Shame on You, Perez Hilton

Posted April 21, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Current Events

Tags: , , , , , ,

It brings a wry smile to my face with the tolerance crowd shows their true colors.  No matter how much they try to promote “tolerance” as the ultimate good, they show over and over again that they actually don’t believe that.

The most recent example is the controversy surrounding the runner up to Miss America, Carrie Prejean.  During her interview process, she was asked, by Perez Hilton, a question about her views on same-sex marriage.  She explained that, “in my country, and in my family, marriage is between a man and a woman – no offense to anone out there”.  Needless to say, she did not win the Miss America crown.

Hilton took the opportunity to do get as much exposure as possible, Larry King, MSNBC arguing against Prejeans statements.  On his Twitter page, Hilton called Prejean a “dumb b****”, apologized for the comment, and then took back the apology.

To Perez Hilton:

So basically, tolerance only applies to those that agree with you, right?  You expect everyone to be tolerant of your redefinition of marriage, but the minute someone disagrees with you, the tolerance rule no longer applies, right?  You can go around calling women b****es but if someone is derogatory towards homosexuals, boy do they deserve to pay.

Can you not respect that Prejean didn’t bow to popular opinion and expressed her beliefs?  She basically gave up her dream of being Miss America to be true to what she believes, wouldn’t you do the same for your beliefs Perez?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, Perez.  I thank you for showing the world who you truly are so that we will no longer be fooled by your mask of “tolerance”.  Your vile comments prove that you are just as dogmatic a believer as the religious whom you berate.

The Ceasing of Spiritual Gifts: A Debate (Response #2)

Posted April 20, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Discussion, Theology

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Coramdeo responded to my first entry on the topic over on his blog. 

Semantics, Both Irrelevant and Important

In reading Coramdeo’s response, it has become quite clear that him and I are mincing words to some degree.  In some places these semantics are irrelevant but in other places they are very important.  Coramdeo previously claimed:

God still works supernaturally,[but] we rely upon Scripture alone to hear from God, to prove His gospel, and be the catalyst that saves His people

I still see a contradiction here becuase of the word alone, but I understand what Coramdeo is saying.    He explains himself well later on:

Does the Holy Spirit still work today? Yes. Does He still perform miracles? Yes. Does He speak to people or use power to verify people’s messages, spoken outside the scope of Scripture? No.

See, this I can get behind.  The key phrase here is “outside the scope of Scripture”.  Of course the Holy Spirit has self-limited to the guidelines set down by Scripture.

Personal Experience

For the record, I am not with A.H. Ackley when he says, “You ask me how I know he lives?  He lives within my heart.”  That’s not a very good apologetic.  What I mean is this:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:13-14).

Is not recieving the Holy Spirit as a “seal” and “pledge” personally experienced?  What validates this personal experience is the Word of God, and without this Scriptural backing any personal experience is, at best, meaningless if not heretical.  However, this is a personal experience nonetheless. 

 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16).

Here Paul is specifically telling us that a subjective, personal experience verifies to us that we are children of God.  What could be more subjective and personal than the Spirit of God testifying to our spirit?

In fact, the context of Romans 8: 4-16 is that Paul is describing how the Spirit will guide us because “all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.”  The Spirits’ leading in our minds and lives is subjective, real, and valid. 

Gal 5:16-25  is another time Paul is elaborating on subjective traits that will change with the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the book of Acts, there are numerous references to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 16:6-7, Luke tells us that Paul on his second missionary journey was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” and then that “they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them“.  Of course, no written law from the Old Testament (the Scripture of the day) told them that they couldn’t preach in Asia or Bithynia.  It seems that the Holy Spirit must have directed them in a specific way, whether through audible words, or an unmistakeable sense in the mind, or some other subjective impression of a lack of the Spirit’s blessing on the attempted endeavor (Grudem’s Systematic Theology, pg. 643). 

In another instance, Paul says, “I am going to Jerusalem bound by the Spirit, not knowing what shall befall me there; except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me” (Acts 20:22-23).  Paul’s personal impression of what the Holy Spirit wants for him, and has in store for him, is so powerful and specific that he is “bound” by what he must do and knows what will happen to him when he does it. 

These verses are in direct contradiction to something Coramdeo said:

You see the point is the subjective really doesn’t matter, what matters is objective truth.

Scripture is saying that the subjective does matter.  In fact, the personal and subjective leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit is a standard theological doctrine and characteristic of the acts of the Holy Spirit. 

Look, I understand where this sentiment comes from.  We are living in a time when the scientific community has told us that only “objective, provable” truth matters.  Our western thinking is that if it can’t be proved with evidence, then it isn’t valid.  And then, many cults and religious crazies came around and showed the world how dangerous and silly “because I feel it” can be, which only furthered the paradigm.  Unfortunately, this is just not what Scripture teaches. 

What I’m saying is that there is a ditch on both sides of the road.  On one side is “because I feel it” and on the other side is “the subjective doesn’t matter.”  Let’s follow Scripture and not swerve so far away from one side that we fall into the ditch on other.

“The Perfect”

It seems we’re still at an impasse here.  I still feel that the problems with interpreting “the perfect” to be the Canon have not been answered.  First, I’ll respond to the argument Coramdeo posted by Dave Stevens.

Paul compares what will happen when “the perfect” comes with two metaphors.  1.  Knowledge of a child vs. knowledge of a man and 2.  seeing through a dim mirror vs. seeing face to face.  Mr. Stevens’ main point is that if we take “the perfect” to mean the Second Coming of Christ, then we will be “mixing metaphors”.  Interpreting the first three as metaphors and the last one (face to face) as being literally face to face with Christ is inconsistent.

The problem with this argument is two fold.  Firstly, “face to face” is not exactly lacking any metaphorical language.  When I meet someone face to face, as we say, I’m not actually putting my face to his face am I?  So face to face is a metaphor for meeting someone and seeing their face. 

Secondly, so we’re mixing metaphors…and?  Paul uses a metaphor three times and then a less metaphorical example the fourth.  What’s the problem with this?  Mr. Stevens claims this is a problem in interpreting “the perfect” as the Second Coming, but doesn’t explain why this is a problem.  In fact, all he does is claim that mixing metaphors is a problem because, “Paul would never mix a metaphor with reality”. 

So now he’s using a non-Biblical definition of what Paul would and wouldn’t do to interpret Scripture.  That is not solid hermeneutics.  It ignores that “face to face” is a metaphor and ignores his own limitations it knowing, with any accuracy, what literary devices Paul would and wouldn’t use and where.  That Paul wouldn’t mix metaphors here is pure assumption.

Stevens also says that if “the perfect” is interpreted as The Second Coming of Christ it would the only time Jesus was described in the neuter.  Good point, and that’s why this passage has garnered wide debate.  However, Stevens ignores two counter-points.  1.  If “the perfect” is referring to the Canon then it would be the only prophecy of it’s kind in all of Scripture (equally problematic to the sole instance of a neuter tense to describe Christ) and 2. the option of interpreting “the perfect” to mean our glorified state in heaven solves both the problem of the neuter tense and the unique prophecy problem.

Two Unanswered Questions

What both Stevens and Coramdeo did not address is that, in their position on “the perfect”, Paul is including himself the lack of knowledge the Corinthians have (dim mirror, understanding like a child) and that the canon will give them full knowledge.  I objected, stating that I don’t think we should be ready to claim that the author of two-thirds of that same canon, an author that was taught by Jesus Himself for three years, an author that fellowshipped with probably every author of the remaining one third of the canon, is lacking knowledge that the canon would provide him with. 

In an attempt to answer this objection, Coramdeo stated:

Of course Paul is including himself in this because the church has not been built yet, nor has the canon, since others like John were writing it.

This does not answer the objection because it is begging the question.  The question isn’t about whether or not the canon is complete or the church is built.  The question is whether or not Paul is lacking in knowledge that the canon would give him.

So, I will ask again.  Coramdeo, are you claiming that the Apostle Paul, with all the characteristics described above, is lacking in knowledge, just like the Corinthians are, that the canon will give him when it comes?

My other objection was centered around another part of the passage that has gone unmentioned.  When describing the knowing what will occur when “the perfect” has come, Paul says that we will “know in full, just as we are fully known”.  Taking Coramdeo’s position, this would mean that since the canon has come, we know God’s truth as equally and fully as God knows us.  Are we really ready to say this?

The Point Is This

I have no problem with Coramdeo not being able answer these objections right away (although I, of course, welcome any response on the topic).  Nor am I saying that since these objections exist, therefore 1 Cor 13:8-13 cannot be referring to the canon.  My point is that since this is, at the very least, a vague and hotly debated passage, it is irrational to base the doctrine of cessationism, even in part, upon it.  If Coramdeo agrees, then we put this aside as “inconclusive” and move onto the other questions Coramdeo has asked of continuationism and the other evidences for cessationism.

Have the Spiritual Gifts Ceased?

Posted April 16, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Discussion, Theology

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This is my first installment in the current debate on the spiritual gifts.  Specifically, whether or not some of the gifts have ceased.  Coramdeo is taking the Cessationist position while I’m taking the Continuationist position.

However, I want to say that I don’t associate with any particular label on this topic.  Frankly, I’m just not sure I have a concrete position on this issue yet.  I’m sure that there is an entire spectrum of cessationists and continuationists and neither Coramdeo or I would fit all models across the spectrum.

However, for the sake of clarity in this debate I will hold the mantle of “Continuationist” even though it may not accurately describe me. 

We Must Agree on Something First

The Word of God is the ultimate authority on everything that it talks about.  I know that Coramdeo would agree with this and I hope any other Christian following this debate, or just reading this article, would be on board as well.  If this isn’t our starting point, we have our feet firmly planted in thin air. 

My goal, in this debate, is to make sure that we hold tightly to our Ultimate Authority and to not go places it doesn’t.  This presupposition must be committed to even if it means we don’t get a systematic, concrete answer out of the question of spiritual gifts, if it means holding to an uncomfortable doctrine, or if it means letting go of a comfortable one.

Basically, the cessationist position, as described by Coramdeo, is one where certain spiritual gifts have ceased, specifically tongues and prophecy (although Coramdeo does bring healing in the mix a bit as well).  I will respond to his the main points he uses to defend this position.

One Thing Cessationists Can’t Have Both Ways

First, I’d like to comment on a perceived contradiction.  Coramdeo explains that:

Its not like we don’t believe in Miracles (1), we believe God is working Supernaturally, just that He no longer uses some of the Spiritual gifts He gave to the early church

and a paragraph later he says:

Cessationists now rely on scripture alone to hear from God, to prove His Gospel, and to be the catalyst that saves His people.

These two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other and I’m Coramdeo can clear it up for me.  Scripture alone does not drive salvation and confirm the Gospel.  This is the job of the Holy Spirit as much as it is the truth held in the pages of the Bible.  A supernatural change of mind and an indwelling of the Holy Spirit is needed for true conversion. 

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.  (Eph 1:13-14)

So which one is it?  Does the Holy Spirit supernaturally speak to God’s children, enter into to them to seal the pledge and confirm our salvation?  Or must those things come solely from the pages of Scripture?

I would assert that even a cessationist relies on this personal, subjective experience from the Holy Spirit to confirm the truth of Scripture.  Just as the Apostles relied on their personal experience of the Risen Christ to confirm what Christ said about Himself, so too does the modern Church rely on the personal experience of the Holy Spirit, however it manifests, to confirm the Word of God.

If a cessationist says they rely solely on Scripture for salvation, confirmation and affirmation, he is fooling himself and he is, ironically, going against what Scripture says about how the Holy Spirit interacts with the Church!

In defense of cessationism, Coramdeo quotes two main passages.  Let’s examine them.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.   9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Coramdeo’s point is that “the perfect” refers to the New Testament Canon and since “the perfect” has come, therefore the gifts have ceased.  Let’s take Coramdeo’s position, and see if substituting “New Testament Canon” with “the perfect” makes sense of the passage. 

Firstly, let’s point out that if Paul is prophecying the coming of the Bible, something he could have no knowledge of apart from a revelation from God, it would be the only prophecy regarding the formation of the Canon. 

Secondly, are we prepared to say that the New Testament Canon is “perfect”?  The Canon is merely a compilation of ancient manuscripts (mss).  Compiled by men.  Several times there are passages (Acts 9, the end of Mark) that are in some mss but not in others.  So to call the New Testament Canon “perfect” we must say that the Council of Nicea got it “perfect”.  Did the Council get it right?  Surely.  Did they accurately preserve the Word of God to be passed down through the generations?  Of course.  But did they get it “perfect”?  Was every single mss copied by hand, passed down to us, copied “perfectly”?  If Paul means to call the future actions of human compilers “perfect”, it would be the first time the actions of humans are described this way.

Thirdly, Paul describes exactly what will happen when this “perfect” will come.  Presently, Pauls says, “I know in part” but when “the perfect” comes “I will fully know just as I also have been fully known.”  This side of the New Testament Canon, can we say that we “fully know” just as God fully knows us?  Of course not.  Surely, this side of the New Testament Canon we have access to God’s truth much more readily than then Corinthians did whom Paul was talking to.  But on the same level that God knows us??  We cannot conclude this. 

My fourth point deals with the same assertion by Paul.  Paul is including himself in the “knowing in part”.  Coramdeo’s position is that the Corinthians lacked the knowledge of the full Council of God as passed down by the Canon.  Paul is including himself in that lack of knowledge that the Canon would give him.  How can we say that Paul lacked in knowledge that the New Testament would give him when he wrote the majority of it, was taught by Jesus Himself for three years in the Arabian desert, and spent extensive time with almost every author of a New Testament book? 

My four points are summarized with, 1:  It would be the only instance the coming of the Bible being prophecied, 2:  Was the writing of the New Testament “perfect”?  Of course.  But does rationality and the evidence suggest that the compilation of the Canon in 325 CE, and every subsequent scribed translation before and after “perfect” as well?  Accurate?  Sure.  Perfect?  Come now.  3:  Even after the Canon was formed, do we “fully know” just as God fully knows us?  4:  We must believe that Paul lacked in knowledge that the coming New Testament could bring him when he wrote most of it, was taught by Jesus, and spoke with every author of the New Testament. 

On The Other Hand

However, let’s interpret the phrase “the perfect” to be understood as “the Second Coming of Christ”.  If Paul is prophecying about the return of Christ, then it would be another in a long line of prophecies regarding this event, many made by Paul himself.  Also, we will have no problem associating “the perfect” with Jesus Christ as He is the only person we can accurately describe as such. 

“The perfect” being understood to be the Second Coming also makes sense out of the Paul’s assertion that we will “fully know” just as God fully knows us.  When Jesus establishes His Millennial Kingdom, and we’re in our resurrection bodies, will we really lack in knowledge?  This also makes sense of Paul including himself in this “knowing in part”.  Surely, even the great Paul is a limited human being just as we are, a limitation what will cease at Christ’s Second Coming just as it would for the Corinthians.

You can try this exercise yourself.  Interpret the coming of “the perfect” to mean the immenent coming “of heaven” that every believer will experience.  If you go through the trouble spots that interpreting “the perfect” as the Canon brings up, you will see that “of heaven” smoothes them over just as well as “the Second Coming of Christ” does.

The ball is now in Coramdeo’s court.  I only replied to a portion of his article because this post is already long enough.  So if he would like to respond to this rebuttal, or have me move on to another portion, I will do either. 

Please, this debate is not meant for just two people, jump in at any point with any position and we’ll be glad to discuss with you.

The Cessationism Debate Has Begun

Posted April 15, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Uncategorized

Coramdeo has posted his cessationist position.  As he says, the ball is in my court now and I’m writing a response I hope to finish this weekend.

I’m Back with an Update

Posted April 14, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Discussion

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted something.  This is due to a combination of a lack of time and a lack of direction.  God has me in a place of learning at the moment where I’m studying God’s Word and wrestling through doctrines, which is both something I haven’t done in quite some time. 

So, in this place, I feel that I should keep my opinions to myself until I have Scriptural backing for them. 

That being said, I have been presented with the opportunity with debating the issue of spiritual gifts, and more specifically their existence in our modern era, with my cousin, Coramdeo over at Wir sein pettler.  Hoc est verum. 

Coramdeo will post his basic position first, and then I’ll respond and we’ll go from there!  It should be fun.  I’ll let you know when his post is finished and perhaps I’ll even post part of his argument.

When Did Marriage and Religion Become Separate?

Posted March 10, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Current Events

Tags: , , ,

One of the “Hot Community Posts” that I saw on Sunday was an article entitled “A Religious Definition of Marriage Does Not Have Rights”.  This highlights the core issue surrounding the legality of “same-sex marriage” here in California:  that there is a non-religious definition of marriage.

The author, BGH, writes:

If viewed through a sort of  ‘religious filter’, opposition to gay marriage can be understood … if pertaining to ones personal choices.

Can anyone see what BGH did there?  He assumed that there is a different filter than a “religious” one through which to view the word “marriage”. 

BGH, I’ve got news for you.  This nation was founded by very religious, born-again Christians, who rebelled to be free to practice their brand of Christianity, and allow others to do the same.  America was founded upon these religious ideals.  Especially up to that point, marriage had always been a religious ceremony, and it’s under these circumstances that marriage was written into the law. 

The supporters of gay marriage can change it now, and that’s their right as Americans to try.  However, they must know that that they are the ones changing the definition of a word just because they don’t like the current one.

BGH addresses this point:

A personal religious belief does not become the community’s belief solely because a majority follows the doctrine.

Neither does a non-religious minority belief become the community’s belief solely because they don’t like the majority belief.

Along these lines of thinking and considering America’s origins, I have a question that I honestly don’t know the answer to.  Does it make sense completely divorce a word, indeed a concept, from it’s origins?  When did this switch take place?

A Precedence Is Being Set Here

Let’s reason through this for a second.  We can all agree that the “traditional” definition of the word marriage has been between a man and a woman, right?  Sure, there have been other perversions (polygamy, political and financial gain etc) to the institution, but the “man and woman” part has always stayed the same.  Don’t get ahead of yourself, I’m not saying that the traditional definition is equal to the correct definition, I’m just calling to our remembrance the history of the human race. 

Therefore, in order for the proponents of gay marriage to call this an “equality” issue, the definition of marriage must first be changed within their minds.  Think about it for a second, it’s not bigotry to say that I can’t join the “Red Hat Society”.  The Red Hat Society is defined as older women who wear red hats.  I don’t fit that definition. 

Now, if I changed the definition of the Red Hat Society to include ALL who wear red hats; then yes, anyone who wears a red hat, and wants to be included in the Red Hat Society, should be allowed to join.  If the Red Hat Society (my re-defined version) were to exclude someone even though they were wearing a red hat, then they would be rightly accused of bigotry.

In the same way, it is not bigotry to say that a man and a man cannot be included in an institution defined as between man and a woman.  A homosexual couple just doesn’t fit the definition.  The word “bigotry” can only be used once we re-define marriage from “a man and a woman” to “a legally binding institution between two committed people“.  Once this is our definition, then surely, Christians are being bigots.  However, you have to first force this definition upon everyone in society in order for them to swallow the “equality” claim.

That’s why the precedence being set here is not one of equality, or a rejection of bigotry.  The precedence being set is one of a minority changing the definition of a word because they don’t like the current one. 

The question we should be asking ourselves is:  Are we really a society that changes definitions because a very small portion of our population disagrees with them?  Are we a society that changes definitions even if the majority disagrees with it?

This is a Battle of Worldviews

Why has society in general been able to redefine a word right under our noses?  Why are those that hold to the traditional, Biblical definition of marriage being called bigots?

Society has created it’s own worldview, based upon it’s own wisdom.  One general term that can be used to describe this is “humanism”.  Society has decided that men’s minds can decide what truth is.  This is so far removed from the Biblical worldview that the definition of marriage set down by the Bible is seen as bigotry.  This worldview distinction extends so far that society has it’s own definitions of God and religion.

BGH displays this when speaking about the prospect of gay marriage:

There is not a threat to the person’s religion, religion is a personal matter between yourself and whatever god/gods you worship.

Humans are the ones who’ve tried to confine God to a building or a our idea of Him.  God cannot be confined to any of those things, nor do His laws concede to the constructed truth in the mind of man. 

However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: 
    HEAVEN IS MY THRONE,
    AND EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL OF MY FEET;
    WHAT KIND OF HOUSE WILL YOU BUILD FOR ME?’ says the Lord,
     ‘OR WHAT PLACE IS THERE FOR MY REPOSE? 
    WAS IT NOT MY HAND WHICH MADE ALL THESE THINGS?’ (Acts 7:48-50)

Apparently, Only Atheists Can Argue Theology

Posted March 9, 2009 by BeardedSeminarian
Categories: Apologetics, atheism

Tags: , , , , , ,

Awhile ago I saw a post over at Daniel Florien’s Unreasonable Faith that caught my eye.  Daniel was responding to a video of a creation vs. evolution discussion when he made a few interesting comments.

Apparently the proponent of creation admitted to having presupposed beliefs (presuppositions).  These beliefs are admittedly unscientific.  This is how Daniel summarizes his presuppositions:

(1) God exists, (2) that this God is the Christian God, (3) that this God wrote a book, and (4) that book is the Protestant Bible as we have it today.

Whatever discrepancies we can find in Daniel’s summary we’ll ignore because they are besides the point.  The point is Daniel’s reaction to these presuppositions.

Nothing big there — just everyday presuppositions that we all have. Completely rational starting points of a scientific worldview. Ugh.

I believe some explanation may be due here.  What Daniel is saying that the Christian presuppositions are not conducive to a scientific worldview, therefore they are invalid.  A scientific worldview, the worldview that Daniel holds to, is superior because it is scientific and the Christian worldview is inferior because it is not based upon science.  Would we all agree that this is Daniel’s position?

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the Christian argument is a theological one.  That is, the Christian presuppositions are about what God would do and did do (created the world, wrote a book).  That’s what makes a belief in the Bible unscientific, because it’s about what God did, which, although it may be observable, is unrepeatable by science. 

Negative Theology

To the atheist, the fact that Christians make theological arguments at all disqualifies them from any rational discussion.  After all, the only thing that can be verified is science, right?

Unfortunately, at the end of his article, Daniel inadvertently gives the atheistic “Secrets to Denying God” away.

Just after he finishes chastising the Christian for making a theological argument, Daniel says:

I thought Peter Atkins makes a great point that if evolution is true and God exists, he chose a “particularly nasty” way of going about creating the world.

Oh the hypocrisy!  That God created the world in a “nasty” way is a theological argument as well!  It’s just a negative one.   In fact, the belief that Daniel is displaying is that “If God created the world, then He did a nasty job of it, therefore it’s unlikely that God created the world”.  That’s the definition of negative theology!

But does Daniel chastise Peter Atkins for making a theological argument just as the Christian did?  Of course not. 

Is Atkins theological argument rejected because it is unscientific, just as the Christians’ theological arguments are?  Of course not.

To science, what’s the difference between Atkin’s theological position, and the Christian one?  None except that Daniel agrees with Atkins.

It’s a perfect tactic.  It allows the atheist to make all the negative theological arguments they want, while rejecting any Christian rebuttal on the basis it is “unscientific”, denying the whole time that their original argument was unscientific theology as well.

Apparently, only atheists can make theological arguments.