Tag Archive for: apologetics

What a Straw Man Argument is and What is Not.

[Editor’s Note: in November 2025, at the Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in Boston Massachusetts, Tim Stratton and Phil Kallberg presented a coauthored essay, “Is Divine Determinism a Different Gospel?”. You can see it here or listen to here. The provocative essay – critiquing a major brand of historic Christian thought: Calvinism – evoked some controversy. Phil responds here to one of the critiques.]

I’m inspired to write this both for the accusations of “straw manning” that came from Tim’s and my essay at the 2025 EPS, and due to examples that I have seen. While no one accused me of this directly (all the interactions I had with people in relation to the essay were positive, even when they were pushing back), I heard through the grapevine that some people were complaining that Tim and I were straw manning Calvinists and other divine determinists. Additionally, I did see examples of people straw manning Calvinists in response to Tim and my essay. I’m pretty confident that Tim and I didn’t do this, but some other people have. And further “straw manning,” is one of those accusations that gets tossed around pretty liberally these days so this whole thing will be instructive and useful elsewhere. So let me explain.

What is the Straw Man Fallacy?       


The straw man fallacy is when you deliberately misrepresent your opponent’s position to make it easier to argue against. It’s why from time to time you hear internet atheists complain that people believe in the “sky daddy” instead of critiquing the Kalam Cosmological argument. If you want some good non-philosophical examples of this just watch any Democrat and/or Republican talk about the other side. The reason for the name is that it’s obviously easier to attack a man made of straw than it is a real man. Now it’s important to notice what this is not. The straw man fallacy is not when you are ignorant of your opponent’s position and/or just get something wrong. Nor is it when there is a disagreement about what the entailments of that view are, i.e., “I think physicalism and naturalism necessarily lead to an amoral universe.” There are physicalists and naturalists who disagree and argue for a real objective morality. I think they are being inconsistent and will argue as such. They disagree and will argue against me. I’m not “straw manning” them by arguing “this is what follows from your view.” I’m only doing that if I claim that they are moral nihilists. I don’t claim that they are, rather my claim is that they should be moral nihilists or else they are inconsistent.

An Example in Atheism


So, to carry the example further, suppose I’m arguing against an atheist who argues that morality is just an illusion caused by evolutionary adaptation, like the late Micheal Ruse. An atheist who believes in objective morality (they do exist) might want to accuse me of straw manning him as “You claimed atheists don’t believe in morality, but I do.” But this is a misunderstanding of the straw man fallacy. If I’m arguing against Micheal Ruse, and he really did think that (he did), then there is no straw man here. The other atheist is free to disagree with Ruse and then he and I can discuss and argue about what he actually does think, and if a belief in objective morality is a reasonable, plausible, or even a possible outlook on atheism (it is on some variants and not on others). The point here is that if I can cite someone in group B who really does claim X, then it’s not straw manning if I argue against X, even if other people in group B reject X. At that point I should just be happy that those other people in the group have seen the light by rejecting X and they should be happy that they have an ally in arguing against X. At the worst my criticisms just don’t apply to those other people.

Now it is possible (but it’s unlikely) for someone to do the above in a very dishonest way where the error becomes something like straw manning. I could claim that all atheists follow the philosophy of Nietzsche and Marx (I wouldn’t. This is obviously wrong but just go with it for the example). Then I offer critiques of Marx and Nietzsche and claim that I have defeated atheism. An atheist who rejects Marx and Nietzsche would rightly take offense. If I knowingly do this that is straw manning. If I do this out of ignorance (I’m naive enough to think that Marx and Nietzsche are the authority on all things atheism) then that is a problem, but it’s not straw manning. It’s me not knowing what I’m talking about.

An Example from Politics 

Or for a political analogy, I might argue, “You shouldn’t vote for a Democrat as they support trans-surgery for minors and that’s wrong.” It is true that there are Democrats who support this. But not all Democrats do, so if you are one of the Democrats who don’t support such things did I straw man you with that argument? Since I can point to Democrats who do support such things this is not a straw man, but the moment I start claiming that you have that view then it is. It’s still a poor argument as it’s uncareful and doesn’t appreciate the nuance that many Democrats think and support different things, but it’s not a straw man.

And of course, it’s possible for people to make arguments like that in bad faith wherein they attribute minority and/or fringe views of the group to the whole. I suspect if we could ask all the self-described Democrats, “Do you support sex-change operations for 8-year-olds?” the majority of them would say no. So given this, if the above exchange happens, and you tell me, “well I’m a Democrat and I think such things are barbaric” then my response should be something like, “Good I’m glad you are with me on this.” If at that point I insist that since you are a Democrat you must support sex change operations for 8-year-olds, then I am straw manning you (and I’m being an obstinate fool).

So, straw manning is when you deliberately misrepresent someone or something to make it easier to argue against it. It is not when you misrepresent things due to ignorance or a mistake. Nor is it when you have a disagreement about the entailments of the viewpoint. If you make a mistake or speak out of ignorance and are given correction but continue in the initial error, then that becomes straw manning.

What about Calvinism?  

      
So, if you call yourself a Calvinist or some other type of divine determinist and also don’t think that God determines everything then it’s pretty likely that Tim and my criticisms just don’t apply to you. I strongly suspect that if you and I sat down to hash it all out I’d end up claiming that you are, in some way, being inconsistent as it seems to me Calvinism and other variants of divine determinism just naturally lead to the problems that Tim and I point to. But if you reject those problems then I say, “Great!” We agree on that point and I’m happy to have any ally in claiming things like it’s ridiculous to believe that God demonstrates love for people by condemning them to hell (for example). If you and I disagree about what is entailed by your theological and philosophical system and we are both being honest (or at least trying to be) then no one is straw manning anyone. We just have a philosophical or theological disagreement.

This is an area where I saw the “anti-Calvinists” (for lack of a better name) commit this fallacy. A significant amount of them claimed things like Calvinists don’t believe in the Bible. Now this is plainly not what any Calvinist claims. Further it’s the opposite of what every single one that I’ve read and talked to claims. When I attempted to drill down where those “anti-Calvinists” were getting this from it turned out that they thought that the theological system of Calvinism undermines the Scriptures and our ability to know and trust them (this argument sounds awfully familiar). I agree with that critique, but that’s an implication of the view, not the view itself. Hence those “anti-Calvinists” are straw manning Calvinists as they are attributing to them a view that is flatly denied. Now I think that is denied on pain of a contradiction or inconsistency, but we still need to give Calvinists credit for denying the claim that they don’t believe in the Bible. It’s not reasonable, fair, or good practice to do otherwise.

Naturally this has many implications in a lot of other areas as “straw manning” is one of those phrases that just gets constantly thrown around now. And some people do indeed do this in a malicious way. But I’ve found that much of the time people are simply confusing a disagreement about what logically follows from a view with straw manning. For now, I’ll just avoid getting into specific examples of people who do straw man in a malicious way. It’s not worth the time it would take, as it would probably just alienate people.

So, the point here is if someone is knowingly and maliciously misrepresenting you, that is straw manning. It’s not only a logical fallacy, it’s a moral wrong. But if someone is just ignorant of what you think, genuinely doesn’t understand your view, or disagrees with you on the implications of your view, that’s not straw manning.

Recommended Resources:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

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

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

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

Phil Kallberg Host of “The Examined Life” podcast is a proud follower of Christ, Phil Kallberg has an MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary where he wrote a thesis on the Modal Ontological Argument for God’s existence. He greatly enjoys a good story, follows politics far more than is warranted, and makes use of a PlayStation for breaks from all the work of raising children and doing philosophy. Before studying philosophy Phil spent time in the military, worked several jobs in different fields, and thanks to his love of stories got a bachelor’s degree in English. Phil lives in Missouri with his wife, son and daughter. He may be reached for comment at theexaminedlifewithphil@gmail.com


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

/by

5 Ways to Know You Are Judging Rightly

It was the only way I knew how to explain my love of Fixer Upper to my bewildered husband. Since the show aired, I would plunk myself down, yell in frustration (who picks a midcentury modern over a classic Victorian, I mean, come on!?), and bask in the beauty of the big reveal. Yes, I loved the shiplap, but like other Christian fans, what I enjoyed most was having a show featuring a Christian couple who truly loved each other.

What Christian fans weren’t expecting was to watch the designing duo green-light the normalization of homosexuality when they partnered with HBO for the newest reality, Back to the Frontier. The fallout gave fans everywhere a front row seat to a Christian accountability meeting, and they had a lot to say.

“Christians shouldn’t judge (Matthew 7:1)!”

“…All you holier-than-thou scripture-spouting know-it-alls pick and choose your bible verses to quote.” Toni (People Magazine)

“I guess someone forgot Matthew 7:1.”

Yep, Matthew 7:1 became the theological “shiplap” of the comments section–That verse was everywhere! What none of those folks seemed to realize, however, was that they, too, were judging. Which got me thinking, if the anti-judgment crew didn’t realize this, would the new believer? Would our kids? That’s why we are going to evaluate whether Christians can judge, and if so, how we can judge well. Grab your spiritual tool belts, mama’s. It’s demo day (Colossians 2:8).

To Judge Or Not To Judge?        

At first glance, Matthew 7:1 appears to be on the side of the comment critics. Jesus warns, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” If taken at face value, then everyone from Franklin Graham to Matt Walsh owes the Gaines an apology, but that would be a mistake. Why? Because this verse isn’t banning believers from making any judgments; it’s warning against making improper judgments.

At that time, the Jews (particularly the Pharisees) struggled with two huge problems: legalism and double standards. Instead of leading people to God from a place of humility, they set themselves up as God and rejected anyone who didn’t follow their own subjective version of the law (Matthew 12:1-8).

Jesus was setting things straight by saying that man isn’t holy enough to condemn someone eternally, and that accountability can’t be hypocritically applied. His warning in Matthew 7:1 was meant to spark humility by showing that if people were held to their own “measure,” they would quickly be found wanting. Instead, Jesus told them to examine their own hearts, repent, and then “remove the speck” from the eye of their brother (Matthew 7:3-6).

This is the method of righteous judgment. It leaves eternal judgment to God, while allowing believers to correct one another from a position of humility. Righteous judgment is necessary for protecting believers from false teachings and enables the believer to stand firm against the pressure of secular culture (Colossians 2:8 & Ephesians 6:11-18).

So yes, to follow God, a Christian can make and use good judgment. We can help our kids learn how to judge rightly by following five important practices.

#1- Be Theologically Sound

“Teach Me Knowledge And Good Judgment, For I Trust Your Commands.”
Psalms 119:66

To make the right judgments requires an objective standard of right and wrong from which we base morality. Where does that standard come from? Not man, not culture, but God. God’s word is very clear on sex, sin, and marriage, so then why is there so much debate?

There is a very real war being waged over the heart, mind, soul, and body of each one of us. One of Satan’s goals is to distort the word of God into a counterfeit faith to lure people away from Him. This is why, to judge rightly, we need to be immersed in scripture.

For more help on how to read the Bible well, check out our podcast here.

Next, check yourself before you wreck yourself. . . hermeneutically speaking. Does the conclusion you made align with the world of God, His nature, our identity, the reality of sin, and the redemptive work of Christ? If so, well done![1] This will help you avoid a common but preventable error: cherry-picking verses.

Cherry-picking is when a single verse or part of a verse is (often) taken extremely literally to advance a person’s own desires or conclusions without regard to the verse’s context or application. Like when the Pharisees gave themselves a free pass to perform circumcisions on the sabbath but condemned the disciples for “working” when they plucked a handful of grain for a snack (Matthew 12:1-2).

Sorry-not-sorry critics in the comments section! If you posted Matthew 7:1, you’re guilty of making a judgment based on a verse you had cherry-picked.[2]

When a bumper-sticker-worthy verse pops up during your quiet time, guide your children to read the passages (or chapters!) around it to properly discern its meaning. As you read together, point out how the passage reveals God’s goodness, his grace, and his redemption through Christ. From there, you can play “spot the counterfeit” whenever culture tries to offer its own broken version of love, empathy, and acceptance.

Our ROAR method is great for this and perfect for your next movie night!

#2- Be Restoration Focused 

Every righteous judgement needs two important ingredients: love and humility. Love delights in the truth (1 Corinthians 13). Humility is the anchor that roots our judgement in love. Humility reminds the believer of their life before Christ and guides us when we need to hold each other accountable.

How we do this will look different depending on who we are addressing. If addressing a non-believer, our approach will be evangelistic in nature. The goal is to point them toward Christ by seeking to find out what led them to that conclusion, gently address its logical failings, and offer an account of how truth is rooted in Christianity.

If we’re addressing a believer, our approach is gracious accountability. We affirm our mutual call to submit to the truth of God, address the biblical error, encourage the believer to repent, and be restored in righteousness (James 5:20).

To help kids be restoration-minded, role-play how you would address a correction in love by using a character on a show or in their favorite storybook. What tone should you use? If this person were a believer, how would you speak to them? How would our approach change if they are an unbeliever? How would you correct a logical error while pointing to the truth of Christ?

Remember kids, Elijah may be the patron saint of sass [3], but in most cases our tone should be heaped with grace (Colossians 4:6).[3]

#3- Be Seasoned with Salt   

Grace, however, isn’t possible without a little thing called truth. Truth is what enables us to make a right judgement.[4] If our conversions aren’t rooted in truth, then we will lead people into bondage through progressive affirmation. This is exactly what progressives want.

Progressive theology rejects the truth of God in exchange for whatever feels right to each person.[5] It’s part relativism, part spiritualism, mixed into a deadly cocktail of bad theology by a guy who looks like Jesus without any of his redeeming qualities. Pun intended.

The goal is to convince the theologically weak and the empathetic folks into believing that the truth of God is harmful to those who live contrary to his commands. To truly love their neighbor, Christians have to reject the idea of dying to self and accept everyone without question. This, dear reader, is a pack of lies.

Our kids need to know that we are not ‘casting stones’ when we make a right judgment.[6]   The most loving thing we can do is speak the truth. As you practice your ROAR, remind your kids that empathy is a gift from God. To Chip’s point, we can rightly listen and understand a person’s past, but a person’s past doesn’t get to censor the truth of God. In short, a person’s past should alter how we preach God’s word, not if we preach God’s word.

#4- Be Consistent in Word and Deed   

Now for a little heart check, mamas. Before we confront another, we need to ask two questions.

  1. Am I Currently Living In Sin? 
    I’m not meaning the random times where we fall short…like yesterday in traffic. If that were the case, then no one could judge anything! I mean, is there a part of our lives where we are living in habitual sin? If so, we have no business removing the plank from the eye of someone else until the sawdust is removed from our own, Matthew 7:3-6.
  2. Am I Applying A Double Standard?
    This “good for thee but not for me” problem wasn’t unique to the Pharisees. We, too, can develop this spiritual blind spot when we justify our own sin as “less sinful” than that of another. Don’t be fooled, mamas. Our kids notice when we draw the line at shows normalizing LGBTQ lifestyles, only to erase it when we watch the saucy period drama. When we make a judgment, we need to be consistent with that judgment.

Kids need to see what it looks like to live an integrated faith through our example. Model how to sacrifice earthly pleasures for the glory of God. Show them how to love like Christ, ask forgiveness, and stand firm in the faith. Remind them that it’s not possible to fully unplug from everything ungodly, but to the best of our ability, we can direct ourselves and our money toward that which glorifies God.[7]

#5- Be Confident In Christ       

One of my favorite quotes is from Jason Whitlock: “When we are fearful before God, we are fearless before culture.” This fearlessness is the heart of 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”

When our identity is rooted in Christ, we are issued a set of spiritual armor and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who gives us wisdom and the boldness to speak truth. The problem is that too many Christians either callously lob truth grenades or cower the moment a cultural criticism comes blazing toward them, Ephesians 6:16.

Who Then Do We Fear?  

Our kids need to know that to be set apart in Christ means that we are set against culture (John 15:18-19) while still seeking people (Matthew 28:19). People will hate us for speaking truth, but we aren’t called to seek man’s approval; we are called to seek righteousness.

To build up your child’s confidence, affirm their identity in Christ. Remind them that the world is going to push back, but we can equip ourselves for the challenge by knowing God’s word and rebuttals to common objections to the faith. Train them to recognize faulty logic, so when someone attacks their character (or their grammar), the baseless insult will bounce right off their shield of faith.

Final Thoughts     

It’s not easy to watch a believer defend their own worldly compromise, but it shouldn’t wreck us. Here’s the truth: if we are still breathing, and they are still breathing, the Holy Spirit is still working. We can encourage them in truth and lift them up in prayer, whether it’s a TV couple or a family member.

Additonal Resources:

Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn
The Theology Handbook by The Daily Grace Co.
10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and answer) about Christianity by Rebecca McLaughlin
Mama Bear Apologetics Edited by Hillary Morgan Ferrer

References: 

[1] If not, it could be due to a hermeneutical error. Check out our blog here. For some, however, it could be a worldview issue. See if you add anything to these two statements: I am a _______ Christian.  I am a Christian, but/and I believe__________. Whatever is added into those blank spaces will usually reveal what someone truly worships. For example, someone who calls themselves a “progressive Christian” is a person who doesn’t believe in the gospel but a filtered view that Jesus affirms whoever we say that we are and cheers us on as we live our best life now. It has a guy who looks like Jesus, but it’s a false worldview that, if believed, will lead away from Christ. Secondly, if anything was added after the “I am a Christian” statement, it too is usually what the person actually worships, be it social justice, LGBTQ+, BLM, etc. Please know that each of those movements is a separate worldview that is in direct opposition to God. You cannot be a Christian and follow a pop-cultural religion. Only Christ saves; every other religion falls short.

[2] Fair warning: critics will use the “cherry-picking” accusation when a believer rightly quotes scripture. So long as judgment you have taken the verse within context you aren’t cherry picking, you are quoting. There’s a big difference.

[3] 1 Kings 18 records his snarky mocking of the prophets of Baal. This is a description, not a prescription, folks.

[4] It is also a vital aspect of the nature of God, John 14:6.

[5] See chapter 15 of Mama Bear Apologetics.

[6] You practice your discernment with this comment posted on an article from the NY Post. Matt Lustig said: “…A true religion preaches love and acceptance. Jesus would tell us to love, accept, and be kind to everyone. Reverend Graham and those like him are false Christian’s.”

[7] To put this in perspective, you have supported a company who affirms LGBTQ+ & DEI if you have: electronics by apple or android; ate at Chik-Fil-A; shopped at Home Goods, Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, or Amazon; ate a Kellog’s product; had Starbuks; flew United, Delta, or American; have an American Express card; used Pinterest; and more!

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

 

Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4rB6jLb

/by

A Christian at Islamic College: What I Saw Beneath the Surface

I never set out to become a witness to the West’s unraveling. I was just a minister seeking to show God’s love to people. In short, I simply loved Muslims—deeply and sincerely—and believed that the surest way to honor that calling was to study Islam from within its own intellectual world. That conviction led me to Islamic College in London. I was excited that I was going to learn under Muslim scholars. So, I wasn’t seeking conflict or controversy. Far from it. Instead, I was pursuing what I saw as a ministry of respect and understanding.

Shifting Cultural Currents

For several years, the professors supported my work. Classmates welcomed my questions, and I completed an M.A. in Islamic Studies believing I had formed genuine friendships. Yet even then, during my repeated visits to London, something unsettling tugged at me. I sensed cultural currents shifting beneath the surface of the city I had come to love, though I lacked words to describe it.

During those visits, especially when staying in neighborhoods with dense Muslim populations, I often felt as if I was walking through two London’s at once. It would become abundantly clear, as I interacted with countless people, that British culture was not very evident. There was not much assimilation. Another culture has overtaken it, and many British elites were on board.

When I landed in London on October 7, 2023, I expected nothing more than a week full of scholarly conversations with Shia leaders.[1] Instead, I stepped directly into the aftermath of Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians. Suddenly I noticed that, almost below the level of conscious awareness, the city’s emotional atmosphere shifted with a speed that left me disoriented. Suddenly, it wasn’t the same London I thought I knew. Within minutes, I was added to a group text coordinating rallies, and the words “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “resistance” appeared in messages. I was stunned.

Organized Jew-Hatred 

Later, a Muslim friend urged me to meet protest organizers, and was glad to introduce me to them. He insisted I had a role to play, but the invitation scared me to death. What have I got myself into? By the next morning, October 8, I saw with my own eyes, as I was headed to church in an Uber, coordinated demonstrations filled the streets. It felt less like a reaction and more like a mobilization. I realized that there was an organized network of Jew hatred that I didn’t know existed, at least in that magnitude.

“There was an organized network of Jew hatred that I didn’t know existed, at least in that magnitude”

Throughout that week, I took twenty-two Uber rides across the city, and eighteen drivers delivered unsolicited monologues about Israel with nearly identical certainty. I was stunned by the vitriol. What I noticed was a narrative template toward the Jews that I later discovered was in the Quran. I found myself listening quietly, wondering how these views had become so widespread, so quickly, and so synchronized. With each ride, the sense of ideological cohesion grew more visible, and I felt like a visitor in a city I once understood. The London I loved for its diversity now felt dominated by a single, unchallenged narrative.

What I felt most was that the Church there was very weak. And that weakness carried a cost. That disorientation deepened when I watched American and European universities erupt days later with the same slogans and emotional choreography. It was then I realized I was witnessing the expression of a coherent transnational worldview, not a series of isolated events.

“the Church there [in London] was very weak. And that weakness carried a cost.”

Inside Islamic college, the rupture was equally swift and painful. When I publicly defended Israel’s right to exist, relationships that once felt steady collapsed almost instantly. I found this reaction to be profoundly shocking. What I didn’t know was that I was getting an education that I would have never received in a classroom. A professor who had championed my academic work sent a short message cutting all contact. Others followed. There was only one person maintaining communication, who I would still call a friend, who offered a quiet kindness when the others withdrew.

Mainstream Jew-Hate 

More jarring still, I later learned that certain Shia leaders in the broader network wondered aloud if I might be a spy for Israel. I thought me, a spy? You have to be kidding. That suspicion didn’t anger me; it showed how deep the polarization ran. In that moment, I finally saw that anti-Israel sentiment wasn’t fringe. Instead, it was central in ways I’d sensed but never admitted.

After the initial shock, I turned to research in search of clarity, and what I found reframed my entire experience. I discovered through my Media investigations, that there were concerns raised about possible connections between the Islamic College and Al-Mustafa International University, an institution controlled by Iran’s Supreme Leader and described by some analysts as a “foothold” for exporting revolutionary ideology.[2] Some pro-regime Iranian outlets even called the College Al-Mustafa’s UK “branch,” though the College strongly denies any link.[3]

Reports also documented troubling public statements by staff. For example, one lecturer compared Israel to Nazi Germany, while another described Anders Breivik as an “ultra-Zionist.” A former principal appeared in footage encouraging chants for Hezbollah, a group now banned in the UK. Can you imagine Hezbollah? As I read, a cold clarity settled over me—these were not scattered controversies but pieces of a coherent pattern.

More investigation yielded that processes had been triggered by UK regulatory bodies far before my own personal breaking point. Middlesex University, the higher education body that validated the College’s degrees, withdrew its partnership with the organization after damning accusations were leveled on national news channels.[4] The Office for Students stated that it was reviewing the situation.

Reports also detailed how the Islamic Centre of England, which was described as having close connections to individuals at the College, held a vigil where IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani was praised, resulting in a Charity Commission warning.[5] The group of students from the college was reported to have visited the home of Ayatollah Khomeini on their trip to Iran in 2016.[6] It became clearer that the philosophy I was being confronted with was institutional.

Input from external perspectives contextualized the anecdotal evidence I was presented with about Al-Mustafa. Analysts such as Kasra Aarabi describe Al-Mustafa University as the “heart of Iran’s international ideological messaging,” from where the regime seeks to grow its reach abroad through highly-supervised networks of scholars.[7] This is an idea that many progressives turn their heads in denial. These studies say the university claims affiliated centers in dozens of countries, including some reported to be operating in the UK.

Pro-regime Farsi outlets have also suggested that certain leaders at the London college were connected to Al-Mustafa, though the College denies any formal ties. These were not antagonistic voices. They were pro-Iranian regime. Still, the mix of rhetoric, leadership backgrounds, and institutional relationships suggested a shared ideological direction rather than coincidence. Only then did I understand that the reflexes I saw in London after October 7 were not improvised. They were cultivated over time.

Asymmetric Integration  

All this led me to start seeing things through a particular framework that made sense of both my experience and the wider crisis in the West: Asymmetric Integration. The West assumes that integration is symmetrical – that newcomers to the open society will enter with a mindset of adopting civic norms and contributing in a pluralistic, multi-valued context. But that assumption breaks down when a new mindset sees openness not as a value to be mutually held, but a thing to be used.

Asymmetric Integration happens when a liberal society welcomes newcomers, which is great. But when it allows certain ideological networks to quietly pull that society into their own worldview, this is problematic. That’s what I saw, writ large. The result isn’t multiculturalism but one-way permeability. The West values rights and freedoms; the ideological ecosystem values faith and internal cohesion. One system is permeable; the other is rigid. That asymmetry constitutes a vulnerability the West doesn’t yet comprehend.

“[With] asymmetric Integration . . . the result isn’t multiculturalism but one-way permeability.”

Beyond culture, the asymmetry is civilizational: Liberal societies assume identities can coexist without hierarchy; many ideological systems born abroad assume truth rests on hierarchy and authority. It’s a deep conflict. Take the interview Der Spiegel conducted with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. Putin asked, “Can you imagine the Russian Federation negotiating with some party inside the European Union?” And yet that’s conventional practice in Europe, which doesn’t pretend all its constituent powers have identical identities and interests.

Liberalism presumes debate and dissent; these networks presume cohesion and loyalty. Liberalism believes diversity dilutes the strength of beliefs; these networks believe beliefs should remain pure. And because liberal democracies assume good faith, they have difficulty recognizing when a different worldview does not. Thus, the West is not just failing to integrate certain communities, it is being integrated into ideological architectures it did not choose, and doesn’t understand. Suddenly the transformations I felt in London, the rapid mobilization of protests, and the rupture in my academic community all made painful sense.

“Because liberal democracies assume good faith [and mutual respect], they have difficulty recognizing when a different worldview does not.”

Another element of this asymmetry is how crises function within each worldview. In liberal societies, a crisis provokes questions, such as “What happened?”, “Why?”, and “What can we learn from this?” In ideological ones, whose foundation is different, crises are opportunities for rollout, not inquiry. The narrative is set, the action plans are in place, the orchestra of emotions is expertly rehearsed. A crisis doesn’t inspire their reaction; it triggers it.

That is why protestors appeared on the streets in London within hours, why college campuses in the United States exploded days later with matching slogans, and why the attitudinal response seemed harmonized across the world. It was only those on the inside, who recognized that this was not a task for improv theater, for whom this was a reflex, rather than an act of hesitation

The Biggest Weakness in the West       

I think the biggest weakness in the West is that they have lost confidence in their core values and everything that Western philosophy stands for. These days, with the rise of multiculturalism, it feels like a lot of institutions are scared to stand up for the things they believe in because they do not want to get labeled as intolerant or bigoted. In that kind of environment, “being open” is not always positive. Instead of being a virtue, it becomes a vulnerability.

I did not really get this at first. It was only after I personally lost my place in a community that I had really been trying hard to understand. The exact moment this happened was when I acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. It was at that moment that the whole illusion of “shared values” just disappeared, and I was exposed to the underlying truth beneath the community.

Today, I can say with confidence that “tolerance” without discernment, without understanding, and without inclusion is not really a virtue or moral strength. Instead, it’s a sort of surrender to power and loss of legitimacy. This moment was the end of innocence for me, and that I now look at the institution and the civilization that embraced me in a fundamentally different way.

These insights did not come from theory alone; they emerged from years inside Islamic academic environments where I was welcomed warmly until the moment I stepped outside the boundaries of ideological conformity. My story is only one expression of a larger structural phenomenon, which is networks shaped abroad embedding themselves into Western institutions that no longer defend their philosophical foundations. Unless the West recovers the confidence to distinguish between integration and absorption, it will continue to erode silently.

Our culture is in danger, but the shift isn’t going to be obvious. It won’t be announced or declared, just slowly shoved out of place. Key institutions will be overtaken and our moral footing will slip away. So, I first fell in love with these institutions and held high hopes for them. That’s why it was so painful when I left them, having gained an understanding of something that few in the West are honest with themselves about.

I thought I could understand myself and my place in the world by studying in London. Instead, what I learned shocked me, and my world was turned upside down. In the future, Western countries will have to recognize the asymmetry in these kinds of cultural encounters, and quickly, or else it will find out that the institutions it’ll be welcoming won’t be integrating as it expects, but slowly transforming the West.

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: Islam has two main factions or denominatios – Sunni (about 85-90% majority) and Shia (the minority). Here, ‘Shia’ refers to a subset of orthodox Islam.]

[2] Turner, C. (2023, March 4). University watchdog “engaged” in talks with London college over Iran links — Discussions follow claims that the Islamic College in Willesden has ties to Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Telegraph.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240412001735/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/university-watchdog-engaged-talks-london-college-links-iranian/

[3] C. Turner, “University watchdog “engaged” in talks with London college over Iran links — Discussions follow claims that the Islamic College in Willesden has ties to Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” The Telegraph, (4 March 2023)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240412001735/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/university-watchdog-engaged-talks-london-college-links-iranian/

[4] Campaign Against Antisemitism, “Middlesex University reportedly cutting ties with the Islamic College over links to Iran and inflammatory staff, (7 March 2023), https://antisemitism.org/middlesex-university-reportedly-to-cut-ties-with-islamic-college-over-links-to-iran-and-inflammatory-staff

[5] Aarabi 2023.

[6] Aarabi 2023.

[7] Aarabi 2023.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

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

 

Tim Orr serves full-time with the Crescent Project as the Assistant Director of the Internship Program and Area Coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. In September, he will begin a PhD in Religious Studies at Hartford International University.

Tim has served as a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis, and for two years, he was also a research assistant on the COVID-19 study led by Hartford International University. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, Shia Islam, and gospel-centered ministry to Muslims.

He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. His work has been published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals, and he is the author of four books. His fifth book, The Apostle Paul: A Model for Engaging Islam, is forthcoming.

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

/by

From Substack to the Arizona Supreme Court: Why This Case Matters to Every State Employee

What began more than three years ago as a Substack post is now headed to the Arizona Supreme Court. That fact alone should give Arizonans pause, not because of me, but because of what Arizona State University is arguing the law allows it to do.

The controversy began with a required ASU employee training called Inclusive Communities. On its face, that title sounds unobjectionable. Having worked at ASU for over two decades as a philosophy professor, I have seen many trainings and ideological fashions come and go. Universities, after all, are places where leftist ideas circulate freely and enforce a chilling effect on the few conservatives that slip through the DEI filter.

The ASU email announcing the required training read: “The training accelerates continuing efforts to encourage meaningful change at ASU while contributing to a national agenda for diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging and social justice.” The letter tells us it is required to be taken every two years.

But this training was different. Once I began it, I realized I was being compelled, as a condition of employment, to sit through material that engaged in race-based blame and overt anti-Christian rhetoric. It caused psychological harm and emotional distress.

There were slides with the following teaching straight out of Neitzche’s power dynamic: “Privilege is interconnected with power in our society i.e. those who have privilege have the ability to create/maintain social norms, often to their benefit at the expense of others.” Truth is whatever those in power say it is and the only solution is to disrupt the power dynamic and get your truth into the privileged position. There was a module about how white supremacy is normalized in our society by the unconscious bias of white people.

The race-based content instructed employees to judge entire groups of people according to skin color—precisely the sort of racial essentialism Arizona law prohibits in education when funded by the state. The anti-Christian content was equally clear. Employees were told we must “decolonize” from Christian missionaries and be liberated from “heteronormativity,” the belief, rooted in Scripture, that God created human beings male and female.

This was not optional professional development. It was mandatory bigotry. And it was funded by taxpayer dollars.

Knowing Arizona law well enough, I believed ASU was violating it. So, I wrote about the training on my Substack, expecting little more than to register a protest. Instead, I was surprised when the Goldwater Institute reached out to confirm that yes, ASU’s required training did in fact violate state law, and asked whether I would be willing to take the issue to court.

There is no money involved in this case. The goal is straightforward: enforce Arizona law and end race-based, ideological anti-Christian training imposed on public employees.

ASU’s response has been telling as it flails about trying to find a strategy. First, it denied the training existed. Then it claimed the training did not involve race-based evaluation. Next, it said the training was not required. When those arguments failed due to the simple existence of screenshots, the university abandoned its in-house legal team and hired Perkins Coie (the firm best known for its role in the Clinton campaign’s Russia dossier) to reframe the case entirely.

ASU now argues that I lack standing to sue, that even if the university violated the law, no employee has the right to challenge it in court.

That argument should alarm every state employee, regardless of political ideology. Suddenly, I have gone from the conservative Christian professor opposing DEI intersectionality, to the champion of all employees in Arizona.  I’ll take the promotion.

If ASU prevails, the implication is clear: state employees have no legal recourse when their employer violates the law. Today, the issue involves DEI training. Tomorrow it could involve something else entirely.

Imagine a future administration in which MAGA ideology dominates the university, and faculty are required to attend a hypothetical ICE training they believe violates state law. Under ASU’s position, those employees would have no standing to challenge it. The university would simply move to dismiss the case, and the courts would never reach the merits.

I do not expect bags full of thank-you cards from Marxist professors to arrive at court a la Miracle on 34th St. But ASU has chosen a strategy that places it squarely against employee rights. That is no small matter.

This case is no longer just about defending Christianity against intersectional ideology. It is about whether state employees in Arizona retain the basic right to hold their employer accountable under the law.

That is a cause worth fighting for, all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

 

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

/by

Top 10 Ways Reality Supports the Christian Worldview + Proof of a Propaganda War

How do you make the case for Christianity? It seems that the burden of proof always falls on Christians, but there are certain aspects of reality that need to be explained regardless of your worldview (even atheism!). The question remains, which worldview fits the story of reality better than the others?

In this evergreen podcast episode, Frank breaks down 10 aspects of reality that support the Christian worldview by answering questions like:

  • What is the cosmological argument?
  • How is the universe fine-tuned at three different levels?
  • Why is atheism, not Christianity, at odds with science?
  • Where do the laws of logic come from?
  • Why doesn’t science say anything?
  • Where does objective morality come from?
  • How did Jesus Christ become the most influential person in human history?
  • Why is it essential to not make hasty generalizations about a whole group or worldview from single incidents?
  • What proof is there that you are in a propaganda war right now?

In the last part of the program, Frank explains why you can’t make firm conclusions about entire groups with insufficient data, which is especially true about short videos we see online (like ICE arrests). Don’t let propaganda poison your perspective! For more information on how to think clearly and logically be sure to check out the resources below!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Donate to CrossExamined
Stealing From God
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
You Are In a Propaganda War–Here’s Proof with Josh Howerton
Train Your Brain: An Introduction To Logic

Download Transcript

/by

Teaching Our Kids to Spot Empty Statements 

John and I were at the Iowa State Fair this weekend (in 2019). My husband loves all the fried food. Calories at the fair don’t count, right? Among our scheduled stops, we wanted to see a band that advertised itself as a mix between Stomp and Accapella. Sounds cool right?

We sat down with whatever artery-clogging victual we had just purchased and as the band started to sing, John and I realized that they weren’t exactly what we had thought. They weren’t bad necessarily. They just sounded a whole lot like a group that you’d hear brought to a middle school to give some flowery feel-good generic message—which consequently is exactly what they did.

The lead singer proudly proclaimed that they had decided to switch their focus from just music to making a positive difference in the world (sounds good, right?) They had decided to use their music to spread a message of unity and love. (Again, sounds good, right?) They then launched into a song about how we are all children of the earth.

John and I stayed for a song or two, but once we realized that it wasn’t getting any better, we moved on. However, at the behest of my cousin however, (shout out to Martha!) I decided to share the conversation that John and I had on the way out.

What exactly did they mean by “unity”?    


This is one of those linguistically thefted words that our society is obsessed over. (If you’re not sure what linguistic theft is, check out chapter 4 of the first Mama Bear Apologetics book.) Linguistic theft is when a word (especially a word with Christian connotations) has been taken, redefined, and then put back on the market to champion something that Scripture never intended. Or sometimes, it’s a word that just sounds really great, but upon digging, has no meaning whatsoever. A word like “unity” only has meaning when coupled with a message of what we are to unify with. Without defining what we are unifying over, it’s just empty words, and people can fill in the details with whatever message they want. Share on X

What were we supposed to be unified over?

We actually debated waiting until the concert was over to go and talk to the band and ask them “What exactly is your message of unity regarding?” We expected that they would give some generic version of how we were all humans and needed to stick together. To which we would ask, “What about sex traffickers? Should we be in unity with them?” I’m assuming they would have said no. And of course we’d follow up with, “What about bullies? Should we be united with them?” I’m assuming they’d say no. “So you’re saying there are some people we are supposed to divide ourselves from?” We expected blank faces by that time. But this was the fair. They probably had 12 shows a day and needed a break. This wasn’t the time, so we just quietly left and went to pet a bunch of baby goats.

Who are we supposed to be unified with? Sex-traffickers? Bullies? No? So you’re saying there ARE people from whom we should divide ourselves… #linguistictheft #emptyphrases  Share on X

Unity requires division          

The problem with unity is that it implies division. In order to unify over one thing, you have to divide from its opposite. But nobody wants to talk about that (unless they are in politics, and then all you hear is how evil the other side is.) Everyone wants everyone else to unify with whatever their message is. They just want unity with themselves. Everyone is welcome on my team (as long as you agree with my team.) Why can’t everyone just agree with me?! Is that too hard?!

In order to unify with one thing, you have to divide from its opposite. Teach your kids to ask for clarity early on before they jump on the bandwagon of ‘unity.’ #linguistictheft #emptyphrases #apologetics Share on X

Unity has to have a conviction that people are unified around. Unity without a unifying message is just a group of people with no convictions whatsoever. In Christianity, we are called to unity. 1 Peter 3:8, Philippians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 1:10, Psalm 133:1, Ephesians 4:3. . .  I could go on. But implicit in the Bible’s message of unity, is the source of our unity—the message of the cross, Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Loving God with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strengths and loving others as ourselves. We are called to divide from the world and its practices, and unite over shared Lordship and obedience to Christ as defined in the Scriptures. True unity is actually very divisive! It cannot tolerate its opposite.

A call for unity without defining the message is basically asking for a whole crowd of people to gather with no convictions whatsoever. #linguistictheft #whatdoyoumeanbyunity? Share on X

Teaching our kids to critically think through unity  

So this is the message we need to be instilling in our kids day in and day out. When we see messages calling for unity, ask them “What are they asking us to unify over?” or “What does unity with their message mean that we need to divide over?” When our kids only hear smooth and attractive sounding words and dig no further, there is no telling what kind of movement they might accidentally align themselves with in the future. Teach them that it is important to define words before we pledge our allegiance to something that sounds good. Because remember, Satan masquerades as an angel of light. It is not often that the true agenda is on display for the world. (Just look at our blog regarding the Women’s March of 2017. How many people knew that the principles listed were what they were actually marching for?)

As you train your kids to examine a message before they swallow it, you’ll raise kids who are discerning thinkers and less likely to be taken victim to smooth sounding ideologies raised against the knowledge of God.

Recommended Resources: 

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

 

 

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

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

/by

What Does the Bible Say About Illegal Immigration? My Friendly Response to a Well-known Pentecostal Pastor

The topic of immigration is boiling over these days. It’s complex and emotional, especially when it affects our communities and families.

Recently, a well-known Puerto Rican Pentecostal pastor named Omar Lugo  presented a Facebook video and a written post on this issue, citing various Bible verses that discuss how we should treat foreigners. His approach seemed to suggest that human laws regarding immigration shouldn’t matter because divine laws are above them (without explaining how they directly contradict God’s law).

While I share his concern for showing compassion, I believe his argument stems from biblical silence and fails to demonstrate that current immigration laws violate God’s law.

The Argument from Silence in Biblical Interpretation

Pastor Omar used passages like Leviticus 19:33-34, Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Zechariah 7:10, Matthew 25:35, Hebrews 13:2, and Ephesians 2:19 to highlight that we should love the foreigner. He did not, however, address whether these texts assume the foreigners were legal or not.

This is important because Israel’s laws in the Old Testament regulated who could stay in the land (Exodus 12:48-49). In that context, the term “foreigners” (gerim) referred to those who lived legally among the Israelites and were subject to the same laws. Otherwise, they could not remain and had to be “cut off” from the land. Therefore, assuming these passages apply to all types of immigration—legal or illegal—is an argument from silence. It relies on what the text does not explicitly say rather than what it does. This reasoning cannot be used to conclude that human immigration laws always contradict God’s will.

Pastor Omar also indicated that modern immigration laws are not found in the Bible. Again, this is an argument from silence and anachronistic.

Romans 13: Obey the Government. . . . Always?

In his video, the pastor stated that divine laws are above human laws and used examples, if I recall correctly, like same-sex marriage or prostitution, which are legal in some places but not supported by the church. I completely agree with this statement; our ultimate loyalty is to God, not human laws. He did not, however, explain how immigration laws violate divine law, despite being asked.

Romans 13:1-5 reminds us that human authorities have been established by God, and unless a law directly contradicts God’s will, Christians are to obey it.

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

According to Title 8, Chapter 12, code 1325 of the United States Code (if I remember correctly), it is a crime to enter the country illegally. Therefore, those who cross illegally are committing a crime, as stipulated by the law.

The pastor also mentioned that churches are sanctuaries where illegal immigrants could enter, and the police could not remove them since churches were considered “sensitive locations.”

They were. An important point is that this is not a law being violated by the police but rather an internal policy of ICE. A policy serves as a guideline, not as a law (after I pointed this out, he walked it back).

Roman Citizenship and Israelite Citizenship

A historical example illustrates the importance of legality and order. During Paul’s time, the Roman Empire had strict laws on how non-Romans could obtain citizenship. Not everyone could enter the empire, ignore its rules, and enjoy the rights of citizens. There were three main ways a person could acquire Roman citizenship:

1. By birth in a Roman family or Roman province: Citizenship was inherited if both parents were citizens or, in some cases, if the father was a citizen. It was also granted by being born in a Roman province, as was Paul’s case.
2. By purchasing citizenship: Some could obtain it by paying a significant sum, as mentioned by the commander in Acts 22:28: “I acquired this citizenship for a large sum of money.”
3. By merit or special grant: Those who served the empire (such as non-Roman soldiers in the military) or performed exceptional acts could be rewarded with citizenship.

These restrictions show that even in a powerful culture like Rome, there was no indiscriminate access to the benefits of citizenship. The system ensured that people recognized and respected governmental authority.

Necessity, Compassion and Justice: The Principle of Proverbs 6:30-31

The Bible acknowledges that necessity can lead people to break the law. Proverbs 6:30-31 says: “excuses might be found for a thief who steals because he is starving. 31 But if he is caught, he must pay back seven times what he stole, even if he has to sell everything in his house” (New Living Translation).

This principle applies to illegal immigration. We can understand and empathize with those who, out of desperation, cross a border without documents. Many are good neighbors, hard workers, and productive members of society. This does not, however, eliminate the legal consequences or the fact that the initial act was a crime. Compassion must not override the principle of justice. The end does not justify the means. Blessings should not obtain through illegal or immoral methods.

How Should the Church Respond?

As a church, we have a responsibility to balance grace and truth:

1. Show compassion: Help immigrants, regardless of their status, with immediate needs, spiritual, and emotional support. Knowing they are here illegally does not give us the right to mistreat them. Neither is the church a bunch of ICE officials, authorized to make arrests. We should, instead, encourage them to make things right with the law.

2. Be realistic: Acknowledge that disobedience to laws has consequences. Promoting more humane and dignified solutions does not mean ignoring sin or illegality.

3. Advocate for justice: As citizens, we must work for immigration systems that are fair and reflect both human dignity and the need for social order without undermining the safety and well-being of naturalized citizens.

In conclusion, we cannot allow love for our neighbor to become an excuse to ignore justice or legality. The Bible calls us to be compassionate, but it also calls us to obey the laws and promote a balance between the two. To combine compassion with realism, grace with truth. This is a difficult topic, but as Christians, we are called to be a light in the midst of this complexity. The following were 4 common objections I receive from other people after my response to pastor Omar that I think will be of benefits.

Answering Common Objections

The “Hard Working Immigrant” Objection

“But they are hardworking, decent people who do the jobs Americans don’t want to do: planting and harvesting our food, building our homes, cleaning our streets and yards, and caring for our children and elderly.”

This argument sounds noble, but in reality, it is the same one used by 19th-century slaveholders when opposing abolition: “If we free the slaves, who will pick our cotton?” This is not an argument for justice but one of convenience.

Taking advantage of the fear and desperation of people fleeing extreme poverty and persecution to pay them poverty wages—far below the legal minimum—is not compassion. It is exploitation. And justifying it by saying, “They still earn more than they would in their home country,” does not make it any less immoral. This practice, far from being altruistic, is pure greed disguised as pragmatism.

Many business owners prefer cheap labor with no legal protections because it allows them to save thousands, if not millions, of dollars. But when those same workers are deported and their businesses collapse due to labor shortages, breached contracts, and lawsuits over unfinished work, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

And yes, the economy might take a temporary hit.

Prices may rise, and our comfort may be affected. But an economy built on the exploitation of the most vulnerable is neither sustainable nor morally acceptable. We cannot continue justifying illegal immigration under the pretext that “we need them” when, in reality, we have created a system that profits from their suffering.

The “You’re a Privilege” Objection

“You speak from a place of privilege. You don’t care because it doesn’t affect you directly. But if you were one of them, your tune would be different. What wouldn’t you do for your children, for your family?”

Yes, I speak from privilege. God gave me the privilege of being born on American soil, with the rights and opportunities that come with it. But that does not invalidate my argument.

Saying that my opinion holds no weight because of where I was born is like when an atheist says, “You’re only a Christian because you were born into a Christian family and in a country with Christian roots. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be Muslim.” But the truth of a belief does not depend on how I acquired it.

The veracity of Christianity does not change just because I was born in a Christian nation, just as the validity of my opinion on immigration does not depend on my citizenship. An argument must be evaluated based on its truth, not on the person presenting it.

“What wouldn’t you do for your children?”, they might ask. But I wouldn’t break just laws. Because when a law is just and I choose to violate it to obtain benefits and privileges, I am not acting in faith but in fear and desperation. I am not trusting that God will provide for my family; I am relying on my own means, even if they are unlawful.

Proverbs 6:30-31 tells us that while we may understand a thief’s hunger, stealing still has consequences. And Romans 13 is clear: opposing just earthly laws is opposing God. Love for our children does not give us a license to do what is wrong. God does not need us to break His principles in order to bless us.

The “But These are Your Compatriots” Objection

“I seriously don’t understand why you have such a big fight against them. We’re supposed to be Latinos, compatriots. We, immigrants (legal ones), should be more empathetic and look for solutions that benefit all of us. Many of these people have been here for years.”

My fight is not against people but against a system that incentivizes human suffering and illegality under emotional pretexts. Promoting, encouraging, or justifying illegal immigration is not an act of empathy but complicity in a cycle of exploitation and violence.

Most people who cross illegally do not do so alone. They do it through coyotes—members of criminal cartels who see immigrants as merchandise. These traffickers not only scam them by charging exorbitant fees (which migrants often pay back through forced labor or sexual exploitation), but they also rape, mutilate, and, in many cases, murder them.

The testimonies are abundant:
• Systematic sexual violence: A 2017 Doctors Without Borders report revealed that 1 in 3 women who cross the border illegally experience sexual violence. Many even take contraceptives before the journey because they assume they will be raped.
• Kidnappings and murders: A 2021 Human Rights First report found that over 6,000 migrants were kidnapped, raped, or murdered at the border between 2020 and 2021 while waiting to cross or after they had crossed.
• Human trafficking and modern slavery: The U.S. State Department estimates that thousands of illegal immigrants end up in human trafficking networks, particularly children and teenagers, who are sold into labor and sex exploitation rings.

When the border is open or permissive, these crimes increase. Allowing illegal immigration is not an act of kindness. It is fueling the cartel and perpetuating the suffering of the most vulnerable. If you truly care about immigrants, you will do as I do: work to discourage illegal entry to minimize these horrors. Compassion is not demonstrated by encouraging danger but by promoting legal and safe pathways for migration.

If you truly care about immigrants, you will do as I do: work to discourage illegal entry to minimize these horrors. Compassion is not demonstrated by encouraging danger but by promoting legal and safe pathways for migration.

The “Immigration Law is Racist” Objection

“But this immigration law is immoral because it’s nearly impossible to become a citizen due to the cost and requirements. It’s even racist and xenophobic! The Bible urges us to treat foreigners well. Refusing to help them in their desperate need goes against the biblical principle of hospitality.”

I understand the concern for the foreigner and agree that every person should be treated with dignity. The Bible calls us to hospitality (Leviticus 19:33-34), but hospitality is not the same as anarchy. A home opens its doors with order, not allowing just anyone to enter without discretion, destabilizing the household itself.

Regulating immigration is not an act of racism or xenophobia; it is an act of protection and prudence towards the citizens. Every nation has the right to determine who enters its territory, just as a family has the right to decide who enters its home.

1 Timothy 5:8 is clear: “If anyone does not provide for his own, especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” The principle is the same if we extrapolate it to the nation. A government that neglects its own people to indiscriminately care for foreigners is not acting justly. Being compassionate does not mean being irresponsible.

Just as a father cannot sacrifice his family’s well-being to give everything to strangers, a country cannot allow uncontrolled immigration that overwhelms its social and economic resources.

Immigration laws do not exist to exclude certain groups based on race or nationality. They exist to ensure that those who enter contribute to the nation’s well-being. Even in the Bible, foreigners could live in Israel, but under certain conditions:

• They had to integrate into the country’s culture and laws. (Exodus 12:49 – “The same law shall apply to the native and to the foreigner residing among you.”)
• They had to work and contribute to the common good. (2 Thessalonians 3:10 – “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”)
• There was no promotion of disorderly entry. (Nehemiah 13:3 shows that the Jews regulated who could live among them to protect their identity and well-being.)

An orderly immigration system allows a nation to flourish. A chaotic system harms citizens, overwhelms public resources, and enriches human traffickers.

When the Bible speaks of welcoming the foreigner, it does so within the context of order and justice. God commanded Israel to protect foreigners, but not at the expense of the nation’s well-being.

If we truly want to help immigrants, the solution is not to open borders indiscriminately but to advocate for fair and sustainable processes. Allowing illegal entry only perpetuates exploitation, abuse, and the overburdening of a system that, when it collapses, can help neither citizens nor foreigners.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4q958kj

/by

Stranger Things: Was Vecna a Victim?

***This review of Stranger Things Season 5 contains major spoilers. Consider yourself warned.

It’s a new year, and the end of an era. Stranger Things, the wildly successful Netflix show, has officially concluded. I watched the show as a fan but also as one who is interested in the underlying worldview. No piece of media is completely neutral. In fact, the arts are meant to be an imaginative exploration of ideas. In story, you don’t just observe beliefs, you inhabit them as an “insider.” If you are not familiar with the show, I would warn that it contains language, violence, and at times depictions of what I determine to be demonic. Season 4 was particularly demonic, and I almost stopped watching. But I was a youth pastor at the time, and most of my students were watching it and needing to debrief. I kept going—and I suspect many other Christians are looking for a debrief as well.

C.S. Lewis draws from Alexander’s Space, Time, and Deity to discuss the difference between “enjoyment” and “contemplation.”[1] Enjoyment is experiencing something: the taste of a cookie, the feeling of the breeze across one’s face, the excitement of a live concert. It is something we experience and about which we have an insider perspective. But contemplation is its opposite. It is to look at something, to examine it, to understand it. Lewis discusses why native religious experiences look silly to outsiders. The reason is because outsiders are looking at the experiences, but the natives are looking along the experiences.[2] They possess a different kind of knowledge. In Stranger Things, I want to enter the experience (look along) a character that audiences were invited into: Henry Creel, also known as Vecna.

Vecna the Victim?

Hinted at during all of season 5 was that Vecna had childhood trauma he did not want to face. Max, as she was trapped in his mind, found shelter in one such memory. Toward the end of the season, Max and Holly Wheeler were trying to escape and found the entrance to a mineshaft. It was clear that this place was not meant to be found. In it was a traumatic memory playing on repeat: the moment Henry became Vecna.

We see a young Henry Creel attempting to rescue a man with a briefcase who was badly injured. But the man, out of his mind and deeply suspicious of Henry, attempted to kill Henry. One shot through Henry’s hand was enough for him to realize he needed to act in self-defense. The result was Henry killing the man with a rock. Henry, still in shock, then opened the briefcase. It was clear that the injured mystery man believed the contents of the briefcase was worth killing over. Curiosity was too much. Inside was a glowing asteroid, and upon touching it, created a connection to what the children called The Mind Flayer. Henry was never the same.

Trauma changes us. Pain is a teacher. Identity is often formed by what is done to us. Henry was forced into self-defense and stumbled upon the alluring power of The Mind Flayer. He did not choose this; it was done to him. This produced great shame, a memory that Henry did not want to face. He avoided that place in his memory until the finale, likely because of the pain it caused him. We all wish that the pain done to us never happened. We imagine what life would have looked like had such pain never occurred. For Henry, the mineshaft was the ultimate place of “what-ifs.” A childhood taken. Innocence corrupted. A new trajectory solidified.

But the showrunners did something unexpected. I thought, while watching it, that they would continue to push a well-established story trope that has become popular in the last decade or so: there are no villains, just victims. Some examples of this. Killmonger from Black Panther (2018) was not evil, he was just abandoned, experienced racial in justice and oppression. Second, Scarlet Witch from Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) was merely a story of the loss of her family and unresolved grief. She was not portrayed as evil; she was simply wounded. I could go on about Elsa in Frozen or Kylo Ren in Disney’s version of Star Wars. The trope has become so engrained in our stories that we are expected to, at some point, empathize with these wounded villains. In the finale of Stranger Things, there was a moment where I thought the show was going to treat Henry (Vecna) the same way. He was not evil; he was just a victim. But to my surprise, Henry revealed to Holly that he could have resisted The Mind Flayer; he could have walked away.

Henry was the victim of a moment, but his identity as the antagonist was a choice. The mineshaft produced a wound in Henry, one that he acted out of from his pain. There are two responses to woundedness: be shaped by it or be healed from it. Henry was shaped; Jesus invites healing. One quick comment on woundedness. The church often mistakes sin with wounds. Victims, and their subsequent woundedness, are told to repent. But how do you repent of a wound? How do you turn from something that was done to you? This is the grave mistake between sin and wounds. You cannot repent of wounds – you repent of sin. But here is another important distinction. Sin often comes from wounds. Henry was deeply wounded, hurt, isolated from this event, yet he chose an identity of sin as a result. There was a moment where Henry was facing this memory, and Will was challenging Henry to (in essence) repent. But Henry was convinced that The Mind Flayer’s critique of humanity was correct: it was corrupt beyond saving. The only solution, to Henry, was to remake the world by destroying it.

Responding to Woundedness

The final battle was between two victims who chose different paths. Henry allowed his woundedness shape his life, whereas El did not. The show does a masterful job of showing Henry and El as two parallel victims – both with powers, both with childhood trauma, both with legitimate motives for revenge. But El healed; Henry did not. The difference? Relationships. Imagine if El was not found by Mike and the gang and she was not “fathered” by Hopper. El was slowly healed by her loving (yet imperfect) relationships. Henry, on the other hand, became filled with malice the longer he was isolated. We can see Henry’s perspective only when we understand who he was connected to: he chose to “abide” in The Mind Flayer, which led to his destruction.

The gospel invites us to both healing and repentance. All of us have things that were done to us, but we all must choose how we respond to such things. Henry responded with more corruption and evil, El responded by healing and, in the end, self-sacrifice. She was the “Christ-type” of the show insofar that she was the self-sacrificing “savior” who ended the cycle of child experimentation. This points to Christ, who experienced great suffering yet sacrificed himself for unworthy humanity. What will you choose? God is the only healer. Psalm 147:3 says, “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.”

If you are broken, go to the one who has the power to heal. If you have made sinful choices because of woundedness, receive the gift of repentance and turn from your sins. John the Baptist exclaims,

“’The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’” (Mark 1:15)

Henry Creel was the victim who became the victimizer and villain. How will you respond to your own pain?

Choose healing and turn from any subsequent sins.

Choose Christ.

References:

[1] C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: the Shape of My Early Life (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2017), 265.

[2] C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 232.

Recommended Resources: 

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

 

Richard Eng serves as the Lead Pastor at Bethel Evangelical Free church in Devils Lake, ND. He is the author of the illustrated children’s book “What Is Heaven Like?” (2022), and has written on faith and cultural issues for The Expository Times, FreeThinking Ministries, CrossExamined, and others. He received his M.A. in Cultural Apologetics from Houston Baptist University, and degrees Ministry and Bible from Grace University. He and his wife have three young children — who are most likely making a mess in the living room right now. 

/by

Top 10 Podcast Episodes of 2025

In 2025, we had unforgettable conversations with some of today’s leading apologists, archaeologists, pastors, theologians, philosophers, and Christian influencers who joined Frank to unpack today’s most compelling arguments and evidence for the Christian faith. From digs in the Middle East to Bible studies and political commentary, we covered a lot of ground and hopefully were able to help you answer some of the questions you’ve asked and encountered surrounding faith, freedom, and philosophy.

We’ve kept up with the biggest news headlines and impact events, keeping you informed and engaged amidst the ongoing culture war from a Christian perspective. And then out of nowhere, we were hit with the most devastating tragedy, the martyrdom of our great friend Charlie Kirk–an event that not only shocked the nation, but by God’s grace, rippled forward to a tsunami of worldwide conversions to Christ.  We’ve grieved together and grappled with the “why” questions, yet we’re still on mission to #makeheavencrowded with a whole new year ahead. If you missed out on any ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ podcasts, now’s the time to catch up. We recommend you start with what our statistics say are the most popular episodes of 2025 based on listens and views!

You can view the full playlist on our YouTube channel HERE.

#10. Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling with Dr. Jay Smith – Part 2

Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling with Dr. Jay Smith - Part 2

What’s behind the mass exodus from Islam? Christian apologist Dr. Jay Smith joins Frank in this two-part series to expose the lack of historical evidence for the world’s fasting growing religion. Watch it HERE!

#9. Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories That Lead to Death Threats with Seth Dillon


Babylon Bee CEO and founder Seth Dillon stops by the podcast to discuss why baseless internet conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death are no laughing matter. Watch it HERE!

#8. Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling with Dr. Jay Smith


Part one of this epic conversation with Dr. Jay Smith dives headfirst into growing skepticism surrounding the true origins of Islam. Watch it HERE!

#7. If God, Why Evil? Honoring the Life & Legacy of My Friend Charlie Kirk


In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Frank delivers his first public speech to answer the ultimate question. Why does God allow evil? Watch it HERE!

#6. MAKE HEAVEN CROWDED and Take a BOLD Stand Christ with Jack Hibbs


With over 35 years of ministry experience, Jack Hibbs joins Frank to reveal the keys to standing firmly for the truth (like Charlie Kirk) in a godless age. Watch it HERE!

#5. What’s Next for Turning Point USA? Continuing the Legacy of Charlie Kirk with Mikey & Rob McCoy


How will TPUSA continue the fight for freedom, faith, and patriotism now that Charlie is no longer with us? Charlie’s best friend and Chief of Staff Mikey McCoy and his father, Pastor Rob McCoy share TPUSA’s plan to carry Charlie’s legacy forward. Watch it HERE!

#4. 12 Biblical Archaeological Discoveries You’ve Never Heard of Before with Dr. Titus Kennedy


Archaeologist Dr. Titus Kennedy shares 12 of the most recent archaeological finds that corroborate people, places, and events documented in the Bible. Watch it HERE!

#3. Behind the Scenes at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial Service


Frank shares what went on behind the scenes leading up to the historic Memorial for Charlie Kirk and why this was the perfect opportunity to share the Gospel with the world. Watch it HERE!

#2. Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories? Homicide Detective Speaks Out with J. Warner Wallace


Cold-Case Detective J. Warner Wallace joins Frank to debunk some of the most disturbing myths and conspiracies surrounding Charlie’s death and how criminal investigations are handled prior to the trial date. Watch it HERE!

#1. The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom


In the first podcast episode following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Frank gives his eyewitness account of the tragedy while focusing on the power of the Gospel in light of the problem of evil. Watch it HERE!

Recommended Resources:

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 
If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

/by

A Case for an Eternal Hell (Part 1): A Biblical Defense

Recently, the Christian world was abuzz with the news that popular Christian star Kirk Cameron had considered switching his view of hell from the traditional view to annihilationism.[1] While I will not engage the specific comments made by Kirk Cameron on his podcast, I do think that it is important to discuss the topic of hell’s duration, annihilationism, and the traditional view known as eternal conscious torment (ECT). Also, we should note that Kirk is working through his beliefs about hell. Therefore, this article and series are not a response to Kirk Cameron or his beliefs. Rather, the series serves as a necessary engagement on a hotly contested issue.

This article is the first of a three-part series defending the traditional view of hell, otherwise known as ECT. The series will argue that ECT better understands hell from the perspective of Scripture, history, and theological and philosophical understandings of God. In other words, a better case can be made for ECT than other views of hell. I had initially planned to publish this case as a singular article. However, the data grew too large. I acknowledged that the reader would be better served by a series, so we do not get too overwhelmed. A series will help us better digest the material and offer a time of reflection. The first article will review the viewpoints of hell and offer a glimpse of the Scriptural data that supports the ECT view of hell. The second will examine early and major theologians who support the traditional view of hell. The third and final article in the series will review theological and philosophical objections to ECT and see whether they hold as much weight as many purport them to have. Some, not all, annihilationists claim that it is morally reprehensible for God to keep people alive in hell for all eternity.[2] Does the traditional view wreak havoc on the nature of God? Does the Bible suggest that annihilationism is true? While it is not a popular view in modernity, this article will argue that the traditional view of hell is correct and will make a case for the viewpoint by examining material from the Bible, some of the earliest Christian writers trained by the disciples, the four A’s of theology, and the theological and philosophical strength of ECT.

Before we make a case for the traditional viewpoint of hell, it is important to get a lay of the land as it pertains to three major viewpoints concerning the duration of hell. Additionally, it is also important to note that this issue is not what would be considered a matter of heresy. Though the doctrine of hell is extremely important, the doctrine of hell’s duration does not tamper with first-level doctrines that constitute the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Nonetheless, as some have noted, additional discernment may be needed with those who espouse viewpoints that differ from the traditional view, but not by necessity. This is certainly something that should be distinguished on a case-by-case basis. With that in mind, let’s now consider the three viewpoints of hell.

1. The Viewpoints of Hell’s Duration

As I often tell my students, a researcher must first seek to understand the viewpoints on the table before seeking to offer a defense for their own. The same holds true for this theological venture. At the time of this writing, three major viewpoints of hell’s duration have taken center stage: the traditional view, otherwise known as eternal conscious torment (ECT), the annihilationist view (sometimes called conditionalism), and the universalist view.

The Traditional View (ECT)

First, there is the traditional viewpoint called eternal conscious torment. This view holds that hell is an eternal place where the condemned spend an eternity. What this eternity looks like is an area that could be covered in a future article. Nonetheless, as Norman Geisler states, the “doctrine of hell, like the doctrine of the Trinity, was revealed progressively: more implied (implicit) in the Old Testament and more developed (explicit) in the New Testament.”[3]

The Annihilationist View (Conditionalism)

The second viewpoint that has gathered quite a large following, and one that Kirk Cameron now endorses, is called annihilationism or conditionalism. Annihilationism maintains that hell is a place of death for the condemned. That is, the condemned spend a temporary time in hell before being exterminated or non-existent. For the annihilationist, hell is a place where spiritual death occurs, where the condemned become non-existent. Interestingly, though I have not included annihilationism as heretical, it was condemned as such by a synod in Constantinople in 543, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and by the Fifth Lateran Council of 1513.[4]

The Universalist View (Universalism)     

The third viewpoint is called universalism. Universalism maintains that the condemned will spend a temporary period of time in hell before they are reformed and restored to a right relationship with God. For universalists, everything will be redeemed and restored back to God’s good graces in the end. Like annihilationism, universalism was also condemned as heretical at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and sparked intense debates between the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch, thus showing that just because a view was held by some in antiquity does not mean that it was necessarily viewed as orthodox.[5]

2.Case from Biblical Texts

Since orthodox Christians hold to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, it behooves us to begin making a case for ECT from the biblical text. Often, annihilationists will contend that words like “death” and “destruction” should be understood as the literal death or non-existence of a person or thing. While in their normal literal parlance, the terms mean just that, these terms can also be used as euphemisms pointing to something different.

For instance, Jesus used the word “sleep” when he spoke of the death of Lazarus (Jn. 11:11). However, he later confirms that the term “sleep” was symbolic for a physical death (Jn. 11:12-15). Likewise, Scripture may use terms like “death” and “destruction” to refer to something else, something eternal. Let’s examine a few biblical texts.

Daniel 12:2    

“At that time Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, will rise up. There will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations came into being until that time. But at that time all your people who are found written in the book will escape. Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to disgrace and eternal contempt” (Dan. 12:1-2). Daniel envisions a time where the archangel Michael and his angelic forces engage Satan (a.k.a., the “Dragon”) and his angels in warfare. Israel will experience a time of great distress unlike anything the world has ever seen.

After the spiritual combat has concluded, a time of global resurrection will commence. There are good reasons to believe that two resurrection periods commence, one prior to the time of tribulation, and the other preceding the Great White Throne judgment. Nonetheless, Daniel reports seeing the resurrection of the redeemed and the condemned. Both are resurrected to an eternal life somewhere. The redeemed will “awake . . . to eternal life” (Dan. 12:2a) with God. The condemned will awake to “disgrace and eternal contempt” (Dan. 12:2b). In this text, “sleep” is used as a euphemism for physical death (e.g., Jn. 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1 Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:51). In this sense, sleep only refers to physical death. As noted by Stephen Miller and Joyce Baldwin, the text lends no support to the theories of soul sleep and annihilation.[6] Baldwin explains that “the reason for using ‘sleep’ here as a metaphor for ‘die’ is that sleep is a temporary state from which we normally awake, and so the reader is prepared for the thought of resurrection.”[7] The term “contempt” comes from the Hebrew term harapot, which designates a plural of “intensive fullness” of great shame.[8] The term dera’on refers to an “object of aversion” or “abhorrence.”[9] Interestingly, the only other occurrence of dera’on in the Old Testament is found in Isaiah 66:24, which depicts an eternal state, saying, “As they leave, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me; for their worm will never die, their fire will never go out, and they will be a horror to all humanity” (Isa. 66:24).

Intertestamental Understanding of Hell      

Though not considered Scripture by Protestant Christians, the Apocrypha offers some insight into the understanding of hell’s nature. The writer of 4 Maccabees described hell as a place where “divine judgment delivers thee unto a more rapid and eternal fire and torments which shall not leave hold on thee to all eternity … A great struggle and peril of the soul awaits in eternal torment those who transgress the ordinance of God” (4 Maccabees 12:12; 13:5).

Matthew 22:13      

In a parable, Jesus parallels God the Father with a proverbial king who tells his attendants to “Tie him up hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 22:13).[10] The act of weeping and gnashing of teeth does not depict someone who has been burned up and no longer existent. Rather, these actions come from someone who remains metaphysically alive. Some will say, “But this may be at the initial moments of hell.” However, there is nothing in the text that suggests that the actions will not continue. Is fire a metaphor for God’s judgment? Or does it speak to an existence without the loving presence of God—a world of chaos and depravity? Those are some considerations for further research.

Matthew 25:41

In Jesus’s Olivet Discourse, Jesus taught that the angels would divide humanity into two sections: those on their right are individuals who had a right relationship with God, whereas those on the left are those who denied God and rejected his grace. After the gathering occurs, the command will be given to the condemned, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!” (Matt. 25:41). We should note that hell was not planned for humanity. It is a place created for the devil and his minions. For someone to reject God’s grace, they essentially say, “I do not want God in my life.” Therefore, God grants them what they desire. That’s why people wind up in hell. More on that in a future article.

Jude 6, 12-13

Jude, likely a disciple and brother of Jesus, offered some strong teachings on hell. He notes that “the angels who did not keep their position but abandoned their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deep darkness for the day of judgment on the great day … [and speaking of those who live in rebellion] These people are dangerous reefs at your love feasts as they eat with you without reverence. They are shepherds who only look after themselves. They are waterless clouds carried along by winds; trees in late autumn—fruitless, twice dead and uprooted. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shameful deeds; wandering stars for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever” (Jude 6, 12). In vivid language, Jude acknowledges the darkness of hell and the conscious abiding nature of hell. He notes that hell is a dark place, likely noting that it does not hold the light of God’s glory there.

Revelation 14:10-11  

In Revelation, John notes that the beast will “also drink of the wine of God’s wrath, which is poured full strength into the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever. There is no rest, day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or anyone who receives the mark of its name” (Rev. 14:10-11). Here again, the anguish of hell does not cease. Obviously, hell is not a place where anyone wants to be. But remember, God did not design hell for human beings. It is designed for the devil and his angels. To go to hell means that a person resists and rejects the goodness of God and willfully chooses to live their eternal existence away from their loving Creator, apart from God’s kingdom, and willfully rejecting God’s loving watch care. If you are blaming God at this point, let me evoke my best impression of R. C. Sproul and inquire, “WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?” Of course, I say this jokingly. But still, how can we blame God for something a person willfully chooses? To reject God is to choose Satan. If that’s the state you want, you cannot blame God for that.

Revelation 20:10, 13-15        

In what I call the judgment chapter of Revelation, Satan’s ultimate demise is shown as he will be “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). The redeemed and condemned have been resurrected to a new eternal body by this point. Then, when judgment is meted out by God at the Great White Throne judgment, death and Hades gave up their dead” (Rev. 20:13). Note here that death is used to speak of those who are living, yet living without the graces of God. Each one of the dead are consciously judged, indicating that the term “death” is used metaphorically and not metaphysically.

After God delivers his judgment, “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14-15). Since God’s presence permeates the entire new creation, the judgment and Lake of Fire constitute another realm “outside the geography of the new universe,”[11] a place of utter darkness. This ultimate separation from God’s grace and presence is rightly called a second death, because the existence of its residents is without God’s protection, lovingkindness, and glory.

The writer of 2 Baruch of the intertestamental period teaches that righteous will enjoy rest and great blessings in the new creation for “to them shall be given the world to come, but the dwelling of the rest who are many shall be in the fire” (2 Baruch 44:15). In 4 Ezra, one pleads with God for forgiveness, and God told him, “I will show you that also, but do not include yourself with those who have shown scorn, or number yourself among those who are tormented” (4 Ezra 7:75).[12]

Conclusion

As has been shown, a strong case can be made for the traditional ECT viewpoint of hell. Not only do the writers of the New Testament hold this view, but it was also reflected in the writings of the Old Testament and the theologians of the intertestamental period. Granted, ECT is not the most comfortable position to hold. I found myself thanking God for his salvation as I wrote this piece. However, we must ask whether the traditional ECT view comports with the biblical data. Most assuredly, ECT does reflect the overarching theme of the biblical teaching on hell.

Even still, our case continues in our next article with an examination of the views of hell espoused by some of the most important theologians of history. We will look at the theology of those who were impacted by the disciples of Jesus before looking into the theological viewpoints of hell among those who are some of the most important theologians of Christian history.

References:

[1] Kirk Cameron and James Cameron, “Are We Wrong about Hell?,” Dangerous Conversations: The Kirk Camron Show, episode 86, YouTube.com (December 4, 2025), https://youtu.be/_RflbA8Vt_Y?si=asm4iytTdxkM_V9j

[2] Chris Date, “Chris Date’s Second Rebuttal to Jerry Shepherd,” Theologyinthe Raw.com (March 11, 2016), https://theologyintheraw.com/chris-dates-second-rebuttal-to-jerry-shepherd/ .

[3] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2005), 328.

[4] Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four, 391; See also John Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, Nigel M. de S. Cameron, ed (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 28; and F. L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), 328.

[5] David Griffith, The Great Divide and the Salvation Paradox (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2022), Logos Bible Software.

[6] Stephen A. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 1994), 316; Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, vol. 23, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1978), 204.

[7] Baldwin, Daniel, TOTC, 204.

[8] Keil, Daniel, 483.

[9] Miller, Daniel, NAC, 316.

[10] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2020).

[11] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1999), 1061.

[12] The intertestamental texts are added to show the viewpoints of hell among those between the period of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. Brian G. Chilton (PhD, Liberty University) is the founder of Bellator Christi Ministries and the co-host of the Bellator Christi Podcast. He serves as a hospice chaplain and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics for Carolina College of Biblical Studies, a Dissertation Mentor/Adjunct Professor for Liberty University in the PhD in Applied Apologetics program, and an Adjunct Professor/Dissertation Reader at Carolina University in the DMin program. Dr. Chilton’s primary area of research is on early Christianity, oral traditions, NT creeds, the blend of divine sovereignty and human freedom, and near-death experiences (NDEs).

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45X6yqO

/by