***This is the conclusion of my To Be a Christian debate with Trevor Blake.The terms can be found here, Blake’s opening here, my opening here, Blake’s response here, my response here, and finally Blake’s conclusion here. If you enjoyed the debate, please consider donating to Samaritan Purse.***

****

Final Arguments

To be a Christian is to love Christ, to repent your sins, and to obey him by loving others. That is all that is needed to be Christian.

Throughout the debate Trevor has argued that Christians must understand and explain every detail of theology or the entirety of Christianity can be ignored. Christianity does not work like that.

Christianity is Christ, everything else is details. It is true faith in Christ that saves, nothing else.

Belief is necessary, understanding is not. The only theology one has to accept to be a Christian is the Nicene Creed, a rather simple document containing rather simple statements. Other more complex theology may be helpful (or it may be hindering), but it is not necessary for a Christian to know or to understand. Christianity is neither a complex nor elite religion, it is the good news of salvation for the masses.

As for the No True Scotsman in the Sky, God defines good. God is good. To talk about good apart from God is non-nonsensical babbling.

Trevor brags how his knowledge of the scriptures is greater than mine, and it might be so, but it is irrelevant. What use is knowledge without understanding?

This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Matthew 13:13-15 ESV)

What use is understanding without wisdom?

Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
If you turn at my reproof,
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.
For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” (Proverbs 1:20-33 ESV)

What use is wisdom without practice? He that hears the Word but does not put it into practice is no better off than he who does not hear the Word.

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (James 1:22-25 ESV)

Trevor struggles with finding the median point between specificity and generality, thinking this is a fault of mine or of Christians in general. Instead, he must realize there he is looking for a median that doesn’t exist. One must see both the forest and the trees at once to build a house: seeing only the former one knows only a green sea of leaves from which no house can be built and seeing only the latter one wonders how it can possibly be enough wood to build a house.

He claims I contradict myself “from one sentence to the next“, showing only that he sees not the forest. One cannot declare a house impossible after viewing only two trees, while blinding oneself to the trees behind them.

But Trevor is correct in that if he understood the scriptures he would believe. Trevor believes “men do what they do, then use rationality to rationalize what they did,” yet he does not apply that to himself here. In pride he thinks himself wiser than men and so blinds himself.

Wisdom cries out, but he refuses to hear; he closes his eyes and in the darkness sees only foolishness. To become wise, he must first become a fool. He boasts of winning, yet the only prize worth having he does not humble himself to pursue.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ESV)

As for natural rights, they do not exist; there is only justice and mercy. Man is a sinner deserving naught the just damnation he so desperately pursues, his only hope is the mercy of Christ.

So, humble yourself, open your eyes and see, repent your sins, and beg Christ for His mercy for the Kingdom of Heaven draws near.

****

Self-Review

I think I held up well in the debate. I can not think of any arguments that I would have liked to have made differently. Whether I won or not is up to the audience, but I have a feeling it will probably line up along religious lines, as ‘who won?’ questions in debates usually do. Personally, I will have considered it a win if even one person is drawn closer to Christ.

I did try to work on my rhetoric, while trying to avoid personal attacks or insults, I think I succeeded. There were some writing errors and dropped sentences that usually plague my work, but there were less than usual as I did because I did do more self-editing than usual.

****

Thoughts on the Debate Format

I think a bit more time between each response would have been helpful, especially given that I stick to a posting schedule. I found myself barely squeaking by within the 5 days; a full week would have been better.

One more opportunity for response (so: Opening, Response, Response, Conclusion) might have allowed for a more thorough flushing out of ideas.

I think simultaneous posting would have been better, so we were each responding to one post. For my opening I was unsure if I should respond to Trevor’s opening or not and for my response I was unsure if I should just respond to his opening, or to both his opening and response. So either simultaneous posting, or defininf exactly what to respond to before hand. Another problem, was that by going second I got a significant advantage, especially in such a short debate, in by being able to reply to more of Trevor’s side, while Trevor is not even going to be able to respond to my conclusion within the confines of the debate.

‘To Be a Christian’ was a rather broad topic; a more focused topic may have allowed for a more focused debate.

*****

On the Comments

I thought there would be more comments on the debate then there actually were. I guess I overestimated the . One thing I did note for future debates is that the comments can potentially impact the debates, especially if the debate goes longer than ours did. I think in future debates, the debaters should discuss whether comments should be opened or closed.

Here’s a few responses to the comments:

I am not a Catholic. Even if I was, I was specifically trying to avoid a sectarian view of Christianity, and I was avoiding taking a stance on controversial theological topics. I was trying to display what Lewis referred to as Mere Christianity.

I forgot to tell Blake to to edit his misspelling as Exfernal asked.

In response to Exfernal’s question I did not address the issue of the paternal grandfather of Jesus. I will briefly do so now.

The most common belief is that the two different genealogies are due to one being Joesph’s and the other Mary’s (even though it is claimed as Joseph’s due to cultural factors) . Another belief is that one was Joseph’s direct line, while the other was the royal line. Another thing to consider is that Jewish genealogy is not always direct, generations are sometimes skipped depending on the purpose of the genealogy.

Whatever the exact reason for the discrepancy, the more important thing to note is that many early Christians were Jews and would have been knowledgeable of Jewish genealogical traditions, yet they did not reject the Gospels due to the discrepancies between the two genealogies, so the differences were something that would have made sense to and been accepted by Jews of that time.

***This is part of an ongoing debate I am engaging in with Trevor Blake. The terms can be found here, Blake’s opening here, my opening here, and Blake’s response here. If you are enjoying the debate, please consider donating to Samaritin’s Purse.***

Trevor has started by outlining what Christianity is and is not. He does this by pointing out there are two heads to the two first churches, many denominations, many interpretations, and many heresies and false religions with the obvious, but unstated, implication they can’t all be right and therefore are all wrong. Of course, any truth will be interpreted differently and incorrectly. Just because men can only see the platonic shadows on the wall does not mean that the object whose shadow is being cast doesn’t exist. Assuming there is no Truth because man can not fully and perfectly comprehend the Truth is to put far too much faith in a people who can not even fully understand their own minds.

I will ignore his jab at Martin Luther as even he admits that it is invalid.

In his strongest argument he implies that because the Biblical canon was not settled until the fourth or fifth century and because the Catholics and Orthodox have a few historical and wisdom books in their canon that Protestants do not accept, the Bible can not be trusted. As one would expect there to be disagreement on canon as those who can only see the shadows may disagree. Despite this disagreement, the canon was fixed and there is a remarkable agreement among Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox as what constitutes the New Testament, ie. Jesus’ life and teachings and the early church. Those Old Testament works upon which we disagree do not alter the Christian message. Also, note that a claim of non-canonicity is not the same as a claim of untruthfulness, only a claim that the book is undeserving of inclusion in the New Testament.

But, it could be argued that despite the churches agree on the NT canon, the majority of the OT canon, and that those works not fully accepted do not change the fundamental Christian message, how can we know this canon is correct, given the many debates over what should be included? Trevor implies that because of historical disagreement the canon may be wrong. For this, we simply have to check our presuppositions. If one believes God exists and sent His message to the world, would it not be reasonable to deduct that he ensured that the correct message reached the world? If one believes in the Christian God, then believing that He would make sure His word was triumphant in His church only makes sense.

He then mentions a few ‘contradictions’ in the Bible. Some of them only need a passing mention as interpreting poetic language like ‘the four corners of the earth’ as a scientific thesis or condemning a non-mathematical text for rounding diameter and circumference to significant numbers is just silly in a way that shouldn’t even need explaining. Although, it is possible that Blake believes newspapers are lying whenever they print stories about $3-billion government programs.

Trevor stands on better legs when he condemns historical texts for inaccurate historical counts. Given that 5≠8 is the example he states in his opening, I’ll examine that. He uses the KJV, so I’ll use that too here.

And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: and Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushabhesed, five. – 1 Chronicles 3:19-20

There are obviously 8 names there, not five, but the objection misses one key thing: “:”. A colon is used to start an enumeration. After the colon there are five sons. Before the colon there are two sons followed by a daughter. There are two different lists of the sons of Zerubbabel seperated by a listing of a daughter and a colon. The list being counted as five has five. Why there are two lists, I’m not sure, although I’d guess it would have to do with Zerubbabel having sons by different wives, but there is no innumeracy here. Trevor just missed the colon.

As to the first on the list, where 36≠29 from Joshua 15:32, Wesley’s commentary explains succinctly:

Twenty nine — Here are thirty seven or thirty eight cities named before; how then are they only reckoned twenty nine? There were only twenty nine of them, which either, 1. properly belonged to Judah; the rest fell to Simeon’s lot; or 2. Were cities properly so called, that is, walled cities, or such as had villages under them, as it here follows; the rest being great, but unwalled towns, or such as had no villages under them.”

As for the second, where 15≠14, John Gill explains:

Either one of them was no city strictly called; or

Gederah and Gederothaim is put for Gederah or Gederothaim, so called, possibly, because the city was double, as there want not instances of one city divided into two parts, called the old and the new city. So the conjunction and is put for the disjunctive or, whereof examples have been given before.

I believe that is sufficient for my point, when one is listing names and the count does not match the number of names correctly, which is the more likely explanation, someone writing the history of their people can’t do basic counting and nobody reading his accounts corrected him, or either one city had two names or a named place was not a city proper?

We visited three cities: Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, Manhattan, New York, and Boston. 3≠5

Trevor then makes the common (among atheists) mistake of judging morality by his own human moral compass. By what right does he decide slavery is immoral? How can someone who believes man is literally the accidental arrangement of carbon, water, and electricity (to grossly oversimplify) by chaotic forces impute any moral value to the actions of said sacks of carbon?

This is the center of the fallacies of his argument: he rejects absolute truth, implicitly imputes truth to his own morality, uses this morality to condemn Christianity and Christian morality, then criticizes Christianity because “It means what the believer wants it to mean”. The argument is flawed, and these flaws are easy to see when they are stripped to their essence, not (just) because his specific points are wrong, but because he has not checked his basic beliefs.

Either God is and His word is Law, or God isn’t and there is no Law.

****

We can move on to Trevor’s second statement.

He mentions the Gospel of Thomas; I have already dealt with the canon above.

He calls God a liar as He supposedly says prophecies will fail, yet, when we review the verse, we see only incomplete gifts or the doctrine of cessationism.* He brings forth the charge again, in one case calling the Lord a liar when the Lord hands an evil man over to the lying spirits of false prophets and the other where a charge of deceit is brought against the Lord due to the lies of false prophets. The lesson from these verses is not ‘God lies’, but rather God will deliver you to false prophets should you refuse to heed His words. If you reject the Truth, why wouldn’t He hand you over to lies?

Here Trevor once again condemns God as monstrous by his own standards of morality. Does not God have the right to harden the heart of His own creation when His own creation rejects Him? By what right does Trevor deny God this right?

As for those unreached by the Gospel, the Bible is mostly silent and not very explicit. The Bible is clear: Man is a sinner and damns himself to the punishment he rightly deserves. None enter hell undeserved. As well, Christ is the only way to heaven, and only through His unjust mercy can man be with God.

Yet Paul does write:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:12-16 ESV)

As well, Peter stated, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him…” and Jesus said, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.”

Even among those who may not have heard of Christ by name, if they seek Him and follow the natural law written in their heart, they will find Him.

As for babes, have they followed the natural law written into their own hearts, and is not God a God of mercy?

Trevor then rips a verse out of its immediate context to call Him a liar once again. When not sundered from the following verses it is clear Paul is not referring to a physical, temporary resurrection, but an eternal ressurection. Christ was the first to be eternally resurrected, come the judgment we shall be so as well. The resurrection of Lazarus and the others were but temporary, they still died. They were still under the curse of Adam.

Trevor then enters into Trinitarianism, where he argues that God does not exist because we can’t understand Him. I guess he would argue that man does not exist as Mr. Escherichia Coli does not understand man. If man could fully understand the the fullness of an infinite God when man does not even fully understand his own mind, we could scarcely call the being God, now could we?

He then argues that because God demanded man not change His laws, that God Incarnate is not allowed to change said laws. This is self-refuting. As for fulfilling the Law, the Law was a tool so man could know God, now man can know God directly; the Law is not destroyed, only added to.

Trevor then argues that because Christians are given the use of Christ’s power from Christ that Christ is not special because Christians using Christ’s power can do as Christ does. Strip away the rhetoric and the argument is once again self-refuting.

Trevor then argues that because 72 apostles were given extraordinary instructions, protections, and powers, that God is a liar because these protections do not apply to Trevor as well. I wonder if Trevor also refuses to wear footwear or greet people on the road?

This is why it is important to read verses in their immediate context and in the context of scripture as a whole.

In his penultimate paragraph, Trevor mentions failed prophecies which are only failed in his mind. The kingdom of God did come to the disciples in the disciples’ lifetime in the form of Christ’s resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. As for the prophecies of the end times, they only fail if you define such phrases ‘shortly’ and ‘at hand’ in a particular manner**. Peter warns against taking just such an approach:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:1-10 ESV)

Finally, Trevor criticizes my opening statement because I did not go into the specifics of theology. The specifics aren’t needed for salvation or to be a Christian, only the basics do. Christianity is not an intellectually elite club excluding all but those gifted with the ability to understand deep theology, it is the good news of salvation for the perishing.

By discussing matters of theology Christian intellectuals can gain greater knowledge of and insight into the nature of God and His works, but the illiterate cobbler needs this not. The humble cobbler doesn’t need to understand the differences between limited and unlimited atonement or grapple with the particularities of the ransom, Christus Victor, and satisfaction theories of atonement to be saved, all the cobbler needs is to repent and throw himself on the mercy of Christ. Thank God for His mercy that we only need see the outlines of the shadows on the wall to be saved and not the perfect forms themselves, or we’d all be damned.

And if Christ does not require specific theological knowledge and views to save, who am I to demand that a Christian hold to such particular views?

So, to all my readers trust in Christ, repent your sins, and be baptized, for the kingdom of the Lord is at hand, and He will be faithful and just and cleanse of your unrighteousness.

****

* Once again, I am not entering into a debate over the finer theological points of cessationism.
** Not dipping into eschatology here either.