals in an oppressed social role to act out intolerable socio-psychological conflict.”

Both interesting points. Then this shouldn’t come as a surprise: While possession is a common experience in many cultures, in Western industrialized cultures such experiences are not the norm.

As Christians, then, what are we to do when skepticism about angels and demons is contrary to biblical testimony? Let’s see.

Biblical Testimony to Demons

Satan appears in the first book of the Bible and his activity doesn’t let up until Revelation.

And while demonic activity is somewhat subdued in the Old, the frequency of demonic appearances increases during Jesus’ ministry.

We even have a demonic proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah.

But outside the biblical assumption of demons, we have other reasons to affirm their existence.

  • Science ultimately can’t answer this question. Science seeks to observe and describe natural phenomena. Like it’s inadequacy in answering questions of morality, science isn’t fit to answer the spiritual.
  • Purely natural explanations of evil in this world are not adequate. The horrors of the  or a mother roasting her child in an oven imply a powerful force at work–not a mere chemical imbalance.
  • Learn from the broader sweep of history and culture. When you explore the cultures in Asia, Africa, Haiti and the Pacific Islands, you see a belief in evil spirits is a deep part of their culture. We need to respect that native soft knowledge. They may be on to something our science can’t reach.

In the end, this topic deserves a LOT of sensitivity. We certainly don’t want it to lead to uncritical views on demons. Nor do we want to open the door to bizarre practices of extreme individuals or groups.

Instead, we need to carefully craft a complete view of reality–one that balances both the natural and spiritual.

C. S. Lewis warned in the Screwtape Letters that we can give the topic too little attention–and too much attention. Both are mistakes.

The goal is to seek balance. Let me know what you think.

By the way, got a question you’d like me to answer in a post? Email me.

Why I Didn’t Defend a Six-Day Creation

Leave a reply

You may think less of me after this post.

Then again, maybe not.

I guess it just depends on where you land on this debate.

Let’s lay the groundwork first.

Groundwork Ahead

Last Friday I got an email from Daniel Wilson of  blog.

He asked a simple question. But very penetrating.

The kind of question that, in a sense, “calls you out.” That makes you pause and–well, think.

I knew exactly what he was referring to.

And I had a great reason for doing what I did. Indeed, my motives were good…

Just in the dark, ergo, Daniel’s question. What was THIS question? Here’s Daniel’s email:

There’s a question I’ve seen you avoid twice on your blog. I can understand why, but I am still very curious.

Do you believe in a literal, 6-day creation by God of the various kinds of living things?

Tough question.

Let’s run through my thought process on how I answered it. I think you’ll benefit.

How Important Is Creation to Me?

To begin, let’s deal with why I avoided this topic twice on my blog.

Really, it’s pretty simple: I’ve never had a firm opinion on this topic. I’ve never made a firm stand.

Why? I actually haven’t put enough gray matter to it.

Sure, I did listen to  and agree but walked away with a tad bit of uncertainty.

But why? If the Bible IS the inspired word of God–which I believe–then indeed those days mentioned in Genesis were in fact each 24-hours long as stated.

Hence, I affirm a 6-day creation.

Here’s Where I Started to Sweat

Part of me finds that answer insufficient though. I feel very uncomfortable claiming to be a 6-day creationist.

Why? Science’s domination on this topic. Assert yourself as a 6-day creationist and you’ll get scoffed. Ridiculed. Dismissed.

Scientific opposition 101.

What is that opposition really, though? Evolution and it’s suggestion that macro-evolution [non-observable event] is extrapolated from micro-evolution [observable event] plus time ad infinitum.

Personally, I don’t want to look like a fool because I’m hooked on the approval of man. But do I really have a case?

If I truly believe God to be omnipotent, then I could easily believe he created the world in six days.

Heck, I could believe he created the world in six hours. Standing on one arm. Singing opera. [Note: I don’t believe God has a body. Just saying.]

But that’s not the way it’s described. The writer of Genesis stated six days. So I affirm a six-day creation. In opposition to science.

To those who will complain that such a view is credulous and unsophisticated, :

It is certainly superior to the irrational notion that an ordered and incomprehensibly complex universe sprung by accident from nothingness and emerged by chance into the marvel that it is.

I agree.

Where I Don’t See Eye-to-Eye with MacArthur

There is one point I might disagree with MacArthur: I don’t think defending a six-day creation matters. Let me qualify that statement.

I don’t think it’s worth emotional or intellectual equity defending a six-day creation…especially with a non-believer…when we’ve got bigger fish to fry, namely new birth.

It’d be like me bickering with my wife over the placement of patio furniture on a deck attached to a house that we were losing to foreclosure.

Thus my tendency to avoid the issue and change the topic.

What’s paramount in the creation account is The Fall. The creation narrative is the setting. The Fall and subsequent redemption, the plot.

Don’t get me wrong. We need Genesis 1:1-3 in it’s entirety. Here’s MacArthur again on how  it is:

If Genesis 1-3 doesn’t tell us the truth, why should we believe anything else in the Bible? Without a right understanding of our origin, we have no way to understand anything about our spiritual existence. We cannot know our purpose, and we cannot be certain of our destiny. After all, if God is not the Creator, then maybe He’s not the Redeemer either. If we cannot believe the opening chapters of Scripture, how can we be certain of anything the Bible says?

It’s the WHY in my mind that trumps the HOW.

One Final Thought

Funny thing is, a six-day creation event is small beans when compared to some bigger beliefs we Christians share.

Take the Incarnation, for instance. God invaded his universe as a human. What?

Or what about the new birth–the belief that God raises us from spiritual death? Hell? The Second Coming?

Those, my friend, are tough nuts to swallow.

We are fortunate to live in a region of the world where apologetic materials are abundant. Answers to objections are everywhere.

Not so with those in restricted or persecuted countries. But this shouldn’t bother us. Or them.

While I respect science and what it says, in the end I need to go with God–and so do they–and his purposes revealed in the Scripture.

Listen: This is sometimes very hard for someone who unapologetically embraces the title intellectual snob–but persecution and hardship are the name of the game. Opposition is real.

And sometimes all we have is the Holy Ghost and a Bible. Fortunately, we have more.

Final, Final Thought

Here’s what I learned from Daniel’s email: We worship a creative God who demands singularity in our affections and dismisses all competitors…

And neglecting allegiance to him is simple blasphemy–even if that means rejection from our peers.

Therefore, I’d rather be at odds with the establishment than the God who created and sustains the people in that very establishment.

Christianity is a thinking man’s religion. , “You shall love the Lord God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind.”

This means we need to exercise all spheres of our beings–body and soul–if we want to honor God. This means beefing up in areas we are weak in. [For me, that would be the creation account. What about you?]

This also means answering challenging questions–questions that may challenge our very allegiance…questions that come from both outside our camp–and sometimes from inside.

It’s not always easy. But it’s necessary. Especially if we want to –a mandate no Christian can avoid.

So tell me: You still love me? Give me your thoughts. Brutal and all.

On the Second Coming: What You Can’t Neglect

Leave a reply

Forgive me, but there’s something you and I have forgotten.

It’s simply this: Christ will one day return.

When? We don’t know.

We do know that it will be .

And .

Unfortunately, we so often live as if Christ won’t return as he promised.

Often we lend so much of our time and energy and emotions and hope to the things of this world that we end up looking no different than non-believers.

Not surprising.

We live in a culture where we are bred to look no further than the end of our noses. Narcissism is in our bones.

We Live Differently Due to the Second Coming

But Christian: there’s more to our life than that. There’s more to our faith, our hope.

Paul in his  puts it like this:

and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

We live differently because we have a different future. We have a different hope.

A hope that inspires endurance. Holiness. Charity. Love. Gratitude. Adoration of the one to come.

We Are a Waiting People Due to the Second Coming

In one sense, this makes us a people who wait. But what exactly are we waiting for?

We wait for our salvation to be complete. Our innocence to be demonstrated. Our war with sin to end.

We wait for our final gratification and joy. We wait for the death of anxiety and misery.  We wait for the redemption of our bodies and all creation.

We wait for God to finally and fully vindicate his name. For Christ to expose his undeniable majesty to the world. And for every knee to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

So, what do we do in the meantime? Good question.

We Live Out the Gospel Due to the Second Coming

In the meantime, we give a little six-year-old girl who’s home has burned down new clothes and toys. We feed families devastated by poverty. We dig out parkas and blankets to share with the homeless.

We teach our children to love the lost. We show kindness every minute to our spouses. And we extend God’s grace to mankind.

We pray for the salvation of our brothers and sisters. Mothers and fathers. Sons and daughters. Friends far and wide. Strangers of all stripes.

Most importantly, though, we share the gospel.

We share the hope that through Christ’s death we are spared the coming day of God’s wrath and judgement…

And we tell them that God is graciously redeeming a rebellious people to adopt into his family and that they are invited to join.

Your Turn

That’s what we do in the meantime. Any questions? Any things we are waiting for that I missed? Any more examples of our duties while we wait?

Share your thoughts. Brutal and all.

The Enemy [It’s Not Who You Think]

Leave a reply

In view of this growing, hostile reaction to Christianity, you need to keep these three things in mind as you hash out your plan of attack–or retreat.

Books supporting evolution are not in short supply.

Stand just inside my local Barnes and Noble and you’ll see what I mean.

Lining a shelf of the new and notable science publications and you’ll see books like .

.

And .

Nothing unusual.

But it’s that last one–by none other than Richard Dawkins–that did it…

That got the gears going.

An Abundance of Books Easily Amuses Me

What surprised me most about this book was not that he wrote a book on the evidence of evolution…

But that he keeps on doing it. Systematically. Deliberately.

Naturally, his other books are just variations on the theme. The Blind Watchmaker. The God Delusion. The Selfish Gene.

Then there’s the hundreds more published by other authors. It’s a veritable cottage industry breaking into the big time.

But it’s also indicative of a sense of alarm about the future of evolution and the threat of superstition.

So, in the face of this sleepless opposition, what are Christians to do? Enter the Christian apologists.

Soon We Will Resort to Cage Matches

To be fair, neither is there a shortage of books AGAINST evolution.

For example, a month or two down the road Alistair McGrath, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, David Aikman–someone in the camp–will write a book called Evidence Against Evolution.

Or The REAL Greatest Show on the Earth: Evidence for Design.

No?

Well, I’m banking on history here, because this is nothing more than the thrust, counter-thrust, counter-counter-thrust, counter-counter-counter thrust of our current scientific-spiritual climate.

A climate brewing for the last forty years.

My observation boils down to this: We get our underwear in a wad, convinced our privileged nation is going to hell in a hand basket, and so we’ve got to roll up our sleeves and single handedly stop the steamroller called evolution.

Or atheism. Or pagan spirituality. Whatever you want to call it.

I’m Guilty, Too

Believe me, I hear that same voice every time a new book opposing Christianity is published.

Whether it’s by Ehrman, Dawkins, Young or Tolle.

I want to write the book that saws off the branch that evolution sits on. That pulls out the rug from under higher criticism. That drowns false prophets.

Vicious, I know.

And don’t get me wrong: This competition is healthy.

Yet in view of this growing, hostile reaction to Christianity, you need to keep these three things in mind as you hash out your plan of attack–or retreat.

Three Reasons Why You Should Chill

One, this shouldn’t surprise one thoughtful Christian at all. .

Second, evolution,  like all scientific views, has a shelf life.

In fact, it may surprise many to learn that most biologists at the start of the 20th Century .

Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged his theory with Mendelian genetics.

This is not an isolated event. The history of science is full of such turnabouts.

Whatever Happened to These Scientific Theories?

Ever heard of the geosynclinal theory? Of course not. It was buried alive by plate tetonics.

Geocentric view of the universe? Shoved aside by Copernicus and his trusty heliocentric view.

That phlogiston caused heat?  Well, oxidation burned this one at the stake.

Yes, Darwinism remains the consensus. [As do the others.] How long? A lot longer, I believe, than most because it is truly a great idea.

But that’s where it remains. As an idea.

Didn’t See This Coming

My final and third point is this: the –the region that covers South America, Africa and China.

What’s so special about it? It’s a region of the world that’s experiencing unprecedented growth in Christianity.

And here’s the kicker: This is occurring in the face of rigid anti-religious cultures.

It’s really quite astonishing if you think about what’s going on in China, for example.

 in a nation very unkind to Christianity.

And while not the poverty and persecution of the extremely repressive Cultural Revolution in 3 decades China’s gone from 3 million Christians to anywhere from 54 million to 130 million.

Conservately, that’s 18-fold jump in Christians. Go with the liberal number and we’re talking a 43-fold leap.

And get this.

This wave of Christianity is not led by foreign missionaries: Christianity in China spreads from person to person.

Government crackdowns and public scrutiny. Christians beaten, arrested and church leaders jailed. Converts remaining anonymous for fear of persecution.

As much as changed in China, much has remained the same. But Christianity spreads.

So, while we fight for legislation to protect our freedom of speech or prayer or our right to insist marriage should remain between a man and woman, our .

What Gives?

Quite frankly, we could use a little persecution. And not only of the academic sort.

In the West, we have lots of bandwidth to do much with. No surprise that Christianity comes in 356 colors.

And then some.

And neither is it a surprise that most Christians affirm the view that as long as people leave them alone they’ll leave them alone.

We are comfortable and want to stay that way.

Perhaps it would do us well be stripped of our freedoms. To be limited in our movement.

Perhaps creating laws that decreed publishing a book opposing evolution could lead to death. To make a stand against abortion punishable by torture.

I predict that much of what we know as the church today would run for the woods if this ever occurred…

Or commit outright treason against Christ. [I’m sounding rather alarmist myself, aren’t I?]

A Conclusion

In a nutshell, rather than wring our hands over the fear that the sky is falling in, our time would be better spent if we simply rejoiced and made discipleship of the nations a singular and solitary pursuit.

If we first sharpened our sense of sound doctrine and gospel truth.

And that we started with our own people.

Once we get back on that horse, then we can get on with the business of trampling evolution. Whacha think?

How to Deal with Religious Conflict

Leave a reply

What beliefs create peaceful behavior and deal with the discord of religion? Here’s the answer. Part of a series on truth.

There’s no getting around it: Everybody has an exclusive set of beliefs.

Moralists look down their noses at unbelievers as filthy, undisciplined misfits.

Secularists snub religious people as psychopathic nut jobs.

And pragmatists demand we shed our religious beliefs when we debate matters of life.

All privileged–but partial–views we hold over others.

Which View Is Right?

What we need to do [and what really matters in the long run] is to discover which set of beliefs create peaceful, inclusive and loving behavior…

…will radically change you into agents of reconciliation for the world…

…and deal with the discord of religion.

I know this sounds counter intuitive, but the set of beliefs that will do that are found in Christianity–and the uniqueness of the Christian gospel.

Here are three major ways Christianity is unique to other religious views.

1. Origin of Salvation

The founder of Christianity is not a human–he is God. God who came in the flesh. All other religious founders are human.

2. Purpose of Salvation

 That God came in the flesh is important. Most Eastern religions tend to teach liberation from the flesh. And most Western religions tend to condemn the flesh.

However, through the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity teaches that the flesh will be redeemed and renewed.

3. Method of Salvation

All other religions teach you to perform the truth to be saved. They put salvation in the hands of humans. Christianity, in contrast, puts salvation squarely in the hands of God:

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 

Jesus lived the life that we should have lived and died the death we deserved. He suffered for people who didn’t love him. And this is the highest act of love.

Is There One True Religion?

I believe so.

How can I say that in a flat, pluralistic world where every religious flower can bloom? And how does that deal with religious conflict?

In the next post I’ll explain how holding these unique truths of Christianity seals people off from religious superiority, transforms them into agents of peace and produces humble, patient and compassionate behavior…behavior that ultimately shuts down religious animosity.

Pragmatism: Where It Breaks Down [and Why You Should Care]

1 Reply

Pragmatist argue that it’s necessary to check our religious beliefs at the door when we debate issues. Unfortunately, that can’t work. Part of a series on truth.

Richard Rorty, the leading American philosophical pragmatist–who I wrote about in The Problem with Your Personal Testimony post–argues that when you come to the public square to debate issues like divorce, abortion or civil marriage, you should leave your religion at home.

That’s pragmatism.

Unfortunately, there’s a problem with that approach.

The problem exists in the nature of religion. Religion, at its core, is a set of beliefs about the hard questions of life.

Hard questions like what is really real? What is a human being? Why is it possible to know anything at all? How do we know what is right and what is wrong?

What Pragmatism Looks Like in the Public Square

Let’s pretend for a moment that the issue on the table is population control via contraception, abortion and infanticide.

Someone who believes [based upon their religious view] that a person becomes a human at inception would see abortion and infanticide as legislated manslaughter–no matter its practical impact on society or economics.

Yet, a person who doesn’t hold that belief–say, like utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer–might argue that abortion and limited infanticide is a reasonable mechanism to control population and decrease economic strain on the health system.

As you can see, the question becomes, “Who throws out their belief?” Both arguments emerge from their answers to hard questions of life.

Where I’m Going with This

But my point here is not to argue the merits of one case over the other.

My point is simply that it’s impractical to remove one’s religious view from the public square–even if they are controversial and faith based.

In fact, to say “Please, leave your religious views at home” is in itself controversial and faith based.

It smacks of anti-religion. And exclusivity.

It’s equivalent to saying “My views are privileged above yours.” In other words, my beliefs hold sway over yours…

And my beliefs are exclusive to truth.

What Comes Next

So, in the end, it’s not a matter of practicality or exclusivity when we debate issues in the public because we’ve seen that the pragmatic argument is equally indicted as making an exclusive claim to truth…

And we’ve also seen that you can’t determine what’s practical until you determine which world view you hold.

So, in the end, it’s not a matter of who’s views are religious or not. It’s a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong.

And it’s best to decide that with evidence.

With that in mind, tomorrow we’ll explore why it makes sense to embrace Christianity’s exclusive claim to truth.

Slaves to Satan (Our Condition Apart from New Birth)

Leave a reply

Part of the 10 Hard Truths about Being Born Again series.

This much is clear:

The path to new birth is strewn with opposition.

Death. Ignorance. Disobedience. Blindness. Bondage. Rage.

And as if that wasn’t enough to discourage or depress you, let me add another one…

Bondage to Satan.

Forget (Just About) Everything You Knew About Satan

In , Paul talks about the “snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

What is Satan’s will?

It’s not as sinister as you might think. Nor is it the graphically wicked portrait we picked up from the Middle Ages:

A horned half man, half goat carrying naked witches off to burn. Or an amorphous monster swallowing sinners.

No.

Satan’s will and work is, for the most part, more subtle. Though no less real.

His will is to work in unbeliever’s [sons of disobedience] so that they walk according to the course of this world.

And what is the course of the world? Rebellion. Particularly rebellion against God. Rebellion through arguments and speculations against the knowledge of God.

What This All Boils Down To

There are real spiritual influences behind ideas. There is more at work behind political, religious, philosophical, analytical or scientific ideologies than simple human effort to explain the universe, craft legislation or satisfy our souls.

That’s why Paul in  called Satan the prince of the power of the air: He’s the monarch of our corrupted world. And he comes upon us as unconsciously as the vital air we breathe.

He’s the god underneath guiding the course of this world. He’s the evil monarch who ranges through out the earth. And if a monarch–if a god–then he holds power. Sovereignty.

And rule over this world.

This is why Paul describes Satan’s reign in  as one of a stronghold imprisoning people during a war.

The Unconventional Behavior of a Believer in War Time

In fact, Paul often refers to himself as a “soldier.” So you know the warfare metaphor is real to him.

It should be real to us, too.

But how does a Christian soldier behave? We have to answer this question because how a believer–a bond-servant of Christ–behaves is quite contrary to what you might expect in war time.

We must get this right.

Fortunately, Paul gives us a hint. Five in fact. He says the Lord’s bond-servant in war time:

1. Must not be quarrelsome.

Christians may argue, correct, train and teach, but they must not do it in a vicious manner.

2. Must be kind to all.

This means understanding and respecting another’s position. Smiling. Joking. Complimenting.

3. Must be able to teach.

And you can teach only if you have content. And the right content at that.

4. Must be patient when wronged.

Do I really need to elaborate?

5. Must gently correct those who are in opposition.

The core of our existence as believers. “Go, and make disciples of all nations.”

You can find this list in .

And Paul’s thrust in this list is a hope that by obeying the Great Commission with grace and mercy God may perhaps grant a person repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.

So, even though the path to salvation is loaded with opposition, we have hope. Faith. Trust that through the gospel of Jesus Christ people may come alive. They may see. Embrace. Adore. And rest in the peace of God.

Salvation is hard. But that’s why it’s a divine rescue operation by God. And not us.

10 Questions with an Atheist: John Loftus

1 Reply

Part of the 10 Questions with an Atheist series.

John Loftus was a philosophy instructor at a secular college when he decided to walk away from Christianity.

It wasn’t easy.

The only thing Loftus had known since he was 18 was learning, teaching and defending Christianity.

During that time he had chased several divinity degrees and a PhD. Launched an apologetic journal. Sat under William Lane Craig. Even served as Senior Minister at Angola Christian Church in Indiana from 1987 to 1990.

But in the space of five years–1991 to 1996–Loftus endured a major crisis, crawled through boxes of new information and searched for the caring, loving Christian community that just wasn’t there.

It was these  him to reject Christianity. This is his story.

1. How would you describe yourself: atheist, agnostic or skeptic? Explain.

Thanks for wanting to learn from me. I appreciate this and would hope other Christians would follow your example rather than just blasting people like me.

Let me state for the record that I consider myself first and foremost a freethinker who especially approaches all religious claims with skepticism. All such claims are extraordinary and so they require a lot of evidence before I will believe them, just like evangelicals do with Catholic claims of miracles at Lourdes.

Skepticism is not a belief system. It’s an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters.

We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don’t understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don’t see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in.

We won’t even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That’s how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be. To see this argued for I recommend Jason Long’s book, the Religious Condition. .

Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science.

If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It’s just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.

Such skepticism has led me to atheism. There are no supernatural entities or forces at all, although since I cannot state that with a measure of certainty I’m best described as an agnostic atheist.

 2. When did you know you were an agnostic atheist? Did it scare you or was it a non-issue?

The process I went through was long, almost thirteen years. I went through several stages representative of the history of Christian theology itself, until I came to my present position today.

I questioned the Biblical accounts of creation, then Genesis 1-11, and then other portions of the Bible began falling like dominoes. I became a deist, an existential liberal, a full blown agnostic and then an atheist.

What finally tipped the balance for me was why there didn’t seem to be a reasonable initial solution to our existence. The best explanation for this state of affairs was that it happened by chance. An eternally existing fully formed triune divine being who has never learned anything did not explain anything at all for me.

While I was relived to come to this conclusion, the initial process was the most agonizing. It was indeed scary because of the eternal threat of hell. So I had to be very sure I was correct, so sure that I would be willing to risk the threat of hell if I was wrong. And I do. That’s how sure I am Christianity is a delusion. That should say something I think.

And I had invested so much time and money in my education with a hopeful career and many Christian friends that it was also scary to decide to leave that community and my goals.

It can be a painful thing to leave the faith. We like our comfort-zones. We don’t want to leave a community of friends. They won’t come with us. We leave alone. It’s literally like a divorce. I then had to reinvent myself.

 3. Ever suffer persecution as an agnostic atheist?

I am personally attacked every single day because I argue against Christianity. That’s why I am forced to moderate comments on my blog.

I want a decent respectable discussion of the ideas that separate us or none at all. If it is opened up for anonymous comments the Blog would degenerate into a name calling free for all on both sides.

It appears that some Christians feel personally attacked because I disagree with their ideas and that’s a non-sequitur. Since I begin my book as a “tell all” account of my personal life they have used that information to personally malign me at every occasion they can.

My initial reactions to such abuse were polite but then degenerated as I wallowed in the mire with them. I’ve since become inured from such attacks and I ignore them for the most part.

It would seem that the Christians who do so probably cannot deal with my arguments so that’s the only thing left they can do. There are several blogs dedicated to maligning me personally and hardly ever seriously engage my arguments. One intelligent Christian wrote me about one such blog writer: “You clearly have gotten under his skin and he clearly feels that he cannot take you on intellectually or else he would make each blog post a critique of your work – either that or he is childish.”

The way I have been verbally attacked leads me to think that if they had the political power of the church during the Inquisition they would’ve lit the fires that burned me at the stake while singing “Kumbaya.”

 4. What do you want to accomplish with your life?

I have several personal, private goals, like being happily married to my wife Gwen until death do us part. She’s perfect for me.

Other than that I want to change the religious landscape in America bit by bit, one person at a time. I think we’d be better off without religion, especially the fundamentalist kind. I really do, although it’s probably never going to go away.

I do think that just as the liberalizing tendencies have changed Christianity down through the centuries, they will continue to do so into the future. As such, fundamentalists will be forced to choose to live in the backwoods without having much political power.

What’s interesting to me is how Christianity is debunked in every generation but rather than admit their debunking and leave the fold Christians reinvent their faith in light of skeptical arguments.

The Christianity of today is not like the Christianity of a hundred years or a few centuries ago or like the earliest varieties of Christianity in the beginning few centuries. The Christianity of tomorrow will not look like the one that exists today, either. They will think their version is the correct one and that the Christians of today were wrong about several things, possibly significant things. Too bad we cannot compare those Christianities because they are not here yet.

You see, since death ends my life I must give everything I can to the present one. That’s all I have. And I want to make a difference for my children and their children and their children because I care about them. I do not want it to be said in the future that I didn’t do my best for my future great- great- great- Grandchildren. I want them to remember me with fondness for what I did for their future.

And it’s too bad that if I’m right about death no one will ever know that I was, because we won’t wake up after death to realize that death ends it all.

We go where dogs and parasites and sharks go when they die. Any account of heaven that leaves all other living creatures out of it is seriously deficient, but then having mosquitoes and skunks in heaven would be deficient as well.

 5. Who are your heroes? Why?

My wife. She’s my main encourager and motivator. My rock. She believes in me like no one else.

My intellectual hero by far is . He is dismantling evangelical Christianity like probably no one has ever done in any generation. He has the knowledge and the recent tools at his exposure.

And he treats Christianity with respect. He writes both scholarly and popular books. My philosophical heroes on a very short list in modern times are Michael Martin, William L. Rowe, Paul Draper, Keith Parsons, Theodore Drange and J.L. Schellenberg. My heroes in the recent past are Bertrand Russell, and J.L. Mackie.

When it comes to debunking Christianity one of my heroes of the past is , and in the present day I must mention , my friend.

Among Biblical scholars of today Hector Avalos and his efforts stand head and shoulders above others. I also respect the efforts of Edward T. Babinski (who first encouraged me), Robert M. Price, and Richard Carrier.

David Eller, an anthropologist, is the one voice that should take atheism into the future. He should be one of the main spokespersons for atheism. There are others.

And not to mention the so-called “,” I appreciate the way they have grabbed the attention of believers in America. Like many minorities of the past someone had to stand up before the world and say unabashedly with force that the Emperor has no clothes on. I appreciate their courage and conviction.

Now people are looking seriously at our claims and there are even shelves for atheist books in major national bookstore chains because of them.

 6. What would you like to accomplish with your blog?

I think I already answered that in question #2. Needless to say I believe the Blog will outlast me and be a force for debunking Christianity long after I’m gone, as long as there is an internet.

I want to treat Christianity with respect while I debunk it as a delusion, i.e., as false.

Believers with doubts now have a place to be able to learn from us and express themselves in a respectful environment. In the church doubts are not expressed, nor are questions encouraged. So they have little option but to look on the web for answers, and you know the answers we’ll provide them.

 7. What’s your favorite part about being an agnostic atheist?

My favorite part is being able to do what’s right because it’s right and not because I have to find a Biblical passage that tells me it’s right. I can think for myself.

I don’t have to try to justify what I do from the Bible. I don’t have to try to justify why I never tithed the whole ten percent (Christians do not do this by far–as a former minister I know they don’t), or why I never spent enough time in prayer, or why I did not give thanks for everything, or why I did not evangelize all of the time, or why I didn’t do more in response to my belief that God sent his son to atone for my sins.

And I no longer have to gerrymander what the Bible says in order to make the unreasonable and improbable believable. I never could figure out how Jesus could be 100% God and 100% man, nor was there any cogent way to understand how Jesus atoned for my sins, nor do I have to try to justify why there is so much evil in the world if there is a perfectly good and omnipotent God, nor do I have to justify my belief that women are equal to men from the Bible, or why slavery was okay in the Bible but not now, or why genocide was a command that a perfectly good God who cares for every individual person commanded.

 8. Are there any Christian concepts that you respect?

You mean distinctively Christian concepts, don’t you, since we all share many other concepts and ideas. There are no distinctively Christian concepts that I accept. The ones I do accept I do so because of other reasons.

I think marriage should be monogamous between two committed people. I think it’s better to tell the truth and to forgive people who do you wrong. I fully accept democratic capitalism, the rights of all people to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until someone harms another person or group, and I support the first amendment, for starters.

But when it comes to respecting distinctively Christian ideas, it’s hard to do. I do treat these ideas respectfully, but I do not respect them at all. I do recognize certain Christian scholars who are experts at mental gymnastics and I marvel at the contorted reasoning they use to support these ideas, so I respect their intelligence at defending delusional beliefs, yes.

But the beliefs themselves are complete and utter hogwash, most notable Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology, which if that was the very first issue he ever wrote about in his career would probably have been ignored even by most Christian scholars.

There are, though, several major Christian thinkers who have proposed what I called the “,” (some others are mentioned in a comment by Heyzeus7 below mine).

I have to respect Christian thinkers who can do this for their faith even if I think what they defend is utterly false.

 9. Does it irritate you when Christians try to share their faith with you?

Not at all, unless they simply quote the Bible to me and refuse to think about the ideas they believe based on what they quote. Bible thumpers are complete ignoramuses and do irritate me.

10. Were you ever a Christian? Would you go back?

This first question is a double-edge one. On the one hand I believed the Bible and trusted in God’s salvation, studied what I thought was his word, prayed daily, and sought to share my faith, yes. I was a Christian in the same sense that any believer you know, including yourself, professes faith in Christ.

But on the other hand, from my perspective today, I was never a Christian, if by that one means someone who was actually in a saved relationship with God-in-Christ. I was never Christian in the sense that there is no truth to Christianity.

If being a Christian means that I had a personal relationship with God-in-Jesus Christ, then I never had such a relationship, for such a supernatural being is based upon non-historical mythology. There is no divine forgiveness because there is no divine forgiver. There was no atonement because Jesus did not die for the world’s sins. There was no God-man in the flesh to believe in. My petitionary prayers were nothing but wishful hoping.

And this goes for any professing believer, too. You are not a Christian, either, because there is no Christ, no Messiah, no God-in-the-flesh, no Holy Spirit regeneration, no devil and no heaven to go to when you die.

Would I ever go back? Not to evangelical Christianity, that’s for sure. I left that for good.

Your Turn

John, I want to thank you very much for taking the time and being so frank and honest. This was a very compelling and rewarding read. Anyone have any questions, comments or concerns? Have at it.

10 Questions with an Atheist: Robert Madewell

1 Reply

Part of the 10 Questions with an Atheist series.

Robert Madewell is an atheist living in Northern Arkansas in the United States.

He was raised as an evangelical Christian and even had an interest in the ministry.

However, in the process of asking questions and reading the Bible, he found Christianity to be false and rejected the belief in God as superstition. During his deconversion process, he’s even tried many different denominations. His blog is called .

Everyone, welcome Robert Madewell.

1. How would you describe yourself: atheist, agnostic or skeptic? Explain.

All three. Atheism is believing there’s no God. Agnosticism is having no evidence that God exists. Skepticism is examining the evidence before you believe it. I have identified as either an atheist or an agnostic (among other things) at different times in my life. I now identify as an atheist. Those terms are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists that I know personally would identify as all three as well.

2. When did you know you were an atheist, agnostic, skeptic? Did it scare you or was it a non-issue?

It’s hard for me to pin down an exact date when I realized that I was an unbeliever. It was a gradual process. However, I’ve been identifying as an atheist for a little over 2 years. I have swung over the belief and unbelief fence several times. I have identified as evangelical free, baptist, pentecostal, seventh day Adventist, transcendentalist, agnostic, and atheist during different periods of my life.

Yes, I was scared at first. When your world view comes crashing down, it’s not comfortable. I really prayed hard that God would make his presence known to me. When that didn’t happen, I realized that there’s really nothing to be afraid of.

3. Ever suffer persecution as an atheist?

No, not by my definition. Which is surprising considering where I live. I live in the middle of the “bible belt” in the United States. I am not hiding my unbelief. I often confront ministers in my area. It’s no secret how I believe.

So far, I’ve had lots of fun being the local skeptic. I’ve learned much more about Christianity by being the skeptic than I did by being a christian.

4. What do you want to accomplish with your life?

I want to promote critical thinking and science in Northern Arkansas. I’m a man of limited means, so I’m not sure what to do. But, activism for critical thinking is sorely needed in Arkansas. Promoting atheism is not my goal, however, promoting the tools I use to examining belief systems is.

5. Who are your heroes? Why?

I have lots of heroes. My Dad’s my biggest hero, because he’s my Dad. My Grandfather was a great critical thinker (except when it came to religion). I guess my biggest hero outside of my family would be . Randi has done more than most to promote critical thinking and skepticism.

6. What would you like to accomplish with your blog?

The original purpose of my blog was to investigate the superstitious aspects of religion. I’m not sure that I have stuck to that purpose. I’d like to get back to that goal.

7. What’s your favorite part about being an atheist?

That’s a hard question. I’m not sure that life as an atheist has turned out to be all that different than life as a theist, in the long run. I guess that if I have to answer the question, my answer would be my new outlook on life. Also, I no longer have to worry about the “thought crimes” as much as I did as a christian. I no longer worry if my thoughts will send me to Hell. Thoughts are totally harmless as long as they remain just thoughts. Besides, who can control their thoughts completely anyways?

8. Are there any Christian concepts that you respect?

Sure! Loving your neighbor as much as yourself () is the best verse in the entire bible. Jesus quotes it in the new testament several times. If everyone practiced that verse, the world would be a much better place.

9. Does it irritate you when Christians try to share their faith with you?

It depends. If the christian is just looking to proselytize and won’t consider any arguments, then I am not interested. But, if he/she wants an honest discussion, then I’m all for it. I do not respect the dismissive attitude that I get from many Christians in my area.

10. Were you ever a Christian? Would you go back?

Yes, I was a fundamentalist. My father is an evangelical minister. I was indoctrinated. I think that I have always been a critical thinker. I would ask my Sunday school teachers some very hard questions. I think the hardest question I ever asked was, “What is God?” I actually got in trouble and was punished for asking that, because, I wouldn’t accept the stock answers. That’s when I realized that if the belief system couldn’t hold up to simple inquiry, then that belief system is likely false.

It’s possible. I won’t deny it. I have jumped that fence many times. It could happen again. However, I don’t think it’s as likely that I would now as it had been in the past. After all, I am human and as a human we all have a tendency toward believing superstition. I am no different. I think that my study into critical thinking in the past two years makes that possibility slimmer, though.

Bonus question:What’s your take on Peter Singer?

Singer is not well known in the United States. I don’t know enough about him to say one way or the other.

Your Turn

Robert, thank you for the time and thought you put into answering these questions. I especially appreciate your openness.