A Trinitarian Moral Argument

[Editor’s Note: The following blog is a scholarly article presented, in full, with only minor formatting edits. It is longer, and more academic, than what we normally publish at Crossexamined.org, but we think you can handle it 😉. Crossexamined does not necessarily endorse every philosophical or theological position represented in blogs and articles like this, but we do try to offer a sample of some of the different orthodox options available within the “big tent” of Christian thought. We welcome your feedback, especially if you see anything that can be improved, or that needs correcting. Thank you! The Editorial Staff at Crossexamined.org]

Both Christians and Muslims affirm the following argument:

  1. There are objective moral truths.
  2. God is the best explanation for objective moral truths.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

However, which understanding of God, the Christian’s or the Muslim’s, is a better explanation for objective morality? In this paper I argue that Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for objective morality than Islam’s God. As part of this argument, I propose a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory (TMT) which maintains that the ultimate ground of morality is God’s trinitarian nature.

Within Christian theology, it’s important to include the dynamic, loving, inner-trinitarian relationships in our understanding of metaethics. To leave out these relationships, by saying morality is merely based on God’s nature, ignores important aspects of God which help explain how He is the foundation of morality. Including these relationships provides a more complete picture of how God is the source of morality. Thus, my TMT focuses on God’s triunity and shows how loving relationships exist at the deepest level of ultimate reality.

Many others have recognized the importance of adding God’s inner-trinitarian relationships to our metaphysical categories of substance and essence. Thomas McCall argued that God’s inner-trinitarian relationships are essential to the very being of God. He wrote “. . . I am convinced that divine love is essential to God . . . that holy love is of the essence of God. But I think this is accounted for and grounded in the Trinity.”[1] He continued by affirming the following statement by John Zizioulas: “Love is not an emanation or ‘property’ of the substance of God . . . but is constitutive of his substance, i.e., it is that which makes God what He is. . . . Thus love ceases to be a qualifying—i.e. secondary—property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate.”[2] Thomas Torrance also proposed elevating the metaphysical importance of the divine relationships. He wrote that the trinitarian persons “. . . who indwell one another in the Love that God is constitutes the Communion of Love or the movement of reciprocal Loving which is identical with the One Being of God.”[3] Eleonore Stump insisted that “. . . since, on the doctrine of the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are not reducible to something else in the Godhead, then, persons are an irreducible part of the ultimate foundation of reality. . ..”[4]

According to W. Norris Clarke, Josef Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, dared to reproach “St. Thomas himself . . . and call[ed] for a new, explicitly relational conception of the very nature of the person as such, wherein relationality would become an equally primordial aspect of the person as substantiality.”[5] Ratzinger claimed that within trinitarian theology “. . . lies concealed a revolution in man’s view of the world: the undivided sway of thinking in terms of substance is ended; relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality. . ..”[6] Clarke himself wrote,

“To be a person is to be with . . ., to be a sharer, a receiver, a lover. Ultimately the reason why all this is so that this is the very nature of the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, as revealed to us in the Christian doctrine of God as three Persons within the unity of one being, so that the very being of God is to be self-communicative love. This dynamism is then echoed in all of us, his creatures, and in a preeminent way in created persons. Thus the Christian revelation of the Trinity is not some abstruse doctrine for theologians alone but has a unique illuminating power as to the meaning of being itself which carries metaphysical vision beyond what was accessible to it unaided.”[7]

Alan Torrance suggested we should “conceive of the intra-divine communion of the Trinity as the ground of all that is.”[8] William Hasker affirmed that “the doctrine of the Trinity is an integral part of the metaphysically necessary ultimate structure of reality.”[9] Millard Erickson described the love between the divine persons as “the attractive force of unselfish concern for another person” and thus the “most powerful binding force in the universe.”[10] This is more than mere sentiment; if God is the ultimate reality, and He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is the basic fabric of reality. Clarke said it well when he wrote,

“The highest instance of being is a unity that is not solitary, like Plotinus’s One, but Communion. Here we see in the most striking way how a specifically Christian philosophy can fruitfully shed light on a philosophical problem itself, by drawing on Revelation. The light from Revelation . . . operates as opening up for reflection a new possibility in the nature and meaning of being that we might never have thought of ourselves from our limited human experience, but which, once opened up, is so illuminating that it now shines on its own as an insight into the nature of being and persons that makes many things suddenly fall into place whose depths we could not fathom before. . .. [I]n recent years I have come to realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a uniquely powerful source of illumination in both the philosophy of being and . . . of the person.[11]

To develop my TMT, I begin with Robert Adams’s model and expand it by incorporating God’s triunity. In the first part of his model, his theory of moral value, Adams argued that God is the ultimate good and other beings are good when they resemble Him. In his model the “. . . part played by God . . . is similar to that of the Form of . . . the Good in Plato’s . . . Republic. God is the supreme Good, and the goodness of other things consists in a sort of resemblance to God.”[12] Thus humans are good when they resemble God in a morally pertinent sense. My TMT extends this theory by proposing that the specific thing being resembled is God’s triunity as found in, and expressed among, the loving relationships between the divine persons. Humans are good when they resemble the love between the trinitarian members. Millard Erickson argued that, since the relationships between the divine persons are

. . . bound by agape, self-sacrificial, giving love . . . the type of relationship that should characterize human persons, particularly believing Christians who have accepted the structure of intratrinitarian relationships as the pattern for their own relationships, . . . would be one of unselfish love and submission to the other, seeking the welfare of the other over one’s own.[13]

In this sense God’s inner-trinitarian relationships provide the ultimate foundation for moral value.

Next, I’ll provide two reasons this trinitarian understanding of God is a better explanation for objective moral value than Islam’s God. First, without the inner-trinitarian relationships, it’s unclear that love, the cornerstone of morality, is a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because morality is inextricably tied to personal relationships, it’s more plausible to conceive of love and morality in the context of multiple divine persons than in a context of a single person existing in eternal isolation. Richard Swinburne proclaimed there’s “something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual.”[14] It’s difficult to even fathom love, kindness, respect, etc. where there’s only one divine person. Erickson wrote that,

Love exists within the Godhead as a binding relationship of each of the persons to each of the others. . .. [T]he attribute of love is more than just another attribute. The statement ‘God is love’ in 1 John is a very basic characterization of God, which . . . is more than merely, ‘God is loving’. . . . In a sense, God being love virtually requires that he be more than one person. Love, to be love, must have both a subject and an object. Thus, if there were not multiplicity in the persons of the Godhead, God could not really be love prior to the creation. . . .[15]

God didn’t need to create other persons in order to be loving, moral, and relational because, being three persons in fellowship, He’s always been these things. Hasker explained that “. . . wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . . .”[16]

If love isn’t a necessary aspect of God, then it’s difficult to see how God could be the foundation of moral value. However, with God’s triunity, it’s more clearly the case that love is part of ultimate reality. If loving relationships are a primordial aspect of God, we can more confidently affirm that love is necessarily good. Consider the following syllogism:

  1. God is the good.
  2. God is necessarily a communion of three divine persons in loving relationships with each other.
  3. Whatever God necessarily is, is part of what constitutes the goodness of God.
  4. Therefore, loving relationships, thus love in general, is necessarily good.

According to premise two, love and relationality aren’t contingent properties of God that only began when He created other beings to love but are part of His essential attributes. McCall explained that,

If the loving relationships . . . among the divine persons are essential to God, the triune God just is essentially loving. . .. If God is Trinity, then God’s own internal life consists in the loving communion shared between . . . the three divine persons, and God is not contingently relational at all but is necessarily so. . .. [T]he love and relationality of God toward the creation are merely contingent. . .. But wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . ..[17]

If these inner-trinitarian relationships were not an essential aspect of God, if love didn’t exist until creation, then love would be contingent. In such a scenario, love, the cornerstone of morality, would be arbitrary because God could’ve created differently such that there was no love. Something that could be otherwise doesn’t seem metaphysically “sturdy” enough to be the foundation of moral value. However, if God is triune, love isn’t something new and contingent that came about in creation but is eternally necessary. In this way God’s inner-trinitarian relationships allow us to affirm that love, the bedrock of morality, is necessarily good.

Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, makes more sense of what we know from human experience, that loving relationships are the most important part of our lives. If God existed before creation as a loving fellowship of persons, it may seem puzzling why He created other persons. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create human beings in His image to expand this loving fellowship. McCall argued that there’s “. . . no obvious incoherence in maintaining that the triune God who enjoys perfection in the intra-trinitarian life may desire to share that life while not needing to do so to reach fulfillment or perfection.”[18] William Lane Craig explained that existing “. . . alone in the self-sufficiency of His own being, enjoying the timeless fullness of the intra-trinitarian love relationships, God had no need for the creation of finite persons. . .. He did this, not out of any deficit in Himself . . ., but in order that finite temporal creatures might come to share in the joy and blessedness of the inner life of God.”[19]

Understanding this purpose God had for creating humans helps explain why the meaning of our lives is inextricably interwoven with our loving relationships. As Clarke put it, “[t]o be an actualized human person, then, is to be a lover, to live a life of inter-personal self-giving and receiving.”[20] He argued that “. . . no one can reach mature development as a person without the experience of opening oneself, giving oneself to another in self-forgetting love . . . . To be a true self, one must somehow go out of oneself, forget oneself. This apparent paradox is an ancient one and has been noted over and over in the various attempts to work out philosophies of love and friendship down the ages.”[21] While describing the relationships within the Trinity, Clarke explained,

[T]he dynamism of self-communication is part of the very nature of being and so of the person. But the metaphysician would like to probe further . . . into why all this should be the case. I think we now have the answer: the reason why all being, and all persons preeminently, are such is precisely because that is the way the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, actually is, and, since all creatures—and in a special way persons—are participants and hence images of their divine Source, then it follows that all created beings, and more intensely persons, will mirror in some characteristic way the divine mode of being.[22]

Our lives are a reflection of the inner-trinitarian life of God. We were created to image Him by loving others.

Not only our lives but the entire universe, being infused with meaning through God’s intentions for it, is purposefully heading towards the culmination of meaningful love. Clarke summed it up well:

[S]ince all finite goods are good only by participation in the Infinite Good, every finite being tends, as far as its nature allows, towards imitating, becoming a likeness of, the Divine Goodness. In personal beings, endowed with intelligence and will, this universal dynamism towards the Good turns into an innate implicit longing for personal union with the Infinite Good, ‘the natural desire for the Beatific Vision,’ as Aquinas puts it. The whole universe . . .. turns into an immense implicit aspiration towards the Divine.[23]

Understanding God’s triunity helps explain the very meaning of life and existence.

In the second part of Adams’s model, his theory of moral obligation, he argued that our obligations are generated by God’s commands. An important part of his theory is that obligations arise from social relationships, a proposal affirmed by many ethicists. He then argued that a “. . . divine command theory of the nature of moral obligation can be seen as an idealized version of [this because our] relationship with God is in a broad sense . . . a social relationship.”[24] My TMT extends this idea by bringing in God’s triunity. Below, I provide two reasons Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for moral obligation than Islam’s God.

First, since Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a social context for reality, it’s a more plausible explanation of how and why obligation arises from social relationships. If God exists as divine persons in relationships, then there’s a sense in which ultimate reality is social and thus all reality takes place in a social context. Erickson argued that if the creator consists of three persons in loving relationships, then “. . . the fundamental characteristic of the universe is personal . . . [and] reality is primarily social.”[25] Social relationships aren’t something new that came about when God created other beings; they are a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because social relationships are a primordial part of reality, they enjoy the gravitas of a metaphysical necessity as opposed to merely a contingent reality that only came about when God created others.

If social relationships are part of ultimate reality, we shouldn’t be surprised that personal relationships play such a large role in the metaethics of obligation. The obligations that arise in our social relationship with God are but an image of, and flow out of, the social relationships within God. It makes sense that creation would reflect important necessary aspects of the Creator. Hasker noted how God’s trinitarian nature reinforces the importance of social relationships: “For those who find personal relationships to be central to what transpires between God and . . . human[s], . . . the Trinity provides a powerful reinforcement by finding such social relationships in the very being of God.”[26]

If obligation is inherently social, God’s triunity provides a fitting explanation for why there’s a social context to reality in which moral obligation can arise. God’s trinitarian nature provides the social context for reality in general, and then His creation of other persons was merely an extension of that original social context. When He created us, it was a natural carryover from the ultimate reality of divine persons that we, created in His image, would be accountable to Him via a social relationship. Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a better explanation for the social context of moral obligation than Islam’s God. An essentially societal source of morality (God as Trinity) fits the social aspect of our experience of morality better than Islam’s God.

Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, is a better explanation for why God’s commands, which generate our obligations, focus on loving others, which is affirmed by both Christians and Muslims. Along with Duns Scotus, my TMT affirms that God’s commands for us are instructions for the path which best achieves our ultimate purpose—becoming co-lovers with the members of Trinity.[27] While it’s true that God has authority over us, His commands flow not from a despotic desire to control but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing possible—a loving relationship with Him. John Hare, who champions Scotus’s idea that God’s commands direct us towards our telos of joining the loving communion of the Trinity, explained that in the

. . . Christian scriptures, the central notion is that of God commanding us. . .. [T]he notion of obligation makes most sense against the background of command . . . [however] the Judeo-Christian account adds God’s love to the notion of God’s commands, so that the commands are embedded in a covenant by which God blesses us and we are given a route towards our highest good, which is union with God.[28]

As Clarke described beautifully: “To be a person is to be a dynamic act of existence on the move, towards self-conscious, free sharing and receiving, becoming a lover, and finally a lover totally centered on Infinite being and Goodness itself, the final goal of our journey as embodied spirits towards being-as-communion—the very nature of the Source of all being, and hence of all beings created in its image.”[29]

God’s triunity fits well with the idea that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Deut. 6:4-5, Lev. 19:17-18, Matt. 22:36–40). These are the greatest commandments because they instruct us to resemble God, i.e., the trinitarian members who both love God (the other divine persons) and love others (the other divine persons). Love, the basis of morality, originates from within God’s inner life of three divine persons in perfect, loving fellowship.

Bibliography: 

Adams, Robert Merrihew. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002.

Clarke, W. Norris. Person and Being. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993.

Craig, William Lane. Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationsihp to Time. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995.

Hare, John. God and Morality: A Philosophical History. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.

Hasker, William. “An Adequate God.” Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Edited by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

———. Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Ratzinger, Josef. Introduction to Christianity. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970.

Scotus, Duns. Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality. Edited by William A. Frank Translated by Allan B. Wolter. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997.

Stump, Eleonore. “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (2000): 1–25.

Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.

Zizioulas, John D. Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

References: 

[1] Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 172.

[2] John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 46.

[3] Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 165.

[4] Eleonore Stump, “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.74 (2000): 1.

[5] W. Norris Clarke, Person and Being (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 2.

[6] Josef Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 132, 137.

[7] Clarke, Person and Being, 112.

[8] Alan J. Torrance, Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 293.

[9] William Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 174.

[10] Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995), 221.

[11] Clarke, Person and Being, 87.

[12] Robert Merrihew Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002), 7.

[13] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 333.

[14] Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 190.

[15] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 221.

[16] William Hasker, “An Adequate God,” in Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists, ed. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228.

[17] McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology, 247.

[18] McCall, Which Trinity?, 210.

[19] William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 241.

[20] Clarke, Person and Being, 76.

[21] Clarke, Person and Being, 96.

[22] Clarke, Person and Being, 88.

[23] Clarke, Person and Being, 24.

[24] Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods, 249.

[25] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 220–21.

[26] Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God, 211.

[27] Duns Scotus, Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality, ed. William A. Frank, trans. Allan B. Wolter, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 20.

[28] John Hare, God and Morality: A Philosophical History (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009), 81.

[29] Clarke, Person and Being, 112–13.

Recommended Resources: 

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.

 

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45rRPEB  

/by

Not My Jesus: A List Of Christological Heresies

Jesus Of Nazareth Is the most disputed character in history. Most of the world’s religions incorporate him into their teaching, whether as a morally perfect prophet (Islam), a divine manifestation (Baha’i), or a reincarnated god (Hinduism). Buddhists believe he is a grace-giving demigod or even a Buddha. Christian cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormon Church readily incorporate Jesus as a partial divine, more than man but less than the full deity of Father God. Almost all of Judaism rejects Jesus as a false prophet, a mere mortal, and a failed messiah.[1] Meanwhile Atheists and skeptics tend to see Jesus as a liar or a lunatic. Mythicists debate his very existence with skeptical weapons set on eleven.

 

Clearly, Jesus of Nazareth is a contentious character. So we should not be surprised that Christian history has held many theological battles in the theatre of Christology (theology about Jesus). The church has fought hard to answer, “Who is Jesus?” If He is, indeed, “the way the truth and the life” and “salvation is found in no other name” then we should make sure we aren’t dealing with a distorted pseudo-Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Theological integrity is a matter of ultimate importance here. Heresies about Jesus (a.k.a., christological heresies) make for an important study because Jesus is the most important person there is.

What is a Heresy?

First, we may ask, what is a heresy? The short answer is, “aberrant teaching.” A heresy is some teaching which departs from core Christian teaching.  But that definition is a little unclear. It doesn’t really help quell the human habit of exaggerated accusations – where people are liable to call most anything heresy, even if it’s just a different option within historic Christianity. Nor does that definition help distinguish between denominational versus heretical disagreements.

Often people throw around the term “heresy” with little concern for the implications of this imposing term. Heresy is a libelous term and shouldn’t be used lightly. For our purposes here, we need to see what really qualifies as heresy. But to do this, we need to know, “what is orthodoxy?”

Orthodoxy (Lat., “right doctrine/teaching”) refers to the established, agreed-upon, and time-tested theology of the historic Christian faith (incl., Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox). A similar concept is orthopraxy (Lat. “right practice”). Sometimes these notions, right-practice and right-teaching, are fused under the parent-term orthodoxy. We’re just looking at teachings about Jesus Christ, what theologians call “Christology.” So, we don’t need to address orthopraxy here.

There is a lot of gray area in the notion of “orthodoxy,” and there are many disputes over particular teachings and whether they count as heresy, such as “open theism,” or “baptismal regeneration.” But we have an imperfect yet reliable way to identify what is probably orthodox and what is probably not.

  1. Does it pass the test of Apostolicity (it is affirmed implicitly or explicitly by the teachings of the prophets and apostles in biblical times)?
  2. Does it pass the test of Scripture/Canonicity (it aligns fairly and completely with the Canon Scripture)?
  3. Does it pass the test of Creedal History (it is affirmed within the history of church creeds and councils)?
  4. Does it pass the test of Catholicity (it has universal or near universal acceptance by the church)?
  5. Does it pass the test of History (it is affirmed within the collective teachings and traditions of the church over it’s history)?
  6. Does it pass the test of the Church Fathers (it is affirmed within the teachings of the Church Fathers)?

These tests are the various ways the church has been checking ideas for theological integrity over the whole course of church history. You can skim any of the Ecumenical Church councils and see each of these criteria in action. These tests aren’t implemented equally by all denominations, nor are these tests collectively used by each Christian faith tradition. But together these tests constitute a good approximation for how to discern orthodoxy. This rubric is imperfect in that some orthodox ideas only satisfy a few of these tests. But this rubric is reliable in that there’s no orthodox idea which fails all of these tests.

Deviations from orthodoxy are called heterodoxy. Not all heterodox teachings would count as heresy because something could lie outside of orthodox teaching, but it’s not important enough, it doesn’t carry enough consequence, or it’s too much of a terminological dispute (just haggling over word choice, without any other significance underneath). For example, it would be heterodox to teach that Jesus’s favorite number was 9, or that all church buildings should be cross shaped, or that women and men have to partake of communion on different days of the week, or that church services will be meeting only on ground that’s been blessed by a saint.

Compared to orthodoxy, the term “heresy” is referring to some teaching or practice which deviates in a contradictory way from orthodoxy. That is, heresy deviates from the established and agreed-upon central teachings in historic Christianity.

What is Historic Christianity?           

By “historic christianity” is meant the church universal over the course of it’s history. That includes, Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox. there is a continuum of development–as the church refines it’s teaching and practices over time. And there are denominational differences between and within these schools of thought. But the changes are not heresy unless (1) they step outside of the agreed-upon theological options vetted across church history (such as the 7 ecumenical councils, Vatican II, the test of Scripture, Apostle’s creed, etc.), and (2) they address a central teaching of the church, such as a creedal statement or a salvation teaching. For example, many of the teachings of the 2nd century Church Father Origen were not considered heresy at the time, but were later deemed heretical. There is grace for him, however, since the collective wisdom of the church had not yet aligned on the finer points of theology which he transgressed. Like the rest of us, Origen was responsible for what he was able to know, not for what he was couldn’t have known at the time.

What then is the orthodox teaching about Jesus Christ?

Getting Christ Right: Orthodox Christology

Orthodoxy: Jesus is revealed in the Bible as the promised and prophesied Messiah, fully God,
fully man, born of a virgin yet eternal and unborn, equal deity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, sinless and miracle worker, second person of the Trinity, who died by crucifixion, was buried, who rose bodily the third day, into the same but glorified body, having died for the sins of the world, such that faith in Him as God and savior is the only means of salvation, by grace and not by the works of other men, and He will return to judge all people and He reigns forevermore.

Christological Heresies

Ebionism: Originated in the1st-2nd cent. Jesus was only man, not God. *Heresy of the Ebionites.*From the Hebrew word “ebyon,” meaning “poor” which was the name chosen by an early and self-debasing Jewish sect for which this heresy is named. *They focused on Jesus’ teaching, “blessed are the poor in spirit.” *Deny Deity of Christ. *Deny virgin birth. Deny Jesus’ preexistence (before being born on earth). *Condemned in the Council of Nicea in 325AD.

Docetism: Orig., 3rd cent. Jesus was only God, not man *AKA: Illusionism. *From the Greek “Doketai” meaning “to seem.” *Jesus only seemed to be human but was in reality only God. *First mentioned in the early 3rd century but was found in various views including Marcionism and Gnosticism. *Some assert that another person died in Jesus’ place on the cross. *Condemned in the Council of Chalcedon 451.

Adoptionism: Orig., 2nd cent. Jesus was man who became Christ or God by adoption. *AKA: Dynamic Monarchianism. *Jesus was a righteous man who became the Son of God by adoption. *The adoption was at baptism where the Spirit or “Christ” descended on Him. *Some think He became “God” at the Resurrection. *Earliest expression of this view was in the Shepherd of Hermas. *Also affirmed by Theodotus. *Rejected by the church in the 2nd and 8th centuries. *Compatible with Arianism. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.

Arianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus was a demigod, between God and man. *Jesus was less than God but more than man. *Jesus was created, finite, and could sin. *Similar to ebionism and compatible with adoptionism. *Advanced by 4th Century Bishop Arius. *It took 18 church councils to resolve the issue, most of them elaborating on the Nicene Council. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.

Apollinarianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus had no human mind. *Jesus lacked a human mind/soul, having instead a divine mind. *Jesus had all the other parts of a human however: spirit, body, and animal soul (the animating force but not the intellect or spirit). *Espoused by Apollinarius in the 4th century. *Condemned in the 4th century, in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.

*see a review of this article “Not My Jesus, Part 1” by William Lane Craig at Reasonable Faith*

Monophysitism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus had only one divine nature and no human nature. *AKA: Eutychianism, named after its founder Eutychus. *Jesus had only one nature the divine nature which absorbed and nullified any human nature. *Affirms that Jesus is both divine and human, but not “fully” human. *Slightly different from Apollinarianism. This view asserts that Jesus had one nature, while Apol. asserts Jesus had one soul. *Condemned at the Council of Chalcedon 451.

Nestorianism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus has two unmixed, unrelated, natures. *Jesus is two distinct natures, and only one, the human nature, was birthed by Mary. *Nestorius (5th cent.) vigorously opposed the phrase “[Mary] Mother of God” (Theotokos), preferring the phrase “Mother of Christ” (Kristotokos). *The human and divine natures are separate and distinct. *Condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.

Monothelitism: Orig.: 7th cent. Jesus lacked a human will. *Originally taught in 633AD in Armenia and Syria by Vigilius and Pope Honorius. *Affirmed Jesus’s human and divine natures, but denied that Jesus had two wills. *Jesus’s divine will meant he would not/could not have conflicted desires. *Condemned in the Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681AD

Mythicism: Orig., 19th cent. Jesus was only a mythical character. *Originally taught by Charles Francois Dupuis (1742-1809). There are two-major variations. Strong mythicism teaches that there was no historical Jesus, a.k.a., Jesus of Nazareth. Weak Mythicism teaches that the “Jesus of faith” is radically different from the Jesus of history who was, instead, either a mere mortal subject to evolving myth and legend or he is an amalgam of characters and events fused together in the course of legendary accrual.

References:

[1] Judaism overwhelmingly rejects Jesus as the Messiah. This majority includes almost all Jewish denominations or sects including Orthodox/Rabbinic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite, Samaritan, Reconstructionist, Secular, Sephardic, and Hasidic Judaism. All broadly unite in the rejection of Jesus as Divine and as Messiah. The exception is Messianic Judaism, sometimes called “Fulfilled” Judaism, which is typically categorized as a Christian denomination instead of a Jewish sect properly. The conventional categories, however, are subject to debate since Messianic Jews, arguably, are an authentic hybrid of Jewish and Christianity identity–truly Jewish and truly Christian–with no theological compromise or revision on either front. This unique and uncompromised status would be in contrast to other alleged “hybrids” like Sikhism (supposedly hybridizing Islam and Hinduism), or Nation of Islam (supposedly Islamic plus Black Theology).

Recommended Resources:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3TAWiy6

/by

Why Your Atheist Friend Will Never Change His Mind (Unless…)

Ever feel like talking to your atheist friend about faith is like hitting your head against a brick wall? You’ve tried explaining, debating, carefully exegeting Bible verses, but they just don’t get it after repeated corrections. You’re starting to wonder if they ever will. Sound familiar? You’re probably thinking, “Why do they keep twisting what faith really means?” It’s like they’re stuck in this loop, misrepresenting faith as some blind leap without evidence. You’ve been patient, clear, and respectful, but nothing seems to change. It’s enough to make anyone want to throw their hands up and walk away.

 

But hang tight. There’s a reason for their stubbornness, and it’s not just about being argumentative. The truth is, atheists often fall into hidden fallacies that keep them from truly understanding faith. To be fair, it’s not their fault entirely.

But here’s the good news: knowing what these fallacies are can help you break through and bring clarity to your conversations. Ready to know why your atheist friend just can’t see eye to eye on faith? Let’s get started.

The Origin of Misconception: Where Did This Definition Comes From?

“We may define ‘faith’ as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith.’ We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. And the substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions.”
Bertrand Russell. Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954), Ch. VII: Can Religion Cure Our Troubles? p. 213

Here’s a fun fact: You know what your friend and Bertrand have in common? They both didn’t consult a theological or philosophical dictionary for this definition of faith. If your friend has a similar definition, “believing something without evidence or in spite of,” let’s challenge it with seven key points:

  1. The majority of people who define faith as believing something without evidence are popular atheists.
  2. Virtually no well-informed Christian holds this view.
  3. No ecumenical council has endorsed this definition.
  4. The vast majority of renowned theologians and philosophers, historically or currently, do not teach it.
  5. Atheists trained in philosophy don’t use this definition.
  6. No theological dictionary or encyclopedia defines the Christian faith this way.
  7. The etymological roots of the word “faith” don’t support this definition.

So, where does this definition come from? Certainly not from Christianity in general. Yet, many popular atheists assume that every religion shares this definition and paint all believers with the same broad brush.

Now, to be fair, there was (and still is with very few adherents) a school of thought called fideism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines fideism as:

“[I]n some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds – or at any rate appears to hold . . . that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.”

One of the famous church fathers who is said to be a fideist was Tertullian. Per the article, there’s currently just a handful of Christian philosophers who are trying to (re)habilitate the position, like C. Stephen Evans, John Bishop, and Duncan Pritchard. I bet that your atheist friend doesn’t know them by name, much less their work. Even if they do know these philosophers and their work, to take this minority, minimally influential position and show it to others as the main position in Christianity is not honest.

No matter where these atheists took this definition, the best way to go is to research what is the most well-held and robust definition used by the religion and then critique it fairly. Now, here’s the twist: If faith is believing something is true without any evidence or in spite of evidence, then what is the evidence that faith is believing without evidence or in spite of it?

If your atheist friend doesn’t have evidence for this definition, then by his own logic, he’s taking it on faith. Many atheists are unaware of this self-defeating aspect of their definition. For some, showing this self-defeating outcome will be enough to change their minds. But others are more stubborn.

How Atheists Turns Faith into a Punching Bag

Atheists often trip over the strawman fallacy when discussing faith. They misrepresent it (knowingly or unknowingly), making it seem weaker than it actually is. They beat up faith like a punching bag with adjectives like irrational, illogical, unreasonable, and even immoral.

This is where the frustration kicks in for Christians. You’ve likely thought, “That’s not what faith is at all!”Christian faith is not about blind belief. The Bible defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Key words here are “confidence” and “assurance”.

J. Warner Wallace gives a great insight into faith in his commentary about Hebrews 11.1.

“Is the author saying, ‘Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, when the evidence is unseen?’ No, he’s saying just the opposite. When considering chapter 10 prior to interpreting verse 11:1, it’s clear that the author is encouraging his readers to endure those times when God seems absent; those times when trials and tribulations cause us to question God’s existence. Where is God in these difficult situations? Why can’t we see Him? Why can’t we see His activity in our lives? In verse 11:1, the author of Hebrews says that we can trust that God’s salvation, protection and provision are still there for us, even though they may appear to be ‘things not seen.’ In spite of their apparent absence, we are told to trust that they exist. Why? On what basis? On the basis of what we can see.’”

It’s about trust, grounded in reason and experience, even when we can’t see everything clearly. Imagine trusting you father to catch you in a trust fall. You believe they’ll catch you not because you’ve closed your eyes to reality, but because you’ve seen them do it before. You’ve experienced his reliability. This is exactly what the Christian believes when they speak about faith.

Think about historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific evidence, personal experiences that underpin Christian faith.

  • Historical Evidence: Like the reliability of the Bible, or the historical accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, gives us a foundation.
  • Philosophical Arguments: Such as the cosmological argument or the moral argument, provide rational support.
  • Scientific Arguments: Such as the teleological argument, providing scientific support from astrophysics and biology.
  • Personal Experiences: Like answered prayers or moments of peace and guidance in extreme persecution or dangerous situations, reinforce this trust.

So, when atheists dismiss faith as irrational or baseless, they’re attacking a strawman. They’re not engaging with the real, robust concept of faith that Christians hold. This misrepresentation feels like you’re speaking different languages. But this isn’t the only fallacy atheists fall into. There’s another subtle yet pervasive error that compounds the misunderstanding.

Demanding the Impossible: Why Atheists’ Requests for Material Proof Fall Flat

Here’s the other stumbling block: the category mistake. The word “evidence” in their definition is a very specific kind of evidence. Atheists often demand material evidence for a non-material entity like God. They want physical proof, something they can see, touch, or measure. But this demand is like asking for the weight of love. It just doesn’t fit.

We all accept many non-material realities without physical evidence. Think about love, justice, numbers, the reality of the past or consciousness. You can’t weigh these things or capture them in a test tube, yet they’re undeniably real and impactful. Similarly, God, as a non-material being, doesn’t conform to the constraints of the physical realm. Different types of evidence support different kinds of realities.

  • Empirical Evidence: Works great for physical phenomena. You can see gravity’s effects, measure it, and predict it.
  • Philosophical Arguments: Can demonstrate the necessity of a first cause, the existence of objective moral values, or the existence of abstract objects (like forms and numbers).
  • Historical Evidence: Like the resurrection of Jesus, can be scrutinized and debated but remains rooted in strongly reliable circumstantial case.
  • Experiential Evidence: Personal encounters and transformations provide a compelling, if subjective, form of proof.

Yet, atheists often miss this distinction. They insist on material evidence, not realizing they’re committing a category mistake. That’s like asking for proof of a sound’s color. The category doesn’t apply. This narrow view limits their understanding, keeping them stuck in a loop of disbelief.

Locked in Their Own World: How Atheists’ Limited View Blocks Real Understanding

Now, let’s talk about the personal incredulity fallacy. This one’s a biggie. If your friend’s worldview is materialism, naturalism, or even scientism, his worldview won’t leave room for anything beyond the physical, the material, the natural, or the scientific. It’s like trying to explain a smartphone to someone who’s only communicated through a keyer (the code morse machine). They just can’t wrap their heads around it.

This incredulity stems from a strict ontology of the world (what makes the world be like it is), like naturalism, or a strict epistemology of knowledge (how knowledge is acquired), like scientism. If something can’t be explained by the laws of nature, measured, or observed in a lab, it’s dismissed.

But think about the vastness of our universe, the complexity of human consciousness, the depth of love and morality. Not everything that’s real fits neatly into the scientific method or under a microscope.

Here’s where the frustration really ramps up. You’re explaining faith, using philosophical reasoning, historical proofs, scientific evidence, and personal experience. Yet, your atheist friend keeps shaking their head, saying, “I just can’t see it. If there’s evidence, there’s no need for faith. You can’t call that faith.”

It’s like they’ve put up a wall, and no amount of reasonable arguments will make a hole. This fallacy blocks openness to other ways of knowing. In science, we trust empirical evidence. In history, we rely on documented events and testimonies. In philosophy, we use logical reasoning. And in personal life, we trust experiences and relationships. Each of these ways of knowing offers a different lens. When atheists cling only to empirical evidence, they miss out on the fuller picture.

Think about it like this: You wouldn’t use a thermometer to measure happiness, right? Similarly, insisting on material evidence for everything limits understanding. Personal incredulity keeps the door shut to knowledge and experience that faith draws upon. When your arguments don’t seem to make a dent, it’s time to try a different approach.

Still Unconvinced? Here’s What to Do When Arguments Hit a Wall

So, what do you do when all this falls on deaf ears? When, despite your best efforts, your atheist friend still won’t budge? Here’s where patience come into play. It’s frustrating, sure. But it’s also an opportunity to reflect Christ’s love and patience.

  • Recognize the Limits: Not every conversation will lead to a grand epiphany. And that’s okay. Sometimes, it’s enough to plant a seed, to offer a perspective they hadn’t considered before. It’s about the long game, not quick wins.
  • Continue the Relationship: Keep the dialogue open. Respect their views, even if they don’t respect yours. Show that you value them as a person, not just as a potential convert. Your actions, your love, and your patience can speak volumes. Often, it’s these quiet, consistent demonstrations of faith that make the biggest impact over time.
  • Pray for Them: This isn’t about manipulation. It’s about genuinely seeking their good, asking for God’s guidance and wisdom in your interactions. Trust that the Holy Spirit works in ways we can’t always see or understand. Sometimes, the most powerful conversations happen when we step back and let God do His work.
  • Reflect on Your Own Journey: Recall how long it took you to recognize your error and your need for a Lord and Savior. Show some grace. Remember that faith isn’t just about convincing others through argumentation; it’s about living out your beliefs authentically and joyfully. Be the kind of person whose life reflects the love, hope, and peace of Christ. This witness, more than any argument, can draw others to consider faith in a new light.

In the end, it’s about more than just winning debates. It’s about building bridges, fostering understanding, and showing the love of Christ in every interaction. Your atheist friend might not change their mind overnight—or ever. But your faithful witness and loving presence can make a difference in ways you might never fully see. And that’s a God honoring mission worth pursuing.

Wrapping Up: Keeping the Faith in Every Conversation

It’s tough. I know. Especially when your friend is someone you sincerely and genuinely love. You’ve been there—spending hours, maybe even years, trying to explain faith to your atheist friend, only to be met with skepticism or outright dismissal. It feels like you’re running in circles, repeating the same arguments, and still hitting a wall. Discouraging, right?

You’re not alone. So many Christians are in the same boat, feeling that sting of misunderstanding. You’re pouring out your heart, trying to share something deeply personal and important, and it feels like it’s falling on deaf ears. You might be thinking, “Why even bother? Is it worth all this effort?”

Absolutely, it is. Every conversation, every patient explanation, is a seed planted. The insights from this article equip you with the understanding of those hidden fallacies that trip up your atheist friends. You now know why they misunderstand faith and how to steer the conversation towards clarity.

Think about it—understanding the strawman fallacy, the categorical error, and the personal incredulity trap puts you miles ahead. It gives you the tools to navigate these tricky waters with grace and wisdom. But here’s the kicker: It’s not just about winning debates or changing minds. It’s about embodying the love and patience of Christ. It’s about showing that even when the conversation hits a wall, your love and respect for your friend remain unshaken.

That’s powerful. That’s transformative. Remember, you’re not alone in this journey. Many have walked this path and found that persistence, patience, and prayer can work wonders. So, take heart! Each interaction, no matter how small, is a step forward. Your steadfastness and faithfulness are not in vain. So, go out there and keep those conversations going. Keep planting those seeds. Let your faith shine through your words and actions. And trust that, in time, even the hardest hearts can soften. Keep the faith, stay strong, and let God do His thing. You are making a difference, one conversation at a time.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Debate: Does God Exist? Turek vs. Hitchens (DVD), (mp4 Download) (MP3)

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4krU0fD

/by

Religious Pluralism: What About Those That Have Never Heard the Gospel?

Several years back my eldest son who was in fifth grade at the time was brushing his teeth and getting ready for bed. He stepped into the hall and yanked the toothbrush out of his mouth, slinging toothpaste against the wall, and asked, “Dad, dad! What about those people who have never heard about Jesus? Do they go to hell?”

First, what fifth grader thinks about such things when they are brushing their teeth (apparently mine). Second, this has been one of the formidable issues that I believe any reflective Christian can contemplate.
The issue at hand is that it seems unfair to us for God to not provide salvation to someone just because they did not get a chance (because of historical or geographical reasons) to hear the gospel when surely some of them would have accepted it if they had heard it.

In helping reflect on this issue properly consider the graph below. The challenge is “it is unjust (i.e. – unfair) for God to condemn those who never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel.”

 

According to the graph there are four types of people in relation the gospel being heard or not heard crossed with people freely accepting or rejecting the gospel.

The top left quadrant are people who hear the gospel and freely accept it, the bottom left is people who hear the gospel and freely reject it, and the bottom right are people who don’t hear the gospel but if they did they would freely reject it. I contend that these three categories of people are created. When I say created, I don’t mean they are made to accept or reject, I mean they are brought into existence with free will and it is their own free choice in accepting and rejecting the gospel.

The bottom right category deserves come explanation. These people, who don’t hear the gospel, would have freely rejected the gospel but will never hear it. God is under no obligation to get the gospel to these people because they, under their own free will, would reject the gospel. Besides that, the charge of injustice is about the fourth category, the top right.

The top right category of people is where the issue resides. These people never hear the gospel, because of either historical or geographical accident. For example, the 2nd century inhabitants of North America had no opportunity to hear the gospel because of their location and time of existence. There is no way the gospel could have been delivered to them by evangelists or missionaries coming down from the disciples. These people seem to get a raw deal.

But possibly, given Gods infinite wisdom, knowledge, and power he doesn’t allow such people to be created. Now, if that is the case, which it surely seems possible (that is, there is no logical reason to think it is impossible), then there are no people who would have freely accepted the gospel, but never had a chance to hear it. This would ensure that anyone who would freely accept the gospel, God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, creates them in the time and place to ensure that they hear the gospel and freely accept it. This absolves God of any wrong because there are no people who would have freely accepted the gospel but did not get a chance to hear it.

It is just a model, it might be the way reality works it might not, but the point is, if a working model can be developed to absolve God then God, in his infinite wisdom and knowledge and power, should be capable of taking care of reality. And there seems to be some scriptural support for this model in Act 17:24-27,

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us.”

 

So, when my son asked several year ago “What about those people who have never heard about Jesus?  Do they go to hell?” I was able to honestly and confidentially answer, “Son, if they would freely accept the gospel, God knows that and he ensures that the gospel is delivered to them.”  He was satisfied with that answer and went to bed. Hopefully, you find this answer satisfying as well.

Here are a couple of useful resources on this topic:

Recommended Resources: 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

 

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/44oDZCD

/by

Is It Wrong to Doubt?

In the age of critical thinking, many people doubt their beliefs. Churches teach dogmas and present their faith as certain, as if there is no room for doubt. Secular and scientific sectors are intrinsically linked to doubt. Claude Bernard, the father of modern Physiology, states that the doubter is “the true scientist; he doubts himself and his interpretations, but he believes in science.[1] Can faith and doubt coexist? Are not they two ends of the spectrum? Is doubt good or bad? This article will try to answer these questions.

 

Types of Doubt: Good or Bad

Christians usually perceive doubt as a bad thing. Many pastors encourage their congregations to just believe, quoting verses such as Matt 17:20, Mark 4:40. Probably the most quoted verse is when Jesus answered “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith” (Matt 21:21 ESV). This paper is not written to refute such sermons, but it is written to help those who are struggling with doubt to revise the type of doubt that they are experiencing and find rest in their doubt without losing their faith or practicing blind faith.

Because of the negative image of doubt, many people think that it is part of the fallen nature of man; therefore, believers should get rid of it totally and stop questioning their faith. But the question that is being raised here is: Is doubt always bad? Anne Fagot-Largeault states, “The difference between dogmatic skepticism and scientific doubt is that the skeptic is forever in doubt, while for the scientist, the doubt is temporary, a suspension of judgment that avoids coming too quickly and erroneously to a conclusion. It is a difficult passage that must be traversed.”[2] This distinction allows readers to think that there might be different types of doubt, and some of these are good and healthy, while others are bad or destructive.

In the age of social media and unverified information, skepticism has become more common. While information is readily accessible with just a click, verifying every piece of it is often impractical. In science, doubt is the starting point of any investigation—it drives the search for new knowledge. Without doubt, scientific progress might never have occurred. The same principle applies to everyday life. For example, if a driver approaches an intersection without questioning whether other cars are coming from either side, the risk of an accident increases. Healthy skepticism means withholding judgment until sufficient evidence is available. In medicine, physicians are encouraged to communicate their uncertainties with patients. Even tentative information can help patients make meaningful lifestyle changes. Therefore, doubt should not be viewed as inherently negative; instead, people should learn how to apply it wisely.

Types of Doubt: Factual or Emotional

When it comes to religion, doubt is often seen as something negative—the opposite of faith. We are usually told that the heroes in the Bible rarely, if ever, questioned God. But is that really the case? Gary Habermas defines doubt as “uncertainty regarding God or our relationship to him.”[3] He divides the types of religious doubt into factual, emotional, and volitional uncertainty. He concludes that emotional doubt is not identified by the questions of the doubters, where once the question is answered, the doubt is gone. In fact, emotional doubters “often think that they are just one more apologetics book away from solving their pain, but their momentary hope is usually followed once again by another emotional challenge.”[4] Therefore, it is very important to define what type of doubt the believer is having. Is it factual, and he needs evidence? Or is it emotional because of underlying hate the doubter has?

Type of Doubt: Biblical Doubt

In the realm of Christianity, is it wrong to doubt? Is it wrong to doubt the Bible, its historicity, and authenticity? In fact, many great Christians started as doubters of the truth and ended up great believers after a thorough investigation. This is how the field of apologetics came about. When heresy and counter-biblical ideas started spreading in early Christianity, apologists such as Justine Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and many others defended the Bible by using philosophical and historical methods. Later on, after the scientific revolution, apologists such as Henry M. Morris, John Lennox, and Alister McGrath used science to defend the biblical narrative.

Even in the Bible, many prophets and apostles doubted their beliefs. Job and Thomas might be the most famous doubters in the Bible who asked many questions revealing a great doubt, without getting into despair.

The Case of Job

The book of Job presents more than enough material on the expression of doubts concerning God. The basic story runs this way: God allowed Satan to test Job, who was a righteous man with great faith (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). His sons and daughters were killed in a storm. Most of his servants and livestock were killed by robbers. Job himself was in pain, inflicted over his entire body by sores (Job 1:13-19; 2:7-8). Even his wife suggested that he give up his integrity, curse God, and die (Job 2:9). But during the middle of all this pain and suffering, Job posed heart-distressing questions, expressing a death wish (Job 6: 8-9). He wondered if God is oppressing him while approving the actions of the wicked (Job 10:3). He demanded that God just leave him alone (Job 10:20-21) and stop trying to frighten him (13:21)! In this time of great distress, Job “challenged God to a debate (13:3)! He thought that he had a right to state his case and have God reply (13:22). Job wanted to offer his arguments in order to justify himself (23:4-5).”[5] But, God remained silent (Job 19:7; 30:20). All these seem to be emotional questions revealing emotional doubts. Later on, Job repented but kept asking good questions. The most important question he asked is, “But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?” (Job 28:12, 20). The factual conclusion that Job resided to lies in what God said to man, “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28). The book of Job never revealed to us why he suffered, but Job “realized that he knew enough about God to trust Him in those things that he did not understand (42:1-6).”[6]

The Case of Thomas

In John 20, in an account of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, Thomas earns his title of “doubting Thomas” by declaring, “unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:25). Later, Jesus appears to the disciples and invites Thomas to look and touch his wounds. It was an invitation to investigate and believe. Thomas did not sin in his act of doubt, but he lost the blessings of Jesus to those who would believe without seeing (John 20:29). As Habermas states,

“The case of ‘Doubting Thomas’ (Jn. 20:24-29) is probably the best known example of uncertainty in the New Testament. Thomas wanted to see the risen Jesus with his own eyes before he would believe. Although Jesus did provide the requested evidence, He also issued a mild rebuke to His apostle. It would have been better if Thomas had believed the testimony of the other apostles who reported to him that they had seen Jesus alive.”[7]

The Bible never said, just believe and do not demand answers. Jesus said, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matt 7: 7). In a moment of doubt, ask questions, investigate, and pray. Jesus will not shy away from using evidence to answer doubts. This is what the Bible teaches.

Conclusion

Not all doubt is condemned, and not every question is considered sinful. In the Bible, some doubt is rebuked; however, God honors repentance, as with Job. God allows the honest expression of feelings, even if it is inappropriate or untrue. But this does not mean we have a free pass to blame God for whatever happens to us. There is a big difference between sincere, spontaneous questions and a persistent attitude that challenges God’s character. Believers like Job grew during their times of doubt. Even today, while uncertainty can have its downsides, it can also teach us valuable, even essential, lessons.

References: 

[1] Bernard, Claude. Introduction à L’étude de la Medicine Experimental.” (1865). https://classiques.uqam.ca/classiques/bernard_claude/intro_etude_medecine_exp/intro_etude.html

[2] Anne Fagot-Largeault, retrieved from: https://www.canalacademies.com/emissions/institut-de-france/rentree-des-academies/le-doute-seance-de-rentree-solennelle-2010-des-cinq-academies.

[3] Gary Habermas, “Dealing with Emotional Doubt,” in Passionate Conviction: Modern Discourses on Christian Apologetics (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group 2007), 55.

[4] Ibid., 56.

[5] Gary Habermas, The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Draw Closer to God (Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN, 1999) https://www.garyhabermas.com/books/thomas_factor/thomas_factor.htm.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

Recommended Resources: 

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

 

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the young youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen. Sherene is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. Additionally, she holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. Currently, Sherene is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and M.A. in Arabic and linguistics from PennWest University

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3TipBFC

/by

Does Jesus Ever Talk About Homosexuality?

,

I was in my mid-20s living in San Diego. I joined some people from a nearby church and went to a Pride parade to pass out water, give hugs, and hold signs saying “We are sorry the church hasn’t loved you the way Jesus would” (or something along those lines). All of a sudden, I was descended upon by a film crew with a microphone asking me what Jesus had to say about homosexuality. I was not expecting this, but I was giddy to share the love of Christ and talk about how we are all sinners saved by grace and how Jesus never singled out homosexuality as worse than any other type of sexual immorality. In the middle of my sentence (which I had been certain would be received with amazement, tears, and more questions about how to know this Jesus guy), the film crew interrupted me and said, “NOTHING. He said nothing about homosexuality.” And then they walked away without a word, off to find their next “interview.”

 

I sat there dumbfounded. What had just happened? And was it true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality? And if not, why not?

Spoiler alert: Jesus really doesn’t ever address homosexuality specifically, and in our current sexual climate, this argument is being trotted out regularly to convince people that Jesus, therefore, didn’t really have an opinion on the topic (or He tacitly affirmed it).

Jesus really doesn’t ever address homosexuality specifically, and in our current sexual climate, this argument is being trotted out regularly to convince people that Jesus, therefore, didn’t really have an opinion on the topic (or…Click To Tweet

I have always been drawn to the epistles and Revelation. The Gospels were a little less interesting to me because I couldn’t quite picture Jesus. I knew what the New Testament taught about sexuality, but it had never occurred to me that our theology hadn’t come from Jesus Himself. If your kids are coming to you asking why, here are a few things to help them think through the topic.

  1. Jesus did speak about sex and marriage
    While it is true that Jesus never specifically mentions homosexuality, it doesn’t mean that He had nothing to say about sexuality or marriage. Jesus employs the K.I.S.S. method [1] and consistently points His listeners back to how things were in the beginning, with male and female, united for life, not to be separated (Mark 10:2-9). But some people assume that since He didn’t specifically mention homosexuality that must mean He was at least ambivalent about it. Such a conclusion does not give enough weight to what Jesus did say or why He only addressed certain topics. (For example, He didn’t say anything about bestiality or incest, either. To be consistent with this argument, you’d have to argue that He was on the fence about those things, too.)

The one thing we know He didn’t say was that certain types of sexual immorality were more damnable than any other. After all, sexual sins always involve us sinning against our own bodies (1 Corinthians 6:18). We are all equal at the foot of the cross.

The one thing we know Jesus didn’t say was that certain types of sexual immorality were more damnable than any other. We are all equal at the foot of the cross. #lgbtq #trueequality Click To Tweet

  1. Jesus came specifically for the Jewish people first
    Yes, Jesus came to die for the whole world (John 3:16). An often overlooked part of the Gospels, however, is that He came for the Jewish people (Israel), first. (Matthew 15:24). His entire 3 ½ year ministry was focused on this one demographic (though He never turned a gentile away because of it). In Romans 1, Paul clarifies multiple times: “First for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” So keep in mind that Jesus’s primary message was to Jews — the people who were then tasked with taking the good news to the ends of the earth (Genesis 12:2-3, Matthew 28:18-20). [2]This brings me to my next point.
  2. Jesus didn’t reiterate what His audience already knew
    The Jews already knew what the Law said about homosexuality, so they were a step ahead of most gentile cultures. The law of Moses was very specific about sexual morality (Leviticus 18 and 20). It lists every single possible person (or thing) a Jew was prohibited from having sex with. Why was it that specific? Because every single one of those sexual behaviors was happening or even commonplace in the land of Canaan! God warns them not to do any of these things, or they would be destroyed just like the Caananites were (Leviticus 18:28).

When Jesus came to the first-century Jews, they had known for generations what sexuality was intended to be. He didn’t need to reiterate this or go into specifics. This would be like coming to America to spread the message of driving on the right side of the road: your audience already knows it. When do we see homosexuality mentioned in the New Testament? You guessed it: when the author was speaking to a gentile audience who did not have familiarity with God’s laws regarding sexuality.

In summary:    

Jesus did not have to address every different type of sexual immorality to advocate for biblical sexuality. He stuck to original design and even doubles down in Mark 10:5-9. We can do the same with our kids every time they come to us with “But what about [fill in the blank with new sex, gender, or marriage question]?” Just keep pointing them back to God’s original design, and things get a lot simpler. Remind them we are all prone to wander from God’s design. Every single one of us. We are all equal at the foot of the cross as image-bearers struggling to accurately reflect God’s image.

Jesus did not have to address every different type of sexual immorality to advocate for biblical sexuality. Remind your kids that we are all prone to wander from God’s design. Click To Tweet

References:

[1] K.I.S.S. = Keep it simple, stupid! A motto drilled into us by my freshman year biology teacher/coach

[2] Notice that not a single apostle was a gentile.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)   

 

Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder and President of Mama Bear Apologetics. She feels a burden for providing accessible apologetics resources for busy moms. She is the chief author and editor of the bestselling books  Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies, Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design, and the soon to be released Honest Prayers for Mama Bears. Hillary has her master’s degree in biology and loves helping moms to discern truths and lies in both science and culture. She and her husband, John, have been married for 16 years and minister together as an apologetics team. She can never sneak up on anybody because of her chronic hiccups, which you can hear occasionally on the podcast and in interviews.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/448Dz36

/by

The Heroes of Pride Month

I have been writing a series about Pride Month to highlight the truth behind the lives of the LGBTQ+ figures we are commanded to celebrate.  Young Christians considering attending state universities should be aware of the kind of propaganda they will encounter and how to respond in a bold yet loving manner that affirms the free offer of salvation through Christ to all.  These so-called “heroes” lived lives of “activism” and “helping the marginalized.” They are held up as people whom the young should imitate. ASU’s library commands us to “Celebrate” them. ASU is currently the largest state university in the country, weighing in at 180,000 students, so it has a sizable impact for this sex philosophy. Yet when we take an honest look at their lives, we see that they were hypocrites who harmed the very marginalized they claimed to defend. They offer no ideas on how to receive a new heart or find redemption. They lead their followers with promises of liberation, only to march them straight into the utter meaninglessness of “do as I say, not as I do” and imprisonment to sin.

 

Judith Butler is one of the most celebrated intellectuals behind the modern LGBTQ+ movement. A philosopher by trade, Butler has been crowned the patron saint of gender fluidity. She is best known for teaching us that gender isn’t something we are—it’s something we perform. Like a Broadway show, but with less coherence and worse costumes.

But before she denied the existence of objective reality as a mere power relation, Butler was raised in a Jewish home in Cleveland. As a form of discipline, her parents sent her to Hebrew school, hoping, perhaps, that a little theology would straighten her out. It did the opposite. There, she began grilling rabbis with tough philosophical questions: Why can only men read the Torah in services? Who decides what the Torah means? Underneath these lay a deeper question, one that shaped her thinking for decades: Why does God permit evil—especially in light of Jewish suffering?

The Came Hegel

She didn’t find answers that satisfied her. So she turned, instead, to Hegel. From him, she learned that all is one, that distinctions are illusions, and that we are climbing a dialectical staircase toward divinization. Everything is performance (all is one). Even performance is performance. Followed consistently, only the ego and its ideas/desires exist; there is no material world by which to test ideas and define simple concepts like “man and woman.” The psychoanalytic process is no longer about integration into reality but about conforming reality into whatever the ego wants.

Why is there suffering? Suffering is due to social constructs that interfere with individual desires, constructs imposed upon the individual ego by a judgmental society seeking to defend its power structures (this is foreshadowing something to come). And if suffering is constructed, then it can be deconstructed. If reality is imposed, then it can be reimagined. Truth is no longer discovered; it is declared.

If you think you’re a they/them, then you are. That’s all it takes. Just think it—and it is so.

There is no objective reality by which to test this. No external world to provide correction. The scientific method—laughable! Biology—repressive! That old wives’ tale that all human babies come from one biological mother and one biological father—how quaint! Gone is the humility of science and the moral law of God; in their place stands the imagination of the self, armed with a self-contradiction and a moralistic platitude. She even asserts that believing in two sexes is fascism!

The Real Moral Test

But here’s where the rubber meets the road.

For all her public moralism about power, justice, and women’s rights, Butler was strangely silent—indeed, complicit—when it really mattered. When the #MeToo movement urged us to “believe victims,” Butler didn’t. In fact, she did the opposite. She wrote a private, behind-the-scenes letter to the president of NYU defending her close friend and fellow gender theorist, who had been accused by a graduate student of sexual abuse and manipulation.

Let that sink in: Butler, long-time critic of power abuse and patriarchal academia, used her own power to shield an alleged abuser from consequences. She didn’t rush to defend the vulnerable. She rushed to protect the powerful—because that powerful person was one of her own.

This is the same Judith Butler who has built a career decrying systems of oppression, who teaches entire generations that moral hierarchies are tools of domination. But when a real moral test arrived, she flunked it. Not because she misunderstood her theory—but because she lived it out.

She later expressed some regret that maybe she may have defended privilege. Weak. But here’s the thing: before you start thinking “hey, we all make mistakes,” you must remember that isn’t the standard she has imposed on others. She demanded works righteousness conformity to her intersectionality power structure activism. There is no grace and no redemption. She can say “whoops” all she wants, but what this exposes is that in old age, after a lifetime of gender activism, she committing heinous wrongs and has seen no personal transformation.

As the fool said to King Lear: you shouldn’t have grown old until you grew wise.

Sadly, there is no such thing as wisdom for Butler because that requires objective reality, and the ego must deny itself to pursue truth. Wisdow laughs at her claim that “all is performance.”

You see, Butler’s gender theory has no room for integrity, no path to repentance, and no standard of justice beyond power itself. The ego is the highest standard. Her entire worldview boils down to this: “Do what you think is true. Reality is what you say it is.”Which works just fine—until she has more power and decides that you are the problem. Then letters are written to defend her friends.

Are you starting to see a theme behind these heroes?

This is what makes her a hero of Pride Month. Not because she offered a path to redemption or renewal. She didn’t. But because she gave the movement a philosophical excuse (albeit a nonsensical one) to cast off all restraint—gender, biology, objectivity, morality—and replace them with the ego and its desires.

What’s the pattern in what these heroes taught and how they live?

  • “Whatever you desire, do that.”
  • “There is no objective moral standard; all is reducible to power.”
  • “And even if there is objective morality, I’ll violate it when it’s personally convenient.”
  • You can be as God, do what you want is the whole of the law.

 

This is an incoherent philosophy on which to build a life. And yet, in our sin, it is the philosophy we all start with. Judith Butler and the LGBTQ+ movement are no different than the rest of us on this point: we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. And it is also true that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. If any of us is to find redemption, fulfillment, and true authenticity, it is in Christ alone.

This is why Butler matters to the LGBTQ+ movement. She gave it its defining creed: “You are whatever you think you are.” It’s a childish idea dressed up in the language of liberation. But it leads not to freedom, only to hypocrisy from which she cannot escape even in old age—and not to justice, only to self-justification.

She is, in short, the perfect hero for a movement that celebrates “authenticity is however you feel now” without accountability, and identity without objective reality.  Pray with me that those who are caught up in captivity to this philosophy see their need for Christ and turn to him.

You can find the other posts in my Pride Month Heroes series on my Substack, which is drowenanderson.substack.com.

Recommendations: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

Do I have to go to church to be a Christian?

Do I HAVE to go to church to be a Christian? The weekend is finally here, but instead of resting, I hop on my to-do list and finish Saturday feeling accomplished and exhausted. But, as I set my alarm for the morning, sometimes, I’m tempted not to rise and shine. Can’t I give God the glory, glory from home?

Can I Worship from Home?

Is worshipping from home a legitimate choice? Am I still a Christian if I don’t go to church? Going to church is not a part of salvation. When we add requirements to salvation or Christianity that Jesus did not, we add burdens and weights to the light yoke of Jesus.

“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile.” – Billy Sunday

We become Christians by hearing the gospel message and trusting in Jesus for our salvation, not by going to church.

“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”
Romans 10:9-10 (ESV)

Our works do not save us.

Salvation is a gift from God that we cannot earn. Thank Heavens! I can’t imagine ever being good enough in a single hour to deserve God’s holy righteousness.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,”
Ephesians 2:8

But, that doesn’t mean you can sleep in on most Sundays and not go to church. That’s because being saved is more than praying some magical prayer. Repenting of your sins and surrendering your life to Christ isn’t something you do once. We all need to choose to carry our cross daily.

As Christians, we are living works of sanctification. Our lives and works on this earth reflect Christ to those who have not yet heard or believed. What we do matters.

“But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
James 2:18

You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian, but it’s still part of being a Christian.

Yet, our modern idea of church would seem very strange to the apostles. The Bible never tells us to go to a specific building for one hour a week, complain about the air conditioning or worship music, and go home.

The Apostolic Church was a body of believers who did life together. They lived and worked together in community. The early Christians shared their neighbors troubles and were generous with their blessings. They met in homes and were committed to each other as parts of the body of Christ.

We need to go to church as part of covenantal fellowship with a body of believers.

The early church was on mission. They were in the trenches reaching people with the gospel. We need a church body to be as effective as possible in sharing the love of Christ because we are gifted in different ways.

Additionally, we need to belong to a church. My church doesn’t have membership the way most churches used to, but I’ve chosen to commit to this group of people. The people who come to this building every week are family. We support each other and pray for each other.

We need to go to church for others as much as for ourselves.

Generally, western Christians drift in and out of buildings/groups too easily, often without asking ourselves if God has a purpose in my staying in a church that doesn’t perfectly meet my every need?

I’ve learned to be patient in the not perfect, to offer grace when I disagree, to pray for the spiritual growth of the body, and to love those who walk through the door, and love them more like Jesus does.

While I love our worship band, they don’t always play my favorite songs. The pastor’s message is always Biblical and moving, but isn’t always what I think I needed to hear. Yet, the people always are there. I can hug them, say a prayer, ask about their week, bring them a meal.

Do I have to go to church to be a Christian? I’m tired and don’t want to rise and shine. Can’t I give God the glory-glory from home? #Christianity #Church #ChristianLiving Share on X

I’ve seen God use my church body to change me the most when I was serving others through faithful attendance and fellowship.

Lastly, we go to church because it’s part of growing in our walk as Christians.

Through fellowship, we learn to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Attending a church building, home church, or even a small fellowship group helps us strengthen our relationship with God and our understanding of His word and character. In these difficult times culturally, we need the church family to encourage us as believers to live righteously.

“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Hebrews 10:24-25

By attending church, we develop relationships that help refine us, with people who challenge us, to reject the sinful thoughts and beliefs of the world.

No, you don’t need to go to church to be a Christian, but we all should to grow as members of the body of Christ.

We all miss Sundays here and there. We don’t attend every pancake breakfast or women’s tea, but church attendance should be a priority. But the more I go, the more I seek God, the more I want to go. You will be blessed and be a blessing as part of a group of people pursuing the great commission of Christ.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

 

Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45HQtGa

/by

Countercultural Warriors…

An Age of Mirrors

Ours is an age of mirrors. Addicted to the thought of self, individuals of profound dignity and worth huddle together en masse as they shuffle along the broad road that leads them anywhere but towards life. The sides of the road are lined with mirrors, reflections of this act or that moment or those days. Deceptively effective, the mirrors keep the eyes of the people on themselves as they desperately seek to find deeper meaning in rituals and events made shallow by selfishness. The mirrors control the persons, reducing them to spectators of their own existence. Always primping, endlessly posturing, carefully portraying what they believe is the best face for others to see, the faces in the mirrors present a staged collage of a life that is more prop than substance, more acting than living.

 

Divine Purpose

The woman of God comes into this teeming gaggle of confused souls and, simply by not looking at her mirror but choosing, rather, to look at her Savior, becomes the means to helping others look away from themselves to find themselves. The man of God stands amid this cadre of insecure masculinity and, with a turn of his gaze away from an image that is not real toward the One in whose image he is made, leads others to see their worth in the maker of heaven and earth. This is the countercultural warrior that God calls each of us to be, women and men of God whose eyes are on eternity and whose hearts are filled with divine purpose—showing the world that they can look away from the mirrors and behold the God who is love. Only then will they find the meaning for which they so desperately long.

Hearing the Call

The call of the countercultural warriors sounds forth in the words of Jesus: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31 NKJV). In a beautiful twist of holy irony, the countercultural warriors give themselves fully and without reservation—heart, soul, mind, and strength—to another. To the One and those made in His image. There is no room for self in the complete surrender and devotion of self to God and neighbor. As the Spirit’s refining fire burns ever brighter, the dross of selfishness is consumed as the holy coals of God-exalting selflessness glow white hot within the joyful wake of self-denial and sacrificial devotion.

Embodying Divine Love

It is only when such countercultural warriors arise in humble obedience that the world’s self-destructive inward bent and its vanity disguised as virtue are outed as the soul destroying lies that they are. It is only when countercultural warriors seek to embody divine love—with the courageous hearts of the meek and a towel girded waste with pitcher and bowl deployed in washing the feet of another—only then will they walk in the calling issued forth from the crucified Savior, the risen Lord, the coming King.

Will You Accept His Call?

Will you look away from the mirrors and look up in faith to the only One in whom is life? Will you close your ears to the siren call of selfishness that leads to making shipwreck of life, heeding instead the call of Jesus to find your life by losing it? Will you step into the fray of cultural chaos and become the countercultural warrior God calls you to be?

Recommended Resources:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

T.J. Gentry, D.Min., Ph.D.: Senior Executive Vice President, Assistant Editor, Publisher, and Contributor serves as the Senior Pastor of First Christian Church of West Frankfort, Illinois, the Assistant Vice President of Publishing and Communications, and the Assistant Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries. He formerly served as the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com. Dr. Gentry earned his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics (Liberty University); Ph.D. in Theology with Missiology (North-West University, South Africa); and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, Ph.D. in Leadership, and D.Min. in Pastoral Counseling (Carolina University). Additionally, he is the President of Illative House Press (illativehousepress.com), having previously published Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics(Wipf and Stock, 2020) and Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord: Biblical, Theological, and Rational Arguments against Purgatory(Wipf and Stock, 2019).

Dr. Gentry proudly served his country, both enlisted and officer, in the United States Army Chaplain Corps, and he has taught martial arts as a Christian ministry platform since the late 1990s. He is an adjunct professor at Carolina University (carolinau.edu) and Carolina College of Biblical Studies (https://ccbs.edu). He and his wife are blessed with five children and two grandchildren. His daily Bible teaching and devotions can be heard at tjgentry.net.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3FlqbPz

/by

How to Talk to the Jehovah’s Witness at Your Door

It’s Saturday morning, and as you’re getting some cleaning done (and by “cleaning,” I mean binge-watching The Great British Baking Show on Netflix in your pajamas), you hear the dreaded knock on your door and peer out. Judging from their conservative clothes and the Watchtower magazines in hand, you quickly conclude you’re about to engage with some Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs). You now have two choices: you can either ignore the knocking and pretend you aren’t home (but really, what kind of message does that send to your kids?), or you can answer the door. My hope is that after you’ve read our [Mama Bear Apoloetics] articles on the Jehovah’s Witnesses (here and here), you will feel confident enough to engage in a conversation with them, but we also want to give you a bit more help in case you aren’t quite there yet. I know it can be daunting!

Why are we preparing for this conversation?

Did you know that Jehovah’s Witnesses prepare to talk to you? It’s true! They have classes at their weekly meetings to help develop their communication skills, and there is also written and online information available to them about how to engage with people about their faith. They also read a book called Reasoning from the Scriptures, which gives them answers to potential challenges like, “We are already Christians here,” “I’m not interested,” or even, “I’m a Muslim.”[1]

Isn’t that wonderful? Don’t you wish you had practical lessons like that available at your own church? (Awesome if you do! If you don’t, Mama Bear has got you covered!) Just think of this as the opportunity to be a missionary without having to leave your house! Moms are probably the busiest people on the planet, so we may not have time to quit everything and minister to a remote jungle tribe in Africa, but we can all be missionaries right where we are. As Hillary Short said in her Playground Apologetics series, “Wherever you are, that’s where God needs you!”

So, back to the JW classes…what do they learn at these classes? They are taught 1 Timothy 2:3-4, Acts 20:20, and 1 Peter 2:21 to encourage their members towards meaningful conversations with others about their beliefs. We should, too! Knowing that they are prepared before they knock on our doors tells us that we need to be prepared before we answer the door. It’s no fun getting steamrolled, overwhelmed, or tongue-tied.

One of the tips I found on the JW Website was that “Once the conversation has started, look for an opportunity to introduce the good news, but do not be in a hurry. Allow the conversation to develop naturally.”[2] The first section of the JW book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, gives all sorts of recommendations for topics to talk about first, from the crime in your neighborhood to how we all want our children to be happy.[3] (Sounds like a great opportunity to get to know your JW neighbors!)

Getting Started

Jehovah’s Witnesses will ease themselves into the conversation by getting to know you. You should do the same thing! Just like Paul did in Acts 17, aim for common ground. Ask them how long they’ve been outside, and if it’s hot, offer them a glass of water. Take an interest in who they are. This will likely catch them off-guard since many times either no one answers the door or, if the door is answered, it’s quickly closed in their faces. Rude! Don’t be that person.

So, what should you say when they start presenting their “Good News?” Nothing . . . at first. The first thing you should do is listen closely to what they have to say. Take note of any Scripture they cite. If it seems like the conversation is going somewhere, offer them a chair and sit with them. This is your opportunity to show them that not all Christians are hostile toward JWs. They may have never met someone like that. This is your chance to be the light. If they give you a copy of The Watchtower Magazine or Awake!, it would be gracious to accept it (but you don’t have to keep it forever).

The number one thing NOT to do

Once you’ve heard what they have to say, you may want to take a moment to think about how you will respond. One thing you should NOT do is tell them that they belong to a cult or that their worldview is built on heresies. They will leave faster than you can say “Charles Taze Russell.”

Whatever you do, don’t just blurt out that they belong to a cult or that their worldview is built on heresies. They’ll leave faster than you can say ‘Charles Taze Russell.’ Click To Tweet

Not only will they leave, but your particular house will be basically “blacklisted” for the next several months or even years. While that might sound appealing to you, remember, we should not treat ministry like some people treat jury duty. This is not something we are trying to weasel out of (though I’m still not sure why some people don’t want to be on a jury!). Being a missionary to the people whom God has put in our lives is part of being a Christian! Your goal is for them to want to come back and talk further. Search your heart. If your goal is to “trigger” them so that they never want to come back, maybe talk to the Lord about that…

What SHOULD we do?

What I want to do here is give you some ideas about how to respond to a few of the key things they are likely to bring up. This way, you can practice a little beforehand, and you’ll be prepared when the conversation happens. (And, we’ll give you hints on things that will stop the conversation and get your house blacklisted, which again, is not the goal.)

This article really covers two different phases: the relationship-building stage and the established relationship stage.

Phase 1: JWs at your Front Door

During the first stage, you should be extra careful not to come on too strong or try to “evangelize” them too quickly. They won’t come back. Don’t start talking about the Trinity in your first conversation. My friend and former JW, Cynthia, said that the word “Trinity” actually signals something called “thought-stopping” for JWs, and they’ll just stop listening to everything you say. It triggers them to go silent. It also might cause your house to be effectively “blacklisted,” which means they won’t be coming back to your house any time soon. (That’s not to say they will never come back, but it will most certainly be months or even years before they do.) That’s not what you want if you’re going to try to reach them. Instead, save topics like the Trinity and deity of Christ for later conversations, when you have an established relationship.

Why is saying ‘Trinity’ not a good idea at the first meeting with a Jehovah’s Witness? Click To Tweet

Cynthia said that one thing they are taught is that they are the teachers, so if the person they are talking with seems to be trying to teach them, they are likely to walk away from the conversation and not come back. In other words, tread lightly, go slowly, be patient, and be a student.

So, what should you talk about at your doorstep? Cynthia suggested that front-door topics be something that gets the JW thinking. Here’s why. Have you ever had a pebble in your shoe? It’s subtle, and it might not even bother you enough to take your shoe off to get it out at first, but eventually, you’ve had enough, and you need to get it out. Be the pebble in their shoe. For example:

  • Ask them how they know that the Watch Tower Society teaches the truth.Ask them what steps they took to determine if the Watch Tower Society was telling the truth. Listen to what they say. They likely have not done any independent research into their own religion. This isn’t a question designed to trap them, but a question to get them thinking about why they believe what they believe, which I think all believers of anything should do.
  • You could also ask them what it means to call their organization “the truth.”You could then ask them to read John 14:6 where Jesus says that He is the way, the truth, and the life. Ask them what they think this verse means. If Jesus is truth, how could an organization created by a man (Charles Taze Russell) be truth?
  • Ask them when their church was founded. Ask them if God was without a witness before the start of their church because they claim that they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah. If He was without a witness for thousands of years, did God truly care for His people?

Front door conversations are likely going to be pretty short, so quick questions like the ones I mentioned above would be appropriate. Often, it is good to schedule a follow-up meeting, which will give you time to research anything that they said that made you go “hmmm…” But, what about when you have known the JW for a long time?

Phase 2: The Established Relationship

Once you have an established relationship with a Jehovah’s Witness (I’m not talking about just a few conversations, but several), you can start to venture into deeper territory. (Remember, if you start addressing the deity of Jesus and the Trinity too soon, you will lose them, and they won’t come back, and our goal as missionaries isn’t to scare them off!)

Think of it this way: you normally don’t talk about religion and politics on the first (or even second or third) time meeting someone, do you? Why do you think those topics come up so regularly at Thanksgiving dinner, when the family all gets together? It’s because relationship and (ideally) mutual love and respect are common prerequisites for those types of conversations. Those kinds of conversations are like the “deep end” of a pool. You wouldn’t throw a child into the deep end if they have never learned how to swim, right? No, first, you give them floaties and let them wade in the shallow end. Then, you guide them into the deeper end of the pool, slowly and cautiously. As they begin to understand how swimming works and have a healthy respect for water, they gain more confidence and trust. Then, and only then, will they begin to swim on their own.

So, when you have a JW at your door, it’s like your opportunity to give them floaties. Take it slow. Once you trust each other and have a solid relationship, then you can begin to talk about the topics below. If you’re there, and you’re ready, well, shoot… let’s dive in and talk about Jesus!

Jesus

Remember, not all concepts of “Jesus” are created equal. Do not assume that when you say “Jesus” and when they say “Jesus,” you are referring to the same person.

Remember, not all concepts of ‘Jesus’ are created equal. Do not assume that when you say ‘Jesus’ and when they say ‘Jesus,’ you are referring to the same person.Click To Tweet

The JW version of Jesus is very different from that of mainstream Christianity. This is where clarifying terms can be helpful. Make sure you know who they are talking about. Ask questions. You may remember this from my previous articles, but keep in mind that they do not believe in the Trinity, and they do not believe that Jesus is God. When you ask questions, be prepared for answers like these:

  • Jesus is just another created being (Michael the Archangel, to be more specific).Jehovah’s Witnesses might tell you that Jesus is not God. They may not directly come out and say that Jesus was Michael, so be prepared if they don’t. They will likely use Scripture to support their views (such as, Colossians 1:16 and John 14:28). Remember, JWs use their own version of the Bible, called the New World Translation. Be on the lookout for language that demotes Jesus from the Godhead. In my last article, we tackled Colossians 1:16, so I won’t address it here, but let’s talk about John 14:28. John 14:28 says, “the Father is greater than I,” something that makes JWs believe that Jesus is less than the Father. Don’t fall for this!

o Response: Ask them what they think the context is for Jesus making this statement. Ask them if you can read Philippians 2:2-6 together. In this passage, Jesus talks about how he took on the form of a servant but was also in the form of God. See if they understand the implications (i.e., He was God, but He was serving). Ask them if you could also read Hebrews 2:9 together. This passage describes how Christ was made lower than the angels but now crowned with glory so that He could usher in God’s grace through His death and resurrection. Discuss the implications of Hebrews 2:9 (i.e., Jesus is God who became flesh so that He could serve us by dying on the cross and rising again). Both of these passages should help explain that Jesus, God the Son, is not lower than God but is God.

  • Jesus only had “divine qualities” but was not himself divine.This is where it’s helpful to know what their Bible says (New World Translation or NWT) versus other Bible versions. Colossians 2:9 in the NWT says, “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” My Bible, which is the New American Standard, says, “For in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.” See how those two verses say something different? In the NWT, “divine quality” replaces the word “Deity.” The text has been changed in the NWT because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not want it to appear like Jesus is God, but that he simply had “godlike qualities.”[4]
  • Jesus is only partially sufficient for salvation.According to JWs, salvation is only available through works and faith in Christ is not enough for salvation. They will agree that the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God through Jesus Christ (which is consistent with Ephesians 2:8-9). So how can it be both a free gift and based on works? It seems like they are speaking through two sides of their mouth. For JWs, salvation is a gift, but works are required, as well. Ron Rhodes explains, “Bordering on playing semantics games, Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that while good works do not earn salvation, they are nevertheless prerequisites for salvation.”[5] One might think of it like applying for a scholarship. Applying for a scholarship doesn’t earn you a scholarship, but it is a prerequisite for the scholarship. The scholarship is a free gift, but to receive it, one must do certain things to become eligible.

o Response: First, ask them what they believe. Tell them that almost 200 times in the New Testament, salvation is given through faith alone.[6] You could share Acts 16:31, John 11:25, Titus 3:5, and Galatians 2:16. After reading these verses with them, ask them if this sounds like what they know about salvation.

o Response #2: Ask them if they know the difference between salvation and sanctification? Let them know that you believe that good works are a part of who we are as Christians, but that those works are not required for salvation. Rather, these works are part of sanctification, where we are made increasingly into God’s likeness. Yes, we should do good works because we are followers of Christ, but faith alone is what saves us. Our good works are an outpouring of who we are in Christ.

The Trinity

We talked extensively about what Christians believe about the Trinity here, and we briefly covered what JWs believe here. For this topic, it’s particularly important that you study up because Jehovah’s Witnesses are thoroughly trained on how to respond to this issue. Be warned, though—this topic can be exceptionally tough because it is difficult to explain, even for Christians. When we covered the Trinity in our article about Christianity, I wrote about all of the dangers of our attempts to illustrate the Trinity with analogies (which typically lead to heresies like modalism, which is what Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to think all Christians succumb to when teaching about the Trinity). In other words, you’ll want to be careful when tackling this tricky issue. And again, do not bring this up until you have sufficiently established a trusting relationship!

  • The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.This one is a pretty common argument against the Trinity by Jehovah’s Witnesses. While this is technically true (the word is never mentioned), the concept of the trinity is well established, as we’ll explain below. The JW might bolster their argument by also noting that the word “Trinity” was developed gradually over centuries and first fully revealed in the 4th Century, and they’ll use the New Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources to support their claims.[7]

o Response: If we are ignoring things that aren’t explicitly stated in the Bible, you can respond by mentioning that the word “Jehovah” is not in the original text, either. In fact, it doesn’t appear till the 16th century. It’s a made-up word because scribes were careful to never speak the name of the Lord. To prevent the accidental saying of God’s name (Yahweh – which looked like YHWH) out loud, they added the vowels from Adonai (the Hebrew word for “Lord”) in between the consonants of Yahweh, and . . . well, just watch this short little video. It’s probably easier to watch it rather than to have me try to explain it here.

Ask your JW friend if they know that the Encyclopedia also states that Jehovah is a made-up word. Citing the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, the Encyclopedia says, “[The word Jehovah] is erroneous, since it took the vowels of adonai (‘my lord’) which were inserted into printed or written texts to prevent any attempt to pronounce the name of God.”

  • The Trinity is pagan.Jehovah’s Witnesses might also tell you that the Trinity is a pagan concept.

o  Response: It’s important to point out to them that the pagans were polytheists not monotheists, which means that they believed in several distinct gods.[8] Clarify that Christians believe in one God with three persons.

o  Counter-Objection: They will probably tell you, “That’s confusing, and God would not want to confuse anyone.”

o Counter-Response #1: It is always preferred to use the JW’s own material to answer their objections. So, in this case, cite the Watch Tower Society’s material. According to Reasoning from the Scriptures, the incomprehensibility of God’s eternal nature is defended by saying, “Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not [a] sound reason for rejecting it” (emphasis added).[9] Ask them why the same logic shouldn’t be applied to the incomprehensibility of the Trinity? (You can further cite Romans 11:33, Isaiah 55:8-9, and 1 Corinthians 13:12, which allude to the fact that we won’t understand everything all the time.)

o Counter-Response #2: Ask them if we can reasonably expect to understand everything about God? If they say anything remotely close to a “yes,” again cite from Reasoning from the Scriptures: “Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that He could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?”[10] According to their own material, we should not expect to understand all the ways of God, and not understanding something is not grounds for rejecting it.

Eschatology [End Times]

JWs believe that only 144,000 people get to Heaven (the “anointed class” or “little flock”), and that those people were already determined by 1935.[11] Any other true believer (a JW) is part of the “great multitude” or “other flock,” and will live in earthly paradise for all of eternity.

  • The “anointed class” is limited to 144,000.When you talk about the anointed class, ask the Jehovah’s Witness if there is anywhere in the Bible where Heaven is explicitly limited to just 144,000. They will likely respond with Revelation 7 and 14 (which both talk about 144,000 people), but they won’t be able to show you a verse that specifically limits those who go to heaven to just 144,000.

o Response #1: You could also read 1 John 5:1 to them, which says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” The word “everyone” would seem to include not just 144,000. Other verses that talk about all who believe (not just the 144,000) include Ephesians 2:19, Galatians 3:29, James 2:5, and John 12:26.

o Response #2: Another interesting question you could ask is whether the anointed class (the 144,000) includes women. They will likely say yes, but then point out that Revelation 14:4 clearly states that the 144,000 are “men who have not been defiled by women.” That seems to indicate that women are not included in the 144,000 mentioned in Scripture.

o Response #3: Ask them to read John 10:16. Jesus says, “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.” (Here, Jesus is referring to the Gentiles that he is going to bring into the fold.) He continues, “They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” If we are one flock with one shepherd, why would we be divided in eternity?

New Light

New light is how Jehovah’s Witnesses explain changes in the Watch Tower Society’s views . . . claiming that the “light gets brighter” in order to justify the changes. There’s a pretty good explanation of it in this 16-minute video from Witness for Jesus, an organization created to help JWs and former-JWs think more deeply about the Bible.

o Response: Ask the JWs at your door about John 8:12, which says, “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.’” Ask them how an organization can claim to have new light when Jesus is the light of the world. Truth doesn’t change.

So, what’s the bottom line?

If you choose to open the door when Jehovah’s Witnesses knock, here’s your list of priorities:

  1. Be kind. JWs are taught that Christians are hostile towards them and they interpret rudeness or hostility as proof that they are being persecuted for God. Find common ground, and don’t degrade or belittle them. Instead, find a way to share the truth with them with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
  2. Be prepared. Keep any Watchtower or Reasoning from the Scriptures material available and highlighted for easy finding. In fact, why not have a copy of this article on a shelf next to the door, just in case? Understand a bit of their church’s history, as well as the basics of their beliefs. Even if you are using this knowledge to ask questions, it’s wise to know where they are coming from.
  3. Be patient. Don’t aim for a full exposé on JW heresy on the first visit. The goal is a second visit! Do not expect that every conversation you have will result in a conversion, either. My friend, Chris, once told me that we’re aiming to plant seeds, not weeds. What you say may have an impact, but you may not see it come to fruition during your time with them. That’s why it’s essential that you’re prepared to engage in a fruitful dialogue instead of a judgmental diatribe. You may only get one shot to plant a seed, and you really don’t want to miss out on that opportunity.

For further reading, I definitely recommend Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Ron Rhodes (there’s a revised 2009 edition available). It’s a thorough book that walks through the key theological issues that may come up in your conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s also accessible in the sense that you don’t have to have a theology degree to understand it.

You may also want to read the Watch Tower Society’s book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, to get a better idea of how Jehovah’s Witnesses prepare to engage in conversations and what they are taught. There is also detailed information about their beliefs on their Website at www.JW.org.

Thank you to former Jehovah’s Witness, Cynthia Velasco Hampton, for reading my JW articles to ensure that what they contained was accurate. Your insight has been invaluable.

References:

[1] Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985), 16-23.

[2] “Improving Our Skills in the Ministry—Initiating a Conversation in Order to Witness Informally,” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/202014241 (last accessed August 29, 2018).

[3] Reasoning from the Scriptures (1985), 10-11.

[4] For an excellent and thorough discussion on this point, see Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), 283. (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), 79-81.

[5] Rhodes 2009, 283.

[6] Ibid., 293.

[7] Watch Tower 1985, 405.

[8] Rhodes 2009, 222.

[9] Watch Tower 1985, 148

[10] Ibid., 149.

[11] “Have No Fear, Little Flock,” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1995124#h=1:0-12:1082 (last accessed Sept. 30, 2018). This is also a bit more complex than it seems. In 2007, the Watch Tower Society issued a response to a reader, noting, “As time has gone by, some Christians baptized after 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. (Romans 8:16, 17) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.” [https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20070501/Questions-From-Readers/] In other words, even though many in the church still hold to the 1935 cutoff date, there is an opening for others to be added to the “little flock.”

Recommended Resources: 

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Lindsey Medenwaldt is the Director of Ministry Operations at Mama Bear Apologetics, and she’s our resident worldview and world religion specialist. She has a master’s degree in apologetics and ethics from Denver Seminary, as well as a master’s in public administration and a law degree. She’s the author of Bridge-Building Apologetics (Harvest House, 2024). She’s an editor and author for the Christian Research Journal, an editor for Women in Apologetics, and a member of the Pelican Project. She has also contributed to various writing projects, including a chapter about the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Popular Handbook of World Religions (Harvest House, 2021). Lindsey and her husband, Jay (who is also an apologist), have been married for 17 years. They live with their daughters in Iowa. In her spare time, Lindsey loves watching British reality television, especially The Great British Baking Show, and she’s an avid reader (Jay and Lindsey have an at-home library of more than 2,500 books!).

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3SougFu

/by