By Brian Chilton
A church member approached me recently and asked a difficult question. He told me of the story of a family member who had accepted Christ as Savior moments before he died. While the church member was happy that his relative had made it to heaven, he still wondered how it was fair that he would work for the Lord his whole life, and his family member only lived for Christ moments before death, and they both went to the same heaven. Are death bed conversions fair?
I researched this topic and oddly enough did not find anyone who has dealt with this issue. So, to my knowledge, this is the first treatment of this particular topic. Before we find an answer to this topic, we must cover a variety of issues that together will bring us to a reasonable answer. We must examine the depth of sin, the importance of faith, the importance of repentance, the compassion of God, the call of God, Christian judgment, and the rewards of heaven. First, the depth of sin must be examined.
The Depth of Sin
As we look at the fairness question of deathbed conversions, we must first look at the depth of sin itself. In our culture, many possess a high sense of entitlement. Those who possess this mentality feel that they deserve a living, deserve benefits, and deserve salvation. Let the reader know that I am not insinuating that those who posed this question to me are in any way, shape, or form these kinds of people. But, many in our culture do have a high sense of entitlement. I am reminded of the word of my dad when I was young. He used to say, “No one owes you anything. You must work to earn a living.” Even though there may be those who come to faith even having done some horrible things, we must ask this question, is it fair that any of us are saved? Do any of us deserve salvation? Have we been good enough to be saved from hell? The answer is shocking because the answer is “no.” None of us deserve salvation. None of us can earn salvation. None of us can be good enough. This is a Scriptural fact.
Isaiah puts this in perspective as he wrote, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”[1] So even at our best, we are not worthy of salvation. Our very best is as a “filthy garment” to the holiness of God. So if salvation is not by grace, it cannot be given at all, because we would have to be holy as God in order to earn salvation. None of us are good enough to do so. I know that is not encouraging, but it is truthful. As the 80s band “The Human League” sang, “I’m only human…born to make mistakes.”[2] So is anyone righteous at all?
The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans the following,
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”; “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; “Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” [3]
As disturbing as it may be to confess, we all meet the qualities that Paul gave. Even the very best of us are unworthy before God. Think about the most holy, righteous person you know…if that person is me, then you need to meet more people. That holy, righteous person is nothing compared to the goodness of God. So how can anyone be saved?
The only way we can know God is by the Spirit of God working in our lives. Just like I cannot know what you are thinking unless you tell me, we cannot know the mind of God or the qualities of God unless God reveals them to us. We then have the opportunity to respond positively or negatively to the grace that He bestows to us. So how then are we saved? We must have faith.
The Importance of Faith
The writer of Hebrews writes, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”[4] What is faith? The Greek term for “faith” is “pisteuo.” The term represents a “trust” and “dependency” upon something or someone. So, the biblical term for “faith” is trust. Without this trust, it is impossible to please God. Why? I think the answer is because when we trust God, we realize that He has the power to help us where we do not. Some would call this arrogance on God’s part, but that is not the case.
I understand this need for dependency upon God more as a parent. My son is an independent soul. He wants to do things himself and wants very little help. But, there are some things that he cannot do for himself. I am more than willing to help him and give him instruction if he is willing to listen and ask for help. No matter how hard he tries or how much he climbs, he still cannot reach the top of the refrigerator. If he wants something from on top of the refrigerator, I have to reach down to him.
I think the same is with God. He has reached down to us to give us something that we cannot earn and do not deserve in salvation. God is our Master and our Creator. Without God, we would not be here. We need His direction and His instruction. So, I think that is part of the reason why faith is the only way we can please God. Plus, dependency upon His work on the cross is the only thing that can save us from the penalty of our sins. Is it fair for a person on his or her death bed to ask forgiveness? It is no fairer than it is for any of us to ask for forgiveness. But it is not about justice, because if God was about serving only justice we would all be in hell. It is about love and grace. But, isn’t there a need for repentance? Yes, we will examine this aspect in the next section.
The Importance of Repentance
Jesus is quoted in Luke’s gospel as saying, “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. “Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”[5] What does it mean to repent? The Greek term for “repentance” is “metanoeo.” Metanoeo means “to change one’s life, based on complete change of attitude and thought concerning sin and righteousness.”[6] So if a person is truly repentant, he or she will admit their wrong and change from his or her lifestyle of sin. This does not mean that he or she will never do anything wrong, but that the person has a complete transformation of mind, soul, and body. As Paul writes, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”[7]
Therefore, if a conversion is authentic before death occurs, a transformation will take place. The guilty person will seek to reconcile the best he or she can with that time the person has left. Forgiveness requires repentance and repentance requires reconciliation to the best of one’s ability. Jesus said, “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”[8] So, the person should be a changed person and not simply looking for a quick fix. None of us know that when we come to know the Lord that we will not be taken shortly afterwards. Faith comes first, then repentance, and finally repentance brings the responsibility of reconciliation to the best of one’s ability.
When I taught a discipleship course, the Holy Spirit worked in my life and brought up reconciliation that needed to happen between one of the members of the church and myself. The Holy Spirit would not let me rest until I at least attempted to make reconciliation. So, I spoke to the member and we worked things out. As a matter of fact, I believe my relationship with that member of the church is stronger now than it was before. One other element must be remembered as we discuss death bed conversions: the compassion of God Himself.
The Compassion of God
Simon Peter writes in his second letter, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”[9] The issue that Peter presents is clear-cut. God does not desire that anyone goes to hell but that all come to repentance and faith which would lead to heaven. So, heaven rejoices when a person, even an evil person, comes to faith because a life has been saved from eternal death. When we think of hell, we sometimes forget the horrible eternal state that one would endure. But, what about a person who has been very bad? Doesn’t such a person deserve hell? Yes, but again, all of us do.
We must remember that Jesus endured the most horrible death that anyone could suffer while bearing upon His back the sins of the world. Luke records the following, “But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.”[10] Jesus was able to forgive the very persons who were torturing Him while they were torturing Him. How is that possible?
I must confess that I do not have the power to forgive like that myself, but only through the power of God. I have had some bad things done to me in my past, but nothing like that which Christ suffered. Yet, I have found the power to forgive through the presence of God. It would be very difficult for me to forgive someone who harmed my family. Honestly, I know that I do not have the power to do so alone. But, forgiveness does not claim that something that was wrongfully committed was okay, or that something bad was right. Forgiveness simply hands the case over to God. Forgiveness puts the situation in God’s hands knowing that He will bring about reconciliation and/or justice in the end. As the writer of Hebrews states, “For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”[11]
How can there be justice for someone in the body of Christ? Doesn’t this give a clear slate to everyone in the church? Does this give Christians the clearance to do wrong? Heaven forbid. There is still a judgment for Christians as we will see later. But before we do, let us examine the Christian’s responsibility. You may ask, “How does this affect deathbed conversion?” Hang tight; we will bring it all together in the conclusion. Let us examine the responsibilities of the Christian, or rather the “Call of God.”
The Call of God
Before we examine our final segment and move towards the conclusion, let us examine the call of God for the Christian. As we read earlier, it is not God’s will that anyone should perish but that all come to repentance. It may be asked why some are allowed in the kingdom towards the end of a person’s life. God does not desire for anyone to perish even if the decision is made only moments before one dies. To exemplify this point, Jesus gave a parable about a landowner. To understand this parable correctly, one must understand that the workers were desperate and needed money to feed their family. It is set in a time that was similar to the times of the Great Depression where displaced workers depended on day to day work to provide for their families. Keep this in mind in addition to the need for salvation as you read Jesus’ parable. Jesus said,
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. “When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. “And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ And so they went. “Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. “And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day long?’ “They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.’ “When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. “When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. “When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ “But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? ‘Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. ‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’ “So the last shall be first, and the first last.[12]
From this parable, we find two great principles. First, we find that salvation is a gift that God gives. Like the landowner who gave money to those in need, God gives salvation to all those who receive the grace freely given. Second, the gift offer is available until this life is over. The only time when grace is no longer available is when the last breath of a person is taken from an unrepentant sinner. God shows no partiality. He loves us all the same. But, does this mean that there is no justice to the deeds done on earth? Does this mean that the Christian can get away with anything? No. The Christian will face judgment, but will be justified. The deeds done as a Christian do matter as we will see in our final section.
The Christian Judgment: Grace Is Not a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card
In Hasbro’s famous board game Monopoly, a card exists that gets the board game player out of jail in the event that the player lands on the “Go to Jail” slot. The card is called the “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Christians have been charged for viewing salvation in this regard. In other words, some believe that Christians can do anything they want without a penalty for their actions. In fact, some Christians do view salvation in this regard. Who is to blame for this viewpoint? Well, to be honest, we preachers are guilty to some degree. Preachers want to stress the forgiveness found in salvation. While it is true that our sins are forgiven judicially, this does not give us permission to do anything we desire without repercussion. In fact, numerous Scriptural references show that even though the Christian is forgiven, he or she will still have to stand before judgment.
One example can be seen in Jesus’ teachings. Jesus said, “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.”[13] Jesus shows that everyone will be judged for his or her deeds. But, this does not mean that the Christian is no less forgiven. Judicially the Christian has been forgiven. But relationally, the Christian will still have to give an account for the deeds done while in the body of Christ. We also see this in the book of Acts.
Peter, who had walked and learned from Jesus for three and a half years, told Cornelius the following at Caesarea, “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”[14] Notice that Peter refers to God as the Judge of all. Everyone who trusts in Him receives forgiveness, but that does not indicate that the person will not stand before God the Judge. Paul gives us a lot of information concerning the judgment of all men, and especially that of the Christian judgment.
Paul gives information concerning judgment in his epic theological book to the Romans. Paul writes,
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. [15]
Paul continues as he writes about the judgment that we all must face. Paul writes,
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God.” So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.[16]
Is this judgment the same as what the unbeliever faces? No. Paul explains what is judged in the Christian’s life. Paul explains this as he writes to the Corinthians,
According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. [17]
Paul shows that this judgment is called the Judgment Seat of Christ. He continues this thought in his second letter to the Corinthians as he writes,
Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord—for we walk by faith, not by sight—we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.[18]
Paul shows the importance of working for the Lord as these works will be offered as rewards and the bad things will be exposed, confronted, and removed. Paul shows that this work is important for everyone regardless of their position. He writes the following to the church of Ephesus,
With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. [19]
The writer of Hebrews even shows God as the Judge of all when he writes,
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. [20]
The obvious objection that many will pose has to do with references that our sins will be removed and remembered no more. The question to ask is when the writers are referring to this removal and lack of remembrance. Paul indicates that salvation is a process. Paul writes, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”[21] So in other words, we are saved at the moment of repentance, we are being saved as we are being forgiven, and will be saved when we are finally justified at the Day of Judgment. God’s promises are sure. So, even though we will face the Judgment Seat of Christ, we have the promise that we will be forgiven by the blood of the Lamb. On the final day of salvation…when we are justified or declared “innocent”…our sins will be remembered no more. So, in actuality, the promises of God are sure so it is a sure thing that our sins have been removed. But, this does not give any Christian the license to sin. Actually, salvation brings the responsibility to keep the commands of Christ. Jesus tells us, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”[22] Salvation brings us security so that we can pay attention to serving Christ and working for the Kingdom. This is something that one who comes to Christ before death will not have the opportunity to do. The issue of deathbed conversions comes full-circle when we understand the importance of the Judgment Seat of Christ: issuing rewards.
The Rewards of Heaven
Jesus said, “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”[23] Many Christians take the position of the gospel-bluegrass song titled Lord Build Me a Cabin in the Corner of Gloryland. In other words, the position is, “As long as I make it to heaven; that is all I am worried about.” But really, that position is extremely arrogant. Where is the appreciation? Where is the Christian responsibility? Jesus expects us to work for Him. He gave His all to save us. The least we can do is to work for Him. Does Jesus show the previously mentioned lazy Christian mentality as acceptable?
Jesus did not present a lazy type of Christianity in an acceptable light. The following is a parable that He gave that shows the importance in working for the Lord:
“For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. “To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. “Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. “In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. “But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. “Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. “The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’ “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ “Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’ “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ “And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. ‘Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. ‘Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’ “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. “Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.[24]
Some do not like the idea of rewards in heaven or the exposure of bad deeds. But, those who oppose this idea either are not actively working for God as they need to, or they have something in their lives that they know they shouldn’t. It cannot be said what the rewards are or what they represent. But, the fact that rewards are given and the stress that Jesus places on Christian service shows that they are important for the Christian. The fact that they are important to Jesus should make it important for the disciple of Christ. Could the rewards represent a status in heaven? Could the rewards represent special privileges, positions, or jobs in heaven? Only God knows for sure. But these rewards are more important than we give them credit especially in lieu of the emphasis of Jesus’ Parable of the Talents. Let’s bring this all together.
Conclusion:
So, is it fair for people to be saved moments before death? It is just as fair as it is for anyone else who is saved. Everyone is under the curse of sin. No one is worthy of salvation. Even the best among us is as a filthy rag compared to the holiness of God. Salvation is a gift given by God. God can save anyone at any stage in life who truly comes to God in trust and repentantance. But, there is a price that comes with a person who comes to salvation late in his or her life.
The Bible gives several references to the fact that every person will stand before God in judgment. The Christian will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. The problem with one who comes to Christ late in life is that the person will not have any opportunities to offer any work for Christ to be rewarded. Remember, the works that are rewarded are done in the body of Christ. Bottom line is that the works done for Christ during a lifetime will be rewarded. So, the one who comes to faith moments before death will enter heaven but will have little to show for his or her life in Christ.
When people graduate from college, both tho
se on the honor roll and those who barely scraped by will graduate. But, those who graduate with honors have special recognition. The same is true with the one who has worked a lifetime for Christ compared to one who was saved moments before entering heaven. The one who worked a lifetime for Christ could be equated to the student graduating with honors whereas the person who was saved on their deathbeds are comparable to those who graduated by the skin of their teeth. Some have honors and some do not, but they all graduate.
[1] All Scripture unless otherwise noted comes from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Isaiah 64:6.
[2] The Human League, “Human,” Crash (Virgin Records, February 1986.) All rights reserved.
[3] Romans 3:9–18.
[5] Luke 13:3–5.
[6] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
[12] Matthew 20:1–16.
[13] Matthew 16:27.
[17] 1 Corinthians 3:10–15.
[18] 2 Corinthians 5:6–10.
Are Deathbed Conversions Fair?
CrossExamined, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
A church member approached me recently and asked a difficult question. He told me of the story of a family member who had accepted Christ as Savior moments before he died. While the church member was happy that his relative had made it to heaven, he still wondered how it was fair that he would work for the Lord his whole life, and his family member only lived for Christ moments before death, and they both went to the same heaven. Are death bed conversions fair?
I researched this topic and oddly enough did not find anyone who has dealt with this issue. So, to my knowledge, this is the first treatment of this particular topic. Before we find an answer to this topic, we must cover a variety of issues that together will bring us to a reasonable answer. We must examine the depth of sin, the importance of faith, the importance of repentance, the compassion of God, the call of God, Christian judgment, and the rewards of heaven. First, the depth of sin must be examined.
The Depth of Sin
As we look at the fairness question of deathbed conversions, we must first look at the depth of sin itself. In our culture, many possess a high sense of entitlement. Those who possess this mentality feel that they deserve a living, deserve benefits, and deserve salvation. Let the reader know that I am not insinuating that those who posed this question to me are in any way, shape, or form these kinds of people. But, many in our culture do have a high sense of entitlement. I am reminded of the word of my dad when I was young. He used to say, “No one owes you anything. You must work to earn a living.” Even though there may be those who come to faith even having done some horrible things, we must ask this question, is it fair that any of us are saved? Do any of us deserve salvation? Have we been good enough to be saved from hell? The answer is shocking because the answer is “no.” None of us deserve salvation. None of us can earn salvation. None of us can be good enough. This is a Scriptural fact.
Isaiah puts this in perspective as he wrote, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”[1] So even at our best, we are not worthy of salvation. Our very best is as a “filthy garment” to the holiness of God. So if salvation is not by grace, it cannot be given at all, because we would have to be holy as God in order to earn salvation. None of us are good enough to do so. I know that is not encouraging, but it is truthful. As the 80s band “The Human League” sang, “I’m only human…born to make mistakes.”[2] So is anyone righteous at all?
The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans the following,
As disturbing as it may be to confess, we all meet the qualities that Paul gave. Even the very best of us are unworthy before God. Think about the most holy, righteous person you know…if that person is me, then you need to meet more people. That holy, righteous person is nothing compared to the goodness of God. So how can anyone be saved?
The only way we can know God is by the Spirit of God working in our lives. Just like I cannot know what you are thinking unless you tell me, we cannot know the mind of God or the qualities of God unless God reveals them to us. We then have the opportunity to respond positively or negatively to the grace that He bestows to us. So how then are we saved? We must have faith.
The Importance of Faith
The writer of Hebrews writes, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”[4] What is faith? The Greek term for “faith” is “pisteuo.” The term represents a “trust” and “dependency” upon something or someone. So, the biblical term for “faith” is trust. Without this trust, it is impossible to please God. Why? I think the answer is because when we trust God, we realize that He has the power to help us where we do not. Some would call this arrogance on God’s part, but that is not the case.
I understand this need for dependency upon God more as a parent. My son is an independent soul. He wants to do things himself and wants very little help. But, there are some things that he cannot do for himself. I am more than willing to help him and give him instruction if he is willing to listen and ask for help. No matter how hard he tries or how much he climbs, he still cannot reach the top of the refrigerator. If he wants something from on top of the refrigerator, I have to reach down to him.
I think the same is with God. He has reached down to us to give us something that we cannot earn and do not deserve in salvation. God is our Master and our Creator. Without God, we would not be here. We need His direction and His instruction. So, I think that is part of the reason why faith is the only way we can please God. Plus, dependency upon His work on the cross is the only thing that can save us from the penalty of our sins. Is it fair for a person on his or her death bed to ask forgiveness? It is no fairer than it is for any of us to ask for forgiveness. But it is not about justice, because if God was about serving only justice we would all be in hell. It is about love and grace. But, isn’t there a need for repentance? Yes, we will examine this aspect in the next section.
The Importance of Repentance
Jesus is quoted in Luke’s gospel as saying, “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. “Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”[5] What does it mean to repent? The Greek term for “repentance” is “metanoeo.” Metanoeo means “to change one’s life, based on complete change of attitude and thought concerning sin and righteousness.”[6] So if a person is truly repentant, he or she will admit their wrong and change from his or her lifestyle of sin. This does not mean that he or she will never do anything wrong, but that the person has a complete transformation of mind, soul, and body. As Paul writes, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”[7]
Therefore, if a conversion is authentic before death occurs, a transformation will take place. The guilty person will seek to reconcile the best he or she can with that time the person has left. Forgiveness requires repentance and repentance requires reconciliation to the best of one’s ability. Jesus said, “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”[8] So, the person should be a changed person and not simply looking for a quick fix. None of us know that when we come to know the Lord that we will not be taken shortly afterwards. Faith comes first, then repentance, and finally repentance brings the responsibility of reconciliation to the best of one’s ability.
When I taught a discipleship course, the Holy Spirit worked in my life and brought up reconciliation that needed to happen between one of the members of the church and myself. The Holy Spirit would not let me rest until I at least attempted to make reconciliation. So, I spoke to the member and we worked things out. As a matter of fact, I believe my relationship with that member of the church is stronger now than it was before. One other element must be remembered as we discuss death bed conversions: the compassion of God Himself.
The Compassion of God
Simon Peter writes in his second letter, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”[9] The issue that Peter presents is clear-cut. God does not desire that anyone goes to hell but that all come to repentance and faith which would lead to heaven. So, heaven rejoices when a person, even an evil person, comes to faith because a life has been saved from eternal death. When we think of hell, we sometimes forget the horrible eternal state that one would endure. But, what about a person who has been very bad? Doesn’t such a person deserve hell? Yes, but again, all of us do.
We must remember that Jesus endured the most horrible death that anyone could suffer while bearing upon His back the sins of the world. Luke records the following, “But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.”[10] Jesus was able to forgive the very persons who were torturing Him while they were torturing Him. How is that possible?
I must confess that I do not have the power to forgive like that myself, but only through the power of God. I have had some bad things done to me in my past, but nothing like that which Christ suffered. Yet, I have found the power to forgive through the presence of God. It would be very difficult for me to forgive someone who harmed my family. Honestly, I know that I do not have the power to do so alone. But, forgiveness does not claim that something that was wrongfully committed was okay, or that something bad was right. Forgiveness simply hands the case over to God. Forgiveness puts the situation in God’s hands knowing that He will bring about reconciliation and/or justice in the end. As the writer of Hebrews states, “For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”[11]
How can there be justice for someone in the body of Christ? Doesn’t this give a clear slate to everyone in the church? Does this give Christians the clearance to do wrong? Heaven forbid. There is still a judgment for Christians as we will see later. But before we do, let us examine the Christian’s responsibility. You may ask, “How does this affect deathbed conversion?” Hang tight; we will bring it all together in the conclusion. Let us examine the responsibilities of the Christian, or rather the “Call of God.”
The Call of God
Before we examine our final segment and move towards the conclusion, let us examine the call of God for the Christian. As we read earlier, it is not God’s will that anyone should perish but that all come to repentance. It may be asked why some are allowed in the kingdom towards the end of a person’s life. God does not desire for anyone to perish even if the decision is made only moments before one dies. To exemplify this point, Jesus gave a parable about a landowner. To understand this parable correctly, one must understand that the workers were desperate and needed money to feed their family. It is set in a time that was similar to the times of the Great Depression where displaced workers depended on day to day work to provide for their families. Keep this in mind in addition to the need for salvation as you read Jesus’ parable. Jesus said,
From this parable, we find two great principles. First, we find that salvation is a gift that God gives. Like the landowner who gave money to those in need, God gives salvation to all those who receive the grace freely given. Second, the gift offer is available until this life is over. The only time when grace is no longer available is when the last breath of a person is taken from an unrepentant sinner. God shows no partiality. He loves us all the same. But, does this mean that there is no justice to the deeds done on earth? Does this mean that the Christian can get away with anything? No. The Christian will face judgment, but will be justified. The deeds done as a Christian do matter as we will see in our final section.
The Christian Judgment: Grace Is Not a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card
In Hasbro’s famous board game Monopoly, a card exists that gets the board game player out of jail in the event that the player lands on the “Go to Jail” slot. The card is called the “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Christians have been charged for viewing salvation in this regard. In other words, some believe that Christians can do anything they want without a penalty for their actions. In fact, some Christians do view salvation in this regard. Who is to blame for this viewpoint? Well, to be honest, we preachers are guilty to some degree. Preachers want to stress the forgiveness found in salvation. While it is true that our sins are forgiven judicially, this does not give us permission to do anything we desire without repercussion. In fact, numerous Scriptural references show that even though the Christian is forgiven, he or she will still have to stand before judgment.
One example can be seen in Jesus’ teachings. Jesus said, “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.”[13] Jesus shows that everyone will be judged for his or her deeds. But, this does not mean that the Christian is no less forgiven. Judicially the Christian has been forgiven. But relationally, the Christian will still have to give an account for the deeds done while in the body of Christ. We also see this in the book of Acts.
Peter, who had walked and learned from Jesus for three and a half years, told Cornelius the following at Caesarea, “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”[14] Notice that Peter refers to God as the Judge of all. Everyone who trusts in Him receives forgiveness, but that does not indicate that the person will not stand before God the Judge. Paul gives us a lot of information concerning the judgment of all men, and especially that of the Christian judgment.
Paul gives information concerning judgment in his epic theological book to the Romans. Paul writes,
Paul continues as he writes about the judgment that we all must face. Paul writes,
Is this judgment the same as what the unbeliever faces? No. Paul explains what is judged in the Christian’s life. Paul explains this as he writes to the Corinthians,
Paul shows that this judgment is called the Judgment Seat of Christ. He continues this thought in his second letter to the Corinthians as he writes,
Paul shows the importance of working for the Lord as these works will be offered as rewards and the bad things will be exposed, confronted, and removed. Paul shows that this work is important for everyone regardless of their position. He writes the following to the church of Ephesus,
The writer of Hebrews even shows God as the Judge of all when he writes,
The obvious objection that many will pose has to do with references that our sins will be removed and remembered no more. The question to ask is when the writers are referring to this removal and lack of remembrance. Paul indicates that salvation is a process. Paul writes, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”[21] So in other words, we are saved at the moment of repentance, we are being saved as we are being forgiven, and will be saved when we are finally justified at the Day of Judgment. God’s promises are sure. So, even though we will face the Judgment Seat of Christ, we have the promise that we will be forgiven by the blood of the Lamb. On the final day of salvation…when we are justified or declared “innocent”…our sins will be remembered no more. So, in actuality, the promises of God are sure so it is a sure thing that our sins have been removed. But, this does not give any Christian the license to sin. Actually, salvation brings the responsibility to keep the commands of Christ. Jesus tells us, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”[22] Salvation brings us security so that we can pay attention to serving Christ and working for the Kingdom. This is something that one who comes to Christ before death will not have the opportunity to do. The issue of deathbed conversions comes full-circle when we understand the importance of the Judgment Seat of Christ: issuing rewards.
The Rewards of Heaven
Jesus said, “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”[23] Many Christians take the position of the gospel-bluegrass song titled Lord Build Me a Cabin in the Corner of Gloryland. In other words, the position is, “As long as I make it to heaven; that is all I am worried about.” But really, that position is extremely arrogant. Where is the appreciation? Where is the Christian responsibility? Jesus expects us to work for Him. He gave His all to save us. The least we can do is to work for Him. Does Jesus show the previously mentioned lazy Christian mentality as acceptable?
Jesus did not present a lazy type of Christianity in an acceptable light. The following is a parable that He gave that shows the importance in working for the Lord:
Some do not like the idea of rewards in heaven or the exposure of bad deeds. But, those who oppose this idea either are not actively working for God as they need to, or they have something in their lives that they know they shouldn’t. It cannot be said what the rewards are or what they represent. But, the fact that rewards are given and the stress that Jesus places on Christian service shows that they are important for the Christian. The fact that they are important to Jesus should make it important for the disciple of Christ. Could the rewards represent a status in heaven? Could the rewards represent special privileges, positions, or jobs in heaven? Only God knows for sure. But these rewards are more important than we give them credit especially in lieu of the emphasis of Jesus’ Parable of the Talents. Let’s bring this all together.
Conclusion:
So, is it fair for people to be saved moments before death? It is just as fair as it is for anyone else who is saved. Everyone is under the curse of sin. No one is worthy of salvation. Even the best among us is as a filthy rag compared to the holiness of God. Salvation is a gift given by God. God can save anyone at any stage in life who truly comes to God in trust and repentantance. But, there is a price that comes with a person who comes to salvation late in his or her life.
The Bible gives several references to the fact that every person will stand before God in judgment. The Christian will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. The problem with one who comes to Christ late in life is that the person will not have any opportunities to offer any work for Christ to be rewarded. Remember, the works that are rewarded are done in the body of Christ. Bottom line is that the works done for Christ during a lifetime will be rewarded. So, the one who comes to faith moments before death will enter heaven but will have little to show for his or her life in Christ.
When people graduate from college, both tho
se on the honor roll and those who barely scraped by will graduate. But, those who graduate with honors have special recognition. The same is true with the one who has worked a lifetime for Christ compared to one who was saved moments before entering heaven. The one who worked a lifetime for Christ could be equated to the student graduating with honors whereas the person who was saved on their deathbeds are comparable to those who graduated by the skin of their teeth. Some have honors and some do not, but they all graduate.
[1] All Scripture unless otherwise noted comes from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Isaiah 64:6.
[2] The Human League, “Human,” Crash (Virgin Records, February 1986.) All rights reserved.
[3] Romans 3:9–18.
[4] Hebrews 11:6.
[5] Luke 13:3–5.
[6] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
[7] Romans 12:2.
[8] Matthew 5:23–24.
[9] 2 Peter 3:9.
[10] Luke 23:34.
[11] Hebrews 10:30–31.
[12] Matthew 20:1–16.
[13] Matthew 16:27.
[14] Acts 10:42–43.
[15] Romans 2:14–16.
[16] Romans 14:10–13.
[17] 1 Corinthians 3:10–15.
[18] 2 Corinthians 5:6–10.
[19] Ephesians 6:7–9.
[20] Hebrews 12:22–24.
[21] Romans 5:8–9.
[22] John 14:15.
[23] Matthew 5:12.
[24] Matthew 25:14–30.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2o2mlgJ
God, The Shack, and the Christian Mind
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Adam Tucker
Unless you live under a rock, you’re no doubt familiar with the New York Times bestselling book The Shack by William P. Young that has also recently been released as a big-budget feature film. Much has been said and will continue to be said, regarding the alleged merits of The Shack as well as its reported theological (and perhaps even heretical) shortcomings. The reader can avail himself of these two articles HERE and HERE as examples of the controversy surrounding this work of “Christian fiction.” For now, I’m not interested in whether or not Christians should read The Shack or whether or not it teaches ideas contrary to historic Christianity. Rather, I want to discuss a trend that is very troubling to me which I see surrounding this debate amongst my own Christian friends.
For many years now emotion has trumped the intellect for both Christian and non-Christian alike. Christian stories/testimonies that elicit particular emotions are used over and over to draw out particular responses in people (not that that is necessarily always a bad thing). Sadly, it is often only when these emotions are stirred that someone thinks God is actually working through a particular missionary, ministry, or church. Our feelings have become the arbiter of truth, and more times than not, it is the missionary, ministry, or church that makes the most emotional impact that gets the most encouragement and support (whether verbal, prayer, or financial support). Make no mistake, we are emotional beings, but we are not merely emotional beings. We are in fact rational beings with intellects and wills, and this, I would argue, is what it means to be made in the image of God. The trend about which I am concerned is the way otherwise discerning and grounded believers, who obviously love God and desire to see others come to Christ, so easily celebrate emotionalism at the expense of the necessary, and biblical, art and science of critical thinking. The reactions I am seeing to The Shack simply serve to illustrate this point. After all, it was Jesus Himself who commanded us to love God with all of our minds (Matt. 22:37). Yet it seems too many Christians ignore this part of Jesus’ imperative.
Afraid to Grow Up
In a 2014 INTERVIEW at a church in England, The Shack author Young relayed his past life struggles, sins, and restorations. It was a very moving testimony, and no doubt God has used his past experiences for His glory and has done a work in Young’s life. But Young went on to say, “Do I understand [the success of] The Shack…this is all God’s sense of humor as far as I’m concerned. I don’t understand the purposes of God, and I don’t want to know. It took me 50 years to become a child. I’m not going back to being an adult. It’s too much work.” This is a case-in-point regarding the above mentioned trend of emotionalism. Millions upon millions of people have read The Shack and have been impacted. Because the author is a professing Christian who also has an emotionally moving testimony many Christians simply assume that this is a work of God, and that God is using The Shack in a major way for His glory. Even Young admits this when he says it’s “all God’s sense of humor.” But millions upon millions have been impacted by many other popular books that most Christians would likely classify as heresy, unorthodox, or worse. How does Young, or anyone else, know that The Shack’s success is a work of God rather than something being used by the enemy to weaken the life of believers and confuse unbelievers? Well, according to Young, he doesn’t know that because He says he doesn’t want to “understand the purposes of God.” He claims to be a “child” because it’s too much work to be an adult.
Here’s the problem. According to the Apostle Paul, we are not to be children in our thinking. We are certainly to be children when it comes to our complete dependence upon God for salvation (Matt. 18:3), but Paul says when he became a man he put aside childish thinking (1 Cor. 13:11). In fact, in 1 Cor. 14:20 he says, “Brothers, don’t be childish in your thinking, but be infants in regard to evil and adult in your thinking.” Neither success, emotional impact, nor even God’s ability to use something for His glory are adequate tests for truth. The fact is, everyone has a testimony, and God even used adultery in the life of King David to bring about the Messiah (and surely no Christian would advocate committing adultery because God can use it for His glory)! There are countless Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, New Age gurus, and even atheists who could share, and have shared, life-changing and emotionally wrenching testimonies about how their beliefs have positively impacted their lives. But virtually no orthodox Christian would claim these belief systems are true simply because their followers have a testimony. Why are these same Christians so quick to believe and celebrate most any emotionally charged thing a Christian says just because he claims God is the source? We are commanded to test the spirits (1 These. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). Lest we forget, “For Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no great thing if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15).
The Necessity of Doctrine
How do we “test the spirits” as it were? How do we know whether any successful and emotionally charged story/testimony or circumstance is actually from God? Paul says in 1 Tim. 4:16, “Pay close attention to your life and your teaching [i.e. doctrine]; persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers.” In other words, if a teaching/doctrine does not line up with the teaching of the Bible then it must be abandoned. When one is led by emotionalism, however, his ability to discern right doctrine becomes clouded.
For instance, in the blog linked above, My Response to Those in the Church Boycotting the Shack, author Michele Perry, a former missionary, says, “You see the Gospel isn’t a doctrine. The right doctrine alone will not get you saved.…The Gospel is a Person and it is a relationship with that Person.” While it is true that doctrine alone will not save, it is false that “the Gospel isn’t a doctrine.” The Gospel is not a Person [Jesus]. The Gospel is about Jesus and our trust in His death and resurrection as payment for our sin as Paul lays out in 1 Cor. 15:1-8. The Gospel is most certainly a doctrine! Believing the Gospel entails one having further doctrines correct. For instance, is Paul referring to the Jesus of Mormonism, the Jesus of Arianism (a.k.a. Jehovah’s Witnesses), or the Jesus of historic Christianity? If he’s referring to Jesus as God (i.e. the Jesus of Christianity), are we to hold to modalism, tri-theism, partialism, or the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity? Why does any of that matter and what does that mean for the nature of God? All of these questions are of extreme importance and we ignore these doctrines to our own detriment. To once again quote Jesus, “Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Who is He? The answer to that is a doctrinal issue.
We cannot feel or emote our way through these issues. We must actually think about them. That requires intense study and work. One has to actually think and act like an adult in order to wrestle with these questions. In other words, we must do just as Paul says and “[hold] to the faithful message as taught, so that he will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). I would encourage readers to also ponder Eph. 4:13-14; 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 4 among other scriptures.
Yet Michele goes on to say, “To imply we can know God through an intellectual doctrine apart from experience, that my friends is a blasphemy far greater than a parable that seeks to make His heart, goodness and love known to those who have ears and hearts able to receive it.” Once again, if she means to “know” God in the salvific sense then I agree. Being in right relationship with God is much more than knowing “an intellectual doctrine,” but it is not less than that. We cannot know God in any sense if we do not believe the right things about Him in the first place! And what exactly are we supposed to “experience” beyond this knowledge of God? There is zero scriptural support for this experiential emotionalism. How do we know our “experience” isn’t demonic influence or simply the result of the tacos we ate last night? Why does my experience supersede the experience of the Mormon, etc.?
We’re right back to the absolutely essential need of thinking rightly about God. That just IS a doctrinal issue that requires much work, study, and critical thinking. And if experience is so important, why are my own experiences ignored or dismissed when I talk about how amazing thinking deeply about the nature of God can be? Digging into philosophical issues regarding the divine nature and attributes of God that we’re able to know via human reason (Rom. 1:20) is astoundingly eye-opening. It has enriched my worship and devotional life. It has helped my struggles with sin. And it is vital to our ability to properly understand the Scriptures.
On What Will Our Focus Be?
Why aren’t we celebrating the early church fathers and defenders of the faith? Why aren’t we writing blogs about the merits of the work of the early creed writers that helped us think more clearly about God? Why is someone like Thomas Aquinas, arguably the most brilliant Christian thinker to ever live besides Jesus and the inspired biblical authors, not a household name? Why aren’t Christians more often making modern day Christian philosophers and theologians New York Times bestsellers? Why aren’t churches celebrating and encouraging their bright minded congregants to pursue further study at seminary and welcoming with open arms what these bright minds can offer to the local body of believers? Why are the emotionally driven ministries the ones who receive 90% of the financial support as opposed to the seminaries and other institutions who are supposedly training the next generation of Christian leaders and influencing the intellectual life of the church? Why do we focus on pet doctrines like the age of the earth (which is a recent debate compared to most of church history) and then celebrate emotionalism elsewhere? Why can we pack out auditoriums when a Christian music group entertains us, a popular fiction writer shares his story, or a man recalls his moving testimony of his alleged visit to heaven, but we struggle to get more than a handful of believers to show up for evangelism training (that involves more than sharing your testimony) or a conference on defending the faith? Why are so many Christians afraid to be adults and think?
I know, I know. Those things don’t pull at the heart strings and they require effort to think about. Those things are for others to deal with in their ivory towers and don’t affect you. That’s not your grandma’s Christianity, and that’s not what your pastor or favorite Christian fiction author said to focus on. That’s fine. You’re free to continue to “feel” your way through the Christian life, but don’t pretend like you are doing the body of Christ any favors or offering God the worship He is due. Will you continue to withhold your mind from the whole-being worship Jesus commanded? What we feel should be judged in light of what we know and measured in the context of reality. Our will should follow our intellect, not the other way around. God is the one who said, “Come now let us reason together…” (Is. 1:18). Do with that invitation what you will.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nkzaWx
The Kalam: An Overview & Defense
2. Does God Exist?By Ronald Cram
William Lane Craig is famous for resurrecting and defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). The argument appeals to both philosophical and scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. If the Kalam is sound, it seems to prove the existence of God.
The question is raised: Is the argument sound given our modern, scientific understanding of cosmology? In this essay I will review and examine the premises of the Kalam to see if we have good reason to affirm them as probably true. The standard form of the KCA goes as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
We can add the following steps:
4. The universe (all space, time, and matter) cannot cause itself.
5. The cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused.
6. This uncaused, immaterial and timeless cause of the universe is what everyone means by God.
7. Therefore, God exists.
The argument is valid, but are the premises true? Science uses Bayesian probability theory to assign a probability to a hypothesis. I will follow that procedure for each of the premises.
Step #1
All science is based on cause and effect relationships. Zero evidence exists that this premise is false and so this premise has never faced any serious or informed challenges. In our daily experience, objects do not pop into existence uncaused.
Scientists have proposed a number of possible causes of the Big Bang including colliding branes in string theory, false vacuum in inflationary theory, and quantum fluctuations in quantum mechanics. Each of these ideas propose a “universe generator” of some type that must exist prior to our Big Bang. Scientists recognize that the Big Bang must have a cause.
Some have attempted to claim that quantum fluctuations are uncaused, but this claim is untrue. Quantum fluctuations are caused by the energy in the vacuum. While no one can predict where quantum fluctuations will appear, the number of fluctuations within a given volume and time are quite predictable.
Others have proposed that while things within the universe need a cause to begin to exist, we have no reason to believe the universe as a whole needs a cause. This is special pleading of the most irrational type. If objects within the universe need a cause (when the atoms and molecules already exist), then it is even more true that the universe as a whole needs a cause to exist because an extra step is required (the creation of matter, energy, space and time). A Bayesian probability can be assigned to this premise of 99+%.
Step #2
This is more complicated. Stated simply, the standard cosmology is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. This means the universe began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. While it is true that theorists are working on models for a past eternal universe, a Bayesian probability can be assigned to this premise of 98%.
For those who are not interested in cosmology, you may skip to the discussion of the third premise. For those interested in cosmology and a defense of this Bayesian probability, read on.
William Lane Craig often refers to BGV theorem in his debates with atheists. (The theorem is often misunderstood to be a singularity theorem. It is not. It is an incompleteness theorem. But it is completely compatible with the singularity theorems.) BGV theorem states that any universe which is on average expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal into the past but must have had a beginning. This is an extremely robust theorem. Within a classical spacetime, BGV theorem does not depend upon any particular energy condition (low energy, high energy) nor does it depend on any particular solution to Einstein’s equations. The fact the theorem is so robust makes it very difficult to evade. It applies to multiverse theories and cyclic universe theories. Any past eternal cosmological theory must evade BGV theorem.
In his debate with William Lane Craig, Sean Carroll referred to his paper titled “What if time really exists?” and its Quantum Eternity Theorem.
In Carroll’s post-debate reflections, he writes:
The QET is not a “stronger theorem” in any sense. Most cosmologists believe our universe has zero net energy. So any model built on a non-zero energy is extremely unlikely. Also, the theorem has the requirement of “under conventional quantum mechanics.” But a beginning necessarily requires something other than conventional quantum mechanics. There’s nothing to prevent a beginning of our conventional quantum mechanics. In reality, Carroll’s QET is not at all helpful to his argument. Aron Wall provides a cosmologist’s assessment of Carroll’s claims and his use of QET (click here).
Proposed Models
Some models have been proposed than can evade BGV theorem. We will look at a few of these theories in greater detail.
A. The first of these is the Aguirre-Gratton model supported by Sean Carroll in his debate with Craig. Obviously, Carroll thinks this model is the strongest possible, the most likely to be true, or he wouldn’t have used it to support his position that the universe may be past eternal. But what is the Bayesian probability this model describes our universe?
In the Abstract of his paper “Eternal inflation and its implications,” Alan Guth writes:
On page 14 of the same paper Guth writes:
According to Guth, under “reasonable assumptions” and “plausible assumptions” the BGV theorem cannot be avoided. On page 16, Guth discusses the Aguirre-Gratton model with its reversal of the arrow of time and explains that this model does evade BGV theorem. The natural conclusion is that the Aguirre-Gratton model does not have reasonable or plausible assumptions. Aguirre and Gratton have not put forward any plausible mechanisms that might cause the arrow of time to reverse and no reversal of time has ever been observed.
Remember this is the best model that Sean Carroll had to represent his view that the universe is past-eternal. A Bayesian probability that the Aguirre-Gratton model applies to our universe is <1%.
B. Cosmology from Quantum Potential Model – Because the BGV theorem applies to classical spacetimes, another way to evade the theorem is to appeal to the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. One example is the paper “Cosmology from Quantum Potential.”
However, this cosmological model has serious problems. A recent paper titled “Perturbative Instability of Cosmology from Quantum Potential” has the following Abstract:
Our universe is stable. This model does not produce a universe like the one we observe. The Bayesian probability of this model being correct is less than the Aguirre-Gratton model and is <1%.
C. Emergent Universe Models – This class of models successfully evade BGV theorem. The idea is that a “cosmic egg” that exists forever until it breaks open to produce an expanding universe. Proponents of these ideas include Ellis, Barrow, Campo, Wu, and Graham.
Mithani and Vilenkin show that this class of models can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
A Bayesian probability of Emergent Universe Models being correct is <1%.
Side Note: What About Guth?
Someone may mention the photo of Alan Guth holding a sign at the Carroll/Craig debate that read [The universe is] very likely eternal but nobody knows.” Why would Guth pose holding that sign when all of his scientific papers say the universe had a beginning? Some assumed Guth was going to publish a new paper that explained his change of view, but it’s been three years and no paper has been published supporting a change in the science.
Perhaps Guth posed for that picture just as a favor to Carroll.
In order to defeat premise #2, skeptics must be able to show that a past-eternal universe is more likely than a universe of a finite age. While a number of past-eternal models have been proposed, the cosmological community has rejected all of them as highly unlikely. A Bayesian probability can be assigned to premise (2) of 98%.
Step #3
The third step of the argument is the rational conclusion of the first two premises. A Bayesian probability can be assigned to this conclusion of 98%.
Step #4
The fourth premise – “The universe cannot cause itself” – seems non-controversial. However, cosmologists (driven by their dislike of the way a beginning of the universe points to creation by God) have proposed ideas attempting to challenge this premise. Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe from Nothing, was one of the first of these proposals to get a wide audience. The idea, first proposed by Edward Tryon, is that the universe is a quantum fluctuation. Physicist Don Page pointed out that Krauss’s idea is not really “from nothing” because quantum fluctuations require a quantum field (which is something). Since the quantum field must exist before the Big Bang, this is not a universe from nothing at all.
Alexander Vilenkin modified Tryon’s idea referring to the origin of the universe as a “quantum nucleation” that happened before the existence of any matter, energy, time or space. In order words, the quantum nucleation happened in the absence of a quantum field. Not only is this logically incoherent as things happening before time require time, but this idea is problematic for most physicists because the theory makes an untestable claim. Scientifically untestable claims are not scientific. The probability the universe can cause itself is <1%.
Step #5
“The cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused” is mostly non-controversial. If the universe is defined as “all matter, energy, space and time” and the universe cannot create itself, then it follows that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Some may argue that the cause does not necessarily have to be uncaused. But if a contingent being of finite age were the creator, that being would not be the ultimate answer.
The real Creator would be the one who created the intermediate being. An infinite causal regress is a logical absurdity and has been rejected by philosophers since the time of Aristotle. A Bayesian probability can be assigned to this premise of 99%.
Step #6
“This uncaused, immaterial and timeless cause of the universe is what everyone means by God” is largely uncontroversial. A Bayesian probability can be assigned to this premise of 99%.
Step #7
“Therefore God exists” is a rational conclusion. A Bayesian probability can be assigned to this conclusion of >95%.
Whether this God is the God of the Bible or some other God is a separate question and requires additional evidence and reasoning.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mJ8ZFg
10 Things Children Should Learn About Faith
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
[NOTE: This post is 4 years old but continues to receive a large number of visitors from Google searches on teaching kids about faith. A lot has happened here on the blog since I wrote this–including having the opportunity to write a book that was released in March 2016 by Harvest House Publishers: Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith! If you’re here because you’re looking for resources to help you effectively raise your kids to follow Jesus in the midst of this secular world, please take a moment to check it out!]
Yesterday, my 3-year-old daughter asked about the word “faith” after hearing it in the devotional book she received for Christmas. I told her that faith means we believe in God even though we can’t see Him, hear Him or touch Him. Hearing myself say that out loud, I realized for the first time just how difficult the concept of faith can be. My definition was true in a simple sense, but as my kids grow I want them to understand the greater richness of the word as used in the Bible.
This inspired me to study the different instances of the word translated as “faith” in the New Testament. Based on my (digital) study Bible, there are 245 such instances. I read each of the passages and categorized them into 10 key insights on faith that I hope to teach my children as they grow.
10 Things Children Should Learn About Faith
1. Faith is what saves. Amongst the many verses that attest to this, Ephesians 2:8 clearly states, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”. Our children first and foremost need to learn that faith in Jesus is the only thing that results in salvation of our souls.
2. Faith can grow. Since the Bible clearly establishes faith as the requirement for salvation, it is natural to think of it as something we either have or don’t have. While that is true for saving faith, many verses make it clear that the faith of (saved) Christians can and should continue to grow (e.g., Romans 4:20, 2 Corinthians 10:15, Philippians 1:25, 1 Thessalonians 3:10, Romans 14:1). Our children need to understand that growing faith is a life-time process that starts with saving faith.
3. Faith can fail. In Luke 22:31-34, Jesus foretells Peter’s denial. In verse 32 Jesus says, “…but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” Our faith can fail due to our circumstances. When facing such circumstances, our children need to know they can pray for their faith to remain firm.
4. Faith is a gift. Romans 12:3 and 1 Corinthians 12:9 tell us that faith is a spiritual gift from God and therefore it varies by person. When it first registered for me last year that strength of faith is actually a gift, I honestly felt a sense of relief; I had always thought something was wrong with my faith because it’s been more of a struggle for me to believe than for many other Christians I know. Our children should understand that faith DOES vary amongst believers and that comparisons are fruitless. What matters is our personal faith growth.
5. Faith can move mountains. Jesus says in Matthew 17:20 and 21:22 that if you do not doubt, your faith can move mountains; note He didn’t say that “medium” faith will move hills! Our children need to understand that the power of prayer lies in full conviction.
6. Faith means to trust. The book of Matthew quotes Jesus saying “O you of little faith” on five occasions. On all but one of those occasions, He was addressing the disciples regarding their fear or worry (6:30, 8:26, 14:31, and 16:8). If little faith results in worry, that implies great faith results in trust. When our children are worried or scared, we should help them pray specifically for God to grow their faith; faith that results in trust is the remedy for fear.
7. Faith is protective. There are two New Testament verses that use faith as a metaphor for spiritually protective armor (the “shield of faith” in Ephesians 6:16 and the “breastplate of faith” in 1 Thessalonians 5:8). Our children need to be aware of the need for spiritual protection in their daily lives, and that faith is the basis for that protection.
8. Faith results in action. Hebrews chapter 11 recalls many of the most faithful people of the Old Testament. Each verse starts with the pattern, “By faith (person) (did something)”. It wasn’t enough for the author to point out that each of these people HAD faith; the focus was on what that faith produced. Our children need to understand that authentic faith results in action.
9. (Great) Faith is believing before you experience. In almost every instance where Jesus acknowledged someone for having great faith, it was in the context of believing in Him prior to experiencing healing (e.g., see Matthew 8 for the “greatest” faith of the Centurion). Our children need to know that faith doesn’t require waiting for signs or experiences that lead to the “conviction of things not seen”; Jesus acknowledged great faith as first believing in Him.
10. Faith is a decision everyone makes. Even if a person does not have faith in God, he or she must have faith in another “unproven” alternative about the afterlife (even if it’s that nothing exists). Our children need to realize that faith is a decision everyone makes, not just Christians.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2n1hiOs
5 Ways Christian Parents Fail to Prepare Their Kids to Engage with Questions of Faith and Science
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
I’m coming down to the final six weeks of writing my next book and am very much looking forward to being on the other side of that deadline! I’ve missed being able to blog regularly during this intense writing time, so I had to take a break today and share a new post inspired by some of the topics my next book will address. (On a side note, watch for a new post very soon to reveal the cover and title of the book!)
My favorite section to write has been on Science and God, because I know so many parents are looking for help in talking about this subject with their kids. While writing the chapters in that section, I thought a lot about how we, as Christian parents, are collectively failing to adequately prepare our kids to engage with questions of faith and science. Today, I want to share 5 ways I believe that’s happening, and encourage all of us to consider what we can do better in our own homes.
1. We don’t talk about the relationship between faith and science at all.
This is, without a doubt, the number one way we fail our kids in this area—we fail to say anything at all. Not only do we need to say something, we need to say quite a lot. Over and over again, researchers have found that a leading reason why so many young people walk away from faith is that they believe they have to choose between Christianity and science. Meanwhile, other research has shown that only ONE percent of youth pastors address any issue related to science in a given year.
This is a giant disconnect.
Regardless of the fact that churches need to do a much better job in this area, parents need to take the reins. This is our responsibility, and there is absolutely no doubt that questions of faith and science will challenge our kids in some way…whether this is an area we feel equipped to discuss or not. If you do feel equipped, great—get started. If you don’t, that’s OK—start learning. Those are really the only two options.
2. We boil all “science versus faith” conversations down to one (or two) issues.
I find in talking with parents that when you say the words “science and faith,” most people quickly launch into a conversation about evolution. There’s no doubt that evolution is one of the most important topics in this category, if not the most important topic. But there are many other questions our kids need to understand, especially at the more philosophical level. For example, people throw out broad statements like “science disproves God” all the time. Kids need to know what to make of those kinds of assertions just as much as they need to know what to make of the subject of evolution.
The second section of my next book will address six of these broader questions:
3. We teach overly simplistic answers that ignore important nuances.
I understand that science is not a “user-friendly” topic for many people. The only C grade I ever received in my life was in high school chemistry and I’m still bitter about it.
Unfortunately, this leads many parents to either 1) ignore the science-versus-faith dialogue completely (see my first point) or 2) teach overly simplistic answers that can inadvertently do major damage to their kids’ faith later.
One of the most important ways we can avoid this is by taking the time to define key words. For example, consider the question, “Can science prove or disprove God’s existence?” If someone asked me that, I couldn’t even answer their question unless I first asked them: What do you mean by science? What do you mean by prove or disprove? And what do you mean by God? People use those words in many different senses today and you simply can’t have a meaningful discussion without understanding their more nuanced underlying question. They may be asking:
Can a specific branch of science provide evidence that strongly challenges a specific historical claim of a given religion? (Answer: Yes.)
Or, they may be asking:
Can the field of science, when defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural world, say anything about the existence of God, when defined simply as a supernatural being who may or may not have created the world? (Answer: No—and even most atheists would agree.)
While we may wish we could simply teach our kids easy answers like, “Of course science doesn’t disprove God!”, we fail to adequately prepare them for this challenging secular world when we do.
4. We teach only one of several Christian views on origins (age of the Earth and evolution).
If you’ve read my first book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, you know how strongly I feel about this. There are eight chapters written to explain why Christians have varied views on how and when God created the world—based on both scriptural and scientific considerations. While many parents don’t teach their kids anything at all on this subject, many of the remaining parents only teach their kids one specific view (for example, young-Earth creationism, old-Earth creationism, or theistic evolution). Whatever view you teach, your kids will hear challenges from both other Christians and from atheists—a very confusing position for them to be in if you’ve never explained the issues at stake.
Note that I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t tell our kids what we believe. There’s no problem at all with explaining our own convictions. The problem lies in teaching them our views in a silo rather than taking the time to explain why fellow believers and skeptics interpret science and/or the Bible differently than we do.
5. We’re overly fearful of suggesting there’s a conflict between Christianity and science.
One of the things I found most interesting when preparing to write on whether or not science and religion contradict one another was just how quick Christians are to lay out a case for why Christianity and science are not in conflict. Much of the time, Christians jump straight to showing 1) how science can’t say anything about a Being outside of nature and/or 2) how there’s no reason to expect that science could even be done if there weren’t a God to rationally design the universe. Those things are true. But much of the time when skeptics talk about the conflict of science and Christianity, they’re talking specifically about the conflict between mainstream scientific consensus and a specific claim of the Bible that intersects with the natural world—for example, the age of the Earth (based on the young-Earth interpretation of Scripture) and direct creation (versus evolution). If we just keep insisting “there’s no conflict,” when there actually are apparent conflicts in some areas, we miss some very important discussion opportunities with our kids. Again, we have to define terms clearly.
Finally, it’s important to remember that the accurate interpretation of scientific data and the accurate interpretation of the Bible will never be in true conflict. If apparent conflicts arise, (at least) one interpretation is wrong. When we’re convicted of the accuracy of our interpretation of Scripture, we shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge when the Bible conflicts with scientific consensus; Scientists can be wrong. On the other hand, when there is an apparent conflict, we should be willing to thoughtfully consider the scientific data; Our biblical interpretation can also be wrong.
Rather than sweep apparent conflicts under the carpet, we can help our kids significantly by 1) confidently explaining why apparent conflicts may arise and 2) studying the scientific and scriptural considerations together.
What questions about science and faith do you most have trouble discussing with your kids? If you don’t currently have these discussions, what’s your biggest barrier?
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mouGKB
The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering
CrossExaminedBy Brian Chilton
One of the more difficult of the apologetics arguments to understand is that known as the ontological argument. The ontological argument finds root in Anselm of Canterbury’s famed declaration, “God is that, than which noting greater can be conceived.”[1] This is the say, God is the greatest of all possible beings. God, properly understood, is maximally great. Nothing could be greater than God. Thus, Anselm argues that if it is possible to conceive of the greatest possible beings, then that greatest possible being must exist. There is much to unpack in this argument. However, I would like to focus on arguments that provide reasons to believe that God is a necessary being.
Before we look at some arguments for the necessity of God’s existence, we must first define a necessary being. A necessary being is a being whose existence is mandatory due to a result of that being’s existence (i.e., contingency). For example, I exist only because of the necessity of my parents’ existence. My existence is contingent (based upon) the necessity of their existence. My parents’ existence is contingent (based upon) the necessity of their parents’ existence (my grandparents). The logical line of necessity continues until one finds the necessity of a maximally great being—a being that is transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. We know that maximally great being as God. Let’s look at three or four modern ontological arguments that make the case for the necessity of God’s existence.
As we already unpacked the argument from necessity, we have found that God’s existence is mandatory. However, the logical necessity of God’s existence is found in the following argument presented by Douglas Grootius:
The first premise notes that God is defined as a maximally great being, or Perfect Being. Premises 2 and 3 demonstrate the logical necessity that a Perfect Being is either an impossibility or a necessity. Since the existence of a Perfect Being is neither impossible, nonsensical, nor self-contradictory, the existence of a Perfect Being is shown to be a necessary concept. The atheist would need to demonstrate that God’s existence is impossible (which itself is impossible), nonsensical (which is actually found in a worldview that postulates that things magically pop into existence without any cause), or self-contradictory. The only means that the non-believer has to disprove the necessity of God’s existence in my humble opinion is to show that there is a self-contradiction in God’s existence. Yet, it appears to me that there are greater self-contradictions in viewing the universe without the existence of God, thereby strengthening the necessity of a Perfect Being. The former is an impossible task, the middle is a task that some have attempted…and failed, and the third is inherently flawed.
Looking at this model from a different perspective, consider Alvin Plantinga’s take on Norman Malcolm’s argument, presented by Norman Geisler:
Let’s unpack this argument. If God did not existence, his existence would be a logical impossibility like the existence of magical unicorns. If God does exist, then his existence would be a logical necessity—like the example of my parents’ existence as given above. Thus, God’s existence would be logically necessary if he exists or logically impossible if he does not exist. If God’s existence is impossible, then the idea of God is contradictory. God’s existence is not a contradiction; therefore, God is a logical necessity.
I personally like these arguments as I find the existence of God an absolute necessity. Non-theistic arguments often lead to bizarre absurdities which are at times irreconcilable. Christian theism is the most coherent of all worldview, thus the existence of the Christian God is a logical necessity. There is another take to this argument that demands consideration: the necessity of God found in possible worlds.
A possible world is a hypothetical scenario that describes the various ways that the world could be. We live in the actual world, however the would could have been much different. With that in mind, consider Alvin Plantinga’s ontological argument from possible worlds.
Let’s unpack Plantinga’s difficult argument. Nearly everyone would agree that it is at least possible that a maximally great being exists—that is, God. Since God’s existence is not impossible, then it is conceivable that God exists in some possible world. If it is possible that God exists in one possible world, then it is possible that he exists in every possible world including the actual world in which we live. Some will argue, “But yeah, it is possible that magical unicorns exist in some possible world. So, does that mean that magical unicorns must exist in this world?” Absolutely not! The existence of the magical unicorn is not a necessity. Since I am a contingent being, it is necessary in all possible worlds that I have a reason for my existence (by my parents or another set of parents). If God, being a necessary being, is possible in some possible world, he is possible in all possible worlds and is in fact found in the actual world. Confusing? Yes. But logically coherent? Absolutely!
Let’s now look at the last ontological argument of God’s necessity as it pertains to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases as time progresses. Entropy is the disorder that occurs over time. Think of a wind-up toy. The wind-up toy is wound up and allowed to wind itself down. The winding down of the toy is the state of entropy. The same occurs with heat. Over time, heat cools until all heat is lost (i.e., heat death). The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is losing energy as it continues to exist. This will ultimately lead to a complete loss of heat unless there is an intervention from outside the universe. The following modus Tollens argument, presented by Groothius, notes how the Second Law of Thermodynamics argues for the finite nature of the universe and the necessity of God’s existence.
Let’s unpack this argument. If it were possible that the universe is eternal with finite energy (which is observable), then the universe would have reached a heat death already. However, that has not occurred. Due to the absence of such an event, this proves that the universe is finite and had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, the cause is most plausible to have been attributed to God. “Wait!” the skeptic may say. “Isn’t it possible that a multiverse gave birth to the universe?” Yes, it is possible. However, it has been shown in the BVG Theorem (named by its discoverers Borg, Vilenkin, and Guth) that all physical universes must have a finite past and an absolute beginning. So, the skeptic does nothing by arguing for a multiverse outside of pushing the necessity of God’s existence back a step or two.
Conclusion
It is true that these arguments are quite complex. But if one takes the time to evaluate and understand these versions of the ontological argument, I think one will find the necessity of God’s existence is rooted in a wealth of logical and philosophical certitude. Logically speaking, God’s existence is a necessity as it is demanded by logic and the data of causal relations in the actual world.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2npUHen
Did Man Invent God?
AtheismI have recently become aware of a video on the internet that is making its way around the campus of the local university. Several college students told me that after viewing the video, it really made them question their faith. Now, this might surprise you, but I am all for questioning one’s faith (I encourage atheists to do the same), but if one is to question what they believe, it should be for good and logical reasons!
In my experience, it is usually Christians who present arguments utilizing the laws of logic with premises that lead to deductive conclusions. Most (not all) of the atheist arguments I find on the Internet are usually based in emotion as opposed to logic, and therefore, they rarely put their thoughts into logical argument form. After watching this video, I decided to put the statements of this atheist into a deductive syllogism. Let’s see if it is a logically valid argument or not.
1- According to the Bible, God has always existed and predates the universe itself.
2- According to the evidence, the idea of God began evolving 14,000 years ago.
3- Therefore, God has not always existed since man invented the idea of God, the Bible is false and atheism is true.
Now the first two premises are direct quotes from the atheist in the video. Let’s quickly examine them. Premise (1) is true. The Bible does teach that God exists necessarily, eternally with no beginning, and that God brought all things into being (including the universe). Here are two verses from the Old Testament and two from the New Testament to consider:
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Hebrew for universe).
Psalm 148: 1-5 “Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created.”
John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”
Colossians 1:15-17 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
However, this proposition is not only “according to the Bible.” In fact, a logic-based argument that is supported by scientific data suggests the exact same thing! This is known as The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Moreover, arguments such as the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument also logically conclude the same. The Kalam and Leibnizian arguments both rationally infer that there is ONE timeless, beginningless, eternal, necessary, spaceless, immaterial, volitional and personal mind that the universe (and all of its contents) is contingent upon. What is more, the Ontological Argument demonstrates that a Maximally Great Being exists and therefore, monotheism must be true as it is incoherent to have multiple “maximally great beings.”
So, yes, the Bible does make these monotheistic claims; however, even if the Bible didn’t exist, we would still come to these conclusions by thinking according to the laws of logic and the rules of rationality. Since the Bible makes claims that are in line with the laws of logic, it ought to be considered as a plausible explanation of reality. So far the argument is good, because premise (1) is true and is backed up by the laws of logic and modern science. Let’s look at the second premise:
(2) According to the evidence, the idea of God began evolving 14,000 years ago.
This is a controversial premise that historians can argue; however, I am not interested in attacking the supposed “evidence” this atheist thinks he has; rather, I am interested in arguing logically. So for the sake of argument, I will actually grant this premise (I’m not affirming it at all). Here’s the big question: Since I affirm the first premise and grant the second, does the conclusion follow? No, it does not follow because although the premises may be true, the argument is invalid because the conclusion does not logically follow from the two premises. Let’s look at the conclusion again:
(3)Therefore, God has not always existed since man invented the idea of God, the Bible is false and atheism is true.
Premise (2) seems to assume that if we can show why or how humanity started believing that God exists, then, we can logically conclude that these theistic beliefs are false. However, this line of thinking makes a big mistake in reasoning called the genetic fallacy. This mistake is made when someone argues against a proposition by pointing out why someone believes the proposition is true. While it is correct that people can believe propositions for bad reasons, it does not logically follow that the propositions they affirm are therefore false.
The truth or falsity of a proposition is independent of how or why someone came to believe the proposition.
For example, atheistic naturalists believe that all that exists is nature, and therefore, they hold that everything is determined by the laws of nature and past events receding all the way back to the initial conditions of the big bang (this includes all of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions). So, if I told an atheistic naturalist that the only reason he believes in atheism, naturalism and determinism is because he was determined by physics and chemistry to do so, and therefore, these positions are false, I would be committing the genetic fallacy. My objection does not show that the naturalist’s beliefs are false, they only show that he cannot rationally affirm his beliefs and therefore his beliefs do not count as knowledge (a.k.a. justified true belief). The determinist’s belief that determinism is true could luckily happen to be true, even if he does not have reason, warrant, or justification in affirming his propositions.
Back to the argument in question: the atheist is assuming that human ideas about God evolved from pantheistic ones a relatively short and finite time ago. He argues that these are not good reasons to believe in Christian monotheism, and therefore, Christianity is false. His entire argument is based on the genetic fallacy and therefore the whole thing must be discarded as any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all. He claims we have come to believe Christian monotheism is true for bad reasons; therefore, Christian monotheism is false. However, the objective truth-value of the propositions of Christianity is true or false regardless of how we came to hold these beliefs. Remember the other arguments I listed above are good reasons to think monotheism is true independent of what the Bible does or does not say. These arguments are used without touching the Bible and only rely on the laws of logic with support from scientific data. Therefore, in regards to the Bible’s claims about monotheism, it is exactly right and in line with the rules of reason. Moreover, these arguments also prove the negation of this atheist’s invalid conclusion – atheism is therefore, false!
Premise (2) is not only controversial, but it implies the propositions Christians affirm are false because of how we came to hold these beliefs. Let me reiterate this again for the sake of clarity: This commits the genetic fallacy, and therefore, this entire argument is invalid.
One last thing: this video only attacked the Old Testament’s views of God. It is important for Christians (and non-Christians alike) to realize that the truth of “mere” Christianity requires only two key ingredients: 1- God’s existence, and 2- the resurrection of Jesus. That’s it! We don’t even need the Old Testament to reach the conclusion that Christianity is true (logically speaking). I’m glad we have it and it helps make sense of many things, but we don’t need it to conclude Christianity is true. Therefore, any attacks on it, or its infallibility, are completely impotent if their hope is to demonstrate Christianity is false. To do that, one must either demonstrate one of the two premises in the following argument to be false, or that the conclusion does not logically follow deductively from them:
1- God exists.
2- God raised Jesus from the dead.
3- Therefore, Christianity is true.
Premise (1) is reached by a cumulative case of logical arguments such as:
– The Kalam
– The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
– The Moral Argument
– The Ontological Argument
– The Teleological Argument
– (And many more)
Premise (2) is reached via the historical method and inference to the best explanation. If God raised Jesus from the dead, it seems that God is validating everything that Jesus said, taught, and exemplified. Therefore, Christianity is true!
For more on some of these specific arguments, start here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1
Stay reasonable (Phil 4:5)
Original Blog Resource: http://bit.ly/2mYIUGf
Biblical Faith VS. Blind Faith
CrossExamined, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Evan Minton
Many Christians when asked by unbelievers why they should believe anything The Bible says, the most common response is “Just have faith!”. And this “just have faith” line is pretty much the answer to every single objection one could possibly raise against the Christian.
Far too often people have turned away because of intellectual doubts that plague them. “If God is all loving and all powerful, why does He let so much suffering go on in the world?” “How could a loving God send people to an eternal Hell?” “How do I know Yahweh is the one true God instead of these thousands of other gods in these other religions that contradict Christianity? How do I know The Bible is true and not The Koran or the Hindu Scriptures?” And when a Christian or a pastor responds with “Just have faith” that translates in the mind of the unbeliever as “in order to be a Christian, you need to commit intellectual suicide.” This blind faith approach is so, so, so very unbiblical. Many places in The Bible command us to tell others WHY Christianity is true.
“Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, but do so with gentleness and respect.” – 1 Peter 3:15
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” – 2 Corinthians 10:5
In Jude 1:3, Jude urges his readers to DEFEND the faith (that’s what we call “Christian Apologetics”).
In Phillipians 1:16, Paul says that he was appointed to DEFEND the good news (i.e do Christian Apologetics).
“Live wisely among those who are not believers, and make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be gracious and attractive so that you will have the right response for everyone.” – Colossians 4:5-6
In 2 Corinthians 12:12 Paul says he gave the Corinthians PROOF that he was indeed an apostle from God because he performed many signs and wonders when he was with them. If God really wanted us to have blind faith, why would Paul give evidence for his credibility?
In 2 Corinthians 13:3 Paul says he is willing to offer the Corinthians PROOF that Christ speaks through him. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa whoa! Hold the phone, Paul! Paul, buddy! Don’t you know that if you offer the Corinthians proof that Christ speaks through you that they won’t have legitimate faith? Why would you deprive them they opportunity of having faith, Paul? Maybe faith isn’t what people think it is.
Objection: If you need evidence, you don’t have faith.
This is an objection often proposed by Christians (as well as atheists) who think that the word “faith” means to believe something without any reason to and/or even to believe something in the face of reasons to not believe it. This distortion of the meaning of the word “faith” has had very bad consequences on the church because it makes a person think that Christianity requires you to be an undiscerning airhead who doesn’t like reason.
Here is a Bible verse that gives an example of a person placing their faith in God in spite of having evidence for His existence. I tell ya, reading The Bible is like going into a spiritual gold mine and mining all the good stuff you find. BUT you gotta dig for it. Usually, I’m not looking for stuff like this, I just happen to stumble across it while reading through the verses. I found this one night when reading through Exodus. I think it does a good job of arguing against Christians who think that apologetics is wrong because you’re supposed to have blind, undiscerning belief.
“When the Israelites saw the mighty power that The Lord had unleashed against the Egyptians, they were filled with awe before Him. THEY PUT THEIR FAITH IN HIM and His servant Moses.” – Exodus 14:31
Clearly, the Israelites had evidence that God existed and was helping them escape Egypt and yet the text says they put their faith in Him anyway (for a little while at least. we all know they lost faith a bunch of times after this). They ESPECIALLY had evidence that MOSES existed and the text says they placed their faith in him as well. So given this piece of scriptural evidence, we know that a Christian can still base his belief THAT Christianity is true on the basis of evidence and still be able to have faith in God. You see, faith means the same thing as the word “trust”. Or as I’ve said before “Faith is when someone is holding you over a ledge and knowing in your heart that not only will they not let you fall, they’ll pull you up to safety”. You know that the person holding onto you exists. You have very powerful evidence that that person exists, yet all the evidence in the world is not going to make you trust that that person will help save your life. This is the real definition of the word “faith”.
I like using an analogy. Let’s say you discovered you had heart disease, and need a risky surgery. You have sufficient resources, so you research doctors, anesthesiologists, etc. until you have the best team possible assembled. You now have a group of people that you believe will give you the best chance of survival. Even though you have researched extensively, you still show your faith in this team when you allow yourself to be put under. Faith does not mean not researching and exploring the truth. Jesus even says as much when he tells us to love God with our heart, soul, *MIND* and strength.
http://bible.cc/exodus/14-31.htm <– Here you can look at other translations of Exodus 14:31 to see all the different words that are used other than “faith”. The NLT uses “faith”, the NIV used “trust”, the KJV uses “believed” that is; they believed IN God and His promises even though they had just witnessed good evidence THAT He existed and was helping them. This is the difference between belief THAT God exists, THAT Jesus rose from the dead and belief IN His character and His promises to you.
We are never told to have a blind faith. Paul commended those in Berea for checking the Scriptures daily to see if what he was telling them was so. Jesus showed Himself alive to make sure those believed on Him, especially Thomas (John 20:28)
Paul also said to “Test everything, hold onto the good.” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
1 Thessalonians 5:21 seems to be telling us to have just the exact opposite of blind faith.
Objection: “Without faith, it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly” – Hebrews 11:6
I agree with this. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. But then again, it’s impossible to please ANYONE without faith. It is not possible to have a good relationship with any human being without faith. What is faith? Remember, the word “faith” is synonymous with “trust”. If you’re constantly distrusting God, you’re not going to have a very good relationship with Him just as you wouldn’t have a very good relationship with your wife/husband if you were always distrusting her/him. If you’re constantly suspecting your wife of cheating on you, I “suspect” that it’s not going to be very long before she hands you the divorce papers telling you “I can’t live with someone who distrusts me so severely”. Although sometimes that kind of suspicion is warranted.
I walk by faith, not by sight. This doesn’t mean I believe God exists without any evidence or reason. It means I trust in Him even when I don’t know what He’s up to. Sometimes our circumstances can have deceitful appearances. Sometimes it looks like God has abandoned us when He really hasn’t. Sometimes it looks like God won’t keep His promises. Sometimes we think our suffering has no good purpose for it. It is in times like these that we have to have faith in (i.e to place our TRUST in) God. That His plans are for ours or someone else’s ultimate good.
Having evidence for God’s existence does not mean you’re not walking by faith. Faith is placing one’s trust in a person. Just because you have EVIDENCE for that person’s existence does not mean you don’t trust them. Moses had PLENTY of evidence for God’s existence, but He still had to trust that God was going to lead Him and the Jews where He said they were going to. Many times it looked like Yahweh was leading them on a wild goose chase, but Moses continued to have FAITH in the God which he had plenty of proof existed. Although many of the people did lose faith. They got impatient and started worshipping false idols, and constantly complained.
Objection: Do Apologists forget the work of The Holy Spirit?
Anyone who does apologetics knows the Holy Spirit has to play an integral part of the entire process. As Ergun Caner says, “It is impossible to be effective in apologetics without the work of the Spirit in both the apologist and the hearer.” (2) No mature apologist forgets that the Bible stresses that humans are blinded by sin. Therefore, sin has damaging consequences on the knowing process (Is. 6:9-10; Zech. 7:11-12; Matt. 13:10-13; 2 Cor. 4:4). How people respond to God’s revelation depends on several factors such as his/her personal history (both past and present). People can be hardened towards God; sin certainly dampens an individual’s ability to being receptive to God’s invitation to them. The Holy Spirit works through apologetics just as He works through preaching.
Objection: Shouldn’t we just preach the gospel?
This is true. By all means, “Preach the Gospel!” But guess what? What do you do when you try to open the Bible and use it with someone who doesn’t think the Bible is an authoritative or inspired book? This happens all the time to Christians. And did you know Muslims and other people think their holy book is just as inspired and authoritative as the Bible? The Hindus think their scriptures are inspired. The Buddhists think their holy scriptures are inspired. If you keep trying to quote the Bible, you would be “begging the question.”
“Begging the question” is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place. In some cases, you may be able to go quote the Bible to many people without any objections, like when you’re trying to witness to Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses. If you’re witnessing to Jews, you can show them all the messianic prophesies and how Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies. But in other cases (like when witnessing to atheists and agnostics), you would need to show the individual the Bible is a reliable historical document before trying to use it as an authoritative text in these types of conversations.
Avoiding Apologetics can have dire consequences.
Christianity is under a severe attack in this day and age. In fact, I’ve never seen the Christian faith under attack more than I have in the 21st century. “The New Atheist” movement has set a goal to eliminate religious belief from the face of the Earth. High School teachers and College professors endorse Darwinian evolution and try to convince your kids that a Creator was not needed for advanced life to come into being.
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig concurs. He said “In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian worldview coupled with an overwhelming relativism. If parents are not intellectually engaged with their faith and do not have sound arguments for Christian theism and good answers to their children’s questions, then we are in real danger of losing our youth. It’s no longer enough to simply teach our children Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics. It’s hard to understand how people today can risk parenthood without having studied apologetics.”
If Jesus wants us to have blind faith, then why did He have to fulfill so many ancient prophesies?
If God required us to have blind faith, then why did Jesus have to fulfill so many prophesies to PROVE to the Jews that He was the true messiah? Why couldn’t Jesus just come onto the scene and say “Hey, I’m the Messiah, follow me!” Maybe because so many other people were claiming to be the Messiah at the time period and they were NOT the Messiah. The Jews needed the ability to tell truth from falsehood. The Jews needed the ability to tell the difference between the TRUE messiah and a phony. Blind Faith can’t give you that. God gave the Jews a test for the real Messiah to take and if He was able to get a perfect score, then their conclusion would be that He was and is the Messiah. Lee Strobel calls this “The Fingerprint Evidence” in his book “The Case For Christ”. Jesus had to fulfill each and every one of the messianic prophecies. If He did, then that proved He was the genuine article.
Blind Faith can actually be dangerous!
Blind Faith can actually be dangerous. How are you going to “beware of false prophets” like Jesus said if you don’t exercise some discernment? Back in ancient Judaism, the way to tell if a prophet was truly from God was if he gave evidence that he came from God. How’s that? Well, if his prophecies came true then he was truly from The Lord but if his prophecies were false then everyone knew he was a false prophet and they had him stoned. 1 John 4:1 says “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Yet another verse telling us that blind faith is wrong. This verse is telling us that we should “test the spirits” to see if they give evidence that they are indeed from God.
“Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.”
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mzdohl
How Not Letting Your Children Ask a Question Leads Them to Atheism
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michael C. Sherrard
Time and time again, I hear the story of one who has left their belief in God in the bin of their childhood memories alongside Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. And more often than not, I’m given one reason that is quite strange. Well, it’s not strange to me anymore because of how often I’m given this answer. Too often, I have people tell me that the reason they do not believe in God anymore is because no one ever let them ask a question.
Just recently a friend of mine had an old college friend who is an atheist find him on Facebook. The old college buddy sent my friend a nice message that said, “I know we had our differences, but I’ve always admired you and appreciated the respectful conversations we had.”
“It was strange to the get the note,” my friend told me. “Too random to not consider that maybe the Lord was orchestrating something here.”
So my friend kept the conversation going and at one point he asked him, “What is your biggest objection to the existence of God today?”
His friend’s answer is a sad indictment on the state of many churches. He said, “No one would let me ask a question.”
The friend went on to explain how in High School he started to have some questions, and so he brought them to his pastor and other church leaders. And rather than acceptance and a healthy conversation he was practically shown the door. He was told on more than one occasion that believers don’t ask these questions. They just trust God and have faith. He concluded that his questions didn’t have answers and that Christianity is a fable.
This is not a unique story. I hear this all the time.
How many of you have heard or even said yourself, “If we had answers then we wouldn’t need to have faith.” But Jesus welcomed skeptics and questioners and gave them answers and so should we. If we do not, we will affirm the doubts that cause questions and send our children to atheism.
But we are on the side of truth and have nothing to fear. We need to encourage questions and welcome the questioner. So what can we do to encourage and allow teenagers to ask questions so that they don’t have to just ask Siri or Google, or worse, decide that there are no answers to their questions and abandon their belief in God?
There are three things we can do to create an environment that allows teenagers to ask questions.
First, we build relationships. Many articles and surveys are showing that the younger generations want community. They want relationships with adults. And it is our responsibility to create them. It is the burden of the older generations to build bridges to the younger ones. We need to de-segregate the generations in the church. Teenagers need to know people that have answers and they need to trust them enough to be able to ask a question.
Second, respond to the questioner, not just the question. Teenagers and all people for that matter use questions for purposes other than getting an answer. Sometimes they ask a question to rattle you. Sometimes they ask a question to get to know you. Sometimes they ask a question to test the waters so to speak. Your response will often tell them more than your answer. So control your facial expressions, anticipate as many scenarios as you can, and get in the habit of affirming questions by saying things like, “That’s a great question”, “I’ve wondered that myself” or “That is the right question to be asking.”
Third, ask questions yourself. Get teenagers thinking about important things while they are in a safe environment. Don’t let the first time they hear a question regarding the reliability of scripture be in the classroom of a professor who wants to convert your child to naturalism. My goal is to ask my children the questions I know they will have before they have them. And I make it a point to tell my children to never stop asking questions. “The important thing is to never stop questioning” is probably what my kids are going put on my grave marker.
I had such a proud moment the other day. My six-year-old daughter was jumping on the trampoline and we were talking about taking care of other people. Something happened at school that day and it was a natural opportunity to talk about protecting the weak and how we always need to be nice and invite other kids to play.
At one point I said, “Sherrard’s always…” and I waited for her to finish. I was expecting her to say, “take care of those weaker than us.” But she blurted out, “Ask Questions!” I smiled very big and slept very good that night.
There does not exist a question for which there is not a good answer. So welcome the questioner and find an answer to their question. Do not be afraid of not knowing everything and being asked a question that you can’t answer. There are countless books and resources. And there are organizations like Ratio Christi that can help train you and point you to the resources that can help you along the way. And there is always me. Always feel free to reach out for guidance or support. I like to do more than write.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nc5F63
When Does Personhood Begin? Part I
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Clinton Wilcox
Once you have established that the unborn are human from fertilization, the next step is to ask when we should assign basic human rights to a human individual [1]. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights since without it you can’t enjoy any other rights. It’s pretty difficult to enjoy freedom of speech if you’re not alive to speak in the first place.
As a Christian, I believe that all humans are valuable because we were made in God’s image. [2] God does not have a physical body, so we weren’t made in His physical image. We were made in the image of His likeness; in other words, God has a rational, moral nature, and made us with a similar rational, moral nature.
The pro-life view is that basic human rights should be established when the human comes into existence, that is, at fertilization. In fact, I hesitate to use the term “person” because it’s a legal term that has been used to legally discriminate against groups of people in the past (such as Africans when slavery was legal). So when I use “person” it’s usually synonymous with “entity with basic rights” (e.g. the right to life).
The view held by most pro-life advocates is the Substance View, which has its roots in the sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius: “a person is an individual substance that has a rational nature.” [3] A substance is essentially something that maintains its identity through change. You are essentially the same being now as the embryo you were in the womb. You can cut off an arm and still be you. Since you are the same substance, if a morally justifiable reason is needed to kill you now, a morally justifiable reason is needed to kill you in the womb. So if anyone is going to support abortion, a reason must be given that could not also be applied to someone outside the womb, otherwise killing that person outside the womb would also be morally justifiable.
The only truly consistent position is the pro-life position, which holds that the unborn are human from fertilization. Basic human rights should be established as soon as the human comes into existence. By contrast, the pro-choice position establishes basic human rights at a certain arbitrary point in human development.
Furthermore, the pro-life view is the all-inclusive view, whereas the pro-choice view excludes certain humans based on their lack of some arbitrarily-decided-upon feature (or point in their development). But to the pro-life advocate, all humans are valuable based on their inherent capacity as rational, moral agents. The human is both a rational and a moral being. Without a moral nature there would be no true humanity, so those who would abolish the moral law would abolish humanity in the bargain. [4] As C.S. Lewis writes, “Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasure masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural’ impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.” [5]
It often helps in discussions with pro-choice advocates to make sure you listen carefully and accurately understand what their actual argument is, rather than assuming it. It helps to make a distinction between the humanity of the unborn and their personhood. Sometimes when someone accuses the unborn of not being human, they really mean they don’t believe we should afford them basic human rights, or personhood. If they really mean the unborn isn’t alive or isn’t human, then you can refer to my previous article about how we know the unborn are unique, living, human organisms. But if they mean the unborn are not persons, then the conversation will most likely be led in the following direction.
Most pro-choice objections you will encounter will usually fall under one of four categories, and you can remember these by the acronym SLED, as conceived by philosopher Stephen Schwartz. [6] SLED stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency. An objection raised that falls under one of these categories argues that the unborn aren’t human, or aren’t a person. After looking at these objections we’ll analyze a few others which have to do with function and socioeconomic problems. There are other, more difficult objections which I’ll write about in a future post. For now, these are some of the more common objections you’ll encounter.
For each of these objections, it helps to affirm the difference. This establishes common ground with the pro-choice advocate. Yes, the unborn are smaller, less developed, etc. than we are. But then you’ll want to ask why it matters. Finally, point to someone outside the womb who has those same differences and ask if it would be okay to kill them for that same reason. [7]
Size — the unborn is certainly much smaller than we are, but two-year-old children are much smaller than adults. Women are generally much smaller than men. But does this mean that two-year-old children have less rights than adults, and women have less rights than men because they’re smaller? It would not be unfair for a basketball coach to choose Shaquille O’Neal for his team over Gary Coleman, but it would be equally wrong to kill either one of them.
Level of Development — the unborn are certainly less developed than we are. Two-year-olds are less developed than adults. Does this mean that two-year-olds have less rights as humans than adults do?
Environment — the unborn are in a different place than we are. They’re in the womb. Changing location doesn’t change your nature or your value. I flew to Italy three years ago but who I was didn’t change. So how does an eight-inch journey down the birth canal change one’s value or nature?
Degree of Dependency — the unborn are much more dependent than we are. But how does being more dependent make us less valuable? It seems to me that someone who is more vulnerable deserves that much more protection. Children can’t drive, so they are more dependent than their parents are, who have driver’s licenses. But does it follow that adults may kill their children because they’re more dependent? Some say that the fact that they are totally dependent on one person means that person has the right to kill them. But how does that follow?
First, it seems that only being dependent on one person makes you less of a burden than being dependent on many people. But second, as Justice for All’s Executive Director David Lee says, suppose you’re the last out of a public pool and you hear a splash from the deep end. You look in the water and a toddler has fallen in and is drowning. No one else is there but you. That child is completely dependent on you for its survival — are you morally justified in walking away and letting the child die?
Some say that it’s okay to kill the unborn because they can’t feel pain. I think when someone says this they really mean it’s better to kill someone as an embryo because they won’t be in pain. But still, the lack of feeling pain does not mean it’s morally justified to kill someone, otherwise you would be justified in killing someone in their sleep, or through a painless method.
Take the case of Gabby Gingras, born with congenital insensitivity to pain. [8] This would mean that it would be morally justifiable to kill someone with this condition for any reason that would be used for a similar abortion.
Some also say consciousness or self-awareness is what establishes value. The problem with self-awareness is that we’re not self-aware until sometime after birth. So this would justify infanticide (and some pro-choice philosophers, such as Michael Tooley and Peter Singer, support infanticide for this very reason). Plus, if the immediately exercisable capacity for consciousness is what establishes value, then we could kill anyone who loses consciousness. This would mean we would be morally justified in killing someone for any reason who falls asleep, enters a reversible coma, or goes under anesthesia before a major surgery.
Additionally, as Francis Beckwith and Patrick Lee note, if consciousness is required to bestow value on a human, then no humans are intrinsically valuable. Consciousness is intrinsically valuable. This would mean that the moral rule would be to maximize valuable states of functions. It would not be morally wrong to kill a child, no matter what age, if doing so enabled one to have two children in the future, and thus to bring it about that there were two vehicles of intrinsic value rather than one. [9]
The thing about pain, self-awareness, or consciousness (aside from the problems already mentioned) is that these are Level of Development problems. So point to a two-year-old, or another human outside the womb who also fails in that way, and ask if it’s morally justifiable to kill someone just because they’re less developed than we are.
Finally, there are certain objections that rely on socioeconomic problems. For example, they might say that a family can’t afford another child, or that overpopulation is an issue, etc. Someone making these arguments is simply assuming that the unborn aren’t human, so in an argument like this it helps to bring the argument back on topic (to what is the unborn?) by asking if these same reasons could be used to justify killing a two-year-old child. A family of six could not kill their two-year-old child to help feed their other children, so we can’t justify abortion for this reason. We can’t go around killing small children or homeless people to help with overpopulation, so we can’t justify abortion for this reason either. Trotting Out the Toddler is a powerful tool to help keep the discussion on what the actual issue is, the nature of the unborn [10].
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ncmmyd
[1] Note here that as a JFA mentor, we actually take a slightly different approach than the one presented here. The scope of this article is how to defend the position that personhood should be established at fertilization, but in JFA seminars we prefer to keep the focus on what the unborn is. I have used both approaches in my discussions with pro-choice advocates.
[2] Genesis 1:26
[3] Ancius Manlius Severinus Boethius, Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis, ch. 3.
[4] Lewis, C.S., The Abolition of Man, p. 77.
[5] ibid., pp. 84-85. Note that when C.S. Lewis speaks of the Tao, he is referring to an objective moral law.
[6] Schwartz, Stephen D., The Moral Question of Abortion, Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990, pp. 15-19.
[7] Credit goes to JFA for this approach to using the SLED tool in a dialogue.
[8] Note that this article is a little graphic.
[9] Paraphrased from Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.50, and Patrick Lee, Abortion and Unborn Human Life, (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), p. 55.
[10] Credit goes to Scott Klusendorf and Greg Koukl for the tool of Trotting Out the Toddler.