More on Ricky Gervais Interview

The interview with Ricky Gervais, which I had linked to and discussed in earlier posts, raises more interesting points that are worth commenting on. About ¾ way into the video the following exchanges take place between Ricky and Stephen:

Ricky: We want to make sense of nature and science, and it is too unfathomable. Everything in the universe was once crunched in some small atom.

Stephen: But you don’t know that. You are just believing Stephen Hawking and that’s a matter of faith in his abilities. You don’t know it yourself. You are accepting that because someone told you.

Ricky: But science is proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, and any holy book, and any other fiction, and destroyed it, okay. In a 1,000 years time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in a 1,000 years they’d all be back because all the same tests would give the same result.

There are several issues with those remarks. Firstly, his equating the Bible (and other “holy books”) with “fiction” is part of his belief-system. That doesn’t make it true. There is no scientific “proof” that the Bible is fiction. It is part of his belief-system. He presents his belief-system as though it were established fact. There is no “science” that can prove that the story of Moses, or the story of Jesus to be fiction. Just because he thinks it is, doesn’t make it so. He wants to tell us that his belief-system is superior to other people’s; or that his belief-system is “fact,” while everybody else’s is “fiction”. It is a bit arrogant of him to do that. There is no proof that his belief-system is superior to anybody else’s; or that his is “fact,” while other people’s is “fiction”.

Secondly, his claim that if the Bible and all other holy books were destroyed, they would never come back, is equally questionable. If there is a God who gave them to us in the first place, the same God could give them back to us again—or reveal his will to us again through other prophets, in the same way that he has done in the Bible. The assumption that they wouldn’t come back, or that the same God would not or could not reveal his will to us again as he had done before, is again part of his belief-system. It doesn’t make it true. He keeps presenting to us his belief-system as though it were some kind of objective fact, when it isn’t.

Thirdly, his assumption that all of the “science” would come back is also questionable. He fails to distinguish between scientific fact and scientific theory. Scientific facts would come back, but not scientific theories. It is a scientific fact that the earth is round and not flat. That would come back. But the Big Bang is not a scientific fact. It is a scientific theory, which may or may not be true, in which case it may not come back. Evolution is likewise a scientific theory, not a scientific fact. If it is true it would come back, but not if it is false. Just because a lot of people believe in it doesn’t make it true.

In that interview he makes other comments which can be challenged. At some point earlier he makes the following statements:

Stephen: Is there a prime mover [God]? Is there a demiurge that started everything?

Ricky: Well, outside of science and nature, I don’t believe so … that’s the thing, I’m an agnostic atheist technically. Agnostic means no one knows if there is a God. So everyone is technically an agnostic because we don’t know. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know there is a God or not, as no one does, …

Stephen: So you are not convicted of your atheism—you are not sure.

Ricky: Well I am because atheism is only rejecting the claim that there is a God. Atheism isn’t a belief-system. … this is atheism in a nutshell: you say “There is a God”. I say, “Can you prove that?” You say, “No.” I say, “I don’t believe you then.”

There are quite a lot of false assumptions, incorrect statements, and logical inconsistencies in those comments. Firstly, an agnostic is someone who takes the position that no one knows (including himself), and is therefore neutral on the issue. That does not translate into saying that no one really knows whether there is a God or not; or that anybody who doesn’t know is therefore an agnostic. There are many who do know, or at least claim to know that there is a God; and there are many more who don’t know, or claim to know, but believe. A “believer” is not an “agnostic” by definition. Secondly, I can turn his interrogation round to him. It goes like this: “… you say, ‘There is no God’. I say, ‘Can you prove that?’ You say, ‘No.’ I say, ‘I don’t believe you then.’” Atheism is not as clever as he likes to think it is. If I can’t “prove” to him that there is a God, neither can he “prove” to me that there isn’t; and I have a lot more “witnesses” on my side than he does.

The Bible is full of “witnesses” claiming to have known, met, seen, or communicated with God. He can choose not to believe them; but he can’t say that they don’t exist. How many “witnesses” does he have on his side claiming to know, for sure, as a matter of fact, with certain knowledge, that God doesn’t exist? He has none! I think that my belief-system is superior to his, and more credible, if for no other reason than because I have a lot more “witnesses” on my side—however incredible they may appear to him to be.

The meaning and definition of the word “knowledge” also becomes important here. What do we mean when we say we “know” something? When does “belief” becomes “knowledge”? I have never been to the Eiffel Tower, or to the Great Wall of China; but I can confidently say that I “know” that they exist, because of the abundance and credibility of the witnesses. I could still be wrong of course. It could still all be a great hoax. But I think I can trust my own judgement enough to be able to say with confidence that I “know” that they exist. Do I really “know,” or am I just “believing?” At what point does “believing” become “knowing”? The witnesses for the miraculous events described in the Bible may not be as numerous or as recent, but it doesn’t make them any less credible. Whether I decide to believe in them or not is largely a matter of personal choice, and how much credibility I am willing to give them. The assumption that they are all “fiction” is entirely his choice. There is no “science” that can prove it either way. It is part of his belief-system. It doesn’t make it true.

The other problem with his remarks is that he can’t make up his mind whether he wants to be an atheist or agnostic. He wants to be both at the same time. He wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to play both sides of the table at once. He wants to be an agnostic when it suits him, and an atheist when that suits him. He can’t, unless he changes the meaning of those words completely. “Agnostic atheist” is a self-contradictory statement. It is like saying “Christian atheist” or “Muslim atheist”. “Agnostic atheist” is a contradiction in terms. You can’t be both at the same time—unless hypocritically. You can be an atheist, and falsely pretend to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or an agnostic. That is possible. But you can’t literally be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, or agnostic—and an atheist at the same time. That is a self-contradictory claim. It is like being six foot tall and a midget at the same time, or like being a baby and a grandpa at the same time, or like being a vegetarian and a meat eater at the same time. You can’t—except hypocritically. You can pretend to be a vegetarian, while secretly eating meat without telling anybody. That is quite possible. But you can’t literally be a vegetarian and a meat-eater at the same time, because that is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as “agnostic atheist,” unless you change the meaning of those words, or unless it is meant to be taken hypocritically.

The discussion then continues as follows:

Ricky: … So you believe in one God I assume.

Stephen: … in three persons, but go ahead.

Ricky: Okay, … but there are 3,000 to choose from, …

Stephen: I have done some reading, yeah.

Ricky: Okay, so basically you … deny one less god than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 Gods, and I don’t believe in just one more.

Stephen: Right.

That comes from the following quote by Richard Dawkins:

The implication of that is that just because there are 3,000 false Gods, there can’t be a true one. Where is the logic in that? I don’t see one. But the ultimate question is not “how many Gods” there are; but whether the universe has a creator; or whether it was a cosmic accident. Did we come from nowhere, and disappear into nothing; or do we live on; and will be held accountable for our actions in this life? That is the real question everyone faces. If we came from nowhere, and disappear again into nothing; then life is meaningless, and we might as well commit mass suicide; or commit any crime we like, provided we don’t get caught. But if life continues and has meaning, then how we live our lives in this world matters, and we need to be more careful about it.

What is Agnostic Atheism?

After posting my previous message about Stephen Colbert’s interview with Ricky Gervais, I searched a bit more, and discovered that Ricky is not the only prominent atheist who is now calling himself “agnostic atheist”. Pretty much all of them are moving in that direction. There is even a Wikipedia article about it which can be seen here. After doing more research into it, I think I have figured out what is going on.

Once upon a time there were two classes of people: atheists and agnostics. The “atheists” were overtly anti-God and anti-religion. They were anti- any kind of “belief-system,” and were not embarrassed to say so. The agnostics’ position was that “no one knows”. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be known by anyone. It is a matter of personal opinion either way. Many of these so called “agnostics” were closet atheists; but they were too intellectually refined to come out and openly declare themselves to be such.

This continued until some smart guy figured that atheism itself is a belief-system, as much as theism is. If no evidence exists for either side, then whichever side you decide to jump, is a belief-system as much as the other. You are choosing to “believe” something for which there is no clear evidence. If anything, atheism is more of a “belief-system” than theism is; because on the balance of probability, given the created order of the universe, the likelihood of there being an intelligent “designer” (however remote), to some degree exists; whereas atheism cannot boast even of that. It is a greater leap of faith (negatively speaking, a leap in the dark) to believe in the non-existence of God, than to believe in the existence of God. On balance of probabilities, the existence of an intelligent “Creator” is more likely (however remote the chance), than the non-existence of one. It is a greater leap of faith (a leap in the dark) to assume there isn’t a Creator, than to assume there is one. That made the position of the atheists untenable, because it is a self-destructive philosophy, a self-defeating ideology. It argues against itself. It is a belief-system which claims to be anti-belief-system.

That sent the atheists into overdrive to try to find a way round it; and their solution has been to forge a new identity for themselves called “agnostic atheist,” which makes absolutely no sense to anybody except (possibly) themselves. They have gone and dug up some ridiculous, obscure article from somewhere, and built all their arguments around that. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia:

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

One of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).

“The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.”

“If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...” (Flint, Robert (1903). Agnosticism: The Croall Lecture for 1887–88. William Blackwood and Sons. pp. 49–51.)

Good luck to anybody who can make sense out of that. They have even invented a new logo for themselves which looks like this:

The original atheist logo (now being abandoned) looked like this:

Atheists are now migrating en masse to this new religion they have forged for themselves, apparently quite oblivious to how ridiculous and absurd it now is compared even to the previous one. The truth of course is that atheism is a religion, just as theism is. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum of thought concerning belief in the causation of things. As one of our late Apostles expressed it:

“There is a crying need for the identification of atheism for what it is, and that is, a religion—albeit a negative one, nevertheless it is a religious expression. It is the one extreme end of the spectrum of thought concerning the causation of things.” Link

Now that everybody has wised up to the fact that atheism itself is a “belief-system,” every bit as much as theism is, all the atheists are lining up to adopt this new identity for themselves in the hope of escaping the charge of having a “belief-system”. Well, it won’t work. They either have to abandon atheism altogether (including the various disguises of it), or else be honest with themselves and with everyone else, and admit that they have a belief-system.

Is Atheism a Belief-system?

I came across the above episode of “The Late Show” in which the presenter Stephen Colbert interviews the famed British entertainer Ricky Gervais, who also happens to be an atheist. In the interview he declares that atheism is “not a belief-system,” which is a rather disingenuous comment. So I sent him a message by Twitter and asked him if he believed in God or not, to which he did not reply, so I will have to answer it for him myself. There are three possible answers that he could give to that question: “Yes,” “No,” or “Undecided”. If his answer is “Yes,” that is a belief-system. If his answer is “No,” that is also a belief-system. If it is “Undecided,” then it is not a belief-system. If there is no more “evidence” for one side than the other, then whichever side you choose to adopt becomes a belief-system. Only the third option is not a belief-system. And since by his own admission he does not “believe” in God, that means that he has a belief-system.

In the interview he calls himself “agnostic atheist,” which doesn’t make a lot of sense. It is a contradiction in terms. It sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it. He needs to make up his mind whether he wants to be agnostic or atheist. He can’t be both at the same time. An atheist is somebody who does not “believe” in God, period. An agnostic is someone who hasn’t made up his mind yet. Once you have made up your mind (one way or another), then you have a belief-system. In the interview he makes it clear that he has made up his mind. He does not “believe” in the existence of God. That means that he has a belief-system. If something is wrong with that argument, I like to know what it is.

Limited vs. Universal Atonement

I came across the above video in which RC Sproul interviews DA Carson (two heavyweights of Reformed and Evangelical theology) on the subject of biblical exegesis. At 13:34 minutes into the video the following conversation takes place between the two. RC begins with the following remarks:

“Almost anytime I am engaged in a discussion for example about the doctrine of election, and people struggling with it, and particularly the Reformed understanding of election, people invariably come back to me and say, But the Bible says, “Whosoever will ...,” you know, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Begotten Son …” “Whosoever will ...,” and so on. And they give me the “whosoever will” passages, and I say, now, what does that text say about who will believe? And they look at me with a blank face, and I say, nothing!”

Actually he is wrong about that. The passage does indicate “who will believe.” Inherent in the phrase “Whosoever will …,” is whoever WILLS! The implication is that whoever wills to, or chooses to, or decides to, or exercises his volition to. That is the meaning of “whosoever will”. The implication is that people have a choice. They are not predestined. The choice, the decision, the option is theirs. And the implication of having a choice is the ability to exercise it. There is no real “choice” without the ability to exercise that choice. That is the most obvious meaning of “whosoever will”. To suggest that they have the choice, but they are not able to exercise that choice until God makes them to, is a logical absurdity and a contradiction. If Jesus wanted to say what the Reformed theologians want us to believe that he was saying, he should have said it like this: “For God so loved the predestined, that he gave his only begotten Son, that all the elect who are predestined to believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Whosoever” is a very strange kind of substitute for the “predestined”. RC then continues as follows:

“What it does say is that whoever does A, will not have B, but will have C; and we can’t infer from that universal election or anything like that, or that everybody has the ability to come to Christ unaided by God …”

He is obfuscating the issue by conflating a universal Atonement with a universal salvation, redemption, or election. He implying that if the Atonement was universal, then so must also be election, and therefore everyone must be saved! He is arguing from conclusion to the premise, rather than the other way. The premise is the inescapable biblical doctrine of a universal or unlimited Atonement. If it can be demonstrated biblically that scope of the of the Atonement is unlimited and universal; and the Bible also teaches that everyone will not be saved; then that rules out his basic assumption that a universal or unlimited Atonement must necessarily lead to a universal redemption, salvation, or election. But the present argument is about the scope of the Atonement (according to the Bible), not about our ability or inability to come to Christ, or the meaning of election. Is the Atonement limited (according to the Bible), or is it unlimited and universal? Did Jesus atone for everybody’s sins (according to the Bible), or just for the sins of the “predestined?” The biblical answer is that he atoned for everybody’s sins. The scope of the Atonement was unlimited. It afforded everyone the opportunity to be saved, not just the “elect”. If some are not, that is their choice, not God’s. The biblical answer to that question is conclusive. There is no ambiguity in it. It leaves no wiggle room for him to squeeze his false Calvinistic theology into it:

John 1:

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

This does not mean universal salvation. It doesn’t mean that everybody will be saved. It means that the Atonement was universal. It means that everyone has the opportunity to saved if they choose to. The Atonement was made for everybody’s sins, not just for the sins of the “elect,” or of the “predestined”.

John 3:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The meaning is obvious. You would have to do an awful lot of twisting around to read into it what Reformed theologians want to read into it. “Whosoever” means anybody who wants to, or chooses to, or decides to—the implication being that everyone is able to make that choice. The condemnation for unbelief only makes sense if there is a real choice.

Romans 5:

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

This again does not mean that everyone is saved. It does not mean universal salvation. But it does mean an unlimited Atonement. It means that everyone can be saved if they choose to—the implication being that everyone could choose to. God has not predestined them one way or another.

Romans 14:

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

1 Corinthians 8:

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

These verses suggest the possibility of someone “for whom Christ died” (i.e. whose sins were atoned for), to “perish,” be “destroyed,” or be damned. The obvious implication is that a universal Atonement does not necessitate a universal salvation, redemption, or election.

2 Corinthians 5:

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Again, the implication is that the Atonement is universal. It is for all, not just for some. The fact that only some live does not alter the fact that the redemption was for all. I am sure they will now say that it means “all the elect!” But there is nothing in there to imply that, as other examples continue to demonstrate:

1 Timothy 2:

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

The redemption is for all men, not some men. It is for all, not for some. How can “all men” mean the same thing as “some men”? All is all, and some is some. You don’t mix them up.

Hebrews 2:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Every man means every man. How can these verses be construed to mean anything other than what they actually say?

2 Peter 2:

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them [the heretics], and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This is the most revealing scripture of all! In this verse Peter expressly teaches that the heretics, those who are damned, and bring upon themselves swift destruction, were bought by the Lord, meaning their sins were atoned for by Jesus Christ. Jesus not only atoned for the sins of the saved, but also for the sins of the damned. That is the obvious meaning of that scripture. There is no way of getting round it. If anything completely destroys the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, it is this verse. The next verse just adds an extra large nail to its coffin:

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise [of his second coming], as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This verse speaks of the unbelievers in the last days who will mock the faithful for their belief in the Second Coming of the Lord, and of the judgement to come. The “any” and “all” relates to all of mankind, not just to the “elect” or the “predestined,” as the “Reformed” theologians would have us believe. And if that verse puts a large nail in its coffin, this one finally buries it:

1 John 2:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

If that doesn’t completely bury it, I don’t know what else it does. The phrase “the whole world” is used in contrast with “us only”. He is subdividing the whole of mankind into two categories, and applying the Atonement to them all. There isn’t a third category to whom the Atonement does not apply. (See also Titus 2:11; 1 John 4:10.) RC then continues his conversation as follows:

“... where the same author [John] of the same book speaks of the same Jesus say explicitly, “No man can come to me unless it is given him of the Father,” and so on. But a universal ability is deduced from John 3:16 which is not there.”

He is referring to the following verses in John chapter 6:

John 6:

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

•  •  •

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

These verses are RC Sproul’s trump card! He thinks that they make his theology unassailable! Unfortunately they don’t. That scripture is not as watertight as he likes to think it is. Those verses are taken out of context. Verse 45 is omitted. RC Sproul whenever he quotes the above verses in support of his theology, he always leaves out verse 45, which changes everything. Here are the same verses, but with verse 45 included:

John 6:

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

•  •  •

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Verse 45 clarifies the meaning of verses 44 and 65. It explains how the Father “draws” people to Christ. They first come to the Father, and learn of the Father; and then the Father draws them to Christ. They take the first step of coming to the Father, and learning from the Father; and then the Father in turn leads them to Christ. They take the initiative; they make the first move; and the Father leads them accordingly. John in the first chapter gives us a clue as to how that happens:

John 1:

9 That [Jesus] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

And in the book of Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has clarified it further as follows:

D&C 84:

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.
47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.
48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

That knocks the wind out of the sail of the “Reformed” theology of predestination, unconditional election, and limited atonement. At this point in the discussion DA Carson enters the fray, and adds the following comment to what RC Sproul had said (emphasis added):

“And that is the logic problem, but also in John 3:16 there is often a kind of biblical theological leap that is a mistake too … it is assumed that “world” means a very big place that sort of includes everybody. God’s love must be very big because the world is very big, but as John uses the word “world,” he really means the entire human moral order in massive anarchic rebellion against God. So in John 3:16 God’s love is admired not because the world is so big, but because the world is so bad. And that sort of thing you learn by actually reading John’s Gospel again and again, and seeing how he uses the word “world.””

That makes absolutely no sense. The word “world” occurs around 60 times in the Gospel of John, and nowhere does it mean something like that. It means what everybody else thinks it means. The first chapter of John is enough to give us a clue:

John 1:

9 That [Jesus] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

The “world” in that scripture means what everybody else thinks it means. It means the place where we all live, plus everybody else who is in it. “Every man” means what it says. It doesn’t mean “some men”. If DA Carson’s definition of the “world” was correct, substituting his definition into it the above scripture would make it read something like this:

John 1:

9 That [Jesus] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the [entire human moral order in massive anarchic rebellion against God].

10 He was in the [entire human moral order in massive anarchic rebellion against God], and the [entire human moral order in massive anarchic rebellion against God] was made by him, and the [entire human moral order in massive anarchic rebellion against God] knew him not.

LOL! How would that make any sense to anybody? Are Reformed theologians really that unintelligent, or are they just pretending to be? Or maybe they think that everybody else is except them! The Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, predestination, and unconditional election is shot through. It is rank heresy. There is no other way to describe it. And there is no biblical support for it whatsoever.

Are Little Children Saved?

I came across the above video in which the Evangelical theologians John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul debate on the subject of infant baptism—R.C. arguing for, and John arguing against. As a Latter-day Saint, I am of course opposed to infant baptism. Our Church completely rejects infant baptism. But the subject of infant baptism itself is not what led me to comment on this video, but a side issue raised by John MacArthur as he argued his case against infant baptism. At 18:30 minutes into the video he makes the following comment (emphasis added):

“In Matthew chapter 18 we read in verse 3, ‘Truly I say to you unless you are converted and become like children you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven; whoever then humbles himself as this child he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; whoever receives one such child on the ground of my name receives me;’ and you know the text. And some have said, well, what you have here is evidence that children are in the kingdom. I beg to differ with that. I think what you have here, if you put the synoptics together and see the scene, Peter is in Capernaum, he may well be in his own house there, and he has in his lap an infant. He picks up a little child because the disciples are debating who is the greatest in the kingdom, . . . He puts a little baby in his lap and says, Look, while you’re arguing about who is the greatest, let’s get the real issue, you are all little children. Verse 2 says he called a child, set him in the midst and said, ‘You better become like this if you want to enter the kingdom.’ And then he proceeds to preach a great sermon; I think one of the great discourses in Matthew on the childlikeness of the believer. And in this chapter he is not talking about babies; he is talking about childlike believers; and that is pretty clear I think all the way through because he refers in verse 6 particularly to ‘these little ones who believe in me’. He is talking about how we treat each other as believers. So this is not a scripture that deals with anything to do with actual children and their role in the kingdom, but rather using a child as an illustration of the necessity of entering his kingdom as a child would. What does that mean? With no achievement, with no accomplishment, having done nothing learned nothing, gained nothing, accumulated nothing, bringing nothing, to bear upon that entrance.”

His argument is that Matthew 18:1–5 does not make a statement about the salvation of little children as such, but only provides an illustration for the childlikeness of the believers. He makes several errors in that observation. Firstly, Jesus does not say that believers are childlike, but must become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. He says they must humble themselves as little children to be saved, or enter the kingdom of heaven. It is not about how we “treat each other,” but how we approach God. Secondly, he is incorrect that the statement is not about actual children. It is about actual children and their salvation. Jesus makes it clear in more than one place in the New Testament that little children are indeed saved:

Matthew 19:

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

There is no doubt that Jesus believed and taught that little children are saved. Jesus’ message to his disciples in Matthew 18:1–5 was that to be saved they needed to acquire the same attributes and qualities that little children have, i.e. purity, innocence, humility, faith, implicit trust, and willingness to obey. Children believe in him (Matt. 18:6). They have a natural tendency to believe. If you tell the story of Jesus to a child—any child who has not heard it before (and has not been indoctrinated against it), they will believe. John MacArthur is very much in error about that, and his error is a serious one. It has serious implications for many other aspects of his theology. If little children are not already saved, what happens to them when they die? Do they go to hell when they die? If they don’t, that means that they are already saved; and if they are already saved, what saves them? And how does “predestination” fit into all of this, or the “original sin”?

That in fact is the real explanation why little children don’t need baptism, because they are already saved. They have nothing to “repent of”. Baptism is “unto repentance” and “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38). If they have nothing to repent of, they don’t need to be baptized. All others need to be baptized, as shown in the following verses:

Matthew 28:

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.

John 3:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

•  •  •

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Ephesians 4:

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Colossians 2:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Peter 3:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Baptism is a necessary requirement for salvation, no doubts about it. That is what the scriptures teach. I don’t know of anyone in the New Testament who was converted and was not baptized—with the exception of little children. Everyone needs to be baptized to be saved. Only little children are exempt, because they are already saved. That puts a big dent into the “faith alone” doctrine of Reformed and Evangelical theology. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then it is not “faith alone”.

I am sure they will now say, “We are not saved by baptism!” Sure we are not. Nobody says we are. But we are not saved without baptism either! That is what the Bible teaches. To say that baptism is required for salvation is not the same as saying that we are “saved by baptism,” or that we are “saved by our own works”. We are saved by God when we do what he says; and one of the things he says is that we need be baptized.

Obedience to God’s commandments, or doing what God says, is not the same thing as “works”. Many of God’s commandments in fact involves not doing something, rather than doing anything in particular. “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal” (Exo. 20:13-15; Deut. 5:17-19), does not involve “doing” anything, or any kind of “work”. There is a lot more “work” involved in going out and killing somebody, or stealing something, than sitting at home doing nothing. It is about obeying God, not doing some kind of “work” for salvation. “Faith alone” is shot through. It is dead in the water. It is not the gospel that Jesus taught.

About Will Durant!

“Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life.”

So said the famed historian Will Durant; and a lot of Latter-day Saints seem to agree! The writings of Will Durant have held considerable fascination for some Latter-day Saint writers and speakers in the past, and some older generation Church members especially have tended to reference him with admiration and approval. The latest example from a prominent Latter-day Saint is the following quote from Elder Quentin L. Cook, in his October 2016 General Conference address titled, “Valiant in the Testimony of Jesus”:

“We know the Apostasy occurred in part because the philosophies of men were elevated over Christ’s basic, essential doctrine. Instead of the simplicity of the Savior’s message being taught, many plain and precious truths were changed or lost. In fact, Christianity adopted some Greek philosophical traditions to reconcile people’s beliefs with their existing culture. The historian Will Durant wrote: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life.’* Historically, and in our own day, some people reject the gospel of Jesus Christ because, in their view, it doesn’t have adequate intellectual sophistication.” (*Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, Caesar and Christ (1944), 595.)

That quote from Will Durant is given out of context. The context of it is as follows (emphasis added):

“Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church; … From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgement, and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; … from Syria [came] the resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps [from] the cult of Dionysus, [came] the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the ‘ages of the world,’ the ‘final conflagration,’ the dualism of Satan and God, of Darkness and Light. Already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the ‘Light shining in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.’ … Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world.” (Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization)

In this passage Will Durant is questioning the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, including those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is undermining the following fundamental doctrines of Christianity—including the restored gospel—attributing them all to paganism:

1. The Trinity or Godhead (including how it is understood by Latter-day Saints—there is no such thing as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” regardless of how it is understood).

2. The last judgement.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The resurrection of all mankind, followed by a reward or punishment.

5. The Atonement and Redemption of Jesus Christ.

6. The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

7. Millenarianism (i.e. the millennial ages of the world, as in Rev. 20:2–7; D&C 77:6–12; 88:101–110).

8. The “final conflagration” (e.g. Mal. 4:1; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-13; 3 Nephi 26:3; Morm. 9:2; D&C 101:23–25).

9. The duality of Satan and God.

10. The separation of light and darkness as taught in the Gospel of John (John 1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46; 1 John 1:5; 2:8–9).

11. Of Jesus being the “light that shines in darkness, …” (John 1:5; also Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79; John 8:12; D&C 6:21; 10:58; 11:11; 14:9; 34:2; 39:2; 45:7; 88:49).

When Durant condemns Christianity for adopting paganism, he is referring to all of the above. He is saying that all the above doctrines came from paganism and the religious philosophies of Egypt, Syria, Thrace, Persia; and from the cult of Dionysus, and the resurrection drama of Adonis etc.—and Elder Cook apparently agrees!

Will Durant believed that the Apostles Paul and John were influenced by pagan philosophies of the day. Here is a quote:

“Mithraism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and the local cults of municipal or rustic gods … these mystic ideas left their mark on the apostles Paul and John …” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, The Age Of Faith, ch. 1, p. 9)

In another part of his talk Elder Cook makes the following remarks:

“The Apostle Paul was a sure witness of Jesus Christ because of a miraculous and life-changing experience with the Savior. Paul’s unique background prepared him to relate to people of many cultures. He loved the ‘frank simplicity’ of the Thessalonians and the ‘tender sympathy’ of the Philippians. He initially found it more difficult to relate to the intellectual and sophisticated Greeks. In Athens on Mars’ Hill, he attempted a philosophical approach and was rejected. To the Corinthians he determined to simply teach ‘the doctrine of Christ crucified.’ To use the Apostle Paul’s own words:

“‘And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 

“‘That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.’”

In this passage Elder Cook shows considerable lack of insight in the scriptures and into the words of Paul that he is commenting on. None of his observations in that statement are correct. Paul did not “attempt a philosophical approach” at Athens. On the contrary, to the philosophers at Mars’ Hill he spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, and preached one of the greatest inspired sermons recorded in the Bible—but he spoke to them in a language that was suited to his audience.

Paul did not “find it more difficult to relate to the intellectual and sophisticated Greeks,” nor was his comment to the Corinthians intended to be such an acknowledgement. Paul made himself “all things to all men” to gain as many as he could (1 Cor. 9:19-23). To the Jews he became a Jew, to the Greeks he became a Greek. To the weak he became weak, and to the strong he became strong. To the philosophers he became a philosopher, and to simple people he became simple. It does not mean that his approach to the Greeks was therefore a mistake, and he was now determined to do better; or that his approach to the philosophers was a cause for regret, and he was now minded to do differently. Paul was “rejected” by the Jews far more than he was by the Greeks (Acts 13:15–52; 18:5–6; 28:17–29); and that wasn’t because he had been teaching them Greek philosophy.

In these statements, and in his endorsement of Will Durant Elder Cook displays considerable lack of insight into the scriptures and into divine truth. With the rest of his talk, and with the main message that he tries to impart of course I am in agreement. But this obsession with the supposed “Hellenization” and “philosophization” of Christianity among Latter-day Saints is an aberration of the past which I expect will be rectified in due course, and will not be perpetually repeated. I put it down to his lack of experience as a new Apostle. I am sure as he gains more experience he will learn to avoid making those kinds of mistakes.

_________________

P. S.

This fascination with the writings of Will Durant, Edwin Hatch, and others among Latter-day Saints has a longer history. Here is another interesting quote from a talk given by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in the October 1993 General Conference, titled “From the Beginning,” expressing similar sentiments:

“Another force was at work too: the cultural Hellenizing of Christianity. Wrote Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, ‘The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual’ (part 3, Caesar and Christ, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944, p. 595). The errant grooves earlier used in defining deity were already there and were so easy to slide into (see Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pp. 75–81, 152–58).

“Another scholar concluded: ‘It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity’ (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, reprinted 1970, p  49).

• • •

“Historian Will Durant also wrote: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life’ (Caesar and Christ, p. 595).” Link, video here.

How Trinity Violates Law of Non-contradiction

I came across a series of six interesting lectures by Dr. R.C. Sproul on the subject of the Trinity titled “The Mystery of Trinity,” in which he goes through the history of the development the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and ultimately attempts to explain in the final lecture how the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is logically self-consistent and does not violate the “law of non-contradiction”. The series of lectures can be seen on the Ligonier website here, the first of which is shown above. My aim in this post is to refute that claim, and show how the doctrine of the Trinity does in fact violate the law of non-contradiction.

A word about the “law of non-contradiction” (also known as the “law of contradiction,” see here) is appropriate. The “law of non-contradiction” deals with the logical fallacy of saying that something is and is not something else at the same time, or is two contradictory things at the same time. If we said that A is B and not B at the same time and in the same relationship, that is a logical fallacy and violates the law of non-contradiction. R.C. Sproul had another interesting lecture which dealt specifically with the law of non-contradiction, which is no longer available on the original YouTube channel or on the Ligonier website. It was part of the “Defending Your Faith” teaching series. It was #5 in the series, and was titled “Law of Contradiction”. In that video, in his typical RC teaching style, he held up the piece of chalk in his hand with which he was writing on the board and said, “If I said that the piece of chalk in my hand is a piece of chalk and not a piece of chalk at the same time, that violates the law of non-contradiction”.

So how does the doctrine of the Trinity fair with respect to the law of non-contradiction? The Trinity is defined by the theologians including R.C. Sproul as “three Persons in one God,” or “three Persons in one Essence”. The “Essence” (the “God”) is one, but the “Persons” are said to be three—hence they argue there is no violation, because we are dealing with two different things. Here is a quote from his first lecture (seen above):

“When we see our confession of faith in the Trinity, the Church confesses that God is one in essence and three in person. God is one in A, and three in B. And if we said he was one in essence and three in essence, that would be a contradiction. Or if we said that he was one in person and three in person, that also would be a contradiction. But as mysterious as the Trinity may be, and as it may be above our capacity to understand in its fulness, the historic formula is not contradictory.”

But if we examine the definition a bit more closely, we find that it is not what it appears to be. Here is a question: Is the one true God (call him Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai, or what you like), is that one God by himself a Person or not? Is “Jehovah” portrayed in scripture as a Person or not? The answer is unreservedly yes. The Bible portrays the One True God as a Person; no doubts about it. Throughout the Bible God is referred to with the personal pronouns “he,” “him,” and “his” etc., which makes him a (one) Person. God himself refers to himself using the personal pronouns “I” and “me” etc., which makes him a Person. Examples are too numerous to quote. One is sufficient:

Exodus 20:2-3: “I am the Lord thy God, … Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

The use of the personal pronouns “I” and “me” indicates that God sees himself as a Person. Even R.C. Sproul I am sure would agree that the One True God is a Person—in which case we now have four Persons in the Trinity, and not three! We have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is three; plus the One True God Himself, which brings it to four! What all of that amounts to is that the Trinity consists of Three Persons in one Person, which violates the law of non-contradiction. We are saying that the Godhead consists of one Person and three Persons at the same time, which is a violation.

Another way of looking at it is like this: the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the theologians teaches that each of the three Persons of the Trinity is by himself God, as well as the One True God that makes up all three, so that we are now dealing with four Gods in the Trinity, not three (or one). We have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom is individually God; plus the combination of the whole (call him Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai, or what you like), who is also God. So we now have four Gods in the Trinity, not three (or one)! Putting it another way, we have “three Gods in one God,” which is also a violation. That is in fact the historical definition of the Trinity: “three Gods in one God”. That is how the Athanasian Creed defines the Trinity:

“So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.” Link

That in essence is saying that the Trinity consists of three Gods in one God—which is a violation. The phrase “three Persons in one God” is a later invention, and is a verbal trick designed to obscure the obvious logical inconsistency that is inherent in saying “three Gods in one God,” or “three Persons in one Person”. It is theological dishonesty, that is all it is. It is a verbal trick, and a cheap one, nothing more. But it gets worse than that. The doctrine of the Trinity is also unbiblical. It teaches that the individual members of the Trinity are coequal. They have equal status within the organization. The Bible, however, tells a different story. The Bible teaches that of the Three members of the Godhead, one of them is God over the other two—has always been, and always will be. Here are some references:

John 14:

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Romans 15:

6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:

27 For he [the Father] hath put all things under his [the Son’s] feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.

2 Corinthians 11:

31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Ephesians 1:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

• • •

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Ephesians 5:

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Colossians 1:

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

1 Peter 1:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

I am sure they will now say that these refer to Jesus in his humanity, not his divinity. But there is no logical, theological, or scriptural grounds for that assumption. Embedded in the very idea of Father-Son is seniority-subordination. A son is always junior and subordinate​ to a father. It is God the Father who sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father. The Son worships the Father, the Father does not worship the Son. In his final prayer to the Father Jesus says:

John 17:

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

This is no longer referring just to his humanity. The “glory which I had with thee before the world was” was the glory of his divinity, not humanity. And after his resurrection, glorification, and ascension into heaven, when he appeared to his disciples he declared: 

Matthew 28:18 “… All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

If all power was given unto him, then there was someone greater than him who had given that power unto him. So all is not well with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It is a logical absurdity. It violates the law of non-contradiction, it is unbiblical, and it is inherently dishonest theology. “Three persons in one God” is nothing more than a verbal trick designed to bamboozle Christians into believing a logical fallacy and an unbiblical entity. It is false theology and false doctrine all the way through.