Over the past several years—especially since 2018—I’ve made multiple trips to Utah every year. I’ve honestly lost count of how many times I’ve been out there, but it’s starting to feel like a second home. I can understand why Brigham Young reportedly said, “This is the place.” It’s beautiful.
One of the things I appreciate most about Utah is the culture of open conversation. In many places, people are told to avoid discussing politics or religion. But that’s not the case in Utah. From a young age, Utahns are encouraged to think about what they believe—and to share it with others (often culminating in a two-year mission going door to door). That creates an extremely unique environment where meaningful conversations can actually happen.
Because of this culture, those who reject Mormon theology typically know why they reject it—and they are usually willing to talk about it. I sometimes joke that Salt Lake City is about half Mormon and half atheists—and much of that “other half” consists of either former Latter-day Saints (who have thrown the baby out with the bath water) or people who have moved there from California.
That said, my experiences have been mixed. While I’ve had many positive interactions, I’ve often found that deeper engagement with philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and systematic theology is not always emphasized. As a result, I often leave Utah frustrated because the conversations don’t go as far as they could.
But that seems to be changing. Increasingly, I’m meeting younger Latter-day Saints who are starting to take these disciplines seriously—thinking carefully, asking good questions, and engaging at a much deeper level. And that has led to some genuinely excellent conversations… and even new friendships. That’s exactly what we need more of.
Over the years, I’ve also noticed something encouraging. Many thoughtful, younger Latter-day Saints seem increasingly open to examine and refine certain theological assumptions that previous generations may have simply taken for granted. And historically, we’ve seen that the Latter-day Saint tradition is not entirely static. There have been meaningful developments over time—whether in relation to polygamy or the Church’s teachings regarding race.
I don’t bring this up as a criticism, but as an observation—and even as an opportunity.
If there is room for careful theological reflection and development, then perhaps there is also room to ask: What would it look like to retain the core commitments of Latter-day Saint belief while strengthening its philosophical coherence?
That’s the spirit of what follows. And I want this to be a genuine conversation.
If you’re a Latter-day Saint reading this, I would sincerely welcome your thoughts. Feel free to engage in the comments, reach out on social media, give me a call, or simply grab me the next time I’m in Utah. I’ve learned a lot from these conversations over the years, and I’m always open to being sharpened by thoughtful pushback.
So, in that same spirit, I want to offer something a bit different: If I were a Mormon, what would I believe in order to make my worldview as philosophically coherent as possible? This is not a critique from a distance. It’s an attempt to build some bridges where we can reason together (Isaiah 1:18).
The Problem of Infinite Regress
Many Latter-day Saints affirm some version of an eternal chain of divine beings—Gods begetting Gods without beginning. As their prophet Lorenzo Snow famously stated:
“As man is, God once was. As God is, man shall become.”
Bill McKeever writes:
“Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression that precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’ Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “‘Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods’ (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”[1]
Taken at face value, this suggests an infinite regress of gods (and in my experience, most of the LDS members I talk with do affirm this view).
But I cannot accept an infinite regress for several reasons. Based on my study of infinity—going back to my graduate work in 2012—I am thoroughly convinced that an actually infinite past is not metaphysically possible.
Philosophy of Infinity
To see why, consider a simple point: infinity cannot be reached by successive addition. If you begin counting—1, 2, 3, and so on—you can continue forever, but you will never arrive at “infinity.” No matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. You can always add one more.
This shows something important: Infinity is not a number that can be completed—it is a limit that is never reached. That’s why an infinite future is possible in a sense—it never ends—but it is never completed.
But now consider the past. If the universe had no beginning, then an actually infinite number of events must have already occurred. And that leads to serious problems.
For example, consider a thought experiment often associated with the medieval philosopher Al-Ghazali. Imagine that our solar system has existed from the infinite past. Saturn takes longer to orbit the sun than Jupiter—roughly one orbit of Saturn corresponds to about 2.5 orbits of Jupiter.
Now ask: If both planets have been orbiting from infinity past, which one has completed more orbits? Intuitively, the answer should be Jupiter.
But if both have been orbiting for an actually infinite amount of time, then mathematically they have completed the same number of orbits—an infinite number. That result is absurd.
Jupiter clearly orbits faster than Saturn, so it should have completed more revolutions. Yet the math forces us to say they are equal. This is one example of the paradoxes that arise when we try to apply actual infinities to the real world.
We can make the same point another way. If the past were infinite, then the present moment could never arrive. It would be like trying to jump out of an infinitely deep, bottomless pit—there is no foundation from which to launch. Even if someone were given infinite jumping power, escape would still be impossible, because there is no starting point from which to begin.
But we are here. The present moment is real. Therefore: The past cannot be actually infinite. [And I haven’t even mentioned the Hilbert’s Hotel thought experiment.]
The Bigger Problem
These examples are not mere curiosities. They point to a deeper issue: An infinite regress of explanations fails to provide an ultimate explanation at all. Even if each step in the chain is explained by a prior step, the entire chain remains unexplained.
So, if LDS theology affirms an infinite regress of exalted beings, then it faces a serious philosophical challenge which opposes logic and reason itself.
A More Coherent LDS Starting Point?
If I were a Mormon, I would revise the model slightly. I would affirm several core LDS commitments:
- A plurality of eternal “intelligences”
- Genuine libertarian freedom
- The importance of love and relationality
But I would reject an infinite regress of gods since that’s logically impossible. Instead, I would posit a foundational reality—one that explains everything else.
At this point, one might say: “One intelligence freely figured it out first—like a student solving a problem before the rest.”
That’s coherent. There’s nothing logically contradictory about it. But it still leaves a deeper question: Why that intelligence?
Appealing to libertarian freedom explains how something could happen—but not why it actually occurred. So, while this move avoids infinite regress, it still leaves us with a brute fact at the foundation of reality.
From Brute Facts to Maximal Greatness
This is where I would go further. Rather than grounding ultimate reality in a brute fact, I would ask: What would a maximally great reality be like?
If God is the maximally great being, then He must possess every great-making property essentially. And one of those properties is: perfect love (1 John 4:8).
Love, however, is not something a solitary individual can fully instantiate. As Dr. Kirk MacGregor has argued, love possesses two essential features: selfless mutuality, and non-possessiveness These require: at least two persons (for mutuality), and at least three persons (for non-possessiveness).
Therefore: One maximally great being must be essentially tri-personal.[2] Nothing more, nothing less (since four or more persons is arbitrary and not necessary).
This conclusion is not derived from Scripture, but from philosophical reflection on the nature of love and greatness. Indeed, it follows from the deductive conclusion of the Ontological Argument (click here for more).
From Intelligences to the Trinity
So, if I were a Mormon, I would say:
- Yes, there are eternal intelligences.
- Yes, persons are real and irreducible.
- Yes, love is fundamental.
But I would also conclude: Ultimate reality is not one intelligence among many, nor an infinite regress of gods—but a maximally great, tri-personal being who serves as the ultimate foundation and explanation of all contingent reality.
At that point, we are no longer talking about a being who eventually becomes a god, but a being who simply is God—necessarily and eternally.
Let’s briefly consider the logical coherence of the Trinity. To help connect these dots, consider an illustration popularized by William Lane Craig.
I do not think the Trinity is as “mysterious” as most people assume. Much of this clarity comes from my study of the immaterial soul and substance dualism. I do not merely have a soul; rather, I am a soul who has a body—and who can survive the death of that body.[3] One day, I will receive a glorified body. So, I am a soul (a spiritual substance) with one set of cognitive faculties.
This seems coherent, and if so, then it is at least conceivable that God is: one immaterial spiritual substance with three distinct centers of consciousness.
Now, to be clear: This does not imply three separate beings or three independent substances, but one unified immaterial spiritual reality subsisting in three distinct personal ways. While most analogies of the Trinity fail (and regularly cross the line into heresy), William Lane Craig offers an illustration that helps illuminate key concepts: Cerberus.[4]
Cerberus is the three-headed guard dog of Greek mythology. The three heads cooperate to function as one effective guard dog. The idea of a multi-headed animal is not incoherent.
Now imagine Hercules is bitten by Cerberus. Would he say, “Cerberus bit me,” or “One of Cerberus’ heads bit me”? Either statement would make sense. Cerberus is one canine being, yet each head is also canine because it is part of that one being.
Now suppose Cerberus were an ensouled creature (as I believe animals are) with three centers of consciousness. Each head could say, “I think that…”.
To make this vivid, imagine Hercules slays Cerberus by stabbing him in the heart—a fatal blow that ends the life of the entire organism at once. The physical body dies. But suppose—like human persons—Cerberus possesses a single immaterial soul that survives the death of the body.
Now the picture becomes clear: One immaterial substance remains—yet it grounds three distinct centers of consciousness, each capable of genuine first-person awareness. Each could still say: “I think that…”
In this case, we would have: one immaterial or spiritual being with multiple “whos” (or as I like to say, “ONE what and THREE whos”).
The point of the illustration is modest: to show the conceptual coherence of one substance with three “whos”—not to equate God with a mythical creature.
Here’s the bottom line: If this is even conceivable even in a limited and analogical sense, then it is certainly not logically incoherent as many Latter-Day Saints (not to mention Muslims and atheists) have been led to believe.
Rethinking “Flesh and Bone”
At this point, many Latter-day Saints object: “But God has a body of flesh and bone.”
Interestingly, in a recent conversation, one philosophically trained Latter-day Saint told me: “Joseph Smith had no idea what he was talking about! He was a prophet, but he was not trained in philosophy, epistemology, or metaphysics. We have to take his true words with big grains of salt.”
That’s a remarkable admission. If that’s right, then we must distinguish between revelatory intent and metaphysical precision. And once we do that, a key assumption falls away: that “flesh and bone” must describe God’s ultimate ontological nature.
After all, Christians already affirm that the Son—the second Person of the Trinity—took on flesh and bone in the incarnation. So, we must ask: Does appearing embodied entail being essentially material?
Clearly, it does not. In fact, even within Latter-day Saint theology, there is already a distinction between pre-mortal existence and embodied life, which suggests that embodiment is not essential to the nature of a person.[5]
Moreover, as noted above, Christians already affirm that the second Person of the Trinity took on flesh and bone during His 33 years on planet earth. But that raises an important question: If the second Person of the Trinity can take on flesh and bone without ceasing to be an immaterial divine being, why couldn’t the first Person do the same?[6] In fact, if God desires to reveal Himself to embodied creatures like us, we would expect Him to appear in ways in which we can perceive and relate.
And this is not a foreign idea to the biblical tradition. Many theologians have long held that divine appearances in the Old Testament—sometimes understood as pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ (theophanies)—demonstrate that God can present Himself in bodily form without being essentially material.
If that is right, then the ability to appear embodied does not entail that God is, in His essential nature, a material being.
So, ultimately, if I were a Mormon, I’d realize that Joseph Smith was not trained in metaphysics and logic. Thus, I’d refrain from building a metaphysical framework on his claims. I’d still be a trinitarian.
If I Were a Mormon, I’d Still Be a Molinist
If I were a Mormon, I would also continue embracing Molinism. Molinism affirms that God is omniscient and that humans possess libertarian freedom (what Mormons refer to as “agency”). If God is omniscient and knows how humans would exercise their libertarian freedom prior to the foundations of the world, then God possesses middle knowledge—that is, God knows not only what will happen in the future, but also what would happen under any possible set of circumstances God could have actualized, including the free choices of creatures.
Interestingly, there are hints within Latter-day Saint thought that seem to point in this direction. For example, Joseph Smith is associated with the idea that God’s judgment takes into account not only what people do, but what they would have done under different circumstances. This theme appears clearly in Doctrine and Covenants 137:5–10:
“I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins. Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom . . .”
If that’s right, then God’s knowledge includes truths about what free creatures would do in circumstances that never actually occur. And that is precisely the kind of knowledge Molinism affirms. On this view:
- God does not determine human choices
- yet God knows how each person would freely act in any situation
- and God can providentially order the world accordingly
In fact, if this line of thought is correct, then Molinism may not be foreign to Latter-day Saint theology—but a natural development of insights already present within it.
Interestingly, I’ve found that many younger Latter-day Saints are sympathetic to Open Theism. But if there are truth values regarding libertarian free choices that never actually occur—as the passage above suggests—then it seems to follow that there are also truth values regarding future free choices. In other words, if it is true that a person would have freely chosen to receive the gospel under certain circumstances, then it is at least as plausible that there are truths about what a person will freely choose in the future.
And if such future-tensed truths exist, then God can know them. At that point, the core motivation for Open Theism begins to collapse.
Of course, this is only one line of reasoning. There are many additional philosophical and biblical reasons to reject Open Theism—far more than can be explored here. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Open Theism struggles to make sense of detailed or distant prophecy regarding libertarian agents, it undermines God’s ability to guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil without sacrificing libertarian freedom, and ultimately portrays a deity who is unable to secure the very goods He desires. In fact, rather than solving the problem of evil, it risks making that problem much worse (see Why I Reject Open Theism—and Why It Makes the Problem of Evil Worse).
A Note on Knowing What Is True
Now that we’ve discussed divine knowledge it’s vital to discuss human knowledge. Indeed, at this point, an important question naturally arises: How do we know which worldview is true in the first place?
In many of my conversations with Latter-day Saints, the answer often appeals to what is commonly called a “burning in the bosom”—a kind of internal spiritual confirmation.
But this raises a serious epistemological question: I have personally read the Book of Mormon. I have prayed about it—sincerely. And I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is false.
Yet I am often told:
“If you read the entire Book of Mormon, pray about it sincerely, God will tell you it is true or false.”
Now we have a problem. I prayed and “reasoned together” (Isaiah 1:18) with God, and reached the conclusion that Mormonism is false. Others have read the Book of Mormon, sincerely prayed about it, and reached the opposite conclusion.
Based on the laws of logic, both statements cannot be true. Truth is not relative—Mormonism is either true or false. So, what explains the difference? It seems we are left with a few possibilities:
- One of us is misinterpreting our experience
- The method itself is unreliable
- Or God determines sincere seekers to arrive at contradictory conclusions
But if a method regularly leads sincere people to conflicting beliefs about ultimate reality, then that method cannot be a reliable guide to truth.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. People in many different religious traditions report similar internal confirmations—often with equal sincerity and conviction—yet they arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions.
So, the question is not: “Did I have a powerful experience?” The real question is: “Is my method of knowing truth reliable?”
Scripture itself warns us not to uncritically trust every spiritual impression: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). And again: “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, what should we do with this?
If I Were a Mormon . . . I Would Want to Know
If I were a Mormon, I would want to ground my beliefs in a method that reliably leads to truth—not merely one that produces powerful experiences.
I would not ignore those experiences—but I would test them, just as Scripture commands (1 John 4:1). I would ask:
- Do my beliefs correspond to reality?
- Are they logically coherent?
- Do they provide a sufficient explanation of the world?
- Are they supported by historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence?
In other words, I would want to follow the evidence wherever it leads—and reason together, just as Scripture invites us to do (Isaiah 1:18). Because if God is a God of truth (John 14:6), and desires all people to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), then truth is not something we need to fear.
Bottom line: a method that can confirm contradictory beliefs cannot reliably confirm truth. Thus, if I were a Mormon, I would not base my beliefs on feelings alone; I would justify them with facts, logic, reason, and evidence.
Why This Matters
To be clear, this does not resolve every disagreement between Latter-day Saints and classical Christians. There are still extremely important differences regarding our views of scripture, revelation, and the teachings of Joseph Smith. But it does address a major obstacle: the need for an ultimate explanation of reality. If we are going to reason together, we must ask:
- Does our worldview terminate in a sufficient explanation?
- Or does it ultimately rest on unexplained facts?
A Friendly Invitation
My goal here is not to score points, but to build bridges. If Latter-day Saints are willing to:
- reconsider infinite regress
- reflect on maximal greatness
- explore the philosophical case for a tri-personal God
- consider the explanatory power of middle knowledge
- and evaluate whether their method of knowing truth (epistemology) is reliable—testing spiritual experiences rather than assuming they always correspond to reality
. . . then we are already moving in the right direction.
The Jesus We Love
I often conclude my conversations with Latter-day Saints by focusing on what matters most: the person of Jesus. At first glance, it may seem that we are talking about the same person. After all, we both use the name “Jesus,” we both speak of His love, and we both claim devotion to Him.
But upon closer examination, the differences are significant.
On classical Christian theism, Jesus is:
- eternal, without beginning
- the creator of all contingent reality
- fully divine—the second Person of the Trinity
- a maximally great being
By contrast, within Latter-day Saint theology, Jesus is understood as a distinct divine being who is not the eternally necessary, maximally great God affirmed by classical Christianity, but exists within a broader framework in which divinity is not uniquely or necessarily possessed.
These are not small differences.
According to the logical law of identity, if two descriptions of a person are fundamentally incompatible, then they cannot refer to the exact same being in the fullest sense. So, while we may use the same name, we must at least consider the possibility that we are referring to different understandings of who Jesus truly is.
And yet, one thing I never doubt is this: Latter-day Saints love the person they call Jesus. I’ve seen it. I’ve felt it. It’s real.
So, I often ask a question: “Let’s suppose that right now, we had a Road to Damascus experience—and Jesus Himself appeared before us. What would you do?”
Without hesitation, they answer the same way I would: “I would fall at His feet and worship Him.” And I say, “Yes—I would too.”
Now imagine that Jesus lifts us up, embraces us, and makes it unmistakably clear that He knows we love Him—and that He loves us more than we can possibly imagine.
Then imagine He says something like this: “I know you love me, but I want you to know who I truly am . . . the Second Person of the Trinity.”
At that point, the question becomes unavoidable: “Do we love Jesus as He truly is? Or as we have come to subjectively think about Him?” Because love that is grounded in misunderstanding – even sincere misunderstanding – must eventually be brought into alignment with truth.
In my experience, many Latter-day Saints respond with something like, “I want the real Jesus.” Amen to that. I couldn’t agree more.
And when I hear that, I have real hope—because anyone who truly desires the real Jesus is already moving in the right direction. I look forward to the possibility that we will one day stand together before Him in worship.
This is why these conversations matter. Not to win arguments—but to know and love Jesus rightly. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).
—Dr. Tim Stratton
References:
[1] Bill McKeever, As God Is Man May Be?, (website article accessed 3-22-23) at: https://mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet.
[2] [Editor’s note: Assuming Kirk Macgregor’s argument is valid, up to this point, it would not follow that such a being would be tri-personal but rather that that being would be at least tri-personal. There could be other, non-arbitrary, justifying reasons for having more personages than just three. Neither Stratton nor MacGregor have shown that no such “additional reasons” exists to justify a fourth (or more) personages operating within the divine unity. Nevertheless, tri-personality – that is, the trinity – satisfies the minimal requirements for MacGregor’s trinitarian argument to work.]
[3] [Editor’s Note: Craig is stating what’s known as “Cartesian Dualism,” named after the famous dualist Rene Descartes. This is the belief that the human person is a soul, regardless of whether he or she is embodied. Another view, also within historic Christianity is hylomorphism, popularized by Thomas Aquinas, which asserts that the human person is a body-soul unity. While bodies and souls can exist independent of each other, the human person exists only by the union of body and soul.]
[4] [Editor’s Note: Craig and Moreland make their case for “Social Trinitarianism” in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003], ch. 29. The Cerberus analogy has received considerable pushback. Arguably, none of the “heads” are endowed with the fullness of Cerberus, yet Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father are all “fully God” – individually and collectively. For more interaction with this Cerberus illustration see the series of articles from Trinities.]
[5] [Editor’s Note: The distinction between “spirit” and “matter/body” is different in LDS theology. According to Mormon thought, “spirit” is understood to be very fine matter. As Doctrine & Covenants 131:7 says, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.”]
[6] Ibid.
Recommended Resources:
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
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
(The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4uoqmha
What the Media Will Never Tell You About the U.S. Capitol – Speaker Mike Johnson Gives Frank & Friends a Private Tour
PodcastThis week, Frank takes us behind the scenes of an exclusive, once-in-a-lifetime tour of the U.S. Capitol guided by Speaker Mike Johnson, who knows the history of our country, including its foundations in Judeo-Christian tradition. From hidden rooms and historic artifacts to conversations about faith, government, and America’s founding principles, you’ll get an insider’s look at one of the most iconic buildings in the world!
Along with hearing some fun stories, you’ll see:
You’ll also hear the most poignant letter anyone can write to a grieving mother. It was the letter President Lincoln wrote to Ms. Lydia Bixby–a woman who lost five sons in the civil war.
As we remember the true meaning of Memorial Day and honor those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom here in America, meditate on the sacrifice of Jesus. He sacrificed his life for everyone–not only here on earth, but for eternity in heaven. Please share this one with others!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Why did God Create the Tree in the First Place?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsA few weeks ago, our church’s 3rd-5th graders were learning about the creation story from Genesis, and I was brought in to the planning process to help address common science misconceptions that the kids will encounter as they get older. (i.e. “Science can disprove God,” “Natural processes alone can produce design,” or “Science uses facts, religion uses faith.”) After completing the unit, the kids were given the opportunity to submit questions about the creation story, so today I went back to answer them. Some questions were simple like, “Why did God create animals and not just people?” Other questions were more theologically gritty, and required longer explanations. One in particular was, “Why did God create the tree in the first place?” (Another student asked “Why couldn’t Adam and Eve eat the fruit,” so I lumped them together in one answer.)
A great mystery for kids is why God created a way for Adam and Eve to sin. (Frankly, many adults are stumped as well!) From our shallow understanding, it may seem like God is to blame for all the evil in the world. If He hadn’t put the tree there and given Adam and Eve the rule to not eat from it, they wouldn’t have disobeyed, and our world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today. And Christ wouldn’t have had to come and die! So, wouldn’t it be a net-win for God as well? Couldn’t Christ have been spared suffering if God had just nixed the tree? Share on X
If this question has plagued you, you are not alone. This question falls under the broader category of “How could a good God allow so much evil in the world?” This is what apologists and skeptics refer to as, “The problem of evil.” Clay Jones has written an excellent book discussing why God would allow evil. For today, I will take some of his arguments and condense them into a kid-friendly version, with lots of concrete examples.
This is an uber-important question to answer well, because if we (adults) do not have a firm grasp on why God created the option for Adam and Eve to sin, then how can we expect our kids to understand the reasons for Christ’s death, resurrection and the plan for redemption? It reminds me of what my friend Tommy used to do to me in high school. We’d be standing in the bleachers at a football game and he’d push me just enough to make me lose my balance a little, but then grab me at the same time (so I wouldn’t actually fall) and say, “I just saved your life! Now you owe me your life!”
When we teach original sin and God’s plan for salvation without understanding why God created the tree, it can sound a lot like the game my friend would play; God tricks us into sinning (or caused us to sin), but then says, “Here’s a Savior to save you from your sins! Now you owe me your life!” I have heard adult atheists profess this kind of understanding of the redemption plan, and it is better to nip this line of thinking in the bud because it reflects a poorly-informed understanding of the nature of love. What’s love got to do with it? Share on X
1) Love requires free-will
This is fairly intuitive to most people, regardless of age. I asked the kids today, “Can you force someone to love you?” I didn’t get a single confused look, or accidental head nod. They all knew the answer was no. God gave me a silly little illustration last night. I was feeling down, and fluffy things are like opium for me. I wanted to snuggle with my cat. She did not. I could overpower her for a little while, but she was obviously not into our little “snuggle session,” and the moment I let up, she squirmed her way out of my arms. Even in the animal kingdom, love cannot be forced. How much more so with people? God did not want robots, and he will not force His love on us. Share on X
God could have created us like robots, without the ability to reject him or disobey. Growing up, I had a little stuffed dog named Chuck. I still pull him out of the closet occasionally on insecure nights. As much as I love Chuck, he will never love me back. There is no relationship. God creating creatures that can’t disobey is like us holding on to a stuffed animal; the most you can expect to receive is comfort, but not love. Not to mention, the “relationship” is very one-sided. God is love. He did not want robots, and he didn’t want dolls to play with.
God also has no interest in forcing us to “act” like we love him. I can pick my cat up and force her to snuggle with me like I did last night. I can hold her tightly, and prohibit her from using her free-will to escape, but it doesn’t facilitate a very loving relationship, and it’s not very satisfying. It is most satisfying when she comes to me of her free-will and wants to sit on my lap, be petted by me, and engage in whatever level of relationship in which cats are capable.
2) Free-will requires choice
Do you realize that there was literally no way to disobey God aside from the tree in the garden? You cannot disobey someone if there are no rules. A good way to illustrate this concept for kids is by using the windowless-doorless house analogy. Let’s say that we don’t want our kids to go outside. If we put them in a house that had no windows and no doors, and then said, “You can go anywhere you want,” have we given them free-will? No. What if there were all sorts of cool things in the house? Let’s pretend that we made it the perfect environment where they didn’t want to leave. Are they still free? No. If there is no way to leave, then they aren’t really free. There was literally NO way to disobey God without the tree. Is there obedience without choice? Share on X
The tree was the proverbial door in the perfect house that God created for us. God placed Adam and Eve in as perfect an environment as you can get, and he made it theoretically easy to stay. There was only one door. God said, “I would love for you to stay with me here forever. However, if you want to leave, that is the door.” Adam and Eve were told not to eat of the fruit. They were told that bad things would happen if they did (Gen 2:17). God could have prevented Adam and Eve from ever having the choice to rebel against Him, but again that’s not love, and God IS love. Love is the very essence of God, much like some abstract quality of “Hillary-ness” is to me. I had the kids repeat a sentence with me multiple times. “God is love. Love can only be given freely. Freedom means that there is both choice, and responsibility.” God’s very nature mandated that He give Adam and Eve both choice and responsibility if his end-goal was a loving relationship!
3) The tree in the garden was basically the easiest test to pass. . . and we still failed
I honestly don’t know how God could have made it easier to choose Him. It’s not like he built a staircase that they had to use every single day and said, “Thou shalt not step on the 4th step. The day you do, you shall surely die,” and then just waited for them to accidentally step on it. It’s not like he said, “All your days, you shall eat brussel sprouts and asparagus, but the chocolate pudding in the middle of the garden, you shall not eat.” No. They had everything they could possibly want.
God didn’t trick Adam and Eve. He didn’t force them to sin. He didn’t hide the consequences of eating the fruit. He was very upfront about the whole Death thing.
He didn’t deny them food and then punish them for eating. We were not starving men, thrown into jail for stealing a loaf of bread. He didn’t even create multiple trees, and make them remember where they were! It was one tree, right smack in the middle. How big was the garden of Eden? We don’t really know, but we can be sure that it didn’t have a 10-foot diameter. There was no reason for Adam and Eve to be hanging around the tree. The only reason is that it was the one forbidden fruit, so of course that’s where the party’s at. It’s not like God said, ‘Thou shall only eat broccoli, but the the chocolate, you may not eat.’ Share on X
The answer to the question, “Why did God create the tree in the first place,” is simple. Like I had the kids repeat: God is love. Love can only be given freely. Freedom means there is both choice, and responsibility. God wanted a relationship with us! He didn’t want to create robots. He could not force His love on us without it exterminating any hope for a loving relationship. He gave Adam and Eve every reason to trust Him, but they chose to doubt His goodness, and ultimately believed the lie that they were better judges as to what was good for them. He created the tree because it was a manifestation of his character, of his love. He didn’t force Himself on Adam and Eve, and He doesn’t force Himself on us.
Now, some might object to God’s method’s by asking, “Did God give Adam and Even enough information to make an informed decision? They wouldn’t have eaten the fruit If they really knew what that would do to the rest of humanity, right?” Can’t we still fault God for their decision because He didn’t give them enough information? I’ll answer that question in the next post!
Recommended Resources:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), 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/4wI8Juu
Who Lives Inside Your Brain? The Disturbing Psychology of Conspiracy Theories and Parasocial Relationships with Anna Kitko
PodcastWhy are millions of people forming deep emotional attachments to celebrities, influencers, and online personalities they’ve never met? And why do some online figures inspire such fierce loyalty that followers will defend their claims, adopt their worldview, and trust their conclusions—often without any scrutiny or independent investigation?
Frank sits down with spiritual abuse counselor and Ratio Christi leader, Anna Kitko, to investigate the hidden psychology behind parasocial relationships, conspiracy theories, and the digital voices competing for our trust. Together, they unpack how social media exploits our need for belonging and how seemingly harmless online habits can quietly shape the way we see reality. In this episode, you’ll discover:
In a world where algorithms compete for your trust and attention, understanding the psychology behind influence has never been more important. Join Frank and Anna for a fascinating conversation and stay tuned for next week’s episode to see and hear highlights from Frank’s recent tour in Washington D.C. with Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
beEmboldened Ministries
Connect with Anna through Ratio Christi
Anna’s YouTube channel
beEmboldened YouTube videos
Univ. of Tenn Q&A with Alisa Childers & Anna Kitko
If I Were a Mormon: A More Coherent View of God
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsOver the past several years—especially since 2018—I’ve made multiple trips to Utah every year. I’ve honestly lost count of how many times I’ve been out there, but it’s starting to feel like a second home. I can understand why Brigham Young reportedly said, “This is the place.” It’s beautiful.
One of the things I appreciate most about Utah is the culture of open conversation. In many places, people are told to avoid discussing politics or religion. But that’s not the case in Utah. From a young age, Utahns are encouraged to think about what they believe—and to share it with others (often culminating in a two-year mission going door to door). That creates an extremely unique environment where meaningful conversations can actually happen.
Because of this culture, those who reject Mormon theology typically know why they reject it—and they are usually willing to talk about it. I sometimes joke that Salt Lake City is about half Mormon and half atheists—and much of that “other half” consists of either former Latter-day Saints (who have thrown the baby out with the bath water) or people who have moved there from California.
That said, my experiences have been mixed. While I’ve had many positive interactions, I’ve often found that deeper engagement with philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and systematic theology is not always emphasized. As a result, I often leave Utah frustrated because the conversations don’t go as far as they could.
But that seems to be changing. Increasingly, I’m meeting younger Latter-day Saints who are starting to take these disciplines seriously—thinking carefully, asking good questions, and engaging at a much deeper level. And that has led to some genuinely excellent conversations… and even new friendships. That’s exactly what we need more of.
Over the years, I’ve also noticed something encouraging. Many thoughtful, younger Latter-day Saints seem increasingly open to examine and refine certain theological assumptions that previous generations may have simply taken for granted. And historically, we’ve seen that the Latter-day Saint tradition is not entirely static. There have been meaningful developments over time—whether in relation to polygamy or the Church’s teachings regarding race.
I don’t bring this up as a criticism, but as an observation—and even as an opportunity.
If there is room for careful theological reflection and development, then perhaps there is also room to ask: What would it look like to retain the core commitments of Latter-day Saint belief while strengthening its philosophical coherence?
That’s the spirit of what follows. And I want this to be a genuine conversation.
If you’re a Latter-day Saint reading this, I would sincerely welcome your thoughts. Feel free to engage in the comments, reach out on social media, give me a call, or simply grab me the next time I’m in Utah. I’ve learned a lot from these conversations over the years, and I’m always open to being sharpened by thoughtful pushback.
So, in that same spirit, I want to offer something a bit different: If I were a Mormon, what would I believe in order to make my worldview as philosophically coherent as possible? This is not a critique from a distance. It’s an attempt to build some bridges where we can reason together (Isaiah 1:18).
The Problem of Infinite Regress
Many Latter-day Saints affirm some version of an eternal chain of divine beings—Gods begetting Gods without beginning. As their prophet Lorenzo Snow famously stated:
Bill McKeever writes:
“Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression that precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’ Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “‘Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods’ (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”[1]
Taken at face value, this suggests an infinite regress of gods (and in my experience, most of the LDS members I talk with do affirm this view).
But I cannot accept an infinite regress for several reasons. Based on my study of infinity—going back to my graduate work in 2012—I am thoroughly convinced that an actually infinite past is not metaphysically possible.
Philosophy of Infinity
To see why, consider a simple point: infinity cannot be reached by successive addition. If you begin counting—1, 2, 3, and so on—you can continue forever, but you will never arrive at “infinity.” No matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. You can always add one more.
This shows something important: Infinity is not a number that can be completed—it is a limit that is never reached. That’s why an infinite future is possible in a sense—it never ends—but it is never completed.
But now consider the past. If the universe had no beginning, then an actually infinite number of events must have already occurred. And that leads to serious problems.
For example, consider a thought experiment often associated with the medieval philosopher Al-Ghazali. Imagine that our solar system has existed from the infinite past. Saturn takes longer to orbit the sun than Jupiter—roughly one orbit of Saturn corresponds to about 2.5 orbits of Jupiter.
Now ask: If both planets have been orbiting from infinity past, which one has completed more orbits? Intuitively, the answer should be Jupiter.
But if both have been orbiting for an actually infinite amount of time, then mathematically they have completed the same number of orbits—an infinite number. That result is absurd.
Jupiter clearly orbits faster than Saturn, so it should have completed more revolutions. Yet the math forces us to say they are equal. This is one example of the paradoxes that arise when we try to apply actual infinities to the real world.
We can make the same point another way. If the past were infinite, then the present moment could never arrive. It would be like trying to jump out of an infinitely deep, bottomless pit—there is no foundation from which to launch. Even if someone were given infinite jumping power, escape would still be impossible, because there is no starting point from which to begin.
But we are here. The present moment is real. Therefore: The past cannot be actually infinite. [And I haven’t even mentioned the Hilbert’s Hotel thought experiment.]
The Bigger Problem
These examples are not mere curiosities. They point to a deeper issue: An infinite regress of explanations fails to provide an ultimate explanation at all. Even if each step in the chain is explained by a prior step, the entire chain remains unexplained.
So, if LDS theology affirms an infinite regress of exalted beings, then it faces a serious philosophical challenge which opposes logic and reason itself.
A More Coherent LDS Starting Point?
If I were a Mormon, I would revise the model slightly. I would affirm several core LDS commitments:
But I would reject an infinite regress of gods since that’s logically impossible. Instead, I would posit a foundational reality—one that explains everything else.
At this point, one might say: “One intelligence freely figured it out first—like a student solving a problem before the rest.”
That’s coherent. There’s nothing logically contradictory about it. But it still leaves a deeper question: Why that intelligence?
Appealing to libertarian freedom explains how something could happen—but not why it actually occurred. So, while this move avoids infinite regress, it still leaves us with a brute fact at the foundation of reality.
From Brute Facts to Maximal Greatness
This is where I would go further. Rather than grounding ultimate reality in a brute fact, I would ask: What would a maximally great reality be like?
If God is the maximally great being, then He must possess every great-making property essentially. And one of those properties is: perfect love (1 John 4:8).
Love, however, is not something a solitary individual can fully instantiate. As Dr. Kirk MacGregor has argued, love possesses two essential features: selfless mutuality, and non-possessiveness These require: at least two persons (for mutuality), and at least three persons (for non-possessiveness).
Therefore: One maximally great being must be essentially tri-personal.[2] Nothing more, nothing less (since four or more persons is arbitrary and not necessary).
This conclusion is not derived from Scripture, but from philosophical reflection on the nature of love and greatness. Indeed, it follows from the deductive conclusion of the Ontological Argument (click here for more).
From Intelligences to the Trinity
So, if I were a Mormon, I would say:
But I would also conclude: Ultimate reality is not one intelligence among many, nor an infinite regress of gods—but a maximally great, tri-personal being who serves as the ultimate foundation and explanation of all contingent reality.
At that point, we are no longer talking about a being who eventually becomes a god, but a being who simply is God—necessarily and eternally.
Let’s briefly consider the logical coherence of the Trinity. To help connect these dots, consider an illustration popularized by William Lane Craig.
I do not think the Trinity is as “mysterious” as most people assume. Much of this clarity comes from my study of the immaterial soul and substance dualism. I do not merely have a soul; rather, I am a soul who has a body—and who can survive the death of that body.[3] One day, I will receive a glorified body. So, I am a soul (a spiritual substance) with one set of cognitive faculties.
This seems coherent, and if so, then it is at least conceivable that God is: one immaterial spiritual substance with three distinct centers of consciousness.
Now, to be clear: This does not imply three separate beings or three independent substances, but one unified immaterial spiritual reality subsisting in three distinct personal ways. While most analogies of the Trinity fail (and regularly cross the line into heresy), William Lane Craig offers an illustration that helps illuminate key concepts: Cerberus.[4]
Cerberus is the three-headed guard dog of Greek mythology. The three heads cooperate to function as one effective guard dog. The idea of a multi-headed animal is not incoherent.
Now imagine Hercules is bitten by Cerberus. Would he say, “Cerberus bit me,” or “One of Cerberus’ heads bit me”? Either statement would make sense. Cerberus is one canine being, yet each head is also canine because it is part of that one being.
Now suppose Cerberus were an ensouled creature (as I believe animals are) with three centers of consciousness. Each head could say, “I think that…”.
To make this vivid, imagine Hercules slays Cerberus by stabbing him in the heart—a fatal blow that ends the life of the entire organism at once. The physical body dies. But suppose—like human persons—Cerberus possesses a single immaterial soul that survives the death of the body.
Now the picture becomes clear: One immaterial substance remains—yet it grounds three distinct centers of consciousness, each capable of genuine first-person awareness. Each could still say: “I think that…”
In this case, we would have: one immaterial or spiritual being with multiple “whos” (or as I like to say, “ONE what and THREE whos”).
The point of the illustration is modest: to show the conceptual coherence of one substance with three “whos”—not to equate God with a mythical creature.
Here’s the bottom line: If this is even conceivable even in a limited and analogical sense, then it is certainly not logically incoherent as many Latter-Day Saints (not to mention Muslims and atheists) have been led to believe.
Rethinking “Flesh and Bone”
At this point, many Latter-day Saints object: “But God has a body of flesh and bone.”
Interestingly, in a recent conversation, one philosophically trained Latter-day Saint told me: “Joseph Smith had no idea what he was talking about! He was a prophet, but he was not trained in philosophy, epistemology, or metaphysics. We have to take his true words with big grains of salt.”
That’s a remarkable admission. If that’s right, then we must distinguish between revelatory intent and metaphysical precision. And once we do that, a key assumption falls away: that “flesh and bone” must describe God’s ultimate ontological nature.
After all, Christians already affirm that the Son—the second Person of the Trinity—took on flesh and bone in the incarnation. So, we must ask: Does appearing embodied entail being essentially material?
Clearly, it does not. In fact, even within Latter-day Saint theology, there is already a distinction between pre-mortal existence and embodied life, which suggests that embodiment is not essential to the nature of a person.[5]
Moreover, as noted above, Christians already affirm that the second Person of the Trinity took on flesh and bone during His 33 years on planet earth. But that raises an important question: If the second Person of the Trinity can take on flesh and bone without ceasing to be an immaterial divine being, why couldn’t the first Person do the same?[6] In fact, if God desires to reveal Himself to embodied creatures like us, we would expect Him to appear in ways in which we can perceive and relate.
And this is not a foreign idea to the biblical tradition. Many theologians have long held that divine appearances in the Old Testament—sometimes understood as pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ (theophanies)—demonstrate that God can present Himself in bodily form without being essentially material.
If that is right, then the ability to appear embodied does not entail that God is, in His essential nature, a material being.
So, ultimately, if I were a Mormon, I’d realize that Joseph Smith was not trained in metaphysics and logic. Thus, I’d refrain from building a metaphysical framework on his claims. I’d still be a trinitarian.
If I Were a Mormon, I’d Still Be a Molinist
If I were a Mormon, I would also continue embracing Molinism. Molinism affirms that God is omniscient and that humans possess libertarian freedom (what Mormons refer to as “agency”). If God is omniscient and knows how humans would exercise their libertarian freedom prior to the foundations of the world, then God possesses middle knowledge—that is, God knows not only what will happen in the future, but also what would happen under any possible set of circumstances God could have actualized, including the free choices of creatures.
Interestingly, there are hints within Latter-day Saint thought that seem to point in this direction. For example, Joseph Smith is associated with the idea that God’s judgment takes into account not only what people do, but what they would have done under different circumstances. This theme appears clearly in Doctrine and Covenants 137:5–10:
If that’s right, then God’s knowledge includes truths about what free creatures would do in circumstances that never actually occur. And that is precisely the kind of knowledge Molinism affirms. On this view:
In fact, if this line of thought is correct, then Molinism may not be foreign to Latter-day Saint theology—but a natural development of insights already present within it.
Interestingly, I’ve found that many younger Latter-day Saints are sympathetic to Open Theism. But if there are truth values regarding libertarian free choices that never actually occur—as the passage above suggests—then it seems to follow that there are also truth values regarding future free choices. In other words, if it is true that a person would have freely chosen to receive the gospel under certain circumstances, then it is at least as plausible that there are truths about what a person will freely choose in the future.
And if such future-tensed truths exist, then God can know them. At that point, the core motivation for Open Theism begins to collapse.
Of course, this is only one line of reasoning. There are many additional philosophical and biblical reasons to reject Open Theism—far more than can be explored here. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Open Theism struggles to make sense of detailed or distant prophecy regarding libertarian agents, it undermines God’s ability to guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil without sacrificing libertarian freedom, and ultimately portrays a deity who is unable to secure the very goods He desires. In fact, rather than solving the problem of evil, it risks making that problem much worse (see Why I Reject Open Theism—and Why It Makes the Problem of Evil Worse).
A Note on Knowing What Is True
Now that we’ve discussed divine knowledge it’s vital to discuss human knowledge. Indeed, at this point, an important question naturally arises: How do we know which worldview is true in the first place?
In many of my conversations with Latter-day Saints, the answer often appeals to what is commonly called a “burning in the bosom”—a kind of internal spiritual confirmation.
But this raises a serious epistemological question: I have personally read the Book of Mormon. I have prayed about it—sincerely. And I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is false.
Yet I am often told:
Now we have a problem. I prayed and “reasoned together” (Isaiah 1:18) with God, and reached the conclusion that Mormonism is false. Others have read the Book of Mormon, sincerely prayed about it, and reached the opposite conclusion.
Based on the laws of logic, both statements cannot be true. Truth is not relative—Mormonism is either true or false. So, what explains the difference? It seems we are left with a few possibilities:
But if a method regularly leads sincere people to conflicting beliefs about ultimate reality, then that method cannot be a reliable guide to truth.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. People in many different religious traditions report similar internal confirmations—often with equal sincerity and conviction—yet they arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions.
So, the question is not: “Did I have a powerful experience?” The real question is: “Is my method of knowing truth reliable?”
Scripture itself warns us not to uncritically trust every spiritual impression: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). And again: “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, what should we do with this?
If I Were a Mormon . . . I Would Want to Know
If I were a Mormon, I would want to ground my beliefs in a method that reliably leads to truth—not merely one that produces powerful experiences.
I would not ignore those experiences—but I would test them, just as Scripture commands (1 John 4:1). I would ask:
In other words, I would want to follow the evidence wherever it leads—and reason together, just as Scripture invites us to do (Isaiah 1:18). Because if God is a God of truth (John 14:6), and desires all people to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), then truth is not something we need to fear.
Bottom line: a method that can confirm contradictory beliefs cannot reliably confirm truth. Thus, if I were a Mormon, I would not base my beliefs on feelings alone; I would justify them with facts, logic, reason, and evidence.
Why This Matters
To be clear, this does not resolve every disagreement between Latter-day Saints and classical Christians. There are still extremely important differences regarding our views of scripture, revelation, and the teachings of Joseph Smith. But it does address a major obstacle: the need for an ultimate explanation of reality. If we are going to reason together, we must ask:
A Friendly Invitation
My goal here is not to score points, but to build bridges. If Latter-day Saints are willing to:
. . . then we are already moving in the right direction.
The Jesus We Love
I often conclude my conversations with Latter-day Saints by focusing on what matters most: the person of Jesus. At first glance, it may seem that we are talking about the same person. After all, we both use the name “Jesus,” we both speak of His love, and we both claim devotion to Him.
But upon closer examination, the differences are significant.
On classical Christian theism, Jesus is:
By contrast, within Latter-day Saint theology, Jesus is understood as a distinct divine being who is not the eternally necessary, maximally great God affirmed by classical Christianity, but exists within a broader framework in which divinity is not uniquely or necessarily possessed.
These are not small differences.
According to the logical law of identity, if two descriptions of a person are fundamentally incompatible, then they cannot refer to the exact same being in the fullest sense. So, while we may use the same name, we must at least consider the possibility that we are referring to different understandings of who Jesus truly is.
And yet, one thing I never doubt is this: Latter-day Saints love the person they call Jesus. I’ve seen it. I’ve felt it. It’s real.
So, I often ask a question: “Let’s suppose that right now, we had a Road to Damascus experience—and Jesus Himself appeared before us. What would you do?”
Without hesitation, they answer the same way I would: “I would fall at His feet and worship Him.” And I say, “Yes—I would too.”
Now imagine that Jesus lifts us up, embraces us, and makes it unmistakably clear that He knows we love Him—and that He loves us more than we can possibly imagine.
Then imagine He says something like this: “I know you love me, but I want you to know who I truly am . . . the Second Person of the Trinity.”
At that point, the question becomes unavoidable: “Do we love Jesus as He truly is? Or as we have come to subjectively think about Him?” Because love that is grounded in misunderstanding – even sincere misunderstanding – must eventually be brought into alignment with truth.
In my experience, many Latter-day Saints respond with something like, “I want the real Jesus.” Amen to that. I couldn’t agree more.
And when I hear that, I have real hope—because anyone who truly desires the real Jesus is already moving in the right direction. I look forward to the possibility that we will one day stand together before Him in worship.
This is why these conversations matter. Not to win arguments—but to know and love Jesus rightly. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).
—Dr. Tim Stratton
References:
[1] Bill McKeever, As God Is Man May Be?, (website article accessed 3-22-23) at: https://mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet.
[2] [Editor’s note: Assuming Kirk Macgregor’s argument is valid, up to this point, it would not follow that such a being would be tri-personal but rather that that being would be at least tri-personal. There could be other, non-arbitrary, justifying reasons for having more personages than just three. Neither Stratton nor MacGregor have shown that no such “additional reasons” exists to justify a fourth (or more) personages operating within the divine unity. Nevertheless, tri-personality – that is, the trinity – satisfies the minimal requirements for MacGregor’s trinitarian argument to work.]
[3] [Editor’s Note: Craig is stating what’s known as “Cartesian Dualism,” named after the famous dualist Rene Descartes. This is the belief that the human person is a soul, regardless of whether he or she is embodied. Another view, also within historic Christianity is hylomorphism, popularized by Thomas Aquinas, which asserts that the human person is a body-soul unity. While bodies and souls can exist independent of each other, the human person exists only by the union of body and soul.]
[4] [Editor’s Note: Craig and Moreland make their case for “Social Trinitarianism” in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003], ch. 29. The Cerberus analogy has received considerable pushback. Arguably, none of the “heads” are endowed with the fullness of Cerberus, yet Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father are all “fully God” – individually and collectively. For more interaction with this Cerberus illustration see the series of articles from Trinities.]
[5] [Editor’s Note: The distinction between “spirit” and “matter/body” is different in LDS theology. According to Mormon thought, “spirit” is understood to be very fine matter. As Doctrine & Covenants 131:7 says, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.”]
[6] Ibid.
Recommended Resources:
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
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
(The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4uoqmha
The Uncomfortable Truth Every Christian Needs to Know About Islam with Pastor Martin Sedra
PodcastWhat happens when Islam becomes the majority in a nation? Martin Sedra, pastor of Echo Church in Australia, returns to continue his blunt exposé on why Islam is not only a false religion, but also a spiritual and social disaster. From the horrors of Sharia law to Muhammad’s legacy as a warlord and sexual predator, be forewarned–this episode is NOT for young listeners!
Join Frank and Martin as they answer quesitons like:
If you missed the first episode with Martin from last week, be sure to go back and give it a listen! You definitely don’t want to miss a single second of this essential two-part series!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
MartinSedra.com
The Muslim Brotherhood Tried to Kill His Family – What Happened Next?
Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling with Dr. Jay Smith – Part 1
Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling with Dr. Jay Smith – Part 2
The Islamic Dilemma with David Wood
The Hamas Charter
Why Is ASU’s New College Requiring Confessional Rituals?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsAt Arizona State University’s New College (where I serve as a tenured full professor of philosophy and religion) the faculty recently voted to make a Native American Land Acknowledgment the official college policy.
Until now, these statements were read at the beginning of faculty meetings. At times, faculty were even asked to bow their heads and close their eyes during the reading. What was once a practice has now become policy.
That should raise an obvious question: Why is a state university (supposedly committed to political neutrality) requiring what looks very much like a public confession?
What Is Actually Being Claimed?
The justification provided by the college reads:
Let’s pause and think critically, something universities are supposed to encourage.
This statement confesses wrongdoing. These faculty are publicly admitting that Native Americans were denied access to higher education at New College. It then implies that this ritualized reading is a meaningful response to that injustice.
But this raises several questions:
I’m not a lawyer, but if an institution publicly affirms past wrongdoing, one has to wonder: Does that open the door to legal claims for further restitution? If harm is acknowledged, why would a ceremonial reading be sufficient? Can the tribes of Arizona take New College and these professors to court to seek financial settlements?
Why Should Parents and Students Care?
If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you might be tempted to shrug this off. “So what? It’s just a statement. Maybe a bit awkward but harmless.”
But is it? Not if you look at the broader intellectual movement behind it.
The Ideology Behind the Ritual
Land acknowledgments don’t arise in a vacuum. They are part of a larger academic framework often described as “decolonization.”
This framework is not merely about studying history. It is about reinterpreting the moral legitimacy of Western civilization itself and using DEI to “right the wrongs of the past.” These self-professed decolonizers wish to undermine Western influence, including its legal systems, its conception of property, and yes, its Christian foundations. The hub of their intersectionality wheel is Christianity.
Many of the scholars advocating for these practices openly argue that:
If this sounds like Billie Eilish at the Grammys now you know where she got it.
In that context, the land acknowledgment is a ritual of moral formation. It teaches participants to adopt a particular view of history, guilt, and authority.
And when participation is expected, or required, it begins to look less like education and more like indoctrination.
A Question of Power
Let’s be candid. When individuals are asked to bow their heads and participate in a scripted moral confession, something deeper is happening than “raising awareness.”
It’s about who defines reality. It’s about who determines what must be confessed, affirmed, and repeated. And ultimately, it’s about power. They don’t just want symbolic power, they want institutional power to shape how people think about truth, justice, and even their own moral standing.
A Biblical Perspective
From a Christian standpoint, this raises an even deeper issue. The Bible is clear that true guilt is personal and moral, not something that can be resolved through public ritual apart from truth and repentance before God in Christ. Scripture teaches that:
Marxism and DEI can never give justice. They only promulgate hate. So, when a secular institution begins requiring what looks like a form of confession, Christians should ask: Is this pointing people toward truth or replacing it with a counterfeit?
The Bottom Line
Arizona State University’s New College is not alone. Universities across the country are adopting similar policies. But the real question isn’t how widespread this practice is. The real question is this: Will you support institutions that require participation in ideological rituals that go far beyond education?
Parents, students, and taxpayers need to decide. Because if higher education is no longer neutral (if it is instead committed to advancing a particular moral and political vision) then it’s only fair to ask: Is this what you’re paying for?
If ASU New College faculty denied access to Native Americans as they confess then they should be held personally and legally accountable in court.
Pro-Land Acknowledgment Resources
Below are articles from the pro-land acknowledgment perspective that will help you understand their stated goals.
Comments: Lambert, Sobo, and Lambert argue that while land acknowledgements are intended to recognize Indigenous dispossession, they frequently become performative, historically misleading, and politically counterproductive. Rather than advancing Indigenous sovereignty, they can obscure present realities, distort actual history, and substitute symbolic recognition for substantive action. Their critique proves these are meant to be calls to political action thus in violation of ACD 205-1
Comments: The Aim is to reclaim Indigenous voices and narratives within institutions. Land acknowledgements are explicitly described as “decolonizing practices” Land acknowledgements are not neutral; they are part of a larger decolonizing project. This is a master’s thesis with a “works cited” for more resources.
Comments: Tuck and Yang argue that true decolonization is inherently unsettling because it demands the end of settler sovereignty and the return of stolen land. They critique how universities and social-justice frameworks use the term “decolonization” metaphorically (to describe inclusion, diversity, or consciousness-raising) without addressing material restitution. Such metaphorization, they contend, allows “settler moves to innocence”: rhetorical strategies that ease settler guilt while leaving colonial structures intact.
Comments: Marx explained class domination. Quijano adds that race and colonial hierarchy are equally foundational. Modern decolonial thinkers (e.g., Mignolo, Tuck, Coulthard) build directly on Quijano. Land acknowledgements are a soft institutional expression of Quijano’s framework. This demonstrates that “decolonizing” (with its theories of “indigeneity”) is a political movement and New College violates ACD 205-1 to adopt it as its own ideological framework.
Comments: Decolonization discourse often inherits Marx’s critique of land expropriation and capitalism. It is a political movement.
Recommended Resources:
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
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.
A version of this article was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4tuZqer
The Muslim Brotherhood Tried to Kill His Family – What Happened Next? with Pastor Martin Sedra
PodcastThey tried to murder his family. So how did a religion with a centuries-long history of violence become successfully rebranded as the “religion of peace”? With the growing sympathy from liberals in the West and the passivity of the Church, could Sharia law eventually gain a foothold in America?
Martin Sedra, pastor of Echo Church in Australia, joins Frank to offer a sobering wake-up call regarding Islam’s strategic mission to influence and dominate Western culture. Tune in as they discuss why Martin has dedicated his life and ministry to exposing Islam’s sinister agenda and what the Church must do NOW to protect religious freedom in the West. Together they answer questions like:
Martin’s journey from a Christian refugee in Egypt to a pastor in Australia serves as a sobering warning that freedom is never guaranteed. This episode will challenge listeners to find the courage to get involved in the political process and stay bold in sharing the Gospel while we still have the liberty to do so. Stay tuned for the midweek episode as they discuss Martin’s unique approach to evangelizing Muslims and the Israel-Hamas conflict.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
MartinSedra.com
What Is Sharia Law?
Dialogue and Christian Apologetics: A Biblical-Theological Overview
Theology and Christian ApologeticsChristian apologetics is often understood as the task of defending the faith—giving reasons why believing in Christ is rational, true, and worthy of commitment. Scripture itself urges believers to be “ready to give an answer” for the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15). Yet the Bible presents this defense not merely as the delivery of arguments, but as something that takes place within dialogue: real conversations with real people. A biblical-theological view shows that dialogue is not a compromise of apologetics, but one of its essential forms.
The Pattern
From the start, God’s revelation to humanity unfolds in a dialogical way. God speaks, humans respond; God questions, humans answer; God rebukes, invites, and restores. This pattern reaches its fullness in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Jesus rarely preached at people in isolation. Instead, he engaged them—asking probing questions, responding to objections, and addressing the specific concerns of those before him. The conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4) is a striking example: Jesus listens, challenges assumptions, reveals truth gradually, and calls for a response grounded in trust rather than mere argument.
The apostolic witness continues this pattern. The book of Acts repeatedly describes Paul as “reasoning” with others. In synagogues and marketplaces alike, he explained, argued, listened, and responded (Acts 17:2–4, 16–34). In Athens, Paul did not simply proclaim conclusions; he entered into dialogue with philosophers who asked him to clarify what he was teaching. Paul’s approach demonstrates that apologetics is not about winning debates, but about persuasion—patiently seeking understanding and presenting the gospel in terms his hearers could grasp.
This dialogical posture is reinforced in the epistles. Peter exhorts believers to give a defense with “gentleness and respect,” implying attentiveness to the person asking questions, not merely to the content of their objections (1 Pet. 3:15–16). Paul tells Timothy that the Lord’s servant must “not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone,” correcting opponents with gentleness in hope that God might grant repentance (2 Tim. 2:24–26). Such exhortations assume ongoing interaction, not one-sided proclamation.
Three Strengths of Apologetic Dialogue
Dialogue strengthens apologetics in several important ways. First, it humanizes the task. Apologetics can easily become abstract or combative, especially when focused only on arguments. Dialogue insists that the apologist listen—truly listen—to the other person’s beliefs, experiences, and questions.[1] Many objections to Christianity are not merely intellectual puzzles but are bound up with personal wounds, moral struggles, or cultural assumptions. Dialogue allows apologetics to address people as whole persons made in God’s image.
Second, dialogue tests and refines Christian arguments. A belief defended only in theory may sound convincing until it meets real resistance. Genuine conversation exposes weaknesses, clarifies misunderstandings, and helps believers see where disagreement truly lies. In this sense, dialogue is an exercise in intellectual humility.[2] It does not require Christians to pretend neutrality or uncertainty about truth, but it does call them to examine their own assumptions in the light of Scripture and reason.
Third, dialogue has particular persuasive power in today’s cultural context. Many people are suspicious of authority and resistant to lectures. Dialogue, by contrast, signals respect. It communicates that Christianity is confident enough to engage questions honestly. This does not mean softening the exclusive claims of the gospel but presenting them in a relational way that demonstrates their coherence, beauty, and relevance to life.[3]
The Potential Dangers of Dialogue
At the same time, dialogue presents real dangers if misunderstood. One risk is allowing dialogue to replace proclamation. Christianity makes truth claims about God, Christ, sin, and salvation. Dialogue that suspends these claims indefinitely or treats all viewpoints as equally true undermines the very purpose of apologetics.[4] Genuine dialogue presupposes that truth matters and that contradictory claims cannot all be correct.
Another danger is the loss of doctrinal clarity. In the desire to maintain conversation, believers may feel pressure to minimize distinctively Christian convictions. Scripture, however, calls believers both to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and to do so in love. Dialogue must therefore be guided by conviction as well as charity.
Finally, dialogue requires patience. It is often slow and seemingly unproductive. Conversations may take months—or years—without visible results.[5] Yet this patience reflects God’s own longsuffering with humanity. Apologetics shaped by dialogue trusts that God works through faithful witness over time, not merely through quick victories.
Dialogue and Apologetics Belong Together
In the end, dialogue and apologetics belong together. Biblically understood, apologetics is not a choice between argument and conversation, but a commitment to speak truth within a relationship. Rooted in God’s own communicative action and modeled by Jesus and the apostles, dialogue enables believers to defend the faith with conviction, clarity, humility, and love. When practiced this way, apologetics becomes not only a defense of Christian truth, but a living testimony to the character of the God who invites the world to know him.
References:
[1] Mark Brumley, How Not to Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins of Apologetics and Evangelization (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2002), 106–107.
[2] Brumley, pp. 106–107.
[3] James Beilby, Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 155.
[4] James Beilby, p. 155.
[5] Brumley, pp. 106-107.
Recommended Resources:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
Leo Percer grew up in Millington, Tennessee, northeast of Memphis, when he first received his call to teaching ministry. He has been involved in numerous ministerial activities, including serving as an elder at Forest Community Church in Forest, Virginia. Dr. Leo Percer graduated with a Ph.D. from Baylor University, an M.A. from Western Kentucky University, and M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a B.A. from Union University.
After graduating with his Ph.D., Dr. Percer has taught at Baylor University, McLennan Community College, and Liberty University, where he served as the Director of the Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics program for years. His area of expertise is in Second Temple Judaism, the Epistles of Paul, and apocalyptic literature. Dr. Percer is an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Society of Biblical Literature, and is on the board of directors at Ratio Christi. Dr. Percer resides in Lynchburg, VA, with his wonderful wife, Lisa, and two children. He loves reading, collecting comic books, and is a coffee connoisseur.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4trIeGs
How a University Turned Jesus Into an Oppressor — One Professor’s Fight Against DEI with Dr. Owen Anderson
PodcastHave you noticed that the world has collectively lost its mind? Between the push to “decolonize” education and the rise of mandatory DEI training, the landscape of the American university has shifted from a place of open inquiry to a battlefield of competing ideologies. What’s behind the madness?
Frank catches up with Arizona State University philosophy professor, Dr. Owen Anderson, to get an update on his high-stakes hearing with the Arizona Supreme Court. Owen shares his unique perspective on how cultural Marxism continues to silence free speech, logic, and the Christian worldview in many public universities–and why he’s not backing down despite the consequences. Together, Frank and Owen answer questions like:
As critical theories continue to influence laws and the classrooms, understanding their roots is more important than ever. Tune in as Frank and Owen break down the consequences of suppressing truth while also offering a roadmap for how Christians can effectively push back against the madness.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Without Excuse: Why God’s Existence is Clear to Everyone by Dr. Owen Anderson
Dr. Owen Anderson – Substack
Dr. Owen Anderson – YouTube
Dr. Owen Anderson – X
Train Your Brain: An Introduction to Logic
Some Definitional Drawbacks In Atheism
2. Does God Exist?In a previous article I wrote about how “atheism” is best understood as a belief that there is no God. Those who prefer to describe themselves as merely “lacking God-belief” would do better to describe themselves as “negative atheists” as that is the more precise term.
As a postlude to that article, I think it’s important to state why this stuff matters. I’m not confident that that this definitional minutia matters a lot. It matters. But it’s not of ultimate importance. Far more important things deserve discussion. Nevertheless, this stuff matters enough to deserve at least a little observation here. Here are some reasons why I think this stuff matters.
First, Negative Atheism Comports With God’s existence
Perhaps the biggest most glaring problem with the “new” (negative/soft/weak) atheism is that it’s compatible with God’s existence. When atheists define their atheism as “lacking God belief,” then that atheism is “true” if indeed that person has no God-belief. Even if God exists, if that self-identified atheist really does “lack God-belief,” then his atheism is true. The reference point for that truth claim isn’t in God but in the mind of that individual. One’s atheism can be true and God exist. That’s odd, to say the least.
Second, there’s Still an Implicit Burden of Proof
Second, the negative atheist still, presumably, thinks his or her view is rational but that amounts to a claim and claims carry their own respective burden of proof. Put another way, the atheist may be holding to his or her non-theism for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. But if he or she won’t offer an any good reasons, then he cannot honestly wear the mantle of a “reasonable” atheist. Or, at least, no one else owes them the assumption that their atheism is reasonable. His atheism could be dogmatic, fundamentalist, or otherwise thoughtless irrationality. I would assume he thinks his atheism is reasonable, but absent any justifying reasons that he is reasonable, I cannot safely assume he is reasonable. He has an implicit burden of proof, to show that his non-belief is reasonable.
Third, it’s Superfluous
There’s already a whole set of terms addressing these categories effectively making a new sense of “atheism” superfluous. If he has a generalized skepticism regarding all theological objects, then he’s a theological skeptic. If he lacks belief in God, he’s a negative atheist. To reinvent the term “atheism” to mean “lack of God belief” just isn’t necessary, since that semantic domain is already covered without confusingly overlapping different concepts under the same term. And whenever people are blurring and redefining terms, especially when there’s an obvious agenda at work, there’s a good chance that’s a smoke-grenade. And people don’t throw a smoke grenade unless they’re trying to sneak something past you.
Fourth, it’s confusing
Fourth, religious and theological discussions can get quite confusing. Inconsistent or faulty terminology makes things worse. Often I find that when atheists and theists disagree using terms like “faith,” “belief,” “theism,” or “atheism,” the core of our disagreement often boils down to non-standard language. I understand that language is flexible and I’m not denying stipulated or tentative terminology. But even then, it’s helpful to recognize the normal meaning of a term and then clearly point out how it’s being used in a non-standard way in this conversation. Without at least some exposure and acceptance of conventional terms, we can’t get very far in our discussions. When we don’t align on key terms, understanding and entertaining them–whether or not we agree with them–we tend to get so busy talking past each other we don’t actually make any progress in pursuit of truth.
Fifth, it’s like Sitting on the floor and calling it a chair
Fifth, many Atheists don’t seem to understand that they have a whole history and set of terms already available to them. But either they haven’t looked into it, or they are misinformed, so they mislabel or try to reinvent things–not thinking it through very deeply. In this way, the history of atheism is like a big house with lots of furniture and those particular atheists are sitting on the floor calling it a chair. A lot of people, myself included, are interested in serious academic dialogue on matters like God’s existence, religious truth, and the possibility of miracles. So, I’ve done some work to discover these terms and understand my own views and the views of other religions and non-religious outlooks. It shouldn’t be necessary for a Christian theist to have to teach atheists about their own array of conceptual and terminological options, just so we can eventually engage on these topics. I value vigorous dialogue. Ideas matters. And language matters. But ultimately, lives matter more, and I’d like to be able to be challenged and critiqued while offering the same in a mutual pursuit of truth. If atheists won’t even accept a chair I’m offering them, from their own ideological “house,” then we probably won’t be able to sit down to a civilized conversation. If we can agree on some of the furniture here. We can then both pull up our chairs, draw up a pot of tea, and sit down to a lively discussion instead of pleading with some atheist Jack on the floor to come join us at the debate table.
Sixth, it’s an affront to positive atheism
Negative atheism is an implicit affront to positive atheism. Negative atheism implies that positive atheism isn’t convincing enough to persuade them to that position. Positive atheism, being the belief that no God exists, has a burden of proof because it’s making a claim about reality that, in reality, there is no God. That position is either reasonable or it is not. If it is reasonable, then negative atheists would be within their epistemic rights to adopt positive atheism instead of negative atheism. But instead of identifying themselves as “positive atheists,” the negative atheist has declined the offer.
Seventh, it risks duplicity
Seventh, related to the last point, negative atheism risks duplicity. Why would a person present himself or herself as an atheist in the negative (lack of belief) sense when there is, underneath that posture, is an abiding commitment to positive atheism or agnosticism that better describes their actual beliefs? It’s confusing and unclear, at best, to hide one’s positive atheism or agnosticism underneath a veneer of negative atheism. At worst, it’s strategic dishonesty where a person is pretending to be more open-minded, or less committed than they actually are.
Every positive atheist is also a negative atheist, technically speaking. By believing that no god exists, one is also lacking belief in God’s existence. But then that person is more clearly and precisely described as “positive atheist.” Negative atheism is a superfluous distracting descriptor for them. Meanwhile, one could be an agnostic negative atheist in the sense of refraining from God belief because one thinks that knowledge of God isn’t happening. If some people are atheist in the classic sense then why stipulate a modified sense that hides one’s underlying position? Audiences are left wondering whether those people can defend that position or whether they are too scared to show their hand for fear it might be a losing hand.
Eighth, it’s imprecise
As mentioned above, if a person claims to merely “lack belief in God” that position begs for the follow-up question: “Are you the agnostic kind or the (positive) atheist kind?” If one halts at the point of merely “lacking belief in God,” then the intellectual train has stalled out before arriving at a good stop. That position is manifestly imprecise. We can’t be clear about everything, but we would do well to be clear where we can. Here we can be very clear. Any aversion to clarity risks the duplicity mentioned above.
Ninth, poor terminology makes for poor thinking
Mangled and blurry words tend to generate equally mangled and blurry thinking. If we’re aiming at truth, we do well to aim for clear and careful thinking. And to do that we need clear and honest terminology. Redefining atheism from a metaphysical stance (No God exists) to a psychological stance (I have no God-belief) is a seriously problematic shift. For the reasons stated above, it should be clear how poor terminology makes for poor thinking.
As a Christian theist I affirm that God exists, Jesus is God and God’s son, and He rose from the dead to save us from our sins. I also believe that God gave us rational faculties that, when used correctly, assist us in discovering and understanding how Jesus is the answer to the most important questions in life. I have a vested interest in helping Christians and non-Christians alike to think better. Rationality, sound logic, and critical thinking are pre-evangelism. They won’t do everything, but they are still important. Words matter to me, because words carry messages, and some messages are matters of life and death.
We need strong minds, humble hearts, and willing hands before we are ready to receive the big challenging Gospel message. But critical thinking poses a stark challenge to the Christian faith as well. Whatever the church has acquired that’s untrue, misstated, or errant–what’s liable to be critiqued into oblivion by discerning congregants. Christian theology is subject to revision and division. And critical thinking is a big part of that painful process. When it comes to atheists, I want every atheist to be the most rational, most reasonable, and most critically discerning person they can be. I understand that many of them will never come to faith in Christ. But it’s at least a service, a way to love them, regardless of what they do with that well-intended service. And for some of atheists, their ability to think well and their passionate pursuit of wisdom will drive many of them to their knees before God. I do not apologize for taking confusing terms, and opaque concepts and holding a light to them so that atheists and theists can see them better, weigh them more fairly, and think clearer for it.
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
Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 and DVD by Dr. 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/4tsXCm8