[Editor’s Note: The following blog is a scholarly article presented, in full, with only minor formatting edits. It is longer, and more academic, than what we normally publish at Crossexamined.org, but we think you can handle it 😉. Crossexamined does not necessarily endorse every philosophical or theological position represented in blogs and articles like this, but we do try to offer a sample of some of the different orthodox options available within the “big tent” of Christian thought. We welcome your feedback, especially if you see anything that can be improved, or that needs correcting. Thank you! The Editorial Staff at Crossexamined.org]
Both Christians and Muslims affirm the following argument:
- There are objective moral truths.
- God is the best explanation for objective moral truths.
- Therefore, God exists.
However, which understanding of God, the Christian’s or the Muslim’s, is a better explanation for objective morality? In this paper I argue that Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for objective morality than Islam’s God. As part of this argument, I propose a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory (TMT) which maintains that the ultimate ground of morality is God’s trinitarian nature.
Within Christian theology, it’s important to include the dynamic, loving, inner-trinitarian relationships in our understanding of metaethics. To leave out these relationships, by saying morality is merely based on God’s nature, ignores important aspects of God which help explain how He is the foundation of morality. Including these relationships provides a more complete picture of how God is the source of morality. Thus, my TMT focuses on God’s triunity and shows how loving relationships exist at the deepest level of ultimate reality.
Many others have recognized the importance of adding God’s inner-trinitarian relationships to our metaphysical categories of substance and essence. Thomas McCall argued that God’s inner-trinitarian relationships are essential to the very being of God. He wrote “. . . I am convinced that divine love is essential to God . . . that holy love is of the essence of God. But I think this is accounted for and grounded in the Trinity.”[1] He continued by affirming the following statement by John Zizioulas: “Love is not an emanation or ‘property’ of the substance of God . . . but is constitutive of his substance, i.e., it is that which makes God what He is. . . . Thus love ceases to be a qualifying—i.e. secondary—property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate.”[2] Thomas Torrance also proposed elevating the metaphysical importance of the divine relationships. He wrote that the trinitarian persons “. . . who indwell one another in the Love that God is constitutes the Communion of Love or the movement of reciprocal Loving which is identical with the One Being of God.”[3] Eleonore Stump insisted that “. . . since, on the doctrine of the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are not reducible to something else in the Godhead, then, persons are an irreducible part of the ultimate foundation of reality. . ..”[4]
According to W. Norris Clarke, Josef Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, dared to reproach “St. Thomas himself . . . and call[ed] for a new, explicitly relational conception of the very nature of the person as such, wherein relationality would become an equally primordial aspect of the person as substantiality.”[5] Ratzinger claimed that within trinitarian theology “. . . lies concealed a revolution in man’s view of the world: the undivided sway of thinking in terms of substance is ended; relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality. . ..”[6] Clarke himself wrote,
“To be a person is to be with . . ., to be a sharer, a receiver, a lover. Ultimately the reason why all this is so that this is the very nature of the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, as revealed to us in the Christian doctrine of God as three Persons within the unity of one being, so that the very being of God is to be self-communicative love. This dynamism is then echoed in all of us, his creatures, and in a preeminent way in created persons. Thus the Christian revelation of the Trinity is not some abstruse doctrine for theologians alone but has a unique illuminating power as to the meaning of being itself which carries metaphysical vision beyond what was accessible to it unaided.”[7]
Alan Torrance suggested we should “conceive of the intra-divine communion of the Trinity as the ground of all that is.”[8] William Hasker affirmed that “the doctrine of the Trinity is an integral part of the metaphysically necessary ultimate structure of reality.”[9] Millard Erickson described the love between the divine persons as “the attractive force of unselfish concern for another person” and thus the “most powerful binding force in the universe.”[10] This is more than mere sentiment; if God is the ultimate reality, and He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is the basic fabric of reality. Clarke said it well when he wrote,
“The highest instance of being is a unity that is not solitary, like Plotinus’s One, but Communion. Here we see in the most striking way how a specifically Christian philosophy can fruitfully shed light on a philosophical problem itself, by drawing on Revelation. The light from Revelation . . . operates as opening up for reflection a new possibility in the nature and meaning of being that we might never have thought of ourselves from our limited human experience, but which, once opened up, is so illuminating that it now shines on its own as an insight into the nature of being and persons that makes many things suddenly fall into place whose depths we could not fathom before. . .. [I]n recent years I have come to realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a uniquely powerful source of illumination in both the philosophy of being and . . . of the person.[11]
To develop my TMT, I begin with Robert Adams’s model and expand it by incorporating God’s triunity. In the first part of his model, his theory of moral value, Adams argued that God is the ultimate good and other beings are good when they resemble Him. In his model the “. . . part played by God . . . is similar to that of the Form of . . . the Good in Plato’s . . . Republic. God is the supreme Good, and the goodness of other things consists in a sort of resemblance to God.”[12] Thus humans are good when they resemble God in a morally pertinent sense. My TMT extends this theory by proposing that the specific thing being resembled is God’s triunity as found in, and expressed among, the loving relationships between the divine persons. Humans are good when they resemble the love between the trinitarian members. Millard Erickson argued that, since the relationships between the divine persons are
. . . bound by agape, self-sacrificial, giving love . . . the type of relationship that should characterize human persons, particularly believing Christians who have accepted the structure of intratrinitarian relationships as the pattern for their own relationships, . . . would be one of unselfish love and submission to the other, seeking the welfare of the other over one’s own.[13]
In this sense God’s inner-trinitarian relationships provide the ultimate foundation for moral value.
Next, I’ll provide two reasons this trinitarian understanding of God is a better explanation for objective moral value than Islam’s God. First, without the inner-trinitarian relationships, it’s unclear that love, the cornerstone of morality, is a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because morality is inextricably tied to personal relationships, it’s more plausible to conceive of love and morality in the context of multiple divine persons than in a context of a single person existing in eternal isolation. Richard Swinburne proclaimed there’s “something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual.”[14] It’s difficult to even fathom love, kindness, respect, etc. where there’s only one divine person. Erickson wrote that,
Love exists within the Godhead as a binding relationship of each of the persons to each of the others. . .. [T]he attribute of love is more than just another attribute. The statement ‘God is love’ in 1 John is a very basic characterization of God, which . . . is more than merely, ‘God is loving’. . . . In a sense, God being love virtually requires that he be more than one person. Love, to be love, must have both a subject and an object. Thus, if there were not multiplicity in the persons of the Godhead, God could not really be love prior to the creation. . . .[15]
God didn’t need to create other persons in order to be loving, moral, and relational because, being three persons in fellowship, He’s always been these things. Hasker explained that “. . . wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . . .”[16]
If love isn’t a necessary aspect of God, then it’s difficult to see how God could be the foundation of moral value. However, with God’s triunity, it’s more clearly the case that love is part of ultimate reality. If loving relationships are a primordial aspect of God, we can more confidently affirm that love is necessarily good. Consider the following syllogism:
- God is the good.
- God is necessarily a communion of three divine persons in loving relationships with each other.
- Whatever God necessarily is, is part of what constitutes the goodness of God.
- Therefore, loving relationships, thus love in general, is necessarily good.
According to premise two, love and relationality aren’t contingent properties of God that only began when He created other beings to love but are part of His essential attributes. McCall explained that,
If the loving relationships . . . among the divine persons are essential to God, the triune God just is essentially loving. . .. If God is Trinity, then God’s own internal life consists in the loving communion shared between . . . the three divine persons, and God is not contingently relational at all but is necessarily so. . .. [T]he love and relationality of God toward the creation are merely contingent. . .. But wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . ..[17]
If these inner-trinitarian relationships were not an essential aspect of God, if love didn’t exist until creation, then love would be contingent. In such a scenario, love, the cornerstone of morality, would be arbitrary because God could’ve created differently such that there was no love. Something that could be otherwise doesn’t seem metaphysically “sturdy” enough to be the foundation of moral value. However, if God is triune, love isn’t something new and contingent that came about in creation but is eternally necessary. In this way God’s inner-trinitarian relationships allow us to affirm that love, the bedrock of morality, is necessarily good.
Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, makes more sense of what we know from human experience, that loving relationships are the most important part of our lives. If God existed before creation as a loving fellowship of persons, it may seem puzzling why He created other persons. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create human beings in His image to expand this loving fellowship. McCall argued that there’s “. . . no obvious incoherence in maintaining that the triune God who enjoys perfection in the intra-trinitarian life may desire to share that life while not needing to do so to reach fulfillment or perfection.”[18] William Lane Craig explained that existing “. . . alone in the self-sufficiency of His own being, enjoying the timeless fullness of the intra-trinitarian love relationships, God had no need for the creation of finite persons. . .. He did this, not out of any deficit in Himself . . ., but in order that finite temporal creatures might come to share in the joy and blessedness of the inner life of God.”[19]
Understanding this purpose God had for creating humans helps explain why the meaning of our lives is inextricably interwoven with our loving relationships. As Clarke put it, “[t]o be an actualized human person, then, is to be a lover, to live a life of inter-personal self-giving and receiving.”[20] He argued that “. . . no one can reach mature development as a person without the experience of opening oneself, giving oneself to another in self-forgetting love . . . . To be a true self, one must somehow go out of oneself, forget oneself. This apparent paradox is an ancient one and has been noted over and over in the various attempts to work out philosophies of love and friendship down the ages.”[21] While describing the relationships within the Trinity, Clarke explained,
[T]he dynamism of self-communication is part of the very nature of being and so of the person. But the metaphysician would like to probe further . . . into why all this should be the case. I think we now have the answer: the reason why all being, and all persons preeminently, are such is precisely because that is the way the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, actually is, and, since all creatures—and in a special way persons—are participants and hence images of their divine Source, then it follows that all created beings, and more intensely persons, will mirror in some characteristic way the divine mode of being.[22]
Our lives are a reflection of the inner-trinitarian life of God. We were created to image Him by loving others.
Not only our lives but the entire universe, being infused with meaning through God’s intentions for it, is purposefully heading towards the culmination of meaningful love. Clarke summed it up well:
[S]ince all finite goods are good only by participation in the Infinite Good, every finite being tends, as far as its nature allows, towards imitating, becoming a likeness of, the Divine Goodness. In personal beings, endowed with intelligence and will, this universal dynamism towards the Good turns into an innate implicit longing for personal union with the Infinite Good, ‘the natural desire for the Beatific Vision,’ as Aquinas puts it. The whole universe . . .. turns into an immense implicit aspiration towards the Divine.[23]
Understanding God’s triunity helps explain the very meaning of life and existence.
In the second part of Adams’s model, his theory of moral obligation, he argued that our obligations are generated by God’s commands. An important part of his theory is that obligations arise from social relationships, a proposal affirmed by many ethicists. He then argued that a “. . . divine command theory of the nature of moral obligation can be seen as an idealized version of [this because our] relationship with God is in a broad sense . . . a social relationship.”[24] My TMT extends this idea by bringing in God’s triunity. Below, I provide two reasons Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for moral obligation than Islam’s God.
First, since Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a social context for reality, it’s a more plausible explanation of how and why obligation arises from social relationships. If God exists as divine persons in relationships, then there’s a sense in which ultimate reality is social and thus all reality takes place in a social context. Erickson argued that if the creator consists of three persons in loving relationships, then “. . . the fundamental characteristic of the universe is personal . . . [and] reality is primarily social.”[25] Social relationships aren’t something new that came about when God created other beings; they are a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because social relationships are a primordial part of reality, they enjoy the gravitas of a metaphysical necessity as opposed to merely a contingent reality that only came about when God created others.
If social relationships are part of ultimate reality, we shouldn’t be surprised that personal relationships play such a large role in the metaethics of obligation. The obligations that arise in our social relationship with God are but an image of, and flow out of, the social relationships within God. It makes sense that creation would reflect important necessary aspects of the Creator. Hasker noted how God’s trinitarian nature reinforces the importance of social relationships: “For those who find personal relationships to be central to what transpires between God and . . . human[s], . . . the Trinity provides a powerful reinforcement by finding such social relationships in the very being of God.”[26]
If obligation is inherently social, God’s triunity provides a fitting explanation for why there’s a social context to reality in which moral obligation can arise. God’s trinitarian nature provides the social context for reality in general, and then His creation of other persons was merely an extension of that original social context. When He created us, it was a natural carryover from the ultimate reality of divine persons that we, created in His image, would be accountable to Him via a social relationship. Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a better explanation for the social context of moral obligation than Islam’s God. An essentially societal source of morality (God as Trinity) fits the social aspect of our experience of morality better than Islam’s God.
Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, is a better explanation for why God’s commands, which generate our obligations, focus on loving others, which is affirmed by both Christians and Muslims. Along with Duns Scotus, my TMT affirms that God’s commands for us are instructions for the path which best achieves our ultimate purpose—becoming co-lovers with the members of Trinity.[27] While it’s true that God has authority over us, His commands flow not from a despotic desire to control but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing possible—a loving relationship with Him. John Hare, who champions Scotus’s idea that God’s commands direct us towards our telos of joining the loving communion of the Trinity, explained that in the
. . . Christian scriptures, the central notion is that of God commanding us. . .. [T]he notion of obligation makes most sense against the background of command . . . [however] the Judeo-Christian account adds God’s love to the notion of God’s commands, so that the commands are embedded in a covenant by which God blesses us and we are given a route towards our highest good, which is union with God.[28]
As Clarke described beautifully: “To be a person is to be a dynamic act of existence on the move, towards self-conscious, free sharing and receiving, becoming a lover, and finally a lover totally centered on Infinite being and Goodness itself, the final goal of our journey as embodied spirits towards being-as-communion—the very nature of the Source of all being, and hence of all beings created in its image.”[29]
God’s triunity fits well with the idea that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Deut. 6:4-5, Lev. 19:17-18, Matt. 22:36–40). These are the greatest commandments because they instruct us to resemble God, i.e., the trinitarian members who both love God (the other divine persons) and love others (the other divine persons). Love, the basis of morality, originates from within God’s inner life of three divine persons in perfect, loving fellowship.
Bibliography:
Adams, Robert Merrihew. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002.
Clarke, W. Norris. Person and Being. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993.
Craig, William Lane. Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationsihp to Time. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995.
Hare, John. God and Morality: A Philosophical History. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.
Hasker, William. “An Adequate God.” Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Edited by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
———. Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
Ratzinger, Josef. Introduction to Christianity. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970.
Scotus, Duns. Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality. Edited by William A. Frank Translated by Allan B. Wolter. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997.
Stump, Eleonore. “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (2000): 1–25.
Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.
Zizioulas, John D. Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.
References:
[1] Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 172.
[2] John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 46.
[3] Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 165.
[4] Eleonore Stump, “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.74 (2000): 1.
[5] W. Norris Clarke, Person and Being (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 2.
[6] Josef Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 132, 137.
[7] Clarke, Person and Being, 112.
[8] Alan J. Torrance, Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 293.
[9] William Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 174.
[10] Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995), 221.
[11] Clarke, Person and Being, 87.
[12] Robert Merrihew Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002), 7.
[13] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 333.
[14] Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 190.
[15] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 221.
[16] William Hasker, “An Adequate God,” in Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists, ed. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228.
[17] McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology, 247.
[18] McCall, Which Trinity?, 210.
[19] William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 241.
[20] Clarke, Person and Being, 76.
[21] Clarke, Person and Being, 96.
[22] Clarke, Person and Being, 88.
[23] Clarke, Person and Being, 24.
[24] Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods, 249.
[25] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 220–21.
[26] Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God, 211.
[27] Duns Scotus, Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality, ed. William A. Frank, trans. Allan B. Wolter, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 20.
[28] John Hare, God and Morality: A Philosophical History (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009), 81.
[29] Clarke, Person and Being, 112–13.
Recommended Resources:
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45rRPEB
How to Give Evidence of the Resurrection WITHOUT Using the Bible with Allen Parr
PodcastWhat if you’re talking to someone who flat-out rejects the Bible despite its historic credibility—can you still make a good case for the Resurrection? The answer is…YES!
Popular Christian YouTuber, Allen Parr from The B.E.A.T., joins Frank from CIA 2025 to explore some of the most convincing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. While the New Testament documents have proven to be reliable and trustworthy, Frank and Allen demonstrate how extra-biblical sources can guide skeptics toward the historical truth of Christianity—even if they don’t trust the Bible (yet!). They’ll answer questions like:
Whether you’re talking to a skeptic, a curious friend, or even a Christian with doubts, this episode will equip you with historical tools to build confidence in the resurrection—without needing to quote the Bible first!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Allen’s website: https://www.allenparr.com/
Allen’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thebeatagp
The Earliest Non-Christian Testimony to Jesus May Be Authentic (Josephus) with Sean McDowell
A Trinitarian Moral Argument
Theology and Christian Apologetics[Editor’s Note: The following blog is a scholarly article presented, in full, with only minor formatting edits. It is longer, and more academic, than what we normally publish at Crossexamined.org, but we think you can handle it 😉. Crossexamined does not necessarily endorse every philosophical or theological position represented in blogs and articles like this, but we do try to offer a sample of some of the different orthodox options available within the “big tent” of Christian thought. We welcome your feedback, especially if you see anything that can be improved, or that needs correcting. Thank you! The Editorial Staff at Crossexamined.org]
Both Christians and Muslims affirm the following argument:
However, which understanding of God, the Christian’s or the Muslim’s, is a better explanation for objective morality? In this paper I argue that Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for objective morality than Islam’s God. As part of this argument, I propose a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory (TMT) which maintains that the ultimate ground of morality is God’s trinitarian nature.
Within Christian theology, it’s important to include the dynamic, loving, inner-trinitarian relationships in our understanding of metaethics. To leave out these relationships, by saying morality is merely based on God’s nature, ignores important aspects of God which help explain how He is the foundation of morality. Including these relationships provides a more complete picture of how God is the source of morality. Thus, my TMT focuses on God’s triunity and shows how loving relationships exist at the deepest level of ultimate reality.
Many others have recognized the importance of adding God’s inner-trinitarian relationships to our metaphysical categories of substance and essence. Thomas McCall argued that God’s inner-trinitarian relationships are essential to the very being of God. He wrote “. . . I am convinced that divine love is essential to God . . . that holy love is of the essence of God. But I think this is accounted for and grounded in the Trinity.”[1] He continued by affirming the following statement by John Zizioulas: “Love is not an emanation or ‘property’ of the substance of God . . . but is constitutive of his substance, i.e., it is that which makes God what He is. . . . Thus love ceases to be a qualifying—i.e. secondary—property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate.”[2] Thomas Torrance also proposed elevating the metaphysical importance of the divine relationships. He wrote that the trinitarian persons “. . . who indwell one another in the Love that God is constitutes the Communion of Love or the movement of reciprocal Loving which is identical with the One Being of God.”[3] Eleonore Stump insisted that “. . . since, on the doctrine of the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are not reducible to something else in the Godhead, then, persons are an irreducible part of the ultimate foundation of reality. . ..”[4]
According to W. Norris Clarke, Josef Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, dared to reproach “St. Thomas himself . . . and call[ed] for a new, explicitly relational conception of the very nature of the person as such, wherein relationality would become an equally primordial aspect of the person as substantiality.”[5] Ratzinger claimed that within trinitarian theology “. . . lies concealed a revolution in man’s view of the world: the undivided sway of thinking in terms of substance is ended; relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality. . ..”[6] Clarke himself wrote,
“To be a person is to be with . . ., to be a sharer, a receiver, a lover. Ultimately the reason why all this is so that this is the very nature of the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, as revealed to us in the Christian doctrine of God as three Persons within the unity of one being, so that the very being of God is to be self-communicative love. This dynamism is then echoed in all of us, his creatures, and in a preeminent way in created persons. Thus the Christian revelation of the Trinity is not some abstruse doctrine for theologians alone but has a unique illuminating power as to the meaning of being itself which carries metaphysical vision beyond what was accessible to it unaided.”[7]
Alan Torrance suggested we should “conceive of the intra-divine communion of the Trinity as the ground of all that is.”[8] William Hasker affirmed that “the doctrine of the Trinity is an integral part of the metaphysically necessary ultimate structure of reality.”[9] Millard Erickson described the love between the divine persons as “the attractive force of unselfish concern for another person” and thus the “most powerful binding force in the universe.”[10] This is more than mere sentiment; if God is the ultimate reality, and He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is the basic fabric of reality. Clarke said it well when he wrote,
“The highest instance of being is a unity that is not solitary, like Plotinus’s One, but Communion. Here we see in the most striking way how a specifically Christian philosophy can fruitfully shed light on a philosophical problem itself, by drawing on Revelation. The light from Revelation . . . operates as opening up for reflection a new possibility in the nature and meaning of being that we might never have thought of ourselves from our limited human experience, but which, once opened up, is so illuminating that it now shines on its own as an insight into the nature of being and persons that makes many things suddenly fall into place whose depths we could not fathom before. . .. [I]n recent years I have come to realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a uniquely powerful source of illumination in both the philosophy of being and . . . of the person.[11]
To develop my TMT, I begin with Robert Adams’s model and expand it by incorporating God’s triunity. In the first part of his model, his theory of moral value, Adams argued that God is the ultimate good and other beings are good when they resemble Him. In his model the “. . . part played by God . . . is similar to that of the Form of . . . the Good in Plato’s . . . Republic. God is the supreme Good, and the goodness of other things consists in a sort of resemblance to God.”[12] Thus humans are good when they resemble God in a morally pertinent sense. My TMT extends this theory by proposing that the specific thing being resembled is God’s triunity as found in, and expressed among, the loving relationships between the divine persons. Humans are good when they resemble the love between the trinitarian members. Millard Erickson argued that, since the relationships between the divine persons are
. . . bound by agape, self-sacrificial, giving love . . . the type of relationship that should characterize human persons, particularly believing Christians who have accepted the structure of intratrinitarian relationships as the pattern for their own relationships, . . . would be one of unselfish love and submission to the other, seeking the welfare of the other over one’s own.[13]
In this sense God’s inner-trinitarian relationships provide the ultimate foundation for moral value.
Next, I’ll provide two reasons this trinitarian understanding of God is a better explanation for objective moral value than Islam’s God. First, without the inner-trinitarian relationships, it’s unclear that love, the cornerstone of morality, is a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because morality is inextricably tied to personal relationships, it’s more plausible to conceive of love and morality in the context of multiple divine persons than in a context of a single person existing in eternal isolation. Richard Swinburne proclaimed there’s “something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual.”[14] It’s difficult to even fathom love, kindness, respect, etc. where there’s only one divine person. Erickson wrote that,
Love exists within the Godhead as a binding relationship of each of the persons to each of the others. . .. [T]he attribute of love is more than just another attribute. The statement ‘God is love’ in 1 John is a very basic characterization of God, which . . . is more than merely, ‘God is loving’. . . . In a sense, God being love virtually requires that he be more than one person. Love, to be love, must have both a subject and an object. Thus, if there were not multiplicity in the persons of the Godhead, God could not really be love prior to the creation. . . .[15]
God didn’t need to create other persons in order to be loving, moral, and relational because, being three persons in fellowship, He’s always been these things. Hasker explained that “. . . wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . . .”[16]
If love isn’t a necessary aspect of God, then it’s difficult to see how God could be the foundation of moral value. However, with God’s triunity, it’s more clearly the case that love is part of ultimate reality. If loving relationships are a primordial aspect of God, we can more confidently affirm that love is necessarily good. Consider the following syllogism:
According to premise two, love and relationality aren’t contingent properties of God that only began when He created other beings to love but are part of His essential attributes. McCall explained that,
If the loving relationships . . . among the divine persons are essential to God, the triune God just is essentially loving. . .. If God is Trinity, then God’s own internal life consists in the loving communion shared between . . . the three divine persons, and God is not contingently relational at all but is necessarily so. . .. [T]he love and relationality of God toward the creation are merely contingent. . .. But wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . ..[17]
If these inner-trinitarian relationships were not an essential aspect of God, if love didn’t exist until creation, then love would be contingent. In such a scenario, love, the cornerstone of morality, would be arbitrary because God could’ve created differently such that there was no love. Something that could be otherwise doesn’t seem metaphysically “sturdy” enough to be the foundation of moral value. However, if God is triune, love isn’t something new and contingent that came about in creation but is eternally necessary. In this way God’s inner-trinitarian relationships allow us to affirm that love, the bedrock of morality, is necessarily good.
Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, makes more sense of what we know from human experience, that loving relationships are the most important part of our lives. If God existed before creation as a loving fellowship of persons, it may seem puzzling why He created other persons. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create human beings in His image to expand this loving fellowship. McCall argued that there’s “. . . no obvious incoherence in maintaining that the triune God who enjoys perfection in the intra-trinitarian life may desire to share that life while not needing to do so to reach fulfillment or perfection.”[18] William Lane Craig explained that existing “. . . alone in the self-sufficiency of His own being, enjoying the timeless fullness of the intra-trinitarian love relationships, God had no need for the creation of finite persons. . .. He did this, not out of any deficit in Himself . . ., but in order that finite temporal creatures might come to share in the joy and blessedness of the inner life of God.”[19]
Understanding this purpose God had for creating humans helps explain why the meaning of our lives is inextricably interwoven with our loving relationships. As Clarke put it, “[t]o be an actualized human person, then, is to be a lover, to live a life of inter-personal self-giving and receiving.”[20] He argued that “. . . no one can reach mature development as a person without the experience of opening oneself, giving oneself to another in self-forgetting love . . . . To be a true self, one must somehow go out of oneself, forget oneself. This apparent paradox is an ancient one and has been noted over and over in the various attempts to work out philosophies of love and friendship down the ages.”[21] While describing the relationships within the Trinity, Clarke explained,
[T]he dynamism of self-communication is part of the very nature of being and so of the person. But the metaphysician would like to probe further . . . into why all this should be the case. I think we now have the answer: the reason why all being, and all persons preeminently, are such is precisely because that is the way the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, actually is, and, since all creatures—and in a special way persons—are participants and hence images of their divine Source, then it follows that all created beings, and more intensely persons, will mirror in some characteristic way the divine mode of being.[22]
Our lives are a reflection of the inner-trinitarian life of God. We were created to image Him by loving others.
Not only our lives but the entire universe, being infused with meaning through God’s intentions for it, is purposefully heading towards the culmination of meaningful love. Clarke summed it up well:
[S]ince all finite goods are good only by participation in the Infinite Good, every finite being tends, as far as its nature allows, towards imitating, becoming a likeness of, the Divine Goodness. In personal beings, endowed with intelligence and will, this universal dynamism towards the Good turns into an innate implicit longing for personal union with the Infinite Good, ‘the natural desire for the Beatific Vision,’ as Aquinas puts it. The whole universe . . .. turns into an immense implicit aspiration towards the Divine.[23]
Understanding God’s triunity helps explain the very meaning of life and existence.
In the second part of Adams’s model, his theory of moral obligation, he argued that our obligations are generated by God’s commands. An important part of his theory is that obligations arise from social relationships, a proposal affirmed by many ethicists. He then argued that a “. . . divine command theory of the nature of moral obligation can be seen as an idealized version of [this because our] relationship with God is in a broad sense . . . a social relationship.”[24] My TMT extends this idea by bringing in God’s triunity. Below, I provide two reasons Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for moral obligation than Islam’s God.
First, since Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a social context for reality, it’s a more plausible explanation of how and why obligation arises from social relationships. If God exists as divine persons in relationships, then there’s a sense in which ultimate reality is social and thus all reality takes place in a social context. Erickson argued that if the creator consists of three persons in loving relationships, then “. . . the fundamental characteristic of the universe is personal . . . [and] reality is primarily social.”[25] Social relationships aren’t something new that came about when God created other beings; they are a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because social relationships are a primordial part of reality, they enjoy the gravitas of a metaphysical necessity as opposed to merely a contingent reality that only came about when God created others.
If social relationships are part of ultimate reality, we shouldn’t be surprised that personal relationships play such a large role in the metaethics of obligation. The obligations that arise in our social relationship with God are but an image of, and flow out of, the social relationships within God. It makes sense that creation would reflect important necessary aspects of the Creator. Hasker noted how God’s trinitarian nature reinforces the importance of social relationships: “For those who find personal relationships to be central to what transpires between God and . . . human[s], . . . the Trinity provides a powerful reinforcement by finding such social relationships in the very being of God.”[26]
If obligation is inherently social, God’s triunity provides a fitting explanation for why there’s a social context to reality in which moral obligation can arise. God’s trinitarian nature provides the social context for reality in general, and then His creation of other persons was merely an extension of that original social context. When He created us, it was a natural carryover from the ultimate reality of divine persons that we, created in His image, would be accountable to Him via a social relationship. Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a better explanation for the social context of moral obligation than Islam’s God. An essentially societal source of morality (God as Trinity) fits the social aspect of our experience of morality better than Islam’s God.
Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, is a better explanation for why God’s commands, which generate our obligations, focus on loving others, which is affirmed by both Christians and Muslims. Along with Duns Scotus, my TMT affirms that God’s commands for us are instructions for the path which best achieves our ultimate purpose—becoming co-lovers with the members of Trinity.[27] While it’s true that God has authority over us, His commands flow not from a despotic desire to control but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing possible—a loving relationship with Him. John Hare, who champions Scotus’s idea that God’s commands direct us towards our telos of joining the loving communion of the Trinity, explained that in the
. . . Christian scriptures, the central notion is that of God commanding us. . .. [T]he notion of obligation makes most sense against the background of command . . . [however] the Judeo-Christian account adds God’s love to the notion of God’s commands, so that the commands are embedded in a covenant by which God blesses us and we are given a route towards our highest good, which is union with God.[28]
As Clarke described beautifully: “To be a person is to be a dynamic act of existence on the move, towards self-conscious, free sharing and receiving, becoming a lover, and finally a lover totally centered on Infinite being and Goodness itself, the final goal of our journey as embodied spirits towards being-as-communion—the very nature of the Source of all being, and hence of all beings created in its image.”[29]
God’s triunity fits well with the idea that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Deut. 6:4-5, Lev. 19:17-18, Matt. 22:36–40). These are the greatest commandments because they instruct us to resemble God, i.e., the trinitarian members who both love God (the other divine persons) and love others (the other divine persons). Love, the basis of morality, originates from within God’s inner life of three divine persons in perfect, loving fellowship.
Bibliography:
Adams, Robert Merrihew. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002.
Clarke, W. Norris. Person and Being. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993.
Craig, William Lane. Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationsihp to Time. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995.
Hare, John. God and Morality: A Philosophical History. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.
Hasker, William. “An Adequate God.” Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Edited by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
———. Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
Ratzinger, Josef. Introduction to Christianity. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970.
Scotus, Duns. Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality. Edited by William A. Frank Translated by Allan B. Wolter. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997.
Stump, Eleonore. “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (2000): 1–25.
Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.
Zizioulas, John D. Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.
References:
[1] Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 172.
[2] John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 46.
[3] Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 165.
[4] Eleonore Stump, “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.74 (2000): 1.
[5] W. Norris Clarke, Person and Being (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 2.
[6] Josef Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 132, 137.
[7] Clarke, Person and Being, 112.
[8] Alan J. Torrance, Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 293.
[9] William Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 174.
[10] Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995), 221.
[11] Clarke, Person and Being, 87.
[12] Robert Merrihew Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002), 7.
[13] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 333.
[14] Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 190.
[15] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 221.
[16] William Hasker, “An Adequate God,” in Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists, ed. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228.
[17] McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology, 247.
[18] McCall, Which Trinity?, 210.
[19] William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 241.
[20] Clarke, Person and Being, 76.
[21] Clarke, Person and Being, 96.
[22] Clarke, Person and Being, 88.
[23] Clarke, Person and Being, 24.
[24] Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods, 249.
[25] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 220–21.
[26] Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God, 211.
[27] Duns Scotus, Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality, ed. William A. Frank, trans. Allan B. Wolter, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 20.
[28] John Hare, God and Morality: A Philosophical History (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009), 81.
[29] Clarke, Person and Being, 112–13.
Recommended Resources:
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45rRPEB
Why Are Christians Supporting Unbiblical Positions? with Megan Basham, Alisa Childers, & Natasha Crain
PodcastWhy are so many popular figures who claim to be Christians supporting anti-Christian positions and is there anything we can do about it? In this special midweek podcast episode recorded LIVE from CrossExamined Instructor Academy 2025 in Charlotte, NC, Frank sits down with Megan Basham, Alisa Childers, and Natasha Crain to discuss some of the popular secular ideas that plague the modern Church and answer questions like:
Be sure to check out some of the valuable resources for both kids and adults that were mentioned during the episode in the list below, and stay tuned for more podcast episodes recorded from CIA 2025!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Fearless Faith Self-Paced Online Course – https://bit.ly/4kmld3g
Train Your Brain (online logic course for kids & adults) – https://bit.ly/4lMq6ni
Shepherds for Sale by Megan Basham – https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063413442
World Watch News – https://worldwatch.news/
Natasha’s books – https://natashacrain.com/books/
Alisa’s books – https://alisachilders.com/
59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion Part 2
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsIf you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower. In part 1 of this series, we looked at 25 reasons why men should still speak up, despite being told, “No Womb, no Say!” In part 2, we can dig even deeper and see even more reasons why women, families, and society at large desperately need men to speak up against the horrors of abortion.
More Reasons Why Men Need to Speak Out Against Abortion
26. Some women don’t want to make the abortion-decision for themselves – I’m a married man, and I grew up with a mother and sister. And from my experience, sometimes, women can feel too close to the situation to make a decision, or perhaps she doesn’t trust her own judgment, or she may even have a conflict of interest that makes her feel unsure. In that case, she may prefer to have a trusted man in her life help her make that decision, or even make the decision on her behalf. The “no womb, no say” position handicaps those women by demanding that all the men in their lives stay silent, even if they are strong, wise, loving, and great decision-makers for the family. I’m sure there are lots of women who balk at the very idea of letting man make an important decision her behalf. But, that woman isn’t every woman. Some women have healthy father figures, a good husband, and other decent and redeeming men in their lives. For those women, they are often more than happy to share the burden of a big decision with the men in their life. And when a strong and vocal husband, brother, or father is lending his strength in selfless support, she might just have the encouragement she needs to make the right decision.
27. Truth doesn’t have a sex/gender – If something is true about abortion, it’s still true even if a man says it. Moral facts are still the facts, no matter if a man or a woman is speaking.
28. Men have access to moral facts just as much as women do – just as moral facts don’t care what sex/gender you are, knowing moral facts is likewise open to men and women.
29. There are sex/gender-neutral reasons for doubting the “my body, my right” argument undergirding this “women only” mentality – It’s never been clearly shown, legally, that the right of privacy includes the privilege of intentionally killing one’s own, innocent, non-threatening, non-combatant, child-in-utero. Also, Roe v. Wade was argued on the belief that we aren’t sure when biological human life begins. But that question has long been settled: new human life begins at conception. Moreover, the “my body, my right” argument promotes extremism and contradicts normal guardian responsibilities. If bodily autonomy isn’t enough to even justify abortion, then it’s not enough to justify silencing all male voices on abortion either.
30. “No womb, No Say” is sexist against men – The “no womb, no say” position is blatant sexism, discriminating against millions of people because of their sex/gender. It’s not the tame kind of discrimination either, like when employers discriminate against job applicants for being lazy incompetent nitwits. We’re talking about the lame kind of discrimination, attempting to restrict freedom of speech and marginalizing men even if the man was permanently handicapped in a botched abortion, or when he’s been traumatized by watching, assisting, or conducting an abortion, or if they’ve walked their wives through the long-term side effects of a past abortion.
31. Abortion-Choice Policy Promotes Sexism against women – Not only is the “no womb, no say” position sexist, but abortion choice policy itself is sexist. Sex-selective abortion is currently legal, and that means girls in utero are sometimes aborted just because they are girls. Abortion also has a bad history of promoting negative health outcomes for women. Abortion itself is a violent act against women, especially when the mother’s “consent” is blurred with heavy pressure from parents or partners. And perhaps the most glaring problem of sexism in abortion is how it enables reckless man-boys males to exploit women. They can “love ’em and leave ’em”.
32. It’s hypocritical to encourage pro-choice men to speak up and prohibit pro-life men from doing the same – NARAL, URGE, and other supporters of the “Bro Choice” movement encourage men to speak up so long as they are supporting abortion-choice.
33. It’s hypocritical to accept the verdict of Roe v. Wade (1973) and then say that men shouldn’t have a voice on the issue – Seven out of nine old white guys, on the Supreme Court, decided that abortion should be legalized across the nation.
34. If pro-choice advocates tried to undo the hypocrisy, and still keep men silent about abortion, they would have to reject what men have already said on abortion – besides just the Roe v. Wade ruling, if male voices were muffled then that would mean rejecting the established insights from men in the past, regarding abortion, including expert testimony from doctors, judges, scientists, attorneys, pollsters, technicians, politicians, academics and scholars.
35. “No womb, No Say” is a veiled attempt to stifle opposition – Pro-choice powers don’t really want men, generally, to be silent, they want pro-life men to be silent. It’s not a matter of ethics and rights, it’s a matter of convenience. It’s easier to advance a pro-choice agenda if roughly half of the opposition is silent.
36. It takes two to tango – men are half of the pregnancy equation. Having a role in creating the child, it’s not clear why men would have no role when it comes to the (preventing the) fate of their offspring. Ideally, childbearing should be a team effort and not a lone burden for women.
37. The Good Samaritan Rule – Morally, we’re responsible to do the good that we can do. Tim Brahm of Equal Rights Institute explains this point with a story about watching a depressed woman attempt to drown her newborn child, then Brahm says, “Now, I’m a man. I’ve never been pregnant. I’ve never been a mother. I will never know what she is going through. . . But even though I can’t understand what she’s going through, shouldn’t I try to do something to save that kid?” Good question!
38. Some women cannot get pregnant – By the logic of “no womb no way” those women would be denied a voice on the abortion issue.
39. Men have freedom of speech, just like women do – If women can speak out about prostate cancer, and they have every right do so, then men can speak about abortion. The First Amendment works either way.
40. Abortion contradicts paternity rights – It is legally inconsistent for women to be able to “walk away” from a pregnancy (abortion), while men are denied that right. Instead, men can be forced to pay child support even when they didn’t want to be fathers. This inconsistency might be unjust, and so, men have reason to speak up.
41. Men should use their privilege in society to offer solidarity with good causes – Supposing that men have a lot of privilege in society, we, therefore, have a moral duty to exercise our privilege in support of good. Fighting against the deadliest act against fellow human beings in world history is a worthy candidate.
42. It’s good to defend those who can’t defend themselves, regardless of sex/gender – Their silent scream cannot be heard, so people with a voice need to speak up for them. Men and women alike can intercede for the voiceless.
43. Abortion is an intersectional issue so that silencing men is too simplistic to represent it fairly – There are several different inequalities tied into abortion-choice policy. There are potential inequalities between men and women. But we can also point to inequalities along racial lines, or health, age, and so forth. Some of the most influential and expert witnesses for age discrimination, ableism, and racism are males. Silencing males on the issue of abortion restricts the voices protesting ableism, ageism, and racism.
44. Men can help deter the jerks who pressure women towards abortion – Male influence can be positive or negative. It’s true that some males are horrible human beings: abusive, predatory, deviants, who exploit women and coerce them into abortion. These jerks need every societal corrective we can throw at them – police, prosecutors, jailers, therapists, etc. But often they descend into deviancy for lack of a healthy father figure or positive male friends. When decent men are involved as Big Brothers, for example, they can help counteract many of the factors driving women to abortion, such as coercion, poverty, abuse, abandonment, etc. That won’t work in all cases, but it will work for some. Decent upstanding men can help create a family-friendly pro-life culture just by modeling redemptive manhood.
45. Men can work with women in teaching a family-based model of pregnancy – It’s no surprise that most women seeking abortion are not married or even in a healthy stable family. Healthy stable families are a historically well-established way to raise up the kind of people who don’t have unplanned pregnancies. Men and women together can promote healthy marriage, and parenting as a means of curbing abortion.
46. Men are justified in wanting to defend women from harm – if chivalry is dead, it’s because feminism killed it. But good men can always resurrect it, especially if it means protecting women from the violence in and around abortion.
47. Men can speak up through their actions – Male culture is more than words. A healthy masculine voice is not just spoken, it’s modeled. Raising a child is hard work anyway, but it gets even harder when men don’t step up as fathers, friends, and husbands. Far too many men already lack the maturity, courage, and commitment to come alongside the women in their lives to help them choose life. Sometimes the most powerful words we can share about abortion are voiced in silent strength and quiet commitment.
48. Fathers should be able to talk with their daughters about abortion – Fathers have a natural right and responsibility to raise their daughters, and that includes talking about sex, love, marriage, parenting, and of course the immeasurable value of human life.
49. Husbands should be able to talk with their wives about abortion – healthy marriages should share decision making, and work as a team in their family planning. Silent men would be a disservice to wives who want support and input from their husbands.
50. Brothers should be able to talk with their sisters about abortion – Healthy sibling relationships are another family tie where guys can have the rapport with their sisters to talk about important things like sexual health, pregnancy, and abortion.
51. Women should be free to get counsel and advice from males – Male counselors, religious leaders, and caring friends can be a tremendous help for women in a crisis pregnancy. If men are supposed to shut up about abortion, then they are handicapped in their ability to help.
52. Silent men are a waste of resources –Disenfranchised males can be incredibly dangerous. Every society has an enormous burden in deciding what to do with the boys. When boys don’t have to mature, settle down, or become gentlemen to be accepted in society, then they will tend to settle for adolescence, never marrying, never committing to fatherhood, slinking towards addiction, apathy, violence, and crime. The problem isn’t as simple as “toxic masculinity.” Males are a resource in society; they can spoil if neglected and explode when broken. But when they are mobilized and directed towards human flourishing they are an irreplaceable source of innovation, defense, and development. With the issue of abortion, men can be incredibly useful. Besides lending strength, compassion, and service, they can have insights, research, and sage counsel to help struggling mothers in their time of need. It would be a pity to lock away all those resources just because of casual pro-choice rhetoric.
53. Excluding men reduces diversity – We can learn a lot if we listen to a diverse array of voices sharing insights into issues that matter. Silencing all (pro-life) men artificially restricts that diversity.
54. Men who care about the health and direction of the nation should speak up about abortion as it ties into our founding principles as a nation, i.e., an equal right to life from our creation onward – It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The benefits of a free and humanitarian society will not defend themselves. We the people have a duty, as citizens, to protect the better parts of our society, and that includes the notion of “equal rights.” The Declaration of Independence says, “all men [humans] are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our founding fathers didn’t know, at that time, that the biological moment of creation is at conception. And if we are going to avoid infusing some spiritually weighted notion about souls, then we have to legally treat that moment of creation as a biological question – the moment of conception, the onset of biological human life. See more about this point in my debate at UT-Arlington (TX).
55. It’s not humanitarian to restrict whole demographics from discussing a human rights issue – the history of human rights legislation has, for the most part, been a gradual unveiling of our equal rights as human beings. But that process has had many pitfalls and perils. We cannot trust that any one group will safely lead the way without vital corrections arising from other groups. In this way, all of us are part of an ongoing conversation about the nature, extent, and grounding of our human rights. There is no settled and final conclusion, whether in the court of law, in the classroom, or in the science lab, dictating that men need to stay out of the abortion issue. It would contradict our humanitarian values as a nation to silence whole sectors of humanity because of their race, age, sex/gender.
56. Silencing men is close-minded – No one on earth is 100% right all the time. We should be open-minded enough to where we can keep learning and correct our mistakes. Silencing an entire demographic does not signal open-mindedness. It’s dogmatic and close-minded
57. Silencing men forces weird results with the LGBTQ movement – Do biological females lose their right to speak if they identify as a male? What if they have been pregnant before, but still identify as a male? What if a biological male identifies as a female, does that person get their voice back?
58. “No womb, no say” discriminates against intersex people – Some people are born with male and female sex organs, or with some other gender-ambiguating condition. Yet, the “no womb, no say” argument operates on a simple binary notion that women can speak up but not men. How traditionally “male” must a man be before he’s “man” enough to qualify in the eyes of pro-choice tone-police? Intersex people, just like everyone else, have the same general right to speak out about abortion, no matter who is trying to silence them.
59. Silent men have done enough damage already – Far too many men are passive, wimpy, indifferent loafers, too selfish and scared to protect, support, and honor the women in their lives. So, it’s no surprise when those women end up having an abortion because they never had the support network they needed. No gentleman stepped in as a husband, a brother, a friend, or a father, to lend the support she needed to choose life. Brothers, this should not be.
These are just the first 59 reasons I could come up with. But that’s more than enough to prove that “no womb, no say” is a myth. Silencing men is a popular pro-choice tactic designed to smother opposition and shame men into silence. It’s worked well over the years. Perhaps if more men had stepped into the mix with a gentle voice of concern or a careful word of wisdom, then we might not be in this predicament, staring at an abortion total that dwarfs the holocaust eleven-fold, literally. Men, your voice matters. Don’t just stand quietly on the sidelines hoping that your wives, sisters, daughters, and female friends will all do the right thing. Speak up! A word of compassion and truth just might make the difference between life and death.
Recommended Resources:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi
The Top 5 Principles of Proper Biblical Interpretation with Mike Winger
PodcastDoes your church teach you how to interpret the Bible? Sadly, many Christians never learn the tools to read Scripture well, and that leads to all kinds of confusion about theology. But how can we know if we’re handling God’s Word the right way?
This week, Frank sits down with the one and only Mike Winger, a former pastor turned popular YouTuber, who’s dedicated his channel to helping Christians understand the Scriptures. In this episode, Mike shares what led him to take his ministry online and explains the five core principles he uses when studying the Bible—principles many churches don’t talk about, but every believer should know! During their conversation, Frank and Mike will dive into questions like:
From spiritual gifts and women in ministry to Catholicism, false teachers, and misunderstood passages, Mike isn’t afraid to tackle the tough issues. With 1,000+ videos and a weekly Q&A livestream, Mike’s YouTube channel is a goldmine for anyone who wants to explore a deeper understanding of the Christian faith. Subscribe to Mike’s channel, visit his website BibleThinker.org, and learn how to study your Bible like never before!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Mike’s website: BibleThinker.org
Mike’s YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@MikeWinger
‘How to Interpret Your Bible’ Self-Paced Course
Why Biblical Authorship Matters: A Test Case
4. Is the NT True?On April 14th 2025, Christianity Today published an article entitled “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?” In the article, the author asserted that it was likely that Jesus was not nailed to the cross but was instead tied to the cross with ropes. He argues this by appealing to an authority, a professor from Gordon College, who has made this argument based solely on some limited archaeological data. Indeed, in the article, the professor is cited as saying, “he wanted to explore the issue because it’s good to question tradition and people can benefit from closer scrutiny of history.”[i]
Did the Article Miss the Johannine Reference to the Nailprints?
When the article was published, it immediately came under fire on social media. After all, John 20:25 clearly states,
Thomas claimed that he would not believe Jesus rose from the dead unless he saw the very nail prints in Jesus’ hands and feet. This seems to be clear evidence in one of the Gospels that Jesus was crucified with nails. The question, then, is how could someone have missed this passage prior to publishing the article?
The simple answer is that they did not miss this passage. Indeed, the passage is addressed in the article. The article states, “Going back to the Bible, García said there is one place in the New Testament that mentions nails. In the Gospel of John, the doubting apostle Thomas says he would have to see and touch the “marks of the nails” (20:25), before he would believe that Jesus rose from the dead.” A few sentences later, however, the article states, “García said many scholars also think John was written later—perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common.”
The Implied Message of the Article: An Attack on Biblical Authorship
The article thus implies one of two things: either John, who was present at the crucifixion and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, got it wrong or the Gospel of John, which has been attributed to the apostle John since the early church, was not written by John as an eyewitness but was written much later by someone who was not present for these events and was just making up the story based on events of his own day instead of the events that actually occurred in history. Either one of these views is not something that should or needs to be held by believers.
Now, this is not an attack on Christianity Today. They acknowledged the article was incorrect, retracted some of the assertions and apologized for its assertions. However, how could this have happened in the first place when the text of Scripture seems so clear? Two years ago, I wrote an article entitled ”Why Biblical Authorship Matters?”. One of the assertions that I made in that article was that authorship mattered because “it gives us eyewitness accounts that help to establish historical reliability for many of the key events throughout the Bible.”
In this context, we know that Jesus was crucified with nails because John was both present for the crucifixion itself and was present for Thomas’ statement. He, as the author, serves as our eyewitness to these events. When you deny Johannine authorship, as Garcia asserts in the article, you open the door to destroying the reliability of the historical events presented in Scripture.
Conclusion
This should remind us once again that biblical authorship matters. It helps us to hold to the eyewitness accounts of many of the events of the Bible and should not be something that we just haphazardly throw away because critics argue against it. Otherwise, we end up doubting whether events in the Bible happened as they were written. That is a place that we do not want to end up in. Instead, we should trust the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, in part because many of the stories are documented by eyewitness testimony.
References:
[i] https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/04/was-jesus-crucified-with-nails/
Recommended Resources:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40edPzX
Is Judging the Ultimate Sin? Unpacking the Chip & Joanna Gaines Controversy PLUS Q&A
PodcastHGTV’s favorite home-renovating duo, Chip & Joanna Gaines, recently found themselves at the center of controversy after featuring a same sex couple on their new show. While they’re known for flipping houses, some Christians are now asking, have they flipped their theology too?
In this solo midweek podcast episode, Frank addresses the cultural pressure Christians face when it comes to affirming homosexuality, and whether it’s ever wrong for believers to judge the sinful behavior of others. Tune in as Frank reacts to the backlash coming from both sides and answers questions like:
Later in the show, Frank also answers more of your listener questions including:
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Would Jesus Attend a Gay Wedding? with Becket Cook & Dr. Robert Gagnon
Faithfully Different by Natasha Crain
Hollywood Heroes by Frank & Zach Turek
The Longer Ending of Mark is Authentic! (Part 1) with Dr. Warren Gage
59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsIf you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower.
Why should men be silent? – The “No Womb, No Say” Position
Just being honest here, some men probably do need to shut their pie hole, but that’s because they’re lying, manipulative, idiot, blowhards. I’m sure you’ve met a few of those. Fortunately, that’s not every man. Some men have a word worth hearing. They can even have a timely word of protest against abortion. Sadly, a lot of people still believe that men have no right to protest abortion. This is the “no womb, no say” position.
Now “no womb, no say” is all sorts of wrong, but it’s not entirely wrong. We have to admit a kernel of truth to this popular maneuver. According to Captain Obvious, “Men can’t get pregnant.” Men don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant, carry a child to term, or have an abortion. We’ll never squirt out a seven-pound chunk of living flesh unless we have an organ removed. Abortion directly impacts women in the most intimate way. But, for men, it’s always indirect and it’s never as intimate.
There’s also a history of sexism getting in the way of things. Even today, it’s not hard, to find dark alleys, studios, and industries where women are treated terribly. Liberals and conservatives can debate about the extent of that problem, but we can all agree that there have been many cases of genuine sexism against women. We can also agree that one of the key reasons for the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling was an attempt at equalizing rights for women. Today, most all of us can agree, across political aisles and in every sector of society, that women have (or should have) an equal or greater voice on the subject of abortion.
But no one, in good conscience, should grant that women have the only voice on abortion. Given the scale of abortion (66 million in the U.S., 1.7 billion globally), and it’s profound and lasting effects on families, communities, nations, and the whole world, it is unconscionable to exclude fully half society from that pregnant conversation. Here are…
59 Reasons Why Men Need To Speak Out About Abortion
***Stay Tuned for part 2 with reasons number 26-59 on “Why Men Need to Speak up!” ***
References:
[1] Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned abortion-choice policy at the federal level, finding that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Doe v. Bolton (1973) and subsequent cases built on those rulings like Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992). The Dobbs decision did not however overturn abortion-choice policy at the state level. States still have the legal right install, regulate, or ban abortion-choice at the state level.
Recommended Resources:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi
Standing for Christ on the NBA Court with Jonathan Isaac
PodcastWould you compromise your Christian faith to save your job, your relationships, and your reputation? Or would you have the courage to stand up for what you believe, no matter the consequences?
On July 31, 2020, the Orlando Magic starting forward, Jonathan Isaac, was the lone NBA player not to kneel for the national anthem amid a league-wide demonstration in support of Black Lives Matter. This week, Frank sits down with Jonathan to talk through his inspirational story of faith, conviction, and courage in the face of overwhelming pressure. In this episode, you’ll learn:
We hope this episode encourages you to boldly live out your Christian faith, even when it’s unpopular. To learn more about Jonathan’s powerful story, grab a copy of his book, ‘Why I Stand‘, and check out his sneaker and Christian apparel line at WeAreUnitus.com.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Why I Stand by Jonathan Isaac
Unitus Faith-Forward Footwear & Apparel
Not My Jesus: A List Of Christological Heresies
Theology and Christian ApologeticsJesus Of Nazareth Is the most disputed character in history. Most of the world’s religions incorporate him into their teaching, whether as a morally perfect prophet (Islam), a divine manifestation (Baha’i), or a reincarnated god (Hinduism). Buddhists believe he is a grace-giving demigod or even a Buddha. Christian cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormon Church readily incorporate Jesus as a partial divine, more than man but less than the full deity of Father God. Almost all of Judaism rejects Jesus as a false prophet, a mere mortal, and a failed messiah.[1] Meanwhile Atheists and skeptics tend to see Jesus as a liar or a lunatic. Mythicists debate his very existence with skeptical weapons set on eleven.
Clearly, Jesus of Nazareth is a contentious character. So we should not be surprised that Christian history has held many theological battles in the theatre of Christology (theology about Jesus). The church has fought hard to answer, “Who is Jesus?” If He is, indeed, “the way the truth and the life” and “salvation is found in no other name” then we should make sure we aren’t dealing with a distorted pseudo-Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Theological integrity is a matter of ultimate importance here. Heresies about Jesus (a.k.a., christological heresies) make for an important study because Jesus is the most important person there is.
What is a Heresy?
First, we may ask, what is a heresy? The short answer is, “aberrant teaching.” A heresy is some teaching which departs from core Christian teaching. But that definition is a little unclear. It doesn’t really help quell the human habit of exaggerated accusations – where people are liable to call most anything heresy, even if it’s just a different option within historic Christianity. Nor does that definition help distinguish between denominational versus heretical disagreements.
Often people throw around the term “heresy” with little concern for the implications of this imposing term. Heresy is a libelous term and shouldn’t be used lightly. For our purposes here, we need to see what really qualifies as heresy. But to do this, we need to know, “what is orthodoxy?”
Orthodoxy (Lat., “right doctrine/teaching”) refers to the established, agreed-upon, and time-tested theology of the historic Christian faith (incl., Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox). A similar concept is orthopraxy (Lat. “right practice”). Sometimes these notions, right-practice and right-teaching, are fused under the parent-term orthodoxy. We’re just looking at teachings about Jesus Christ, what theologians call “Christology.” So, we don’t need to address orthopraxy here.
There is a lot of gray area in the notion of “orthodoxy,” and there are many disputes over particular teachings and whether they count as heresy, such as “open theism,” or “baptismal regeneration.” But we have an imperfect yet reliable way to identify what is probably orthodox and what is probably not.
These tests are the various ways the church has been checking ideas for theological integrity over the whole course of church history. You can skim any of the Ecumenical Church councils and see each of these criteria in action. These tests aren’t implemented equally by all denominations, nor are these tests collectively used by each Christian faith tradition. But together these tests constitute a good approximation for how to discern orthodoxy. This rubric is imperfect in that some orthodox ideas only satisfy a few of these tests. But this rubric is reliable in that there’s no orthodox idea which fails all of these tests.
Deviations from orthodoxy are called heterodoxy. Not all heterodox teachings would count as heresy because something could lie outside of orthodox teaching, but it’s not important enough, it doesn’t carry enough consequence, or it’s too much of a terminological dispute (just haggling over word choice, without any other significance underneath). For example, it would be heterodox to teach that Jesus’s favorite number was 9, or that all church buildings should be cross shaped, or that women and men have to partake of communion on different days of the week, or that church services will be meeting only on ground that’s been blessed by a saint.
Compared to orthodoxy, the term “heresy” is referring to some teaching or practice which deviates in a contradictory way from orthodoxy. That is, heresy deviates from the established and agreed-upon central teachings in historic Christianity.
What is Historic Christianity?
By “historic christianity” is meant the church universal over the course of it’s history. That includes, Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox. there is a continuum of development–as the church refines it’s teaching and practices over time. And there are denominational differences between and within these schools of thought. But the changes are not heresy unless (1) they step outside of the agreed-upon theological options vetted across church history (such as the 7 ecumenical councils, Vatican II, the test of Scripture, Apostle’s creed, etc.), and (2) they address a central teaching of the church, such as a creedal statement or a salvation teaching. For example, many of the teachings of the 2nd century Church Father Origen were not considered heresy at the time, but were later deemed heretical. There is grace for him, however, since the collective wisdom of the church had not yet aligned on the finer points of theology which he transgressed. Like the rest of us, Origen was responsible for what he was able to know, not for what he was couldn’t have known at the time.
What then is the orthodox teaching about Jesus Christ?
Getting Christ Right: Orthodox Christology
Orthodoxy: Jesus is revealed in the Bible as the promised and prophesied Messiah, fully God,
fully man, born of a virgin yet eternal and unborn, equal deity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, sinless and miracle worker, second person of the Trinity, who died by crucifixion, was buried, who rose bodily the third day, into the same but glorified body, having died for the sins of the world, such that faith in Him as God and savior is the only means of salvation, by grace and not by the works of other men, and He will return to judge all people and He reigns forevermore.
Christological Heresies
Ebionism: Originated in the1st-2nd cent. Jesus was only man, not God. *Heresy of the Ebionites.*From the Hebrew word “ebyon,” meaning “poor” which was the name chosen by an early and self-debasing Jewish sect for which this heresy is named. *They focused on Jesus’ teaching, “blessed are the poor in spirit.” *Deny Deity of Christ. *Deny virgin birth. Deny Jesus’ preexistence (before being born on earth). *Condemned in the Council of Nicea in 325AD.
Docetism: Orig., 3rd cent. Jesus was only God, not man *AKA: Illusionism. *From the Greek “Doketai” meaning “to seem.” *Jesus only seemed to be human but was in reality only God. *First mentioned in the early 3rd century but was found in various views including Marcionism and Gnosticism. *Some assert that another person died in Jesus’ place on the cross. *Condemned in the Council of Chalcedon 451.
Adoptionism: Orig., 2nd cent. Jesus was man who became Christ or God by adoption. *AKA: Dynamic Monarchianism. *Jesus was a righteous man who became the Son of God by adoption. *The adoption was at baptism where the Spirit or “Christ” descended on Him. *Some think He became “God” at the Resurrection. *Earliest expression of this view was in the Shepherd of Hermas. *Also affirmed by Theodotus. *Rejected by the church in the 2nd and 8th centuries. *Compatible with Arianism. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.
Arianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus was a demigod, between God and man. *Jesus was less than God but more than man. *Jesus was created, finite, and could sin. *Similar to ebionism and compatible with adoptionism. *Advanced by 4th Century Bishop Arius. *It took 18 church councils to resolve the issue, most of them elaborating on the Nicene Council. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.
Apollinarianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus had no human mind. *Jesus lacked a human mind/soul, having instead a divine mind. *Jesus had all the other parts of a human however: spirit, body, and animal soul (the animating force but not the intellect or spirit). *Espoused by Apollinarius in the 4th century. *Condemned in the 4th century, in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.
*see a review of this article “Not My Jesus, Part 1” by William Lane Craig at Reasonable Faith*
Monophysitism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus had only one divine nature and no human nature. *AKA: Eutychianism, named after its founder Eutychus. *Jesus had only one nature the divine nature which absorbed and nullified any human nature. *Affirms that Jesus is both divine and human, but not “fully” human. *Slightly different from Apollinarianism. This view asserts that Jesus had one nature, while Apol. asserts Jesus had one soul. *Condemned at the Council of Chalcedon 451.
Nestorianism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus has two unmixed, unrelated, natures. *Jesus is two distinct natures, and only one, the human nature, was birthed by Mary. *Nestorius (5th cent.) vigorously opposed the phrase “[Mary] Mother of God” (Theotokos), preferring the phrase “Mother of Christ” (Kristotokos). *The human and divine natures are separate and distinct. *Condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.
Monothelitism: Orig.: 7th cent. Jesus lacked a human will. *Originally taught in 633AD in Armenia and Syria by Vigilius and Pope Honorius. *Affirmed Jesus’s human and divine natures, but denied that Jesus had two wills. *Jesus’s divine will meant he would not/could not have conflicted desires. *Condemned in the Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681AD
Mythicism: Orig., 19th cent. Jesus was only a mythical character. *Originally taught by Charles Francois Dupuis (1742-1809). There are two-major variations. Strong mythicism teaches that there was no historical Jesus, a.k.a., Jesus of Nazareth. Weak Mythicism teaches that the “Jesus of faith” is radically different from the Jesus of history who was, instead, either a mere mortal subject to evolving myth and legend or he is an amalgam of characters and events fused together in the course of legendary accrual.
References:
[1] Judaism overwhelmingly rejects Jesus as the Messiah. This majority includes almost all Jewish denominations or sects including Orthodox/Rabbinic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite, Samaritan, Reconstructionist, Secular, Sephardic, and Hasidic Judaism. All broadly unite in the rejection of Jesus as Divine and as Messiah. The exception is Messianic Judaism, sometimes called “Fulfilled” Judaism, which is typically categorized as a Christian denomination instead of a Jewish sect properly. The conventional categories, however, are subject to debate since Messianic Jews, arguably, are an authentic hybrid of Jewish and Christianity identity–truly Jewish and truly Christian–with no theological compromise or revision on either front. This unique and uncompromised status would be in contrast to other alleged “hybrids” like Sikhism (supposedly hybridizing Islam and Hinduism), or Nation of Islam (supposedly Islamic plus Black Theology).
Recommended Resources:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3TAWiy6