TWIM/RvA Dialogue...Belief

TWIM LINK

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Belief- an interesting word, and one that seems to mean different things to different people in the context of religous faith and practices. To some, belief is merely the acknowledgement of a provisional truth as perceived by a subject. To others, it encompasses more; a fidelity regarding attached dogmas, as well as trust in ancillary codexes such as the gospels and epistles of the bible. To still others, belief represents not so much these things (though they’re not necessarily excluded), as what advocates refer to as a ‘spiritual regeneration’, a metaphysical re-birth of the so-called ‘spirit’, a change of being which somehow aligns a person with the will- nay, the very being of God (whatever that means, since at this point we’ve left the world of ideas and have entered the field of so-called ‘experiential truths’, realities poorly represented by things such as logical concepts). This, I think, is the spirit of cl’s latest essay, that there are relational issues between God and mankind which can’t even be addressed through standard reasoning processes, much less resolved.

First of all, I think cl is to be commended for clarifying his stance vis-a-vis his religious belief system in this way. It’s not that he’s said anything particularly new or surprising here, but his straightforward exposition should do much to answer his detractors, who have found him to be generally evasive in his argumentation concerning these matters. It certainly makes discourse easier when you’re clear as to where your opponent stands. Perhaps the frustration level will diminish a bit, and some slightly more fruitful dialogue will ensue. Naturally, time will tell in this regard., but I’m tentatively hopeful. At least the cards are on the table. On to the critique.

cl begins by offering a general definition for belief...

-when I say belief, I refer specifically to the belief that God exists as described in the Bible.

Unfortunately, the rest of his article adopts an altogether different definition of belief, where belief becomes synonymous with the ‘spiritual regeneration’ I spoke of earlier. The deviation from his original definition begins immediately, in the very next sentence where he defines the word ‘believer’...

When I say believer or saint, I refer specifically to those who have believed and known God, and henceforth accepted the provision of the Gospel: Jesus Christ.

While the addendum ‘and known’ is a bit obscure to interpret with much certitude, the rest of the sentence makes it very clear that we’re no longer talking about the acceptance as fact that the biblical God exists. We’ve now left the realm of possible factoids, and have attached a proviso stipulating a WILLFUL acceptance of God on His terms, which is far different than the simple acknowledgement of a fact. It’s a bending of the knee, if you will; the subservience of one’s desires, goals, what have you, to the will of a greater power. At least, to some extent. But, wait! The definition changes again. Or, if it isn’t exactly a change, it’s at least a bit more complicated...

The biblical definition of a believer is one whose spirit has been regenerated by God.

In other words, we’ve gone from mere intellectual acknowledgment, to an acceptance via will of the ‘provisions of the Gospel: Jesus Christ’, to some sort of supernatural transformation of the very being of man, which seems to stray about as far from the commonly accepted meaning of the word ‘belief’ as one can get. That generally accepted meaning, of course, is embodied in the first definition of belief that cl offers i.e. intellectual acknowledgment of what the subject provisionally perceives to be factual.

Where to begin, where to begin? I fear this is going to be a very long rebuttal.

Ok, let’s get the ball rolling with some labeling shortcuts regarding the differing sorts of ‘belief’, shall we?

B1- God exists.
B2- I surrender my will to the will of God.
B3- God has regenerated my spirit.

First note that these definitions aren’t necessarily exclusive. For instance, B2 seems to logically require B1, though B1 doesn’t require B2 or B3 (the devils also believe, and tremble). B3, however, apparently doesn’t require B1 or B2; at least, not in its implementation by God, though one might argue that B1 and B2 follow along as a matter of course shortly after the implementation of B3. Or, perhaps B1 and B2 are wrapped up inside B3, in such a way that they all arrive together within the vehicle of B3. However, I’m still having a problem with defining B3 as belief. Perhaps I can draw a little analogy using an apple tree...

AT1- There’s an apple tree in my backyard (it may have wandered off since last I saw it, but I have ‘faith’ that it’s still there).
AT2- I surrender my life to the will of the apple tree, and will henceforth no longer pick its juicy, delicious apples.
AT3- The apple tree fell on me.

Now, certainly AT3 carries with it the truth of AT1, a truth that resonates through my mind with every painful scream, and cannot reasonably be denied. I’m not so sure about AT2, depending on the emphasis. If I am truly self-willed, the best I can do is either rebel against the indignity the apple tree has forced upon me, or acquiesce to the superior mass of the tree. However, is the fact that the apple tree fell on me truly an aspect of belief on my part, one way or the other? I would say no. Certainly, the apple tree has reshaped my spine to better fit the curve and knotholes of its own trunk, but what has this to do with any perception, willful or otherwise? At the end of the day, I’m left lying maimed underneath an apple tree, and any questions as to my beliefs at the time seem inconsequential. Nevertheless, that all said we’ll go ahead and explore the rest of the TWIM essay employing markers B1, B2 and B3, and see where we end up, okee dokee?

First off, I suppose I should point out that what we’re talking about here is the requirement for salvation of the Christian sort. You know, reunited with God, going to heaven to live in bliss for all eternity, avoiding all that hellfire and brimstone stuff. A heavy subject, to be sure!

Next, I’d like to point out that cl, after his opening definitions, pretty much discards B1 and B2, opting almost exclusively for B3; which, as I’ve pointed out, really isn’t belief at all. What follows are excerpts where cl stresses ultimate supremacy of B3-type efficacy...

Does this mean that any person who utters with their mouth "I believe" is regenerated thusly? Certainly not.

The difference between being a member of the church and simply attending church is precisely this matter of regeneration. Again, belief refers to something that actually happens to the subject in the spiritual realm. Anything less than this is a mere puffing up of the religious mind.

... I would like to make it clear that belief cannot be effected by reason, intellect or religion. The reason simply stated is that only God can regenerate a dead spirit. Only God can enable our belief (John 6:65)

Here's the catch: belief is purported to be a spiritual phenomenon that flows from God to the believer. This means that no amount of anything we initiate can effect belief.

- atheists and skeptics naturally assume belief is also best apprehended via one's own intellect and reason. Woe to us believers who also mistakenly believe thusly!

nothing a person can initiate can ever restore themselves or another to a right relationship with God. No amount of science or evidence or philosophy or argumentation can suffice, and every fruitless intellectual discussion with an atheist belabors this point. In the same vein, every religion is revealed to be mere vainglory: no amount of dogma or sacraments or confessions or services can regenerate a spirit that is dead unto God.

People shall never enter the kingdom of God through our encouragement, persuasion, argument, inducement, excitement, or attraction; entrance can be gained only by new birth, by nothing less than the resurrection of the spirit.
-Ibid.

We might be tempted to say, "That's not so, after all, I came to believe because of such-and-such evidence or so-and-so's argument." If that's the case, our spirits may not have ever been regenerated at all. If you fancy yourself a believer, do you feel an emptiness despite that fact?

... because only God can enable belief, and that by nothing less than a spiritual act...

They may end up believing in the supernatural - but this does not make them believers or saints - hence belief in the supernatural remains as useless as anything else that's not God's regeneration.

Now, one might insist at this point that I’m missing the obvious, that the natural progression is B1 through B2 culminating in B3 i.e. a person comes to believe that God is a fact, acquiesces to the will of God, and is subsequently ‘regenerated’. This is the way I think most Christians see things, and is indeed the basis of the sinners prayer. “Dear Lord, I accept that You are who You say You are in the bible, I renounce my sinful ways and vow to follow You, and ask you into my life.” However, cl seems to disagree with this salvation formula when he says...

We might be tempted to say, "That's not so, after all, I came to believe because of such-and-such evidence or so-and-so's argument." If that's the case, our spirits may not have ever been regenerated at all.

And now we get into the real convoluted mess which is Christian salvation doctrine, my friends. I’m afraid a thorough examination of this subject would take far more energy than I’m willing to invest in this blog post, requiring a philosophical sojourn from Arminianism, through the several different degrees of and takes on Calvinism, whilst stopping at interesting points in between. Suffice it to say that everything hinges on where one eventually settles regarding the free will to pre-destination ratio.

For the hard determinists, spiritual regeneration is wholly in the hands of God Almighty, including any and all means towards that end. Why? Because when Adam and Eve fell from God’s grace in the Garden of Eden, they and all of their progeny down through the succeeding generations until now became ‘spiritually dead’ creatures, thus de facto ‘enemies of God’. This is the doctrine of total depravity, which basically states that there’s nothing left good in us which would even begin to budge us in God’s direction. Hence, God is forced to do all the work. How does He choose who is to be saved then, since it’s all up to Him? None of our business! He does what He does for His own reasons, and that’s that. From this point of view, B3 is the only substantive thing happening, while B1 and B2 simply tag along for the ride. This is the view that the TWIM article seems to be espousing. Why, then, does cl end his piece with this?

If it is true that belief cannot be effected by our reason, intellect, science, religion, evidence or rational abilities, the onus is on the skeptic to either humbly ask God to help them accept this limitation, or risk perishing in their stubbornness.

But, cl! We are born in stubbornness, and in fact there’s nothing an un-regenerated soul can do BUT be stubborn. If we can’t be moved towards God by ‘reason, intellect, science, religion, evidence or rational abilities’, and if our wills are twisted according to our unregenerate nature, how can you possibly ask us to ‘humble ourselves’? And to whom, since your whole argument here hinges on the idea that belief=spiritual generation, which is totally out of our hands? You’re asking us to build a boat when all the materials are on the other side of the lake!

There are other problems with this argument. For one thing, the whole ‘B1 and B2 emerge from the implementation of B3’ thing seems to grossly contradict the whole idea about the need to spread the gospel through preaching and teaching. Conversion itself seems predicated on getting people onboard B1 and B2, so that B3 might occur, which seems to be the exact opposite of cl’s message. Advocates of cl’s position usually respond with something like this- “It’s true that God is the actual agent of change here. However, spreading the Word through preaching and teaching is the vehicle by which God manifests His regenerative powers upon whomsoever He sees fit to bestow them upon.” What this boils down to is that God gives grace according to His B3(B1+B2) formula, but for some mysterious purpose (He IS so all-fucking mysterious, isn’t He?), he prefers to make it look like He’s using the B1->B2->B3 formula. Sort of like how He seems to have gone out of His way to make the universe appear billions of years old, when it’s actually only a few thousand years old. Man, that Jehovah really likes fucking with the minds of the peasantry, huh?

There are a few other little snippets I’d like to address in closing, just for fun. In response to many atheists' belief that God’s actions make no sense, cl replies...

Do children set terms for their parents?

Not usually, although the relationship changes as children grow and learn. Also, good parents try to make sense to their children, and don’t act arbitrarily just because they have the power to do so. And obviously, the eventual goal of parenthood to to launch children into the world as mature, informed adults. At some point, the factor of parental authority is SUPPOSED to be usurped in favor of the grown childrens’ autonomy. This reality does NOT reflect God’s parental status, nor His childrens’ ultimate subservience throughou eternity.

This is why Jesus often rebuked those who demanded miraculous signs: they're a cheap form of flattery easily employable by any supernatural agent who's gained a foothold.

And yet Jesus turned water into wine at a party. Who was up next? Kreskin?

We must rely on faith to interpret all supernatural experiences.

Back in the day, when I had more curiosity about UFO’s than I do now, I had a conversation with a temporary co-worker about the subject. I told him I wasn’t really sure about what to think of them, and that I’d probably have to see one myself to believe. He told me that he actually knew a woman who was in constant communication with them; that they often appeared to her out in the desert. I replied that I’d really like to see something like that, to which he answered, “Of course, if you don’t believe you won’t be able to see them.” This experience of mine says a lot, I think, about miracle sightings of all kinds. We have a long way to go as a species regarding critical thinking.

I could write a whole lot more on this subject, but the post has already gotten too long, and I think I’ve addressed the high points adequately. Basically, I find the whole salvation doctrine(s) highly incoherent, and in particular this regeration=belief thing flies in the face of a lot of Christian doctrine, including the Great Commission. Calvinists have jumped through lots of hoops in order to justify their take on things, but that’s what apologists do, after all...try to reconcile the irreconcilable. The problem is, the bible and Christian belief at large are a hodgepodge of conflicting statements and ideas, and no matter which denominational bed you choose to lie down in, you’re gonna wake up with wrinkle marks all over your back.

NOTE: I thought I’d go ahead and include some remarks made by cl in the comments thread of his article, reflecting his ostensible denial that his argument embraces a hard pre-destination doctrine-

“In fact, every single conversion requires active participation on behalf of the subject.”

“Human beings can either obey or violate commands.”

I'm saying the Bible teaches that, although nothing from ourselves can save ourselves, and the entire thing can only happen by the power of God, we still have a say in the matter: we have to accept what God has enabled. God doesn't just clobber non-believers over the head one day and turn them into believers against their free will...

Romans 10:13 is true, we do in fact have a say in the matter. God enables, we accept.

The problem is that these opinions seem to fly in the face of all the other opinions in the article, personal and otherwise, which can be summed up in the assertion “ Only God can enable our belief .” Now, it may be possible that B1 can be accomplished without God’s intervention. However, it’s been painstakingly pointed out that B1, mere belief in God as a fact amongst other facts, is useless in effecting salvation. Furthermore, there’s the question as to whether a person can actually believe in the factual God without the Indwelling Presence to delineate true ideas about God from false ones. And since everybody’s ideas about God are at least a little different, where’s the dividing line between acceptable and non-acceptable error? And how does one know when it’s been crossed? B2 holds more promise, but there’s still the problem of why an unregenerate soul would humble itself to God, thus becoming regenerated, when it seems to require a regenerate soul to have the capability of sincerely turning to God in the first place. Well, either that, or a complete usurpation of a person’s will by God’s Will. IOW, we’re back to the ‘total depravity’ question again.

No matter how one slices this stuff, it’s hard to deny at least a degree of convolution, especially when one considers the internecine war that’s been waged for centuries within the ‘One True Church’. As far as TWIM’s article is concerned, it seems mostly aimed at minimizing-indeed, abolishing- the evidential side of the question in favor of supernatural powers effected from another realm immune to enquiry, or criticism. At best, we can humbly accept a mystery that doesn’t make any sense to some of us, with the Pascalian hope that by abandoning what seems most reasonable we might escape the eternal hellfires of a jealous deity. At worst, it’s completely out of our hands, and our fates were sealed before we were even born. I tend to side with the harder of the pre-destinationists in these matters, if only because their exegetical inclinations seem to line up flawlessly with the precursor to this divine soteriological escapade i.e. ‘the Fall’. After all, if we can be held morally accountable for having a nature foisted upon us by the original sinners themselves, Adam and Eve, then I suppose anything goes, including arbitrary Captain’s rules as to who gets to man the lifeboats, and who gets stuck going down with the ship (rules transmitted on a really narrow frequency, on a really crappy radio by the Captain; who, of course, isn’t actually on the ship, but is transmitting from his really swank penthouse office suite on shore, who nevertheless assures us that He is with us and truly, TRULY cares about us.).

IN LIEU OF AN OFFICIAL TWIM RESPONSE, THIS:

Wow, three posts in, and already TWIM's host has caved in to his old habits. I've done my best to keep these critiques impersonal and to the point, the very thing cl constantly accuses others of not doing, and here's the fruit of my efforts-

i'm just gonna be as real as possibly here - your third installment of the series sucks ass jim. you really disappointed me in your continued assumptions and false associations. i gave you a bit of clarification (which, by the way has been on my site for months if you would but seek), and you use it to run ten miles and associate me with everything from calvinism to arminianism to total depravity doctrine.

although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it.

would it be good faith if i construed your atheism as entailing "baby eating" or "lacking moral values?" hell no it wouldn't. you got some real nerve sometimes man.

Since this isn't an official response, but the last in a series of email bitching, I will include my response to cl here, as follows-

cl:

The more you write things like this, the more I'm persuaded that all you really seek is contention. I've addressed your argument from my POV, with absolutely no ad hominem inferences whatsoever. Obviously I knew you'd disagree, since mine is a critique of your position. That's why I've offered you the last word rebuttal, to...uh...you know...REBUT! Clarify. Add. Subtract. Anything you like, free and clear. I didn't say anything analogous to 'baby eating' or 'lacking moral values'.

Dirt? Why, because I brought up the two ends of the spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism, regarding pre-destination? You'll 'never be able to recover' because I'm a 'good writer'??? No comments? YOU can comment, cl. Unchallenged. That's the whole point of this format, for crissakes!

Here's the real problem, as I see it. You just don't have the stuff, cl. Oh, you bluster and point fingers about how nobody's being cogent 'cept for poor little ol' you, but in the end, all you've really got is a knack for flame wars. I figured this format would bug you in the end, because it takes you out of your comfort zone, where you can mitigate, seek allies, and rile everybody up to your heart's content. On the other hand, I had hopes that you might find value in rising above all that. But you can't do it, can you? This is what you like, arguing towards no purpose. Even during our simple correspondence to set this thing up with you, you've tried to get me going on more than one occasion, but I just wouldn't bite. And now this response. You're nothing but a big baby, cl.

Put up or shut up, ya wuss.

P.S. Since you've decided to not participate here, I guess I'll use this interchange in lieu of an actual response by you. Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.

cl is still welcome to add his last word to future critiques. However, this kind of whining, crybaby shit is something up with which I shall not put! Dry your eyes, cl, put your pacifier back in, and try to write something in the non-martyr style, will you please? Otherwise, don't bother. I will continue to critique your arguments as I see fit, and if and when you get over your diaper rash, you are free to respond with grown up words and sentences.

Oh, and don't try to continue with this. You'll only make yourself look worse.