Or so claims an article that is making its rounds on the internet recently. Over at the Atheist Forums message board one of the members exuberantly posted a link to the infamous article and exclaimed that Christian opposition to same-sex marriage “may not be quite as long-held as they think.” Curious, and ever the skeptic, I clicked the link to see what he was so willing to share without any critical comment—and what I found was a dubious article reproduced at Livejournal by an unknown author who presents an everything-you-were-told-is-a-lie type of argument that does not reference any material other than the largely discredited work of one John Boswell.

Why, I wondered, am I alone in my skepticism over the multitude of red flags being raised by that article? Why did that member find it compelling enough to uncritically share? And did anyone else find it compelling? (Well, it would seem that there are at least five others who did, giving his post a thumbs-up.) The pronounced absence of skepticism denoted an appalling level of uncritical credulity that ought to have been embarrassing—although I suspect that they were not embarrassed.

So I decided that I would not only perform my usual due diligence but also, given the nearly viral popularity of that article on the internet, publish the results for the sake of getting truth and history right, putting this silly twaddle in its place.

The article that he cited was not even original. It was a full reproduction (with some initial commentary) at a Livejournal account of an article published by an individual who wrote under the pseudonym ThosPayne; the article was published 24 August 2008 on the web site for Colfax Record, the online presence of a local newspaper in Colfax, California, [1] apparently under his myColfax personal blog. [2] That article no longer exists at its original location, although there exists an archived copy of it. [3] For whatever reason, that particular member could not be bothered to do even this most basic of searches in order to reference original source material—something that is of particular interest to skeptics and critical thinkers.

But what about the article itself that he cites? It is an intellectual train wreck that any skeptic would give a wide berth. Allow me to demonstrate for readers and visitors here who might be as credulous as him what skepticism and critical thinking looks like.

[Professor] John Boswell … discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents …

This label of “heterosexual marriage” is disingenuous, misleading, and question-begging, for it carries the implication that Christian liturgies recognized any other form of holy matrimony, thus preparing the reader to accept that homosexual marriage was one of them, as the cited article would subsequently attempt to argue. One must not assume the very thing to be proved, which the label “heterosexual marriage” attempted to do by implying that marriage was not strictly between a man and a woman. Although there were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai), these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages.

… there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” … and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” …

According to Shaw, who is sympathetic to same-sex marriage but does not tolerate scholarly incompetence, these titles are mistranslated. “Boswell’s translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as ‘The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men’ or ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’ is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book” (which the article in question is predicated upon). When these words are translated in a straightforward manner, “they impart a quite different sense to the reader.” [4]

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied [sic] in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Not one single piece of evidence is cited to support any one of these claims, leaving the reader with no reason to accept any of them. Worse yet, given the detailed refutations by scholars such as Shaw, Young, and Woods, there exists manifold reasons to be highly skeptical of the claims. Consider for example the “holy union” of Basil and John. Although Basil was arguably a homosexual, the ceremonial in which the two were united was not one of matrimony. Boswell translates the text of historian Theophanes into English as saying that Basil “honored him with the title protospatarius and granted him intimacy with him on account of their earlier shared life in ceremonial union.” There are two misleading translations occurring here, as Young points out. [5] First is his translation of parrhesia as “intimacy,” which is misleading because the context of his argument gives a sense to the reader which the word simply does not convey. The intimacy being referred to in the text is not the romantic sort shared by lovers; rather it refers here to the freedom granted John to speak his mind plainly and boldly to Basil, which is what parrhesia means. [6] Second, the earlier ceremonial union spoken of was not a marital one; the Greek clause reads "kai tes pros auton parresias metedoke dia ten phthasasan koinonian tes pneumatikes adelphotetos," which is properly translated as “previous association in spiritual brotherhood” [7] (pneumatikes adelphotetos)—although, contrary to Young, the meaning of koinonia conveys something deeper than mere “association,” as attested in Scripture by its use in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper and the powerful communion shared by those in Christ. [8] (And therefore, contrary also to Boswell, it does not denote a union of lovers joined in holy matrimony either.)

[The curious icon] shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Since the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the Christian church recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman, to say that this icon depicted a “wedding” scenario of a “married couple [who] are both men” is to illegitimately beg the very question. The author must not assume the very thing to be proved. Given the extensive historical evidence for Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis or the making of a brother, it is more probable that this is the sort of union being depicted in that icon; as such, the author shoulders the burden of proving that it depicts something else. His conclusion is not impossible, but it is certainly improbable—and cannot be assumed from the outset.

The full answer [as to whether or not the icon depicts Christ sanctifying a gay wedding] comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. … In the definitive 10th century account of their lives …

Although the author references a tenth-century account, he does not cite it; evidently the reader is supposed to just take his word for it, including his claim that this text states that Sergius was the “sweet companion and lover” of Bacchus, a statement which seems rather crucial to his conclusion about what the icon depicts. But then the author also does not explain how this unnamed account from over half a millennium after Sergius and Bacchus had died can be meaningfully considered “definitive,” never mind reliable.

Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers.

This is a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so where are the references to these “many modern scholars”? Who are they and where is their research that shows Sergius and Bacchus were lovers? A red flag to any skeptic, the author does not cite any support whatsoever for this claim, using what Wikipedia contributors would flag as “weasel words.”

But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek, describes them as erastai, or “lovers.” In other words, they were a male homosexual couple.

This is likewise a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so why is it that the author neither cites nor includes a Greek quote from this “oldest text of their martyrology”? It would be valuable to those interested in assessing the accuracy of the claim and its interpretation. I submit that his reason is perhaps the same as or similar to the reason why Boswell neither cited nor quoted from the specific original text and its context: because the claim is utter fiction. As a salient matter of fact, the word erastai is simply not there! Starting at page 373 of Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14 (Indiana University Press), the skeptic can access the original Greek text of “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi” for himself and see that this claim is entirely fictitious. The author and Boswell are not content with their revisionist history; they have to further their dishonesty by inventing support.

One Greek 13th century rite, ‘Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union,’ invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.” … Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic ‘Office of the Same Sex Union,’ uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

And here we have a direct quote; but, like before, there is not a single citation for it. The reader is simply to take the author’s word for it. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a red flag always goes up (and should) when a Google search of a quote never points anywhere but the same article and its various reproductions. This should lead the reader to be highly skeptical of the supposed quote, to say the least.

The actual text for these Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis—the making of a brother—comes from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript (Grottaferrata B. ii.) for Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin (translated by Boswell as ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’), which Shaw cites and quotes using Boswell’s translation of it, while inserting “some of the significant original Greek words in transcription” [9]:

I

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

II

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord…

Have mercy on us, O God.

“Lord, have mercy” shall be said three times.

III

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union:

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

“It is this ceremonial,” Shaw observes, “and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men,” which he then proceeds to thoroughly refute. The point that I wish to raise here—aside from citing and properly quoting the rites which the original article made a complete mess of—is the fact that nowhere in any of this material is there so much as a hint of homosexual marriage, and that it is moreover entirely consistent with the well-established and recognized historical church rite of making a brother (adelphopoiesis).

“But it says they were to kiss!” Indeed it does. But is that a romantic kiss between newlyweds? Of course not; observe that they were to “kiss the holy Gospel and the priest” as well. Furthermore, such kissing in that culture and period was entirely customary (e.g., Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14) and did not connote what it largely does in the modern West. “The ancient and medieval world about which Boswell writes was not riven by the same anxieties and repressions that mark our own,” Shaw writes. “In that world, public and affective bonds between men were typical, even banal. But this is not the same thing as the legitimization, or the sacralization, of homosexuality.” [10]

Records of Christian same-sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century. …

Again, there certainly were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai) but these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages. If the author wishes to argue otherwise, he needs to do far more than simply point to the well-attested historical evidence for adelphoi genesthai church rituals. “The ‘new’ documents that Boswell has unearthed,” notes Shaw, “are nothing more than a few additional texts that shed more light on a primitive and basic power linkage between men in the ancient Mediterranean, and the rituals attendant on its formation.” [11]

[Professor] Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Whom Boswell’s embarrassing work “poses a fundamental question for” is Boswell himself, whose so-called research is fraught with selective citations, revisionist history, inaccuracies, mistranslations, misleading equivocations, and other various disreputable errors that are an affront to proper scholarship. There is a reason why “Boswell’s methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians.” [12] There is no good reason for this embarrassing substitute for good scholarship to be taken seriously or propagated by skeptics and critical thinkers.

[1] 233 S. Auburn Road, Suite 205, Colfax, CA 95713.

[2] At the original article the author name is hyperlinked to a my.colfaxrecord.com user profile.

[3] http://web.archive.org/web/2009121908482…91429.html

[4] Shaw 1994.

[5] Young 1994.

[6] Ibid. (cf. Foucault 1983).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Koinonia. (2012, January 16). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

[9] Shaw 1994. Shaw’s inserted Greek words are placed within square brackets.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Saints Sergius and Bacchus. (2012, May 13). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

REFERENCES:

The Bollandists, “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi,” Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14, §19 (Indiana University Press), 373ff.

Michel Foucault, “Discourse and truth: The meaning of the word ‘parrhesia’.” From a lecture given at the University of California at Berkeley (October–November 1983).

Brent D. Shaw, “A groom of one’s own?” The New Republic (1994, July), 43–48.

David Woods, “The origin of the cult of Ss. Sergius and Bacchus,” University College Cork, Ireland (2000, April). This is a revised version of his paper, “The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), 335-367.

Robin D. Young, “Gay marriage: Reimagining church history,” First Things 47 (1994, November), 43-48.

[Updated 30/04/12: with the link to second series podcast feed]

In 2010 I provided some basic information for those among us who enjoy apologetics and have a desire to see it become a regular part of discipleship and training in their church, but were perhaps unsure how to get started. It was drawn largely from my own investigations and desire to do just that, but certainly not from my own experience. My intention was to help and encourage people like me, who enjoy this particular branch of evangelism and training, and think they might be able to serve their own church in this way.

Continuing in this vain, I am excited about to tell you about another resource that I have found very informative and practical.

Over the course of two months in 2010, Apologetics315.com released a series of 21 podcasts. The podcasts were simply narrated articles^[1]; articles written by regular folk from around the world (including Australia!) who wanted to share their experiences in starting an apologetics group in their own church. Apologetics315.com’s Brian Auten put it this way:

The goal of this project is a simple one: to share stories, experiences, and advice that will help Christians to start their own local apologetics initiatives. Whether you be a pastor, youth pastor, teacher, elder, or lay person, this series of short essays could hold the keys you need to get things started in your own local congregation.

The contributors to this project range from lay leaders to pastors, self-taught to formally trained. But they all share something in common: they are Christians who love Jesus, they have a passion to defend the Christian faith, and they have found an outlet for training and equipping others in the local church. As you read (or listen) you will hear them describe their situations, challenges, and testimonies as they helped initiate small groups, apologetics Sunday school classes, apologetics events, movie nights, and sermons.

I found it to be a very helpful resource that I have revised on several occasions as I prepare to introduce apologetics in my own church. And now, with the second series of podcasts on this topic to begin next week, Brian Auten is seeking more contributions to add to those collected for Series One:^[2]

Next week, part 2 of this series will launch, with even more essays from a variety of contributors. So why announce this now? Because you might have something to contribute. Do you run any type of apologetics group in your church? If you would like to contribute a short essay about your church-based apologetics group please contact info (at) apologetics315.com.

[Update: The podcast feed for the second series can be found here. Subscribe to it via iTunes and receive each new episode as it is released. Episode 1 - Why Apologetics Matters to Every Church and Every Believer - is now available. I hope you find them useful.]

1. The articles themselves are also freely downloadable in a variety of formats. Download the eBook [Kindle format | PDF | Mobi | ePub]
2. http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/04/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church.html

Max Andrews at his blog Sententias is developing a new series which he would like to see grow in response to the running series called “Why I am an atheist” from Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers at Pharyngula hosted by Freethought Blogs.

I wanted to start a counter-series here on your story. The series will be, “Why I’m a Christian.” All you would need to do is send me an email … and tell me why you became a Christian and why you continue being a Christian.

Your story can be however long you want it to be. Unless you note otherwise (if you want last name, last initial, anonymity, etc.), I’ll only use your first name.

I hope to spread your stories to demonstrate the glory and work of God in your lives.

Another benefit in doing this is so we can encourage other Christians to persevere in the faith and hopefully some of your stories will resonate with the hearts others—Christian and non-Christian.

See his post here, with an email address for your submissions, which he will post as they come in. Spread the message to all the Christians you know within your own social network—including the offline one, your family, friends, and church.

I have posted previously on The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page by Apologetics.com and frankly, nothing can top that as a general resource for all things both audible and apologetic. But when we zoom in and have a closer look at some of those resources in more detail, we find little gems like Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? podcast. [no, the question mark is not a typo]

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

The Gospel Coalition is running a series of articles this week on classical, evidential, and covenantal (presuppositional) apologetics from a variety of contributors. My interest is of course with covenantal apologetics so in this post are listed all the articles regarding that issue published this week at The Gospel Coalition (including responses that those articles generate which I found particularly informative and helpful.)

Last Modified: 14 March 2012.

• William Edgar, “Fides quaerens intellectum: What is presuppositionalism?” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 11).
   
• Paul Copan, “Questioning presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 12).
   
  
  • James Anderson, “Does presuppositionalism engage in question-begging?” Analogical Thoughts (2012, March 13).
     
  • James White, “Apologetics methodology: Paul Copan’s questioning of presuppositionalism,” The Dividing Line (2012, March 13). [Video.]
     
  • Steve Hays, “Copan on presuppositionalism,” Triablogue (2012, March 13).
     
  • Joshua Whipps, “Questioning Copan,” Choosing Hats (2012, March 13).
     
• K. Scott Oliphint, “Answering objections to presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 13).

Updated (scroll down)

Mike Duran at his blog posed what he considers a dilemma regarding the relationship between apostasy and abandoning the Bible as authoritative. [1] Duran invoked the example of Leo, son of the famed intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, who said that his trust in the Bible was shaken by reading The God Delusion by Dawkins and considering for the first time “the fallible origin of Scripture.” [2]

It did not occur to me until later in life to examine the reliability of the Bible, the infallibility of which my Christian opponents would always agree upon. [3]

That point in particular was what originally shook my specific faith—Catholicism—and planted seeds of skepticism … [4]

Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. [5]

This erosion of trust in the Bible “is often the first step in Christian apostasy—‘the loss of a specific creed’,” writes Duran, quoting Behe’s phrase.

The first step toward the deconstruction of Christianity must always be the deconstruction of Scripture. For once “the foundations are destroyed” (Ps. 11:3), you are free to construct another worldview, preferably one to your own liking.

However, this creates a problem. If we can’t question and debate the  authenticity, authority, and limits of Scripture, how do we know we can trust it? Unquestioned belief in the Bible is just as wrong as unequivocal rejection of it. [6]

Read the rest of this entry

I know what you are thinking: that title is quite unfair.

In many cases you would probably be right, but at least when it comes to Stilwell I am not sure it really is unfair at all. He has made a proud effort at littering the internet with ample evidence supporting the fairness of that title, evidence that is not difficult to find. In fact, the very description of his personal blog states: [1]

“Synaptic misfirings from the incoherent mind of an incurable dilettante happily lost in Tokyo.”

I know, I know—“Don’t quote me, bro!”

~*~

Stilwell recently (7 March 2012) left a comment on my previous post that failed to make it past the moderation queue; it was deleted because it violated the very first rule of our Comments Policies here at the Aristophrenium, which in part reads:

If we receive a comment that’s littered with gratuitous invective and lacking any substantive point of view, it will not be published. Civility is not a requirement but some effort at an actual argument certainly is.

We do make exceptions every once in a while, but they are quite rare and left to the discretion of the site administrators. (For example, I had recently made an exception for Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, and only because he is a high-profile public figure who we were quite pleased to hear from.)

I am going to make an exception for Stilwell also, but this shall be a highly modified exception in the sense that I am going to make it the subject of a blog post in its own right, and for three reasons. First, I want the reader to see what according to Stilwell passes for intelligent commentary; and obviously he did too because he submitted it for public viewing. Second, I want to respond to the claims and accusations he made therein, setting some things straight; and obviously he wanted me to because he did submit it for my viewing. And third, I want to set forth my concluding remarks on what has been a very silly and disappointing experience.

Read the rest of this entry

I always find it truly ironic when atheists profess to be champions of skepticism and critical thinking, as if they esteem reason and the rigors of logic, but collapse in a heap of emo histrionics when challenged to argue for their atheism. The most recent case: Phil Stilwell.

I realize that you have no idea who that is. Neither do I, quite frankly, although he is certainly trying to make a name for himself on the worldwide web. (And when you see what passes for ‘reason’ in Stilwell’s world, like me you might find yourself wondering why he is embarrassing himself so broadly.) Stilwell is responsible for a number of different blogs, only three of which I am aware of [1] but he seems willing to create a new blog at the drop of a hat. [2]

Three days ago in a chat on IRC someone dropped a link to a debate between Stilwell and some Christian named Jay Atkins; the debate was published in a standalone blog created by Stilwell called Snake Oil Jesus: Vekl Come Knocking. (“Vekl” was apparently a pseudonym used by Atkins.) After reviewing the debate, I was interested in how fundamentally flawed Stilwell’s arguments were and disappointed with how Atkins either failed to notice the flaws or chose to ignore them.

I decided to find out more about Stilwell and ended up discovering his personal blog, and in particular a rather strong claim he made therein, that “the God of the Bible does not exist.” [3] I was interested in finding out how he might attempt arguing for that claim in a debate against me, so I challenged him to another debate, one that should prove quite different from that with Atkins. The only stipulations I had were that it had to be in written format and the resolution had to be, “The God of biblical Christianity does not exist.” Beyond that Stilwell was free to establish whatever parameters he wished.

He accepted the debate challenge and the resolution.

But unfortunately he proved to be unwilling to argue for his claim in a debate. What he wanted instead was to argue against my claim, which was a difficult proposition because I had not made any claims. So over the next two days Stilwell invested all his efforts in trying to get me to make a claim or two that he could then argue against. He proclaimed confidently that he could demonstrate a “logical incoherency” in my view, if only I would carefully explain to him what my view is. Unfortunately none of that would have anything to do with his claim, which was produced at least two and a half years ago by a line of reasoning that neither made, nor even could make, any reference to my views.

And yet ignorance of my views was not a luxury Stilwell ever had. Even though the purpose of the debate was for him to argue for his claim, for some reason he insisted that my theology of redemption had to be the context in which he would make that argument and incessantly pressed me to explain it to him. Unfortunately for him, he actually had been made aware of the pertinent information regarding my theology of redemption; from the very beginning I told him that I was confessionally Reformed and affirm the five solas of the Protestant Reformation, and in another email I had even pointed him to the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the Cambridge Declaration. (And Stilwell’s response? “David, I am not going to study your theology.”) So whatever the reason might have been for his unwillingness to argue for his claim in a debate, an ignorance of my theology of redemption could not be part of it since between those two documents not a single relevant datum of information that he could have possibly needed was missing.

No matter what the proposed context of the debate was—whether the context of his original argument or the context of my theology of redemption—he flatly refused to argue for his claim in a debate.

As for the heap of emo histrionics that Stilwell collapsed into, see the series of emails that we exchanged over the last few days. [4]

Footnotes:

[1] From Synapse to Byte (Stilwell’s personal blog), The Impossible God (a smorgasbord of embarrassing arguments), and Snake Oil Jesus (a debate between Stilwell and Jay Atkins).

[2] “I will set up a WordPress blog for the debate, but you can feel free to have your own blog that mirrors the debate for whatever reason.” (Phil Stilwell, personal correspondence [2012, March 1].)

[3] “However, I do say unequivocally that the god of the bible does not exist. Jehovah, as commonly defined, is a logical impossibility due to incoherent concepts such as eternal punishment for finite lives of sinning. Jehovah also fails the internal logic test. Conventional interpretations of biblical promises to answer prayer are demonstrably false. This makes Jehovah a liar, something the bible says he is not. Therefore Jehovah and his bible fail this test of internal logical consistency.” (This quote was copied verbatim from the text of his article accessed 1 March 2012. See Stilwell, P. [2009, August 29]. “Micropoints,” Question #3, par. 2. From Synapse to Byte. [Blog.])

[4] “The God of biblical Christianity does not exist,” a series of emails between myself and Phil Stilwell attempting to set up a debate which Stilwell ultimately refused. Skip past the introduction, as it simply reproduces this blog post here.

I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:

Read the rest of this entry

A little over three weeks ago I published an article addressing 1 Peter 3:15 and how, when it comes to apologetics or defending the biblical world view, we are to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts when meeting that task (Smart, 2011); that is the very point which the passage begins with, after all.

Today I received a comment on that article by Jeremy Styron of the Our Daily Train blog. No, I do not know who that is either, nor am I familiar with that blog at all. But that is neither relevant nor important vis-a-vis addressing his comment, which was brief so I shall quote it in full here, and then I want to address it (Styron, 2011):

The third paragraph here (beginning with “And we certainly ought to be ready”) is a garbled mess of question begging and wishful thinking. Explaining the “hope” you possess in Christ isn’t good enough, since Muslims aren’t going to convince me of their hope in Allah either. And you admitted it here that Christ is your reason for hope. So you actually should provide a reason for why he’s your reason for hope. And good luck with that. Outside of your own desire for it to be true, there is scant evidence that Christ existed at all, much less that he was anything other than a peasant roaming the countryside. There is not a single contemporary source that confirms his existence. Base your hope on a guy for which there is no evidence outside of the Bible all you want.

There are two essential points here that I wish to address.

First, he suggests that I am guilty of begging the question, a charge he connects to the very existence of Jesus. However, his existence was not the question so this charge is utter nonsense. It is both common and reasonable to assume certain things for the sake of argument; one is guilty of begging the question only if one’s argument assumes the very thing to be proved. The existence of Jesus was not the point at issue or the thing to be proved; the point at issue was the role he plays in the hope we possess, which does not make sense apart from his existence so we obviously assume his existence for the sake of that argument. The question of whether or not Jesus ever existed is an important and relevant but nevertheless separate question. Assuming the existence of Jesus does not per se (by itself) explain the hope we possess, which simply underscores that his mere existence is not the question.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, he said that our explaining the hope we possess in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is “not good enough.” Good enough for what? For convincing him, apparently: “Muslims are not going to convince me of their hope in Allah, either.” And thus Styron makes the all too common mistake of supposing that the Christian’s task is to convince unbelievers. This, of course, is not the Christian’s task at all, which Styron would know if he bothered to understand the biblical world view he presumes to argue against. It is rather like hearing a young-earth creationist say, “Evolutionists are not going to convince me that we evolved from monkeys.” If one is going to argue against a position, one should properly understand it first. It is not our task as Christian’s to convince Styron; that is the Holy Spirit’s task (see regeneration). Our task is to spread the message of the gospel everywhere, making disciples in all the nations of the earth, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded us. As Peter notes, part of that task involves always being ready, with Christ set apart as Lord in our hearts, to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess. One plants the seed of the word, another waters it, but it is God who makes it grow (Deu 30:6; Eze 11:19; 36:26-27; John 3:27; 6:63-65; 10:25; Act 11:18; 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; 1 Cor 2:4–5; 3:6–7; Eph 2:8-10; Php 1:29; 1 Thes 1:4–6; 2 Tim 2:25-26; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3; 2 Pet 1:1).

References:

David Smart, “The context is setting apart Christ as Lord,” Aristophrenium [blog] (2011, November 24).

Jeremy Styron, comment on Smart, 2011. (2011, December 23).