Ambiguous Islam

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in 2011 in Christian Research Journal, vol. 34, no. 6, and reprinted online in 2014 at: https://www.equip.org/articles/ambiguous-islam/. Any additions are in [brackets]].

Usama Bin Laden was a moderate. Right?   

Was he not a tragic peace-loving hero with a grand vision for a democratic Afghanistan? Like a photograph overexposed, zeal overcame him, his greatness o’er shadowed by bright dots of violence. Seal Team Six made sure his violence met violence and his vision was ended. We might expect that portrayal from Afghan extremists or Hamas radicals. But that’s also the Bin Laden you find in the short-lived May 4 press release from moderate group Muslim American Society (MAS). They say of him, “I do not believe that any human being relished the terror and the loss of blood that came with his death.” [1] Cooler heads prevailed and MAS retracted this press release six days later. Smart move. This statement does not officially reflect MAS. But this press release does show that MAS either has a bad jokester in its midst, or there are sympathies for UBL [Usama Bin Laden] among its members. MAS has already raised concern elsewhere for, apparently, serving as a public front to the political-Islam group the Muslim Brotherhood.[2] Bear in mind that MAS is the largest official Muslim advocacy group in America.

Consider another case. The popular U.S. based group CAIR, the Council of American Islamic Relations, lost in court when accused of financial ties to (Palestinian terrorist group) Hamas. CAIR has yet to call Hamas or the Lebanon-based Hezbollah “terrorist organizations.”[3] Having headquarters in Washington DC and branches in twenty US states, CAIR is a major player. CAIR and MAS are two of the biggest, most respectable Muslim organizations in America, and even they cannot shake the burrs of extremism. These two groups illustrate Islam’s often-futile effort to be moderate. To many of us, “moderate Islam” looks oddly plastic, like fake food. Many try to cook up a “moderate Islam,” palatable to the world and authentic to Muslim tastes, but MAS, CAIR, and others have already spit in the soup. Consider some of the following attempted recipes.

AVERAGES

“Moderate Islam” could mean the majority of world Muslims caught straddling non-Islam and fundamentalist Islam. They don’t speak Arabic, live under sharia law, or promote religious violence.[4] Otherwise they may be poster-children for Islam. This is moderation by averages.

The problem with this definition is that if a person qualifies as Muslim, his religion must qualify as Islam. But Islam isn’t defined by how some Muslims happen to act, but by texts, traditions, and Muhammad’s example. The Islamic world could stray from orthodox Islam and yet there would remain, in texts and traditions, a way to tell Islam from imitations. A self-proclaimed Muslim may claim nonviolence, but claims count little if he’s also a “hardened secular” (i.e., Tarek Fatah).[5] Unless one’s religion is Islam, he hardly counts for moderate Islam.

NONVIOLENCE

Others aren’t “average,” they just reject violence while supporting most everything else of radical Islam. These questionable “moderates” may advocate worldwide Muslim expansion so long as it’s nonmilitant; forcing nations into sharia law, so long as it’s nonmilitant; and attacking Judeo-Christian influence in the western world, so long as it’s nonmilitant.

However, people may be peaceable themselves, but dangerous in other ways. They may justify Islam’s bloody history of militant expansionism. They may support Sharia law, anti-Semitism, or suppression of women. This sense of “moderate” isn’t helpful. Such “moderates” stretch the term beyond credulity.

Equally guilty are those who stoke and those who light the flames. One supposed bridge builder, Muslim Abid Ullah Jan, swears off Islamic violence in one turn, but in the next employs the same rhetoric typical of jihadists. He says Islam was not behind the 2006 terrorist plots in Toronto and London and then proceeds to list (purported) beliefs he shares with terrorists: “9/11 was an inside job” and “[George W.] Bush and [Tony] Blair are neck deep in the blood of innocent Muslims”; Israel is an “illegitimate racist state”; “the present world order is unjust”; “aggression and oppression” such as American “colonial fascism…should be resisted”; and “Muslims…should struggle to live by Islam, free from colonial interference.”[6] He does reject murdering “innocent civilians.”[7] But in distributing guilt so broadly, no innocents remain. Now, I’m not attempting to justify the present world order, and Jan does well in saying it’s wrong to murder innocent civilians, but his words serve to inflame and aggravate while he indicts all of America and all of Israel as guilty. Does that justify the murder of Americans and Jews? The silence is deafening.[8]

Jan’s “moderation” is more dangerous than helpful. He translates “jihadism” into “freedom fighting” and “the American way” into “terrorism.” Yes, he rebukes violence against “innocent civilians,” but American military aren’t civilians, so they can be killed justifiably, whether or not they are on duty. American causes, by his thought, are borne out of oppressive colonialism, so American causes deserve violent opposition. Jan goes farther than modest critique, stretching his anti-Americanism to cover most every American cause that can be named. His “moderate” positioning dissolves to nothing. Jan’s rhetoric is dangerously immodest and hardly “moderate.” Relabeled dynamite is no less explosive. If Jan does not want to start more fires, he should speak with more light and less heat.

MODERATELY MUSLIM

Still others see “moderate” as a compromise, like “halfhearted” or “nominal.” Turkey’s prime minister, [Recep] Erdogan, explains, “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; There is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.”[9]

Despite objections, the lingo has stuck. The public has appropriated the term. Plus, Erdogan is arguably Islamist himself (depending on one’s definition), representing a far more fundamentalist and Islamocentric Turkey than the prior (modern) heritage of [Mustafa Kemal] Ataturk.[10] “Moderate” may be offensive to him, but apt for other Muslims who distrust Hamas more than he does or who prefer the “old” Turkey.

While some take offense at the term, perhaps it need not offend. “Moderate” is relative to whatever it divides. It need not divide committed Muslims from noncommitted Muslims. A Muslim may be committed and willing to die for the faith but would never kill for the faith. One may be extreme about learning Arabic but moderate about sharia or jihad. The elephant in the living room is not “extremely faithful” or “extremely peaceful.” The elephant is terrorism; that’s the extreme.

IS “MODERATE” ISLAM REAL?          

Admitting the elephant in the living room, and that it’s wearing a bomb vest, it’s evident we probably wouldn’t be debating this phrase if not for jihadism. At minimum, “moderate” means peaceable, broadly nonviolent in word and deed. This person opposes forced conversion and militant expansion, and allows violence only for self-defense or for [restrained] police and military [measures]. Still, we must ask, Is “Moderate Islam” a Muslim category or is it more diplomacy obscuring danger with thin veneers of misinformation?[11] Scholarly talk persists, often to legitimize “moderate” Islam, but rarely does it drown out the militant minority that has hijacked the conversation.

Surely the extremists aren’t all of Islam; that’s evident. But they are some of Islam. So the suspicion remains. Perhaps the “moderate” category is a foreign intrusion, not a native distinction. Even with the important contributions of Islam in world culture, those would seem to be the attractive face splattered in blood after centuries of violence.[12] Were such violence a medieval memory, this question would be outdated. But hostilities are hot. The search for a moderate Islam is as important as ever.

Scholars such as Muqtedar Khan (Debating Moderate Islam) and Daniel Pipes (Militant Islam Reaches America) say moderate Islam is possible, and Islam can trade its masked militancy for enlightened lenses. Zuhdi Jasser (the film Third Jihad), a Muslim, actively campaigns against jihadism. Yet others, such as Wafa Sultan (A God Who Heals) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel and Submission), living under threat of death for leaving Islam, argue that Islam is fundamentally violent, peaceable only in its compromised forms. While it’s true that at least one (small, lonely, but encouraging) Muslim organization openly rebukes jihadism (Free Muslim Coalition[13]). Islam does not seem reformed enough in width or depth to escape that reputation. Whatever innovations Islam has had, a dogged contingency of fundamentalist militant Islam persists, linking it back to terrorism.

IS MILITANCY HERETICAL?

Were that militancy a baseless offshoot then we could slough it off as cult aberration—like Christianity rejecting Mormon polygamy. That practice does not fall within historic Christianity.

But jihad is Islamic. It is an Arabic term with a well-known dual meaning of greater jihad (inner struggle of self-discipline) and lower jihad (militancy against former and non-Muslims). Its roots run deep in the Qur’an and Hadith.[14] Historically there’s a rich tradition of Islam spreading the faith coercively in threats and warfare. Today, numerous bomb attempts and hijackings often begin with shouts of “Allahu Akbar.” Border violence, like in Chechnya, is often jihadist. Iran’s aggression is hardly a secret. Militancy in Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, and Libya is well known. The newly reopened Gaza Strip [as of 2011] promises anti-Israel violence.[15] Pakistan arose from violent Islamic independence movements. Nigeria is torn over sharia courts. Recent riots in France were by largely disenfranchised Muslim youth who saw France’s ban on head wraps as “just cause” for violence (see Surah 17:33).

These scenes on the world stage are diplomatic nightmares and to even begin understanding them, we must understand the doctrine of jihad. Islam traditionally teaches (1) land claims by Islam cannot be revoked;[16] (2) Islam will spread and conquer the world;[17] and (3) God uses His followers to advance His kingdom through warfare.[18]

POINTING FINGERS   

One may try to justify immoderate violence as the backlash from American or colonial abuses. But Islam is older than these. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)—these are historical newborns. Islam was violently engaged with its neighbors before Columbus set sail and many centuries before modern Israel was formed. Jihadist roots are centuries deep before the Declaration of Independence was a glimmer in our founding father’s eyes. Of course, superpowers get no free pass, but neither should their supposed victims be allowed free rein for destructive responses. Even if America needs housecleaning, jihadism, with blood spattered throughout its own house, is in no condition to condemn the structures built by others. Jihadism must justify itself as an independent entity, not as a fruitless visceral reaction with cures more brutal than any disease.

Violence is the native history of Islam no matter its neighbors. The Prophet Muhammad himself, living by the sword as much as the word, led seventy-four raids, expeditions, and battles.[19] Sure the Qur’an has peaceable passages (4:36; 5:32), but Muslim scholarship widely admits they are trumped or “abrogated” with militancy by the later Medinan verses.[20] After Muhammad, Islam continued its militant spread through his successors. Though Islam is not supposed to force conversion (2:256), countless people have faced the trilemma: (1) pay the jizya (subjugation tax ransoming one’s life), (2) convert to Islam, or (3) die. Moreover, I know of no widespread reformation where Islam outgrew its old warring ways. Whenever a peaceable Muslim seedling sprouts, roots movements, like weeds, sprout up to choke back its growth.

So we see that militancy is a common ingredient in historic Islam. There may be a strand of nonviolent, moderate Islam but there is good reason to doubt its claim over all Muslims given Islam’s bloody text and traditions. Islam needs real reformation if the world is going to take seriously its claims of peace and moderation.

REFERENCES:

[1] [Editor’s Note: “The quote, ‘I do not believe that any human being relished the terror and the loss of blood that came with his death,” is part of a retracted press release issued by the Muslim American Society (MAS) on May 4, 2011, following the death of Usama Bin Laden. The press release was later withdrawn by the organization.” Source: Google AI.]

[2] Noreen S. Amed-Ullah, Sam Roe, and Laurie Cohen, “A Rare Look at Secret Brotherhood in America,” Chicago Tribune (online), 19 September 2004. Accessed 22 October 2011 at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0409190261sep19,0,3008717.story.

[3] CAIR has become known, of late, as a front organization for Hamas, according to testimony from FBI Agent Lara Burns in a juried trial on anti-Israeli terrorism (Jason Trahan, “FBI: CAIR is a Front group, and Holy Land Foundation Tapped Hamas Clerics for Fundraisers,’” Dallas Morning News (online), October 2008; http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/fbi-cair-is-a-front-group-and.html, (Accessed October 29, 2011). For more discussion of CAIR as a front organization for Hamas and its unwillingness to call Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations” see the website www.anticair-net.org.

[4] Dr. Wafa Sultan suggests Islam is fundamentally Arabic in its culture and language; yet ninety-five percent of Islamic teaching remains untranslated in the Arabic (Dr. Wafa Sultan and Dr. Daniel Pipes, “Moderate Islam: Western Ally or Western Myth?” [debate], December 1, 2009, FORA.tv.; http://fora.tv/2009/12/01Moderate_Islam_ Western_Myth [accessed December 20, 2010]). She estimates eighty percent of world Muslims are non-Arabic in descent, language, and location and so have only a compromised sense of Islam (ibid.). It’s well known that many Muslims do not read or speak Arabic. That language barrier enables theological compromise. “Arabic unified the Muslim countries as it spread to every land that embraced Islam.…Muslim societies that are ignorant of Arabic are in general less knowledgeable about Islam…[and] more prone to stray from the straight path.” (Fatima Barkatullah, “Arabic: The Key to Understanding the Qur’an,” Islamic Network [UK], n.d.; http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=503&category=2 [accessed December 20, 2010]).

[5] Tarek Fatah, “From an Ex-Muslim True Islamophobia,” National Post, March 12, 2010, http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/ fullcomment/archive/2010/03/12/tarek-fatahfroman-ex-muslim-true-islamophobia.aspx (accessed December 20, 2010).

[6] Abid Ullah Jan, “Why the Terrorist Plots Are False,” Media Monitors, August 13, 2006; http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/34172 (accessed December 1, 2010).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid. Jan’s words might be read in a moderate way, except his overall tone is blatantly inflammatory. Moreover, this tactic of qualifying people and civilians with “innocent” (as opposed to guilty people or civilians) has been exposed already with CAIR. CAIR coordinated a fatwa stating, “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram or forbidden – and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs.” (CAIR, “25 Facts about CAIR,” CAIR.com;  http://www.cair.com/AboutUS/ 25FactsAboutCAIR.aspx (accessed October 22, 2011). This language sounds innocent enough until it is shown that CAIR has refused to call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Those two groups have claimed responsibility for dozens of known terrorist attacks. But, apparently, CAIR refuses to consider those activities as “extremism” or “criminal.”

[9] Recep Tayyip Erdogan, interview (Milliyet, Turkey: Kanal D, August 21, 2007); http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/2595.htm (accessed December 1, 2010).

[10] Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, president of Turkey from 1923–1938, modernized Turkey. Despite his influence, Turkey has become Islamocentric under Erdogan through his Hamas affiliations and sympathy for sharia law (Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalomattis, “Why Westernized, Secular and Democratic Turks Voted for Erdogan,” American Chronicle, July 23, 2007, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/32902. See also, “Turkey’s Erdogan Bears Responsibility In Flotilla Fiasco” (editorial), Washington Post, June 5, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060404806.html).

[11] See Ibn Warraq,“The Dogmatic Islamophilia of Western Islamologists,” New English Review (April 2010); http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/61227/ sec_id/61227 (accessed December 22, 2010).

[12] The Muslim Renaissance is a case in point.

[13] http://www.freemuslims.org/. See also the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQHYbguJkKM.

[14] Jihad, abrogation, and interpretation are much debated. Nevertheless, there are allegedly 164 verses from the Qur’an (not counting the Hadith) that support militant jihad. See Yoel Natan’s lists at http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html. Examples include: Surah 2:190–191: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you…191 and slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.” (Qur’anic quotes are from the Yusuf Ali translation [2001] unless otherwise noted.) Surah 2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you.” Surah 9:5: “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Surah 9:14: “Fight them [unbelievers] and Allah will punish them by your hands.”

[15] [Editor’s Note: The October 7, 2023 war in Gaza confirms that suspicion]

[16] Surah 9:39. “Agreed are the Salaf, the Pious Predecessors [early Caliphate], all people of understanding, and the Muhaditheen that in all ages of Islam: ‘That if a piece of Muslim land the size of a hand span is infringed on, then jihad becomes Fard Ayn (global obligation) on every Muslim male and female.” Shaheed Abdullah Azzam, “Defence of the Muslim Lands” (Brothers in Ribatt translation), n.d.; http://www.kalamullah.com/ Books/defence.pdf (accessed December 26, 2010).

[17] Surahs 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33.

[18] Surah 9:14.

[19] James Arlandson, “The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism,” American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/ the_truth_about_ islamic_crusad.html (November 27, 2005).

[20] Surah 2:106, 16:101, 13:39. Arthur Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1958), 66.

Recommended Resources:

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

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 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/4oiQHJH

/by

The Role of Apologetics in Student Ministry

I have recently become involved in student ministry as a Family Life Pastor over the last few months. As a trained academic with a PhD in Apologetics, I wondered how much of my training I would really be able to use in this capacity. Would students care about apologetics? Would they even need it? What I quickly learned is that apologetics can and really should have a major role in student ministry.

Students Have Access to More Challenges than Ever Before          

As someone that had mainly been involved with college students for the past decade plus, I was shocked at some of the questions that I received within weeks at the new ministry. One student said she had seen someone on TikTok claim that the New Testament was untrustworthy. Others asked about things like, Can I believe the Bible? Why is the Bible important? How do I even know that God exists? These are students between 12-18 years old. However, because of the wide impact of social media and the internet, they had been exposed to ideas that previous generations had not been hit with until much later in life.

Students Have Questions and Doubts About Their Faith and Identity       

Another thing that quickly came to my attention was the fragile state of many students’ faith and their confusion about their own identity. This is not limited to my own youth group; these questions and struggles are common throughout this age. Students have questions about why they should trust a Bible that attacks things like transgenderism or homosexuality. Why should they trust the Bible over other ancient texts, or even why should they trust any religious system at all? Gone are the days in America or the West at large where parents and pastors can take for granted that their kids will be predisposed to accept Christianity over other religious systems or secularism in general. This really hits home for students that have friends or family members that are a part of the LGBT movement. They struggle with saying the Bible is correct and their friend or family member is wrong. The days of saying, “Well, the Bible says so,” and expecting that to be an adequate answer to questions is long gone.

Apologetics Can Have a Major Positive Impact in Student Ministry          

Apologetics can become a major tool in the toolbox to counter this change in the culture and student ministry. Explaining to students why we can trust the Bible and why it is the Word of God can go a long way in giving the Bible the credibility they need to challenge the objections of their friends. Apologetics can explain how and why these students were created, that they were created in the image of God, and that God loves them and cares for them. This gives them a renewed sense of purpose in their lives, something that the secular world has tried to eliminate through things like nihilism and evolutionary theory. Indeed, don’t think your students are ever too young to learn some basic apologetic arguments and defenses of their faith. The odds are, they are already struggling with many of these issues in their own lives, even if they don’t know how to ask the right questions or where to look for the right answers. The time is now!

Recommended Resources:

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ [FOUR unique curriculum levels for 2nd grade through to adult] by Frank Turek 

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

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

 

Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/487YFzi

/by

The Bible Tells Us That We Need Apologetics

Paul met the Lord on a road (Acts 9:1-9), Peter fell down before him by the sea (Luke 5:1-11), the Ethiopian eunuch came to him after having the scriptures explained to him (Acts 8:26-40), and the man possessed by a legion of demons believed after experiencing a liberating miracle on his life (Mark 5:1-20). The same gospel which unites us reaches us in different ways.

Many people encounter Jesus and come to faith immediately when the Bible is preached and explained to them. Becket Cook is an example that immediately springs to my mind. Others encounter Jesus after a long and detailed analysis of the evidence, and after having their friends engage them with the evidence for Christianity. Nabeel Qureshi is a big example here. Still others encounter Jesus after seeing him in a dream or witnessing a miracle.

Humans are complex beings made in the image of the infinite God (Genesis 1:27), and the gospel draws in and unifies a host of people from all sorts of different backgrounds. The way we receive the gospel isn’t uniform, programmed, and mechanical. The unifying factor is the gospel we receive (1 Cor 15:3-8), not the way we receive it.

Evangelism Is Helped By Social Intelligence 

As we evangelise, we do well to have social awareness in understanding that people respond to the gospel in different ways.

Some people may need to witness a miracle before receiving the gospel, others may need to have the evidence for Christianity explained to them, and others may simply need the Bible preached to them plainly.

Some may need all three or a combination thereof!

This should be an obvious thing to say. But I’ve recently and repeatedly heard the absurd claim that apologetics is not necessary for the gospel, because the supposed key to every single human heart, and the only way to do evangelism, is by preaching the Bible and only the Bible to every unbeliever we encounter. . . without any need, ever, for apologetics.

Now of course, preaching the Bible is an eternally wonderful thing, and the Bible really does have all the answers to life’s most important questions. And there is no question that some people convert immediately when the Bible is simply preached to them. Charles Spurgeon is an example of such a person.

The Bible is a source of never-ending wisdom and insight that is a greater treasure than all the money in the world, and apologetics itself is empty without it, because without the Bible, apologetics leads nowhere. Christians who are privileged enough to own a Bible need to be reading it daily.

There is no dispute, regardless of theological conviction, that the Holy Spirit softens people’s hearts as they read and hear God’s word. But how can anyone who’s socially aware of the unbelieving world say that apologetics isn’t ever necessary . . . especially when the Bible itself tells us to use it?

The Bible Tells Us To Use Apologetics          

Peter (in 1 Peter 3:15) says that we always need to be ready to give a ‘defense’ for the hope that we have (‘apologia’ in Greek – the word from which we get the English word ‘apologetics’). Apologetics isn’t a random modern Christian word. Apologetics is a biblical word.

Paul – who uses apologetics in Athens (see Acts 17) – uses the same Greek word ‘apologia’ in writing that God has placed him to ‘defend’ the gospel in Philippians 1:16 (see also 1:7).

Are Peter and Paul wrong? Do they just need to understand that all we need to do is preach the Bible to each and every non-believer, without ever giving a reasoned defense for the Christian faith?

Paul also writes that if Jesus has not been raised then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). How are we to investigate whether Jesus has been raised? Are we only allowed to investigate that question by looking at what the Bible says?

“The Bible says Jesus was raised; therefore, Jesus was raised.” Is this really sufficient evangelism that will convince every single unbeliever in the world?

The “Bible-only, ever” method is inconsistent        

And there’s something awkward that needs to be pointed out:

Does the “Bible-only, ever” evangelist realise that they first have to use their philosophical, linguistic, and reasoning faculties to decide which part of the Bible to open up for every evangelistic conversation with an unbeliever?

It’s the “Bible-only” evangelist’s own philosophical and linguistic reasoning which directs them to show their non-believing counterpart John 20, say, and not Song of Songs 5:3.

So, if I were to grant that we should only use the Bible to evangelise and nothing else – never engaging in philosophy or apologetics with the unbeliever – then I’d be committing myself to an inconsistent epistemology and self-defeat. That should never be the case for the people of God who belong to the Truth!

Jesus himself isn’t a “Bible-only, ever” evangelist  

We must remember that Jesus himself demonstrates social awareness when, for example, he uses two different evangelistic methods in two different situations after his resurrection.

In John 20, Jesus convinces Thomas not by the scriptures but by the evidence of his broken body. Yet over in Luke 24, Jesus convinces the two disciples on the road to Emmaus not by his broken body but by unpacking the scriptures!

Here is my point:

With the Holy Spirit’s help, we need the social awareness and intelligence to understand the needs of the unbeliever in front of us.

Some will need apologetics. Some will need miracles. Some will just need straight preaching. Ask people “How did you come to faith?” and you’ll get a range of answers, appealing to different lines of evidence, apologetics included.

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)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

/by

How To Prepare Your Kids Faith Before They Leave For College, Part 2: Faith-Based Preparation

It’s doubtful parents would send their kids to college without some sort of meal plan, but are parents as diligent in helping set up a spiritual meal plan for their children? Once that dorm key is issued, there will be no more spoon-fed lessons by the youth group. When our kids head to college, it’s time for them to feed themselves, or they could spiritually starve to death.

In our previous blog, we addressed the top four preparations to keep your kids on FIRE for God: faith-based, intellectual, relational, and environmental. In this blog, we’ll discuss how to prepare your kids spiritually for college, specifically through spiritual disciplines.

Developing Good Faith Habits  

Helping your child establish the habits of personal Bible study and prayer while they are still living in your home is an important part of encouraging them to remain connected and committed to their local church and their Christian beliefs. (I contend it’s not too late, even if they’ve already gone off to college and even if they have already graduated. If we’re still breathing, it’s not too late.)

If you are at a parenting stage where you can model this for your kids, go for it. If that discipline has not yet been developed, don’t let a guilt trip or excuses stall you into inaction.  Why not express your current desire to engage and use it as an incentive for both of you to start? You could even hold one another accountable and/or share what you’re learning.

Need some help? Host a get-together with other college-bound Christian friends to encourage and equip them to dig into this discipline. Call in a trusted Christian mentor to share their personal insights on the importance of reading the Word, committing to prayer time, and using trusted tools and resources. Research shows that maintaining relationships with parents and having other adults they respect invest in their lives helps young adults stay connected to church through and after college.

Ways To Nurture Your Kid’s Faith

Devotionals
Devotionals can serve as an appetizer to prepare the palate for the main course, like a warm-up to a workout. Encourage your child to use a devotional book that quotes Scripture daily. If they never get to the main course, at least they will have had a taste of God’s Word that day.

Although there are many modern-day devotionals that are great, don’t be afraid to introduce your kids to classic devotionals. The writing and theology are rich, and these writers connect your kids to our shared Christian heritage and history. (Consider Oswald Chambers, Charles Spurgeon, and A.W. Tozer to start. Want something from the 21st century? Try Paul David Tripp.)

Bible Study
Talk about a smorgasbord! There are so many approaches to Bible study, it’s often hard to know where to start. Why not ask your child what appeals to them? A historical biblical figure? A book of the Bible? A theme? A word study? Use this list to help if they aren’t sure:

  • Basic theology. Studying basic theology can be helpful and grounding for students. An introduction to the orthodox Christian tenets is key to recognizing heresy (anything that denies the teaching of Jesus). (Try Wayne Grudem and Norman Geisler.)
  • Attributes of God. Studying the attributes of God can develop your child’s understanding of God, fortifying their trust in Him. Knowing our never-changing God provides a compass in an ever-changing culture. (Try A.W. Tozer, R.C. Sproul, and J.I. Packer. We also recommend a book by Lydia White for parents and kids ages 4-11.
  • Fruit of the Spirit. Studying the fruits of the Spirit help develop spiritual maturity in college (and it’s a way to personally measure their growth).
  • Specific passages. While still at home, have your child study the passage your pastor preaches from on Sunday morning. Then, when they join a campus ministry and a local church while at college, they can continue the habit.
  • Wisdom literature. A chapter a day from Proverbs is easy to digest and gives great insight into both wisdom and warnings. (Help your child keep in mind that these pithy sayings are principles, not promises.)
  • Apologetics (we’re kinda partial to this one!). The Apologetics Study Bible has great articles on pertinent faith questions that will come up in college, a worldview chart explaining what other religions believe, and sections called “twisted scripture” about passages commonly misused or misinterpreted. It’s a great reference tool and study Bible. You can sign up for 52 weeks of free apologetics content and use that to spur study. Online videos also offer tough questions. If your church offers a RightNow subscription, use it!
  • The ESV Study Bible continues to get high marks both for the translation and the study materials. Download the free app for robust resources and reading plans.
  • Consider teaching your child the inductive Bible study method. This discipline will set them on a lifelong trajectory of rich study that they can do on their own without Bible study books.

Go Digital
Since our students are such digital natives, engage them through their thumbs and earbuds. Bible study and prayer apps might be the best way to get them connected, literally.

  • YouVersion has access to multiple translations of the Bible at your fingertips. Plus, Bible reading plans can be chosen both by topic as well as by length of time to complete the study. Includes video, audio, and much more. Be discerning about the content.
  • Blue Letter Bible has a Bible reading plan in addition to devotionals, dictionaries, lexicons, Bible studies, maps, charts, free online books, and more. Those who want to can really “nerd” out here as they deepen their study time and tools.
  • Bible Gateway has a verse of the day upload, a Bible reading plan with a daily reminder alarm, and an audio version of Bible readings, which could be nice to listen to on the way to class or while they are working out.
  • The Bible Recap app is an excellent way to read through the Bible in a year with succinct commentary.

Don’t forget: While there are advantages to digital–based content, reading a printed Bible has even more benefits. If your child doesn’t have a Bible of their own, consider getting them one before they leave for college.

Prayer
There’s no better way to learn how to pray than by actually praying. Use an acrostic like ACTS (Adoration/praise, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication) – it’s instructive, biblical, and focused. The ACTS method can help your children develop their relationship and trust in God. Teach your child as they read the Bible to highlight these four aspects of prayer.

Another thing you can try is praying God’s Word — in context, of course. While there are tremendous books and studies on prayer, learning to use your Bible to pray will be rich and requires no other material.

There are apps for prayer as well. YouVersion includes a prayer module with guided prayer prompts, a way to create your own prayer list and track answers, and a tool to set a daily reminder to pray.

Personally, having a prayer partner in college with whom I studied a book on prayer (and who held me accountable to pray daily) changed the trajectory of my prayer life. (We’ll talk more about how to pray for your kids in college in a later blog in this series!) While corporate prayer is extremely important (prayer groups are popping up on college campuses everywhere), personal prayer time lays the foundation.

Model prayer for your kids. We recommend our book, Honest Prayers for Mama Bears, to help you. It’s topical, so it’s easy to find a prayer that fits your particular situation. To help you get started, we’ve created these images that you can download and print. There are two for boys and two for girls. Pick your favorite, print it out, and then put it up to remind you to pray for your kids.

Time
Encourage your child to find the time that is best for them, so they will stick with a plan. Chances are that if they have an 8 a.m. chem lab, they are not going to get up and have quiet time. But if they have a break on campus in the early afternoon, maybe they can find a nice spot to spend 15-20 minutes in the Word and prayer. Be willing to share your own struggles and successes with maintaining a consistent personal study and prayer time.

A Faith They Can Own 

So, before that last duffle bag is packed, consider giving your child a special new study Bible, pocket Bible, or leather-bound devotional book with a personal inscription in it. Wrap it up with a new set of earbuds with a note to “plug in daily” to God’s Word. Challenge them to weave Scripture reading and prayer readings into their playlist. And don’t forget the value of Scripture memorization, which requires active mental engagement. (Mama Bear Hillary recommends the BibleMemory app) You can also check out this classic tool from Navigators.

A nourishing daily diet of God’s Word and prayer will go a long way to help our college students resist the temptation to ingest the spiritual junk food offered by some of their peers and professors.

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

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Julie Loos combined her passion for prayer and apologetics in her contributions to three Mama Bear Apologetics books. Her apologetics training came from campus ministry and certificates from Biola University and the Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Julie has been teaching, writing, and speaking on prayer for Moms in Prayer International for more than 23 years. She lives in Missouri with her husband, Todd, has two married sons, two grandchildren, and enjoys working out, Bible study, chocolate, coffee, and deep conversations.

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

/by

How Do I Help People Care About Truth, Not Just Know About It?

,

If a person knows about God and knows about absolute truth, how does he come to accept it? How can I help that person care about that truth, not just know about it?

That is a good question. I’m so glad God brought this question my way because I’ve been struggling through this myself lately too. I don’t have all the answers, but I’ll share with you what He’s been teaching me.

I struggle with this question often because I’m a teacher at heart. I love to learn, assimilate, process, summarize, and pass it on to others. God has just built me to do that very thing. Granted, I’m not the best in the world at it, but I do the best I can for the glory of God. What frustrates me the most is when I do my job in helping someone understand something but then they don’t care about it. I feel like I’ve done all I can, and so it leaves me at a loss. I’m not sure if this is exactly the situation you’re facing, but it sounds similar.

There are three things I’ve been learning about this:

  1. Teaching facts by themselves is not enough. I understand this is trite, but I’ll say it anyway: people want to know how much you care before they care how much you know. This doesn’t mean we have to spend five years developing a relationship with a person first before we share the truth with them. This can simply play out in the attitude we take in our teaching/sharing. Are we truly doing it for their benefit or for ours? How can we share in a way that makes it crystal clear we’re doing it because we love them?
  2. The church is diverse for a reason. If you are into teaching like me, then you need to make sure you are functioning in a healthy, well-balanced church where all the spiritual gifts are allowed to be exercised. God wired me to teach, and forever that is who I’ll be. I can work on the relational side until I’m blue in the face, but that will never be my strength. This isn’t to say I can’t improve and get better at it, but teaching information is just what I do best. The reason God has gifted us differently is so that we would learn how to depend on each other. I’m better at the informational side of ministry, but others are better at the relational side. If you are going witnessing, it may be wise to go in pairs so that there is one of each type! Learn from those that are relationally oriented around you at your church. Allow them and encourage them to exercise their gifts – exhortation, service, helping, mercy, etc. The church really shines when everyone is exercising their own unique gift. It may be helpful for you to introduce this person to one of your friends at church who is more relational.
  3. Ultimately, it’s the work of the Holy Spirit. I’ve come to the humbling conclusion that my praying for someone is more powerful than my teaching someone. As much as I want to make my teaching and presentation as clear as possible, in the end the only way someone’s eyes are opened and the information actually gets to their heart is if the Holy Spirit is at work. So, I would encourage you to pray for this person over and over and over again. God wants us to be persistent in prayer.

 

[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/46GbAcc

/by

Charlie Kirk’s Message Lives On

,

I couldn’t sleep last night.

I’ll never forget where I was when I first heard the news. I was at the dentist, sitting in the chair getting a cavity filled by my dentist—who, years ago, was in my youth group. After numbing me up, he left the room to let the medication set in. I pulled out my phone, opened Facebook, and saw Graham Allen’s post (seconds after he posted it) asking for prayers for Charlie Kirk. My heart sank.

I immediately googled “Charlie Kirk.” Nothing came up. I refreshed it twice, and finally one lone article came up simply noting that Kirk was shot in Utah. No other details were given. A few minutes later, my dentist walked back into the room. His face was pale and shaken. He told me he had just seen the video of Charlie getting shot. He showed it to me. I yelled, “Oh God!” Then we just sat together in silence—crying, stewing in anger and confusion. Then, right there in the exam room, he prayed for Charlie and his family.

When the prayer ended, I looked at him (my mouth still numb) and asked, “Do you feel like working on my teeth?” He shook his head. “Not really.” I said, “I don’t feel like it either.” I stood up, hugged him, and left. When I got to my Jeep, I yelled at the top of my lungs. Deep down, I knew Charlie wasn’t going to survive that gunshot.

I never met Charlie in person, but I feel like I’ve known him for years. I’m friends with some of his friends, I’ve listened to him speak countless times, usually in front of hostile crowds. Charlie did it better than anyone. He was one of the sharpest minds of our time. His extremely quick wit, his grasp of complex topics, and his courage to engage critics on any topic head-on were unmatched. He was afraid to discuss no topic and invited those who opposed his views to speak.

“If you disagree with me,” he often said, “come to the front of the line and let’s talk this out.”

That’s who Charlie Kirk was—a man unafraid of disagreement, committed to rational dialogue, and grounded in truth. He championed free speech, debate, and the respectful exchange of ideas. And it was his refusal to back down from those convictions that ultimately cost him his life.

As one of my friend’s said about the Leftist assassin:

“Tell me you’ve indisputably lost the debate without telling me you’ve indisputably lost the debate!”

But more than anything—more than politics, more than debate, more than the movement he built—Charlie Kirk loved Jesus. He made it clear over and over again: “It’s all about Jesus!” That wasn’t a mere slogan. That was the center of his life. His love for Christ defined him, fueled him, and gave shape to everything else.

And that is what we must remember as we mourn his loss: his life pointed to something bigger than himself. Evil may have celebrated his death, but Charlie pointed to the One who defeated evil once and for all.

Carrying on Charlie’s Legacy

Charlie Kirk’s murder is a gut-wrenching loss for his family, for his friends, and for all of us who cherished his voice. But we must not allow evil to win by silencing him. The best way to honor Charlie is to carry forward the message he lived and died for.

He believed in the power of persuasion over coercion. He believed in conversation over cancellation. He was proof that one person with conviction can inspire a massive movement. His debates on campus weren’t just about scoring points; they were about showing that truth can stand up to scrutiny. He showed young men and women that it’s possible to be bold, articulate, and respectful—even when surrounded by hostility.

That lesson will live on for generations!

But again, at the core of all this was not politics, not even free speech itself. At the core was Jesus Christ. Charlie’s confidence, his courage, and his commitment flowed out of his faith in Jesus. That’s why he could say without hesitation: “It’s all about Jesus!”

That must be our anthem, too. If we truly want to keep Charlie’s memory alive, we must keep pointing others to Christ. That means refusing to celebrate violence, refusing to dehumanize those we disagree with, and refusing to let anger eclipse the gospel. Make no mistake: I am angry, and righteously so! Evil wants us to sin in our anger. Evil wants us to despair, to divide, to lose heart. But the cross reminds us that God brings life out of death, victory out of suffering, hope out of heartbreak.

“What you meant for evil, God meant for good” (Genesis 50:20).

So let us grieve—but let us not grieve as those without hope. Let us pray for Erika, his wife, and their children. Let us stand boldly for Truth in our classrooms, workplaces, and communities. Let us vote against the woke Left until this evil mind-virus is extinguished. Let us persuade others as Charlie did, with love, logic, facts, and reason. Let us reject the voices celebrating this wickedness and instead choose to live out the gospel Charlie proclaimed.

Evil thought it could silence him. But Charlie Kirk’s message lives on.

Closing

Charlie Kirk may be gone from this world, but his words still echo: “If you disagree with me, come to the front of the line and let’s talk this out.” That posture—courageous, curious, Christ-centered—is exactly what we need today.

So let’s carry it forward. For Charlie. For truth. For Jesus.

7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

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

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/47acHRv

/by

What is the Meaning of Life?

Ancient philosophy began when people started thinking about ultimate reality. These early philosophers proposed theories about the ultimate elemental stuff which everything else comes from or is made of. Some of the early theories were earth, air, fire, or water. One ancient philosopher, Democritus, even suggested that everything is made up of tiny particles he called atoms. If Christianity is true, however, and I believe it is, then when the final curtain of reality is pulled back, we won’t find earth, air, fire, water, or atoms. Instead, we’ll find loving relationships between three divine persons. Ultimate reality, from which everything else comes, is a God which exists as a Trinity: three divine persons united in one essence and united in Their loving relationships with Each Other.

I’ve become convinced that chapter 17 in the Gospel of John provides us the clearest window to look inside this trinitarian love. Peering through this window will help us understand the very meaning of life itself. In John 17 Jesus, God the Son, prayed to God the Father like this: “You, Father, are in Me and I in You…. You loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:21a, 24b). If God is ultimate reality, and I believe He is, and if He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is a key part, if not the key part, of ultimate reality.

Since God existed as a loving fellowship of divine persons, it can seem puzzling why He bothered to create us. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create us, human beings in His image, to expand this fellowship of love so we could share in the joy and love of the inner life of God. In other words, God created us for loving relationships, to love Him, to love each other, and to be loved back. Jesus continued in John 17, praying, “You [God the Father]. . . have loved them [Jesus’ disciples] as You have loved Me [God the Son]. . . . Father, I desire those You have given Me to be with Me where I am. . . . I made Your name known to them. . . .so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them” (John 17:23-26).

Understanding that our very purpose as human beings is to have loving relationships with God and with each other gives us insight about the meaning of life. I’m convinced that the very meaning of life is to enjoy loving relationships with God and with others. All of us eventually recognizes that the most important thing in life is our loving relationships. These relationships change throughout our lives, of course; when we’re younger, our most cherished relationships are usually with our parents, later in life our friends, and then often a spouse. But on our death bed we all acknowledge that the most important part of life was our loving relationships, that they’re the very meaning and purpose of life. We all know this to be true, but Christianity explains why this is the case—because we were created by a God of love to enjoy loving relationships.

This purpose God had in creating us can be seen in the very first human relationship, the marriage of Adam and Eve. They were created in God’s image to reflect the Trinity in the sense that they were separate, unique, individual persons, but they were to come together in love to be united as one (Gen. 2:24). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the famous German pastor put to death by the Nazis for opposing Hitler, wrote that in Adam and Eve’s union they expressed “the two complementary sides of the matter: that of being an individual and that of being one with the other.”[1]

One of the ways Adam and Eve were to express their love for God was through their obedience to Him. The Bible says loving God and obeying God are closely connected—1 John 5:3 says, “This is what love for God is: to keep His commands.” Some think God’s commands are harsh and authoritative, but such people fail to understand the purpose of His commands. As His creatures it’s true that God has authority over us, but His commands flow not from despotic desire to control us but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing there is—loving relationships with Him and with others. God’s commands are instructions for the path which best achieves the purpose He created us for—loving relationships. That’s why Jesus said the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Matt. 22:36–40).

Unfortunately, Adam and Eve made a terrible choice and disobeyed the only command God gave them. If obeying God is the way we love Him, then disobedience is the opposite of loving God. Concerning the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, John Hare at Yale wrote, “…the basic command is not about the fruit, but is the command to love God that comes out of the experience of being loved by God. Refraining from the fruit is merely a symbol of that response.”[2] Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and because of all of our own evil choices, humanity’s relationship with God has been ruined, and the consequences have been disastrous. Adam and Eve’s choice introduced physical death to the human race, but even worse, our loving relationship with God was broken. The Bible calls this eternal death because it means continuing forever in this state of being relationally separated from God.

Thankfully though, in spite of our evil choices, God still loves us. And because He loves us, He orchestrated a way to fix our broken relationship with Him. One of the divine persons, God the Son, became human and lived the perfect life of loving obedience that we’ve all failed to live. He loved God and loved others perfectly to give us an example to follow. But He went further than that and died on a cross to pay the punishment we all deserve for our evil choices. God promised that anyone who chooses to trust in Jesus and what He did for us on the cross will be forgiven of their evil choices, reconciled back to God, and welcomed into heaven to spend all eternity enjoying loving relationships with God and with others. This is all summed up by the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16—”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Jesus explained in John 17 what eternal life is all about; there He said, “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent—Jesus Christ” (John 17:3).

God desires that everyone be reconciled back to Him through faith in Christ, but He doesn’t force this decision on anyone. Those who decide not to trust in Christ will continue to be relationally separated from God for all eternity. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says those who die in this state “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the Lord’s presence.” God lets them choose what they want, but that’s not what He wants. In John 17 Jesus expressed His desire to restore humanity back to the trinitarian fellowship we were created for. He prayed that “the glory which You [God the Father] have given Me [God the Son] I have given to them [Jesus’ disciples], that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:22-23).

Someday God will step into history to make all things right. We often cry out for that day when we see all the evil and suffering around us. But we need to remember that this is going to be a day of judgement where God will punish evil and hold humanity accountable for what we’ve done. For those, however, who’ve embraced His forgiveness through faith in Christ, He has promised that He’ll put an end to the death and suffering which we’ve caused by our evil choices. Revelation 21:4 says that “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” Sometimes we wonder what God is waiting for. Why doesn’t He do this now? Peter gives us the answer in 2 Peter 3:9—“The Lord does not delay His promise [His coming judgment], as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.” The reason God hasn’t stepped into history to make all things right and judge humanity for our evil is that He’s patiently wanting more people to trust in Christ and through that faith be reconciled back to Him. Why not make that decision to trust in Christ for forgiveness today? If you do, please let me know. I’d be thrilled to know that through this website someone became a Christian and was restored back to a right relationship with the God who loves them.

References:

[1] Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3, ed. John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 3, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997, p. 99-100.

[2] God’s Command, Oxford Studies in Theological Studies, Oxford University Press, 2015, page 30

Recommended Resources:

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

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

 

[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/4n2AwA5

/by

Four Ways that Middle Knowledge Helps to Explain Unanswered Prayer

Country singer Garth Brooks popularized the song, “Unanswered Prayers.” The song recounts how he prayed to have the love of a young woman earlier in his life. His prayer, however, was declined. While he didn’t understand why God did not allow him to have the love of this young woman when he was young, he later reflected on why God did not answer his prayer when he looked upon his wife and valued the love they had for one another. Brooks then sings, “One of God’s greatest gifts is unanswered prayer.”

In his book Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, Kirk MacGregor recounts the life and belief system of Luis de Molina. Unfortunately, much of Molina’s works are still left untranslated. MacGregor, who is able to read the languages in which Molina wrote, digs into the writings of Molina. Of particular interest is the way Molina examines divine providence through the lens of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is understood as “God’s knowledge of all things that would happen in every possible set of circumstances.”[1] Molina averred that middle knowledge helps to explain unanswered prayer in four different ways.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Impossible         

Molina argues that some things for which people petition God are impossible for God to bring about.[2] As has been noted by numerous theologians and philosophers, certain things lie outside the realm of possibility for even God to answer. For instance, it is impossible for God to make a round square or a married bachelor. Such instances are logically impossible. MacGregor adds that prayers that an enemy was never born, for events such as the Holocaust to have never happened, or that God would commit some form of evil to avenge a person lies outside of possibility or the character of God. As such, some prayers may go unanswered because a person asks God to do something that lies outside his character to do. Remember, God is the absolute good and, thereby, does not commit evil acts.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Infeasible          

Second, Molina holds that some prayers are logically infeasible for God to answer. [3] For instance, a person may pray that God changes another person’s life. While it would be possible for God to force his love and grace on another person, it would not be feasible to do if God grants individuals free will. As such, God will do everything possible to bring a soul to salvation without sacrificing the freedom of the will. If human free will is accepted, then it can be said that God’s desire is for all souls to be saved. Because of the essence of love itself, love must be freely given and freely received. Due to its inherent characteristics, prayers asking God to force a person into a divine relationship would inhibit the nature of love itself. If true, middle knowledge ensures that God will place each person in the best possible circumstance to receive God’s love, particularly those whom God knows would respond to his grace.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Individually Detrimental 

Molina argued that some prayers are unanswered by God because, if answered, they would be detrimental, if not disastrous, to the person requesting it. [4] MacGregor gives the illustration of a girl who prayed to marry a certain boy. God, however, did not answer the prayer. It may have been that if God had answered the prayer, the boy would have cheated on the girl, divorced her, causing her to question her faith. [5] The same may be said for prayers to win the lottery. Suppose that God answered a person’s prayer. It may be that if the person won the lottery that the individual’s children would become addicted to drugs, the person’s relationship with his/her spouse would become strained and that the person may leave their faith. What the person thought would have been a blessing would result in a disaster. Thus, God realizes that it would be better for the person if he or she doesn’t win the lottery rather than winning it. Therefore, the prayer goes unanswered.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Globally Destructive        

Molina also argues that God may not answer one’s prayer because the prayer would become disastrous to the world at large. [6] Suppose that a farmer prays for extra rain for his crops. But the rain does not come. Imagine that a dam was damaged, and the extra rain could have caused the dam to burst, causing devastation and the loss of lives to countless thousands. Perhaps God waits to answer the prayer until the time that he knows that a dam worker comes by to observe the defect and calls for the dam’s repair. Through God’s middle knowledge, he knows how the worker would respond in such an instance. In like manner, he also knows what the extra rain would do to the dam’s integrity. Some prayers may go unanswered because, unbeknownst to the petitioner, they could bring harm to others.

Conclusion

Middle knowledge has been called “the most fruitful theological ideas ever conceived.” [7] It has many beneficial applications even beyond the scope of balancing divine sovereignty and human freedom. As noted, middle knowledge can provide a means of understanding why God may not answer certain prayers at certain times. Since God knows every factual and counterfactual, God’s refusal to answer our prayers according to the way that we desire may actually turn out to our benefit. When we get to heaven, I imagine that all of us will sing along with Garth Brooks as we thank God for unanswered prayers.

Dive Deeper

Brian Chilton, Curtis Evelo, and Tim Stratton, “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism,” BellatorChristi.com (8/8/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/08/08/sis-s1-e7-human-freedom-divine-knowledge-and-mere-molinism-w-dr-tim-stratton/

Brian Chilton, “What is Molinism?,” BellatorChristi.com (5/15/2018), https://bellatorchristi.com/2018/05/15/what-is-molinism/ 

References: 

[1] Kirk R. MacGregor, Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 11

[2] Luis de Molina, Concordia 2.14.13.26.14; Ludovici Molina, Commenteria in primam divi Thomae partem (Venice, 1602), 25.3.

[3] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.13.6; Molina, Commentaria 25.4.

[4] Molina, Concordia 6.22.4.10; 7.23.4/5.1.14.8–10.

[5] MacGregor, Luis de Molina, 127–128.

[6] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.6.23.

[7] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 127. [Editor’s Note: While Molinism is popular in Christian philosophy and some academic circles, it is not the “consensus” view, nor established orthodoxy. It is an “option” within historic Christianity, but it’s worth noting that other historic Christian traditions, notably, Classical Theists, Scholastics, and Thomists, tend to reject Molinism and the concept of “middle knowledge.” They, instead, explain the content of middle knowledge in other ways, without granting any middle realm of “knowledge” distinct from God’s self-knowledge and his knowledge of creation. Nevertheless, that disagreement is a family feud between Christian brothers and sisters. The point is, even if William Lane Craig is impressed with middle knowledge thinking it is especially “fruitful,” that opinion isn’t necessarily heresy but neither does it represent the consensus or even the majority view across historic Christian orthodoxy.]

Recommended Resources:

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

 

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

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

/by

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