I've seen a trend lately with Christian theists falling back on this idea that their version of the Christian God is true because an all knowing, all powerful, immaterial, all sufficient, all good God has revealed himself through the Scriptures, through our consciences, through our senses, memory and reasoning and innately in such a way that we are certain of God. This God is the ultimate authority on, well, everything it would seem. And even if you think you don't think this good God almighty has revealed himself to you, he really has. Not only that, you cannot have a reasoned thought without acknowledging this God, even if you don't acknowledge him.
This clever proof of God is call presuppositional apologetics and if you don't agree with that view, then you are wrong. Subsequently, the Christian promoting this view cannot even talk to you, because you could be wrong about everything, because you don't agree with the basic premise the Christian is presenting.
They conveniently ignore a question they will ask you, is it possible you could be wrong about everything? The answer to that question is, in a logical sense, yes it is possible, in a practical sense, no it isn't. The moment you say you could be wrong in a logical sense, they take that then apply it to a practical sense, even if you've just pointed out there is a difference. When you try to ask them the same question, how do you know what you believe is reliable, how do you know we are not living in The Matrix, the answer is predictably, I can't be wrong because it has been revealed to me by God and God cannot lie. How do you know the revelation isn't part of the program in The Matrix? Because God cannot lie.
Of course, when you start to press them on the issue and ask about the Scripture being used as the source, you'll get varied answers. Sometimes, you get people who say, you have to use the King James Version, then others who say any version will do, then yet another group who say you have to refer to the original manuscript. I've encountered all three and the thing I've noticed is when you press them on the issue, they change the rules of the game mid-conversation.
Most people who think the KJV is the authoritative word of God, don't even know that the KJV they read, is not the original KJV, including the fact several books were dropped after the original version came out. They also don't realize most of the words were just copied from earlier versions. They also don't think about the fact that the ability to translate ancient manuscript has improved dramatically over the last 400 years so any modern version has a greater chance of translating with accuracy.
The "any version will do" crowd will immediately change their tune when you find a passage that doesn't fit their theology. They will then refer back to Hebrew and Greek manuscript and suddenly become experts at reading and understanding ancient Hebrew and Greek.
When pressed, the original manuscript crowd suddenly finds the originality of the manuscript really doesn’t matter, since those manuscripts don't actually exist. A fragment of a single page, the size of a credit card suddenly becomes good enough. Large passages, such as the end of Mark 16 that is added well after the fact just don't matter, because they claim it doesn't change the overall message. Things like the writer of Matthew using a bad Greek translation of Isaiah in talking about the "prophecy" of a virgin birth is an acceptable error.
So in order to attempt to have a conversation with these people, you have to agree upon their presupposition, which even then, doesn't really lead to a productive conversation. I recently had one of these dead end conversations and in the process I asked the question, how do you know God is not deceiving you? The answer I received was, God cannot lie.
One of the scriptures that is used to support the idea that God cannot lie is Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent." What is strange is how the second half of that verse gets ignored. There a number of verses that would clearly suggest that God was repentant for various things that he did. So how can only half of that statement be true without questioning if all of it is true. However, there are a number of verses that say God cannot lie, so I'm ok with presupposing that this God cannot lie.
But even giving that God cannot lie, there are places that state God can and does cause people to be deceived and to deceive. When you ask a presupper about this, they might take Jeremiah 20:7 and say the root word translated as deceived could be translated in other ways. And this is true and not without precedence. According to Strong's its meaning is usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude - allure, deceive, enlarge, entice, flatter, persuade. Then they argue that the meaning could be entice. The same can be said for Ezekiel 14:9. One major problem with this idea is that traditionally the church held the idea that God could deceive you. Another problems is this means you cannot trust all translations of the Bible to get things right, so "any version of the Bible" won't do and the KJV, certainly wouldn't do in this case.
If these two verses were the only ones that talked about God deceiving, the presuppers might be off the hook. Of course, they don't want to talk about the other scriptures talking about God's deceit, because they cannot be as easily manipulated. 1 Kings 12:22-23 says God allowed a deceiving spirit to cause the prophets to lie. So maybe God doesn't directly deceive in this scripture, but he is definitely deceiving by proxy here. 2 Chronicles 18:22 says that God put the deceiving spirit in the mouths of the prophets. So in this case God is directly causing deceit.
Now often times, theists will try to wiggle their way out of the Old Testament, when it doesn't fit their narrative, but unfortunately for them, this idea carries over into the New Testament. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 say "For this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." The Greek word translated as delusion here is consistently translated as error or deception. The word translated as believe can also be translated as faith, which doesn't change the meaning, and the word for lie is always translated as a lie or falsehood.
So if you can say, based on the Bible, the character of God is that he doesn't lie, you must also say, using the same rules, that God will and does deceive people. I really want to know how these presuppers can know that an all knowing, all powerful, immaterial, all sufficient, all good God, who has revealed himself hasn’t actually deceived them? Perhaps he isn't all powerful and you are just deceived into believing that he is. Many would argue he sure isn't good, but yet, the presuppers will are argue that his actions are good even though, if the same actions were committed by humans, would be considered sick and disgusting. Can an immaterial God really take on human flesh and still be immaterial? God doesn't seem all sufficient when it comes to answering the prayers of believers in need. The observable characteristics of your presupposed God do not match your description of that same God. This seems very much like a delusion.
So I invite any presuppositionalist to answer the following questions for me.
1. How do you know your senses, memory and reasoning are valid and working properly and you have not been deceived by the God you are presupposing? As not everyone’s reasoning is valid, how do you know your reasoning is valid and you have not been deceived?
2. How do you know you exist and you aren't suffering from a delusion sent by your presupposed God?
3. How do you know what is “real” and not a delusional state, caused by your presupposed God?
I will also make the observation, thinking you cannot be deceived by your presupposed God, could be strong indicator that your presupposed God deceiving you. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that an all knowing, all powerful, immaterial, all sufficient, all good God who is causing deceit would leave behind no clues of the deception? Otherwise, it would not actually be a true deception. Based on this, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that you have been deceived.
No comments:
Post a Comment