Are You Going to Hell?

 

In the video clip. A college student asks Frank Turek whether she is going to hell. 

Turek of course does not want to say so. He dodges the question. But in fact, she is a good example of someone bound for hell.

She says she is a “good” person. She of course hopes this is sufficient. But her definition of “good” is “according to the standards of our society,” and in the expectation that others will treat her the same.

This is what the Bible condemns in the passage 

 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

Doing whatever society expects is an abdication of moral responsibility. It is taking society and your own well-being as God. Idolatry is a far graver sin than lying, theft, or murder.

Speaking of which, some of my students troubled me recently. The text was on lying. And the book asked the question, “Is it ever all right to lie?” 

“Sure,” they answered. “If nobody finds out.”

At the beginning of the clip, Turek has just asked the student, “If God exists and if Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?” 

She answers “there is no proof that I would be able to accept.” 

When he offers her a book to read on condition that she promise to read it, she at first will not do so. I wonder if Turek meant this as a test. It demonstrates that she is not looking for the truth.

This is the essential qualification for heaven. This is what true faith means: to seek truth. The Christian God is “the way, the truth, and the light.” 

Not wanting truth means rejecting God. And Turek is right in his definition of heaven: heaven is the presence of God, hell is the absence of God. If we reject God in life, we choose for ourselves to go to hell.

I suspect in the end this woman will find her way. I sense a tremor in her voice when she asks about hell. She finally does promise to read the book. Part of her is seeking; otherwise, she would not have come to the talk. She is at least hearing the voice of her good angel.

It is those who will not read the book if offered, who are surely going to hell.

Each of us, before our deaths, perhaps gets that offer.

The Truth of No Truth

Frank Turek

It must be tough to be a Christian apologist or professional debater, like William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias. You can have your arguments well researched, as Craig certainly does; but even so, sooner or later someone is going to come at you with something you had not thought of. And you can be left flat-footed.

I fear that tends to happen with Frank Turek. He is not that well-versed in the philosophy. He seems to get flummoxed. When he gets flummoxed, he will not admit it, but resorts to rhetorical tricks.

The person who sincerely seeks truth, wherever that search may lead, is a Christian. Only such a person shows true faith in God. The person who does not sincerely seek truth is not a Christian. You don’t get to be a Christian just by saying so. Frank Turek turns out not to be a Christian.

In a YouTube video I watched, an audience member suggested a possible response to the claim that postmodernism is self-contradictory. Instead of saying “all rules have exceptions,” the postmodernist can say, “all rules have exceptions—except this one.” Unfortunately, Turek simply denounced the statement as “too stupid to answer” and suggested calling the postmodernist who proposed it “poopy-pants.”

Thanks for claiming to speak in my behalf as a Christian, Frank Turek.

Let me respond, then.

The phrase “all rules have exceptions, except this one” to begin with, is not really to the point. A theist or other absolutist could assent to it; a rule can be absolute in principle and still have defined exceptions, or a defined context in which it is true. The Law of Gravity, for example, does not apply in dreams.

The real postmodern position that stands in opposition to theism is “there is no truth.” That is why they speak of “narratives,” and “my truth.” They might say instead, “truth is subjective.” Same meaning. So, rephrase the statement as “there is no truth, except this one.” If you prefer, “truth is subjective, except for this truth.”

But using “this” might be a little misleading. What is “this” in this sentence?

Try to replace it with what it refers to and you immediately get an infinite regression.

“There is no truth except that there is no truth except that there is no truth except that there is no truth…”

“Truth is subjective except for the truth that truth is subjective except for the truth that truth is subjective …”

And the statement never comes to an end. Making it logically impossible on two grounds instead of just one.