Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Many have asked the question, “Why are churches considered ‘non-essential’ during the Coronavirus shutdown and places like restaurants considered ‘essential’? Why are churches closed while grocery stores and restaurants remain open (at least for carry-out orders)?” The insinuation is NOT that food isn’t necessary, but the focus of the inquiry is on why churches are not considered ‘essential.’ After all, if social distancing is practiced in the church building and if surfaces are sanitized, how is being around people in a church building any different than being around a few hundred people in the Walmart or Meijer or the grocery store (especially since most church gatherings in the US number 100 people or less)?

Part of the answer lies in worldview analysis. Everyone, whether a person realizes it or not, has a worldview. Everyone thinks with their worldview. And our worldview assumptions drive the decisions we make. For instance, if we believe that God is real, knowable, and cares for mankind, we will pray to God because our basic worldview assumption tells us that God hears our prayers. If, on the other hand, we don’t believe that God is real, knowable, or caring, then we won’t pray because we would consider doing so a waste of time. It’s my assertion that the average person in the US holds to a worldview that I call “Popular Secularism.”[i] Popular Secularism (PS) is a softer version of classic Secular Humanism (SH). SH flatly denies God’s existence. It also explicitly denies any spiritual realm beyond the physical, material world. PS, on the other hand, allows for a person to believe in whatever spiritual realm and religious view that he/she chooses. God may or may not exist. PS, however, considers spiritual concerns as being less important than physical, material concerns. Thus, a person can believe whatever he wants with regards to spiritual things. But PS treats a person’s spiritual beliefs like a parent views a child’s fairy tale. These are nice things to believe, but when its time to get serious, there is little-to-no room for certain spiritual practices.

Thus, enter the current discussion about why church gatherings are deemed “non-essential” while restaurants and other retail businesses are deemed “essential.” Because the average person in the US is a Popular Secularist, and because our politicians are elected from the general populace, we see Popular Secularists making the decisions for our country. And since PS views spiritual concerns as less important than physical and material concerns, church gatherings are deemed “non-essential” while food concerns are deemed essential.

Someone might object, “It makes sense to limit gatherings of people to protect the populace from getting sick.” Yes, but the question raised is this: If the populace is already gathering together (several hundred at a time) once or twice a week at the grocery store, how is the church gathering together once a week any different? The answer from the Popular Secularist might be that “people need to eat but they don’t need to go to church?” Here, though, we see the Popular Secularist reasoning from his worldview, which considers spiritual things less important than physical and material concerns. Again, the point of making this statement is not to say that I don’t think food is essential; it’s to point out WHY church gatherings are officially considered “non-essential.” PS considers spiritual things less important than the material.

When the dominant worldview of culture says, “This world is all that we can be sure exists,” of course, those who think with that worldview will prioritize this life, the here and now. PS reasons, “This life is all there is. We need to make sure that we extend it as long as possible.” While the Biblical Christian worldview says, “Life is a gift from God. We will take precautions to stay healthy and to help others stay healthy. But gathering as a church is just as important as going to the grocery store because spiritual things are just as important as the physical. And we are confident that eternity with God is far greater than life here and now.” As the Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ; to die is gain.”

Notes

[i] [i] Popular Secularism is the dominant worldview in the West today. Popular Secularism holds the following assumptions about reality:

God may or may not exist.
1. If God does exist, no one knows which god is true.
2. No one can rightly say one religion is right and another wrong.
3. To make such claims is intolerant.
As such, no one can claim to know what God wants mankind to do to the exclusion of the claims of others.
1. Thus no religious book (the Bible, the Koran, etc…) can rightly claim to be the word of God.
2. Each book carries the same weight, but less weight than the wisdom of elite educational progressive knowledge today.
Morality is probably real but has more to do with the survival of society rather than the pleasure of God.
1. It’s undeniable that “evil” is real.
2. Yet since we don’t know if God is real or who he is, no one can rightly say that someone’s actions are objectively wrong unless the majority of society agrees.
3. Thus, morality is a construction of society rather than a product of God’s revelation to us.
Comfort and happiness are the highest human considerations.
1. Humans should work to make sure that everyone is comfortable and happy.
2. Anything that denies comfort and happiness should be avoided and possibly forbidden.
Economic considerations should always be held in higher regard than religious claims.
1. Public policy/laws should be decided by considering whether something will provide more money for society rather than based upon “religious” claims about morality.
2. As a contemporary example: If legalized gaming with brings added revenue to a city to alleviate budget shortages, that knowledge should be considered more important than religious claims that added gambling opportunities are not “good” for society.
3. “The good” is defined in economic, sexual, and environmental terms.
(Near) total sexual freedom is something to which everyone is entitled.
1. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, sex outside of marriage, are all legitimate lifestyle choices as people should have the right to do what they want.
2. Only those sexual activities that “harm” others are wrong.
3. A growing number of Popular Secularists believe that each person should be entitled to freedom from being offended, including silencing dissenting voices.
Ignorance and the abuse caused by “the rich” are mankind’s two main problems.
1. If we educate people, many of the world’s evils and inequities will disappear.
2. Governments also need to pursue income redistribution to bring about economic justice.
3. If all would cooperate, we could usher in near utopian conditions, and life would improve for everyone.
No one knows what happens when we die.
1. If there is no God, there is no Judgment Day to worry about.
2. On the other hand, some believe that just about everyone goes to heaven.
3. In the minds of those, only the really bad people go to hell, if there is such a place.

The Separation Doctrine Between Church And State

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jiménez

In 1830, upon arriving to North America from France, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America, I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.”[1] The Constitution of North Carolina (1776) proclaims: “…all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”[2]

It is astonishing to think that despite all the evidence indicating our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian truths, America continues to reject the obvious. Many of the secular advancements to replace religious discussion from the public square come from employing “separation of church and state” and the First Amendment as legal principles penned by Jefferson. Secularists (non-religious) want us to believe that Jefferson allegedly supported the idea that there was no place for any religious reference among the citizenry and that religious disturbance was not to be tolerated in the public affairs of life. They incite these false views and misrepresentation of the facts because they want us to buy into the lie that America has always been a secular nation. However, contrary to popular belief, what we actually find in history is quite a different story regarding Jefferson’s viewpoints and the role Christianity played in shaping America. With historical objectivity as our guide, let us settle the truth about the “separation of church and state” once and for all.

Who Phrased the Infamous Phrase?

In reference to the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state,” we can indeed attribute that to Thomas Jefferson. However, we must do so in the proper context. Jefferson was not the originator of this phrase, but it was actually used as a famous metaphor by ministers in England in the 1500s, and eventually in America in the 1600s. After periods of state control and corruption of religion, an early Methodist bishop by the name of Charles Galloway insisted that there ought not to be any intrusion of governmental matters with ecclesiastical ones. Rev. Richard Hooker was actually the first to use the phrase, “separation of…Church and Commonwealth” under the reign of King Henry VIII of England. (The phrase “separation of church and state” originated from the Pilgrims’ religious flight from England under the ecclesiastical supremacy of Queen Elizabeth). The Pilgrims fled to Holland and eventually settled in America where they stressed that the government had no right to “compel religion, to plant churches by power, and to force a submission to the ecclesiastical government by laws and penalties.”[3]

Therefore, the purpose of separation was always to protect the church from interference by the government – not to protect the government from the church.

What Did Our Founders Believe?

The First Amendment is essentially divided up into two clauses. The first being the Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;” and the second being the Free Exercise Clause: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But what exactly is the intended meaning of words like “establishment,” “religion,” “prohibit,” and “free exercise?”

Well, the Framers made it abundantly clear from the start that Congress, not individual states, is limited in its capacity to establish, exercise, and even disestablish a state-run religion. Additionally, the Establishment Clause is the one that prohibits Congress from having jurisdiction or enforcement over the religious freedoms expressed in public life, and, it is the Free Exercise Clause that allows the state (i.e., Congress) to protect these religious freedoms and expressions. Historically speaking, the view of that day was that the Church (religion) and State (government) were two separate spheres but with adjoined purposes.

Government was to protect the civility for the people. Religion was to enhance the morality and vitality of the people.

On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, and in it they prodigiously professed: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.”[4]Those in attendance included George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. These men are considered the most prominent figures in the development of the U. S. Constitution and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. George Washington was not only the President of the Convention which created the U.S. Constitution, but he was also the President of the United States who pushed for the creation of the Bill of Rights to enhance the principles and protections of the liberties expressed in the U.S. Constitution. We find no mentioning of a privatized faith of any sort in Washington’s writings or addresses to the American people.

What Did Jefferson Believe?

It’s important to point out that though Jefferson was the architect of the Declaration of Independence, he was not a framer of the U.S. Constitution.[5] Jefferson was in France (acting as Ambassador) at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. On June 19, 1802, Jefferson wrote a letter in response to an article he had received from Dr. Joseph Priestly who accredited the success of the U.S. Constitution to him. Jefferson wrote:

One passage in the paper you enclosed me must be corrected. It is the following, ‘And all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it,’ i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established.[6]

Upon Jefferson becoming President in 1801, many Baptists were strong supporters of his Anti-Federalist positions and sought counsel from the President. They did so based upon the reading of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 whereby Jefferson declared his beliefs of interpreting the U.S. Constitution:

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed….[7]

According to this and other public remarks by Jefferson, the Danbury Baptists knew the President opposed governmental control and interference in religious matters of the church. In October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson about their concern that religious liberty is a God-given right, not a privilege granted by the government. They realized that if the government granted such religious freedoms to the people, then that would mean that it could, at any given time, remove them. In response to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson replied on January 1, 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties [emphasis mine].[8]

On subsequent occasions, Jefferson articulated this same position to others as he did to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson wrote, “I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S.”[9] John Adams agreed with Jefferson, stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[10]

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists were simply addressing the dangers of the government’s marginalizing religious freedoms, not the other way around. Once again, it is perfectly clear that the separation doctrine was a campaign of the church to remove government oversight, not the government trying to remove the Church from public life.

When Did It Become Misinterpreted?

In 1878 the U.S. Supreme Court used Jefferson’s “separation” metaphor as part and parcel to the ruling that it is the government’s duty to protect rather than limit the free exercise of religious preference. In fact, the Court took it a step further by invoking Jefferson’s famous Virginia Act of Religious Freedom of 1786 in order to point out a few exceptions whereupon the government does have authority to intervene on religious matters. David Barton interprets the Court’s ruling of Jefferson’s statute as such,

That Court (and others) then identified a handful of actions that, if perpetrated in the name of religion, the government did have legitimate reason to limit, including bigamy, concubinage, incest, child sacrifice, infanticide, parricide, and other similar crimes. But the government was not to impede traditional religious expressions in public, such as public prayer, public display of religious symbols, public use of Scriptures, acknowledgement of God in public events, and so on. In short, the separation of Church and State existed not to remove or secularize the free exercise of religion but rather to preserve and protect it, regardless of whether it was exercised in private or public life.[11]

Thus, according to the Founders, religion played a virtuous role in shaping the values of a nation governed by the moral character of the people and for the people.

And yet in a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947, the High Court declared that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment not only applied to the imposed limitations of the federal government, but to States as well. Justice Black openly declared, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”[12]

Over a century and a half later, the U.S. Supreme Court seized Jefferson’s phrase “wall of separation” and applied an anti-religious interpretation to the First Amendment. It was no longer a safeguard from intrusion or obstruction on the part of Congress, but now a flipped version that merged the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment with the due process law of the Fourteenth Amendment that fundamentally changed the course of religion in public life. Since the pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947, almost every case addressing religious and public separation cite Jefferson as the architect of both the First Amendment and the law of “separation of church and state.”

However, as already shown, this is not only a fabrication of American history, but it’s also a poor rendering of the First Amendment. Spalding clarifies, “What this reconciliation of religion and politics did not mean is equally important, and crucial to understanding the meaning and significance of religious liberty: This official separation of church doctrine and the new federal government never meant—was never intended to imply—the separation of religion and politics, or the expunging of religion from public life.”[13] That’s precisely why former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist (served 1986-2005), admittedly observed, “The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned.”[14]

Based on the examination of the origin and historical meaning of the separation doctrine, it’s obvious that it has always been the government that has jumped the “wall of separation” and not the Church. But because of the mishandling of our Founders’ religious (mainly Christian) viewpoints, particularly those of Jefferson, and robbing the government of its proper role to protect religion in public life, secularism has altered the course of American history. As a result, secularism has been widely successful in removing God, redefining truth, and is well on its way to replacing Christianity.

Notes

[1] ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, HENRY REEVE, AND JOHN C. SPENCER, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (NEW YORK: ALLARD AND SAUNDERS, 1838), 319.

[2] “NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION OF 1776,” BELIEFNET, HTTP://WWW.BELIEFNET.COM/RESOURCELIB/DOCS/169/NORTH_CAROLINA_CONSTITUTION_OF_1776_1.HTML.

[3] DAVID BARTON, THE JEFFERSON LIES: EXPOSING THE MYTHS YOU ALWAYS BELIEVED ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON (NASHVILLE: THOMAS NELSON, 2012), 120.

[4] “THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III,” NORTHWEST ORDINANCE, HTTP://WWW.NORTHWESTORDINANCE.ORG/.

[5] JEFFERSON WAS NOT THE ARCHITECT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (READ THE LETTER TO MADISON ON DECEMBER 20, 1787), AND HIS LETTER USING THE PHRASE “WALL OF SEPARATION” WAS WRITTEN OVER TEN YEARS AFTER THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED!

[6] H. A. WASHINGTON, THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: BEING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES, ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE, PUB. BY THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE (WASHINGTON, D.C.: TAYLOR & MAURY, 1853), 441.

[7] “THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798,” CONSTITUTION SOCIETY, LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 4, 2011, HTTP://WWW.CONSTITUTION.ORG/CONS/KENT1798.HTM.

[8] “AMENDMENT I (RELIGION), DOCUMENT 58, THOMAS JEFFERSON TO DANBURY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION,” THE FOUNDER’S CONSTITUTION, HTTP://WWW.PRESSPUBS.UCHICAGO.EDU/FOUNDERS/DOCUMENTS/AMENDI_RELIGIONS58.HTML.

[9] “AMENDMENT I (RELIGION), DOCUMENT 60, THOMAS JEFFERSON TO REV. SAMUEL MILLER,” THE FOUNDER’S CONSTITUTION, HTTP://WWW.PRESS-PUBS.UCHICAGO.EDU/FOUNDERS/DOCUMENTS/AMENDI_RELIGIONS60.HTML.

[10] “MESSAGE FROM JOHN ADAMS TO THE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE MILITIA OF MASSACHUSETTS,” BELIEFNET, HTTP://WWW.BELIEFNET.COM/RESOURCELIB/DOCS/115/MESSAGE_FROM_JOHN_ADAMS_TO_THE_OFFICERS_OF_THE_FIRST_BRIGADE_1.HTML.

[11] BARTON, THE JEFFERSON LIES, 126-127.

[12] “MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION – 333 U.S. 203 (1948),” JUSTIA US SUPREME COURT CENTER, HTTP://WWW.SUPREME.JUSTIA.COM/CASES/FEDERAL/US/333/203/CASE.HTML.

[13] MATTHEW SPAULDING, WE STILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS: REDISCOVERING OUR PRINCIPLES, RECLAIMING OUR FUTURE (WILMINGTON, DE: ISI BOOKS, 2009), 56.

[14] “REHNQUIST’S DISSENT IN WALLACE V JAFFREE (1985),” BELCHER FOUNDATION, HTTP://WWW.BELCHERFOUNDATION.ORG/WALLACE_V_JAFFREE_DISSENT.HTM.

Why Religious Freedom Should Matter to Absolutely Everyone

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

Why should religious freedom matter to everyone? Because the value we put on religious liberty shows how much we really care about freedom. If you’re going to be able to work for the common good—with people from all sorts of backgrounds—the law has got to protect your freedom to live by your convictions.

But what is religious freedom? Religious freedom is a civil right that comes from God, not the government. Why should it matter even to people who aren’t religious? Because religious freedom upholds freedom of conscience for both religious and non-religious people.

What is Religious Freedom?

Religious freedom is a civil right that doesn’t ultimately come from the government. The founders of our nation knew this. All they did was recognize the rights God already gave us. That’s why they wrote The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution–to protect our intrinsic rights from being infringed upon by the federal government.

Having religious freedom doesn’t just mean you have the right to believe certain religious claims are true. It also means having the freedom to live according to your convictions in everyday life–not just while you’re sitting in your house or in church. Our founders said no government had the right to take religious freedom away. That’s what the opening section of the Declaration of Independence is all about. The idea that God, not the government, grants us religious freedom is one of the key ideas our system of government was built on.

So, religious freedom means the right to both believe and act on our beliefs in society. But how does the law relate to the freedoms of our non-religious friends and neighbors?

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

To have a free society, we’ve got to have religious freedom—even in a diverse, pluralistic culture. Why? So people from all kinds of backgrounds can live out their beliefs in matters of conscience. This relates to freedom of speech too. If you’re gonna live in a free society, you’re gonna hear from people who disagree with you.

Look, if you’re an atheist, I’m not offended. Why should I be? Hopefully, you’re not offended by me being a Christian, either. Part of true tolerance is being able to have a respectful conversation about some of the most important things in life—even with people who disagree with us. But the law’s got to provide freedom of belief and expression for everyone. This is one reason the Freedom from Religion movement isn’t very helpful in a pluralistic society. I like how Kelly Shackelford, president, and CEO of First Liberty Institute, put it on the Table Podcast:

There’s no freedom from religion if there’s freedom of religion. There’s no freedom from speech if there’s freedom of speech.

When you live a free society, you hear things that you disagree with. That’s OK. People have a right to say things you disagree with. But that includes religious things you disagree with. Freedom of religion means you don’t have some right to be free from hearing about someone else’s religion. It’s gonna happen in a free society where you have the exchange of ideas.

This is why a law forcing someone to take down a nativity scene on their own property doesn’t help society—it’s the government exercising an unjust power over conscience.

Why Religious Freedom Should Matter to Everyone

I like how Shackelford responds to a common argument for removing religious things from public life and explains why everyone should care about religious freedom:

[Many people] the use of the term which, of course, is not in the Constitution, “separation of church and state.” But then they read that in a bizarre way, to mean that everywhere the government is, religion can’t be there. Well, the government’s everywhere. So what that would essentially mean is, religion goes into the corners of society, and religious expression [too]…

Some people want religious freedom to mean, “You have the right to your religion in your church, in your synagogue, and in your home, and that’s it.”They think the country would be better if religion was removed from public society [but] if these folks ever got what they really wanted, what they’d really have is the government having power over people’s conscience: Freedom from religion.

If the government could tell us that we [could not] talk about religion in public, we [would have] given incredible power to the government over the marketplace of ideas, and people’s conscience and expression…for the atheist, they lose freedom, too…so, we really all should be for full, vibrant religious freedom–for those of faith–and those who don’t have faith at all.

As Christians, we don’t need an unfair advantage. All we need is freedom to speak the truth…You think especially [of] some of the Muslim countries where there’s just a complete meshing of government and religion. And certainly there’s not religious freedom in those places.

That’s a very different idea from ours and…what they do when they infuse [religion] with the government is they take away people’s freedoms. I think the Judeo-Christian [worldview] that believes your faith is between you and God, is what’s behind giving freedom to everybody, no matter what their faith is, or even if they have no faith at all.

Religious Freedom and Freedom of Conscience

Maybe the best way to help our skeptical friends think about this is to frame the conversation in terms of freedom of conscience. Religious freedom is a part of that. Thinking about it like this, no one should feel threatened. At least that’s the way I see it.

In the end, religious freedom is so important to a diverse, pluralistic culture because both religious and non-religious people must be free to live out their beliefs in matters of conscience. A country where you can only say things that support the position of the government or a majority perspective is no free country at all. And that is why religious freedom should matter to absolutely everybody.

The value our society puts on religious freedom tells us a lot about how we see freedom in general. In a diverse, pluralistic society, we must value conscience rights if we’re going to maintain a free society where people of different faiths and no faith can still work together for the common good.

EPS Panel Discussion On Divine Simplicity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

In November of 2018, I was on a panel with Richard Howe, Stephen Davis, and William Lane Craig at an Evangelical Philosophical Society session hosted by the American Academy of Religion. The topic was “Divine Simplicity.” It can be viewed here. Howe argued for why it is true, Davis argued why it is not necessary, Craig leveled various critiques of it, and I defended it.

(You can read this article for a discussion of what divine simplicity is.) Craig brought up the same basic objections in our panel as he did with Bishop Barron in January of 2018 on another panel on the same topic. I have addressed several of those objections in a previous post but would like to elaborate further on some of those objections, as well as address some of his points that came out in our exchange but not in the previous one.

This was my first interaction with Davis and Craig, and they were a delight to work with. (Howe and I are colleagues at Southern Evangelical Seminary.) While Howe and I disagree with Davis and Craig on this immensely important topic, I consider them excellent scholars and gentlemen. I am more familiar with Craig and have found him to be a very sincere man of God. Due to his influence on evangelical thinking, my responses will focus on his objections.

Craig’s Objections and My Responses (Our Opening Statements)

Craig’s first few objections were made in the 2018 panel to which I responded in my article, but I will quickly respond to some of those while spending more time on others. First, Craig stated that divine simplicity is unbiblical in that the Bible never teaches the doctrine and actually teaches things about God that could not be the case of divine simplicity were true. Examples would be various descriptions of God having multiple properties, such as God being powerful, wise, etc. Such would be distinct properties, but divine simplicity states there are no distinctions in God, so the latter must be false, says Craig.

In my opening, I agreed with Craig that the Bible does not explicitly teach divine simplicity; however, I also maintained that the Bible does not teach anything that is contradictory to it. For example, we use various ways of describing God, such as the words ‘powerful,’ ‘wise,’ etc. We really mean different things with these words. But we know God (and everything) through complex ways and complex things. (Here ‘complex’ means that a thing is made up of various parts, immaterial or material. So, it means the opposite of simple.) But just because we necessarily know God through complex means, i.e., through nature and the Bible, that doesn’t mean that God exists in the way that we know him. There is a distinction between our epistemology of God and the ontology of God. When we use various words to describe God, our limited descriptions don’t limit God. If we are going to describe God’s attributes (or properties), there is no other way to describe him than by saying he has qualities x, y, and z. So the way we know him is through his effects—the world (and Scripture)— which are complex. But it doesn’t follow that just because our descriptions of him are complex that he is actually complex. If the arguments for divine simplicity are sound, then God is simple, and the way we describe him is just the limitations of human language since we know the material world directly via experience but God indirectly via the world.

Craig further states that the “terrible consequence of Thomism is that the biblical attributes are annihilated” since God can’t be positively described if simplicity is true. Thomists would deny this and say that the biblical and theological descriptions of God are true pictures of God, but true analogously.

Craig worries that divine simplicity “makes God unintelligible.” Craig says it makes no sense to maintain, as the Thomist does, that God is Pure Act and that his essence just is existence. Further, if God is identical to all he “has,” as simplicity says, and if God has properties, then he just is a property. (This last point is made by Alvin Plantinga in his Does God Have A Nature.) It is true, as Howe pointed out, that since we don’t know God directly, then we don’t know what he is in himself. This is further true since God is an infinite being, and we are finite. It is also true that Thomists hold to a qualified agnosticism about God’s nature (not his existence). However, I think it is the case, again, as Howe points out that everyone is agnostic about God’s nature to some degree since most, if not all, Christians would admit that they don’t know everything about God. I would also point out that saying God is beyond our comprehension is not a weakness of God but rather shows how great he is. If we could understand God, then he wouldn’t be much of a God.

However, Craig is not just saying that because divine simplicity leads to agnosticism that it must be false. He’s saying that there are logical problems with it, such as God just being a property. This is where Craig and Thomists would disagree over terms. Properties in the historical sense are ways that real metaphysical things (on the Platonic model) exist in relation to another thing, or (in the Aristotelian model) the way in which a thing can be modified. The latter can also be called an accident. However, accidents are explicitly denied of God according to divine simplicity since they would modify God’s existence and thus introduce potency, parts, and complexity. Rather than use the word ‘property’ Thomists would rather use the word ‘attribute’ since the latter is not a thing to be possessed the way that properties often are described. (This is actually a curious case with Craig since he rejects a Platonic notion of properties.) Attributes are just ways we can describe God. Many times, properties are said to be “had” or “possessed” by God. Thomists simply deny this about God, and so this particular objection doesn’t exactly apply since Thomists don’t, at least generally, mean the same thing by ‘properties’ as Craig does.

Craig’s other objections along this vein are more puzzling. Given simplicity, he says that God is not personal, doesn’t love, and is not active in the world. In his Time and Eternity, he states that divine simplicity leads to the conclusion that God “does not literally love, know, or cause His creatures” (30). Thomists simply would reject this as a mischaracterization and misrepresentation of divine simplicity. God is certainly personal, but he is not a person in the way that humans are. However, it seems that Craig wants to maintain a univocal view of personhood as it relates to humans and God. (Much of the debate we had centered around the issue of whether our language applies to God univocally or analogically.) However, Howe and I maintain that we can make true statements about God without our language being univocal. Thus, to say God is personal reflects truth about God, but it does not say that he relates to his creation in the same way (i.e., univocally) as we do. This should not be surprising since finite, material, and changing beings are qualitatively different than an infinite, immaterial, unchanging being (although in some ways Craig says that God is simply quantitatively different from us, such as our level of knowledge).

It is not clear to me why God could not love given simplicity. However, at least one traditional view of love is the willing of another’s good. God certainly wills the good of his creation. Thus, he loves. To say God is not active is hard to understand since the Thomist says that God is pure act. God is not just active in the world; he is actively upholding the world’s very existence. Without such sustaining activity, the world would not exist since it doesn’t just need a reason for its beginning to exist, but also for its continued existence.

To say that simplicity leads to the conclusion that God doesn’t love, know, or cause his creation is difficult to understand. However, it seems that Craig holds this position based on his understanding of the Thomistic notion of God not being really related to the world. On the surface of this notion of God not being really related to the world, it looks like God has nothing to do with the world. However, such would simply be false. What Thomas means, a la Aristotle is just that God is not dependent on the world. God is not changed in any way with the existence of the universe—a claim that Craig denies since, in his view, if God created the world, then he must be related to it. Of course, Aquinas is not denying that God is related to the world as such. He is just not related to the world in certain ways, especially any dependent way. The world is really related to God in that it depends on God for its very existence, but the converse is false: God does not rely on the world for anything. It is difficult to see how Craig would maintain that on Thomism God does not know or cause his creation, although he would probably say that while Thomists hold those views, they must do so in violation of simplicity.

The next major objection that Craig leveled at divine simplicity is the modal collapse objection. This states that according to divine simplicity, God’s will is identical with his nature. Since his nature is necessary, his will must be necessary too. Thus, God can only will one scenario, state of affairs, possible world to be actual, whatever you want to say. Since God necessarily wills a given world to exist, there is no other world that could possibly exist. Since God, says Craig, is the same in all possible worlds, the existence of creatures can’t be found in God since God being the same doesn’t create in one world and not in another. Also, creatures can’t explain their existence since they would need a cause, but God couldn’t be their cause, Craig says.

I offered various responses in my original critique of Craig’s position but in my panel discussion, I relied on the distinction that Aquinas makes between absolute and suppositional necessity (cf. Summa Theologiae 1. 19. 3). Aquinas argues that a thing can be necessary absolutely or by supposition. The former is the case when a statement is true by definition, such as “A bachelor is an unmarried man.” Another example of absolute necessity is how God wills his own goodness. This kind of necessity is of something that just has to be the case. Thus, God wills his own goodness of absolute necessity (as Aquinas says that we will our happiness in such an absolute way). Further, Aquinas notes that there are some relations such as how the sensible faculties relate to their objects in an absolutely necessary way, like sight to color. Things are not willed in this absolutely necessary sense unless such things are necessarily required for the end, such as food for survival, as Aquinas notes. But God does not lose anything by not willing creation. He does not need it for his own end. Thus, his willing creation is not absolutely necessary. But supposing he does will it, it is willed by necessity of a certain sense: suppositional necessity. To borrow another example from Thomas, it is not the case that Socrates must sit. However, if he does sit, he necessarily sits as long as he sits. Such necessity is not an absolute necessity since he does not have to sit. But supposing he sits, he sits. Hence, a suppositional necessity. Since God doesn’t need the world, it is not willed of absolute necessity. But it is willed in a necessary sense like that of Socrates sitting. If God wills it, he wills it. He can’t un-will it. Thus, supposing he does will it, it is willed of suppositional necessity.

I think Aquinas’ distinction here answers the modal collapse because the collapse says that God wills of absolute necessity, or as Craig says, a logical necessity. If Aquinas is right, then such is simply not the case.

The Back and Forth

Bill said I was “too cavalier” in my paper regarding the difficulties of the Trinity and simplicity. In my paper, I asserted that Aquinas et al. did not see a problem with divine simplicity and the Trinity, to which Bill averred, “they most certainly did.” As I said in my follow up, what I meant was that they did not see the two doctrines as mutually exclusive or contradictory. One reason that Bill sees such a contradiction with divine simplicity with the Trinity is because he sees the persons of the Trinity as parts, which simplicity by definition denies (see his Time and Eternity, Philosophical Foundations, and my article in response to his position). As Richard stated, the doctrine of divine simplicity was actually used throughout history to defend the Trinity. James Dolezal notes, “As for the Trinity, the [doctrine of divine simplicity] was used to prove the indivisible singularity of the divine essence and thus refute the accusations of tri-theism (God Without Parts, 4. See also Jordan P. Barrett, Divine Simplicity: A Biblical and Trinitarian Account).

Around this point, Steve said he could not understand why complexity in God necessitates composition. In other words, he argues that God can have parts, while those parts just are necessarily his essence and would not need a composer. That metaphysical parts of a being are in a dependent relation of potency is a position that is taken as a metaphysical truism in Aristotelian/Thomistic thinking. Steven’s position was basically, “I don’t understand why God can’t be complex without being composed.” The basic answer as I responded to him while also noting that it wouldn’t satisfy him (and it didn’t) was that if there are distinct parts of a being, even God, then those parts must have a certain relation of potency to each other. Such a potential relation must be realized/made to be that way by something other than itself. Otherwise, it is basically the problem of saying that something caused itself to exist, which is a contradiction since it would have had to exist prior to causing itself to exist. However, the doctrine of simplicity denies such parts, to begin with.

When asked by an audience member how we are different from God, Steve said that God being simple is one way. He said that God is simple in some way but not in the Thomistic sense. Bill shares this view and wants to redefine simplicity to say that nothing has metaphysical constituent parts. Thus, all things are simple, even God, but not in an interesting way since everything else is too. However, he is quick to point out that this is not the Thomistic understanding. It is not at all clear to me what he means by denying metaphysical constituent parts to things.

Bill makes the further assertion in response to this question that we only differ quantitatively from God in some ways. For example, humans have knowledge and power in a finite way, whereas God has them infinitely. This stems from his univocal view of how language applies to God. I would deny that our differences with God are merely quantitative in this way. There is a much more profound difference in unlimited being and limited being besides just amount. What ‘power’ means in reference to God and man is not the same. Such is the case for knowledge and wisdom. God does not know in the same way as we do. We use senses, but God, as an immaterial being, has no senses. We know passively; however, God as Pure Act knows actively as the cause of all finite being (in other words, God doesn’t learn).

My main objection about Bill’s position, in the panel discussion and in his writings, is that the objections he raises to the Thomistic notion of divine simplicity were raised and answered by Aquinas himself in the 13^th century. However, Bill does not deal with the responses to the objections that he raises, which were anticipated hundreds of years ago. (One exception is his response to the idea that all of God’s properties/attributes collapse into one if simplicity is true. In his Philosphical Foundations, he says Venus being the morning and evening star serves as a counterexample since these are really distinct properties in reality and not just in our minds. I would point out, though, that these properties about Venus are extrinsic to Venus and are based on our relation to it.) Bill did make the comment at the end of the panel that what is inadequate from Thomists is to cite Aquinas and think that is the end of it. However, if one is going to object to a doctrine as it was formulated by Aquinas and Aquinas already raised the very objections that he makes, then it seems necessary to explain why the responses to those objections by Aquinas fail. To move the conversation forward, it would be helpful for the objector of Thomistic divine simplicity to explain why Thomas’ responses to those objections fail.

Bill’s response to suppositional necessity was that while it is true that “If God wills x, then x happens necessarily,” the problem for Thomism is that the antecedent is necessary since God’s will and essence are identical and the latter is necessary. In other words, God must will x. However, Aquinas rejects that position because God could have willed not to create anything or to create differently than he did. The necessity can’t be in the effects, says Aquinas since they aren’t necessary. Since God could have willed other than he did and since creation is an activity of God’s will and intellect, this demonstrates that there is no absolute necessity in God willing anything or willing differently than he did. (I argue in more detail on this point in my previous article on this topic.)

All in all, the panel was a great experience for me, and I appreciate the time and efforts that Richard, Steve, and Bill put into it.

6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper

Atheism, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is commonly claimed that Christianity is a science-stopper. What is usually put forth to justify this claim is that many Christians are content to look at nature and say, “God did it,” without looking further to discover how God did whatever “it” happens to be. For many Christians, questions about the origin and function of the natural world end with that answer. However, for many others, while they recognize that God did indeed do something, they seek diligently to discover how God did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or concern (not necessarily a bad thing if those are not a person’s passion or pursuit) is what could stop science if no Christian exists who possesses that curiosity. Individual Christians can choose to stop scientific discovery for themselves, but because scientific discovery will continue for other individual Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, atheism actually does stop science. Not because an atheist is content to say “evolution did it” and cease exploratory research, but it is stopped rather for a few other reasons that the atheist cannot escape if their worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease just for the atheist whose curiosity and concern are satisfied by the answer “evolution did it,” but it ceases for everyone.

If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your thinking to the next level: think about how you can think about the discovery of the world around you. In today’s blog post, I will present six different ways that atheism mutually excludes science and stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Science vs. Atheism

The Laws of Mathematics vs. Atheism

A great deal of scientific research done today necessarily depends upon mathematics in its most advanced forms. It is used to describe chemical reactions, model the formation history of the universe, and even predict the spread of viruses. The reason that mathematics can be used in this way is because the universe is beholden to mathematics. This fact makes the universe describable, discoverable, and predictable (to some extent). If the universe produced mathematics, then there is no reason for the universe to adhere to mathematics, and its describability, discoverability, and predictability would not be possible.

This presents a serious problem for the atheist. For on the atheistic view, mathematics is a product of a feature within the universe (the human brain, to be exact), and the universe is not beholden to something it produced. On the atheistic view, mathematics is not objective, so there is no reason that we should expect the world around us to adhere to or be explainable by using mathematics. The present cannot be described; the past cannot be discovered, and future events cannot be predicted.

On the atheistic view, without a super-natural (outside this universe) foundation for mathematics that constrains this universe to its laws, this universe is nonsensical, and the entire scientific enterprise is ultimately doomed to being nothing more than a guessing game and unable to reveal knowledge about any point in time or space.

The Principle of Uniformity vs. Atheism

Similar to mathematics, the principle of uniformity is key to performing scientific research. This principle states that the past acted very much like the present, and the future will act very much like the present. This principle constrains the universe to a continuous connection across time that scientists can use to describe, discover, and predict. Based upon this principle, scientists understand that it is reasonable to extrapolate observations today into both the past and the future. Through this continuous connection, scientists can discover what happened in the past (historical science) with deductive certainty and make predictions about future events in the natural world (this is how different models of natural phenomena are tested- predictions of future discoveries are made based upon different understandings of the presently-observable data).

But also similar to mathematics, this principle cannot simply have come about with the appearance of human brains on the cosmic scene. If this principle is the product of a feature within the universe, then it necessarily cannot be governed by such a principle. Due to that necessary lack of governance, there is also no reason to think that the universe can be explained using the principle of uniformity.

Thus, if we are to continue scientific discovery using this principle and believe that anything discovered using it is true or meaningful, then it must have a foundation prior to this universe. This means that the principle of uniformity, like mathematics, has a transcendent (super-natural) foundation. Without such a foundation, scientific knowledge of the past and prediction of future events are impossible. On this second count, atheism renders scientific discovery dead on arrival.

For more on this, I highly recommend the book “Origin Science: A Proposal For The Creation/Evolution Controversy.”

The Laws of Logic vs. Atheism

Adding onto mathematics and the principle of uniformity are the laws of logic. It is through the laws of logic that we can connect the present to the past and discover the history of our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and even the moments up to the creation event itself. But this level of scientific discovery is only possible if the universe is governed by transcendent laws of logic. Deductive reasoning and deductive certainty (mentioned above) are necessarily dependent upon the laws of logic. If the universe is not governed by laws that transcend its own existence, then there is no reason to act as if it is governed by such laws. These laws must have a foundation that exists outside of the natural universe; this means that they must exist super-naturally.

But according to atheism, nothing exists super-naturally, and laws of logic are no exception. Thus the universe is not required to and cannot be expected to follow any such laws on atheism. If we cannot expect the universe to necessarily follow such laws, then we cannot use such laws to make truth claims about the universe with any level of certainty, including its history or future. Without the laws of logic existing outside the universe, every scientific endeavor that attempts to expand our knowledge of the natural world beyond the present moment of observation in the immediate spacial vicinity is futile. Without a reason to believe that this universe is subject to the laws of logic, scientific discovery is impossible. Because atheism has no room for laws of logic that govern this universe, it has no room for claiming legitimate scientific discovery is part of its worldview.
For more on this, I highly recommend these two books:

Come, Let Us Reason

The Word of God and the Mind of Man

The Laws of Physics vs. Atheism

Atheism, without laws of mathematics and laws of logic, already cannot formulate or describe laws of physics. That is only one of the numerous implications of a worldview devoid of reality beyond this universe. But the problem for atheism regarding the laws of physics goes deeper than merely discovery and articulation. For lack of discovery and/or articulation do not necessarily imply a lack of existence. The lack of existence of laws of physics on the atheistic worldview is established independently, though similarly, to the lack of existence of laws of mathematics and laws of logic.

If there do not exist laws of physics that this universe is governed by, meaning that they are logically prior to or have a foundation outside of this universe, then there is no reason to use said laws of physics in any reasoning (using non-existent laws of logic) from present observations of this universe to the past history (using the non-existent principle of uniformity) of this universe. Again, without foundation outside this universe for laws of physics to govern the universe, this universe is under no constraint to follow any particular description (laws of physics). If atheism is true, science is, for yet another reason, dead on arrival.

Our Sense Organs And The Brain vs. Atheism

Of course, the applicability of the above features of reality does not come into play in scientific discovery until observations are made. While the above features of reality are observer-independent, this last feature is observer-dependent. Not only does atheism have no foundation for the observer-independent features of reality (and necessary features of the scientific enterprise) described above, but its explanation for one observer-dependent necessity of the scientific enterprise undercuts its own reliability.

Atheistic worldviews have only one possible explanation for the appearance of sense organs and the human brain: changes over time that are governed by (non-existent) laws of physics that govern natural selection. This is also known as “unguided evolution” or merely “evolution” in many circles. We must be careful to distinguish here between agent-guided and environment-guided. The “unguided” descriptor here refers to agent-guided. Evolutionists very much believe that evolution was guided, but that guidance was done by the environment and the (non-existent) laws of physics that governed the creation of and behavior of the environment.

With that in mind, this process that is ultimately guided by non-existent laws of physics results in the survival of populations, so features that serve for the survival of populations are what are passed down from generation to generation and remain in existence. In this view, a pragmatic advantage is the determining factor of a feature’s propagation, not truth-discovering abilities. The truth-discovering ability of a feature is purely accidental, and there is no way to independently test the truth-discovering abilities of such features that survived (especially since all the above features of reality, that may be used to independently test, have no foundation in reality if atheism is true). This means that our sense organs and brain have survived, not because of their truth-discovering abilities, but because they helped populations prior survive in their environment. The atheist cannot come around and say that we can independently test our sense organs scientifically via logic, mathematics, the principle of uniformity, or laws of physics because none of those have foundations in reality if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then even those “laws” are the product of our evolved brains, which, again, is the product of a process governed by non-existent laws of mathematics, logic, and physics.

For more on this, I recommend the book “Where The Conflict Really Lies.”

Conclusion

If something does not exist or is not true, it is not a valid launching point for any process of gaining knowledge. If the foundations are compromised, so are the results. If atheism is true…

…science cannot begin with laws of mathematics.

…science cannot begin with the principle of uniformity.

…science cannot begin with laws of logic.

…science cannot begin with laws of physics.

…science cannot begin with our own observations.

…science cannot begin with our own reasoning.

Science necessarily depends upon the reality and truth of these features of reality. If atheism is true, there is no foundation for any of these features of reality. If atheism is true, these are not features of reality, which means that they are neither true nor do they exist. Thus they cannot be launching points of any knowledge discipline, including science. If atheism is true, the scientific enterprise (among other knowledge disciplines) cannot legitimately claim to provide us with the truth about our world. If atheism is true (in whatever form), it is impossible to connect our subjective beliefs to objective reality.

Because atheism mutually excludes science, atheism is no friend of science; and science is no friend of atheism. If you are a friend of science, you know that these six concepts are features of reality and are true. I invite you to abandon the scientifically and philosophically naive worldview of atheism; embrace the reality of the Christian God, the One who provides a firm foundation for every one of these six realities that you already know exist and already depend upon for your scientific discoveries.

What COVID-19 Reveals About Us: Four Categories of People Surfaced from the Pandemic

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

COVID-19 has brought great panic across the globe due to the rapidity of its transmission and the danger it poses to seniors and those with compromised immune systems. However, COVID-19 has done more than just bring panic. It has also catalyzed several truths about American people, revealing a more troubling underbelly of the American way of life. COVID-19 may prove to be a sociologist’s dream as it has shown what we as American people are like, what we are truly like when a crisis transpires. Because of the virus, comments on social media reveal four types of responses to the COVID-19 crisis. The comments begin to repeat over time. From the overlapping discussions, we can discover four categories of people. As a caveat, this information merely comes from this writer’s observations and is by no means intended to be a scientific study.

The Political Propagandist. For this person, everything becomes political. If the government says anything, the political propagandist will look for some twist and automatically assume that the authorities in question are only trying to pander for votes. Oddly, some of my Republican friends have taken this perspective even when a Republican President has issued some of the guidelines against which they are contending. Thus, every decision is thereby for or against the person’s party. I mentioned a Republican friend earlier. Ironically, I have some Democratic friends who have used the same logic with what a Democratic governor has issued. Some in this category deny that there is a real problem. They hold that the virus is nothing more than a political stunt. But who’s to blame? That depends on which political affiliation to which the political propagandist belongs.

The Paranoid Peddler. This person is one who is mostly given over to hysteria if left unchecked. For the paranoid peddler, everything is a conspiracy. Even if the government were to say that creamed cheese is good for your health, the paranoid panderer would attempt to find some agenda behind the government’s endorsement. He or she might say, “Maybe the government is trying to get rid of those of us who are lactose intolerant? What if that’s all the food they offer?” This is especially true when governing authorities have advised that people abstain from gatherings of over 100 people, including religious services. Katie, bar the door! From that point onward, the paranoid peddlers prognosticate that the government’s war against religion is well underway, all within the guise of protective parameters. Paranoid peddlers hold to the adage, “I don’t care what the government says, I’ll do it my way!”

My friend, Thomas McCuddy, pointed out that this logic is faulty on several fronts. The paranoid panderer commits the categorical mistake, mistaking the categories between shutting down something temporarily and permanently; the false dilemma, thinking that one has given up their faith by listening to the governing authority’s advice; and a non-sequitur, thinking that God will promise that if one goes to a church that he or she will not contract the virus.

The Hysterical Hoarder. Perhaps the third person is linked with the second? Nonetheless, some have made a point to hoard as many items as they can. It is one thing to be prepared. It is another thing to buy as much as you can so that others cannot get what you have. COVID-19 will be known as the toilet paper disease even though it is a respiratory virus. Why? People have selfishly purchased and stored enough toilet paper to last an entire year out of fear of running out. My parents grew up in a time where indoor bathrooms did not exist. Ask them. There are other sanitary ways to live, even if toilet paper is not around. Just make sure you don’t use poison oak to take care of your sanitary needs. My mother, who is five-feet-tall, was reaching up to grab a couple of rolls of toilet paper when this tall young guy ran up and stole them from her before she could reach them. Such examples exemplify the level of selfishness that has captured our society. Should such a real crisis exist, we would not come together as a nation. Rather, we would selfishly tear one another apart over something so trivial as toilet paper. The apologist in me thinks that this is one such consequence of living in a nation that is turning from its Judeo-Christian roots.

The Rational Responder. Lastly, while the first three responses have been mostly negative, there is hope with the rational responder. I have noticed that many of my Christian friends have responded to this crisis responsibly and with great compassion. By using reason instead of hysteria, many believers have seen the inherent risks associated with the virus and have chosen to respond accordingly. Many of the rational responders are even looking for ways in which they can minister to people during the chaos. I find it fascinating that most of these individuals also have a healthy ecclesiology (theology of the Church) by realizing that the Church is not an organization that requires walls and a structure, but rather one that is an organism, consisting of the people of God.

This article is not intended to poke fun at anyone. Furthermore, it also is not to say that some of what the first three responders have claimed doesn’t have some truth in it. Rather, the article comes as an observation of the reactions arising from COVID-19. By no means am I saying that I trust every governmental action. Nor am I saying that anyone should. However, when hysteria and emotionalism replace logic and reason, bad things soon follow. I am reminded of the words of the late Dr. Norman Geisler who said, “A clear mind and a pure heart are dangerous to the devil.” No matter what may come, let us always seek to think clearly while having faith that Christ can and will deliver us through any storm encountered. For our Great Shepherd will lead us through the valley of the shadow of death (Ps. 23:4) so that he may bring us to even greater pastures.

By the grace of God, we shall persevere!

God Uses Our Dreams and Disasters to Accomplish the Impossible

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

If you’ve read my books or followed my blog for a while, you know that the focus of my writing is to equip parents with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity so they can pass that knowledge on to their kids. This is my passion and focus, but it certainly doesn’t represent ALL that kids need to know and experience in their faith.

It’s not enough to KNOW what’s true if that truth doesn’t transform us.

For years now, I’ve followed blogger and author Kristen Welch at her blog; We Are THAT Family. She is someone I hugely admire for living a life transformed by truth through her work to serve others around the world, and today I want to introduce you to her ministry if you don’t already know about it.

In 2010, she and her family started Mercy House Global to “engage, empower, and disciple women around the globe in Jesus’ name.” They rescue pregnant teens in Kenya and provide a home for them. They empower these young moms and women around the world by providing dignified jobs through partnerships and sustainable, fair trade product development. They also disciple these women to be lifelong followers of Jesus Christ. You can read more about their values and see a statement of faith here.

As part of the ministry, Mercy House has several “Fair Trade Friday” clubs that support their mission. Our family belongs to the bracelet club. For just $14.99 each month, we receive a beautiful bracelet made by a woman in an impoverished country. My two daughters love getting the package in the mail each month and reading more about who made each bracelet and where it came from. It’s led to wonderful conversations about what fair trade means, why it matters, and the kinds of needs people have in other countries. I highly encourage you to check out what they offer and consider supporting Mercy House through one of these clubs.

The reason I’m writing about this today, in particular, is that Kristen has a new book out that I want to recommend to you as well: Made to Move Mountains: How God Uses Our Dreams and Disasters to Accomplish the Impossible. In this book, Kristen shares very honestly about what it’s been like to deal with the “impossible” challenges of running an often heartbreaking ministry like this…and how God has met their needs. It’s also a very personal book, as she talks about the toll serving has taken on her family and her marriage, and how God has brought them through even when it’s felt overwhelming. There’s no tidy ending, which I love because life rarely has tidy endings. It will convict you, move you, encourage you, and help you think in fresh ways about the mountains of dreams and disasters in your own life.

Kristen has provided the following excerpt from the book to share here. I hope you’ll enjoy her insights and I highly recommend getting a copy.

Excerpt from Made to Move Mountains:

When I think of someone who was more fearful than brave—but with a measure of faith—and who definitely didn’t boast of his abilities, I think of Gideon. When I was in Israel, one of our stops was at Ein Harod, the spring of Gideon, written about in Judges 7. I love this story. It is an important one for us to consider, and it has been incredibly encouraging.

Gideon was a military leader who was also a prophet and a judge. In verse 2, God says to Gideon, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.’” God whittled away twenty-two thousand of Gideon’s army, but in verse 4, the Lord says to him, “There are still too many men.” God tells Gideon to separate the remaining men based on how they drink water from the spring in the desert. As we heard the gurgling water and stood at the small natural spring where Gideon obediently separated his men and was left with only three hundred, the story came alive in a new way.

Gideon was prepared for the battle. He had gathered his resources, used his expertise, and led an enormous army into enemy territory. But we see very clearly in chapter 7 that God did not want Gideon’s expertise or his battle plan; God wanted his trust. God wants us to trust him so much that we will do what he tells us, even when it goes against what feels right. God wants our obedience because he fights battles in a way that brings glory to him instead of to us. Gideon had to lay down his faith in his military experience and trust a miracle-working God to fight the battle.

One of the reasons I love the story of Gideon is because I can identify with his fear and his courage. Gideon continued to obey God but with fear and doubt every step of the way. He was taking a brave step forward and doubting with every step backward. Nevertheless, God used him to defeat the enemy and help set Israel free, but not without discomfort and risk for Gideon. God had a plan and removed what Gideon thought was necessary for victory. We can’t always see or understand why God asks certain things of us or allows us to experience suffering; we don’t have a bird’s-eye view of the big picture. We can see only the temporary, not the eternal, and we have to trust that the discomfort and uncertainty he is allowing is not only for our good but also for his glory. In this tension, miracles happen.

Kristen Welch, a blogger at We are THAT family, is a bestselling author and founder of Mercy House Global. Made to Move Mountains released March 3, 2020.

Don’t the Resurrection Narratives Contradict?

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

The apostle Paul said that if Christ hasn’t risen, Christianity is a sham. (1 Corinthians 15:17) Many atheists agree and will happily point to the gospel accounts. Just how seriously should they take the claim of the resurrection? After all, aren’t the accounts riddled with contradictions? How can they possibly be trusted?

Historians don’t normally conclude that just because individual accounts have apparent contradictions that the event in question didn’t occur. But let’s allow that to pass for now. I think the majority of the discrepancies that critics bring up can be easily resolved. Here’s a list of four of the most popular contradictions in the resurrection account that skeptics like to point to.

#1. HOW MANY WOMEN WERE AT THE TOMB OF JESUS?

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?…

Atheist blogger Bob Seidensticker

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS

“On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.” (John 20:1)

“After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb.” (Matthew 28:1)

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him.” (Mark 16:1)

“On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared…Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things.” (Luke 24:1,10)

Whoa there! On the face of it, you can see why skeptics would point to these passages to discredit the gospels. It seems like they can’t get their details straight. But are these accounts really so contradictory? Not really.

“NEVER READ ONE BIBLE VERSE”

It’s a bit amusing that Bob thinks that because John said that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, he’s implying that others were not present. All we need to do is to keep reading to see that isn’t the case at all. In the very next verse, John says: “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” (John 20:2)

Wait a second. Where did this we come from? In passing, Mary Magdelene’s own words clearly show that there were other women. John reporting this implies that he’s well aware that there were other women at the tomb. No bludgeoning required. As Greg Koukl has famously said, “never read a Bible verse.” You have to keep reading and get the context before making assumptions about the text. Otherwise, it would seem that you’re either looking for a negative verdict or you’re just trying to fleece someone.

THE SKEPTIC’S BAD ASSUMPTIONS

As for the other accounts, why assume that each gospel account is supposed to give us a complete, detailed list of the women? Luke explicitly says that there were others that he didn’t name. In no gospel did it say these were the women who came to the tomb and there was no one else.

There’s no contradiction here unless you bring that assumption to the text. Selecting to name some women is not an automatic denial that there were no others. If I say I went to the store with my wife last night, I’m not automatically excluding the fact that I brought my four kids with me. I just left out a detail. So what?

#2 WAS THE TOMB OPENED OR CLOSED WHEN THE WOMEN ARRIVED?

“Was the stone already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb (Mark, Luke, and John), or explicitly not (Matthew)?”

Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS OURSELVES

And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. (Mark 16:3-4)

And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb…(Luke 24:2)

Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (John 20:1)

So far all Mark, Luke, and John say that the tomb was open when the women found it. Now here’s Matthew’s version:

At the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. (Matthew 28:1-4)

So far it looks like Bart and the critics have a good point.

GETTING A GRIP ON THE GREEK

So what’s going on here? Is Matthew signifying that the women saw the angel coming down and rolling the stone away? If Matthew comes after Mark, then it feels like he’s adding an extra layer of supernatural ad hoc. While it makes the account sound more impressive, we now get this contradiction.

But let’s reconsider what Matthew says. We’re introduced to the passage about the angel by the Greek participle γὰρ (gar). Strong’s Greek Concordance defines it as: “For. A primary participle; properly assigning a reason.” In other words, it exists to explain the earthquake and set of circumstances as the women found them.

As philosopher Tim McGrew points out, “Matthew uses an aorist participle, which could be (and in some versions is) translated with the English past perfect: “… for an angel of the Lord had descended …”

One such translation is Weymouth, who phrases Matthew 28:2 as follows: “But to their amazement, there had been a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord had descended from Heaven, and had come and rolled back the stone, and was sitting upon it.”

And here’s Young’s Literal Translation, which is about as a word-for-word Greek translation you can get: “and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it”

So Matthew isn’t claiming that the women saw the angel descend or that they saw the guards get knocked out. It’s not in the text. It seems like the critics are looking for fault here.

OK, BUT WHERE IS MATTHEW GETTING HIS INFO FROM?

But now a question arises. If the women didn’t tell them this story about the stone’s rolling away and the guards falling out, who did? That’s a fair question.

While can’t say for sure, we can venture a safe guess here. In Matthew 28:11-15 we find out that the author had some info about the guards. What happened to them could have come from the same source — perhaps one of the guards themselves.

Matthew 28:2-4 gives us an explanation for the women at the tomb found when they got there. And that is the stone rolled away and no guards. This just isn’t meant to be a description of what the women saw. The stone moved before they got there, and that seems to be what Matthew is communicating when properly read.

#3. DID THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB OF JESUS SEE A MAN AT THE TOMB, TWO MEN, OR TWO ANGELS?

“Did they see a man, did they see two men, or did they see an angel? It depends on which gospel you read.“

Bart Ehrman (The Craig-Ehrman debate)

AGAIN, LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS IN QUESTION:

Mark 16:5-6: “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, …”

Matthew 28:5: “But the angel said to the women…”

Luke 24:4: “While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel…”

John 20:11-13: “But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.”

So is this a major difference like Bart and other skeptics claim? Nah. Not if you’ve read the rest of the Bible. Angels often appear to humans as men. Let’s look at just a few texts to prove this out:

6 TIMES IN THE BIBLE WHERE ANGELS APPEAR AS MEN

When Abraham was sitting by the oaks of Mamre, “he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him” (Genesis 18:1-2). These visitors in the very next chapter are called angels. (Genesis 19:1)
Jacob wrestled with the man until daybreak in Genesis 32:22-32. We read in Hosea 12:4 that he wrestled with the Angel of the Lord.
Joshua encountered the “captain of the host of the LORD” who was called “a man” (Joshua 5:13-15).
Here again, we see the same thing in Judges: “And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has appeared to me.” (Judges 13:9-10)
Daniel had visionary experiences where he describes his angelic visitor as “one in the likeness of the children of man”. (Daniel 10:16-18)
And finally, Hebrews 13:2 tells us that “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Because of medieval, we picture angels as babies or women with wings on their back floating on white clouds. But if it’s possible to entertain angels unawares as the writer of Hebrews says, then they can look just like a human being.

HOW MANY ANGELS WERE THERE?

This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. Wherever there are two angels, there is always at least one. That’s just an unfailing principle of math. It’s Matthew and Mark who focus on the one who spoke. They don’t mention the other. But omission itself doesn’t equal denial. There is no account saying that there was one and no other.

I mean, we’ve all experienced this before, haven’t we? I’m thinking of my own life for certain job interviews I had. There were two managers in the room interviewing me for a promotion, but my focus was only on the one who was asking me questions. When talking about the interview later with others, me describing the questions and body language of manager Steve wouldn’t mean that manager Suzy wasn’t also in the room with her head down, taking notes.

#4. THE WOMEN SPREAD THE WORD OF THE EMPTY TOMB (OR DID THEY?)

In the other gospels, women discovered the empty tomb of Jesus and returned to tell the others:

“The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.” (Matthew 28:8).

“When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others” (Luke 24:9).

Mark tells us the women kept it hush-hush:

“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8)

That’s how the original version of the gospel of Mark ended.

BUT DOESN’T MARK 16 HAVE TWENTY VERSES?

Now some of you might be thinking to yourself: “Whoa. Hold up! Doesn’t Mark 16 have more than 8 verses? What about “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and that strange stuff about drinking poison and handling snakes that we find in the ending of Mark?

Seemingly strange statements aside, I’m not at all here to argue against the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20. But most scholars believe that the original ending of Mark ends at verse 8. Unless you’re reading from the King James Version, most translations alert us to the fact that verses 9-20 are not in the earliest manuscripts. Here’s a sampling:

ESV : [Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.]

NIV : [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

CSB : [Some of the earliest mss conclude with 16:8.]

NLT : [The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.]

These are all fairly conservative versions of the Bible. There’s no liberal conspiracy happening here. You can still believe verses 9-20 are historically reliable and even inspired. But nearly all textual specialists agree that the long ending of Mark wasn’t part of the original text. This gives us an apparent contradiction about what the women said after discovering the empty tomb.

LETTING THE SKEPTICS SPEAK

“One point, in particular, seems to be irreconcilable. In Mark’s account, the women are instructed to tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee, but out of fear, they don’t say a word to anyone about it.”

Jesus Interrupted. Page 49

Bart wants to create a contradiction by reading Mark as saying they never said a word to anyone. But is this the right reading of the passages?

IS MARK’S GOSPEL INCOMPLETE?

While the general scholarly consensus is that the long ending of Mark wasn’t originally there, what we’re not being told by the skeptics is that there’s debate regarding whether or not Mark meant to end it there or if the original text was cut off or left incomplete.

The late Bruce Metzger was a biblical scholar and longtime Princeton professor. He thought the original ending was cut off. Why did he believe that? Mark has a pattern of making blanket statements before adding an exception. Just take a look:

“He did not let anyone accompany him except Peter, James, and John, James’s brother.” (Mark 5:37)
“Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.” (Mark 9:8)
“As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” (Mark 9:9)
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)
“Now concerning that day or hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son —but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

This is a clear pattern in Mark. So how would we expect Mark to continue if Metzger is right and the text is broken off? It would probably look a lot like what we read in Matthew 28:8. Let’s combine the two passages: They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid, but departing quickly from the tomb…, they ran to tell his disciples the news.”

Ehrman did his doctoral dissertation under Metzger, so he has no justification in keeping his audience in the dark.

BUT WHAT IF MARK REALLY INTENDED ON STOPPING AT VERSE 8?

If you read Mark carefully in one sitting, you’ll find a common thread. After Jesus reveals himself in some way, he asks the witnesses to keep it on the down-low.

“Then a man with leprosy came to him and, on his knees, begged him: “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched him. “I am willing,” he told him. “Be made clean.” Immediately leprosy left him, and he was made clean. Then he sternly warned him and sent him away at once, telling him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go and show yourself to the priest, and offer what Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” Yet he went out and began to proclaim it widely and to spread the news, with the result that Jesus could no longer enter a town openly.” (Mark 1:40-45)
“They brought to him a deaf man who had difficulty speaking and begged Jesus to lay his hand on him. So he took him away from the crowd in private. After putting his fingers in the man’s ears and spitting, he touched his tongue. Looking up to heaven, he sighed deeply and said to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”). Immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was loosened, and he began to speak clearly. He ordered them to tell no one, but the more he ordered them, the more they proclaimed it.” (Mark 7:32-36)
“But you,” he asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he strictly warned them to tell no one about him.” (Mark 8:29-30)

Reading this, we see that there’s a pattern silence, or requested silence, followed by proclamation. The silence never sticks. The whole punchline of Mark is that Jesus is the Messiah. Why we’d expect this pattern to stop seems silly. Just think about Mark’s Gospel as a whole for a minute:

In the first half of Mark, everyone questions who Jesus is.
In the middle, Jesus questions the disciples’ belief about Him.
The second half tells how Jesus became the Messiah.

Mark is making a point about Jesus’ identity. Many Jews hoped that the Messiah would overthrow the Romans and rule as king, but as we read his gospel, we see that Jesus came to set up a kingdom different than their expectations. He came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for sin. (Mark 10:45) His kingdom would start small but gradually become great, like a mustard seed. (Mark 4:26-29)

With that in mind, it’s possible that the gospel’s abrupt ending is there to intentionally challenge us to decide if we believe Jesus is the Messiah. Mark could be making the understood assumption that of course, the women eventually said something, that’s why you’re reading about this – but what do you think? Who do you think Jesus is?

THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS AREN’T HOPELESSLY CONTRADICTORY

“[T]he sources [regarding Jesus’ resurrection] are hopelessly contradictory, as we can see by doing a detailed comparison of the accounts in the Gospels.”

Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus (2000), p. 90

Bart’s claim is a strong one, but we’ve seen from this quick review that this claim just isn’t true. These accounts can all rather easily be reconciled. There are other alleged discrepancies in the accounts, and so this isn’t meant to be an exhaustive rebuttal to every objection that could be made. But in examining a handful of the skeptics’ toughest objections, we’ve seen that the narratives are very far from being hopelessly contradictory. Don’t let the critics ruin your Easter.

What Is Salvation All About?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

Ever wish you had a backup plan? Well, God did. Of course, that doesn’t imply God made a mistake. God is perfect, and everything He created was perfect (Gen. 1-2).

He perfectly and freely made Adam and Eve perfect in His image. And yet, Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God’s commands and eat from the forbidden tree (Gen. 3).

But God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and so, in His infinite love and mercy, He set the plan of salvation in motion to redeem His people from their sin (Jon. 2:9; Jn. 1:13; Rom. 9:16; Eph. 1:5).

But God didn’t need to do this. He is perfectly just to condemn sinners in their disobedience. Yet, instead, God predetermined to send Jesus to become the ultimate atonement for the sins of the whole world (Rom. 1:16; Acts 4:12).

Read the beautiful picture that Paul the Apostle paints in Romans 3:21-25 of the grace of God and our faith:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

According to Paul, the two conditions for salvation are God’s grace and our faith.

Think of it like this: God is the Giver (by grace-freely), and we are the receiver (through faith-freely). Ephesians 2:8-9 reads, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

There is nothing we can do to earn or gain salvation. All that is required of each one of us is to humbly admit that we are sinners, and receive (in faith) the free gift of salvation that God decrees. The Bible makes clear that Jesus is the atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). He became sin for us that we might “become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Therefore, it’s very important that Christians realize that we are not saved by good works, but are saved for good works. In 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul writes, “[God] saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”

Therefore, good works are the evidence of salvation, not a condition for it (Phil. 2:13-14; Js. 2).

Listed below are the three stages of salvation that we need to appreciate and fully understand.

The Three Stages of Salvation

Justification: Salvation from the penalty of sin (Rom. 3-4).
Sanctification: Salvation from the power of sin (Rom. 6)

Victory over the world (1 Jn. 5:4)

Victory over the flesh (Rom. 7:24, 25)

Victory over the devil (James 4:7)

Glorification: Salvation from the presence of sin (Rom. 8:18-23)

One final thought, the Christian can have total faith that the free gift of salvation comes with absolute assurance and security. Peter puts it like this:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1 Pet. 1:3-5

(Additional Bible References: 2 Cor. 5:1-8; 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; John 3:18; 5:24; 6:37, 39-40; 10:27, 28; 17:9-24; Rom. 8:33-39; 11:29; Eph. 1:4-13; Phil. 1:6).

It’s Logically Impossible To Avoid Logic

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

The only foundation upon which one should build their life is the truth. The truth should be sound, logical, and justifiable. Most, if not all, people would agree with that sentiment. However, the factors that one uses to determine what is true and what role truth ultimately plays in one’s life are where worldviews tend to diverge. Therefore, it is necessary for each individual to build or understand the epistemic structures that are reliable guides on how to determine what is true about the world around them.

Scottish poet and Christian minister George MacDonald said, “to give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.” Therefore, the first question to be asked and answered is, are you open to the truth wherever it may lead? Additionally, whether one presupposes a Christian or atheistic worldview, there are further delineations that exist in either framework. Within a Christian worldview, some believe that reason or philosophy as a means to acquire truth subverts the essence of faith. Others believe that without some level of reasoning ability, we can never truly come to faith. Let’s explore the perceived tension between faith and reason with a particular focus on the potential ramifications for misunderstanding how the Bible supports and encourages our reasoning capabilities. The fact is that the ability to reason soundly is wholly intertwined with sustaining Christian faith, which is trust in Jesus Christ.

Faith Is…

Noah Webster, the creator of the dictionary that bears his name and the Father of Christian Education, famously said, “education is useless without the Bible.”[1] In 1828, he published the first edition of his dictionary. Within that dictionary, the word faith was defined as affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. It was further defined as “a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word, or full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them.” [2] The current definition of the word faith in the subsidiary dictionary of Noah Webster, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads, “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” [3] That is quite a departure from how faith was once defined, and it adequately reflects the current societal disengagement with anything remotely religious.

The idea that Christians place their faith or trust in a God for whom no evidence exists is popular, but apologists, scientists, and philosophers are providing the material to combat that notion. Craig and Moreland write, “One of the awesome tasks of Christian philosophers is to help turn the contemporary intellectual tide in such a way as to foster a socio-cultural milieu in which Christian faith can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and women.”[4] Christian faith can, therefore, be defined as trusting in the eternal person, presence, and work of God. The Bible clearly states that without faith, it is impossible to please God. [5] However, the Bible never calls us to have blind faith. As we will see, God the Father, Jesus, and the Biblical authors place a high view on evidence, thinking, and reasoning.

Reason Is…

Unfortunately, there exists within current Christianity a wave of anti-intellectualism. Moreland notes that as early as the mid-19^th century, anti-intellectualism was beginning to have an impact. He writes:

But their overall effect was to overemphasize immediate personal conversion to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction; emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and ideas. Sadly, as historian George Marsden notes, ‘anti-intellectualism was a feature of American revivalism.’[6]

The impact of anti-intellectualism has only been accelerated with the advent of postmodernism. Reason is necessary in order to push back against a postmodern mindset, which denies absolutes and objective realities. Such a mindset actually becomes self-refuting, and that fact can only be demonstrated by engaging in sound philosophy. It is to this task that the Christian and especially the apologist, must not retreat. Therefore, in order to move forward, we must define reason. Moreland writes, “By reason, I simply mean the faculties, in isolation or in combination, I use to gain knowledge and justify my beliefs.”[7]

The point was made that postmodernism, in many instances, becomes self-refuting. For example, Nicolas Wolterstorff references:

A lecture by Anthony Flew, which contended that if one scrutinizes how people guard their religious convictions one sees that they treat them as compatible with the happening of anything whatsoever. In other words, these beliefs are not falsifiable. And because they are not falsifiable they do not constitute genuine assertions. They make no claims on actuality… scientists convinced of the truth of some scientific theory behave exactly the way Flew says religious believers do.[8]

Here we can see that such a scientist becomes guilty of the same type of faith they falsely accuse the Christian of exercising.

Already, it has been demonstrated how accurate reasoning can be employed to diffuse the often-incomplete reasoning of naturalists and how a lack of philosophy can do much to hinder the advancement of the church. In order to apply this understanding of reason and its necessity, one should also consider the futility of eschewing reasoning in the attainment or sustainment of the Christian faith. Even if someone got saved in a miraculous spiritual experience, they would still have to make a decision not to simply write that experience off as a freak event. A choice must be made regarding whether or not one will acknowledge that experience as evidence of God’s existence. Once that choice is made, you have engaged your reasoning ability.

Even to come to the conclusion that faith, which often comes from reading the Bible, is the essential component for acquiring faith or a proper understanding of Christianity, you have arrived at that conclusion by employing your reasoning abilities. To say otherwise would be akin to an atheist like Richard Dawkins writing about the nonexistence of God but not recognizing that the rationality necessary to make such a statement only exists if God exists. If our brains are simply a product of time, matter, and chance, that would hardly be the recipe for a source of sound reasoning. Or it is like the postmodernist who writes that no objective truths exist while desiring us to believe their own reasoning embedded in such a statement. Reason, if real, presupposes the ability to know that we have the structural components to choose between a range of options.

The naturalist cannot sustain this proposition, and the theist who places an undo emphasis on faith without reason equally cannot sustain the proposition unless they posit that God miraculously causes only some people to have faith in Him. “The law of the excluded middle says that P is either true or false; or, put somewhat differently, either P is true or its negation, not-P, is true.”[9] In other words, we all must make a choice. The option to not choose is invalid. Either reason is firmly grounded in the mind and nature of God, our Creator, or we don’t have the ability to reason at all. However, if we do have it, it must be because God desires that we use it.

How Faith And Reason Work Together

Apologetics helps us to grow in confidence as disciples of Jesus as we begin to see the value of reason and how unbiased reasoning actually affirms the tenets, mandates, and principles of Christianity. With such understanding, a Christian worldview is no longer our version of the truth; it is communicated as an accurate depiction of reality. Peter tells us to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”[10] The Apostle Paul, in his brilliant oration on Mars Hill in Acts 17, confidently and thoughtfully provided an explanation for the truth of the gospel, who God is and what He desires of us. Klein and Blomberg note that “in each case, these preachers sought to establish common ground with their audiences in order to gain the greatest possible acceptance of their message.” [11] Neither Peter nor Paul assumed that those they spoke to would simply be able to look at nature and come to faith in God. In fact elsewhere, Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them.” [12] This implies that some other method may be of use to prevent the truth from being suppressed.

This is not to say that unless Christians become master philosophers and apologists that God will never be able to save anyone. Rather there is a partnership that should exist between faith and reason. Romans 10:9-10 informs us that salvation comes through confident confession in Christ as our Lord and Savior and a belief in our hearts. That belief is the result of choice based upon sound logical, historical, and experiential evidence. Belief should always be justified and warranted. John Skorupski raises and answers some important questions. He writes, “Rational explanation raises questions at the philosophical level. What connection must hold between your response and the facts that warrant it, for you to be said to respond from that warrant? What is it to be aware of, to recognize, a warrant? Do you have to believe that you have a warrant?” [13] Do Christians have a responsibility to have good reasons for believing what they believe, or is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit enough? Skorupski goes on to write those rational explanations are, “to be understood as short for explanations which explain an actor’s response by showing that it proceeded from the actor’s recognition that it was warranted. A rational explanation explains a person’s response (belief, feeling, action) as proceeding from a warrant.” [14] Whatever factors (philosophical, moral, spiritual, or academic) motivate the individual to come to salvation, they will always have a warrant.

The Inescapability Of Philosophy

Some Christians distrust our ability to reason well due to our fallen nature. Therefore, they believe there should always be a tension between faith and philosophy. Steve Wilkens notes that “many who embrace the Tension view emphasize the vast ontological distance that distinguishes Creator from creation. God’s transcendence, this perspective argues, necessitates that the means by which we know of God differ from the process by which we come to other types of knowledge.” [15] Our sinful nature should cause us to examine our reasoning against the truth of Christianity. However, those who avow the faith and philosophy in tension perspective “view that sin’s lingering effects continue to diminish and distort reason’s capacity to comprehend divine truth even after regeneration. Thus reliance upon rationality to discern the nature and ways of God does more harm than good.” [16]

This seems to present problems because what follows from such a view is that at no point are we able to reason well. This means to be able to support a tension view; you have to be able to trust that your perspective is not corrupted by your continued inability to reason well! Furthermore, an overemphasis on keeping faith and philosophy in tension will prevent Christians from engaging in the necessary activity of combating purely secular philosophy.

What Is At Stake

Much is at stake in determining the proper relationship faith should have with reason. Were philosophy and thereby reason to be completely removed from matters pertaining to faith, what could our children do when challenged in school by seemingly well-reasoned arguments? Conversely, if philosophy and reasoning are given too large a platform in Christianity, they may overshadow the uniqueness and beauty of the gospel. The Greek word most commonly used for ‘faith’ in the New Testament is pistis, which, according to Strong’s Lexicon, means a conviction of the truth of anything. In order to hold to orthodox Christian beliefs and defend those beliefs against heretical beliefs, a mature Christian should be willing and able to delineate reasons for their belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was crucified, buried and rose from the grave. To say to someone “just have faith” when God has graciously provided us with evidence seems unnecessarily antagonistic and does not, in the end, affirm the person of God.

In practice, the ability to reason soundly is entirely interlaced with actualizing and sustaining faith in Christ. The reason we fellowship with other believers is in order to grow in our understanding of God. The reason we evangelize to non-believers is to see them enter into a relationship with God as well. There are, however, many Christians who have placed their faith in Christ but who don’t evangelize. Sometimes this is due to a lack of certainty about the validity of Christian claims. Perhaps, reason and philosophy could aid such a Christian in gaining confidence in their faith, which would compel them to be more active in the work to which we have all been called.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

“If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. [17]

Christians would be wise to heed the words of a man who referred to himself as “England’s most reluctant convert.” C.S. Lewis was converted through conversations with other Christians who challenged his reasoning and philosophy and provided him a more coherent, well-reasoned worldview. [18] This is why the ability to reason soundly is wholly intertwined with initiating and sustaining Christian faith, which is trust in Jesus Christ.

References

[1] Luteria Archambault, Challenges, and Objections: Meeting Them Head On. (Bloomington, IN Westbow Press, 2013)5.

[2] Noah Webster, A Dictionary of the English Language. (London, England: Black, Young, and Young, 1828).

[3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (Martinsburg, WV: Quad Graphics, 2016).

[4] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017)4.

[5] Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

[6] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind. (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS Publishers, Inc., 1997), 16.

[7] Ibid., 45.

[8] Nicolas Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 24.

[9] Moreland, Philosophical Foundations, 120.

[10] 1 Peter 3:15

[11] William Klein, Craig Blomberg & Robert Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017)541.

[12] Romans 1:18-19

[13] John Skorupski, The Domain of Reasons. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 2 of 33.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 13.

[16] Ibid.

[17] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1949), 58.

[18] David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 147-8.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Who Phrased the Infamous Phrase?

Therefore, the purpose of separation was always to protect the church from interference by the government – not to protect the government from the church.

What Did Our Founders Believe?

Government was to protect the civility for the people. Religion was to enhance the morality and vitality of the people.

What Did Jefferson Believe?

Thus, according to the Founders, religion played a virtuous role in shaping the values of a nation governed by the moral character of the people and for the people.

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

What is Religious Freedom?

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

Why Religious Freedom Should Matter to Everyone

Religious Freedom and Freedom of Conscience

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Craig’s Objections and My Responses (Our Opening Statements)

The Back and Forth

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

Science vs. Atheism

The Principle of Uniformity vs. Atheism

The Laws of Logic vs. Atheism

The Laws of Physics vs. Atheism

Our Sense Organs And The Brain vs. Atheism

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

#1. HOW MANY WOMEN WERE AT THE TOMB OF JESUS?

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS

“NEVER READ ONE BIBLE VERSE”

THE SKEPTIC’S BAD ASSUMPTIONS

#2 WAS THE TOMB OPENED OR CLOSED WHEN THE WOMEN ARRIVED?

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS OURSELVES

GETTING A GRIP ON THE GREEK

OK, BUT WHERE IS MATTHEW GETTING HIS INFO FROM?

#3. DID THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB OF JESUS SEE A MAN AT THE TOMB, TWO MEN, OR TWO ANGELS?

AGAIN, LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS IN QUESTION:

6 TIMES IN THE BIBLE WHERE ANGELS APPEAR AS MEN

HOW MANY ANGELS WERE THERE?

#4. THE WOMEN SPREAD THE WORD OF THE EMPTY TOMB (OR DID THEY?)

BUT DOESN’T MARK 16 HAVE TWENTY VERSES?

LETTING THE SKEPTICS SPEAK

IS MARK’S GOSPEL INCOMPLETE?

BUT WHAT IF MARK REALLY INTENDED ON STOPPING AT VERSE 8?

THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS AREN’T HOPELESSLY CONTRADICTORY

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Three Stages of Salvation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Faith Is…

Reason Is…

How Faith And Reason Work Together

The Inescapability Of Philosophy

What Is At Stake

References

Recommended resources related to the topic: