![\"Anti-ChristianSign\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/Anti-ChristianSign.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n- \n
- * * * * *<\/dt>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n
ExChristian.Net<\/span><\/a>\u00a0is a flourishing atheist site.\u00a0Dave Van Allen<\/a>\u00a0was formerly the webmaster. I have an ongoing interest in demonstrating how these common \u201cdeconversion\u201d stories of former Christians do not rationally explain why they or anyone else should forsake Christianity. The task is to \u201cdefeat the defeater\u201d \u2014 as philosopher Alvin Plantinga might say.<\/p>\n
If these are the reasons that atheists give for being an atheist and rejecting Christianity, and we can repeatedly show that they are insufficient for their purpose, then we can systematically demonstrate that whatever the basis for these deconversions are, they are not reasonable or rational, let alone compelling. Yet atheists often pride themselves on being greatly intellectual superior to gullible, rather dumb Christians (that is the\u00a0tendency<\/span>, anyway; I hasten to add that there are notable exceptions to the general manifest condescension). Dave\u2019s\u00a0\u201canti-testimony\u201d story<\/a>\u00a0is posted on his site. I shall examine it with a fine-toothed comb. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n
* * * *<\/div>\nI find it absolutely fascinating that at the end of his \u201canti-testimony\u201d Dave states:<\/p>\n
None of this proves or disproves Christianity, I realize, but the purpose of this paper is to show the thinking processes that led to my de-conversion.<\/span><\/p>\n
Huh?! (scratching head). Are you thinking what I am thinking? If such stories give no reason whatsoever to reject Christianity, then (not to be insulting), I humbly submit: what good are they at all? Who cares about someone\u2019s purely subjective experience if it has no bearing on whether someone\u00a0else<\/span>\u00a0should accept or reject Christianity? I appreciate the intellectual humility of admitting that it offers no disproof, but then, doesn\u2019t that pretty much defeat its very\u00a0purpose<\/span>? It\u2019s like one is saying, \u201chere are the reasons why I am not a Christian, but there is no reason to accept my reasons as any reason to reject Christianity.\u201d Rather self-defeating or at least intellectually meaningless, wouldn\u2019t you think? It\u2019s almost as if reason and fact truly don\u2019t matter. All that matters is that some other human being has become an atheist and left Christianity. Actual reasons matter less than the bald fact that they have\u00a0done<\/span>\u00a0so, so that others can have company and not feel alone in a dominant-theist society. Having expressed this disclaimer and puzzlement, nevertheless I press on.<\/p>\n
\n* * *<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nIt is invariably a shock to Evangelical Christians to come across someone who has turned his or her back on the \u201cfaith was once delivered unto the saints.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nUsually, but not always. After all, the Bible often mentions those who will fall away from the faith.<\/p>\n
Most believers will quickly dismiss an ex-Christian by piously pointing out that anyone who turns away from Christ was never a real believer.<\/span><\/p>\n
Calvinists\u00a0have<\/span>\u00a0to believe that because their system does not allow any other interpretation (i.e., the doctrine of perseverance of the saints). But the great majority of Christians now and throughout history (Catholics, Orthodox, Arminian and Wesleyan Protestants) are\u00a0not<\/span>\u00a0Calvinists, and believe that one can truly be a Christian and fall away, lose grace, salvation, etc.<\/p>\n
Or, as an insider might say it, \u201cThey were never born again.\u201d There is Biblical support for the assertion. 1 John 2:19, which addressed the problem of First Century apostates, states that: \u201cThey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.\u201d (KJV)<\/span><\/p>\n
Of course, sometimes that is true. But it is not\u00a0necessarily<\/span>\u00a0true in every case. I dispute the assertion that no real Christian can ever fall away (there is much biblical data about that).<\/p>\n
(I\u2019d like to point out here that the previous verse, verse 18, suggests that the writer also believed it was the end of history and that the Antichrist was about to appear. It seems that whoever penned 1 John was premature in announcing it to be the \u201clast time.\u201d He may have been mistaken in his quick judgments against those ancient infidels as well.)<\/span><\/p>\n
This is an involved argument as to what \u201clast times\u201d means.<\/p>\n
For those from a Calvinistic background, the fifth petal of TULIP uncompromisingly declares that those truly chosen by God for salvation will persevere in the faith. They will persevere in the faith because God will preserve them in the faith. Or, as a Baptist fundamentalist might express it: \u201cOnce saved always saved.\u201d For fundies, a believer gone bad was just faking their salvation or is presently backslidden and will eventually return to the fold, with their tails between their legs.<\/span><\/p>\n
If they are Calvinists, yes. Not all \u201cfundamentalists\u201d are, though, of course. Even most Baptists are not five-point Calvinists, although they agree with eternal security.<\/p>\n
There are also a plethora of competing denominations that teach people can lose their salvation. To members of those denominations, a fellow believer who has fallen away might have really been saved at one time, but is now lost again. They believe it is possible to get saved, and lost, and saved again, many times, before a person\u2019s allotted lifespan runs out.<\/span><\/p>\n
True. The Catholic or Orthodox, however, would not say a person is \u201csaved\u201d over and over (even most Arminian Protestants, as I once was, would not speak in such terms) because we view salvation as more of a process that is only completed at death (or what Protestants would call \u201ceschatological salvation\u201d \u2014 i.e., the salvation of the future when one actually gets to heaven). Catholics would say such a person was in mortal sin, separated from God, out of God\u2019s graces, etc.<\/p>\n
The reason for this brief essay is to share my testimony about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and my repentance from that relationship. What follows may unnerve some of my closer associates and will likely alienate some of my good friends. I have absolutely no desire to alienate anyone since I have already spent years as a zealous evangelical Christian, alienating dozens and dozens of people in the name of Christ. However, it is only fair to those who know me to allow them a glimpse into where I am coming from, now.<\/span><\/p>\n
Fair enough. I don\u2019t deny this past experience. I don\u2019t have to. But I am free to deny the reasoning that led to his rejection of Christianity, as inadequate and insufficient, because if that influences other people, and it is untrue and found wanting, then Christians (and especially apologists like myself) are duty-bound to expose its weaknesses and fallacies.<\/p>\n
When I was very young, my parents attended a Presbyterian Church. I used to watch my father pray during the service. His eyes would close and his chin would rest against his chest. I wondered if he was asleep. At home, my mother would tell my brother and I Bible stories. I always had questions for her: \u201cWhy did God put the tree of knowledge in the garden since he knew what would happen?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
Well, so that human beings could exercise their free will and choose to obey God or disobey Him. I would ask the child back: \u201cwhy do you presume to question God\u2019s purposes for doing anything, or act as if we would or could or should understand\u00a0everything\u00a0<\/span>that God does, in the first place?\u201d<\/p>\n
I also wondered whom Cain married, if dinosaurs were taken on the ark, and all kinds of things my mother could not answer.<\/span><\/p>\n
The seeds of atheism, because a mother couldn\u2019t answer every garden-variety objection of a bright kid . . . but of course, that is where the function of apologetics is very helpful.<\/p>\n
My parents stopped regularly attending church when I was nine,<\/span><\/p>\n
Much like my experience (I was ten).<\/p>\n
but still sent my brother and me to Vacation Bible School during the summer. I was diligent to learn all the Bible lessons, stories and doctrines, earning multiple gold stars in each class. Though I do not remember it, my mother likes to tell a story that even when I was 5 years old, I would come home from Sunday School, gather the un-churched neighborhood kids together on our porch, and parrot all I had been taught that morning.<\/span><\/p>\n
Zeal that later, unfortunately, was applied to atheist pursuits . . .<\/p>\n
I was eleven years old in 1969.<\/span><\/p>\n
Me too!<\/p>\n
My grandmother was a staunch Baptist. In fact, she was one of the founding members of the First Baptist Church in Ashtabula Ohio, and was absolutely devoted to the place. The Church had hired an aggressive youth minister who wanted to see more young people attending services. His name was Norm, and he organized a youth rally which featured a movie produced by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The movie\u2019s aim was the conversion of young people. My grandmother invited me to the meeting and of course I loved my Grandma, so I got a ride from my Dad and sat with her to watch the show. I don\u2019t remember the title of the movie, but the basic plot centered on one of the male characters who accepts Christ and starts to tell his friends about it. One of his unbelieving friends makes terrible fun of the whole thing, mocks Christ, and mocks the threat of going to hell. The unbelieving friend ends is horribly killed up accidentally trapped in a burning barn toward the end of the film and dies horrifically, going straight to a Christless grave.<\/span><\/p>\n
I am not sure how powerful of a flick it was, but it got to me.<\/span><\/p>\n
As it should. The threat of hell is very real.<\/p>\n
Before that movie, I knew about God and the Bible and Jesus, but now I realized I had no personal relationship with Christ, and I needed one. When the altar call was given to come forward and accept Christ, I did not go forward, but listened intently, memorizing the \u201csinner\u2019s prayer.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
I had a very similar experience around the same time, at a Baptist church that my sister found out about, through a friend. It was short-lived, though, because it wasn\u2019t followed-through with regular church attendance or Christian education. so I wasn\u2019t particularly pious and shortly after got fascinated with the occult, the paranormal, and ESP, etc.<\/p>\n
Later that night, in the dark and quiet of my room, I got down on my knees confessed my sins, repented as much as I knew how, and accepted Christ into my heart. It was a mind-altering experience for me. In my mind\u2019s eye I visualized the Creator of all physically with me in the room. I felt overwhelmed with what I believed was a personal and direct manifestation of the LORD. I cried and cried. The emotional cleansing and reality of that moment has never left me, and as I write about it now, it comes alive once again.<\/span><\/p>\n
I had that sort of experience in my evangelical conversion of 1977, when I was 18.<\/p>\n
The very next morning, I started carrying a small New Testament to school with me. I was in the sixth grade, reading a KJV, and doing my best to understand what I could from its inspired pages. I began attending church that week, and became a regular customer at the local Christian Book Store. My paper route wages and tips found investment in books and comic book tracts by Jack Chick, which I read and distributed zealously.<\/span><\/p>\n
Ignorant, anti-Catholic material; the very stereotype of fundamentalist know-nothingism . . .<\/p>\n
After my twelfth birthday I was asked if I would like to be trained as a counselor for the new Billy Graham evangelistic movie entitled \u201cFor Pete\u2019s Sake,\u201d which was being sponsored by several local churches. The showings were to be at Shea\u2019s Theater in downtown Ashtabula. I eagerly agreed and dutifully submitted myself to the counselor training by memorizing the required verses and receiving a certificate as a bona fide counselor. At the end of each night, a short salvation message was shared by one of the local pastors, followed by the traditional Billy Graham style altar call. During the course of the weekend, I was able to assist several young people from my own age group as they came forward to make decisions for Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n
Good for him. God had mercy on his soul, insofar as he did these good works before falling away.<\/p>\n
Following that crusade, I was excited. I began to do street evangelism on my own. I witnessed to other kids at school, and even led a fellow Boy Scout to the lord while on a week long Boy Scout camp. His name is Phil and is presently a pastor at an American Baptist Church outside of Youngstown Ohio.<\/span><\/p>\n
Good fruits last. Becoming an atheist later on doesn\u2019t undo the helpful things that were done while a Christian.<\/p>\n
I started a junior high school Bible study group, and taught the others who joined how to lead others to Christ ala Billy Graham. (\u201cThe Romans Road\u201d with some small variations, was what Billy recommended back then.) The early 1970\u2019s saw the height of the Jesus People Movement in the US,<\/span><\/p>\n
My brother Gerry got caught up in that, and this was a serious influence that later led to my conversion, after fighting it for six years.<\/p>\n
so naturally I became involved with other non-denominational youth study groups held at various houses around town. I was introduced to CS Lewis, Watchman Nee and other famous Christian authors during this time. I drank every word written in those books like it was water. A prolific reader even in junior high I was insatiable for more and more information.<\/span><\/p>\n
Good (though Watchman Nee has some questionable teachings).<\/p>\n
Reggie Kirk, my Boy Scout Master, recognized my thirst for more spiritual enlightenment and invited me to his church, the local Assembly of God, where I learned I needed the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to be a complete Christian. I attended one Sunday night when, providentially, the topic being discussed was that very doctrine. I went forward during the altar call to receive the \u201cBaptism\u201d and kept those poor people there long after the service ended as I pleaded with the Almighty to grace me with the Holy Ghost and tongues. Finally, after two hours of eye watering, knee hardening prayer, and some helpful coaching from a woman who stood with me, I babbled a few syllables. Everyone pronounced proudly that I had indeed received the Holy Spirit. Now, as a full-fledged tongue-talking Jesus person, I went full steam into making a difference in the world for Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n
He may or may not have spoken in tongues. There is a lot of fakery that goes on (I know, from attending an A\/G church myself for four years, and other charismatic fellowships).<\/p>\n
My parents, who at best were only nominally religious, viewed my obsessive enthrallment with church-stuff as disconcerting and worrisome. My mother, knowing I loved to read, decided to introduce me to her understanding of reality which was embodied in the writings of Edgar Cayce. My mother was a Reincarnationist. I rejected her teaching, witnessed to her unceasingly for the next 25 years about the love of Christ, and read everything published concerning the psychic Cayce.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
Interesting . . . I would have probably tried to defend Cayce, in my occult-leaning period.<\/p>\n
My grades suffered terribly in junior high, as I could not see any value to secular learning. I viewed the world as passing away, valueless compared with heavenly knowledge with eternal relevance.<\/span><\/p>\n
That is a classic fundamentalist mindset, that is out of the mainstream of Christianity, and should never be equated with the latter (though many atheists collapse Christianity into know-nothing fundamentalism, so that it can be dismissed as \u201canti-intellectual\u201d and \u201canti-science\u201d). Billy Graham would never countenance such a view. He helped found the magazine\u00a0Christianity Today<\/span>, which is one of the leading vehicles of evangelical thinking and scholarship today.<\/p>\n
As puberty became more influential in my thought processes, I struggled terribly with the hormonal demands of my body verses the tenets of the Church concerning any sort of sensual pleasure. Jesus taught that it is just as sinful to have any sort of lustful thought, as to actually act on any of them. I found adolescence very difficult on my thought life, finding myself in a perpetual war with guilt. I agonized over my sexuality, begging God to deliver me from temptation, to no avail. It was depressing.<\/span><\/p>\n
No one is saying it is easy. But it is possible to abstain from immoral sexual activity with God\u2019s help. I did it, and if I could, anyone could.<\/p>\n
I began to distinguish myself in music during this time, receiving nothing but positive feedback on my performance. By the time I was 14, I was being hired to play trombone semi-professionally.<\/span><\/p>\n
Lots of similarities there. I played trombone in a very good, nationally-known high school orchestra and band (Cass Technical High School in Detroit). I took lessons from the first chair in the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, even\u00a0before<\/span>\u00a0I got to high school, in order to get into the symphony band. That\u2019s how high the requirements were!<\/p>\n
It was fun. I had begun finding inconsistencies in the Bible when I noticed numerous contradictions between various number citations in the Old Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n
Again, what makes him think that he knows better than scholars who have studied these things for years? This is a common motif in atheist deconversions. They know better than everyone else. They can see \u201cobvious truths\u201d that most Christians, in their naive gullibility, miss. That\u2019s not to say that there are no biblical problems to be worked out. Of course there are many things that scholars debate and mull over. But that is no different from, for example, the scientific method. There are a host of difficulties and unexplained things in science, yet it doesn\u2019t lead people to reject science because it doesn\u2019t possess all answers to everything. So why should the Bible and Christianity be approached differently?<\/p>\n
Then I was confused by the multiple conflicting details in the resurrection stories in the Gospels, as well as in Paul\u2019s version. One of the biggest contradictions I could not rectify was whether or not Judas threw his money into the temple and hanged himself or bought a field and fell headlong into it.<\/span><\/p>\n
Let\u2019s examine this alleged contradiction:<\/p>\n
Matthew 27:5-10\u00a0<\/span>(RSV) And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, \u201cIt is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money.\u201d So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter\u2019s field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, \u201cAnd they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter\u2019s field, as the Lord directed me.\u201d<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Acts 1:18<\/span>\u00a0(Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNow, do these two descriptions necessarily formally contradict? No. For example, here is one way that the seeming discrepancy of the purchase of the field can be explained:
\n<\/span><\/p>\nRegarding the \u201cpurchasing\u201d of the \u201cfield\u201d\u2026both accounts are true. The temple rulers bought the plot of ground, like Matthew says. Acts does not contradict Matthew. Remember that the priests said, \u201cit is not lawful to put them into the treasury\u201d. In other words, they were not taking actual \u2018receipt\u2019 of the money, diverting it, instead, to purchase the plot of ground. Thus, in a \u2018legal\u2019 sense (?) since they were not taking \u2018ownership\u2019 of the money, it was still Judas\u2019 money. And when Peter speaks of \u201cwages of iniquity\u201d, it is not that Judas bought the plot of ground\u2026but that the money he had received to betray Jesus had bought it. The money was Judas\u2019 \u201cwages\u201d\u2026but he threw it back, and the priests weren\u2019t accepting it. These \u201c30 pieces\u201d were like the proverbial \u201chot potato\u201d BLOOD MONEY both parties were trying to get rid of. Technically it was still Judas\u2019 money, which the priests used to purchase the plot of ground. Thus, in a legal sense, it could be said that Judas bought it, because it was \u2018his money\u2019 that bought it.<\/p>\n
. . . And so, did Judas hang himself\u2026or did he \u201cfall headlong\u201d? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his \u201centrails gush out\u201d when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)\u2026and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn\u2019t tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a \u2018mess\u2019.<\/p>\n
[\u00a0source<\/a>\u00a0]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The supposed contradiction of the purchase is also clarified by looking at the Greek words involved, as\u00a0another Christian site<\/a>\u00a0devoted to alleged biblical discrepancies explains:<\/p>\n
Once we examine the original Greek, we see Matthew and Luke differentiate between terms of ownership. Matthew uses the word\u00a0ajgoravzw<\/span><\/a>\u00a0(legal ownership) while Luke uses\u00a0ktaomai<\/span><\/a>\u00a0(physical possession). In other words, Judas purchased the field in his name and was therefore the legal owner, but after his death, the priests obtained the field for communal use yet did not possess the legal rights to it. In layman\u2019s terms, Judas purchased the field but the priest acquired the field after his death.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And Judas\u2019 manner of death is speculated upon by\u00a0another web page<\/a>, without falling into necessary contradiction:<\/p>\n
1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope\/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.
\nCertainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nMAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, \u201cIt is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.\u201d And they consulted together and bought with them the potter\u2019s field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he \u201cwent and hanged himself.\u201d Luke however, in Acts, tells us that \u201cand falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.\u201d This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts \u2013 Peter\u2019s speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas\u2019 fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas\u2019 death is highly probable, but not clear cut. Therefore, if I were to take a radical exegetical approach here, I could invalidate your alleged contradiction that there are two different accounts of how Judas died.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Notice verse 5.\u201dThen he\u2026went and hanged himself.\u201d Matthew does not say Judas died, does it? Should we assume he died as a result of the hanging?
\nWhat does Acts say? ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nACT 1:20 \u201cFor it is written in the book of Psalms: \u2018Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it\u2019; and, \u2018Let another take his office.\u2019
\nHere we may have a graphic explanation of Judas\u2019 death. Of course, maybe someone can find some medical source somewhere that discusses the possibility of one having their entrails gush out after being burst open in the middle, and still survive. :)
\nSo, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth re: the \u201ctwo\u201d accounts of Judas\u2019 death is this. Matthew doesn\u2019t necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas \u201changed himself\u201d, but he didn\u2019t specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas\u2019 death.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWe do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records his death. It is possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open. However, Matthew did not say Judas died as a result of the hanging, did he? Most scholars believe he probably did, but\u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One atheist I debated along these lines said\u2026 the Greek word \u201capagchw\u201d (ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging. I replied, No you can\u2019t only conclude this, although\u2026this was a highly probable outcome. But Matthew does not state death as being a result. The Greek word is APAGCHO. Matthew 27:5 is it\u2019s only occurrence in the New Testament. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it\u2019s only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : \u201cNow when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father\u2019s tomb.\u201d Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel \u201changed himself\u201d [Gr. LXX, APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, \u201cand died\u201d. Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died. Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure. It simply means \u201chang oneself\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The same page discusses the aspect of the purchase:<\/p>\n
Perhaps here, the following maxim holds \u2014 \u201cHe who does a thing by another, does it himself.\u201d That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the \u201cClinton health care plan\u201d to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So we see that very plausible Christian explanations can be and have been advanced for these things. I doubt that young Dave sought these out. He merely asked questions of people who usually weren\u2019t prepared to give an adequate defense and counter-explanation. Then Dave used their non-answer as a pretext for falsely supposing that\u00a0no<\/span>\u00a0Christian could provide any plausible explanation, thus leading to the further unwarranted conclusion that the Bible was untrustworthy (hence, Christianity itself).<\/p>\n
In stark contrast, here is Dave\u2019s counter-\u201cexplanation\u201d from the combox:<\/p>\n
[T]he real point is that neither the writer of Matthew nor the writer of Luck actually saw any of it \u2013 it was all hearsay. It seems obvious that each writer merely tailored the details of the fable in order to demonize either the Jewish leaders or Judas, depending on the writer\u2019s personal motive.<\/span><\/p>\n
Besides, I\u2019ve heard that worn out apologetic a hundred times, and for many a year I even tried to believe it. I\u2019m ashamed to say I even preached it to others.<\/span><\/p>\n
However, both stories cannot be true \u2013 period. Since there is some measure of inaccuracy in at least one of the stories, that would suggest that the Bible is not inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant in even one sentence, then there is error, and that means it is NOT the word of a god.<\/span><\/p>\n
. . . the evidence remains that Judas either hanged himself in a field he purchased, or he had a nasty fall in a field that someone else purchased. More than likely, neither story has a shred of truth in it and the writers of the two gospels simply felt that Judas needed to end up dead after his horrible \u201cmortal\u201d sin of kissing God on the lips.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You\u00a0<\/span>(be you atheist or Christian or something else) decide which is more reasoned and plausible, and which is mere dogmatic denial based on a preconceived bias.<\/p>\n
Clearly, anyone could reject\u00a0anything<\/span>\u00a0if they utilized such a \u201cmethod\u201d and refused to seek out the more informed proponents of said belief-system before finding it wanting. That is Mickey Mouse pseudo-intellectualism, not serious thought and seeking of truth. if Dave Van Allen conceded (today) that this is not a case of two obvious contradictions, then he would have to remove this objection from the collection of those that caused him to reject Christianity.<\/p>\n
If the Christian could (speaking hypothetically for the moment) systematically debunk\u00a0all\u00a0<\/span>of his similar objections, does that mean his deconversion is nullified and he would again become a Christian? Maybe so, but that is ultimately a matter of God\u2019s grace and faith. Apologists can only remove the roadblocks of false objections. We can lead the horse to the stream and show that there are no unassailable hindrances in\u00a0getting<\/span>\u00a0to the stream, but we can\u2019t force the horse to drink.<\/p>\n
I wrote to an evangelistic radio ministry out of Richmond Virginia, asking for direction about these apparent problems. I was only thirteen and they responded to my cry for help with a short note. Instead of an intellectually satisfying apologetic, they merely admonished that some things could only be answered through the eyes of faith. I pretty much got the same answer everywhere I went.<\/span><\/p>\n
Exactly my point. But he did not seek enough answers. There are entire books written about such things, such as, for example, volumes by biblical scholars\u00a0Gleason Archer<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0William Arndt<\/a>. It\u2019s even easier now with the Internet (I found the above explanations in short order via Google). Dave didn\u2019t have that back then, but books existed in those days, way back in the 60s and 70s. But instead, young Dave settled for non-answers from fundamentalist types unacquainted with apologetics and an intellectual grounding for their faith.<\/p>\n
Maybe he didn\u2019t know any better then, and can be given some slack (he at least tried to get answers from\u00a0someone<\/span>) but he should now, especially after reading this (assuming he ever does). It\u2019s a classic case, though, of the absence of apologetics, where it was crucial that it was present, in order to help a young zealous Christian harmonize faith and reason without contradiction or serious difficulty. It wasn\u2019t there, and by his own admission, this led him to later reject Christianity.<\/p>\n
This is why I do what I do. Apostasy can be avoided in part by an understanding of the reasons\u00a0why<\/span>\u00a0we believe\u00a0what<\/span>\u00a0we believe. That\u2019s apologetics. It is extremely important in a Christian\u2019s life. As the proverb goes: \u201cthe heart cannot accept what the mind believes to be false.\u201d<\/p>\n
Regardless, I continued to attend Baptist Church on Sunday mornings, Assembly of God on Sunday nights, and various home study groups during the week. Then, the summer before entering High School, the Baptist church hierarchy decided to fire the youth minister. He had held an all night youth rally event at the church. The geriatric power people in the church thought his tactics to lure young people to church were inappropriate, so they brought the issue to vote and that settled the matter. He was there one week and gone the next. During the same time period, the Pastor of the Assembly of God church was caught having an affair with one of the lady members. Both he and the woman were married to other people, so when the affair was discovered, he resigned and left the church. I still wonder how long that had been going on.<\/span><\/p>\n
Sin and hypocrisy observed firsthand causes a lot of people to reject Christianity, but of course, such sad events offer not the slightest reason to reject Christianity. All it proves is that there is such a thing as a Christian who falls short, or fails to repent, or is a miserable example of what Christian ought to be; a hypocrite. All it proves is that the human heart is desperately wicked, in and of itself, and that we can\u00a0only<\/span>\u00a0follow God and live righteously by His grace. Since people have a free will, they can simply choose to go their own way.<\/p>\n
But that is scarcely any reason to blame\u00a0God<\/span>\u00a0or\u00a0Christianity<\/span>\u00a0as a\u00a0system<\/span>, because some people fail. I should think that it rather\u00a0confirms<\/span>\u00a0the Christian system that already predicted the real possibility and factuality of these things in the real fallen world: the same belief-system that teaches that Christianity is a narrow way, while the way to destruction is broad and that one of Jesus\u2019 own disciples betrayed Him. So why would any Christian (presumably knowing his Bible fairly well) be so surprised when this stuff happened, to cause them to lose faith? That makes no sense. But these decisions are often purely emotional, without any legitimate reason being brought to bear.<\/p>\n
My growing dissatisfaction with the church\u2019s inability to answer my Biblical questions, my budding musical career and the hypocritical church politics worked together to help me fall away from Christianity for a time.<\/span><\/p>\n
None of which offers the slightest rationale to reject Christianity, as shown . . .<\/p>\n
My grades in school improved immensely. I finished High School early, in the top 10% of the class. I auditioned for the Air Force Band, was accepted, and as soon as I turned seventeen, I left for basic training in San Antonio.<\/span><\/p>\n
As the years went by, I continued to have an interest in the Bible, studying textual variants and translation problems. I had several years of revival, when I buried my questioning and simply emulated the faith of a little child, trusting that though I could not understand many things, God knew what he was doing.<\/span><\/p>\n
Why is it that a thinker, in the top 10% of his class: a guy with a brain and a head on his shoulders, could not seek out plausible Christian answers given by scholars and apologists, and instead chose to \u201cbury\u201d his questioning and adopt the non-rational fideism that his fundamentalist surroundings apparently promulgated? He must take some of the blame in this.<\/p>\n
One sees this dynamic over and over again in atheist deconversions: they recount horror stories of dreadful and miserably misinformed and underinformed Christians, and sinning hypocrites, and then use that as a pretext to reject Christianity, as if these experiences represented the\u00a0whole sum of what true Christianity is<\/span>. it\u2019s bad thinking through and through. yet atheists so often pride themselves as being overwhelmingly superior in intellect to Christians. I respectfully suggest that there is plenty of fundamental work to be done in their own heads, before they start attacking Christianity as irrational and inconsistent.<\/p>\n
Eventually, I would get a headache from such pious mind games and find myself drifting again. I spent years in and out of Charismatic meetings where healings were performed as well as Words of Knowledge, messages from God, and rousing sermons proclaiming the imminent return of Christ. The emotional feeling of those early charismatic events was like a drug high.<\/span><\/p>\n
There are numerous excesses and problems in these circles as well, and they are not exactly known for solid biblical thinking. You get nuts running around saying, for example, that the Bible teaches that all people should be healed. I was refuting that way back in 1982.<\/p>\n
During these up and down spiritual times, I swung between being fanatically zealous, to totally apostate.<\/span><\/p>\n
That was a clear sign that something was radically wrong. As a Christian, he should have sought some serious pastoral counseling. Surely\u00a0someone<\/span>\u00a0in his circles could direct him to apologetics books that would have dealt with his objections? There may be temperamental and psychological factors involved too (he doesn\u2019t say, but the above description suggests the real possibility to me). If he was prone to cycles of depression, for example, then that is an independent problem that could not be blamed on Christianity.<\/p>\n
I comforted myself on my lack of consistency by reasoning that at least I was not lukewarm. In the next few years I belonged to several different Baptist Churches and several different Charismatic Churches in succession.<\/span><\/p>\n
Church-hopping is not conducive to a stable spiritual life. This is a huge problem in Protestant circles.<\/p>\n
I was married, had a son, got divorced, remarried and had two more children. In my thirties, I finally hit bottom and decided I would simply dig in, buy books like crazy, and study until I got all my answers.<\/span><\/p>\n
I\u2019d love to see what orthodox Christian books (particularly of apologetics) he consulted, and on what basis he rejected their reasoning. We are what we read. If one decides to read a bunch of liberal Christian, or skeptical, or atheist books, then obviously they will tend to believe along those lines. This is why I always urge everyone to read different perspectives on a given issue: the best of each position, to rationally make up their minds, using their critical faculties. This is why I am so big on dialogue and amiable but serious and vigorous interaction between viewpoints.<\/p>\n
My second wife and I were deeply involved in an English speaking Assembly of God church while living in Japan. We ran the music ministry, the bookstore and participated in English evangelism at a local Japanese speaking Assembly of God. Once again, my inquiring mind reared its ugly head and put me at odds with the church. For years I had accepted the Pentecostal<\/a> teaching that all Christians must speak in tongues to demonstrate they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n