|
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bismark, ND
Posts: 325
|
Carm to ban atheists
Some atheist named "ohwow" wrote an OP at a CARM discussion board, citing various bible texts to prove that apostle Paul prohibited the exact kind of prolonged ceaseless debating of the Christian faith that the CARM boards were specifically designed to facilitate.
Matt Slick responded by saying he thought the atheist did a decent job, and was tickled to think that it was an atheist who made him consider these bible verses, which require shunning of non-Christians, more seriously.
Carm's boards are private, so here is the OP, Matt's response, then the atheist's rejoinder.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Titus 3:8-12
8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
9 But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
12 When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, make every effort to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there.
|
Does Matt Slick, who views atheists as fools and their doubt of the bible as God's word as "foolish", "shun" any atheists "dispute about the law"? Not at all, Matt encourages atheists to try and attack God's word with whatever controversy they wish to bring up, and we indeed, do bring up many. Do you ever plan on obeying the "shun" part?
1 - "reject"...unless you wish to say it means reject a Christian over non-essential doctrine, "reject" obviously requires that the debating was on a subject that WOULD justify excommunication, such as essential doctrine.
2 - Titus 3 forbids warning the factious man with essential doctrine more than twice. Yet Matt Slick encourages Christians to warn the same factious people hundreds of times, on the subject of essential doctrines.
3 - the factious man is "self-condemned". This places him at the spiritual level of an unbeliever, requiring, that the factious man could also be an unbeliever, which means this passage is not limited to in-house Christian disputes. It also tells Christians what to do with factious unbelievers. Do you reject factious people? Why not?
4 - "foolish controversies". Matt Slick and every fundie at Carm will agree that questioning God's existence and questioning essentials of the Christian faith is "foolish". That means Matt Slick and every fundie here can see Paul condemning ceaseless discussion between Christians and atheists in Titus 3:9-11 just as much as I do. Yet Matt and every fundie at Carm just love to ceaselessly correct/warn the same factious individuals, whose questioning and doubt of God and essential doctrine obviously has the potential to cause other Christians to lose faith, which is the apostasy-effect Paul obviously wished to avoid.
5a - "diputes about the law", not just foolish questions. Disputes about the law are quite simply forbidden, period. yet Matt Slick encourages Christians and heretics and skeptics to ceaselessly engage in "disputes about the law", with no end in sight as long as everybody obey's Matt's rules of civil discourse. Worse Matt and the fundies would agree that disputes of heretics and unbelievers about the Law are necessarily "foolish", coming from hearts that are in rebellion to God).
5b - "and strifes". Strife generally is forbidden. Unless you wish to argue that Paul was NOT forbidding "strife"?
6 - That was enough to prove that Titus 3:9-11 condemns apologetics ministries today, all of which are founded by people who are quite happy to "defend the law (OT)", when, by their very own Christian outlook, such questions are "foolish", and therefore must be shunned, period.
7 - Titus 3:9-11 is just as clear as "don't commit adultery". You should therefore condemn any professing Christian who claims to follow the bible, but has disobeyed this passage for 10 years consistently, just as surely as you'd condemn a Christian who has been committing adultery consistently for the last 10 years.
8 - A plethora of other bible verses support the idea that Christians CANNOT simply debate, debate, debate continually the same factious people:
Quote:
Quote:
2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
|
(Don't Christians of different denominations differ on doctrine precisely because they don't see the same words the same way? What else is a doctrinal dispute among Christians today, who all quote the New Testament, except a "wrangling of words"? Note carefully: he didn't say useless wrangling of words was to be avoided...he said wrangling of words was useless. This verse condemns any and all "wrangling of words" between Christians of different denominations.)
Quote:
Quote:
2 Timothy 2:23
23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
|
(By the admission of the CARM Christians themselves, the single solitary purpose of skeptics, given that their hearts persist in rebellion against God, is to offer speculations which can only be biblically described as foolish and ignorant. Unfortunately, Matt Slick has provided the perfect way for skeptics to promote their stuff to Christians, and the fundie Christians here hardly ever "refuse" them.
Quote:
Quote:
2 Timothy 3:1-5
1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
|
Fundie Christians at CARM have, for the last 10 years, characterized atheists and skeptics with Paul's epithets above...yet...these fundies never obey the rest of Paul's command, which is to AVOID such men! If you are sure that atheists and skeptics love themselves, hate the good and revile the truth, and love pleasure more than God, then why aren't you avoiding them as the bible requires you to?
Quote:
Quote:
Matthew 7:6
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
|
(Why do you constantly disobey this bible verse by giving your pearls of Christian apologetics to the swine or atheist "fools", and on such a consistent basis?
Quote:
Quote:
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
|
(since atheism is foolish in the bible, discussion of it's merits would therefore be deemed a "foolish controversy" in Titus 3.)
Quote:
Quote:
Proverbs 10:18
He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool.
|
(skeptics and other liberal Christians at Carm slander various biblical characters all the time)
Quote:
Quote:
Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.
|
(By and large, the atheists and heretics at CARM have not budged substantially from positions they held 10 years ago. Metacrock would be the first to insist that atheists are unwise...yet you, like he, never make yourself stop warning the atheist or unwise after two admonitions...you just keep right on going forever in blatant disregard for Titus 3).
Quote:
Quote:
Proverbs 14:7
Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.
|
(Do you leave the presence of a fool at CARM [i.e. by placing them on ignore, after the second warning?] If not, you disobey Titus 3).
Quote:
Quote:
Proverbs 14:16
A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless.
|
(The fundies here are forced by their "biblical" stance to identify all atheists as fools and careless. If this be true, why would you keep warning the same factious man more than twice, anymore than you'd warn a brick wall?)
Quote:
Quote:
Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.
|
(CARM encourages violation of this every single day by facilitating ceaseless discussion between Chrstians and those whom CARM and the bible identify as "fools".)
Quote:
Quote:
Proverbs 26:11
Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly
|
.
(you constantly debate atheists and heretics whom you say hold "foolish" views, and because they never convert to Christianity, they "repeat their folly". Why do you waste your time with such, if the bible's description of them and it's prohibition against ceaseless debating be true?)
And finally, in light of the bible's other teachings that place limitations on the kind of circumstances in which you can defend your faith, what bible passages specifically justify CEASELESS debate and argument between Christians and non-Christians?
I trust that I have proven that because CARM never attempts to either avoid "foolish" people and their "foolish" arguments, but actually encourages Christians to discuss such things, which very often boil down to the forbidden "wrangling of words", Matt Slick's CARM ministry was founded with an attitude of rebellion toward undeniably clear scriptural mandate.
If you cannot refute my interpretations of these bible passages, then how do you think CARM should change? If the bible forbids Christians for engaging with fools, and the bible says atheists and heretics are fools, could a Christian obey God while creating an apologetics discussion site for Christians to engage with heretics and atheists?
What other conclusion does my analysis here require, except that Matt is in severe violation of numerous New Testament commands, and that he needs to shut down CARM just as quickly as any Christian needs to stop committing adultery?
|
Matt Slick responds:
Quote:
Believe it or not, I really appreciate your post. What you have raised is something I've been contemplating lately. Should I continue to talk with atheists or should I ban them?
To clarify, in Titus 1 it says to reject a factious man. But, it is dealing with someone inside the church teaching error. The Greek word for "factious" is "heresy". Church discipline is then offered by rejecting him. Before that, the "shunning" is dealing with topics, not necessarily individuals. So, I don't think that the Titus quote applies to atheists.
However, I think your quote of second Timothy 3:1-5 is much better suited to your case. I've been contemplating this very thing about trying to work with atheists. I have been wondering that whenI discover or am convinced that they an atheist is truly a reviler, unholy, full of hatred, etc. who has no interest in actually learning about God, then perhaps at that point I should "avoid such men as these," (2 Tim. 3:4). The best way to do that would be to ban them from the discussion boards and move on to other atheists who might be willing to have more meaningful conversations.
I won't comment about the rest of the verses you cited because I think your point is sufficiently made.
Now, on the other hand, there are Scriptures that do exemplify reasoning and debating with unbelievers. For example,
we are told to contend for the faith (Jude 3).
" and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen," (Acts 6:9).
Saul (Paul), argued with the Jews in Damascus about Jesus being the Christ, "But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ," (Acts 9:22).
Paul reasoned from the Scriptures with the Jews in acts 17 about the person and work of Christ.
etc.
So, it is not unbiblical to argue with unbelievers in trying to convince them of the truth of the person of Christ. In fact, in order to do that, we need such things as CARM, so shutting down CARM doesn't follow from your thinking. But, it does seem there comes a time when we discover that some individuals have no hope of repenting, coming to the truth, etc., but instead continue to revile the truth of God and the Son. It would seem then we should have nothing more to do with them -- which would probably mean removing them from the boards.
In closing I would like to say that I'm actually quite tickled that an atheist brought this up and did a decent job of it. Thank you for helping me consider this more seriously.
|
"ohwow" then responded:
Quote:
First, it was Titus 3. And since you admit to "shunning" of divisive topics, while CARM shuns nothing except Satanism or Universalism, you seem to be agreeing with me that your boards allow more free expression and communication of various Christian ideas than Titus 3 allows.
Second, I already answered that response. Atheists have just as much ability to cause division among Christians as "heretical" congregation members do.
Third, and worse, CARM makes it possible for atheists to discuss their ideas with Christians just as much as it makes it possible for "heretics" to discuss their ideas with Christians. Paul only had to worry about actual physical meetings since that was the only way to communicate ideas within the church. However, CARM's choice to put Christians into ceaseless contact with heretics and atheists for ceaseless debate and "wrangling of words" contradicts the entire purpose of the "reject the man" clause in Titus 3. So not only were you wrong to exclude atheists from Titus 3, but even if that were the case, Paul wanted them gone for fear of division, which would logically mean he'd want anyone shunned or rejected for causing division, such as atheists.
Fourth, just like the first century, Christians may still find heresy and atheism supported by other posters at CARM, and perhaps carry those into their physical church gatherings, thereby accomplishing the purpose that Paul wanted to destroy. The fact that Carm is on the internet therefore does not protect it from the accusation that it is allowing corruption into the church just as much as the failure to obey Titus 3 in the first century would have.
Quote:
Quote:
However, I think your quote of second Timothy 3:1-5 is much better suited to your case. I've been contemplating this very thing about trying to work with atheists. I have been wondering that whenI discover or am convinced that they an atheist is truly a reviler, unholy, full of hatred, etc. who has no interest in actually learning about God, then perhaps at that point I should "avoid such men as these," (2 Tim. 3:4). The best way to do that would be to ban them from the discussion boards and move on to other atheists who might be willing to have more meaningful conversations.
|
Incorrect: your bible does not permit you to classify any atheist as more open to the truth that any other atheist. Your bible classifies ALL atheists as hating god and loving pleasure equally. To avoid the charge of being inconsistent with the bible, therefore, you'd have to treat ALL atheists the same way. If you ban one, ban all. And you Calvinism would seem to intensify your apparant belief that atheists are by definition NOT open to the truth. In Calvinism, you are either spiritually dead or spiritually alive. In Calvinism, the spiritually dead CANNOT, and therefore DO not, seek God, so there is no sense in which a Calvinist could say some atheists are more open to the gospel than others.
Quote:
Quote:
I won't comment about the rest of the verses you cited because I think your point is sufficiently made.
|
Well I hope your Christian brothers, who mocked my OP here to hell and back, read that!
Quote:
Now, on the other hand, there are Scriptures that do exemplify reasoning and debating with unbelievers. For example,
we are told to contend for the faith (Jude 3).
Of course, but unless you say there is a contradiction between Jude 3 and Titus 3, you'd have to admit that one modifies the other. Jude 3 is NOT authorizing ceaseless contention and wrangling of words, which is exactly what CARM allows.
Quote:
Quote:
" and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen," (Acts 6:9).
|
Stephen proves in his answer not to ceaselessly debate and wrangle over words, but to make his case. His death caused him to stop making is case, but under your assumption of biblical inerrancy, the holy spirit filled Stephen would presumably have cut his speech off after discerning that his opponents had no interest in his spirit-filled words.
Quote:
Quote:
Saul (Paul), argued with the Jews in Damascus about Jesus being the Christ, "But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ," (Acts 9:22).
|
That is a mere historical report, that is not a biblical author telling the reader to imitate this particular action. Just like tongues was necessary for a time but not now, it could be argued that when Christianity was new, it was necessary to wrangle over words for a bit to drive home the point, but that need no longer exists in our modern world where we can speak to 5000 people with the click of a button, which people are a click or two away from consevative commentaries that address the issue.
Quote:
Quote:
Paul reasoned from the Scriptures with the Jews in acts 17 about the person and work of Christ.
|
You overlook that the pastorals are late, and if written by Paul, are thus written in his old age, which seems to indicate that his instructions not to argue with others is a subtle condemnation of his younger days, when, like any new spirit-filled Christian, he wanted to refute everybody and everything possible.
Quote:
Quote:
So, it is not unbiblical to argue with unbelievers in trying to convince them of the truth of the person of Christ. In fact, in order to do that, we need such things as CARM, so shutting down CARM doesn't follow from your thinking. But, it does seem there comes a time when we discover that some individuals have no hope of repenting, coming to the truth, etc., but instead continue to revile the truth of God and the Son.
|
Incorrect: Again, you are trying to save your argument by suggesting that CARM would do good for unbelievers who ARE interested in the truth, when in fact the bible and your own Calvinism forbid any such foolishness as an unbeliever who is seriously interested in God. The bible talks about unbelievers with too much condemnation for you to suggest that some of them are more open to the gospel than others. If they are unbelievers, every bible verse calling them names and condemning their motivations comes crashing down on their heads. The first point of Calvinism insists that non-Christians not only aren't interested in God, but are UNABLE to respond positively to the gospel. Therefore, why you, a Calvinist, distinguish some unbelievers as more open to the gospel than others, remains a mystery. And those who seem more open to God, the bible would say are simply interested for their own selfish sakes, not because they are geuninely sorrowful for their sin.
Quote:
Quote:
It would seem then we should have nothing more to do with them -- which would probably mean removing them from the boards.
|
Which prompts the question, "How can Matt Slick have failed to notice what the bible has been clearly teaching, for the last 10 years?"
Also, my OP here also exposed the unbiblical nature of allowing Christians to wrangle over words, not just require Christians to shun atheists. If you believe I did a decent job...well...part of that job was to show how the bible condemns ceaseless debating between Christians. The bible verses that require you to ban atheists, also implore you to stop facilitating the constant "wrangling over words" and "disputes about the law" that the Christians alone engage in here. Therefore my original suggestion, that ALL debate and discussion boards be closed, remains a solid contender for how to deal with my argument.
Will "imperfection" always bail out a zealous Christian who finds out much later that they had something completely wrong? You were SURE that God was blessing your apologetics ministry, with you and other Christians ceaselessly debating every hardened skeptic in the world. Will you now admit you completely missed the rather clear teaching against you presented in the pastorals?
Quote:
Quote:
In closing I would like to say that I'm actually quite tickled that an atheist brought this up and did a decent job of it. Thank you for helping me consider this more seriously.
|
Making us wonder why, as a spirit-filled Christian, you needed spiritually blind people like atheists to convince you of what God really meant in the bible.
|
Please comment on this exchange, do those bible verses really prohibit Christians from engaging in debate with skeptics and heretics?
Please give your answer to the following question: Would it be a good thing, or bad thing, if Christians took such bible verses seriously and therefore started refusing to discuss their religion with atheists? I say bad, because this kind of prohibition on communicating with those who are not part of the cult, is the exact same kind of tactic emphasized in other cults to help insure that the members never learn how wrong the cult leader is.
You know the drill..."Don't read worldly non-Christian stuff, that's just the devil trying to make you doubt!", etc:devil1:
|
12-02-2009, 11:34 PM
