What is the Meaning of Life?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4n2AwA5

/by

Four Ways that Middle Knowledge Helps to Explain Unanswered Prayer

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

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

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Impossible         

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

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Infeasible          

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

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Individually Detrimental 

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

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Globally Destructive        

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

Conclusion

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

Dive Deeper

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

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

References: 

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.6.23.

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

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

/by

A Trinitarian Moral Argument

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

Both Christians and Muslims affirm the following argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7] Clarke, Person and Being, 112.

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

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

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

[11] Clarke, Person and Being, 87.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18] McCall, Which Trinity?, 210.

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

[20] Clarke, Person and Being, 76.

[21] Clarke, Person and Being, 96.

[22] Clarke, Person and Being, 88.

[23] Clarke, Person and Being, 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

/by

Not My Jesus: A List Of Christological Heresies

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

 

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

What is a Heresy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Historic Christianity?           

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

What then is the orthodox teaching about Jesus Christ?

Getting Christ Right: Orthodox Christology

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

Christological Heresies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

 

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

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

/by

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Atheists Turns Faith into a Punching Bag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrapping Up: Keeping the Faith in Every Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Here are a couple of useful resources on this topic:

Recommended Resources: 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by

Is It Wrong to Doubt?

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

 

Types of Doubt: Good or Bad

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

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

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

Types of Doubt: Factual or Emotional

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

Type of Doubt: Biblical Doubt

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

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

The Case of Job

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

The Case of Thomas

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References: 

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

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

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

[4] Ibid., 56.

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

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by

Does Jesus Ever Talk About Homosexuality?

,

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary:    

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

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

References:

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

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

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by

The Heroes of Pride Month

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

 

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

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

The Came Hegel

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

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

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

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

The Real Moral Test

But here’s where the rubber meets the road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you starting to see a theme behind these heroes?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Recommendations: 

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

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

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

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

 

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

/by

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

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

Can I Worship from Home?

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

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

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

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

Our works do not save us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by