J. Brian Huffling Archives

Tag Archive for: J. Brian Huffling

What Philosophy Is, And Why You Can’t Avoid It

Many Christians believe that philosophy is a pagan discipline practiced either by ivory tower professors or Starbucks hippies. This belief has led some to object to the relevance of philosophy, as either they believe only a few can do it, or that it deals with such weird and abstract issues that it is a waste of time. Many Christian theologians object that philosophy is rooted in paganism, and thus has no place in Christian theology. After explaining what philosophy is, it should become clear that not only do these objections fail, but philosophy is unavoidable.

For the Love of Wisdom…

‘Philosophy’ literally means “love (phil) of wisdom (sophia).” It is the quest for knowledge, truth, and how to live the good (moral) life.

Fields of Philosophy

There are several branches of philosophy. One, and the most foundational, is metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being, or what it means to be real. While biologists study life insofar as things are living, and mathematicians study being as quantified, and physicists study being that is physical or in motion, the metaphysician studies what it means to “be” in general. They ask questions like, what is the difference between Snoopy and a beagle one can take for a walk?

Another branch of philosophy is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists ask questions like, “How can knowledge be attained,” “What is knowledge,” and “Is there a difference between knowledge and belief?”

Moral philosophy seeks to know what it means to be good in the moral sense. Where does goodness come from, and what makes something good?

Logic studies right reasoning and the mistakes (fallacies) that are sometimes made when trying to make a rational argument.

Aesthetics studies the nature of beauty, and asks “What does it mean to be beautiful? Is beauty objective?” And so on.

From these categories there are any number of other philosophical fields. The philosophy of math deals with the nature of numbers, and asks if numbers are real (e.g. does the number 4 actually exist). In other words, it deals with the nature of math. Philosophy of science deals with the nature of science. The philosophy of history deals with the nature of history and historical knowledge. My area is philosophy of religion, which deals with issues like God’s existence, nature, how we talk about him, the problem of evil, and the nature of miracles.

Is Everyone a Philosopher?

When you say something that purports to be true, you are talking about reality, and are claiming to know something. You are also making a logical claim. Further, you are assuming (explicitly or implicitly) a certain view of how language works (philosophy of language). Even if you are just talking about the tree in your front yard, you are saying something about the tree’s existence and nature. I am not saying that everyone is a “philosopher” in the strict, academic sense. What I am saying, is that it is not possible to make statements about the world, God, or the Bible without taking philosophical positions, regardless of if you are aware of them or not.

Theology Can’t Avoid Philosophy

The same holds true for theology and biblical studies/interpretation. We cannot make theological claims without using philosophy. For example, when we talk about Jesus taking on a human nature, we must understand what a “nature” is. This is a philosophical category. When a scholar says that biblical interpreters cannot be objective due to their biases, this is a philosophical statement about the nature of objectivity, bias, the knower, and the knowing process.

Far from this being a pagan practice, it is how God made us. He made us rational beings. This is what makes us different from other animals. Philosophy is useful and unavoidable. Instead of trying to avoid it, we should try to become better philosophers, and worship God with our minds.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.”
Matthew 22:36-38

UFOS, Aliens, And Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

many people throughout history and across the world have claimed to have seen UFOs and even have experiences with what are normally described as aliens. I’ve always had a casual interest in UFOs, but with the release of three Navy videos and the Unidentified documentary, I became more interested.

It is probably safe to say that most people think that talk of UFOs and aliens is crazy; however, the evidence for such phenomena has been mounting to the point that the existence of UFOs is beyond question. This article will look at a brief history of UFOs, focusing mostly on the U.S., some of the claims people have made, an examination of prominent theories of what is going on, and an overall assessment.

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

It is popular to begin modern ufology (the study of all things UFOs) with Kenneth Arnold’s sighting of 9 objects flying, according to him, around 1700mph at Mt. Ranier, WA in June of 1947. Such was not actually the beginning of UFO sightings, even in the U.S. There was a massive wave of sightings (a wave of sightings is called a flap) around the country in the late 1890s of “airships.” Further, reported UFO activity (to include abductions) has gone on for millennia. (See Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times by Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck for a good history of ufology. Also, see Vallée’s Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers for an explanation of how the modern UFO phenomena is very similar to religion and folklore of the past.)

About a month after Arnold’s sighting was the famous Roswell incident where at least one UFO supposedly crashed around Roswell, NM. The Air Force first said it was a “disk” but just hours later said it was a weather balloon. In 1994, the Air Force published The Roswell Report: Case Closed where they reported that what actually fell was a balloon related to the secret project called Project Mogul, which was a way of spying on the USSR’s use of atomic weapons. (The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site argues that what fell at Roswell was an actual UFO with aliens and is told by the son of the intelligence officer who was there and allegedly brought some wreckage home to show his family. UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth is an appraisal from a non-believer.)

Numerous UFO sightings that year led to the newly formed Air Force (formed in September of 1947) to begin a series of special projects to study the issue. The first was Project Sign in 1947, followed by Project Grudge in 1949, and then the famous Project Blue Book in 1952 that lasted until early 1970 (it was announced closed in December of ’69). The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Captain Edward Ruppelt, who led Project Grudge and Blue Book from 1951-1953, is required reading for anyone interested in the history of UFOs, especially as it relates to the Air Force, as is The UFO Experience by Air Force astronomy consultant J. Allen Hynek.

There was a flap in 1952 over Washington D.C. that led to the CIA becoming interested. In January of 1953 it held a panel in conjunction with the Air Force, informally called the Robertson panel. It officially concluded that UFOs were not an issue of national security, but it is disputed as to whether the Air Force really gave them the good files to examine. Many other sightings occurred in the 50s and 60s, including the well-known Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) incident where UFOs were seen over the nuclear ICBM missile sites when 20 ICBMs went offline. For that account from an eyewitness who served as an officer in the missile silo, see Faded Giant.

In the late 1960s the government gave The University of Colorado a grant to independently investigate UFOs. It was headed by Edward Condon and is informally known as the Condon Committee. It is well-known to have been biased against UFOs from the beginning, at least by the leader, and it recommended Blue Book be shut down, which it was.

Sightings continued through the 70s and 80s worldwide. Pilots in Iran chased a UFO and one in Peru shot at one. All to no avail. (It is reported by Ruppelt that in 1952 a U.S. Air Force pilot shot at one.) One of the most notable cases was the event that happened at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge in the U.K. in December of 1980. Several security police and others, including then the Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Halt, saw UFOs. One claims to have actually touched it. This has been one of the most interesting and controversial cases ever. For a good source on this that was written by eyewitnesses, see Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World’s Best-Documented UFO Incident.

2004 ushered in a new era with the now famous, and aforementioned, Navy videos. In August of 2020, the military started an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). In June of 2021, the Office of the Director of National Security provided a “Preliminary Assessment” to Congress. It stated that UFOs (or as the military now calls them, UAPs) are real and in 144 cases, unexplained. In July of 2022, top members of the intelligence community testified before Congress for the first time in over 50 years, also confirming the existence of UFOs and confirming that what the Navy videos show are still unexplained. The government has never claimed they are of extraterrestrial origin. It is well-known that the government is taking UFOs seriously, even if they (reportedly) don’t believe they are aliens.

For an excellent, but very detailed history of UFOs in the U.S. (from one who holds to the extraterrestrial view) see Richard Dolan’s 2 volume UFOs and the National Security State. For a less-detailed but good account from a skeptic’s viewpoint, see Curtis Peebles’ Watch the Skies! For an intriguing and important overview of UFOs as they relate to the military, see Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record. For an excellent historical source in general, see Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia.

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

While most of the above are sightings of objects flying around, hovering, or landed, there are many kinds of sightings or UFO events. Hynek provided the original classification for UFO sightings and that classification was updated to the following:

Daylight Disks: UFOs seen during the day
Nocturnal Lights: UFOs seen at night
Radar Visual: Objects seen on radar
Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE-1): Encounters of around 500 feet
Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-2): Encounters that leave some kind of physical effects, such as marks in the ground, trees, or affects on vehicles
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE-3): Inhabitants of UFOs are seen
Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE-4): Contact such as abduction
Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (CE-5): The individual suffers some kind of harm or even death

Certainly one of the most intriguing aspects about UFOs are the reported “alien abductions.” While many, if not most, believe that such abductions (and even sightings in general) are only experienced by “crazy” people, it does not take much research to discover that very sane and respectable people experience. not only sightings of UFOs but also what is usually categorized as “alien abductions.” Such phenomena have been occurring for hundreds of years (again, see Wonders in the Sky and Passport to Magonia).

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

I’m going to lump the skeptical view together with the terrestrial view since they can both be held simultaneously. That is, some can be skeptical of UFOs in the sense of them being extraterrestrial while arguing for a terrestrial explanation. Indeed, about 95% or so of alleged sightings are explainable via natural means, such as astronomical phenomena, weather, simple misidentifications, and the like. Many are simply skeptical of UFO claims in general for this reason.

Some have tried to explain UFOs as simply being secret technology either had by the U.S. or other nations. It is indeed the case that there are advanced technological systems that causes UFO reports, and the Air Force has actually capitalized on people thinking they are UFOs in order to provide a cover for their own technology. Richard Doty is a famous (infamous?) example of one who has admitted to this happening.

However, it is a difficult pill to swallow that there were aircraft in the 1940s that could travel at speeds and perform aerial maneuvers that even today cannot be duplicated. The intelligence specialists who testified before Congress noted that we do not have any evidence that such technology is possessed either by the U.S. or other nations. Such has led some to another theory.

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

Undoubtedly the most popular view (other than the skeptical view, which cannot be accepted any longer) is the one that purports that aliens are behind the “flying saucers.” For proponents of that view, see Dolan’s works above, as well as Kean’s. The argument behind this view is that if UFOs are not explained by earthly means, and since they are evidently intelligently operated and even seemingly interact with people, they must be alien in nature. This appears to be a rational position but there are problems with it.

One problem is interstellar travel. Since I am not an astronomer or qualified to navigate this debate, I will defer to Hugh Ross, a former astronomer from Cal Tech, who argues this in his Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men (co-authored with Ken Samples and Mark Clark). I realize there are astronomers who argue that such travel is possible, but Ross makes some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary. In short, Ross argues that the distance is too great and would require multigenerational travel, even from some of the nearest systems. It would also take an incredible amount of energy to travel that far and fast. Further, as Ross notes, space is not empty. Going the required speeds would destroy a space ship if they so much as hit some of the smallest space debris.

Jacques Vallée is arguably today’s leading ufologist and has worked with Hynek in general and in his dealings with the Air Force in particular. Vallée is uniquely trained for his work given his background in astronomy as well as computer information systems. He has the unusual skill set to be able to organize UFO data and has researched them for decades. In the last book of his famous trilogy, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception, he adds as an appendix a paper he delivered at an academic conference against the ETH. He offers 5 arguments against the view. Such arguments include the odd fact that there are thousands if not millions of UFO events where aliens are said to visit Earth and take samples of things like soil. This is strong evidence against the skeptical view, but he argues it is also evidence against the ETH as it doesn’t make sense why aliens would need to have so many visits and samples. Further, the reported means by which aliens supposedly experiment on people are even more rudimentary than our own technology. Another issue is the seeming impossibility of random evolution producing multiple species that have the same basic human anatomical structure with the ability to see and hear the way we do. He argues, as a naturalist, that to expect multiple species to arise from random chance with such similar structures is basically zero (of course, this changes if one holds to theism, as such would allow God to create as many similar species as he wanted). However, Vallée’s main argument against the ETH is that it just doesn’t take into account the history of ufology and the apparent connection to religion and folklore. According to him, the alien view is simply not strange enough.

Another problem with the ETH is the fact that UFOs do things that appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, they fly at extremely fast speeds that cannot be matched by earthly aircraft, perform right angle and 180 degree turns without slowing down, are transmedium, meaning they can fly through space, air, and water without being affected, appear from nowhere and vanish instantly, can change shape and size, and are seemingly impervious to being hit with bullets. (See Lights in the Sky for a good discussion of this.) Even the abduction phenomena exhibits problems with being physical since “aliens” reportedly walk through walls and take their abductees through walls and physical objects. Hynek actually argues for more of a physic (not exactly psychological) view in The Edge of Reality, where he has a fascinating discussion with Vallée on the topic of their physicality. For Hynek, UFOs are fundamentally non-physical but can cause physical effects, much like poltergeist phenomena. Further, there are reports of people being abducted while being watched by other people in the room, indicating that something non-physical is going on.

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

Vallée’s preferred view is what he calls the inter-dimensional hypothesis. Vallée holds that UFOs are fundamentally physical, but can move through various space-time dimensions. While he does not use the interstellar argument against the ETH (that I know of), this view would alleviate that issue. The apparent violations of physics are supposedly explained this way, such as the objects appearing and disappearing from and into nothing and being able to change their form. This jibes more with the history of the phenomena, according to Vallée, and better explains the abduction issue. Rather than “aliens” trying to do experiments on humans, he maintains that these beings are ultimately trying to control our worldview. Another aspect explained is the way that UFOs seem to just outpace our own technology enough to be unexplainable. (Lights in the Sky also deals with this.) Before airplanes they were airships. Then flying saucers, etc.

The merits of Vallée’s view are the good points and arguments against the ETH, the historical points and connection to religion. However, it seems to be somewhat ad hoc since such dimensions are apparently debated. While Ross does admit to more than 10 dimensions being needed to explain reality, he notes that per Einstein’s theory of relativity, a person cannot simply jump between various dimensions. If this is true, then Vallée’s view would be, to use Ross’ word, “irrelevant” since it would be impossible.

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

A popular view among Christians is the view that while UFOs are real, they are not physical aliens from another planet. Rather, they are demonic spirits that are attempting to deceive people and draw them away from the truth of the Gospel. Ross calls this the extra-dimensional view. For a long time I wondered why demons would want to make people think they are aliens. Then I discovered two reasons. First, as Vallée argues, whatever these things are, they are evidently trying to control people’s belief system. Well, that’s a pretty good reason for enemies of God to want to appear as aliens. Another and related reason is that much of the UFO phenomena is directly and explicitly anti-Christian—not just anti-religious: anti-Christian. Much of the “teachings” of these beings are specifically against the deity of Jesus Christ and the teachings and truths of the Gospel. Some of their teachings claim that Jesus himself was an alien and was raised back to life by aliens. Indeed, there are many UFO cults.

Vallée himself has a book on this topic: Messengers of Deception. Lights in the Sky also deals with this aspect of the phenomena, as does Ron Rhodes’ The Truth about UFOs and Aliens: A Christian Assessment. A director for a well-known civilian UFO investigation group, Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), Joe Jordan and his co-author Jason Dezember deal with the demonic view in their Piercing the Cosmic Veil: You Shall Not Be Afraid of the Terror by Night. Their title is very apt, for “alien” encounters are reportedly very terrifying. Jordan, as well as other MUFON directors, have noted that “alien abduction” experiences are stopped when the experiencer calls on the name of Jesus. Jordan has hundreds of such examples. (See his website here.) Gary Bates has written about the demonic connection in his Alien Intrusion.

The door to the phenomena is reportedly opened by one dabbling in the occult or new age movement. Often, such a link can be found with the people directly involved in the experiences, and when that door to the occult is shut, the experiences stop. What about children? There are accounts of children having abduction experiences too. However, when people like Jordan do some investigating, it is often found that a parent or other family member have some connection to the occult. However, such is not always the case.

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

The investigation into what UFOs and aliens are is not a deductive one. In other words, it is not going to be proven beyond any doubt in this lifetime. Rather it is, no pun intended, an abductive one. That is, the truth about the phenomena will likely be what accounts for the data the best, namely, what has the most explanatory power (how well the data is explained) and explanatory scope (how much of the data is explained), and what less ad hoc (made up without evidence). I agree with Vallée that the ETH does not possess the greatest explanatory power or scope. It does not really seem to account for the history, the physical problems, or the anti-Christian themes. The data is well-accounted for with the demonic view. Such a view answers the material problems since the UFOs/aliens are not really physical in nature, but can, as Hynek suggests, cause physical effects. This also accounts for the anti-Christian teachings that are ubiquitous in the phenomena.

Apart from the UFO phenomena being interesting, it is also important. More than just a possible national security threat, there is an existential threat. If the demonic view is correct, then there is, indeed, a cosmic and spiritual battle for our entire belief systems, and thus our souls. Statistically, given the number of sightings and experiences, many people who go to Christian churches have had an experience (although, it can be argued that if people in the church dabble in the occult and new age less, then they won’t have as many doors open).

Often, people turn to new age, occultic, or otherwise anti-Christian sources either for answers to their questions, being lured by their own curiosity of the paranormal, or simply being drawn in by our culture pushing it on us. (An excellent source on this, especially as it relates to children, is Marcia Montenegro’s Spellbound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today’s Kids.) Churches and even apologetic ministries need to spend more time on the dangers of even dabbling in seemingly harmless actions that flirt with the paranormal and other dangerous areas, such as the new age movement. One excellent ministry that does just this is Montenegro’s “Christian Answers for the New Age.” Reasons to Believe (founded by Hugh Ross), Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries with Ron Rhodes, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and of course, Jordan’s ministry are also active in this area.

The UFO topic is an interesting one. I agree with Vallée, Hynek, and Ross that the alien view does not do the best job explaining the data. Given the spiritual nature of UFOs and especially “aliens,” there is a strong argument that such activity is really demonic in nature. If it is the case that the paranormal, occult, and new age are doors to such activity, it is imperative that Christians understand this and that it is clearly taught in our churches and homes. The Bible gives several commands to avoid involvement in such activity. Unfortunately, Christians and churches are easily caught up in the flow of our culture, rather than standing firm in the faith. This is indeed an important issue that deserves attention in the Church as well as in other ministries that teach the truth and importance of the faith.

STEPS AND RESOURCES FOR SOUND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

4. Is the NT True?, CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

Many people don’t know how to study the Bible, or even where to begin. The Bible is a long collection of books that contains much about ancient history, difficult concepts, and is very intimidating for people who want to read it but don’t know where to start. This article will describe some of the principles of interpreting the Bible (hermeneutics) that are taught in basic Bible college and seminary classes (but are easy enough for anyone to understand). This is not a 12-step method to anything, it is simply a sound method to examine the biblical text. Well, it is a 3-step method: observation, interpretation, and application.

OBSERVATION

When we read a passage, we typically want to ask, “What does it mean?” But there is a more basic question we should ask first: “What does it say?” It is easy to read into the text something that is not there (this is called eisegesis), often because we simply put words there that aren’t but think they should be. For example, John 20:19 says: “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’” It is often stated that Jesus walked through a wall or the door. However, the text doesn’t say that. It simply says the doors were locked and Jesus appeared to them. Maybe he walked through the door or wall, or maybe he just showed up. We have to observe the text carefully. There are various aspects of the text to observe.

One major area to observe is genre. For example, narrative is treated differently than poetry or didactic literature (such as the epistles). Narrative simply describes what happened, whereas didactic literature prescribes what should happen (in other words, it gives commands). Of course there can be narrative in epistolary literature (or vice versa), but the point is that one needs to be careful, for example, not to make an imperative out of a simple description. It is also arguably the case that one should not use parables to base his theology. This is debated, but the point is that we should be aware of the type of genre we are reading when doing interpretation.

Another aspect of the text to observe is the historical and cultural context. For example, Revelation 3:15-16 says, “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” People often say that Jesus would rather you be completely dedicated to him or not dedicated at all. (Does the latter even make sense?) Actually, what we know from historical information is that the the area being referred to (Laodicea) had hot water pumped in from hot springs and cold water pumped in from cold springs. People went to the hot springs for healing (like being in a hot tub) and went to the cold springs for refreshment (something I would never do as I hate cold water), so the Laodiceans tried to get that water for themselves. However, by the time the water got to Laodicea, it was lukewarm and nasty and when people drank it it would make them vomit. Jesus is saying that he wanted the Laodiceans to be spiritually healing or refreshing. Rather, what the church there had to offer was spiritually nasty. Historical knowledge here clarifies the text for us.

It is also imperative to observe the textual and literary context, that is, what comes before and after the passage you are looking at. We get into trouble when we start looking at passages without understanding the context in which they are in. Sometimes we don’t have to go back to the beginning of the book, but we should at least start with he literary unit in which our passage is found. The chapters and verses don’t necessarily determine that, so pay attention to what the text is saying. Does the passage start with a conjunction such as “but” or “and?” Then it’s a good idea to see what preceded that conjunction.

In looking at the textual and literary context we can observe the structure of the passage. Are words, phrases or sentences in a certain order or pattern? For example, we should be on the look out for chiasms. Chiasms are structures that have an ABCBA order. Sometimes it could have an ABBA order, such as in Romans 10:9-10, which says: “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Notice the mouth/heart/heart/mouth structure. The middle part of the chiasm is meant to emphasize the author’s point. Look at the below chiasm from the flood story:

Such a long chiasm is hard to identify, but if we start to see patterns in the wording of the text and in a certain order, it can be found. While the story of the flood is typically thought to be about judgment, the focal point of the flood story is actually that God remembered Noah. The entire Book of Mark is actually a chiasm. The below image is taken from my Hermeneutics class notes by Dr. Tom Howe:

Another area to observe is terms. This particular area of observation is difficult not to blend with interpreting (asking about the meaning). However, we have to observe what terms are (and are not) used. As you probably know, the Bible was not written in English. Almost all of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with some areas being written in Aramaic (such as much of Daniel with the rest being Hebrew—something that itself needs to be observed), and the New Testament was written in Greek. Word studies are very popular, and many times all of Bible study is simply reduced to a word study, which it should not be. But it should be part of our study. It is important to know what underlying original word was used, if we can, when doing a Bible study. Some people are more trained at this than others, but it is a goal we should have.

When observing terms, we need to look for terms that are repeated. Such repetition of terms can show the structure of the book or passage. Such as the word “immediately” in Mark. The word “immediately” is used 5 times in Matthew, and fewer than that in Luke and John. But Mark uses it over 40 times. Why is that? It is obviously an important term for him. Let me put that into a graphic for you:

We should also observe terms that are difficult to understand, such as “predestination.” Figure of speech is also important to observe. Sometimes it is debatable as to whether a text is a figure of speech or not. There are some rules that can help discover if something should be taken as a figure of speech. For example, if something for whatever reason cannot be taken literally, then it should be taken as a figure of speech—such as when Jesus told his disciples at the Last Supper that the bread and wine was his body and blood. If something would be an immoral command from God, such as when Jesus said to eat and drink his body, that should be taken as a figure of speech. Of course, these examples are debatable between Catholics and Protestants, but the general rule holds true that when something cannot be taken literally, it needs to be taken as a figure of speech.

We also need to take note of words that are unfamiliar to us, such as “talent.” When we read, for example, in the parable of the unforgiving servant, that the servant owed ten thousand talents, we need to know what a talent is. (This gets blurry with our second step, interpretation.) Some translations, such as the NIV, translate “ten thousand talents” here as “ten thousand bags of gold.” One talent was about twenty years worth of wages. More on this in the next section, but the point is we need to be aware of these words—in other words, observe them.

INTERPRETATION

This is the step we generally start with but shouldn’t: what does the text mean? Back to the “talent” story. We observed that the word used in the parable of the unforgiving servant is “talent,” but the NIV says “bags of gold.” A talent was about 20 years worth of wages. If the average wage is around $45k, then that’s $900k. I don’t know how much a bag of gold is worth, but we’d have to multiply $900k by 10k for it to be accurate in talents. My iPhone calculator got an error when I did that. Ten thousand talents was more money than the known world had then, and ten thousand was the highest number in Greek. The point was actually that the amount of money the servant owed was unimaginable. Ten thousand bags of gold just doesn’t seem to be a good translation. This is an example of both the observation and the meaning of a word.

Another example is the word “power” in Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” The word for “power” in Greek is dynamis, from which we get the word “dynamite.” Some today, even popular commentators, say that the gospel, like dynamite, blows up sin. The problem with this view is that dynamite didn’t exist in the first century, so that can’t be what Paul meant. It simply means “power” or “ability.” This is a good example of what not to do in interpretation: import a later meaning into an earlier word. Remember, a text can’t mean what it never meant. This particular issue is called the fallacy of reverse etymology (etymology is the study of how words change over time) or anachronism.

Don’t know Greek? There are tools to help. Let me illustrate with a couple that I used before I studied Greek. I used to listen to a popular teacher and in one of his sermons he quoted Acts 2:24 to argue that Jesus went to hell. The text says this: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (the KJV from which he was using says “pains”). According to this teacher, since Jesus was in pain, then he must have been suffering, which wouldn’t have happened in heaven, so he must have been in hell. I was looking at that passage one day in my newly purchased Hebrew and Greek study Bible that used Strong’s Dictionary number system. The word “pain” had a number by it, so I looked it up. It said the word was “odin.” I also had just gotten the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (this is not an endorsement of TDNT as it is said to be pretty liberal, but it can be helpful in some ways), and looked up the word there. Basically, TDNT said that the word referred to birth pain, and that Peter was making an analogy here between a woman not being able to hold her baby in, but at the right time she gives birth, and death not being able to hold Jesus, but at the right time was forced to let go of him. It does not mean Jesus was in pain. Lessons: look words up. Get some tools.

But, as mentioned, word studies are not the only aspect of Bible study. When doing interpretation, we have to not only examine the meaning of particular words, but how words relate to other words. The former is merely grammar and the latter is syntax. This requires a knowledge of grammar as well as parts of speech and how words relate to each other. This is why simple word studies, while obviously useful, is not the only part of the game. Words aren’t in isolation, but relate to other words. Let me give you an example of how it is important to see how words relate to each other.

Several years ago in a Ph.D. class on philosophy of history, my professor, Mike Licona, said that we should not take the saints being raised in Matthew 27 literally because if we did, it would result in a problem in the text (this issue has since become a hot issue for him and the issue of inerrancy). Here’s the text: “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matthew 27:51-53, ESV). Do you see the problem? I have read this passage for years and never noticed it. The context of the passage is Christ’s death. When was the curtain torn, and when did the earth shake? At his death—Friday. When did the tombs open and when were the saints raised? Friday. When does it say they came out of their tombs? After his resurrection—Sunday! That’s a natural reading of this translation. I haven’t seen any other English translations say it differently. The text seems to say that they were raised and the tombs were opened at the same time as the other events. But it seems to say that they didn’t come “out of their tombs until after his resurrection.”

I didn’t like this and was distracted by it. So, I stopped listening to the lecture (sorry Mike), and went to the Greek. Long story short, here was my solution: the word for “and” is kai in Greek and has several meanings, such as “even.” When it means “even” it tends to be emphatic/explanatory. In this case it could mean, “the saints were raised even coming out of their graves.” This seems to emphasize the physical nature of the event and that it wasn’t merely spiritual. Then, we could re-punctuate the sentence to read, “the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, even coming out of their tombs. After his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” I actually asked Mike if this was an acceptable answer as he knows Greek much better than me, and he said yes, as long as the word for “after” (meta) can start a new sentence. It can, an actually does a lot in narrative. Such a solution maintains proper Greek and English grammar and syntax. But it requires seeing how words relate to each other. It also requires observation and interpretation. (Some may object to such an answer as it appears to make the saints “resurrected” or first fruits before Jesus, but such is not necessary. The text does not imply they were raised immortal like Jesus. Remember, Jesus was not the first person raised from the dead. Elijah raised someone as did Jesus—Lazarus.)

I use this example to show a couple of things. One, don’t be married to any single English translation. Look at other translations (although I haven’t found an English translation that doesn’t have this particular problem here) and look, to whatever capacity you can, at the original languages. Two, the punctuation is not inspired (neither are the chapters and verses). In other words, read the text freshly and see if there are other ways to understand it and if the meaning changes.

One last note on interpretation and meaning. There can only be one meaning (although there can be many applications of that meaning: see below). While it is common for teachers to go around the room and ask their students, “What does this passage mean to you,” it is a bad question. It can’t mean to one person something that it doesn’t mean for all. It can have a different significance, but the actual meaning is fixed. (For a discussion on the issue argument the meaning is subjective or unattainable due to our biases, see my article on standard hermeneutics books as well as my article on historical objectivity.) While there are debates about what a given passage means, there can be only one right answer. It is up to studious interpreters to discover that meaning through the hermeneutical process. More could be said about interpretation, but let’s move on.

APPLICATION

Application is basically the “so what” part of the process. The question to ask here, after we have asked what does it say and what does it mean, is “how does this passage apply?” Unfortunately, sometimes people want to skip to this step first. Of course we have to know what the text says and means before we can ask how it applies to us. There are certain principles to keep in mind when trying to apply the text. Perhaps it is best up front to state that the text does not always have an application for us. Sometimes the text is informative for us and tells us about what happened, but it doesn’t always have an application. When the text says something like, “this king did this, and then this,” there really is no application, just information. In such instances, it is important not to try to wring out an application when there really isn’t one. Having said this, it is important to point out that even if there is no direct application, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

It’s easy to apply commands: just do or don’t do something. Although, sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a command is meant to be for a certain culture and time or whether it’s mean to be universal. For example, is the issue of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 meant to be universal? What about men not having long hair in verse 14? Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Is Paul saying women shouldn’t teach or exercise authority over a man always, or just in that culture and time? Whatever that text means, the reasoning behind it seems to be universal. Paul gives two reasons for what he said: (1) the order of creation, and (2) who was deceived. If the reasons are universal, then the prohibition would seem to be so as well.

Things aren’t as straightforward with narrative. We have to be careful to not make a description into a prescription. Narrative simply is a narration of what happened. Of course, it can contain other genres, but when we are looking at pure narrative and not a command to us, we have to be careful how we apply the text, if it can be applied. If it is simply a description of what happened, we can’t necessarily make it a prescription of what should happen. For example, the fact that Gideon put out a fleece to discern God’s will is not a command for us to. The fact that Elijah and other people in the OT were called supernaturally by God does not mean we can say that’s how God normally operates or “calls” people today. Here are some other pitfalls to avoid with application:

Analogizing: analogizing is what we just referred to with the call of Elijah. Just because God called Elijah does not mean that he calls us. This “call” is often analogized between Israel’s prophets and people today, but such an application is illicit. We simply can’t say that because God did something in ancient Israel that he does so today.

Allegorizing: Allegorizing is when we take a literal event and make the application allegorical. For example, we can talk about the person who “loosed his donkey for Jesus” when he entered Jerusalem. I once heard someone say he heard a pastor talk about “loosing your donkey for Jesus.” I guess that’s supposed to mean you are making what you have available for Jesus, but the text is talking about an event that actually happened. It is not a command.

Spiritualizing: Spiritualizing is similar to allegorizing. It takes literal events and gives a spiritual significance. A popular example of this is to present the story of Jesus calming the storm for the disciples and say “Jesus stills the storms of life.” There are a few problems with this. One is that this was a literal storm and was not meant to say that Jesus actually stills the storms of life. It isn’t talking about spiritual storms or tough times: it’s talking about a storm! Secondly, Jesus doesn’t still the storms of life if that means that he stops the storm like he did in the story. To say that he stills the storms of life is not only to state something that is false but to endanger someone’s faith who expects him to still his storms.

So what do we do to apply the text? One thing is to do what the text says to do if it is issuing a command. If it’s narrative, it’s to see what universal principle can be applied. In the story of David and Goliath, it is a spiritualization to say that we should go and slay the Goliaths in our lives. The biblical passage is talking about a literal person named Goliath. It is not giving a command, but describing something that actually happened. But we can glean universal principles. In this story that principle could be that God is faithful to the promises he makes and to his covenant. Here are some other principles from which to see how to apply the text:

Is there an example for me to follow?
Is there a sin to avoid?
Is there a promise to claim?
Is there a prayer to repeat?
Is there a command to obey?
Is there a condition to meet?
Is there a verse to memorize?
Is there an error [theological] to mark?
Is there a challenge to face? (Howard Hendricks, Living by the Book, chapter 44)

The New International Application Commentary is an excellent commentary series to use to bridge the gap between the biblical times and ours to see if and how the text can be applied.

One last word about application: while the meaning is one, the application can be many since there are many situations in which to apply the text.

TOOLS FOR STUDY

If one is going to study the Bible, it is best to understand the tools that are available. Resources that this 3-step method is based on include Methodical Bible Study and Living by the Book (Living by the Book has a workbook).The most important tool is the Bible itself. There are hundreds of English translations of the Bible but there are generally 3 categories of translation philosophies: essentially literal (A.K.A. formal equivalence), dynamic equivalence (A.K.A. functional equivalence), and paraphrase. It is very important to use an essentially literal Bible for Bible study (see Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation for a discussion on this), and I would argue for reading it too, but a good dynamic equivalent translation can be ok for reading. Paraphrases have even been recommended by good interpreters, but mainly to see the general sense of the passage. The front matter in your Bible should explain what translational philosophy it holds to. Essentially literal Bibles include the King James Version, The New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Version, and the like. Dynamic equivalent translations include the New International Version, the Good News Bible, and the New English Translation. (The NET is worthwhile for its 60,000+ notes, and is available free at Bible.org.) Paraphrases include The Message, The Living Bible, and as I like to point out to my students, the Cotton Patch Gospel, that tells the story of Jesus from the vantage point of southerners in the U. S. (he is born in Gainesville, GA and escapes to Mexico).

Then there are commentaries. Commentaries are useful in many ways, but ideally should be consulted after your own study so you aren’t biased in a certain direction. There are two basic types of commentaries: critical (technical) and non-critical (non-technical). A commentary is critical if it discusses textual issues such as variations between different manuscripts of the original languages, or discusses the original languages in general. Some commentaries go into a great deal of detail and others don’t. Sometimes you just need a brief overview of an issue. For that I recommend The Bible Knowledge Commentary, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary and the Tyndale New Testament Commentary (as a set here). The NIV Application Commentary is another non-technical commentary. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, and The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (as a set here) is also very good. It is non-technical in the text but has technical/critical information in the notes. The IVP Bible Background Commentary (separate for OT and NT) is good for giving . . . the background, as are the The Lexham Geographical Commentary on the Gospels, The Lexham Geographical Commentary on Acts through Revelation, and The New Testament in Antiquity. There are actually commentaries on commentaries. These are basically long annotated biographies but with more information on the pluses and minuses of each set. See for example the Old Testament Commentary Survey,the New Testament Commentary Survey, and Commentary and Reference Survey. For a free and very useful resource, see Daniel Akin’s “Building a Theological Library.” It is not necessary to buy a complete set. As the commentary surveys and and Akin’s site show, some commentaries in a set are better than others, thus, it might be more beneficial if cost is an issue to buy certain individual commentaries. It is also important to pick up a good Bible dictionary and encyclopedia. There are a number of those in each category.

I can’t have a section on study tools and not mention Logos. There are many electronic software programs for Bible study. I have used Logos since 2004 and don’t want to try to do Bible study without it. I have required Logos in a couple of my classes as well, and the students love it too. Not only does it offer original language tools, it has incredibly complex search capabilities for the Bible, as well as the other books in your Logos library. And it is just that: a library. They have tens of thousands of books and tools. Other programs are good and there are debates about which is best, but I have used and love Logos. Others programs are BibleWorks, Olive Tree, or Accordance (only for Mac). Good free software is Blue Letter Bible and e-Sword.

CONCLUSION

What has been said hardly scratches the surface of biblical interpretation. It is certainly incomplete, but only mean to give some pointers and hopefully motivation for doing Bible study. This article is not meant to make Bible study seem hard, but to show that it takes work and offer some hopefully helpful tips. If you want to understand this system better, I encourage you to get Methodical Bible Study and/or Living by the Book. Thanks for reading, and please subscribe!

Norman L. Geisler: A Student’s Tribute

Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

I first heard about Dr. Norman L. Geisler when I was in high school. I bought his When Skeptics Ask. I glossed over it but thought it was beyond me. During my senior year of college, my wife and I decided to move back to my native Charlotte after graduation and study apologetics under Dr. Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Before making the move, we visited the seminary. While sitting in the registrar’s office, Dr. Geisler walked by, and I was star struck. After the tour, Dr. Doug Potter introduced us to Dr. Geisler. I was so nervous. He asked if we had lunch plans. I got even more nervous. We said no, and he asked if we would have lunch with him. Of course, we said yes. On the way out of the building he asked if I would drive as his car was in the shop. Even more nervous.

We went to a place called Wolfgang Puck (which is no longer there). I asked what he recommended and he said the butternut squash soup. So, I got that. Let me tell you, it was awful! Between the nervousness and the bad taste, I just couldn’t eat. However, after a while my nerves calmed, and he noticed I wasn’t eating. He asked if I didn’t like the soup, and I replied no (feeling badly). “Here, have some of my sandwich,” he said. Norman Geisler gave me half of his sandwich! I felt so bad. However, that is the kind of man he was. To be such a rock star in the world of evangelical apologetics, philosophy, theology, and biblical studies, he was such a humble man. That was something that I would notice for years to come.

As a student I took several classes from him, including Intro to Apologetics, several theology courses, a philosophy course, and the Problem of Evil. Of course, everyone knows he was a scholarly man. With over 100 books to his name, and I don’t know how many articles and presentations, he had a profound impact on the evangelical community. In fact, his impact was felt in many more circles than that. I have heard several people outside of evangelicalism, such as Ed Feser, and even outside of Christianity, such as Michael Ruse, praise him for his scholarship and care.

I have learned many things from Dr. Geisler. Having read several of his books, taken several classes, and co-taught with him, several characteristics stick out to me.

First, he was as logical as Spock. He could take a complicated argument (or an incoherent mess), and explain it to anyone in the most logical fashion, removing all unnecessary emotion. This is extremely important in issues of philosophy and apologetics when an issue can be convoluted or overly emotional. Second, he was a wizard at debating. Having seen several of his debates and discussions with unbelievers, he was a force to be reckoned with. Third, he was very caring of his students. He went out of his way to help however he could. He didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk. I remember him taking time to help me with my application to be an Air Force chaplain. I had to answer questions that I didn’t even understand what was being asked, let alone how to answer. He was patient and helpful. My wife was always amazed at how he remembered her name with over 50 students in a class and often asked for updates since the last time he had chatted with her even if it had been months prior. Fourth, and this is possibly what he is known best for, he was a bulldog at safeguarding evangelical issues such as inerrancy, the classical view of God, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

His grace as a teacher didn’t stop with him being my professor. I was fortunate and honored to be able to teach a few classes with him. He treated me with grace and respect, even though I was very much his weaker assistant professor. He was never too busy to stop and say hello and see how things were going.

We can take the following lessons from our fellow servant of Christ: Be knowledgeable Christians. We have to know what we believe and why, and be prepared to defend it. We have to understand our interlocutor’s argument if we want to evaluate it. We have to make the Bible and devotion to Christ our first and foremost goal in life. It is not simply about winning arguments; it is about winning people for Jesus. Last, we have to be willing to serve others. We must live the servant life, as Christ and Dr. Geisler did.

El decaimiento del cristianismo y de la razonabilidad en occidente

Español

Por J. Brian Huffling

El Problema

El 22 de agosto de 2021, el Christian Post publicó un artículo en el que se afirmaba que más “del 60% de los cristianos nacidos de nuevo en Estados Unidos con edades entre los 18 y los 39 años creen que Buda, Mahoma y Jesús son todos caminos válidos para la salvación y más del 30% afirman que creen que Jesús pecó como otras personas” o que “no están seguros”. Además, la encuesta realizada a “3.100 estadounidenses de entre 18 y 55 años en 2020” vio un descenso significativo en lo que ellos llaman una “cosmovisión bíblica básica”, que incluye cuestiones como la naturaleza de Dios, la fiabilidad de la Biblia, la salvación, así como la impecabilidad de Jesús. El número de personas en esa categoría disminuyó “del 47% en 2010 al 25% en 2020 entre los cristianos nacidos de nuevo”. Lo que se denomina “cosmovisión bíblica ampliada” (creencias respecto a Satanás y la moral objetiva) cayó “del 32% en 2010 al 16% en 2020.” Hubo una caída notable entre “la población general” también con respecto a las creencias básicas de la cosmovisión bíblica (13% a 6%) y para la cosmovisión bíblica expandida (9% a aproximadamente 3%).

Evaluación

¿A qué se debe el descenso de estas creencias? Según Kirby Anderson, especialista en ética y presidente de Probe Ministries, esto se debe “a que los pastores no enseñan sistemáticamente la teoría bíblica” y a que “los jóvenes cristianos no prestan atención” por estar distraídos con otros asuntos, como las redes sociales y lo que sea más importante para ellos.

¿Pueden las personas sostener estas posiciones no bíblicas y ser realmente cristianos “nacidos de nuevo”? Esta última pregunta es para otra ocasión. Me concentraré en la primera. Estoy de acuerdo con Anderson en que, hasta cierto punto, los pastores y los líderes de las iglesias comparten la culpa en esta situación. Las iglesias suelen estar más interesadas en otras cuestiones que en el discipulado y el aprendizaje genuino. Muchos, si no la mayoría de los cristianos, ni siquiera pueden articular las creencias básicas de su fe. Por ejemplo, doctrinas como la Trinidad y la divinidad de Cristo suelen, o al menos a menudo, ser distorsionadas por los cristianos cotidianos. A menudo, incluso los pastores no pueden describir con precisión los fundamentos de tales doctrinas. En algunos círculos, la falta de educación teológica se celebra, ya que supuestamente desvía la atención de la guía y la enseñanza del Espíritu Santo. Si Dios nos dice lo que tenemos que creer y de lo que tenemos que hablar en la iglesia, ¿para qué ir a la escuela? Trato estos temas en otro post que escribí sobre tener una fe intelectual. Sin embargo, ya no basta con saber lo que dice la Biblia. Es imperativo que no sólo sepamos qué es el cristianismo, sino que sepamos si lo creemos, por qué lo creemos y cómo defenderlo. Este último punto apenas se discute en las iglesias.

Sin embargo, los pastores no son la única causa de este problema. Hay una gran cantidad de causas. Aunque la iglesia está destinada a fomentar y alimentar nuestra vida espiritual, no está destinada a ser el medio principal para conseguirla. Nuestra vida espiritual debe empezar en casa.

Otra cuestión es la educación en general. A menudo no se permite a los estudiantes fracasar en la escuela. El conocimiento general del mundo y de la historia de las ideas ha disminuido. El pensamiento crítico y la lógica se han eliminado del plan de estudios general. La lista es interminable. Los sentimientos están por encima de la lógica y la regla fundamental es no ofender a los demás. Hoy en día, ofender a los demás es el pecado imperdonable. La falta de lógica y la abundancia de sentimientos han sido una fórmula infalible para la irracionalidad. ¿Necesita un ejemplo? ¿Quién iba a pensar hace una década, por no hablar de hace una generación, que el género de una persona no sería un hecho objetivo y científico, sino que se basaría simplemente en deseos y sentimientos? ¿Por qué las personas supuestamente racionales aceptan esta locura? Porque no queremos herir los sentimientos de nadie y queremos ser inclusivos.

Lo mismo se aplica a la religión. Si uno dice que Jesús es el único camino a la salvación, entonces necesariamente es excluyente, sin amor, intolerante, etc. Así, se ha violado la regla cardinal. Los sentimientos se elevan por encima de la razón y la realidad. Entonces, ¿qué debe hacer una persona? Me alegro de que lo pregunte.

Estudiar la lógica

Muchas de las ridículas afirmaciones que se hacen hoy en día, como que toda religión es verdadera, pueden refutarse simplemente comprendiendo las reglas básicas del pensamiento y la realidad. Por ejemplo, la ley de no contradicción establece que algo no puede ser X y no-X simultáneamente. En otras palabras, si una religión, como el judaísmo, el cristianismo y el islam, enseña que un Creador provocó la existencia del universo, y las religiones panteístas, como el hinduismo, enseñan que no hay un Creador y que el universo siempre ha existido, entonces esas dos enseñanzas no pueden ser ambas verdaderas. Dado que la existencia de Dios es algo importante en la mayoría de las religiones, la negación de una deidad falsificaría muchas, si no la mayoría, de las religiones. En otras palabras, no todas las religiones pueden ser iguales. Jesús no puede ser el único camino de salvación y no ser el único camino de salvación. Es un camino o el otro.

También es importante señalar que toda afirmación es exclusiva, ya que dice que lo contrario es falso. Mientras que afirmar que Jesús es el único camino es exclusivo y estrecho, lo contrario es igual de exclusivo y estrecho. El número de personas en consideración no tiene nada que ver con la naturaleza de la exclusividad o estrechez de la afirmación real. Esto nos lleva a otro punto:

Conocimiento de la enseñanza religiosa

Muchos cristianos podrían afirmar que la Biblia no dice que Jesús es el único camino. Sin embargo, la Biblia hace tales afirmaciones en abundancia. Por ejemplo, Jesús dijo: “Jesús le dijo*: Yo soy el camino, y la verdad, y la vida; nadie viene al Padre sino por mí. “. Juan 14:6 (LBLA). Además, Hechos 4:12 afirma: “Y en ningún otro hay salvación, porque no hay bajo el cielo otro nombre dado a los hombres por el que podamos ser salvos”. Por lo tanto, la Biblia puede estar lógicamente equivocada, pero no puede tener razón y estar equivocada en el mismo punto al mismo tiempo, por la ley de no contradicción. Afirma claramente que Jesús es el único camino a la salvación. Si no lo es, entonces la afirmación bíblica es simplemente falsa. Por lo tanto, uno puede negar la Biblia, pero no puede reescribirla. Estamos atados a lo que dice, sin importar si rompe nuestra regla cardinal de no ofender a otros. El punto: si esta es una creencia necesaria para ser cristiano, entonces uno puede negarla, pero no puede negarla y seguir siendo un Cristiano verdadero. En lugar de poner nuestras emociones y deseos como norma de la verdad, la Biblia nos incomoda con la razón y la realidad, dos aspectos incómodos para nuestro entorno cultural actual.

Los pastores y las iglesias pueden preparar a sus congregantes

Ha habido muchas encuestas, como la citada aquí, que hablan de que el 75% de los jóvenes abandonan el cristianismo después de su primer semestre de universidad. Si bien no estoy de acuerdo con estas cifras, ya que a lo mejor muchos no eran realmente creyentes, es absolutamente cierto que los padres y los pastores deben preparar a los jóvenes para la universidad. Las charlas motivacionales en la iglesia, los campamentos de la iglesia y los conciertos cristianos son estupendos, pero no empiezan a enseñar a los jóvenes a articular y defender su fe. Los no creyentes son despiadados en su odio al cristianismo y a todo lo racional; por lo tanto, es importante formar a nuestros jóvenes no sólo para que conozcan los fundamentos del cristianismo, sino también para que sean capaces de explicar por qué lo creen.

Los padres deben capacitar a sus hijos

Si bien las iglesias comparten la culpabilidad de estos temas, los padres también tienen un papel vital en la educación de sus hijos. Las escuelas y las iglesias ayudan a ello, pero en última instancia, si tenemos hijos criados en nuestros hogares y en la iglesia, y su profesor de Introducción a la Filosofía destroza su fe en tan sólo unas semanas, entonces probablemente no estaban muy bien educados sobre su fe para empezar. (Todo esto dice algo sobre la noción de que uno debe simplemente tomar las afirmaciones del cristianismo sólo por fe, donde fe significa fe irracional o ciega. Esto no sólo es irracional y antibíblico, sino que también es peligroso, ya que lo deja a uno expuesto a una serie de dudas cuando se enfrenta a ello).

Dónde acudir en busca de respuestas

Cuando tenía quince años, empecé a hacerme preguntas sobre mi fe. No dudaba de ella, pero no estaba seguro de por qué la creía. Un día me di cuenta de que, en materia de religión, todo el mundo cree tener razón. Pues bien, no todos podemos tener razón, según esa persistente ley de no contradicción. Entonces, ¿cómo sabía que tenía razón? Empecé a estudiar apologética (ser capaz de defender la posición de uno, en este caso sobre el cristianismo) a un nivel muy laico. En la universidad, decidí que quería un conocimiento más profundo de estos temas. Descubrí el Southern Evangelical Seminary. El SES es una de las mejores escuelas del mundo para estudiar apologética. (Aclaración: actualmente soy profesor en SES.) SES ofrece certificados, una licenciatura, varios másteres, un doctorado en ministerio y un doctorado. Todos los programas de estudio tienen un componente apologético integrado en el tejido de los cursos. Si está interesado en aprender a entender y defender mejor su fe, o en ayudar a su familia a hacerlo, ¡deje que SES le ayude!

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. Tiene una licenciatura en Historia por la Universidad de Lee, un máster en (3 especialidades) Apologética, Filosofía y Estudios Bíblicos por el Seminario Evangélico del Sur (SES), y un doctorado en Filosofía de la Religión por el SES. Es director del programa de doctorado y profesor asociado de filosofía y teología en SES. También imparte cursos para Apologia Online Academy. Anteriormente ha enseñado en el Instituto de Arte de Charlotte. Ha servido en los Marines, en la Marina y actualmente es capellán de reserva en las Fuerzas Aéreas en la Base Aérea de Maxwell. Sus aficiones incluyen el golf, la astronomía de patio, las artes marciales y la guitarra.

Blog Originalmente publicado aquí: https://cutt.ly/4PnnoGE

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Yatniel Vega García

March 4, 2022/by Guest

The Decline of Christianity—and Rationality—in the West

Culture CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

The Issue

On August 22, 2021, the Christian Post published an article that claimed greater “than 60% of born again Christians in America between the ages of 18 and 39 believe that Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus are all valid paths to salvation and over 30% say they either believe that Jesus sinned like other people” or that they “aren’t sure.” Further, the survey of “3,100 Americans ages 18 to 55 in 2020” saw a significant decline in what they call a “basic biblical worldview,” which includes issues such as the nature of God, the reliability of the Bible, salvation, as well as the sinlessness of Jesus. The number of people in that category dropped “from 47% in 2010 to 25% in 2020 among born again Christians.” What is referred to as “expanded biblical worldview” (beliefs regarding Satan and objective morality) fell “from 32% in 2010 to 16% in 2020.” There was a noticeable drop among “the general population” as well regarding basic biblical worldview beliefs (13% to 6%) and for expanded biblical worldview (9% to about 3%).

Assessment

Why is there a decline in such beliefs? According to Kirby Anderson, ethicist and president of Probe Ministries, such is “due to pastors not consistently teaching biblical theory” and to “young Christians who are not paying attention” due to being distracted by other issues, such as social media and whatever is more important to them.

Can people hold to these unbiblical positions and really be genuine “born again” Christians? The latter question is one for another time. I will focus on the former. I agree with Anderson on the point that to a degree pastors and church leaders share a blame in this situation. Churches are typically more interested in other issues than discipleship and genuine learning. Many if not most Christians cannot even articulate the basic beliefs of their faith. For example, such doctrines as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are usually, or at least often, distorted by everyday Christians. Often, even pastors cannot accurately describe the basics of such doctrines. In some circles, a lack of theological education is actually celebrated as it allegedly takes the focus off of the Holy Spirit’s leading and teaching. If God tells us what to believe and what to talk about in church, then why go to school? I discuss these issues in another post I wrote about having an intellectual faith. However, simply knowing what the Bible says is not enough anymore. It is imperative that we not only know what Christianity is, but know whether we believe it, why we believe it, and how to defend it. The latter point is hardly discussed in churches.

However, pastors are not the sole cause of this problem. There are a host of such causes. While church is meant to foster and nourish our spiritual life, it is not meant to be the primary means to attain it. Our spiritual life should start at home.

Another issue is education in general. Students are often not allowed to fail in school. General knowledge of the world and the history of ideas has decreased. Critical thinking and logic have been taken out of the general curriculum. The list goes on and on. Feelings now trump logic, and the cardinal rule is not to offend others. Today, offending others is the unpardonable sin. A lack of logic and an abundance of feeling-driven inclusiveness has been a surefire formula for irrationality. Need an example? Who would have thought just a decade ago, let alone a generation ago, that one’s gender would not be an objective, scientific fact, but instead merely based on wants and feelings? Why do allegedly rational people go along with such insanity? Because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and we want to be inclusive.

The same applies to religion. If one says that Jesus is the only way to salvation, then he necessarily is exclusive, unloving, bigoted, etc. Thus, the cardinal rule has been violated. Feelings are indeed elevated above reason and reality. So what is a person to do? I’m glad you asked.

Study Logic

Many of the ridiculous claims made today, such as every religion is true, can be disproven simply by understanding the basic rules of thought and reality. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that something can’t be X and not-X simultaneously. In other words, if one religion, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, teach that a Creator brought about the existence of the universe, and pantheistic religions, such as Hinduism, teach that there is no Creator and the universe has always existed, then those two teachings cannot both be true. Since the existence of God is kind of a big deal in most religions, the denial of a deity would falsify many if not most religions. In other words, not all religions can be the same. Jesus cannot be the only way to salvation and not be the only way to salvation. It’s either one way or the other.

It is also important to note that every claim is exclusive as it says the opposite of it is false. While asserting that Jesus is the only way is exclusive and narrow, the opposite is just as exclusive and narrow. The number of people in consideration has nothing to do with the nature of the exclusiveness or narrowness of the actual claim. This brings us to another point:

Knowledge of Religious Teaching

Many Christians might assert that the Bible does not say Jesus is the only way. However, the Bible makes such claims in abundance. For example, Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6. Further, Acts 4:12 states, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Thus, the Bible can logically be wrong, but it can’t be right and wrong on the same point at the same time, per the law of non-contradiction. It clearly asserts Jesus is the only way to salvation. If he isn’t, then the biblical claim is simply false. Thus, one can deny the Bible, but he can’t rewrite it. We are stuck with what it says, regardless of whether it breaks our cardinal rule of not offending others. The point: if this is a necessary belief for being a Christian, then one can deny it, but one can’t deny it and remain a true Christian. Rather than placing our emotions and desires as the standard of truth, the Bible inconveniences us with reason and reality—two inconvenient aspects to our current cultural milieu.

Pastors and Churches Can Prepare Their Congregants

There have been many polls like the one cited here that talk about 75% or so of youth ditching Christianity after their first semester of college. While I take exception to such numbers since many were probably not really believers to begin with, as a matter of principle it is absolutely true that parents and pastors should prepare youth for college. Motivational talks in church, church camps, and Christian concerts are great, but they don’t begin to teach young people how to articulate and defend their faith. Nonbelievers are ruthless in their hatred for Christianity and everything rational; so, it is important to train our youth to not only know the basics of Christianity but also be able to explain why they believe it.

Parents Should Train Their Children

While churches share in the culpability of these issues, parents also have a vital role to play in the education of their children. Schools and churches help with that, but ultimately, if we have children brought up in our homes and church, and their Intro to Philosophy professor wrecks their faith in just a few weeks, then they probably weren’t very well-educated about their faith to begin with. (All of this says something about the notion that one should simply take Christianity’s claims on faith alone, where faith means unreasonable or blind faith. Not only is this irrational and unbiblical, but it is also dangerous since it leaves one open for serious doubt when faced with it.)

Where to Go for Answers

When I was fifteen, I started asking myself questions about my faith. I didn’t doubt it, but I wasn’t sure why I believed it. It dawned on me one day that when it comes to religion, everyone thinks he is right. Well, we can’t all be right, per that persistent law of non-contradiction. So, how did I know I was right? I started studying apologetics (being able to defend one’s position, in this case on Christianity) at a very lay level. In college, I decided I wanted a more in-depth knowledge of such issues. I discovered Southern Evangelical Seminary. SES is one of the top schools in the world for studying apologetics. (Disclaimer: I currently am a professor at SES.) SES offers certificates, a bachelor’s degree, several master’s degrees, a doctor of ministry, and a Ph.D. All programs of study have an apologetic component integrated into the fabric of the courses. If you are interested in learning how to better understand and defend your faith, or help your family do so, let SES help you!

Divine Impassibility: God As Our Unaffected Fortress

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

Several of my previous blogs have dealt with divine simplicity and some objections to the doctrine. As I have written, it is the most important divine attribute, even if it is hotly debated.

Those who accept simplicity are on a completely different theological trajectory from those who reject it.

I would argue that its acceptance puts one on the trajectory to classical theism while its denial puts one on the trajectory to process theology since its rejection implies or outright states that God changes and is thus in a process. If simplicity is true, then God is without potency, or the potential to change. If he is without the potential to change, then by definition he cannot change—it is impossible. He is thus immutable. He is in a state of being, not in a state of becoming.

This leads to another important doctrine, and almost as disputed as divine simplicity: divine impassibility. If God cannot change, then he cannot be affected by anything in a passive way. We cannot make God any different than he is. We don’t make him happy, sad, upset, etc. We don’t add or take away from him in any way. In other words, he is impassible.

In short, this doctrine denies there are passions in God that are changed by his creation. God does not have human emotions. Stating this doctrine, especially to those who have never heard it, usually upsets people. They tend to get emotional about it. After all, doesn’t the Bible teach that God gets angry, jealous, pleased, and the like? Yes, it does. It also teaches that God has a body if we take it literally. God “went down” to Sodom and Gomorrah to see what they were doing (Gen. 19). God is said to have nostrils (Ex. 15:8), ears (2 Sam. 22:7), fingers (Ps. 8:3), and many other body parts. However, orthodox Christians do not believe that the Bible is literal when it says this. After all, John 4:24 says “God is Spirit.” So, if the Bible uses such figurative terms for God having a body, why wouldn’t we take the emotional language to be just as figurative? Historically passions have been tied to physical bodies.

Since God is not physical, he has no passions.

But how do we know that the passages that talk about God being physical aren’t literal, and the passages that talk about him being spiritual aren’t figurative? The answer is in one word: philosophy. We use our philosophical views to interpret Scripture. Since we have arguments and reasons to believe that God is immaterial, eternal, immutable, omnipresent, etc., Scriptures that describe God in contradictory ways to these attributes must be figurative. This should not be surprising given the fact that the Bible tells us that we can know God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, [which] have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1: 20).

So, what does the Bible mean when it says things like God is angry or jealous? It is using figurative language to express a literal truth about God. God is described as angry because he brings about effects and results in a similar way that angry people do, such as wrath, judgment, and destruction. He is said to be jealous since he is against his people going after other gods. This is similar to describing God as a fortress. It should be obvious that God is not made of brick and mortar, but he is similar to a fortress in that he is immovable and stable.

Since the Bible is not a philosophy or theology textbook but rather a collection of letters to his people, it is not surprising that it describes God in such figurative ways. This is really not avoidable. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to study God on a metaphysical level. Thus, the writers of the Bible wrote it so that the words would resonate with its readers. They could have written a dissertation on God being immutable, or they could just say that God is a fortress or a rock. These figurative descriptions resonate with people since figurative language is so highly used. The same is the case with God being angry about sin. We all know what that means. It means that God is against sin and he takes action against it. Even if one didn’t have the metaphysical background to recognize the figurative use of the language, he would still be right in knowing that in some way God is against sin.

Let me say a word about the incarnation as it usually comes up in discussions on divine impassibility. Divine impassibility has only been attributed to the divine nature. It does not hold that Jesus’ human nature is without passions or is immutable. The one person of Jesus has two natures: divine and human. They are not confused (do not overlap). The divine nature is wholly divine while the human nature is wholly human (without sin). So, while it is true that Jesus is God, his human nature is still a human nature, passible, and changeable, while his divine nature remains untouched by human passions or changes in any way.

Like divine simplicity, divine impassibility has fallen on hard times. Many today hold that a being that cannot be affected by our plights, fears, problems, etc. is not a person, not the God of the Bible, and not worthy of worship. Such a God is often compared to the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle that did not care about the world but only contemplated himself. Such is the view of thinkers like William Lane Craig. Consider his answer to a question asked on his website:

“The view that God is in no way affected by creatures is called the impassibility of God. . . . God cannot suffer emotional pain. Divine impassibility was thought by medieval Christian theologians to be one of the attributes of God. So you would find many Christians historically who would agree with [this] view. But on the contemporary scene, there are very few theologians who would defend such a doctrine. There seems to be no good reason for taking the biblical descriptions of God’s emotions non-literally. Far from seeing susceptibility to emotional pain as a weakness, most contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians would say quite the opposite: that it is a weakness for a person to be unmoved by human suffering and a strength to feel emotions, including pain, indignation, compassion, etc. In fact, think of the etymology of the word ‘compassion’: to suffer along with. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be compassionate and share our sorrows and joys. Impassibility is actually a weakness, whereas compassion redounds to God’s greatness.”

This is a fairly typical response from those who hold that God is passible. Notice that there is no philosophical or theological argument here, simply an emotional appeal. It is indeed a weakness for humans to be “unmoved by human suffering,” but we are not talking about a human. We are talking about God. Such blurring of the Creator/creature distinction occurs when we reject divine simplicity.

Having said all that, it is not the case that God as an impassible being is uncaring toward our suffering. This is a mischaracterization of the God of classical theism and the God of the Bible. Being impassible does not equate to being uncaring or unloving. It simply means that given the kind of being God is (based on philosophical investigation that is legitimate even according to the Bible) he is not the kind of being to be affected. He is perfect in himself without any addition or subtraction to his being.

To be the kind of being to be affected he would have to be changeable, temporal, and composed (by whom?). But to be changeable and temporal is to be in a process of change, or just simply in a process. Thus, to agree that God is passible, changeable, and temporal would to agree on some level with process theology. How can God change and suffer along with us without being in a process? Again, either classical theism is true, or process theology is true. There is no third option as attributes like simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and eternality (in the classical sense) are contradictory with their opposites. In other words, either they are true or not.

To modify these attributes is to deny them.

Would we really want God to be moved or suffer along with us like other humans do? Surely he knows of our happiness and sorrows, but does that mean he must be sorrowful with us to understand or care about us? (Again I am speaking of the divine essence, not the human nature of Jesus.) Should we not want a God of stability who cannot be moved or changed by anything? Such would seem to be a God more worthy of worship as we can always count on him being the same. Such also seems to be closer to the God of the Bible.

It should be clear that the acceptance or rejection of simplicity and other classical doctrines such as immutability and impassibility are vital for classical theism, and their rejection leads one to the only other option: process theology.

Who Cares About Philosophy?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

What do these questions have in common: Does God exist? Can God change? Does God know our future? How can a good God allow evil? How do humans know? What does it mean to know? What does it mean to be good? Can we objectively interpret the Bible? The answer: all of these questions are inherently philosophical.

With the recent decision by a very prominent evangelical institution to remove their philosophy department, why should anyone at all care about philosophy? Some would argue that Christians shouldn’t care about philosophy because, as Luther so colorfully put it, philosophy “is the devil’s whore.” In other words, man’s (autonomous) reason cannot be trusted. We only need to preach the gospel and not worry about worldly philosophy. Many in our culture argue that philosophy is mere opinion, worthless, impractical, and a waste of time. The study of philosophy is often seen as useless and a waste of a good education that could have otherwise been helpful in finding a good-paying job. Ironically, the reasons given for such positions are necessarily philosophical. Why? Because philosophy is unavoidable.

I personally found this out when I enrolled at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the fall of 2004. I initially enrolled at SES to study apologetics. I had no idea the impact philosophy would have on me. My first three courses were Intro to Apologetics, Old Testament Survey, and Hamartiology, and Soteriology (Sin and Salvation). None of these courses were inherently philosophical, at least so I thought. Dr. Tom Howe taught Old Testament Survey, and Dr. Norman Geisler taught the other two courses. As it turned out, all these courses were loaded with philosophy.

For example, Dr. Howe demonstrated the role philosophical presuppositions play in arguments marshalled against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Such presuppositions were the product of rationalist thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume. Dr. Geisler demonstrated the role philosophy plays in talking about the nature of truth, God’s existence, and miracles. He even showed how our philosophy of man determines our view of the soul and its relationship to the body (which is important for sin and salvation). Later, Dr. Howe demonstrated how integral philosophy is to hermeneutics (interpreting and understanding a text).

I found out that a philosophy course called Metaphysics (the study of being as such) was being offered in January of 2005. I asked Dr. Doug Potter, the SES Registrar if I should take that class. “Yes,” he said, “it’s the foundation of all that we do.” I really didn’t know what that meant, but I took it. As it turns out, from a philosophical standpoint, it really is the foundation for all that we do, whether in biblical studies, language studies, hermeneutics, etc. Philosophy really is unavoidable.

An Intro to Arguments for God’s Existence

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

Does God exist? This has been one of the most asked questions in history with the most profound implications. As Norman Geisler used to say, our view of God’s existence is most important since it determines what we think about everything else. There are many arguments for God’s existence. This article will examine the standard classical proofs with typical objections and evaluations.

The proofs for God are varied and different, but they can be classified as either a posteriori or a priori. The former means the proofs are based on (or after/post) experience, while the latter are allegedly not based on experience, but prior/apart from it. A posteriori proofs are empirical in nature and take it that we can trust our senses. A priori proofs start with the mind and are thus rationalistic. All but one of the following arguments are a posteriori.

The proofs we will look at are various forms of the cosmological argument, the teleological/intelligent design argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument.

Cosmological Arguments

Cosmological arguments are arguments based on the cosmos (from the Greek kosmos). They are a posteriori in nature, or based on experience and are thus empirical. There are many types of cosmological arguments. For a good survey, see William Lane Craig’s The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. Here we will examine a few such as the Kalam argument and two of the famous Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

The Kalam Argument

The Kalam argument, popularized by William Lane Craig, is an example of what has become known as a horizontal type of cosmological argument since it argues that there is a temporal beginning of the universe in the finite past (horizontally). Here is the argument:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is very straightforward in saying that if something came to exist that did not exist, then it must have a reason (cause) for its existence. This is because a thing must be either (1) self-caused, (2) uncaused, or (3) caused by another. A thing that began to exist can’t be self-caused since it would have to exist prior to bringing itself into being, which is a contradiction. It can’t be uncaused since there would, by definition, be no reason for its existence, and something can’t come from nothing. It must then be caused by another. This premise has its challengers, though. Some will say that things like virtual particles come into being from nothing and for no reason. However, such is simply not the case. Virtual particles are particles that arise from unstable energy in a vacuum. Since unstable energy is clearly not nothing, this is not a counter-example.

The second premise is really the crucial premise. The Kalam was originally provided by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages who argued that an infinite series is impossible, and since an actual infinite amount of time in the temporal past would be an actual infinite, then the universe cannot be temporally infinite: it must have had a beginning. Nowadays it is more popular to use Big Bang cosmology to show the universe had a beginning, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the fact that the universe is expanding, and the radiation echo discovered in the 1960s that demonstrates there was a massive explosion that gave rise to the universe’s expansion.

The Big Bang model is the reigning model, and atheists do not like its implications for a cause of the universe. Good books on this type of argument include Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers, Hugh Ross’ The Creator and the Cosmos, and Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator.

Aquinas’ 5 Ways

Thomas Aquinas’ famous 5 Ways (See Summa Theologiae Part I Q. 2. Art. 3) are other types of cosmological arguments. The first way is an argument from motion. The word ‘motion’ actually means ‘change.’ It is taken from Aristotle. Aquinas calls this “the more manifest way” since it is clear that change happens all around us. For Aristotle and Aquinas, change is when something goes from being potentially x to actually x. For example, a piece of wood can be hot, but until it is actually hot, it is only potentially hot. The actually hot fire actualizes the wood and makes it hot. Further, a thing can only be changed by something else; in other words, a thing can’t be in potency and act in the same way. So, change must be brought about by an actually existing thing. A thing cannot actualize its own potency as that would mean it would be actually and potentially x at the same time, which is a contradiction. The linchpin to this, and all of the 5 ways, is that there cannot be an actual infinite regression of causes like this. Since things are composed of act and potency, they must be put together of act and potency. But being put together like this requires a being that is either put together of these things or not, which cannot go on forever. So there must be a being that is not put together of act and potency, but a being of Pure Act (or pure existence). Such all men call God.

This is a complicated argument based on Aristotelian metaphysics. However, going through all of the metaphysical thought, in the end, pays great dividends. Much can be deduced from God being Pure Act, as Aquinas demonstrates in the subsequent questions. For example, if God is Pure Act, then he is simple, meaning he is not composed of anything. (See this article on divine simplicity.) Being composed, so the argument goes, requires a composer. So he has no potency. But potency is a requirement for change to take place. So if God does not have potency, then he cannot change. (See this article on divine impassibility which is related to this notion that God can’t change.) Further, if he cannot change, then he can’t be measured by time as time has classically been thought to be the measure meant of change. So he is eternal. (See this article on God being eternal.) In this sense, ‘eternal’ does not mean existing forever. Following Boethius, it means that God enjoys all of his being all at once. There is no succession. He is infinite and perfect (also following from Pure Act). Thus, while the argument is much more complicated than the Kalam, it tells us a lot more about God.

Objections to this argument include Newtonian laws of motion and the idea that a thing can change itself. It is argued, some say, that Newton disproved Aristotle’s point here since objects at rest or in motion stay in such a state unless impeded by something else. However, Aristotle’s point is metaphysical in nature, while Newtons’ is physical. Aristotle does not have in mind inertia, like Newton. While inertia (a thing moving in location) certainly is an example of change, it is only an example, and not change as such. Others maintain that a thing can move itself, such as one’s hand. However, the hand does not move the hand; the nervous system does, which is run by the brain, which the will moves. But such is not a counter example to the first way since the point stands that a thing in potency has to be moved by a thing in act.

Whew.

The second way is from efficient causality. It basically says that a thing cannot be the cause of itself since it would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is a contradiction. There cannot be an infinite number of efficient causes since such causes are the causes of intermediary causes, and if there were an infinite number of efficient causes, then there would be no ultimate beginning to effects. An example of this, that I owe to Richard Howe, is a train. When asked what is making a particular boxcar move, one can reply the boxcar in front of it. But there cannot be an infinite number of boxcars since a boxcar cannot cause motion; an engine is required for that. This kind of causes cannot be infinite in number; thus, there must be an ultimate efficient cause that is known as God. This type of cosmological is referred to as a vertical argument since it is based on a hierarchy of causes rather than a temporal beginning in the (horizontal) past.

A typical objection to this argument is, “what created God?” While one can argue with the reasoning or soundness of the above arguments, this objection demonstrates that the objector does not understand the arguments. The first way concludes with a being of Pure Act that per the reasoning can’t have a cause. The second way is the same since there would then require a seeming infinite number of causes, which the argument denies. God as an uncaused cause cannot have a cause, or he wouldn’t be the uncaused cause. Such an objection does not apply to these arguments.

Good books on the above include Maurice Holloway’s An Introduction to Natural Theology, and Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, along with Philosophy of Religion by Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan.

Teleological Arguments

While cosmological arguments argue from the existence of the cosmos, teleological arguments (also known as intelligent design arguments, or ID arguments) argue for God’s existence from the design of the cosmos and biological life. (The term ‘teleological’ comes from the Greek telos, meaning “end” or “goal.”) The argument tends to go like this:

Every design has a designer.
The universe and life exhibit design.
Therefore, the universe and life have a designer.

Regarding design in the universe, design can be seen that allows biological life to live on earth. For instance, the kind of galaxy we are in (spiral), where we are in the galaxy (outer arm), what kind of star we orbit, the size of our moon, the kind and make up of our atmosphere, etc., all go into making biological life possible. Biological life can also be seen to be designed given the amount of specified complexity in the human body. (“Specified complexity” refers to the notion that a given thing needs certain parts to work properly and to perform some function. A typical example is the mousetrap. It has few parts, but each part is necessary for the trap to function properly.) Parts in the human body exemplify specified complexity, such as the eye. Evolution does a poor job of explaining the eye since each part is needed in order to see. Given evolution, the person would not be able to see if the eye were developing slowly via random mutation (or even directed via God for that matter). DNA and the cell also exhibit amazing complexity and design. Since all designs need a designer, the universe and life require a designer.

What about evolution? As the above remarks indicate, evolution has a tough time dealing with specified complexity, as well as the origin of life (for which it has no answer), as well as many other problems. (See The Deniable Darwin and Darwin’s Doubt for a critique of Darwinian evolution. David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion is also very good.) But as a strategic move, one can grant evolution is the case and still argue for God’s existence. This bypasses unnecessary arguments since even if evolution were true, there would still need to be a cause to the universe and biological life (things evolution can’t explain—especially the former). Thus, one doesn’t have to be well-versed in the evolution debate in order to argue for God’s existence.

The ID arguments are very powerful and convincing. However, they don’t provide as much as the cosmological arguments. For example, ID arguments cannot demonstrate creation ex nihilo (that the universe was created from nothing). They also can’t demonstrate monotheism (that only one God exists). What they demonstrate is that there is an intelligent designer (or designers). They also can’t demonstrate that the designer(s) are transcendent to the universe. Nothing in the ID arguments alone can demonstrate that the designer(s) is not part of the universe. Further, natural science on its own cannot demonstrate a transcendent being to the universe since natural science studies nature, and a transcendent being would be supernatural. Thus, natural science is, by definition, limited on the issue of God’s existence without the help of philosophy. (See my earlier blog for a more complete critique of ID arguments and why I think philosophical arguments are stronger.) However, the arguments are very good in showing at least one intelligent designer, and most people are probably convinced that such a being is God. In conjunction with the other arguments, the ID arguments are very powerful.

Typical objections include the need for the designer to have a designer/creator, dysteleology (arguments for a lack of design), the accusation of the god of the gaps fallacy, and evolution. Taking these objections in order, the argument says that designs need designers, not that designers need designers.

Dysteleology is the notion that things are not designed well or do not show signs of design. Many of the examples for this tend to be based on a lack of knowledge. For example, the number of vestigial organs (organs that we supposedly don’t need) have dramatically shrunk in number. Further, the fact that some things may not appear to be designed do not demonstrate the overwhelming design in things like DNA and the cell. Such is positive evidence that far outweighs so-called dysteleology.

Many atheists argue that theists are saying, “We don’t know how this happened, so God must have done it.” (Such is an objection to the cosmological arguments too.) However, the God of the gaps fallacy is when one doesn’t have enough evidence to account for something and then invokes God (fallaciously). However, this is not what theists are doing with the above arguments (teleological or cosmological). We are saying there is so much positive evidence for a designer that there must be one. The God of the gaps fallacy is not committed.

As already stated, evolution is not a reason to give up belief in theism since there must be a cause for the existence of the universe as well as biological life. This is to say nothing of the problems with evolution.

All in all, the ID arguments are strong and persuasive but are not as complete as the philosophical arguments.

Some good resources on the ID arguments are Creator and the Cosmos, The Case for a Creator, and Signature in the Cell.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument is a very popular one. There are at least two forms:

Every law has a lawgiver.
There is a moral law.
Therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.

I have not seen an objection to premise 1. Premise 2 is much more contentious. The reason for it is that one can look anywhere throughout human history and see a basic moral code. For example, moral precepts such as don’t murder, lie, steal, commit adultery are pretty ubiquitous. There are different ways these codes have been understood. For example, in some cultures it is permissible to have several wives while in others it is permissible to have only 1. But cultures will (historically anyway) say that one should not have sex with a woman who is not his wife.

Another form of the argument is:

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

This has the same basic thrust as the first argument, it just takes a conditional form. But both arguments hinge on the objective nature of morality. While some people will argue there is no such thing as objective morality, such a view is hard to consistently maintain. For example, it is hard to maintain that the Nazis were not objectively wrong or that rape is not objectively wrong. The person who argues that the latter is not objectively wrong, for instance, probably would be highly upset if his daughter were raped. As Geisler used to say, we can tell more about a person’s beliefs by his reactions rather than his actions.

The moral argument says that there must be a transcendent cause to explain the objective nature of morality. If it is objective, it can’t be explained from within the human race. Evolution can’t explain the objective nature of morality either, even though atheists maintain that it can. If evolution is invoked to account for it, it should be pointed out that such “morality” could only be egoistic or utilitarian in nature. It could never be objective—only useful.

Such is a good argument. Sometimes it is argued that the moral standard that is invoked is God’s nature. Theists often claim that the Euthyphro Dilemma is solved this way while also providing an objective account of morality. (The Euthyphro Dilemma asks the question—put in modern vernacular—”Does God command what is good because it is good, or is it good because he commands it?” The first option is problematic since it would demonstrate that something is good apart from God, which would raise problems about how it is good without him. The latter option seems to make God arbitrary.) Many say, “The answer to the dilemma is to say God’s nature is the standard of goodness.” This is problematic for many reasons. I have written another article on this topic, so I won’t rewrite that here, but I will point out that it is not clear what it means to say that God is morally good. For humans to be morally good means that they measure up to some standard. Even if God could be said to be morally good, it’s not clear what it would mean for him to measure up to a standard since the standard would be his nature. But it seems incoherent to say a thing measures up to itself. It is also not obvious or clear why the standard for finite, temporal, changing, material beings is a being that is none of these things.

Rather than saying that God is the standard of morality, it seems to make more sense to say that God is the cause of the standard of morality. Instead of saying a non-human is the standard of human morality, it is more rational (and biblical) to maintain that human nature is the standard. But if there is an objective human nature (a highly debated topic in philosophy), there must be a cause to it. At this point, the argument becomes more of a cosmological argument for a cause to the objective human nature.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is the only alleged a priori argument in this article since it purportedly doesn’t argue from the cosmos but from the notion of being. The word ontological comes from the Greek ontos, which means “being.” The argument is an argument from being. It was presented by Anselm, an eleventh-century monk who was asked by his brothers to provide an argument for God’s existence that didn’t rely on Scripture. It goes like this:

God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind.
Thus, God must exist in reality.

It is a simple argument but very contentious. Atheists and theists have debated the merits of this argument more than any other (although there has been considerable interest in the cosmological argument as of late). The logic of the argument is based on a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, to deny God (or the conclusion of the argument) is to affirm a contradiction. If God is the greatest conceivable being and thus must actually exist extra-mentally, then a God that exists only in the mind would not be the greatest conceivable being. Thus, that God (in the mind only) would not be God. Given the nature of existence, God must logically exist extra-mentally.

Another monk named Gaunilo attempted to give a counterexample to Anselm by arguing that the most perfect island must exist extra-mentally rather in the mind only, given the same kind of argument that Anselm gave. Anselm pointed out that the difference was that God would have necessary existence, which makes his argument different than the island argument.

One’s philosophical commitments tend to determine if he thinks this argument is sound. As a moderate realist in the vein of Aristotle and Aquinas, I do not think the argument is sound as it makes a logical leap from the order of knowing to the order of being.

For resources on the moral and ontological arguments, see Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, along with Philosophy of Religion by Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan. For all of the above arguments in their primary (original) text, see Brian Davies’ Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology and Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Resources.

Conclusion

The above are merely a sampling of theistic proofs from a bird’s eye view. The interested reader should consult the recommended readings for more information. It is my contention that the philosophical proofs, namely the cosmological arguments, are the strongest, especially the five ways and such arguments that are based on metaphysics (the nature of reality). However, such arguments are complicated and difficult to use with non-philosophers. In conclusion, there are persuasive arguments for God’s existence, arguments that some of us consider to be metaphysically necessary since a necessary being must exist to account for contingent being. Contrary to many atheists, belief in God is not merely the desire of wishful thinking by illogical religious folk. Some of the brightest minds in the history of ideas have believed in God for well thought out reasons, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, et al.

EPS Panel Discussion On Divine Simplicity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

In November of 2018, I was on a panel with Richard Howe, Stephen Davis, and William Lane Craig at an Evangelical Philosophical Society session hosted by the American Academy of Religion. The topic was “Divine Simplicity.” It can be viewed here. Howe argued for why it is true, Davis argued why it is not necessary, Craig leveled various critiques of it, and I defended it.

(You can read this article for a discussion of what divine simplicity is.) Craig brought up the same basic objections in our panel as he did with Bishop Barron in January of 2018 on another panel on the same topic. I have addressed several of those objections in a previous post but would like to elaborate further on some of those objections, as well as address some of his points that came out in our exchange but not in the previous one.

This was my first interaction with Davis and Craig, and they were a delight to work with. (Howe and I are colleagues at Southern Evangelical Seminary.) While Howe and I disagree with Davis and Craig on this immensely important topic, I consider them excellent scholars and gentlemen. I am more familiar with Craig and have found him to be a very sincere man of God. Due to his influence on evangelical thinking, my responses will focus on his objections.

Craig’s Objections and My Responses (Our Opening Statements)

Craig’s first few objections were made in the 2018 panel to which I responded in my article, but I will quickly respond to some of those while spending more time on others. First, Craig stated that divine simplicity is unbiblical in that the Bible never teaches the doctrine and actually teaches things about God that could not be the case of divine simplicity were true. Examples would be various descriptions of God having multiple properties, such as God being powerful, wise, etc. Such would be distinct properties, but divine simplicity states there are no distinctions in God, so the latter must be false, says Craig.

In my opening, I agreed with Craig that the Bible does not explicitly teach divine simplicity; however, I also maintained that the Bible does not teach anything that is contradictory to it. For example, we use various ways of describing God, such as the words ‘powerful,’ ‘wise,’ etc. We really mean different things with these words. But we know God (and everything) through complex ways and complex things. (Here ‘complex’ means that a thing is made up of various parts, immaterial or material. So, it means the opposite of simple.) But just because we necessarily know God through complex means, i.e., through nature and the Bible, that doesn’t mean that God exists in the way that we know him. There is a distinction between our epistemology of God and the ontology of God. When we use various words to describe God, our limited descriptions don’t limit God. If we are going to describe God’s attributes (or properties), there is no other way to describe him than by saying he has qualities x, y, and z. So the way we know him is through his effects—the world (and Scripture)— which are complex. But it doesn’t follow that just because our descriptions of him are complex that he is actually complex. If the arguments for divine simplicity are sound, then God is simple, and the way we describe him is just the limitations of human language since we know the material world directly via experience but God indirectly via the world.

Craig further states that the “terrible consequence of Thomism is that the biblical attributes are annihilated” since God can’t be positively described if simplicity is true. Thomists would deny this and say that the biblical and theological descriptions of God are true pictures of God, but true analogously.

Craig worries that divine simplicity “makes God unintelligible.” Craig says it makes no sense to maintain, as the Thomist does, that God is Pure Act and that his essence just is existence. Further, if God is identical to all he “has,” as simplicity says, and if God has properties, then he just is a property. (This last point is made by Alvin Plantinga in his Does God Have A Nature.) It is true, as Howe pointed out, that since we don’t know God directly, then we don’t know what he is in himself. This is further true since God is an infinite being, and we are finite. It is also true that Thomists hold to a qualified agnosticism about God’s nature (not his existence). However, I think it is the case, again, as Howe points out that everyone is agnostic about God’s nature to some degree since most, if not all, Christians would admit that they don’t know everything about God. I would also point out that saying God is beyond our comprehension is not a weakness of God but rather shows how great he is. If we could understand God, then he wouldn’t be much of a God.

However, Craig is not just saying that because divine simplicity leads to agnosticism that it must be false. He’s saying that there are logical problems with it, such as God just being a property. This is where Craig and Thomists would disagree over terms. Properties in the historical sense are ways that real metaphysical things (on the Platonic model) exist in relation to another thing, or (in the Aristotelian model) the way in which a thing can be modified. The latter can also be called an accident. However, accidents are explicitly denied of God according to divine simplicity since they would modify God’s existence and thus introduce potency, parts, and complexity. Rather than use the word ‘property’ Thomists would rather use the word ‘attribute’ since the latter is not a thing to be possessed the way that properties often are described. (This is actually a curious case with Craig since he rejects a Platonic notion of properties.) Attributes are just ways we can describe God. Many times, properties are said to be “had” or “possessed” by God. Thomists simply deny this about God, and so this particular objection doesn’t exactly apply since Thomists don’t, at least generally, mean the same thing by ‘properties’ as Craig does.

Craig’s other objections along this vein are more puzzling. Given simplicity, he says that God is not personal, doesn’t love, and is not active in the world. In his Time and Eternity, he states that divine simplicity leads to the conclusion that God “does not literally love, know, or cause His creatures” (30). Thomists simply would reject this as a mischaracterization and misrepresentation of divine simplicity. God is certainly personal, but he is not a person in the way that humans are. However, it seems that Craig wants to maintain a univocal view of personhood as it relates to humans and God. (Much of the debate we had centered around the issue of whether our language applies to God univocally or analogically.) However, Howe and I maintain that we can make true statements about God without our language being univocal. Thus, to say God is personal reflects truth about God, but it does not say that he relates to his creation in the same way (i.e., univocally) as we do. This should not be surprising since finite, material, and changing beings are qualitatively different than an infinite, immaterial, unchanging being (although in some ways Craig says that God is simply quantitatively different from us, such as our level of knowledge).

It is not clear to me why God could not love given simplicity. However, at least one traditional view of love is the willing of another’s good. God certainly wills the good of his creation. Thus, he loves. To say God is not active is hard to understand since the Thomist says that God is pure act. God is not just active in the world; he is actively upholding the world’s very existence. Without such sustaining activity, the world would not exist since it doesn’t just need a reason for its beginning to exist, but also for its continued existence.

To say that simplicity leads to the conclusion that God doesn’t love, know, or cause his creation is difficult to understand. However, it seems that Craig holds this position based on his understanding of the Thomistic notion of God not being really related to the world. On the surface of this notion of God not being really related to the world, it looks like God has nothing to do with the world. However, such would simply be false. What Thomas means, a la Aristotle is just that God is not dependent on the world. God is not changed in any way with the existence of the universe—a claim that Craig denies since, in his view, if God created the world, then he must be related to it. Of course, Aquinas is not denying that God is related to the world as such. He is just not related to the world in certain ways, especially any dependent way. The world is really related to God in that it depends on God for its very existence, but the converse is false: God does not rely on the world for anything. It is difficult to see how Craig would maintain that on Thomism God does not know or cause his creation, although he would probably say that while Thomists hold those views, they must do so in violation of simplicity.

The next major objection that Craig leveled at divine simplicity is the modal collapse objection. This states that according to divine simplicity, God’s will is identical with his nature. Since his nature is necessary, his will must be necessary too. Thus, God can only will one scenario, state of affairs, possible world to be actual, whatever you want to say. Since God necessarily wills a given world to exist, there is no other world that could possibly exist. Since God, says Craig, is the same in all possible worlds, the existence of creatures can’t be found in God since God being the same doesn’t create in one world and not in another. Also, creatures can’t explain their existence since they would need a cause, but God couldn’t be their cause, Craig says.

I offered various responses in my original critique of Craig’s position but in my panel discussion, I relied on the distinction that Aquinas makes between absolute and suppositional necessity (cf. Summa Theologiae 1. 19. 3). Aquinas argues that a thing can be necessary absolutely or by supposition. The former is the case when a statement is true by definition, such as “A bachelor is an unmarried man.” Another example of absolute necessity is how God wills his own goodness. This kind of necessity is of something that just has to be the case. Thus, God wills his own goodness of absolute necessity (as Aquinas says that we will our happiness in such an absolute way). Further, Aquinas notes that there are some relations such as how the sensible faculties relate to their objects in an absolutely necessary way, like sight to color. Things are not willed in this absolutely necessary sense unless such things are necessarily required for the end, such as food for survival, as Aquinas notes. But God does not lose anything by not willing creation. He does not need it for his own end. Thus, his willing creation is not absolutely necessary. But supposing he does will it, it is willed by necessity of a certain sense: suppositional necessity. To borrow another example from Thomas, it is not the case that Socrates must sit. However, if he does sit, he necessarily sits as long as he sits. Such necessity is not an absolute necessity since he does not have to sit. But supposing he sits, he sits. Hence, a suppositional necessity. Since God doesn’t need the world, it is not willed of absolute necessity. But it is willed in a necessary sense like that of Socrates sitting. If God wills it, he wills it. He can’t un-will it. Thus, supposing he does will it, it is willed of suppositional necessity.

I think Aquinas’ distinction here answers the modal collapse because the collapse says that God wills of absolute necessity, or as Craig says, a logical necessity. If Aquinas is right, then such is simply not the case.

The Back and Forth

Bill said I was “too cavalier” in my paper regarding the difficulties of the Trinity and simplicity. In my paper, I asserted that Aquinas et al. did not see a problem with divine simplicity and the Trinity, to which Bill averred, “they most certainly did.” As I said in my follow up, what I meant was that they did not see the two doctrines as mutually exclusive or contradictory. One reason that Bill sees such a contradiction with divine simplicity with the Trinity is because he sees the persons of the Trinity as parts, which simplicity by definition denies (see his Time and Eternity, Philosophical Foundations, and my article in response to his position). As Richard stated, the doctrine of divine simplicity was actually used throughout history to defend the Trinity. James Dolezal notes, “As for the Trinity, the [doctrine of divine simplicity] was used to prove the indivisible singularity of the divine essence and thus refute the accusations of tri-theism (God Without Parts, 4. See also Jordan P. Barrett, Divine Simplicity: A Biblical and Trinitarian Account).

Around this point, Steve said he could not understand why complexity in God necessitates composition. In other words, he argues that God can have parts, while those parts just are necessarily his essence and would not need a composer. That metaphysical parts of a being are in a dependent relation of potency is a position that is taken as a metaphysical truism in Aristotelian/Thomistic thinking. Steven’s position was basically, “I don’t understand why God can’t be complex without being composed.” The basic answer as I responded to him while also noting that it wouldn’t satisfy him (and it didn’t) was that if there are distinct parts of a being, even God, then those parts must have a certain relation of potency to each other. Such a potential relation must be realized/made to be that way by something other than itself. Otherwise, it is basically the problem of saying that something caused itself to exist, which is a contradiction since it would have had to exist prior to causing itself to exist. However, the doctrine of simplicity denies such parts, to begin with.

When asked by an audience member how we are different from God, Steve said that God being simple is one way. He said that God is simple in some way but not in the Thomistic sense. Bill shares this view and wants to redefine simplicity to say that nothing has metaphysical constituent parts. Thus, all things are simple, even God, but not in an interesting way since everything else is too. However, he is quick to point out that this is not the Thomistic understanding. It is not at all clear to me what he means by denying metaphysical constituent parts to things.

Bill makes the further assertion in response to this question that we only differ quantitatively from God in some ways. For example, humans have knowledge and power in a finite way, whereas God has them infinitely. This stems from his univocal view of how language applies to God. I would deny that our differences with God are merely quantitative in this way. There is a much more profound difference in unlimited being and limited being besides just amount. What ‘power’ means in reference to God and man is not the same. Such is the case for knowledge and wisdom. God does not know in the same way as we do. We use senses, but God, as an immaterial being, has no senses. We know passively; however, God as Pure Act knows actively as the cause of all finite being (in other words, God doesn’t learn).

My main objection about Bill’s position, in the panel discussion and in his writings, is that the objections he raises to the Thomistic notion of divine simplicity were raised and answered by Aquinas himself in the 13^th century. However, Bill does not deal with the responses to the objections that he raises, which were anticipated hundreds of years ago. (One exception is his response to the idea that all of God’s properties/attributes collapse into one if simplicity is true. In his Philosphical Foundations, he says Venus being the morning and evening star serves as a counterexample since these are really distinct properties in reality and not just in our minds. I would point out, though, that these properties about Venus are extrinsic to Venus and are based on our relation to it.) Bill did make the comment at the end of the panel that what is inadequate from Thomists is to cite Aquinas and think that is the end of it. However, if one is going to object to a doctrine as it was formulated by Aquinas and Aquinas already raised the very objections that he makes, then it seems necessary to explain why the responses to those objections by Aquinas fail. To move the conversation forward, it would be helpful for the objector of Thomistic divine simplicity to explain why Thomas’ responses to those objections fail.

Bill’s response to suppositional necessity was that while it is true that “If God wills x, then x happens necessarily,” the problem for Thomism is that the antecedent is necessary since God’s will and essence are identical and the latter is necessary. In other words, God must will x. However, Aquinas rejects that position because God could have willed not to create anything or to create differently than he did. The necessity can’t be in the effects, says Aquinas since they aren’t necessary. Since God could have willed other than he did and since creation is an activity of God’s will and intellect, this demonstrates that there is no absolute necessity in God willing anything or willing differently than he did. (I argue in more detail on this point in my previous article on this topic.)

All in all, the panel was a great experience for me, and I appreciate the time and efforts that Richard, Steve, and Bill put into it.

Tag Archive for: J. Brian Huffling

For the Love of Wisdom…

Fields of Philosophy

Is Everyone a Philosopher?

Theology Can’t Avoid Philosophy

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

Recommended resources related to the topic:

OBSERVATION

INTERPRETATION

APPLICATION

TOOLS FOR STUDY

CONCLUSION

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

El Problema

Evaluación

Estudiar la lógica

Conocimiento de la enseñanza religiosa

Los pastores y las iglesias pueden preparar a sus congregantes

Los padres deben capacitar a sus hijos

Dónde acudir en busca de respuestas

Recursos recomendados en Español:

The Issue

Assessment

Study Logic

Knowledge of Religious Teaching

Pastors and Churches Can Prepare Their Congregants

Parents Should Train Their Children

Where to Go for Answers

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Those who accept simplicity are on a completely different theological trajectory from those who reject it.

Since God is not physical, he has no passions.

To modify these attributes is to deny them.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cosmological Arguments

The Kalam Argument

Aquinas’ 5 Ways

Teleological Arguments

The Moral Argument

The Ontological Argument

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Craig’s Objections and My Responses (Our Opening Statements)

The Back and Forth

Recommended resources related to the topic: