Tag Archive for: Gospel

A Divine Love Theodicy: Addressing James Sterba’s and Erik Wielenberg’s Problem of Evil Arguments

Abstract: James Sterba claims my Divine Love Theodicy does not address the working parts of his new logical problem of evil. In this paper I summarize Sterba’s new logical problem of evil, respond to it with an explanation of my Divine Love Theodicy, and point out how my theodicy does address the working parts of his logical problem of evil in that it satisfies the moral requirements he lays out. In addition, I will show that my Divine Love Theodicy also defeats Erik Wielenberg’s revised version of Sterba’s problem of evil argument which was published in 2022 in the journal Religions.

Introduction

James Sterba, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, has made a tremendously strong claim. He has not claimed that ‘because there is horrendous suffering, it is difficult to believe God exists.’ I could sympathize with that sort of sentiment. But no, instead he has claimed that ‘because there is horrendous suffering, it is logically impossible for God to exist.’ While this type of logical problem of evil was popular around the middle of the twentieth century, even many atheist philosophers came to recognize it is incredibly difficult to defend such a strong claim. This is due in large part to philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, who pointed out that all one has to do to refute such a claim is provide a possible explanation for how God and evil could both exist. It does not even have to be the actual correct explanation because, since the claim—it is impossible for both God and evil to exist— is so strong, all that is required to refute the claim is a possible scenario where God and evil both exist. If something is at least possible, then, by definition, it is not impossible.

Because the logical problem of evil faces this formidable hurdle, today many consider it to be a dead argument. Atheist William Rowe, Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University, wrote “[s]ome philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of . . . God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim.”[1]

 

Has Sterba successfully resurrected this logical problem of evil? Hardly. Even atheist Erik Wielenberg, Professor of Philosophy at Depauw University, wrote “[Plantinga’s] basic strategy can be used to defeat Sterba’s newer logical argument from evil . . . .”[2] Wielenberg himself even proposed a possible model where God exists and permits horrendous suffering. He explained “[i]f this model is logically possible, then the first premise of Sterba’s argument is false . . . . Thus, Sterba’s new logical argument from evil succumbs to a modified version of Plantinga’s old free will defense.”[3] It should be noted that Wielenberg went on to revise Sterba’s argument and thus proposed his own problem of evil argument which I will discuss below.

In my debate with Sterba at the University of Nebraska in April 2024, I responded to his problem of evil argument with Plantinga’s basic strategy by presenting what I called a Divine Love Theodicy.[4] In our debate Sterba claimed my response did not address the working parts of his problem of evil argument. In this paper I will point out how my theodicy does address the working parts of Sterba’s argument in that it satisfies his proposed moral requirements. I will also address Wielenberg’s revised version of Sterba’s argument and thus argue that both Sterba’s and Wielenberg’s arguments should not lead us to conclude God does not exist.

Sterba’s Problem of Evil Argument  

Sterba argues that the “horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions,” which I will refer to as horrendous suffering, is incompatible with the existence of God.[5] As for what he means by horrendous evil, he has in mind Marilyn Adams’ definition, that is, evils “the participation in which (that is, the doing or suffering of which) constitutes prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole.”[6]

Sterba often begins his argument, as he did in our debate, by laying out the following three moral requirements concerning goods God could provide to us:

  1. Prevent horrendous evil consequences when one can easily do so without violating anyone’s rights and no other goods are at stake.
  2. Do not secure a good using morally objectionable means when you can easily secure the same good by using morally unobjectionable means.
  3. Do not permit rather than prevent the infliction of especially horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions on their would-be victims in order to provide would-be beneficiaries with goods they would morally prefer not to have.

Sterba’s argument can be summarized as follows:

  1. An all-good, all-powerful God would necessarily follow these three moral requirements.
  2. If such a God followed these moral requirements, He would not allow horrendous suffering. In other words, God and horrendous suffering are logically incompatible.
  3. In this world there is horrendous suffering.
  4. Therefore, God does not exist.

One could push back on premise one by arguing that there might be reasons why God would not follow these moral requirements. Alternatively, one could push back on premise three by arguing that it is possible God has, in fact, prevented all truly horrendous suffering and all we actually experience in this world is what Sterba calls significant suffering, which he believes God would be justified in allowing, but since significant suffering is the worst we experience, we think of it as horrendous. However, I will push back on premise two by proposing a possible scenario where God does follow Sterba’s three moral requirements and yet still chooses to allow horrendous suffering.

A Divine Love Theodicy         

My response to the problem of evil is based on aspects of previous theodicies I have found compelling combined with ideas from my Divine Love Theory.[7] I call my response a Divine Love Theodicy instead of Divine Love Defense because I believe this scenario, or something close to it, is what actually happened in reality. But even if I am wrong about this, all that is needed to defeat Sterba’s argument is a possible scenario (it does not have to be the actual one) where God and horrendous suffering both exist, because this would show that the two are not logically incompatible. Since I am merely describing a possible scenario, I will often use phrases like might be. . . , may have. . . , and it is possible that. . . .

Sometimes we think God could have created any set of circumstances we can imagine. People often refer to these different ways circumstances could play out as ‘possible worlds’ but I prefer the term ‘timelines,’ where each timeline includes everything that would happen from creation through eternity future. We could use the term ‘imaginable timelines‘ to refer to all the timelines we, or God, could imagine, which would be a large number indeed. For example, we can easily imagine a timeline where no one freely chooses to do evil that causes horrendous suffering, but it may be the case that this timeline would never actually happen. In other words, it very well could be that not all imaginable timelines are actually viable.

Why would some timelines not be viable? It might be the case that God imposed constraints on Himself which limited the number of timelines He could choose from. For example, He may have decided to create human beings with free will and constrain Himself from forcing them to do what He wants because that would violate their free will. Why would God impose this sort of constraint on Himself? One possible reason is that free will is required to experience the greatest good, that is, loving relationships with God and with others (this includes relationships in this life and the eternal afterlife).[8] Since love requires free will, if God forced us to love, then that would not be real love; we would just be puppets doing what God forced us to. Nobody wants to be in a relationship with someone who is forced to love them; rather, we want to be in relationship with someone who chooses to love us.[9]

If God chose to constrain Himself from forcing us to do what He wants, then this would have limited the timelines He had to choose from. For example, let us say it is the case that I would never freely choose to wear blue shorts under any circumstances in which God would place me. If that were true, then, even though we could imagine timelines where I would freely choose to wear blue shorts, none of those timelines would actually be viable since I would never freely choose to do that, and therefore God could not choose those timelines. Of course, God could force me to choose to wear blue shorts, but if He decided not to violate our free will, then those timelines where I freely chose them would not be available for God to choose from, i.e., they would not be viable. As a side note, readers familiar with the literature on this topic will notice that what I am calling imaginable timelines and viable timelines have historically been called possible worlds and feasible worlds, respectively. I am using these different terms because they better communicate the ideas I am trying to explain, they are easier for laypeople to understand, and I figure that people who are more familiar with the older terms should be able to easily follow along.[10]

It might be the case that in every timeline in which God gives us free will, some, possibly all, will always choose to do evil that causes horrendous suffering. If this were true, then even though we could imagine a timeline where no one freely chooses to do evil that causes horrendous suffering, such a timeline would not be viable. Keep in mind that the number of viable timelines are a smaller subset of the larger number of imaginable timelines. If this was the scenario that God faced, then He would have had to choose between these three options:

  1. Create no human beings.
  2. Create a timeline with human puppets that look like they are enjoying loving relationships and that never choose to do evil that causes horrendous evil, but really God is just pulling their strings and forcing them to do these things, and thus there would not be any real love.
  3. Create a timeline with human beings who have free will so that there would be true loving relationships, knowing that some, possibly all, would sometimes use their freedom to do evil which causes horrendous suffering.

It is reasonable to think God would choose the third option. Even though He knew it would involve some horrendous suffering, He also knew there would be real loving relationships, the value of which outweighs the suffering.

Now, within the third option there would be many different ways God could allow the circumstances to play out by, for example, placing people in different circumstances. If God is all powerful, surely He could have created a timeline almost like the one we are in but with less horrendous suffering, right? Maybe not. Keep in mind that the number of viable timelines would be limited because God constrains Himself from violating people’s free will. But could He not still orchestrate circumstances to minimize the horrendous suffering people caused by their evil choices? Maybe that is exactly what He did. Maybe, out of all the viable timelines within option three, He chose this timeline we are experiencing because this one had the least amount of horrendous suffering.

Additionally, it might be that if He prevented any specific horrendous suffering in this timeline, that would somehow lead to worse suffering later on. But could God not just step in and prevent that later suffering then too? Well, it might be that if God removed the horrendous consequences of our evil choices, then overall we would make many more evil choices. In other words, lowering horrendous suffering in this way might result, overall, in us making many more evil choices. Since evil choices themselves are intrinsically bad regardless of their consequences, it might be better overall to have many less evil choices and horrendous suffering than it would be to have no horrendous suffering and many more evil choices.

In addition, maybe minimizing evil choices and horrendous suffering was not God’s only goal. Maybe God had other goals in mind as well such as, for example, to maximize the greatest good—loving relationships with God and with others in this life and the afterlife. If that was the case, then, after evaluating every viable timeline, God chose the one that maximizes the quality and quantity of loving relationships for a given amount of horrendous suffering from our evil choices. That might be the timeline we are living in; we could be experiencing the best possible timeline, the one that maximizes loving relationships for a given amount of horrendous suffering. In game theory terminology, this timeline would be called a Pareto optimal scenario.

We might think God could lower the amount of horrendous suffering while keeping the quantity and quality of loving relationships the same, but that is impossible for us to know given our finite knowledge; we just cannot fathom all the ripple effects, either in this life or the next, that would come from adjusting various circumstances. It might not be the case that the quality and quantity of loving relationships are directly dependent upon evil and suffering, but it is reasonable to think that changing the circumstances to adjust the amount of horrendous suffering could have ripple effects that eventually affect the overall quantity or quality of loving relationships.

We might also think that the benefit of increasing loving relationships is not worth the cost of the extra horrendous suffering that might be entailed. But again, as finite beings, it is extremely difficult for us to do that sort of moral-tradeoff calculation. We tend to overestimate the cost of suffering, especially when we are in the midst of it. But if God is all-good and all-knowing, then He would know exactly how to calculate the best tradeoff and how to maximize the quantity and quality of loving relationships for a given amount of horrendous suffering.

Since this discussion is so conceptual, it might be helpful to walk through a specific hypothetical example to consider the process of how God may have chosen the particular timeline we are experiencing. Though it would be difficult to quantify, for the sake of thinking this through, let us assume we can measure the amount of horrendous suffering in a timeline on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the least amount of such suffering and 100 being the most. Let us assume we can also measure the quality and quantity of loving relationships of a timeline on a similar scale of 0 to 100.

Of all the many imaginable timelines, consider timeline #42 where loving relationships are at maximum level of 100 and horrendous suffering is at the minimum level of zero. Clearly timeline #42 would be preferable to the timeline we are experiencing, but let us say this timeline, while it is imaginable, is not viable, because if God gave us free will, there are just no circumstances in which we would all make such free choices that would result in these levels. To keep things manageable in this illustration, let us suppose, because God constrained Himself from violating our free will, that there were just a few timelines that were actually viable from which God could choose from. Consider then these six timelines:

Timeline Imaginable Viable Loving Relationships Suffering
#4 Yes Yes 30 4
#8 Yes Yes 77 21
#15 Yes Yes 98 94
#16 Yes Yes 65 18
#23 Yes No 77 20
#42 Yes No 100 0
All other timelines Yes No

Presumably, there were many more viable timelines God could have chosen from, but I will be able to illustrate the type of constraints God might have faced by limiting the list to just these. After all, it is possible, though unlikely, God only had these four viable timelines to choose from. And, keep in mind, all that is needed to defeat Sterba’s logical problem of evil is a possible explanation.

Let us say God chose timeline #8 with loving relationships at level 77 and suffering at level 21. This seems reasonable considering the other viable options He had to choose from. We, and God, could certainly imagine a timeline such as #23 in which God orchestrated the circumstances (which would include Him stepping into history at times to prevent some horrendous suffering caused by our evil choices) such that there would be slightly less suffering, level 20 instead of 21, and yet loving relationships would stay at 77. However, let us say that this timeline was not possible because changing these circumstances would cause ripple effects (I am mostly thinking here of changes to our free will choices in response to these changed circumstances) that would lower the level of loving relationships.

God may have considered #15 since it would have a much higher level of loving relationships, 98 instead of 77, but it seems reasonable that He would not choose that option because it also drastically increases the level of suffering from 21 to 94. Similarly, God may have decided against timeline #4 because, even though suffering would drop from 21 to 4, loving relationships would drop from 77 to 30.

God could have chosen a timeline, say #16, in which He orchestrated the circumstances such that the level of suffering would be lowered from 21 to 18. But let us say that because the ripple effects of these changes would lower the loving relationships from 77 to 64, God would choose not to actualize this timeline.

In this scenario, if God did choose timeline #8, would He violate any of Sterba’s three moral requirements? Consider his first moral requirement that God should prevent horrendous evil consequences when He can easily do so without violating anyone’s rights and no other goods are at stake. God would not be violating this moral requirement because, though He could easily prevent some horrendous suffering by choosing another timeline, say #16, there are other goods, namely the level of loving relationships, that are at stake if He would do so.

Next, consider Sterba’s second moral requirement that God should not secure a good using morally objectionable means when He can easily secure the same good by using morally unobjectionable means. Sterba might be begging the question here by assuming that it is morally objectionable for God to allow horrendous suffering in order to secure a good. If so, then he needs to defend, and not just assume, his contention that it is morally objectionable for God to allow horrendous suffering in order to secure a good. Regardless, God would not be violating this moral requirement because, first, I would argue that it is not morally objectionable to choose timeline #8 to secure a good (loving relationships at level 77) even though it involves allowing people’s evil choices to cause horrendous suffering at level 21. Second, God could not secure the same good (that high of a level of loving relationships) using other means (choosing a timeline with the same level of loving relationships but a lower level of horrendous suffering) because no such timelines were viable.

Lastly, consider Sterba’s third moral requirement that God should not permit the horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions on their would-be victims in order to provide would-be beneficiaries with goods they would morally prefer not to have. In order for God to violate this proposed requirement within my Divine Love Theodicy, there would have to be some people who enjoyed the good of loving relationships with God and others who, once they know all the facts involved, preferred God had not chosen the timeline in which they had these relationships because it involved God allowing some to suffer horrendous evil consequences from people’s evil choices. First, because the morality of a decision is not dependent on people’s finicky preferences about the decision, it is highly questionable why God would have to follow this proposed requirement. In other words, I think it can be successfully argued that God would be justified in choosing #8 even if not all of the beneficiaries in that timeline would have preferred God make that choice.

Second, Sterba is making the large assumption here that there would be people who enjoy these loving relationships who, once they know all the facts involved, would prefer not to have these goods because the timeline which enabled such goods included God allowing people to suffer horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions. In other words, in order to show God would fail this moral requirement, Sterba would have to establish that that there would be such people who, once they know all the facts involved, have this preference. However, it is impossible for Sterba to know if there would be people with such preferences once they know all the facts involved. It is plausible, and at a minimum at least possible (which is all that is required to defeat Sterba’s logical problem of evil), that if my Divine Love Theodicy, or something close to it, is true and something similar to timeline #8 is the actual scenario we are experiencing, then when everyone fully knows all the facts involved, there will be no people with such preferences, and so God would not violate this moral requirement either. In conclusion, my Divine Love Theodicy shows it is at least possible, and I would argue quite plausible, that God could follow Sterba’s third moral requirement and still allow horrendous suffering.

Some might think the hypothetical scenario I have presented here is not probable or even plausible. I respectfully disagree. Regardless, it does not have to be probable or plausible; it only has to be possible in order to defeat Sterba’s claim that God and horrendous suffering are logically incompatible. And there is no good reason to think this scenario is impossible. Therefore, by providing a possible scenario where God and horrendous evil both exist, I have shown that Sterba’s logical problem of evil argument fails in its attempt to argue that God does not exist.

Erik Wielenberg’s Revised Version of Sterba’s Problem of Evil Argument 

As I noted above, atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg agreed that “[Plantinga’s] basic strategy can be used to defeat Sterba’s newer logical argument from evil.”[11] However, Wielenberg developed a revised version of Sterba’s argument which he formulated into a dilemma for theists. In this section I will address Wielenberg’s proposed dilemma.

Wielenberg began by defining a certain category of horrendous suffering he called prima facie life-ruining (pf-life-ruining for short) as suffering which is so bad that unless it is outweighed by some vastly better good, it renders the lives of those who experience it worse than no life at all.[12] He then described God facing an Omelas situation as follows:

“Suppose, then, that God faces the following dilemma: He can actualize a world in which a great many free creatures attain the great good of eternal loving union with Him only if He permits there to be one free creature that undergoes pf-life-ruining evil and that this creature not attain eternal loving union with God (or any other good that vastly outweighs the pf-life-ruining evil). In this imagined scenario, God faces what we may call an Omelas situation after Ursula Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” Le Guin describes a city, Omelas, in which all the citizens save one live incredibly happy and joyous lives. However, their happiness and joy depend entirely (for reasons never fully explained) on the suffering of a single, feeble-minded child locked away in a small chamber somewhere beneath the city. Toward the end of the story, Le Guin explains that a tiny minority of Omelasians, upon coming to understand the conditions of happiness in Omelas, decide to leave Omelas altogether. Le Guin’s idea seems to be that these “ones who walk away from Omelas” correctly recognize the injustice of Omelas and their walking away symbolizes their rejection of the unjust arrangement.”[13]

Wielenberg suggested that God would face a similar Omelas situation if the only option He had to create a world with free creatures who enjoyed eternal loving union with God also included at least one free creature that experiences pf-life-ruining suffering and never acquires the good which vastly outweighs that suffering, i.e., eternal loving union with God.

Wielenberg argued that if a morally perfect God faced such an Omelas situation, He would choose not to create any free creatures at all because consigning one creature to such pf-life-ruining suffering in order to attain ultimate happiness for many others is deeply unfair. He wrote that this would be “treating the sacrificed creature as a mere means, using it like a pawn in chess” and that “27ivine justice is incompatible with God sacrificing some creatures in order to attain salvation for other creatures.”[14] He maintained it would be morally appropriate to create such a world with free creatures that experience pf-life-ruining suffering so as long as those who experience such suffering would eventually share in the vastly better good that outweighs the suffering, i.e., eternal loving union with God. In this regard he proposed the following (its name is a reference to Romans 3:8):

“Agent-Relative Pauline Principle: It is incompatible with God’s moral perfection for God to intentionally permit person P to experience pf-life-ruining evil in order to attain some good—unless that good vastly outweighs the pf-life-ruining evil, can be attained in no other way, and accrues to P.”[15]

After defining unredeemed pf-life-ruining evil as suffering that is not followed by a vastly greater good within the existence of the person who experiences it, he then put forth his revised version of Sterba’s argument:

  1. Necessarily, if God exists, then God does not intentionally permit unredeemed pf-life-ruining evils.
  2. Necessarily, if God exists and there are unredeemed pf-life-ruining evils, then God intentionally permits unredeemed pf-life-ruining evils.
  3. So: necessarily, if God exists, then there are no unredeemed pf-life-ruining evils.
  4. However, there are unredeemed pf-life-ruining evils.
  5. Therefore, God does not exist.[16]

Wielenberg anticipates that theists would most likely challenge premise four, the notion that there are unredeemed pf-life-ruining evils, by arguing that such evils are surely redeemed somehow in the afterlife. However, he points out that if such theists are correct that premise four is false, then this has the absurd result of turning common-sense morality upside down. This absurdity follows because it would cause us to have powerful reasons to inflict pf-life-ruining evils on people in order to force God’s hand to compensate them with tremendous goods in the afterlife. He explained that a “highly effective way of carrying out such a program would be to focus on children, who are particularly vulnerable and innocent: inflict pf-life-ruining evil on a child, kill the child, and you have guaranteed a great good for the child, a good in comparison with which your evil acts are insignificant.”[17] Thus he concludes by attempting to push the theist into a dilemma—either accept premise four and conclude there is no God or reject premise four and abandon commonsense morality by guaranteeing people a great good by inflicting upon them pf-life-ruining evils.

Instead of challenging premise four, I would push back against premise one which states that God does not intentionally permit unredeemed pf-life-ruining suffering. In other words, I argue that it would not be incompatible with God’s moral perfection for Him to allow unredeemed pf-life-ruining suffering in the lives of some people as long as He provides such people the opportunity to freely choose to experience a vastly better good that outweighs the suffering, i.e., eternal loving relationships with God and others. According to my Divine Love Theodicy, this is exactly what happened; though God knew not everyone who experiences pf-life-ruining suffering would choose to experience these loving relationships, He provided them the opportunity to freely choose such relationships, and thus He was morally justified in allowing such suffering. Wielenberg’s Omelas analogy breaks down because in the Omelas story the child who experienced pf-life-ruining suffering never had the opportunity to freely choose a vastly better good that would outweigh his suffering.

This first premise of Wielenberg’s argument that I am contesting is based on his Agent-Relative Pauline Principle, but I argue that this principle is mistaken because it is incomplete. This principle should be adjusted as follows:

Adjusted Agent-Relative Pauline Principle: It is incompatible with God’s moral perfection for God to intentionally permit person P to experience pf-life-ruining evil in order to attain some good—unless that good vastly outweighs the pf-life-ruining evil, can be attained in no other way, and, here is the adjustment—God gives P the free choice to receive that good or reject it.

This adjusted principle takes into consideration the choice of those who experience such suffering to freely receive or reject the outweighing good of loving relationships with God and others. In other words, God would not violate His perfect moral nature if He created a world where some free creatures experience pf-life-ruining suffering as long as God gives them the free choice to receive or reject the good that vastly outweighs the pf-life-ruining evil, namely, loving relationships with God and others.

Thus, my position accepts that there is unredeemed pf-life-ruining suffering but puts the final determination of that state into the hands of the free creatures. If their suffering is unredeemed, then it is ultimately because of their free choice, not God’s. According to my Divine Love Theodicy, even though God chooses to actualize this particular timeline, it is our choices that ultimately determine whether or not we experience loving relationships with God and others.[18]

To summarize, I am arguing that it is compatible with God’s moral perfection for Him to intentionally permit person P to experience pf-life-ruining suffering in order to attain some good as long as that good vastly outweighs such suffering, can be attained in no other way, and God gives P the choice to receive that good or reject it. And this is exactly what my Divine Love Theodicy proposes—that God has given us free will, which allows the possibility of pf-life-ruining suffering, in order for people to potentially enjoy loving relationships with Him and others, a good which vastly outweighs such suffering, that there was no other way to attain this good, and that God gives everyone, including those who experience such suffering, the free choice to participate in these loving relationships or reject them.

Conclusion

I am thankful that James Sterba is interested in exploring whether or not there is a God. I have enjoyed getting to know him and Erik Wielenberg personally as we have shared meals, interacted, and debated this important issue. While I appreciate their thoughtfulness, and that they are drawing people’s attention to this conversation about God, I have tried to show in this paper that their problem-of-evil arguments against the existence of God fall short.

Because horrendous suffering due to our evil choices is very real and utterly devastating, I sympathize with those who struggle to believe in God because of it. However, in this paper I have proposed a Divine Love Theodicy as a possible explanation for why God might allow this horrendous suffering. In this proposed scenario God allows horrendous suffering without violating Sterba’s three moral requirements. Therefore, at a minimum, this scenario demonstrates that horrendous suffering is not logically incompatible with the existence of God as Sterba has argued. In addition, I used my Divine Love Theodicy to show how Wielenberg’s revised version of Sterba’s argument failed to consider that God provides people the opportunity to freely choose to experience a vastly better good that outweighs their pf-life-ruining suffering. Lastly, if my Divine Love Theodicy, or something close to it, is what actually happened in reality, and I believe it has, then it helps us better understand God’s purposes in creating us and giving us free will so we can enjoy the greatest good—loving relationships with Him and with others.

While my Divine Love Theodicy relies on insights from previous free will defenses and theodicies, there are some unique aspects to it I pulled from my previous work in metaethics. In addition, hopefully I was able to explain my Divine Love Theodicy in a way that will help non-specialists understand free will defenses and theodicies and possibly shed more light on the issue even for specialists. Lastly, the most novel aspect of this paper is that it shows how a free will theodicy can address two recent attempts to revive the problem-of-evil argument.

References:

[1]William L. Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979): 335.

[2] Erik J. Wielenberg, “Sterba’s Logical Argument from Evil and the God Who Walks Away from Omelas,” Religions 13.782 (2022): 5.

[3] Wielenberg, 5–6.

[4] The debate can be watched or read at https://convincingproof.org/without-god-can-there-be-an-objective-ethics-debate/.

[5] James P. Sterba, Is a Good God Logically Possible? (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 7n1.

[6] Sterba, Is a Good God Logically Possible?, 14. Sterba quoted this from Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and Goodness of God, Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. William P. Alston (Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press, 1999), 26.

[7] Adam Lloyd Johnson, Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity Is the Source and Foundation of Morality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2023).

[8] Christian theologians have often described the greatest good we can experience as some sort of union, fellowship, communion, or friendship with God. Though it would take us beyond the scope of this paper, elsewhere I have argued that loving relationships with God and others are the very purpose and meaning life. I have also argued that loving relationships with God and others are our greatest good because, if good just is that which resembles God, such relationships resemble the ultimate good in God—the inner-trinitarian loving relationships. Johnson, Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity Is the Source and Foundation of Morality, 56–57, 154–57.

[9] The topic of free will is deep and broad. The type of free will I have in mind here has historically been called ‘agent-causal libertarian free will.’ Though it is beyond the scope of this paper, an important issue facing free will defenses such as my Divine Love Theodicy is specifically how babies, children who die young, and mentally challenged individuals meaningfully exercise freedom.

[10] In my live debate with Sterba, I actually used the term ‘possible timelines’ instead of ‘viable timelines’ for the smaller subset because I thought it would be even more understandable for laypeople, but I recognize now that using the term possible timelines for the smaller subset may cause confusion among those who are familiar with the older terms because historically the term ‘possible worlds’ was used to refer to the larger set. Oh my jargon!

[11] Wielenberg, 5.

[12] Wielenberg, 6.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Wielenberg, 7.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Wielenberg, 8.

[18] Because it is beyond the scope of this paper, I am only assuming, and not arguing for, the proposition that everyone does, in fact, have the option to freely choose a relationship with God. Though I hold the position that everyone does have this option, I acknowledge that this is debated within Christian theology between those, for instance, who affirm humans have libertarian free will and those who hold to a more deterministic understanding of God’s sovereignty. Certainly at a minimum we can say that it is at least possible that God gives everyone this choice.

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 

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4ui6Um2

/by

Why did God Create the Tree in the First Place?

A few weeks ago, our church’s 3rd-5th graders were learning about the creation story from Genesis, and I was brought in to the planning process to help address common science misconceptions that the kids will encounter as they get older. (i.e. “Science can disprove God,” “Natural processes alone can produce design,” or “Science uses facts, religion uses faith.”) After completing the unit, the kids were given the opportunity to submit questions about the creation story, so today I went back to answer them. Some questions were simple like, “Why did God create animals and not just people?” Other questions were more theologically gritty, and required longer explanations. One in particular was, “Why did God create the tree in the first place?” (Another student asked “Why couldn’t Adam and Eve eat the fruit,” so I lumped them together in one answer.)

A great mystery for kids is why God created a way for Adam and Eve to sin. (Frankly, many adults are stumped as well!) From our shallow understanding, it may seem like God is to blame for all the evil in the world. If He hadn’t put the tree there and given Adam and Eve the rule to not eat from it, they wouldn’t have disobeyed, and our world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today. And Christ wouldn’t have had to come and die! So, wouldn’t it be a net-win for God as well? Couldn’t Christ have been spared suffering if God had just nixed the tree? Share on X

If this question has plagued you, you are not alone.  This question falls under the broader category of “How could a good God allow so much evil in the world?” This is what apologists and skeptics refer to as, “The problem of evil.” Clay Jones has written an excellent book discussing why God would allow evil. For today, I will take some of his arguments and condense them into a kid-friendly version, with lots of concrete examples.

This is an uber-important question to answer well, because if we (adults) do not have a firm grasp on why God created the option for Adam and Eve to sin, then how can we expect our kids to understand the reasons for Christ’s death, resurrection and the plan for redemption? It reminds me of what my friend Tommy used to do to me in high school. We’d be standing in the bleachers at a football game and he’d push me just enough to make me lose my balance a little, but then grab me at the same time (so I wouldn’t actually fall) and say, “I just saved your life! Now you owe me your life!”

When we teach original sin and God’s plan for salvation without understanding why God created the tree, it can sound a lot like the game my friend would play; God tricks us into sinning (or caused us to sin), but then says, “Here’s a Savior to save you from your sins! Now you owe me your life!” I have heard adult atheists profess this kind of understanding of the redemption plan, and it is better to nip this line of thinking in the bud because it reflects a poorly-informed understanding of the nature of love. What’s love got to do with it? Share on X

1) Love requires free-will      

This is fairly intuitive to most people, regardless of age. I asked the kids today, “Can you force someone to love you?” I didn’t get a single confused look, or accidental head nod. They all knew the answer was no. God gave me a silly little illustration last night. I was feeling down, and fluffy things are like opium for me. I wanted to snuggle with my cat. She did not. I could overpower her for a little while, but she was obviously not into our little “snuggle session,” and the moment I let up, she squirmed her way out of my arms. Even in the animal kingdom, love cannot be forced. How much more so with people? God did not want robots, and he will not force His love on us. Share on X

God could have created us like robots, without the ability to reject him or disobey. Growing up, I had a little stuffed dog named Chuck. I still pull him out of the closet occasionally on insecure nights. As much as I love Chuck, he will never love me back. There is no relationship. God creating creatures that can’t disobey is like us holding on to a stuffed animal; the most you can expect to receive is comfort, but not love. Not to mention, the “relationship” is very one-sided. God is love. He did not want robots, and he didn’t want dolls to play with.

God also has no interest in forcing us to “act” like we love him. I can pick my cat up and force her to snuggle with me like I did last night. I can hold her tightly, and prohibit her from using her free-will to escape, but it doesn’t facilitate a very loving relationship, and it’s not very satisfying. It is most satisfying when she comes to me of her free-will and wants to sit on my lap, be petted by me, and engage in whatever level of relationship in which cats are capable.

2) Free-will requires choice  

Do you realize that there was literally no way to disobey God aside from the tree in the garden? You cannot disobey someone if there are no rules. A good way to illustrate this concept for kids is by using the windowless-doorless house analogy. Let’s say that we don’t want our kids to go outside.  If we put them in a house that had no windows and no doors, and then said, “You can go anywhere you want,” have we given them free-will? No. What if there were all sorts of cool things in the house? Let’s pretend that we made it the perfect environment where they didn’t want to leave. Are they still free? No. If there is no way to leave, then they aren’t really free. There was literally NO way to disobey God without the tree. Is there obedience without choice? Share on X

The tree was the proverbial door in the perfect house that God created for us. God placed Adam and Eve in as perfect an environment as you can get, and he made it theoretically easy to stay. There was only one door. God said, “I would love for you to stay with me here forever. However, if you want to leave, that is the door.” Adam and Eve were told not to eat of the fruit. They were told that bad things would happen if they did (Gen 2:17). God could have prevented Adam and Eve from ever having the choice to rebel against Him, but again that’s not love, and God IS love. Love is the very essence of God, much like some abstract quality of “Hillary-ness” is to me. I had the kids repeat a sentence with me multiple times. “God is love. Love can only be given freely. Freedom means that there is both choice, and responsibility.” God’s very nature mandated that He give Adam and Eve both choice and responsibility if his end-goal was a loving relationship!

3) The tree in the garden was basically the easiest test to pass. . . and we still failed      

I honestly don’t know how God could have made it easier to choose Him. It’s not like he built a staircase that they had to use every single day and said, “Thou shalt not step on the 4th step. The day you do, you shall surely die,” and then just waited for them to accidentally step on it. It’s not like he said, “All your days, you shall eat brussel sprouts and asparagus, but the chocolate pudding in the middle of the garden, you shall not eat.” No. They had everything they could possibly want.

God didn’t trick Adam and Eve. He didn’t force them to sin. He didn’t hide the consequences of eating the fruit. He was very upfront about the whole Death thing.

He didn’t deny them food and then punish them for eating. We were not starving men, thrown into jail for stealing a loaf of bread. He didn’t even create multiple trees, and make them remember where they were! It was one tree, right smack in the middle. How big was the garden of Eden? We don’t really know, but we can be sure that it didn’t have a 10-foot diameter. There was no reason for Adam and Eve to be hanging around the tree. The only reason is that it was the one forbidden fruit, so of course that’s where the party’s at. It’s not like God said, ‘Thou shall only eat broccoli, but the the chocolate, you may not eat.’ Share on X

The answer to the question, “Why did God create the tree in the first place,” is simple. Like I had the kids repeat: God is love. Love can only be given freely. Freedom means there is both choice, and responsibility. God wanted a relationship with us! He didn’t want to create robots. He could not force His love on us without it exterminating any hope for a loving relationship. He gave Adam and Eve every reason to trust Him, but they chose to doubt His goodness, and ultimately believed the lie that they were better judges as to what was good for them. He created the tree because it was a manifestation of his character, of his love. He didn’t force Himself on Adam and Eve, and He doesn’t force Himself on us.

Now, some might object to God’s method’s by asking, “Did God give Adam and Even enough information to make an informed decision? They wouldn’t have eaten the fruit If they really knew what that would do to the rest of humanity, right?” Can’t we still fault God for their decision because He didn’t give them enough information? I’ll answer that question in the next post!

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4wI8Juu

/by

If I Were a Mormon: A More Coherent View of God

,

Over the past several years—especially since 2018—I’ve made multiple trips to Utah every year. I’ve honestly lost count of how many times I’ve been out there, but it’s starting to feel like a second home. I can understand why Brigham Young reportedly said, “This is the place.” It’s beautiful.

One of the things I appreciate most about Utah is the culture of open conversation. In many places, people are told to avoid discussing politics or religion. But that’s not the case in Utah. From a young age, Utahns are encouraged to think about what they believe—and to share it with others (often culminating in a two-year mission going door to door). That creates an extremely unique environment where meaningful conversations can actually happen.

Because of this culture, those who reject Mormon theology typically know why they reject it—and they are usually willing to talk about it. I sometimes joke that Salt Lake City is about half Mormon and half atheists—and much of that “other half” consists of either former Latter-day Saints (who have thrown the baby out with the bath water) or people who have moved there from California.

That said, my experiences have been mixed. While I’ve had many positive interactions, I’ve often found that deeper engagement with philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and systematic theology is not always emphasized. As a result, I often leave Utah frustrated because the conversations don’t go as far as they could.

But that seems to be changing. Increasingly, I’m meeting younger Latter-day Saints who are starting to take these disciplines seriously—thinking carefully, asking good questions, and engaging at a much deeper level. And that has led to some genuinely excellent conversations… and even new friendships. That’s exactly what we need more of.

 

Over the years, I’ve also noticed something encouraging. Many thoughtful, younger Latter-day Saints seem increasingly open to examine and refine certain theological assumptions that previous generations may have simply taken for granted. And historically, we’ve seen that the Latter-day Saint tradition is not entirely static. There have been meaningful developments over time—whether in relation to polygamy or the Church’s teachings regarding race.

 

I don’t bring this up as a criticism, but as an observation—and even as an opportunity.

If there is room for careful theological reflection and development, then perhaps there is also room to ask: What would it look like to retain the core commitments of Latter-day Saint belief while strengthening its philosophical coherence?

 

That’s the spirit of what follows. And I want this to be a genuine conversation.

If you’re a Latter-day Saint reading this, I would sincerely welcome your thoughts. Feel free to engage in the comments, reach out on social media, give me a call, or simply grab me the next time I’m in Utah. I’ve learned a lot from these conversations over the years, and I’m always open to being sharpened by thoughtful pushback.

 

So, in that same spirit, I want to offer something a bit different: If I were a Mormon, what would I believe in order to make my worldview as philosophically coherent as possible? This is not a critique from a distance. It’s an attempt to build some bridges where we can reason together (Isaiah 1:18).

The Problem of Infinite Regress

Many Latter-day Saints affirm some version of an eternal chain of divine beings—Gods begetting Gods without beginning. As their prophet Lorenzo Snow famously stated:

“As man is, God once was. As God is, man shall become.”

Bill McKeever writes:

“Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression that precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’ Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “‘Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods’ (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”[1]

Taken at face value, this suggests an infinite regress of gods (and in my experience, most of the LDS members I talk with do affirm this view).

But I cannot accept an infinite regress for several reasons. Based on my study of infinity—going back to my graduate work in 2012—I am thoroughly convinced that an actually infinite past is not metaphysically possible.

Philosophy of Infinity

To see why, consider a simple point: infinity cannot be reached by successive addition. If you begin counting—1, 2, 3, and so on—you can continue forever, but you will never arrive at “infinity.” No matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. You can always add one more.

This shows something important: Infinity is not a number that can be completed—it is a limit that is never reached. That’s why an infinite future is possible in a sense—it never ends—but it is never completed.

But now consider the past. If the universe had no beginning, then an actually infinite number of events must have already occurred. And that leads to serious problems.

For example, consider a thought experiment often associated with the medieval philosopher Al-Ghazali. Imagine that our solar system has existed from the infinite past. Saturn takes longer to orbit the sun than Jupiter—roughly one orbit of Saturn corresponds to about 2.5 orbits of Jupiter.

Now ask: If both planets have been orbiting from infinity past, which one has completed more orbits? Intuitively, the answer should be Jupiter.

But if both have been orbiting for an actually infinite amount of time, then mathematically they have completed the same number of orbits—an infinite number. That result is absurd.

Jupiter clearly orbits faster than Saturn, so it should have completed more revolutions. Yet the math forces us to say they are equal. This is one example of the paradoxes that arise when we try to apply actual infinities to the real world.

 

We can make the same point another way. If the past were infinite, then the present moment could never arrive. It would be like trying to jump out of an infinitely deep, bottomless pit—there is no foundation from which to launch. Even if someone were given infinite jumping power, escape would still be impossible, because there is no starting point from which to begin.

 

But we are here. The present moment is real. Therefore: The past cannot be actually infinite. [And I haven’t even mentioned the Hilbert’s Hotel thought experiment.]

The Bigger Problem

These examples are not mere curiosities. They point to a deeper issue: An infinite regress of explanations fails to provide an ultimate explanation at all. Even if each step in the chain is explained by a prior step, the entire chain remains unexplained.

So, if LDS theology affirms an infinite regress of exalted beings, then it faces a serious philosophical challenge which opposes logic and reason itself.

A More Coherent LDS Starting Point?

If I were a Mormon, I would revise the model slightly. I would affirm several core LDS commitments:

 

  • A plurality of eternal “intelligences”
  • Genuine libertarian freedom
  • The importance of love and relationality

 

But I would reject an infinite regress of gods since that’s logically impossible. Instead, I would posit a foundational reality—one that explains everything else.

 

At this point, one might say: “One intelligence freely figured it out first—like a student solving a problem before the rest.”

 

That’s coherent. There’s nothing logically contradictory about it. But it still leaves a deeper question: Why that intelligence?

Appealing to libertarian freedom explains how something could happen—but not why it actually occurred. So, while this move avoids infinite regress, it still leaves us with a brute fact at the foundation of reality.

From Brute Facts to Maximal Greatness      

This is where I would go further. Rather than grounding ultimate reality in a brute fact, I would ask: What would a maximally great reality be like?

 

If God is the maximally great being, then He must possess every great-making property essentially. And one of those properties is: perfect love (1 John 4:8).

Love, however, is not something a solitary individual can fully instantiate. As Dr. Kirk MacGregor has argued, love possesses two essential features: selfless mutuality, and non-possessiveness These require: at least two persons (for mutuality), and at least three persons (for non-possessiveness).

Therefore: One maximally great being must be essentially tri-personal.[2] Nothing more, nothing less (since four or more persons is arbitrary and not necessary).

This conclusion is not derived from Scripture, but from philosophical reflection on the nature of love and greatness. Indeed, it follows from the deductive conclusion of the Ontological Argument (click here for more).

From Intelligences to the Trinity

So, if I were a Mormon, I would say:

  • Yes, there are eternal intelligences.
  • Yes, persons are real and irreducible.
  • Yes, love is fundamental.

 

But I would also conclude: Ultimate reality is not one intelligence among many, nor an infinite regress of gods—but a maximally great, tri-personal being who serves as the ultimate foundation and explanation of all contingent reality.

At that point, we are no longer talking about a being who eventually becomes a god, but a being who simply is God—necessarily and eternally.

Let’s briefly consider the logical coherence of the Trinity. To help connect these dots, consider an illustration popularized by William Lane Craig.

I do not think the Trinity is as “mysterious” as most people assume. Much of this clarity comes from my study of the immaterial soul and substance dualism. I do not merely have a soul; rather, I am a soul who has a body—and who can survive the death of that body.[3] One day, I will receive a glorified body. So, I am a soul (a spiritual substance) with one set of cognitive faculties.

This seems coherent, and if so, then it is at least conceivable that God is: one immaterial spiritual substance with three distinct centers of consciousness.          

Now, to be clear: This does not imply three separate beings or three independent substances, but one unified immaterial spiritual reality subsisting in three distinct personal ways. While most analogies of the Trinity fail (and regularly cross the line into heresy), William Lane Craig offers an illustration that helps illuminate key concepts: Cerberus.[4]

Cerberus is the three-headed guard dog of Greek mythology. The three heads cooperate to function as one effective guard dog. The idea of a multi-headed animal is not incoherent.

Now imagine Hercules is bitten by Cerberus. Would he say, “Cerberus bit me,” or “One of Cerberus’ heads bit me”? Either statement would make sense. Cerberus is one canine being, yet each head is also canine because it is part of that one being.

Now suppose Cerberus were an ensouled creature (as I believe animals are) with three centers of consciousness. Each head could say, “I think that…”.

To make this vivid, imagine Hercules slays Cerberus by stabbing him in the heart—a fatal blow that ends the life of the entire organism at once. The physical body dies. But suppose—like human persons—Cerberus possesses a single immaterial soul that survives the death of the body.

Now the picture becomes clear: One immaterial substance remains—yet it grounds three distinct centers of consciousness, each capable of genuine first-person awareness. Each could still say: “I think that…”

 

In this case, we would have: one immaterial or spiritual being with multiple “whos” (or as I like to say, “ONE what and THREE whos”).

 

The point of the illustration is modest: to show the conceptual coherence of one substance with three “whos”—not to equate God with a mythical creature.

 

Here’s the bottom line: If this is even conceivable even in a limited and analogical sense, then it is certainly not logically incoherent as many Latter-Day Saints (not to mention Muslims and atheists) have been led to believe.

Rethinking “Flesh and Bone”

 

At this point, many Latter-day Saints object: “But God has a body of flesh and bone.”

 

Interestingly, in a recent conversation, one philosophically trained Latter-day Saint told me: “Joseph Smith had no idea what he was talking about! He was a prophet, but he was not trained in philosophy, epistemology, or metaphysics. We have to take his true words with big grains of salt.”

 

That’s a remarkable admission. If that’s right, then we must distinguish between revelatory intent and metaphysical precision. And once we do that, a key assumption falls away: that “flesh and bone” must describe God’s ultimate ontological nature.

After all, Christians already affirm that the Son—the second Person of the Trinity—took on flesh and bone in the incarnation. So, we must ask: Does appearing embodied entail being essentially material?

 

Clearly, it does not. In fact, even within Latter-day Saint theology, there is already a distinction between pre-mortal existence and embodied life, which suggests that embodiment is not essential to the nature of a person.[5]

 

Moreover, as noted above, Christians already affirm that the second Person of the Trinity took on flesh and bone during His 33 years on planet earth. But that raises an important question: If the second Person of the Trinity can take on flesh and bone without ceasing to be an immaterial divine being, why couldn’t the first Person do the same?[6] In fact, if God desires to reveal Himself to embodied creatures like us, we would expect Him to appear in ways in which we can perceive and relate.

 

And this is not a foreign idea to the biblical tradition. Many theologians have long held that divine appearances in the Old Testament—sometimes understood as pre-incarnate manifestations of Christ (theophanies)—demonstrate that God can present Himself in bodily form without being essentially material.

 

If that is right, then the ability to appear embodied does not entail that God is, in His essential nature, a material being.

 

So, ultimately, if I were a Mormon, I’d realize that Joseph Smith was not trained in metaphysics and logic. Thus, I’d refrain from building a metaphysical framework on his claims. I’d still be a trinitarian.

If I Were a Mormon, I’d Still Be a Molinist   

If I were a Mormon, I would also continue embracing Molinism. Molinism affirms that God is omniscient and that humans possess libertarian freedom (what Mormons refer to as “agency”). If God is omniscient and knows how humans would exercise their libertarian freedom prior to the foundations of the world, then God possesses middle knowledge—that is, God knows not only what will happen in the future, but also what would happen under any possible set of circumstances God could have actualized, including the free choices of creatures.

Interestingly, there are hints within Latter-day Saint thought that seem to point in this direction. For example, Joseph Smith is associated with the idea that God’s judgment takes into account not only what people do, but what they would have done under different circumstances. This theme appears clearly in Doctrine and Covenants 137:5–10:

“I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins. Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom . . .”

 

If that’s right, then God’s knowledge includes truths about what free creatures would do in circumstances that never actually occur. And that is precisely the kind of knowledge Molinism affirms. On this view:

  • God does not determine human choices
  • yet God knows how each person would freely act in any situation
  • and God can providentially order the world accordingly

In fact, if this line of thought is correct, then Molinism may not be foreign to Latter-day Saint theology—but a natural development of insights already present within it.

Interestingly, I’ve found that many younger Latter-day Saints are sympathetic to Open Theism. But if there are truth values regarding libertarian free choices that never actually occur—as the passage above suggests—then it seems to follow that there are also truth values regarding future free choices. In other words, if it is true that a person would have freely chosen to receive the gospel under certain circumstances, then it is at least as plausible that there are truths about what a person will freely choose in the future.

And if such future-tensed truths exist, then God can know them. At that point, the core motivation for Open Theism begins to collapse.

Of course, this is only one line of reasoning. There are many additional philosophical and biblical reasons to reject Open Theism—far more than can be explored here. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Open Theism struggles to make sense of detailed or distant prophecy regarding libertarian agents, it undermines God’s ability to guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil without sacrificing libertarian freedom, and ultimately portrays a deity who is unable to secure the very goods He desires. In fact, rather than solving the problem of evil, it risks making that problem much worse (see Why I Reject Open Theism—and Why It Makes the Problem of Evil Worse).

A Note on Knowing What Is True

Now that we’ve discussed divine knowledge it’s vital to discuss human knowledge. Indeed, at this point, an important question naturally arises: How do we know which worldview is true in the first place?

 

In many of my conversations with Latter-day Saints, the answer often appeals to what is commonly called a “burning in the bosom”—a kind of internal spiritual confirmation.

 

But this raises a serious epistemological question: I have personally read the Book of Mormon. I have prayed about it—sincerely. And I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is false.

 

Yet I am often told:

“If you read the entire Book of Mormon, pray about it sincerely, God will tell you it is true or false.”

Now we have a problem. I prayed and “reasoned together” (Isaiah 1:18) with God, and reached the conclusion that Mormonism is false. Others have read the Book of Mormon, sincerely prayed about it, and reached the opposite conclusion.

 

Based on the laws of logic, both statements cannot be true. Truth is not relative—Mormonism is either true or false. So, what explains the difference? It seems we are left with a few possibilities:

 

  • One of us is misinterpreting our experience
  • The method itself is unreliable
  • Or God determines sincere seekers to arrive at contradictory conclusions

But if a method regularly leads sincere people to conflicting beliefs about ultimate reality, then that method cannot be a reliable guide to truth.           

This is not merely a theoretical concern. People in many different religious traditions report similar internal confirmations—often with equal sincerity and conviction—yet they arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions.

So, the question is not: “Did I have a powerful experience?” The real question is: “Is my method of knowing truth reliable?”

Scripture itself warns us not to uncritically trust every spiritual impression: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). And again: “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, what should we do with this?

If I Were a Mormon . . . I Would Want to Know

If I were a Mormon, I would want to ground my beliefs in a method that reliably leads to truth—not merely one that produces powerful experiences.

 

I would not ignore those experiences—but I would test them, just as Scripture commands (1 John 4:1). I would ask:

  • Do my beliefs correspond to reality?
  • Are they logically coherent?
  • Do they provide a sufficient explanation of the world?
  • Are they supported by historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence?

In other words, I would want to follow the evidence wherever it leads—and reason together, just as Scripture invites us to do (Isaiah 1:18). Because if God is a God of truth (John 14:6), and desires all people to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), then truth is not something we need to fear.

Bottom line: a method that can confirm contradictory beliefs cannot reliably confirm truth. Thus, if I were a Mormon, I would not base my beliefs on feelings alone; I would justify them with facts, logic, reason, and evidence.

Why This Matters      

To be clear, this does not resolve every disagreement between Latter-day Saints and classical Christians. There are still extremely important differences regarding our views of scripture, revelation, and the teachings of Joseph Smith. But it does address a major obstacle: the need for an ultimate explanation of reality. If we are going to reason together, we must ask:

  • Does our worldview terminate in a sufficient explanation?
  • Or does it ultimately rest on unexplained facts?

A Friendly Invitation

My goal here is not to score points, but to build bridges. If Latter-day Saints are willing to:

  • reconsider infinite regress
  • reflect on maximal greatness
  • explore the philosophical case for a tri-personal God
  • consider the explanatory power of middle knowledge
  • and evaluate whether their method of knowing truth (epistemology) is reliable—testing spiritual experiences rather than assuming they always correspond to reality

 

. . . then we are already moving in the right direction.

The Jesus We Love

I often conclude my conversations with Latter-day Saints by focusing on what matters most: the person of Jesus. At first glance, it may seem that we are talking about the same person. After all, we both use the name “Jesus,” we both speak of His love, and we both claim devotion to Him.

But upon closer examination, the differences are significant.

On classical Christian theism, Jesus is:

  • eternal, without beginning
  • the creator of all contingent reality
  • fully divine—the second Person of the Trinity
  • a maximally great being

By contrast, within Latter-day Saint theology, Jesus is understood as a distinct divine being who is not the eternally necessary, maximally great God affirmed by classical Christianity, but exists within a broader framework in which divinity is not uniquely or necessarily possessed.

These are not small differences.

According to the logical law of identity, if two descriptions of a person are fundamentally incompatible, then they cannot refer to the exact same being in the fullest sense. So, while we may use the same name, we must at least consider the possibility that we are referring to different understandings of who Jesus truly is.

And yet, one thing I never doubt is this: Latter-day Saints love the person they call Jesus. I’ve seen it. I’ve felt it. It’s real.

So, I often ask a question: “Let’s suppose that right now, we had a Road to Damascus experience—and Jesus Himself appeared before us. What would you do?”

Without hesitation, they answer the same way I would: “I would fall at His feet and worship Him.” And I say, “Yes—I would too.”

Now imagine that Jesus lifts us up, embraces us, and makes it unmistakably clear that He knows we love Him—and that He loves us more than we can possibly imagine.

Then imagine He says something like this: “I know you love me, but I want you to know who I truly am . . .  the Second Person of the Trinity.”

At that point, the question becomes unavoidable: “Do we love Jesus as He truly is? Or as we have come to subjectively think about Him?” Because love that is grounded in misunderstanding – even sincere misunderstanding – must eventually be brought into alignment with truth.

In my experience, many Latter-day Saints respond with something like, “I want the real Jesus.” Amen to that. I couldn’t agree more.

 

And when I hear that, I have real hope—because anyone who truly desires the real Jesus is already moving in the right direction. I look forward to the possibility that we will one day stand together before Him in worship.

This is why these conversations matter. Not to win arguments—but to know and love Jesus rightly. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

—Dr. Tim Stratton

References: 

[1] Bill McKeever, As God Is Man May Be?, (website article accessed 3-22-23) at: https://mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet.

[2] [Editor’s note: Assuming Kirk Macgregor’s argument is valid, up to this point, it would not follow that such a being would be tri-personal but rather that that being would be at least tri-personal. There could be other, non-arbitrary, justifying reasons for having more personages than just three. Neither Stratton nor MacGregor have shown that no such “additional reasons” exists to justify a fourth (or more) personages operating within the divine unity. Nevertheless, tri-personality – that is, the trinity – satisfies the minimal requirements for MacGregor’s trinitarian argument to work.]

[3] [Editor’s Note: Craig is stating what’s known as “Cartesian Dualism,” named after the famous dualist Rene Descartes. This is the belief that the human person is a soul, regardless of whether he or she is embodied. Another view, also within historic Christianity is hylomorphism, popularized by Thomas Aquinas, which asserts that the human person is a body-soul unity. While bodies and souls can exist independent of each other, the human person exists only by the union of body and soul.]

[4] [Editor’s Note: Craig and Moreland make their case for “Social Trinitarianism” in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003], ch. 29. The Cerberus analogy has received considerable pushback. Arguably, none of the “heads” are endowed with the fullness of Cerberus, yet Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father are all “fully God” – individually and collectively. For more interaction with this Cerberus illustration see the series of articles from Trinities.]

[5] [Editor’s Note: The distinction between “spirit” and “matter/body” is different in LDS theology. According to Mormon thought, “spirit” is understood to be very fine matter. As Doctrine & Covenants 131:7 says, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.”]

[6] Ibid.

Recommended Resources:

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

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

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

 

(The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

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

/by

Dialogue and Christian Apologetics: A Biblical-Theological Overview

Christian apologetics is often understood as the task of defending the faith—giving reasons why believing in Christ is rational, true, and worthy of commitment. Scripture itself urges believers to be “ready to give an answer” for the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15). Yet the Bible presents this defense not merely as the delivery of arguments, but as something that takes place within dialogue: real conversations with real people. A biblical-theological view shows that dialogue is not a compromise of apologetics, but one of its essential forms.

The Pattern   

From the start, God’s revelation to humanity unfolds in a dialogical way. God speaks, humans respond; God questions, humans answer; God rebukes, invites, and restores. This pattern reaches its fullness in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Jesus rarely preached at people in isolation. Instead, he engaged them—asking probing questions, responding to objections, and addressing the specific concerns of those before him. The conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4) is a striking example: Jesus listens, challenges assumptions, reveals truth gradually, and calls for a response grounded in trust rather than mere argument.

The apostolic witness continues this pattern. The book of Acts repeatedly describes Paul as “reasoning” with others. In synagogues and marketplaces alike, he explained, argued, listened, and responded (Acts 17:2–4, 16–34). In Athens, Paul did not simply proclaim conclusions; he entered into dialogue with philosophers who asked him to clarify what he was teaching. Paul’s approach demonstrates that apologetics is not about winning debates, but about persuasion—patiently seeking understanding and presenting the gospel in terms his hearers could grasp.

This dialogical posture is reinforced in the epistles. Peter exhorts believers to give a defense with “gentleness and respect,” implying attentiveness to the person asking questions, not merely to the content of their objections (1 Pet. 3:15–16). Paul tells Timothy that the Lord’s servant must “not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone,” correcting opponents with gentleness in hope that God might grant repentance (2 Tim. 2:24–26). Such exhortations assume ongoing interaction, not one-sided proclamation.

Three Strengths of Apologetic Dialogue      

Dialogue strengthens apologetics in several important ways. First, it humanizes the task. Apologetics can easily become abstract or combative, especially when focused only on arguments. Dialogue insists that the apologist listen—truly listen—to the other person’s beliefs, experiences, and questions.[1] Many objections to Christianity are not merely intellectual puzzles but are bound up with personal wounds, moral struggles, or cultural assumptions. Dialogue allows apologetics to address people as whole persons made in God’s image.

Second, dialogue tests and refines Christian arguments. A belief defended only in theory may sound convincing until it meets real resistance. Genuine conversation exposes weaknesses, clarifies misunderstandings, and helps believers see where disagreement truly lies. In this sense, dialogue is an exercise in intellectual humility.[2] It does not require Christians to pretend neutrality or uncertainty about truth, but it does call them to examine their own assumptions in the light of Scripture and reason.

Third, dialogue has particular persuasive power in today’s cultural context. Many people are suspicious of authority and resistant to lectures. Dialogue, by contrast, signals respect. It communicates that Christianity is confident enough to engage questions honestly. This does not mean softening the exclusive claims of the gospel but presenting them in a relational way that demonstrates their coherence, beauty, and relevance to life.[3]

The Potential Dangers of Dialogue  

At the same time, dialogue presents real dangers if misunderstood. One risk is allowing dialogue to replace proclamation. Christianity makes truth claims about God, Christ, sin, and salvation. Dialogue that suspends these claims indefinitely or treats all viewpoints as equally true undermines the very purpose of apologetics.[4] Genuine dialogue presupposes that truth matters and that contradictory claims cannot all be correct.

Another danger is the loss of doctrinal clarity. In the desire to maintain conversation, believers may feel pressure to minimize distinctively Christian convictions. Scripture, however, calls believers both to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and to do so in love. Dialogue must therefore be guided by conviction as well as charity.

Finally, dialogue requires patience. It is often slow and seemingly unproductive. Conversations may take months—or years—without visible results.[5] Yet this patience reflects God’s own longsuffering with humanity. Apologetics shaped by dialogue trusts that God works through faithful witness over time, not merely through quick victories.

Dialogue and Apologetics Belong Together 

In the end, dialogue and apologetics belong together. Biblically understood, apologetics is not a choice between argument and conversation, but a commitment to speak truth within a relationship. Rooted in God’s own communicative action and modeled by Jesus and the apostles, dialogue enables believers to defend the faith with conviction, clarity, humility, and love. When practiced this way, apologetics becomes not only a defense of Christian truth, but a living testimony to the character of the God who invites the world to know him.

References:

[1] Mark Brumley, How Not to Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins of Apologetics and Evangelization (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2002), 106–107.

[2] Brumley, pp. 106–107.

[3] James Beilby, Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 155.

[4] James Beilby, p. 155.

[5] Brumley, pp. 106-107.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Leo Percer grew up in Millington, Tennessee, northeast of Memphis, when he first received his call to teaching ministry. He has been involved in numerous ministerial activities, including serving as an elder at Forest Community Church in Forest, Virginia. Dr. Leo Percer graduated with a Ph.D. from Baylor University, an M.A. from Western Kentucky University, and M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a B.A. from Union University.

After graduating with his Ph.D., Dr. Percer has taught at Baylor University, McLennan Community College, and Liberty University, where he served as the Director of the Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics program for years. His area of expertise is in Second Temple Judaism, the Epistles of Paul, and apocalyptic literature. Dr. Percer is an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Society of Biblical Literature, and is on the board of directors at Ratio Christi. Dr. Percer resides in Lynchburg, VA, with his wonderful wife, Lisa, and two children. He loves reading, collecting comic books, and is a coffee connoisseur.

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

/by

Some Definitional Drawbacks In Atheism

In a previous article I wrote about how “atheism” is best understood as a belief that there is no God. Those who prefer to describe themselves as merely “lacking God-belief” would do better to describe themselves as “negative atheists” as that is the more precise term.

As a postlude to that article, I think it’s important to state why this stuff matters. I’m not confident that that this definitional minutia matters a lot. It matters. But it’s not of ultimate importance. Far more important things deserve discussion. Nevertheless, this stuff matters enough to deserve at least a little observation here. Here are some reasons why I think this stuff matters.

First, Negative Atheism Comports With God’s existence               

Perhaps the biggest most glaring problem with the “new” (negative/soft/weak) atheism is that it’s compatible with God’s existence. When atheists define their atheism as “lacking God belief,” then that atheism is “true” if indeed that person has no God-belief. Even if God exists, if that self-identified atheist really does “lack God-belief,” then his atheism is true. The reference point for that truth claim isn’t in God but in the mind of that individual. One’s atheism can be true and God exist. That’s odd, to say the least.

Second, there’s Still an Implicit Burden of Proof     

Second, the negative atheist still, presumably, thinks his or her view is rational but that amounts to a claim and claims carry their own respective burden of proof. Put another way, the atheist may be holding to his or her non-theism for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. But if he or she won’t offer an any good reasons, then he cannot honestly wear the mantle of a “reasonable” atheist. Or, at least, no one else owes them the assumption that their atheism is reasonable. His atheism could be dogmatic, fundamentalist, or otherwise thoughtless irrationality. I would assume he thinks his atheism is reasonable, but absent any justifying reasons that he is reasonable, I cannot safely assume he is reasonable. He has an implicit burden of proof, to show that his non-belief is reasonable.

Third, it’s Superfluous           

There’s already a whole set of terms addressing these categories effectively making a new sense of “atheism” superfluous. If he has a generalized skepticism regarding all theological objects, then he’s a theological skeptic. If he lacks belief in God, he’s a negative atheist. To reinvent the term “atheism” to mean “lack of God belief” just isn’t necessary, since that semantic domain is already covered without confusingly overlapping different concepts under the same term. And whenever people are blurring and redefining terms, especially when there’s an obvious agenda at work, there’s a good chance that’s a smoke-grenade. And people don’t throw a smoke grenade unless they’re trying to sneak something past you.

Fourth, it’s confusing

Fourth, religious and theological discussions can get quite confusing. Inconsistent or faulty terminology makes things worse. Often I find that when atheists and theists disagree using terms like “faith,” “belief,” “theism,” or “atheism,” the core of our disagreement often boils down to non-standard language. I understand that language is flexible and I’m not denying stipulated or tentative terminology. But even then, it’s helpful to recognize the normal meaning of a term and then clearly point out how it’s being used in a non-standard way in this conversation. Without at least some exposure and acceptance of conventional terms, we can’t get very far in our discussions. When we don’t align on key terms,  understanding and entertaining them–whether or not we agree with them–we tend to get so busy talking past each other we don’t actually make any progress in pursuit of truth.

Fifth, it’s like Sitting on the floor and calling it a chair        

Fifth, many Atheists don’t seem to understand that they have a whole history and set of terms already available to them. But either they haven’t looked into it, or they are misinformed, so they mislabel or try to reinvent things–not thinking it through very deeply. In this way, the history of atheism is like a big house with lots of furniture and those particular atheists are sitting on the floor calling it a chair. A lot of people, myself included, are interested in serious academic dialogue on matters like God’s existence, religious truth, and the possibility of miracles. So, I’ve done some work to discover these terms and understand my own views and the views of other religions and non-religious outlooks. It shouldn’t be necessary for a Christian theist to have to teach atheists about their own array of conceptual and terminological options, just so we can eventually engage on these topics. I value vigorous dialogue. Ideas matters. And language matters. But ultimately, lives matter more, and I’d like to be able to be challenged and critiqued while offering the same in a mutual pursuit of truth. If atheists won’t even accept a chair I’m offering them, from their own ideological “house,” then we probably won’t be able to sit down to a civilized conversation. If we can agree on some of the furniture here. We can then both pull up our chairs, draw up a pot of tea, and sit down to a lively discussion instead of pleading with some atheist Jack on the floor to come join us at the debate table.

Sixth, it’s an affront to positive atheism      

Negative atheism is an implicit affront to positive atheism. Negative atheism implies that positive atheism isn’t convincing enough to persuade them to that position. Positive atheism, being the belief that no God exists, has a burden of proof because it’s making a claim about reality that, in reality, there is no God. That position is either reasonable or it is not. If it is reasonable, then negative atheists would be within their epistemic rights to adopt positive atheism instead of negative atheism. But instead of identifying themselves as “positive atheists,” the negative atheist has declined the offer.

Seventh, it risks duplicity      

Seventh, related to the last point, negative atheism risks duplicity. Why would a person present himself or herself as an atheist in the negative (lack of belief) sense when there is, underneath that posture, is an abiding commitment to positive atheism or agnosticism that better describes their actual beliefs? It’s confusing and unclear, at best, to hide one’s positive atheism or agnosticism underneath a veneer of negative atheism. At worst, it’s strategic dishonesty where a person is pretending to be more open-minded, or less committed than they actually are.

Every positive atheist is also a negative atheist, technically speaking. By believing that no god exists, one is also lacking belief in God’s existence. But then that person is more clearly and precisely described as “positive atheist.” Negative atheism is a superfluous distracting descriptor for them. Meanwhile, one could be an agnostic negative atheist in the sense of refraining from God belief because one thinks that knowledge of God isn’t happening. If some people are atheist in the classic sense then why stipulate a modified sense that hides one’s underlying position? Audiences are left wondering whether those people can defend that position or whether they are too scared to show their hand for fear it might be a losing hand.

Eighth, it’s imprecise 

As mentioned above, if a person claims to merely “lack belief in God” that position begs for the follow-up question: “Are you the agnostic kind or the (positive) atheist kind?” If one halts at the point of merely “lacking belief in God,” then the intellectual train has stalled out before arriving at a good stop. That position is manifestly imprecise. We can’t be clear about everything, but we would do well to be clear where we can. Here we can be very clear. Any aversion to clarity risks the duplicity mentioned above.

Ninth, poor terminology makes for poor thinking  

Mangled and blurry words tend to generate equally mangled and blurry thinking. If we’re aiming at truth, we do well to aim for clear and careful thinking. And to do that we need clear and honest terminology. Redefining atheism from a metaphysical stance (No God exists) to a psychological stance (I have no God-belief) is a seriously problematic shift. For the reasons stated above, it should be clear how poor terminology makes for poor thinking.

As a Christian theist I affirm that God exists, Jesus is God and God’s son, and He rose from the dead to save us from our sins. I also believe that God gave us rational faculties that, when used correctly, assist us in discovering and understanding how Jesus is the answer to the most important questions in life. I have a vested interest in helping Christians and non-Christians alike to think better. Rationality, sound logic, and critical thinking are pre-evangelism. They won’t do everything, but they are still important. Words matter to me, because words carry messages, and some messages are matters of life and death.

We need strong minds, humble hearts, and willing hands before we are ready to receive the big challenging Gospel message. But critical thinking poses a stark challenge to the Christian faith as well. Whatever the church has acquired that’s untrue, misstated, or errant–what’s liable to be critiqued into oblivion by discerning congregants. Christian theology is subject to revision and division. And critical thinking is a big part of that painful process. When it comes to atheists, I want every atheist to be the most rational, most reasonable, and most critically discerning person they can be. I understand that many of them will never come to faith in Christ. But it’s at least a service, a way to love them, regardless of what they do with that well-intended service. And for some of atheists, their ability to think well and their passionate pursuit of wisdom will drive many of them to their knees before God. I do not apologize for taking confusing terms, and opaque concepts and holding a light to them so that atheists and theists can see them better, weigh them more fairly, and think clearer for it.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 and DVD by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4tsXCm8

 

/by

Which God When There are 3,000 to Choose From?

When I went to university, I encountered the biggest intellectual doubt I’ve ever faced as a Christian: How can I be sure that Christianity is true? Here was my thinking: “Can I really claim that I have the right religion when there are 3,000 others to choose from?” You might have come across a form of this argument via the atheist comedian Ricky Gervais.

As I went to university, I knew that I couldn’t keep my faith, nor share it with any real conviction, unless I knew that Christianity was true (1 Cor 15:14). I had to know which God was the correct one. Ultimately, philosophy was the primary force that drove the cementation of my Christian faith.[i]

Categories of Theism

As I wrestled with this doubt, I discovered that I didn’t have to lucky-dip my way through 3,000 religions until I found the correct one. There’s actually a much simpler way. It turns out that every single and particular religion can be grouped into one of five metaphysical categories, which are:

  1. Atheism, which holds that there is no God beyond the universe.
  2. Polytheism, which believes in many gods.
  3. Pantheism (and its cousin panentheism), which essentially teaches that God and the universe are the same thing.[ii]
  4. Deism, which claims that God created the universe but then left it alone.
  5. Monotheism, which believes in one supreme, personal, and active God.[iii]

To this day I am unaware of a sixth possible option for a way the world could work (though I am open to being corrected).[iv] I explicitly note here that “agnosticism” is not a category of worldview. It’s just a placeholder label for indecision. Agnosticism doesn’t affirm anything metaphysical about the universe.

Can you see how, suddenly, the 3,000 problem looks very different? Philosophical reasoning helped me to realize that the question is not, which God of 3,000? The question can be swiftly pruned to become, which of these five?

Putting Each Worldview to the Test

And then, after such an exercise, the gods can be put to the test. Each of these five categories needs to be scrutinized, and it is my contention that only monotheism stands up to the test.

  1. Atheism arguably demands the most blind faith of all. It requires the belief that there is nothing beyond the universe, and that everything came from nothing.[v] But there’s a more thorny problem than this: if our minds are nothing more than chemical compositions of atoms fizzing around in our brains, then we cannot trust ourselves to arrive at the truth, including the supposed truth that atheism is true. In turn, the Problem of Evil is similarly reduced to the natural course of the universe’s atomic rhythm. I cannot commit to a category that is self-defeating in the pursuit of truth and denies the meaningfulness of evil.
  2. Polytheism runs into a different kind of logical problem. A truly infinite being cannot share its infinity with any other, because if two beings differ in any way, then one must lack something the other has, and yet an infinite being lacks nothing. Moreover, even the ability to judge and distinguish between multiple gods requires an outside standard by which to judge said gods.[vi] But polytheism doesn’t appeal to an outside and greater standard, which thereby also paralyses it from denouncing evil.[vii]
  3. Pantheism (and its cousin panentheism) says that the universe shares in the ontological nature of God – and so faces two serious obstacles. First, we know that the universe had a beginning, and yet God is eternal, so there must be a distinction between God and the universe.[viii] Second, if God and the universe were identical, then evil would of necessity share in God’s nature and therefore lose its moral repugnance, which doesn’t sit well with anyone who has experienced suffering.
  4. Deism pictures a God who created the universe but then left it alone. Deism therefore, like atheism, requires the rejection of every single claim throughout history that God has acted miraculously. But, more than that, deism cannot explain why we exist right now, because the universe is entirely dependent on being sustained in its existence every single second. Likewise, deism has to reject that there is a Problem of Evil, because such evil can only be appealed to if there is a universal moral law by which to judge it, and such a universal law requires being sustained in existence every single second.

One Option Remains

None of the first four categories provided me with a satisfactory explanation for how the universe works. Hence, by a process of elimination, I was left with monotheism, which actually fulfills the problems with the other categories. Monotheism provides an explanation for how we got something from nothing and how we can reason to truth (contra atheism), it accounts for one infinite being as the universal standard for all things (contra polytheism), it distinguishes created reality from the uncreated (contra pantheism and panentheism), and it supplies an explanation for the sustained existence of the universe and the moral law within it through a God who has revealed himself (contra deism).

More than that; all of the major philosophical arguments for God’s existence (fine-tuning, cosmological, moral, contingency, transcendental) are tailored to monotheism, so I also found positive arguments for a monotheistic God’s existence, on top of the negative arguments against the alternatives.

As Norman Geisler and Frank Turek put it, monotheism gives the “true box top” – the picture that makes everything else make sense.

“This discovery helps us to see not only what [reality] looks like, but what it cannot look like. Since the opposite of true is false, we know that any non-[mono]theistic worldview must be false. Or, to put it another way, of the major world religions, only one of the [mono]theistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, or Islam – could be true. All other major world religions cannot be true, because they are non-[mono]theistic. This may seem like a grandiose claim – to deny the truth of so many world religions . . . but by simple logic . . . mutually exclusive religions cannot be true. Just as certain football players are rightfully cut from the roster of possible players because they lack necessary abilities, certain world religions are rightfully cut from the roster of possible true religions because they lack necessary qualifications.”[ix]

Narrowing the Field

More needs to be said about how religions within the metaphysical category of monotheism account for the Problem of Evil. There is not enough space to address that here. More also needs to be said about which is the true religion within the category of monotheism. Monotheism (unlike deism) requires a knowable God who has revealed himself.

The only three religions within monotheism which proffer a knowable God are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Therefore, by deploying sound reasoning to this question within the Philosophy of Religion, the inquirer is no longer left to choose between 3,000 options; nor even five, once atheism, polytheism, pantheism, and deism have all been ruled out.

The inquirer is left with just three: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.[1] One of these has to be true.

References:

[1] Let it be noted that these three religions collectively house over half of the world’s population.

[i] “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” C.S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and other addresses (New York: HarperCollins, 1949, repr., 2001), 58.

[ii] Editor’s note: Panentheism affirms that all the universe is “in” God somehow. For example, the universe is God’s body and “God” – as spirit – is really just the divine soul that inhabits this universal body.

[iii] [Editor’s Note: Some distinguish monotheism from “finite Godism”, wherein God is somehow less than the greatest possible being. That’s the conclusion of Harold Kushner in When Bad things Happen to Good People? (1981). And it’s implicit with some unorthodox schools of Christian thought such as open theism (Greg Boyd). Nevertheless, these can also be seen as varieties of monotheism as they affirm that only one God exists. The point is that, even if the majority view within monotheism is tied to “maximal being ontology” (Anselm’s “that than which none greater can be conceived”), as long as it’s only one-God in view, that can be loosely understood as “monotheism.”

[iv] Ibid.

[v] If an atheist wishes to claim otherwise, then he is no longer appealing to atheism but to some other category of theism.

[vi] Polytheism puts “into the universe a third thing in addition to the two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God.” C.S. Lewis, “The Invasion,” in Mere Christianity (ProQuest Ebook Central: HarperCollins Publishers), 48. Accessed 10 April 2026.

[vii] The explanation for evil on polytheism is chalked up to the existence of some ‘evil’ god or gods.

[viii] Pantheism would have me believe that I am God. But that would require me to go from a state of not knowing that I am God to a state of realising that I am, in fact, God. Such a change is impossible for an infinite being.

[ix] Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, “Miracles: Signs of Gullibility or God,” in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004), 198-199.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

/by

Jonah and the Big Fish, Part 2

In my previous article, Jonah and the Big Fish Part 1, I spoke about Jonah, the wayward prophet who initially tried to avoid God’s command to warn the people of Nineveh about the impending judgment they were about to receive for the wickedness of their culture. In that article, I discussed the identity of Jonah, who is also mentioned in 2 Kings, as well as the historical realities of Israel, Nineveh (an Assyrian city), and the archaeology that helps us connect what is written to what has been found in the dirt, including what was known for centuries as the grave of Jonah near the lost (but now found) city of Nineveh. I will hereafter do my best to add to the historical and Biblical evidence to show that Jonah and the inhabitants of Nineveh were real people in history, and what else the story tells us.

Prophecies of Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh        

The story of Nineveh did not end with their repentance after Jonah’s successful preaching. The Book of Nahum—another short prophetic book in the Old Testament—records prophecies delivered roughly a century after Jonah, during the height of Assyria’s power. Nahum’s message announces God’s coming judgment on the same city that once humbled itself under Jonah’s warning, but returned to its wicked ways. He indicates that it will be flooded, burned by fire, and cease to be a city.

In about 745 B.C., a king named Tiglath-Pileser III restored Assyria to power with Nineveh being its capital city. By 722, Assyria had conquered the northern kingdom of Israel and killed or exiled its inhabitants. (2 Kings 17) The next king, Sennacherib, invaded the southern kingdom of Judah in 701 B.C. (2 Kings 18–19). These conquests were recorded in the Bible and in Assyrian records.

After returning to its wicked ways for a time, Nineveh eventually fell in 612 B.C. to a coalition of Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians, fulfilling Nahum’s prophecy (Nahum 1–3). Archaeology confirms that the city was larger and more magnificent than in Jonah’s time, destroyed by fire, as Nahum describes (Nahum 3:13, 15), and breached by flooding, matching Nahum’s prediction that “the river gates are opened”. (Nahum 2:6) The city was so utterly destroyed that even its ruins were lost to history and not found until the 19th century.

Timing of the Book of Jonah 

One criticism of any historical writing is that it was written too late to be the work of the subject or a timely witness. However, the Book of Jonah stands up to this criticism remarkably well. Many of the “higher critics” of the 19th century assumed that Jonah was likely written in the second or third century B.C., However, as authors such as Dr. Bill Cooper argue, we can have confidence that the book originates in the 8th century B.C., when the events transpired.[1]

One way that researchers studying the actual writing use to determine the dates of writing is by the use of specific wording and phrasing that were specific to a time and a place. In Jonah, it has been pointed out that of the 122 nouns, all but eleven are found in writing that is known to have originated prior to 700 B.C. Three of those eleven words are also found in ancient writings, and two are actually Assyrian words. The fact that Assyrian words are found in the writing would make sense if the writer was someone familiar with both Hebrew and Aramaic, which was the language of the Assyrians. It is also very similar to Hebrew, as it is a cognate language. This not only helps to explain how the words would end up in an ancient Hebrew writing, but also how a Jewish man would be able to speak with those from another country about pending judgment and be able to understand one another.

Christ Foreshadowed  

If you are unfamiliar with the idea that Christ is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, it is a wonderfully affirming way to get a new perspective on the amazing collection of writings we call the Bible. The Book of Jonah is no exception. In fact, Jonah and his being swallowed by a fish is specifically cited by Jesus Himself as a sign of things to come with His death and resurrection:

“But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:39-41).

It would seem that Jesus was sure of Jonah’s life, his mission to preach, and his successful preaching to those who were his mortal enemies in Nineveh. Though a clear foreshadowing of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and preaching of salvation for repentance to those in rebellion, Jesus did a few things differently from Jonah. Jonah rebelled against God’s command to go to His enemies and warn them. Where Jonah tried to flee, Jesus obeyed. Where Jonah was thrown overboard into the sea because he was guilty of disobeying God, Jesus willingly went to the cross on our behalf to save sinners. Where Jonah seems disappointed that sinners like the Ninevites would receive clemency for their sins, Jesus asked that God forgive the very people who crucified Him because they “know not what they do”. (Luke 23:24)

As to the idea of a man being swallowed by a fish, I am sure there are lots of writings on that topic about how it may or may not be scientifically plausible. Because God, however, is the Creator of space, time, and matter, and not bound by our rules when it comes to the physical world, as well as the fact that Jesus Himself affirms the story, I am confident that we can trust it, whether it occurred naturally or supernaturally.

God’s Concern

One thing that gets missed in the story of Jonah is the fact that God defends His own right to love those in Nineveh. Jonah becomes angry when he learns that God will spare the judgment promised to Nineveh after they repented. God provides a plant to shade Jonah from the sun, but then allows the plant to wither and die. Jonah says that he does have the right to be angry about the plant, “enough to die” (Jonah 4:9).

But God asks Jonah if he is right in being angry at the death of the plant, which Jonah had not created or cared for. God then asks, “…should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” (Jonah 4:11)

This is a wonderful opportunity to hear God show that He loves even those in rebellion against Him. He cares for those people who have been so wicked, even to His chosen people. He even cares about the cows. And that is where Jonah’s written story ends.

It is also a great place to start. We who are fortunate enough to live on this side of Christ’s death and resurrection are able to connect the story of Jonah to the story of Jesus. We can connect the story of Jesus to the story of God in the Old Testament. We can see the history, archeology, and the stories come together to give us a picture of God’s judgment (of both the Ninevites and the Jews when they rebelled), as well as God’s concern for all of His creation. We can see the foreshadowing of Jesus, who would arrive eight centuries later to be “something greater than Jonah”.

Conclusion

The Book of Jonah is not important because of the fish. It is important because it gives its own veiled prophecy of the Savior of the world, who would arrive eight centuries later in Bethlehem. It also gives us a reminder of how we should be careful how we view others who are pitted against God. We should not forget that God “. . . is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). We must love our enemies as we see God loved the rebels of Nineveh and Jesus loved those who crucified Him. We should still warn them of judgment, but we leave the ultimate judgment to the Author of their lives.

For a short but sweeping summary of the amazing evidence for the history of Jonah and Nineveh, I encourage the reader to seek out the book, The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah, by author and historian Bill Cooper (2012).

References:

[1] https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_105-116.pdf

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

 

Tony Williams is a retired police officer from Southern Illinois and currently lives in Kentucky with his family. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.

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

/by

Jonah and the Big Fish (Part 1)

The Book of Jonah is very short, only four chapters long. It tells of a prophet named Jonah who was told by God to go to the great city of Nineveh and warn them of a coming judgment. Jonah goes the opposite way on a ship, but a violent storm ends with Jonah being tossed overboard by the sailors because they learn he is fleeing from God. Jonah is swallowed by a great fish, and after three days and some prayers of repentance, he is spit out at Nineveh. [1] He gives his short warning and waits for God to destroy the evil inhabitants. However, the Ninevites repent, and God spares them from the judgment. Jonah is upset with God, Who reminds Jonah that He (God) has every right to pity those in the city. The book abruptly ends with no further response from Jonah.

You may be surprised to learn that there are many good reasons to believe this is an actual accounting of history, rather than a parable. The following is not an exhaustive study on the totality of evidence, but should help the reader understand that there is more to this book than a simple parable. [2]

Jonah

The Book of Jonah is not the only place in the Bible where Jonah is mentioned. In 2 Kings 14: 23-28, the author is recounting the Israelite kingship of Jereboam II, who “…restored the border of Isreal from Lebo-hamath as far as the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Isreal, which He spoke by His serveant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.” We are, by that passage, able to identify Jonah as being a prophet in Israel between 782 and 753 B.C. The fact that both Biblical references to Jonah as the son of Amittai provide strong evidence that this is the same Jonah.

Israel

At the time of Jereboam II, Israel was the northern kingdom and had suffered under the mighty Assyrian empire, which was located to the north. The Assyrians were known for especially harsh treatment of those they conquered, using torture tactics like skinning captives, torturing children, and other gruesome means to bring about human suffering. They had attacked Israel on a repeated basis over the preceding years, and took the lands of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh (Kings 10:32-33), and significantly reduced Israel’s military (Kings 13:7). In the 2 Kings passage, Jonah prophesied that Israel would expand its borders under King Jeroboam. How did that occur?

Nineveh, of Assyria

Nineveh was an ancient and major city that was a part of the Assyrian kingdom. Each city had its own ruler, but they ultimately reported to the Assyrian king. Jonah’s prophecy, and the later fulfilment, of an expansion of Israel during King Jeroboam II’s time, starts to make sense when you look at the records of Assyria at the same time. According to the Assyrian Eponym Canon and the Bur-Sagale eclipse record, Assyria (including Ninevah) was in the midst of a massive and sudden unrest and decline at the time of Jereboam II’s reign. This was caused by major plagues in 765 and 764 BC, political instability in major cities, and a solar eclipse that occurred on June 15, 763 BC.

Like many other cultures at the time, the eclipse was often seen as a sign of divine judgment to come. While we don’t know for certain what year Jonah would have been transported to Ninevah by the appointed fish to warn of coming divine appointed doom, it would make sense that he could have come at the same time all of these events would have been rattling the people of Ninevah and wider Assyria. They would likely have been much more apt to heed the warnings of an Israeli claiming to speak on behalf of the God of the universe with a warning of pending destruction.

Archaeology

So, the Biblical references to Jonah and the Assyrian records match up as far as who Jonah was and how Assyrians in Ninevah were faring at the time of Jonah’s likely visit. However, the city of Nineveh was eventually lost to history and was believed by many to be a work of fiction by a later writer. Even with references to Ninevah by ancient historians Xenophon and Herodotus, because the ruins were lost to time, many academics believed Ninevah to be a myth. In 1820, however, Claudius Rich discovered ruins near Mosul, Iraq, that he believed belonged to Ninevah. Austen Henry Layard developed the site further and discovered massive palace walls, cuneiform tablets, and the library of Ashurbanipal, confirming this was indeed the city of Nineveh. [3] Further excavations revealed that the massive scale of the city recorded in Biblical and other ancient records was accurate. Nineveh became one of the many cities lost to time, doubted by scholars, and later discovered by archeologists to affirm the Biblical account.

The Hill of Jonah

While Nineveh was destroyed in about 612 BC, evidence of our Jonah remained overlooking the hidden ruins for the centuries that followed. The Tell Neby Yunus, as it has been known to locals for centuries, was known to be the ancient burial site of Jonah, who was brought to Nineveh as a messenger of God to warn of impending doom. While the city was not visible because of the nature of its destruction, the Hill of Jonah remained.

Muslims who lived in the area maintained the story for generations, as Jonah and his story are also mentioned in the Koran. A mosque was built on the hill in 1365 AD, which covered over an ancient Assyrian Christian church that marked Jonah’s grave. In July 2014, ISIS militants attempted to destroy the mosque because they believed the site was a place of apostasy. They also began digging in the area, looking for religious or ancient artifacts they could sell on the black market. They stumbled into the Neo-Assyrian palace built by King Sennacherib (705-681 BC).[4]

What’s Next

In my first attempt, I quickly realized that I could not do justice to this summary of the evidence for the Book of Jonah in one short paper. I will therefore follow this up with a summary of the related fulfilled prophecies of Nahum, the clear foreshadowings of Christ in the story, how we know the book was written in Jonah’s time and not later, and perhaps even how it is that one can confidently believe that a man swallowed by a fish for three days lived to tell about it.

References:

[1] [Editor’s Note: The text doesn’t say the fish spat up Jonah at Nineveh, but rather that he was spat up on dry land (Jonah 2:10). While that could have been near Nineveh of the fish swam around to the Tigris river. The more likely locale, barring another miracle, would have been the shores of the Mediterranean sea.]

[2] For a short but sweeping summary of the amazing evidence for the history of Jonah and Nineveh, I encourage the reader to seek out the book, The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah, by author and historian Bill Cooper (2012).

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh

[4] https://israel365news.com/314204/palace-biblical-king-sennacherib-discovered-beneath-isis-destruction-jonahs-tomb/

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

 

Tony Williams is a retired police officer from Southern Illinois and currently lives in Kentucky with his family. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.

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

 

/by

Advice to Young Aspiring Apologists

David Wood recently posted an excellent video featuring a series of short interview clips with various apologists (Douglas Groothuis, Gary Habermas, Craig Hazen, Mike Licona, Nabeel Qureshi, Mary Jo Sharp, and Frank Turek) on advice to future apologists. As one who is of the younger generation myself (I am almost 27)[1], and who has been active in the public apologetics arena from relatively young (from around 20 years of age) I have some experience to speak of when it comes to being a young defender of the Christian faith.

In this article, I want to address those who are young, perhaps in their late teens or in their 20’s, and who aspire to do public work in apologetics. In particular, I want to reflect on my observations over the past six or seven years of involvement in apologetics and what lessons I have learned in the process — sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way.

Lesson 1: Be Careful How Early You Enter into the Public Arena    

It’s perfectly natural that, when you have a new idea, you want to share it with the world. Over the last decade or so, there has been an explosion in the popularity of online blogging, which has given people the ability to spread ideas and information quickly. This has its obvious advantages, but it also has some significant risk factors and draw-backs, especially for young people. Among these is the fact that what you publish publicly on the internet is effectively public material forever.

Why might that be a risk-factor for young people? When you’re young, your views and ideas are still in the process of crystallizing. Being less wedded to a given paradigm than those of the older generation means you are more likely to revise your position or change your mind on certain issues. I, for one, have seen an evolution in my own views and arguments over the past five years. Your arguments also become more refined and sophisticated over time as you learn from the experience of defending them and conversing with people who are better acquainted with a given field than you are. You also become increasingly better informed as you read more and more about a subject. Imagine the frustration, then, when someone Googles your name, and the first hit is to an article you wrote some four or five years ago, articulating views or argumentation which you would no longer defend. You may well have expressed your current views and better refined arguments elsewhere, but that is not necessarily the first thing people will see. Things you said years ago can come back to haunt you for years. So, exercise caution!

A second danger here is that some areas relating to apologetics present a particular risk factor when seeking employment in certain professions. For example, in the academic environment in which we currently find ourselves, being overtly public about your views on biological design may land you in seriously hot water when it comes to building a career in the field of biology. The modern formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has become so entrenched in modern academia that people do not want to put their own careers in jeopardy by being associated with someone who has public affiliations to intelligent design. Similarly, as we have seen with increasing frequency, public criticism of same-sex marriage may land you in hot water in certain career paths.

My advice would thus be to give careful consideration to how early you enter into the public arena to express your views. Think about allowing them to crystallize first. Otherwise, a pseudonym or alias may be a relatively safe option.

Lesson 2: Never Cut Corners — Research Your Argument Thoroughly       

This should go without saying, but you would be surprised at the number of people who do not take the time to hunt down a primary source, relying instead on what other people have said about that primary source. This is a very bad habit. When you read a quotation in a book that has been taken from another source, try to avoid using it unless you can trace it to the primary source. If the quotation has been lifted out of context, or has been misinterpreted by the author, you are just as culpable if you do not check it for yourself. Always be ready with primary sources to back up points you make in debate. In addition, read the relevant sections of primary sources carefully. You would be amazed at the number of people who think they are engaged in good scholarship by basing their interpretation of a scientific research paper on its abstract, or even (far worse) its title! Never proof-text a passage of which you aren’t familiar with the context. Exercise great concern for factual accuracy. As Christians, we believe that Christ is ultimate truth itself (John 14:6). We are thus committed to a very high standard of accuracy and fair representation.

You should also be acquainted with the responses that have already been offered to the argument you are making. If you are making a new argument that hasn’t been addressed before, try to anticipate possible objections. Even better, get someone who takes a different view to read and critique your argument before going public with it. Friends can also be invaluable in critically appraising your work before it goes public.

Work to understand your argument well. Don’t just parrot an argument that you heard somebody else make.

Lesson 3: Strive to Understand the View You Are Criticizing Better Than Its Best Defenders       

You should always, at least in principle, strive to understand the view or argument you are criticizing better than its best defenders. There is nothing worse than an apologist who discredits the Gospel by making basic misrepresentations of a view, such as evolution or Islam, that could have been avoided with a little research. My advice here would be not to limit your reading to books that already agree with you. Be courageous and read books representing the other side of the debate as well. If you are critically appraising a religion, read that religion’s primary sources. Don’t get your information on Islam, for example, solely from Christian sources. Apart from being intellectually responsible, this also opens up doors and builds bridges to people of other worldview persuasions. My familiarity with the Qur’an and Hadith literature, for example, has opened up numerous opportunities to have dialogues with Muslims. People respect it when you can demonstrate that you have done your homework, and will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

Lesson 4: Be Honest About The Weaknesses of Your Position       

An argument is rendered far more credible and respectable when the person articulating and defending the position is willing to honestly state the position’s weaknesses upfront. This allows the intended audience to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of your position and come to their own conclusion about where the balance of evidence lies. Unfortunately, this is something we need to see more of in apologetics. All propositional claims have their share of both strengths and weaknesses — yes, even Christianity. The evidence may well be (as I maintain that it is) overwhelmingly in favour of Christianity being true, but there are always facts on the other side of the balance as well, which are worthy of consideration. We are all susceptible, at some level, to confirmation bias, and it is important that we take steps to minimize the impact of this bias on our public presentation of the arguments and evidence.

Lesson 5: Be Charitable         

Always look for the most charitable way of reading your sources. Give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. Show that you can responsibly critique a position or argument even when presented in its strongest possible form. If a critic makes a mistake, don’t immediately blast him for lying or having deceptive or malicious intent. More often than not, they just made a mistake. Point it out. If they admit their mistake, commend them for it. If, on the other hand, someone has had a mistake pointed out to them repeatedly, yet they persist in stating the falsehood, I would be inclined to be less charitable. A common example of this is when Muslim apologists confidently claim, over and over again like a mantra, that the canon of the New Testament was determined in A.D. 325 at the council of Nicaea, a fiction that has been exposed time and time again (see my article here for what really went on at Nicaea).

Related to this, one should always seek to engage with the most respected and capable defenders of a given position. Richard Dawkins and other members of the ‘New Atheist’ community have often been criticized for criticizing the worst representatives of Christianity, and avoiding the best possible opposition. This is not a trait that you want to emulate. There is a time, of course, for critiquing poor defenders of a position, particularly if they are popular, so that the vacuousness of their argumentation may be exposed. It is unfortunate that the most popular apologists for atheism also happen to be the least intellectually sophisticated (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris). Since these men are popular, they ought to be responded to. But your engagement shouldn’t be limited to them. Likewise, so many Muslims listen to Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat that their arguments must be responded to, even if they are very unsophisticated. But try to engage Islam’s more reflective apologists, such as Shabir Ally, as well. To quote Proverbs 26:4-5, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

Lesson 6: Be Consistent        

The application of double standards is the surest sign of a failed argument. It is always important to be intellectually consistent. Don’t, for instance, use an argument against another religion which would work equally well against Christianity. Apply standards consistently!

Even more important, ensure that your style of living is consistent with the message you are proclaiming. Ignatius of Antioch, the second century church father and disciple of the Apostle John, in his Epistle to the Ephesians (15), put it so well: “Indeed, it is better to keep quiet and be, than to make fluent professions and not be.”

Lesson 7: Be A Good Listener

Be prepared to listen carefully to people with whom you are conversing. Seek to understand where they are coming from. Don’t presume things about them based upon what you have read about their religion. Let them have their say whenever they wish to speak. Be wary of steam rollers, but be careful about not being one yourself. It is better to allow them to speak too much than too little. Respond to the position that they have articulated, not the position that you think they should adhere to. Try to keep them on point, however. If you’re debating about Scripture, ask them to stay within one passage and reach a verdict with you on that passage (or at least admit to not having thought it through before and ask for time to reflect on it) before moving on to another passage. I speak from experience when I say that this is particularly important in dialogues with Jehovah’s witnesses!

There is an additional reason why it is prudent to be a good listener. Just because you disagree with an individual does not mean that you have nothing to learn from them. Every individual has unique experience and ideas that you can learn from. Remain teachable, even from those with whom you vehemently disagree.

Lesson 8: Be Prepared to Admit Mistakes And When You Don’t Have An Answer

Everybody makes mistakes from time to time. When someone legitimately points out an error or mistake on your part, do not try to cover it up. Admit to it, noting that it was an honest mistake. If someone contends that you have erred and you are not convinced that they are right, promise to check your sources and get back to them on it. It takes a lot of grace and humility to admit the occasional error, but people will respect you for it, and you will have greater credibility. Just don’t make a habit of making mistakes!

It is also important to confess when you are unable to answer a question or challenge. Everybody’s knowledge is limited, and there is only so much you can have researched. There will come times, on occasion, when you are met with a challenge that you have never considered or encountered before. When that happens, do not attempt to ‘wing’ it. Instead, graciously admit that you haven’t yet encountered this point and promise to investigate it further.

Lesson 9: Never Repay Insult With Insult    

Ad hominem attacks, which are by nature leveled against an individual rather than an argument, have unfortunately become common, especially online, where people feel safe behind the anonymity of the internet. One should never repay insult with insult, however. Set a good example for how intellectual discourse ought to be done. Show the world how Christians conduct themselves in argument and debate. To quote Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Ephesians (10),

Meet their animosity with mildness, their high words with humility, and their abuse with your prayers. But stand firm against their errors, and if they grow violent, be gentle instead of wanting to pay them back in their own coin. Let us show by our forbearance that we are their brothers, and try to imitate the Lord by seeing which of us can put up with the most ill-usage or privation or contempt — so that in this way none of the devil’s noxious weeds may take root in you.

Did Christ retaliate against those that mocked and insulted Him? As 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” Follow the example of Polycarp of Smyrna. When the mounted policemen came to track him down and closed in on his whereabouts, he reportedly ordered at once that they be given all the food and drink they wanted. By doing this, to quote another Proverb, “you will heap burning coals on his head [i.e. make them feel guilty for the way they treated you] and the Lord will reward you.”

Lesson 10: Generally Don’t Be Confrontational In The University Setting 

My advice for youths has always been to not draw attention to themselves by being confrontational with their professors in their place of study. Granted, there is sometimes a time and place for challenging professors, but these opportune and appropriate times are not common. The reason you should not be confrontational is that you do not want to come across as portraying yourself as a peer. In a professor-student relationship, this comes across as rather arrogant.

Lesson 11: Be Above Public Reproach          

Personal integrity is so important, particularly for the Christian. Like it or not, as a public ambassador for the Christian faith, people are observing your life. Many of them are looking for things to find fault with. As a Christian apologist, there would be nothing worse than to have your reputation sullied by a momentary lapse in moral judgment. The life of the believer is the ultimate apologetic. If the way you live your life does not comport with the message you are proclaiming, people are going to think “This Christ has evidently not had much of an impact on his life? Why should I expect Christ to impact mine?” 2nd Clement 13:3-4 illustrates the point well:

For when outsiders hear the sayings of God from our mouths, they are astonished at their beauty and greatness. Then when they discover that our actions do not match our words, they turn from astonishment to blasphemy, saying that our faith is some kind of myth and error. For on the one hand, they hear from us that God has said, “It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and those who hate you.” And when they hear these things, they are astonished by their extraordinary goodness. But then when they see that we fail to love not only those who hate us, but even those who love us, they ridicule us and the name is blasphemed.

As Jesus said to his disciples in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

Lesson 12: Your Academic Studies Must Take Priority        

It doesn’t matter how much you know. You are going to be very limited in what you can do as a public intellectual if you have no academic credentials to your name. Striking the right balance between academic study and other intellectual interests is hard, but the former must take priority.

If you adopt intelligent design (ID) theory as your view and this becomes known among the faculty in your department, this is of particular importance, since you are now an ambassador for this view. You don’t want to discredit the ID community by poor performance and you also don’t want to give any defensible justification to those who may want to penalize you for adopting such a view.

Lesson 13: Don’t Let Your Intellectual Endeavors Take Your Eyes Off Christ. Be Soaked in Scripture.

In his book The Doctrine of Repentance, the 17th century puritan Thomas Watson wrote,

Some bless themselves that they have a stock of knowledge, but what is knowledge good for without repentance? It is better to mortify one sin than to understand all mysteries. Impure speculatists do but resemble Satan transformed into an angel of light. Learning and a bad heart is like a fair face with a cancer in the breast. Knowledge without repentance will be but a torch to light men to hell.

It is of the utmost importance that Christ form the cornerstone of everything that you do. Take care to maintain a healthy prayer life and meditate daily upon the word of God. Remember that we are not saved by our adherence to a body of doctrine, nor our ability to articulate and defend the Christian faith. Continuously examine yourself to see whether the beliefs of your intellect reflect the beliefs of your heart, manifested by your actions. Be sure that you are not one of the ones to whom Christ will say “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”

Conclusion

The above are just a few of the principles that I have picked up through my own involvement in apologetics. Some of these I can relate to through my own experience. Others, I picked up from observing and learning from other people. If you commit to applying the above principles consistently, you cannot go far wrong.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted August 1, 2016.]

Recommended Resources: 

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

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

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

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

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

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

/by

Jesus as Clark Kent

,

My inner geek is going to show for just a second here. I love superhero origin stories. My favorite part of the story is watching them learn who they truly are, struggle with their powers, and choose the responsibility of sacrificial heroism.

Can you imagine Jesus as Clark Kent? Jesus is the ultimate hero, but we really don’t know what his life was like before he was the teacher we know. I really wish we could see those early moments of Jesus’s life. Talk about the origin of the hero of all heroes!

This advent, I’ve been really focusing on Christ’s coming to earth, becoming human, really imagining what that had to be like for Him, to live as a child while being God. We know from Luke 2, that he was recognized as the Christ by Simeon at 8 days old when Mary and Joseph brought him to the temple for the traditional circumcision. During the Feast of Passover, when Jesus was 12, Mary and Joseph found him conversing with the Jewish teachers who were all amazed by his wisdom and understanding.

But precious few verses summarize 30 years of his life. Jesus came to earth as an infant, and lived quietly unknown, unrecognized. He knew His purpose and mission but had to wait for God’s timing. What was he doing all that time? I can’t wait to ask him.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 (ESV)

He was GOD and had to still wait for God’s plan, thirty years before it was his time to reveal his true identity.

He was GOD and still had to wait for God’s timing in his Jesus as Clark Kent beginning. #JesusistheReason Share on X

ESV “On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” John 2:1-4  John 2:1-4

He could snap his fingers and heal the sick, think a thought and bring back the dead, but he was hesitant to perform miracles until God’s appointed time for him. But when his mother asked, he answered with his first miracle (John 2:1-12).

The fact that Mary comes to him gives us a glimpse into this Martha Kent and Superman moment. I wonder what signs and miracles he must have done at home in private – perhaps none, but Mary obviously knows who He is, that He came to save the world, but His Father hasn’t instructed him to stop being Clark Kent just yet.

As I watch people living hurt and broken lives, I wonder how Jesus handled hurting people before God called him to start his signs and wonders. Living around broken people, how did He, knowing what He knew, WAIT for God’s appointed time to start teaching, doing miracles and wonders?

Sometimes the minute God gives me a little understanding, I want to rush off and share it with everyone. I wonder how He did it, Jesus as Clark Kent, not revealing His true nature? The Bible doesn’t give us a lot of insight into those early days, but His witness had to be in how he lived. If none of us could ever witness to anyone except through our lives, what would your witness be? Would people see Superman peeking through your Clark Kent exterior?

Jesus came as an infant, had parents, lived as a man, so we could know our God understands, has felt the struggle of being Clark Kent in a world that desperately needs Superman.

And this year, as I picture Jesus as Clark Kent, I’m moved to tears by the humility of not just becoming human, but the lowliest of humans, an infant born in a stable, so that his miracles and wonders could only be attributed to the power of God. He put on the pain of our human bodies, the wounds of a fallen world, and did so just to die an agonizing death, for me, for you.

I wonder if our fascination with superheroes really stems from trying to understand Jesus and his sacrifice beyond understanding. Share on X

I wonder if our fascination with superheroes really stems from trying to understand Jesus. His sacrifice is so beyond understanding, we try to grasp it through fictional characters who pale in comparison, but the analogy really personalizes his birth and life and death for me.

And I’m really thankful for Him in a deeper way every year.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek & Zach Turek (Book)

Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).

 

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

Originally Posted at: https://bit.ly/4mab3oU

/by