What is Scientific Apologetics? In this short video, you will learn what it is and what it sets out to achieve.
What is Scientific apologetics?
Leave a reply
Category Archives: Philosophy
Is The Virgin Birth of Jesus Reasonable
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”—Matthew 1:23
“Our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit.”— Ignatius, A.D. 110 (Letter to the Ephesians 18)
Once again it is that time of the year: Christmas. With the Christmas season comes the craze of shopping for the perfect gift for that special someone as well as the captivating sight of Christmas decorations and lights. Also, with the Christmas season comes the Christian church’s emphasis on the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. No, Jesus was not born on December 25th and there isn’t a Bible verse to substantiate such as claim. Thus, I do not think we should be singing “happy birthday” to Jesus. However, there is an issue that surfaces frequently around this time of the year: The rejection of the Bible’s account of the virgin birth of Jesus.
Atheists (who do not believe there is a god of any kind), Naturalists (who claim the natural world is all there is), and Skeptics (who are skeptical or doubtful of accepted beliefs; especially religious beliefs) all say that a virgin birth is neither reasonable nor possible. Interestingly enough, their reason for rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus can be summarized by Rajneesh (also known as Ohso), the cultist founder of the cultic Rajneesh religion. Rajneesh said, “…the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It is so unscientific that to believe it is to destroy all your intelligence.”1 This is their primary reason for rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus: that it is unscientific and unreasonable to believe it actually occurred. As Rajneesh put it, to believe in such a thing is to destroy your intelligence; but is that really the case?
I will seek to show that to believe that the virgin birth of Jesus actually happened in real time and history is not unreasonable. I will point out the real reason behind their rejection which is not a rejection of the possibility of miracles. In my opinion, the argument against miracles is just a smoke screen in order to avoid the greater reason for rejecting such miracles as the virgin birth of Jesus. I will seek to reveal this reason in what follows.
Miracles
Before we begin to unveil the real reason why Atheists, Naturalists, and Skeptics reject the biblical account of the virgin birth of Jesus, I think it would be wise to first define what a miracle is. It is wise to do so since the term ‘miracle’ has been wrongly defined by non-Christian theists such as the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume, in his most well-known work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Book X defines a miracle as “…a violation of the laws of nature.”2 By defining a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature, Hume thinks he has stopped all arguments of the case for miracles since a miracle can only occur if the laws of nature are violated, and that simply cannot happen. According to Hume, a miracle can only occur in accord to nature, but if a miracle occurs according to nature, it isn’t a miracle at all, but simply an act of nature itself. Thus, miracles are not possible.
The good news is that Hume’s definition of a miracle was grossly wrong. A miracle is normally defined as a “supernatural act of God and such miraculous acts exceed the natural powers or capacities of natural things.”3 If the natural order of nature were created and set in motion by God, then why couldn’t He perform a miracle in the natural realm (earth) since He is omnipotent and sovereign over it? How could God be limited by or subjected to the very laws He made and yet remain God? God couldn’t. He is Lord over His creation, “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.” (Psalm 135:6)
The Unveiling
Now that ‘miracle’ has been properly defined, it’s now time to unveil the underlying reason why Atheists, Naturalists, and Skeptics reject the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Simply put, they presuppose the non-existence of God; particularly the non-existence of the omnipotent God of the Christian faith. Atheists, Naturalists, and Skeptics must rule out the existence of an omnipotent God in order to rule out the possibility of miracles. They know that unless this denial of the existence of an omnipotent God is posited, then miracles are not only possible, but can in fact happen.
It is insufficient for Atheists, Naturalists, and Skeptics to simply presuppose the non-existence of the omnipotent God, they must demonstrate through sound logic why such a God does not exist. Therefore, until they have soundly done so, there is no logical reason to reject the possibility of miracles; in particular the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus is Reasonable
In conclusion, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is reasonable and we as Christians don’t have to feel self-conscious about believing that this event happened in time and history. The burden of proof falls squarely in the lap of the Atheists, Naturalists, and Skeptics to prove that the virgin birth of Jesus is unreasonable, and this is not possible unless they can first disprove the existence of the omnipotent God. Until that has been established, it is thoroughly reasonable to believe that the omnipotent God of heaven and earth sent His Son Jesus Christ to earth through a virgin birth to ultimately die on the cross for the sins of the whole world and three days later rise bodily from the dead, so those who turn from and confess their sins and believe in Jesus can be forgiven and reconciled to their Creator. The virgin birth of Jesus was the critical prelude of God’s redemptive plan for all humanity and this Christmas season and in all seasons, let us praise and give thanks to God the Father for this beautiful and miraculous historical event.
Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.—Luke 2:10-11
Works Cited
1. Osho.com. Osho Online Library https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/bertrand-russell-holy-ghost-inexpressible-6251f323-ec1?p=d894b2ab4c06b57b422f062d0c750544. Accessed 21 December 2021.
2. David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Indianapolis, Indiana, Hackett Publishing Company,1993), pp. 76.
3. C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), pp. 76.
Comedian Steve Harvey: The Exclusivist
On January 23, 2021, the internationally recognized comedian Steve Harvey posted a video on his YouTube page which created quite a stir among Christians and a sense of delight among religious and spiritual inclusivists. Steve Harvey, recording his video from United Arab Emirates, a majority Muslim Persian Gulf nation where Islam is the official religion, made the bold claim that “There’s no one way to Heaven, no one way to paradise.” Steve Harvey went even further, comparing the so-called multiple pathways to heaven with a television with 800 channels:
“It’s like television; now there’s [sic] over 800 channels on cable, and they’re all pretty entertaining. So I’m pretty sure that to get to Heaven, there’s got to be more than one route. Because somebody watching another channel or taking another channel than you, they’re still getting entertained, and they’re probably still getting to Heaven.” (YouTube)
While I sincerely do not see the parallel between a television with 800 entertaining channels and their being multiple pathways to God, what is clear is that Steve Harvey is ‘pretty sure’ there are many roads to what one calls god.
As rightly expected, many Christians bum rushed social media to refute Steve Harvey’s claim by quoting such biblical passages such as John 14:6 where Jesus told his disciples in unabashed fashion, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (NKJV) Orthodox Christians strongly believe this because it came from the mouth of God incarnate (God in the flesh), so there is no reason to doubt what Jesus boldly said. Steve Harvey’s assertion, however, necessitates a deeper inquiry.
Universalism and Inclusivism
What Steve Harvey is ascribing to is none other than the age-old heresy of Universalism. Universalism, according to Britannica, is “the belief in the salvation of all souls.” This means that no matter what religion you are (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), you will go to heaven when you die. Universalists reject the idea of a god who would exclude any human being from going to heaven, and they especially and rigorously reject the biblical teaching that those who reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will spend eternity separated from God in the terrible torments of hell. Universalists cannot (or will not) reconcile the idea of a loving God and the existence of hell. The justice of God seems to be absent from Universalist thinking. Universalism solely focuses on the unconditional love of God.
Inclusivism, on the other hand, according to Lexico, is “The practice of trying to incorporate diverse or unreconciled elements into a single system.” In the case of religion, inclusivists seek to unite religions together under one religious umbrella, in spite of irreconcilable differences theologically and philosophically. This approach to religious diversity inescapably leads to Universalism.
Now that we have a working knowledge of Universalism/Inclusivism, a deeper inquiry into Steve Harvey’s assertion that there are many pathways to God can begin. I will set out to show first that Universalism/Inclusivism is logically and practically impossible and exclusivism is the Modus Operandi of every known religion with no exceptions. Secondly, that in reality, Universalism/Inclusivism is in fact exclusivist in nature, and finally, that while Steve Harvey talks good inclusion rhetoric; he is actually an exclusivist himself.
Universalism/Inclusivism: Logically and Practically Impossible
While the thought of Inclusivism seems noble and the thought of the possibility of such unity among religions as emotionally moving and heartfelt, sadly this is logically and practically impossible; here’s why. Every religion known to humanity is philosophically and theologically exclusive. Furthermore, they contradict each other in such areas as God, sin and humanity, and the afterlife. Contradictory statements cannot be true. For instance, certain religions believe that God is a Uni-personal Being. That is to say that God is one person. This is true of both Islam and Judaism. On the other hand, there are religions which are polytheistic in their view of god. In this case, polytheists believe in the existence of many gods. This includes Hinduism and Mormonism. In the case of the majority in Buddhism, they do not believe in the existence of any kind of gods. They’re atheist! In the case of Christianity, however, God is viewed as a Triune/ Tri-personal Being; one God who exists as three co-eternal and co-existing persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The contradictory ideas about God are glaring!
In the case of sin, humanity and salvation, every religion–with the exception of Christianity–holds to the idea that humanity is basically good by nature. In Christianity, humanity is born with a sin nature due to the moral and spiritual fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3; Romans 5:12). Due to this reality, Jesus Christ came to die on the cross and by His blood atoned for our sins (John 3:16; Col. 1:14, 19-20; I Peter 1:18-19). In other religions, such as Islam and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they teach that doing good works and following their respective religion’s teachings will hopefully (not certainly) grant entrance into paradise with God. Again, we see contradictions in the understanding of sin and humanity.
Even the idea of an afterlife has contradictory responses from every religion. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe in the existence of heaven and hell. Buddhism, however, believes in rebirths or what is commonly called reincarnation. The goal of Indian religions such as Buddhism is to attain Moksha, which is the liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. Thus, when a person dies, they die and cease to exist. Once more we see clear contradictions among different religions concerning the afterlife.
Overall, one can see that it is logically impossible for all roads to lead to heaven when the various roads actually lead us in various and contradictory directions and those roads will not ultimately get us to the same place. Especially in the case of Buddhism where there is no heaven or afterlife existence to look forward to. Furthermore, Universalism/Inclusivism is practically impossible because each religion has contradictory answers about who God is, sin, humanity and salvation, and what the afterlife will be like. This is so because each religion by nature is exclusive. Each religion believes they have the correct answers about reality (existence), the nature of humanity (anthropology), The Divine (God), and what happens after death (afterlife), and they believe that those religions whose answers are contrary to theirs is wrong. It’s that simple. Yes, it is true there is common ground religions share concerning what’s morally right and what’s morally wrong (ethics), but this alone is not enough to conclude that all roads lead to heaven. Subjects such as God, existence, sin, humanity, and salvation, and the afterlife are crucial topics of discussion and there is clearly no consensus shared among the various religions of the world about these subjects of vital significance.
Thus, this means that either one of the religions is the one true religion and the other religions are false or in the most perplexing case, all the religions of the world are wrong and we are left with either Agnosticism or Atheism; which neither one will lead us to any kind of an afterlife since one worldview is not sure if there is such a thing (Agnosticism) and the other outright denies such a thing (Atheism). Nevertheless, no matter from what angle a person approaches this, in the end all roads do not lead to heaven since they all theologically and philosophically contradict each other. Furthermore, each religion theologically and logically is exclusive because they believe that they alone hold the truth in the palm of their hands and the others don’t. Exclusivism is the Modus Operandi of the religions of the world.
Universalists/Inclusivists are actually Exclusivists
Universalism/Inclusivism as we have already seen makes the theological claim that everyone will be saved; regardless of one’s religious and philosophical convictions. Thus, they call on everyone from all the religions of the world to come together under the banner of religious unity. It is a call to inclusion. Inclusion, according to Dictionary.com, means “the act of including.” In other words, inclusivism seeks to include all and to exclude none. Religious inclusivism seeks to include all religions under the banner of religious unity, and excluding none; for to do so would be the opposite of inclusivism.
In light of this understanding of religious inclusivism, an important question must be asked: Do inclusivists include or exclude exclusivists from their call to inclusivism? Logically speaking, religious inclusivists, like the Universalists, and exclusivists, like Christians, cannot co-exist harmoniously because religious inclusivists include all religious roads to heaven while Christians claim that the Jesus of the Christian faith is the only way to heaven (John 14:6). So since the goal of religious inclusivism and is to unite like-minded inclusivists, it is only logical to conclude that religious inclusivists must exclude exclusivists like Christians who do not share in their inclusion agenda. For religious inclusivists to invite religious exclusivists to join their cause would be a recipe for disaster. Therefore, religious inclusivists are not really religious inclusivists, but rather they are actually religious exclusivists, since they must exclude religious exclusivists from their cause. So since religious inclusivists are religiously exclusivists about religious exclusivists, then religious inclusivists can no longer be considered religious inclusivists.
Steve Harvey the Exclusivist
Now that the factual realization has been established that there is actually no such thing as a religious inclusivist or a Universalist for that matter, then we must rightfully conclude that comedian Steve Harvey is not a Universalist/Inclusivist, but is himself an exclusivist. Wow! Isn’t that funny?! In his own words, Steve Harvey excludes the possibility of there being only one way to heaven. Remember, Steve Harvey said, “There’s no one way to Heaven, no one way to paradise.” That is an exclusive claim. He is excluding the belief of there being only one way to heaven. Thus, Steve Harvey is an exclusivist who excludes anyone who is not on board with religious inclusivism and Universalism.
Final Thoughts
It is sad that comedian Steve Harvey has chosen to embrace Universalism/Inclusivism. It is sad because I believe Steve Harvey knows better than this. Why? Because his mother was a devoted Christian woman. According to Steve Harvey, his mother instilled godly principles in him and his siblings. I think I can rightly assume that from the lips of his mother Steve Harvey heard the wondrous gospel of Jesus Christ who came from heaven to earth to die a criminal’s death on the cross for our sins; even though He committed no sin (II Corinthians 5:21). He heard from the lips of his mother that three days later after Jesus death on the cross, He rose triumphantly from the dead conquering sin and death. From those same precious lips Steve Harvey heard his mother tell him what he needed to do in order to be saved from sin and hell and that only Jesus could do so.
Mr. Steve Harvey, only Jesus could dare to proclaim, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus backed up His exclusive claim by not only dying on the cross for the sins of humanity (which includes you), but by rising bodily from the dead and victoriously and boldly asking “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”(I Corinthians 15:55) Mr. Steve Harvey, Jesus Christ now has the undeniable right to make that claim; both as the risen Savior of all humanity and as God Himself in human flesh. Jesus Himself said in John 5:22-23, “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”
Do you claim to honor God the Father? If you do, you must also honor God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Otherwise you do not honor the God who has committed all judgment to His Son. One day, Jesus will be your judge on Judgement Day. Are you ready to meet your God? I and every Christian are praying that you will turn from your sins and make Jesus the Lord and Savior of your life before death takes you from this earth to a Christless eternity in the torments of hell.
“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24, as spoken by Jesus Himself)
The Holy Spirit: Person or Force?
Those who are well acquainted with the kingdom of the cults are very much aware that every cult organization contradicts one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. The essential doctrines of the Christian faith that are most often and intentionally under attack are: the deity of Jesus, the atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the triune nature of God, justification by faith, and the authority of the Bible. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses this would also include the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Holy Spirit is not a person, as historic Christianity has always taught, but a force. The online glossary of the Jehovah’s Witnesses website defines the Holy Spirit as:
“The invisible energizing force that God puts into action to accomplish his will. It is holy because it comes from Jehovah, who is clean and righteous to the highest degree, and because it is God’s means to accomplish what is holy.”1
In other words, the Holy Spirit is simply “God’s active force.”2 But is this true? Does the Bible and reason lead to a belief in the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit? This article will investigate the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim of the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit and see if it can biblically and logically hold its ground. Better yet, let’s also see if their claim can hold its ground in the face of their own Bible translation: The New World Translation. If the New World Translation, alongside our Holy Bible, affirms the personhood of the Holy Spirit, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine of the impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit collapses under its own weight.
Argument #1
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ first argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit, which they would also consider to be their strongest argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit “is spoken of as ‘filling people’, they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be ‘anointed’ with it. None of these expressions would be appropriate if the Holy Spirit were a person” 3 Unfortunately, this anonymous writer failed to explain why the use of these expressions are inappropriate if the Holy Spirit is a person. We are expected to assume the writer has made a rational case against the personhood of the Holy Spirit, however, that will not suffice. Further elaboration is required in order to establish a sound case against the personal nature of the Holy Spirit.
Why isn’t it possible for the Holy Spirit, as a person, to perform acts such as filling, baptizing, and anointing individual believers with Himself? In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent (everywhere present) due to His very nature being God. God is omnipresent, and since the Holy Spirit is by nature God, then the Holy Spirit is omnipresent. It is therefore not a problem for the Holy Spirit, as a person, to perform acts of filling, baptizing, and anointing individual believers with Himself since the Holy Spirit is not spatially limited (i.e. a physical body).
Interestingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not seem to take in consideration that even Jehovah (God) also fills all things, but yet is Himself a person. In Ephesians 4:6b God is …”who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (NKJV Bible) In this verse we are told by the apostle Paul that God is in all believers in Jesus Christ. How? Through the Holy Spirit who is by very nature God. Even the New World Translation attests to this, “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (NWT) How is it possible for Jehovah God to be in all (believers) and yet be a person? Could it be because Jehovah God is simultaneously a person and omnipresent? Of course it is. Thus, the Holy Spirit, who can perform the acts of filling, baptizing, and anointing individual believers is also simultaneously a person and omnipresent.
Argument #2
Another argument Jehovah’s Witnesses use against the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the personification argument. This argument posited by the Jehovah’s Witnesses states that when we read in the Bible of the Holy Spirit “speaking”, “hearing”, “bearing witness”, “teaching” or being called our “helper”, these are mere personifications; not to be taken literally. 4 Granted, it is true that the Bible does use personifications in certain instances. For example, Luke 7:35 speaks of wisdom having children, “But wisdom is justified by all her children.” Obviously, wisdom cannot bear children because wisdom is just a word, not a person. Another example is Romans 5:14, 21 which speaks of sin, death, and grace reigning. Again, it is obvious that sin, death, and grace are not personal entities, only words. Can this argument, therefore, rationally stand its ground? Three traits that can be ascribed to persons are the ability to: speak, teach, and bear witness.
Speaking
In Acts 13:2 we read, “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Jehovah’s Witnesses will argue that in cases where the Holy Spirit is said to be speaking, this “was done through angels or humans.”5 In this verse, however, it is not the case. The subject is the Holy Spirit and the action performed by the subject is the action of speaking. Nothing in this verse tells us the act of speaking was done through either an angel or human. The Holy Spirit spoke to certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (verse 1). After the time of prayer and fasting, these prophets and teachers obeyed the Holy Spirit’s command and laid hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul), prayed for them and sent them on their way (verse 3). Therefore, since there was no mediator to convey the message to set aside Paul and Barnabas for the assigned mission work, we can rationally conclude that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to the prophets and teachers. This is only possible if the Holy Spirit is a person.
Teaching
In John 14:26 it states, “ But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” In the New World Translation it basically says the same thing, “But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.” (NWT)
So what comes with being able to teach? To be able to teach, one must: a. have a mind; b. have knowledge which require a mind; and c. have the ability to intelligently communicate knowledge. Can an impersonal entity, such as a force, possess mind, knowledge, and communication skills? No, absolutely not, but a person can. In the New World Translation, Jesus states, “….that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.” demonstrating that human persons have minds. In order to be able to bring any teaching of knowledge back to one’s remembrance, one must have a mind in order to do so. Hence, only persons have minds which can and do possess knowledge and thus can teach. The Holy Spirit is able to teach–which requires a mind and knowledge–therefore, the Holy Spirit must be a person.
Bearing Witness
Lastly, in the New World Translation, John 15:26 states, “ When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me” What is it to bear witness of someone? To bear witness is to affirm or ascribe to a person’s character or philosophy of life as is the case of the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus here in John 15:26. Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit will bear witness to His (Jesus) character and teachings.
Can a force bear witness of anyone? No, but a person can. In Exodus 20:16 of the Ten Commandments, it says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Who is being commanded not to bear false witness against their neighbor? Human persons. Human persons are commanded not to bear false witness against their fellow human person. Only persons have the ability to either bear true or false witness against their neighbor; which indicates that a person can be either moral or immoral. To bear true witness is moral and to bear false witness is immoral. What kind of witness does the Holy Spirit bears about Jesus? The Holy Spirit bears true witness to the person and teachings of Jesus Christ because the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. (John 16:13) Since the Holy Spirit truthfully bears witness to the person and teachings of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not only a person, but a moral person, and not just a moral person, but a perfectly moral person because the Holy Spirit is God and God is the only one who is morally perfect.
Argument #3
The final argument that Jehovah’s Witnesses use in opposition to the personhood of the Holy Spirit is that since the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name, then the Holy Spirit is not a person. They indirectly imply this argument by saying, “the Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father–Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the Holy Spirit.” 6 First off, a much needed correction is to be made: Jesus Christ is not His personal name. Jesus is His personal name and Christ means “anointed one” or “Messiah”. Thus, the personal name of the Son of God is Jesus, who is the Messiah. With that said, let us continue.
Is this argument set forth by the Jehovah’s Witnesses rational and thus, valid? No, this argument is actually irrational because it implies that personhood does not exist unless one has a personal name and that is just not the case. In actuality, this form of reasoning runs into a lot of problems and absurdities. Think about it. How many people do you know have given personal names to things like animals and cars? Clara may call her dog Rex and Bill may call his car Betsy, but is Rex the dog and Betsy the car now considered persons because they possess personal names? Of course not. That would be absurd!
Being a person entails more than just having a personal name. Descriptively, a person is one who has mind, will, and emotions. The Holy Spirit has a mind (Romans 8:27), will (I Corinth. 12:11), and emotions (Eph. 4:30). An impersonal force– whether active or not–does not and cannot possess the personal qualities of mind, will, and emotions. These personal qualities are only reserved and possessed by personal beings.
Furthermore, this line of reasoning also creates an unpleasant moral conflict for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses are ardently pro-life and thus opposes abortion; which is a wonderful thing. The moral conflict for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, comes into play when applying their line of reasoning concerning personal name equaling personhood to the issue of abortion. The problem is as follows:
If one is not a person unless they have a personal name, then abortion becomes perfectly justifiable. Why? because an unborn baby does not possess a legal personal name. This personal name is not legalized until the baby is born and the personal name is printed on the birth certificate. Parents can and do name their unborn babies in advance all the time, but that personal name is useless and therefore meaningless until the baby is born and the personal name is printed on the birth certificate. Abortion would be perfectly justifiable until the baby is born and named, if we were to apply the Jehovah’s Witnesses line of reasoning concerning personal name equaling personhood. This would of course be morally horrific and I’m sure Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree. So if we cannot apply this line of reasoning to abortion (and we shouldn’t), then there is no rational reason to apply this line of reasoning when it applies to the argument opposing the personhood of the Holy Spirit. It is not a rational or realistic argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit and it therefore should be undoubtedly rejected.
The Holy Spirit is a Person
We can conclude that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person. Through the testimony of the Bible and sound reason, there should be no doubt that the Holy Spirit consists of the traits and attributes of personhood. Unlike a force, the Holy Spirit–like any other person–has a mind, which gives Him the ability to speak and teach. He (the Holy Spirit) has a will, which gives Him the ability to willfully choose to set aside people for ministry work. The Holy Spirit has emotions and can be grieved, which only a person can express.
Despite the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim of the Bible using personified language, when it comes to the Holy Spirit speaking, teaching, and bearing witness, we have seen this to be an irrational position to take. Both our Bible and the Jehovah’s Witness bible–the New World Translation–along with the tools of logic and rationality shows that this is not and cannot be personified language, but literal language which articulates that the Holy Spirit is in fact a person, and not a force.
We have seen that even though the Holy Spirit fills, baptize, and anoint believers of Jesus Christ, He (the Holy Spirit) can still be a person because God, as a person, also fills believers with Himself. This is affirmed both in our Bible and the New World Translation. Unfortunately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses fail to give an explanation of why these expressions of actions by the Holy Spirit are deemed inappropriate. They seem to assume we will just mindlessly accept their presupposition without question; but thinking individuals like us cannot allow these claims to go unquestioned. We require them to clarify their claim in order to better understand the argument they are setting forth.
Finally, we have seen that it is logically absurd and even morally dangerous to argue that the Holy Spirit is not a person due to Him lacking a personal name. We saw how absurd it was because no one would say a dog named Rex or a car named Betsy is a person due to it having a personal name. Further, we saw how this line of reasoning puts the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a moral dilemma. If reasoned that one is not a person until they have a personal name, then abortion becomes justifiable since a baby does not legally receive their personal name until the baby is born. Thus, termination of the baby in the mother’s womb would not be wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses would find this to be horrific since they are pro-life.
The Holy Spirit is a person. He is by very nature God Himself as the third person of the Holy Trinity. He is, as God is, omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the bible and because of Him we have the blessing of reading about the person and ways of God. He seals us as Christians for the day of redemption. (Eph. 4:30) He gives us spiritual gifts as He wills for service in the church; locally and worldwide (I Corinth. 12:4-11) and so much more. This is the person: The Holy Spirit of God.
Works cited
(1) Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Holy Spirit. Glossary, https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-glossary/holy-spirit/ Accessed 3 December 2020.
(2) Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.), p. 380.
(3) Ibid., p. 380.
(4) Ibid., p. 380.
(5) Ibid., p. 380.
(6) Ibid., p. 407.
Evil Put in its Proper Place
Let us remember that every worldview-not just Christianity’s-must give an explanation or an answer for evil and suffering…this is not just a problem distinctive to Christianity. It will not do for the challenger just to raise the question. This problem of evil is one to which we all must offer an answer, regardless of the belief system to which we subscribe—Ravi Zacharias1
Evil has been a subject matter long discussed and debated. Dialogues and deliberations concerning evil have ranged across all academic and non-academic platforms. Various explanations of the origin, function, and even the reality of evil has formulated many religious, philosophical, and theological ideas. Of course, not all of these explanations about the problem of evil are in agreement, but in fact contradict one another; yet they each vie for your mind. As human beings we know (at least we should know) contradictory truth claims cannot all be equally true. Either all of the truth claims are false, or one of the truth claims is in fact true. Never have and never will contradictory truth claims be equally true.
As we are bombarded daily with a smorgasbord of ideas about what evil is (and isn’t), how do we decide which view of evil is in fact true? Remember in my last blog The Necessity of Truth, truth was defined as that which corresponds with reality. Using this working definition of truth, what view or understanding of evil best fits everyday reality? This question must be approached objectively in order to arrive at an accurate answer. It is my hope one will do so in order to accurately interpret the immoral behaviors of the world in which we live.
Evil in a Maze of Definitions
Normally when a person thinks of the word evil, one’s mind think of an act which is considered evil; whether it be murder, rape, theft, etc. How many, however, actually think about what evil itself actually is apart from any act of evil? To be absolutely honest, most don’t think that deeply about evil. We simply condemn an act of evil and keep it moving, but this way of approaching the topic of evil is not good enough. Anybody with a sound mind from any worldview can condemn an evil act, but how do those of differing worldviews interpret those evil acts? These various interpretations of an evil act are grounded in how that particular worldview defines evil. Let’s look at some definitions for evil.
Islam
According to the second largest religion in the world, Islam teaches “that whatever takes a person away from God, and thus incurs His anger is evil.” (Good and Evil in Islam) So evil is that which incurs the anger of Allah (God), but how can we know what actions incurs the anger of Allah? The answer is that we can’t know because “The Qur’an clearly states that God is the only authority in defining good and evil.” (Good and Evil in Islam) Hence, Sura 2: 216 says,
“Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Yes, it is true that people can hate something that is good for their all-around well-being (God) and love something that is bad for their all-around well-being (drugs), but is it true we cannot know what those good and evil behaviors are apart from Allah? No, this is not true and any non-Muslim would reject this claim; whether they are religious or not. If, according to the Islamic definition of evil, only Allah knows what is evil and one can’t know for themselves what behaviors incur the anger of Allah apart from Allah, then one cannot truly know what evil is. Thus, the Islamic definition of evil is insufficient.
Buddhism
At first glance, the topic of Buddhism and the problem of evil can seem pretty complex, but the deeper one studies this topic, the clearer things begin to get. The Buddha, Gautama Buddha, is quoted as saying the following about what evil is,
“What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil, envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And what is the root of evil? Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil.”
First, the Buddha answers the question of what is evil by giving us a list of behaviors which one would agree are in fact evil: killing, lying, slandering, abuse, gossip, envy, hatred, and false doctrine. Then the Buddha asks a follow-up question: What is the root of evil? Gautama Buddha’s answer: Desire and illusion. The Buddha gives us this answer because according to Buddhist ethics, desire and illusion are what brings about suffering. Deep within our minds we crave or desire things which we think will satisfy us and “…this thirst or craving takes different forms: craving for the objects of the senses, for existence and non-existence.”2
Consequently, our desire for these things and more give us the illusion that they can bring about our satisfaction, but in actuality “It is the cause of suffering because it can never be finally satisfied.”3 In other words, according to Buddhism, desire is evil because it leaves us with the illusion that obtaining our desire for things like objects of the senses will bring about satisfaction when in reality it won’t. It’s just an illusion and is therefore evil since such satisfaction is not obtainable. Thus, we are left with a “… mind that is unhealthy, harmful, based on ignorance, and resulting in suffering.” (Good, Evil, and Beyond)
So is desire the root of evil? No, it is not. There are plenty of desires which are not evil. Even in Buddhism there are desires which Buddhists have, though they wouldn’t dare admit it. For example, is not becoming a monk a desire? Otherwise, what would motivate a Buddhist to become one? The logical answer is desire. One other example: Why should a Buddhist be concerned about reaching nirvana? Is it not because a Buddhist desires to break free from the continuous cycles of rebirths (reincarnation)? Of course it is. So then, the Buddhist understanding of evil is not only insufficient, but unlivable as well.
New Age Movement
Perhaps one unexpected addition to this discussion about evil is the New Age Movement, but like any other worldview, the New Age Movement has its own view about what evil is. In New Age thought, good and evil are relative. This means that New Agers do not believe that there is such a thing as moral principles or moral laws which humans must abide by. There are no moral absolutes. There is no clear cut category of which behaviors are good and which behaviors are evil. This is known as moral relativism.
At the core of New Age ethics is love. Love, according to New Age thought “is something like a Force in that it is basically neither good nor evil. By love they do not mean a voluntary act of compassion for another individual.”4 Love instead is an impersonal binding force which brings all people and things together.5 Thus, love is “…the energy which makes humanity one.”6 It is only on a lower level of existence where there is a distinction between good and evil, yet still there are no moral absolutes, but only voluntary acts.
Famous actress and high profile New Age representative Shirely MacLaine was clear about her moral relativism. She stated unabashedly in her book Dancing in the Light that “We are not under the Law of God. We are the Law of God. We are God.”7 In other words, since we are God, we are a law unto ourselves and “until mankind realizes there is, in truth, no good, and there is, in truth, no evil, there will be no peace.”8 My question here is: Is it true that there is no good and there is no evil? Is MacLaine making an absolute truth statement about the non-existence of good and evil? If not, her statement is relative, and therefore meaningless.
As we have seen, the New Age Movement is in no position to give us a definition for evil, since they reject the existence of evil, as well as good. Morality is relative. New Agers like Shirely MacLaine, however, contradict their own moral relativism. Is it good not to be under the Law of God? Is it good to be God ourselves? Instead, could it be evil to claim to be God? Is it true that there is no good and evil? To answer either yes or no to any of these questions will affirm the reality of absolute truth. The only way for a New Ager to avoid this problem and maintain relativism is to remain speechless and letter-less for a lifetime.
Christianity
So can Christianity give us a solid definition and understanding of evil? Christianity’s definition and understanding of evil is given and explained both philosophically and theologically. Let’s start with the philosophical definition of evil. Christian philosophers and apologists define evil as the absence of good. They argue that evil is not a stand-alone substance or entity in the same way good is. An illustration of this argument is found in the nature of light and darkness. Light is a stand-alone substance. Light cannot be diminished by anything; especially as it pertains to light from the sun. A cloudy day does not diminish the light from the sun and plunges us into total darkness; we may not see the sun rays from the sun, but we still continue to experience the light coming from the sun.
On the other hand, however, darkness like what we experience at night does not remain regardless of atmospheric changes. When the sun appears in the morning, does the darkness of the night remain? No, it doesn’t remain. The darkness is diminished by the light of the sun. When the sun goes down in the evening, the darkness appears again. The existence of and non-existence of darkness is determined by the presence or lack of presence of the sun.
In a similar way, like darkness, evil does not stand alone in the way good stands alone. Just like darkness indicates to us that there is a lack or deprivation of light, so evil indicates to us that there is a lack or deprivation of good. Darkness is not a deprivation of light, for to say that it is to imply that darkness is a stand-alone substance, which clearly isn’t the case. Evil is not a stand-alone entity either like good is. This is so because good and goodness flows from the very nature of God. Good is a stand-alone substance since its existence is contingent upon God. Evil on the other hand does not flow from the nature of God for “… in Him is no darkness at all.” (I John 1:5) Hence, evil is not a stand-alone substance since it has no object of contingency.
Medieval Christian philosopher Augustine in his classic work Confessions spoke in depth about evil not being a stand-alone substance like good is a stand-alone substance. Augustine said,
“So then, if they are deprived of all good, they will be nothing at all. Therefore, as long as they exist, they are good. Accordingly, whatever things exist are good, and the evil into whose origins I was inquiring is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good.”9
In other words, any existing thing or substance is good for it comes from God; for good flows from His nature. Evil has no substance and is the deprivation of good, thus it is nothing at all. Augustine’s own pronouncement on evil, “For you evil does not exist at all…”10 Evil then, according to Christian philosophy, is the deprivation of good. Now we must attempt to link this philosophical definition of evil with the biblical/theological definition of evil. If done, then Christianity has the proper definition of evil which accurately corresponds with everyday reality.
According to the Bible in I John 3:4, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” “Wait a minute!” one may say, “this verse is talking about sin, not evil.” True, but interestingly, sin is a synonym for evil. Since this is so, the verse can be read as following “…for evil is the transgression [breaking] of the law.” [Emphasis mine] The Greek word here for sin is parabasis. Parabasis, according to the Moody Handbook of Theology, means “overstepping, transgression.”11 Therefore, sin (evil) is the overstepping of God’s Law. We overstep or break God’s Law by failing to do what is good according to what God’s standard of good is.
God’s Law says, “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) To murder is to bring about the death of a human being, which results in the deprivation of life. Life is good, but the deprivation of life is evil. God’s Law also said, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16) To lie to someone is to deprive them of the truth. Truth is good, but the deprivation of truth is evil.
Do you see the connection between the philosophical definition of evil as presented by Christian philosophers like Augustine and the biblical/theological definition of evil? Furthermore, the definition of evil given by Christianity does in fact correspond with reality. In light of the acts of racial injustices that are taking place in the United States, we know from this that justice is good, but its deprivation (injustice) is evil. Racial equality is good, but its deprivation (racism) is evil. Therefore, Christianity has the precise definition of evil for it perfectly corresponds with the reality we experience daily.
Who Puts Evil in its Proper Place
In conclusion, we have examined some definitions for evil as given by Islam, Buddhism, the New Age Movement, and Christianity. Islam told us evil is that which incurs Allah’s anger, but then tells us we cannot know what is good and evil apart from the knowledge of Allah. Humans, however, can and do know what behaviors are good and evil apart from a divine being.
Buddhism teaches that desire and craving are evil for they bring about the illusion that we’ll obtain satisfaction from those things we desire and crave, when in actuality they won’t and that is evil. The problem is, however, Buddhist do express desires such as being monks and/or reaching nirvana. Otherwise why pursue these things?
In the New Age Movement, we are taught that good and evil are relative, for there are no objective moral values. Is it good to not be under the Law of God as Shirely MacLaine said? Is it good or evil to say we are gods? As we have come to realize, objective and absolute moral truth claims cannot be avoided.
Finally, in Christianity we learn that evil by definition is the deprivation of good. Also, evil is the transgression of the Law of God, which is the deprivation of keeping and honoring God’s Law. It is with Christianity that we find the precise definition of evil for it corresponds with our everyday experience of evil; both from without and from within. Through the Christian worldview we can know what evil is and there is no need to look any further than Christianity. Through the lenses of the Christian faith evil is put in its proper place.
Works Cited
(1) Ravi Zacharias, Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007), p.182.
(2) Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.70.
(3) Ibid., p. 70.
(4) J. Yutaka Amano & Norman Geisler, The Infiltration of the New Age (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1989), p. 137.
(5) Ibid., p. 137.
(6) Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom (North Hollywood, Calif.: Tara Center, 1980), 123.
(7) Shirley MacLaine, Dancing in the Light (New York: Bantam, 1985), p. 247.
(8) Ibid., p. 342.
(9) Augustine, Confessions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 124-25.
(10) Ibid., p. 125.
(11) Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 310.
The Necessity of Truth
Peace if possible, truth at all cost–Martin Luther
Since the beginning of creation, truth has been under attack by ardent opposition. God (the Creator of all things) has no equal and shares His glory with no one (Isaiah 40:25; 42:8), yet Lucifer, In Isaiah 14:12-14, egotistically sought equality with God his Creator and was evicted out of heaven. Even after being evicted from heaven, Lucifer (Satan) continued his attacks against truth in the Garden of Eden. God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:15-17, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or else he would surely die. Satan however, (the Father of lies-John 8:44) sowed seeds of doubt in the mind of Eve by telling Eve, “…You surely will not die. For God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5) Adam and Eve believed the lie of Satan and partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Just as Lucifer (Satan) was evicted from heaven for coveting equality with God, even so, God also evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for falsely believing the same thing and, as a result, sin permeates all of humanity.
The necessity of truth is paramount especially in our day and age. During a time in our society where subjectivism and relativism have gained prominence, more than ever before, the Christian church must rise to the challenge of proclaiming the truth, which emanates from the very essence and nature of the Triune God. Tragically however, while the truth is proclaimed and taught within the Christian community amongst one another, there are not nearly enough Believers proclaiming and teaching the truth outside the Church community. Do we fear the objections we may receive if we proclaim the truth to those of different worldviews? We as Christians must not fear, but speak the truth in love to those across religious and philosophical landscapes. The question is: How much do we as Christian value truth? Do we really know what truth is and its impact on us and the Christian worldview? This article seeks to answer these questions for the purpose of cultivating a renewed love for truth and the Author of truth. If achieved, we can, with confidence, rise up with boldness and counter any truth claim that raises its ugly head against the knowledge of God. (II Corinthians 10:4-5)
What is Truth?
The question of “What is truth?” has been asked throughout history. During the trial of Jesus before Pontus Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus if He was a king. Jesus answered him, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:37) “Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Too often this response to Jesus’ claim is overlooked by the average Christian, but warrants our undivided attention. Unfortunately Pilate failed to stick around to hear the answer.
What exactly is truth? Jesus answers this in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” According to Jesus, God’s word is truth and since Jesus bears witness to God’s truth (John 18:37), we can be certain that God’s word is truth. “Wait!” says the Skeptic, “Just because Jesus said so, doesn’t necessarily mean it is so. What about the truth claims of other worldviews and religions? What makes your worldview and religion so exclusive?” In order to answer these objections raised by Skeptics, we must dig deeper in further defining what truth is.
Most philosophers define truth as, “That which corresponds to or adequately expresses what is real.”1 In other words, truth is that which corresponds with reality. For example: All single people are unmarried. This is a true statement about single people which corresponds with reality. There isn’t any such thing as a single married person. There may be married individuals who live like they’re single, but in reality he/she is still married. A biblical example of the definition of truth is as follows:
“For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. (II Timothy 3:3-4)
Is it not true that all these sinful character traits correspond with reality? Do you know of anyone who holds grudges easily? Do you know someone who goes into a fit of rage easily? Or do you know someone at work who constantly speaks negatively of their co-worker or boss? If we are honest with ourselves, we all know individuals who fit several of these traits. Since there are people who have one or more of these sinful character traits, then the truth claim of II Timothy 3:3-4 is in fact true. It corresponds to reality we can observe; even within ourselves.
As Christians, we can answer with confidence the objections of skeptic friends that the reason Jesus could declare that God’s word is truth is because His truth in fact corresponds with the everyday reality in which we live. When the Bible speaks concerning the moral depravity of humanity as well as many other claims, they are found to be true because they correspond with reality. In a nutshell: If a truth claim corresponds to the reality in which we live, it is true and is therefore the truth. If a truth claim does not correspond to the reality in which we live, it is false and is therefore not the truth.
Truth or Consequences
The Christian church has failed to see the necessity of truth and the consequences of that failure (upholding and defending the truth of God’s word) have been visible for all to see. While there has been a small remnant of Christians throughout history who have upheld and defended the historic truths of the Christian faith, the majority has failed to see the urgency to do so. As a result, Postmodernism, Religious Pluralism, and a vast sea of world religions, cult organizations, etc. which comes against Christianity has emerged with their own truths in an attempt to pull people away from the truth of God’s word; especially the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many within the Christian church today, sadly, are still silent to oppose opposing worldviews vie for the heart, mind, and soul of non-Christians as well as those within the church.
As a person who has spent much time dedicated to apologetics and evangelism among those in world religions and cult organizations, I’m troubled and grieved to see so little missionary work done among those in these groups. As a result, many within the church fall away and enjoin themselves to religions like Islam and Buddhism or cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science or the Heath, Wealth, and Prosperity movement (Word of Faith movement). Even worse, pastors and leaders have allowed false doctrines (false truth claims) to infiltrate their local churches.
One example of this infiltration is the false doctrine of the Heath, Wealth, and Prosperity movement (Word of Faith movement) into the Church of God in Christ. COGIC leaders from the top on down have embraced and taught its members that they can create reality with their words. The Bible states, “Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, when the Lord has not commanded it? (Lamentations 3:37) This truth claim of creating reality with your words originated from the New Age Movement, not in the Bible, yet the presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ, Charles E. Blake has embraced such WOF teachers such as Fredrick K.C. Price, whose truth claim concerning Christ’s atonement is blasphemous! Concerning Christ’s atonement for sin, Fred Price stated:
“Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross? If that were the case, the two thieves could have paid your price. No, the punishment was to go into hell itself and to serve time in hell separated from God . . . Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him bound. And they threw a net over Jesus and they dragged Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence.” (Ever Increasing Faith Messenger [June 1980]) yet he was a guest speaker at Bishop Charles Blake’s Inaugural Celebration Banquet in Memphis 2009.
Why would the presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ have a preacher who teaches a doctrine of atonement that clearly contradicts the very words of Jesus Himself: “So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. (John 19:30) There is no scriptural evidence of Jesus going to hell to atone for the sins of humanity.
In addition to the above mentioned, Joel Osteen was also invited by Blake to speak at the 2017 COGIC 110th Holy Convocation. According to Osteen, “We have to conceive it on the inside before we’re ever going to receive it on the outside.” (Your Best Life Now, chapter 1) This truth claim also stems from the New Age movement, not from the Bible. Tragically, the epistemic fall of the Church of God in Christ is a grim example of what Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis calls Truth Decay. Truth decay, whether purposeful or nonpurposeful, is where truth is exchanged for falsity. Truth decay is the consequence the Christian church faces for not recognizing the extreme seriousness for the necessity of truth. Such a turn from or neglect of the necessity of truth can cause the fall of an entire denomination like that of the Church of God in Christ.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the necessity to proclaim and defend the truth is of crucial importance for the Christian church. There are numerous opposing worldviews and truth claims which seek to draw converts to themselves. We cannot afford to continue to sit idly by allowing opposing truth claims to go unchallenged. The apostle Paul exhorted us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good”. (I Thess. 5:21) The truth of God’s word is good and it must be used to counter-attack the false truths of our time. In order to proclaim and defend God’s truth, we must diligently seek to study and know it. Laziness is not an option in the pursuit of truth. Let us therefore pursue the truth of God and “Study to shew thyself (oneself) approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)
Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it–Blaise Pascal
[1] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p.118-19
The Baha’i Faith and the Delusion of Inclusivism
The Baha’i Faith prides itself as a religion that is inclusive. In other words, the Baha’i Faith does not claim to be the one true religion as other religions do such as Islam or Christianity. In the Baha’i Faith one can keep the religion of their choice and still be a member of the Baha’i religion. On the Baha’i’s website, visitors to their website are greeted with this:
“Throughout history, God has sent to humanity a series of divine Educators—known as Manifestations of God—whose teachings have provided the basis for the advancement of civilization. These Manifestations have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Bahá’u’lláh, the latest of these Messengers, explained that the religions of the world come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.” (www.bahai.org)
So according to Baha’i these well known religious figures or “divine Educators” has been sent independently over the course of history to reveal to humanity God’s teachings “for the advancement of civilization”. It is in the person of Baha’i’s “prophet” Bahá’u’lláh that it is made known that all these previous messengers and religions are part of the “one religion of God”. Is that true though? Are religions like Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and especially Christianity, branches from the same tree which Baha’i call the “one religion of God?” I will show theologically and comparatively how it is impossible for the religions of the world along with the Baha’i Faith, to be inclusive.
The Nature of God
In the Baha’i Faith’s theological understanding of God, God is completely unknowable and is a monothiestic Being. Even though Baha’i’s teaches that God is unknowable, yet this unknowable God has progressively revealed himself throughout history through individuals like Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Jesus, etc. Furthermore they teach that God is
“the Creator of the universe, is all-knowing, all-loving and all-merciful.” (www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/revelation/)
On the surface it seems that Baha’i agree with the three monothiestic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Is that so though? If the god of the Baha’i Faith is in fact all-knowing (omniscience), why do we see contradictions in the description of who God is in the religions of the world? Hindu theology hold to polytheism, which is the belief in the existence of many gods. In some branches of Buddhism it can either be polytheistic or atheistic. Yet in Christianity, God is a triune Being: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the god of the Baha’i Faith is omniscient, then this god should surely know who he is nature wise. Is this god triune(Christianity)? Is this god polytheistic (Hinduism)? Is this god strictly monothiestic in nature(Islam, Judaism, Baha’i)? They all cannot be true. Either one is correct about the nature of God or none of them are. Two or more contradictory teachings about the nature of God cannot be equally true and therefore calls the god of the Baha’i Faith into question epistemically.
Soteriology (Doctrine of Salvation)
According to Bahá’u’lláh, the messenger of the Baha’i Faith,
“[I]s not the object of every Revelation,” He asks, “to effect a transformation in the whole character of mankind, a transformation that shall manifest itself, both outwardly and inwardly, that shall affect both its inner life and external conditions?” (Bahá’u’lláh,The Kitab-i-iqan) So salvation according to the Baha’i Faith is both an outer as well as an inner transformation of the entire person. In the Baha’i Faith salvation seems to be focus on an earthly universal transformation of all of humanity. Bahá’u’lláh says that religion is
“the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples.” (Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle of the Son of the Wolf) This is truly a universal and inclusivistic soteriology and is not shared by those of other faiths.
At the heart of every religion on planet Earth is an exclusivistic worldview of itself. Every religion believes that they alone have the one true view about the world and ourselves and strongly believes that those of other faiths has it wrong. In Islam every person must submit themselves to the will of Allah. In Sura 40:67 it reads, “Say, ‘I have been forbidden to worship those whom you call upon beside Allah since there have come unto me clear proofs from my Lord; and I have been commanded to submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.’ This sura teaches that there is no god one should worship other than Allah and to submit to him.
In both Judaism and Christianity, they share the same view on worshipping Yehwah alone. Both readily point to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3, “you shall not have any gods before me.” Such a command continues to be expounded throughout the entire Bible. Furthermore in Chrisitanity, it becomes even more exclusivistic in the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ boldly claimed to be the only way to God in John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Jesus death on the cross and His resurrection from the dead three days later backed His claim. Jesus did not shy away from letting people know that they cannot have a relationship with God or even know God until they believed in Him (John 5:23). The Apostle Peter in Acts 4:12 boldly proclaimed that salvation is alone in Jesus Christ, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” In I John 2:23 we read, “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Christian soteriology makes it clear that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ.
Clearly the religions of the world are by nature exclusivistic, not inclusivistic. Interestly enough, even the Baha’i Faith itself is exclusivistic. According to the Baha’is, Bahá’u’lláh is the promised one supposedly foretold by Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh’s forerunner, the Bab, “”Bahá’u’lláh—the “Glory of God”—is the Promised One foretold by the Báb and all of the Divine Messengers of the past“. This is indeed an excusivistic claim that Bahá’u’lláh is superior to all the above mentioned. Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957) , who was an appointed guardian of the Baha’i Faith in his lifetime definitely gave superior status in his praises to Bahá’u’lláh, “Dominating the entire range of this fascinating spectacle towers the incomparable figure of Bahá’u’lláh, transcendental in His majesty, serene, awe-inspiring, unapproachably glorious.” (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh) Furthermore Shoghi Effendi refers to Bahá’u’lláh as “the supreme Theophany which means that Bahá’u’lláh was the supreme manifestation of God on Earth. This also is an exclusivistic attitudinal claim as well since it makes Jesus (God incarnate) inferior to Bahá’u’lláh. If this is the case, then we can only conclude that Baha’i Faith is superior to all other religions which is the complete opposite of what it means to be inclusive.
Inclusivism is Impossible
In conclusion, it is completely impossible theologically and comparatively for there to be inclusive union among all religions of the world; including the Baha’i Faith. On theological doctrines like the nature of God and salvation, the religions of the world are obviously different; especially Christianity. Contradictory worldviews cannot all be equally true. Either one of them is right or all of them are wrong. Inclusivism is impossible with the existence of contradictory teaching on such doctrines as salvation, God, Jesus Christ, the afterlife, etc. The fact that the Baha’i Faith exalts Bahá’u’lláh and themselves above all other faiths and their beloved religious figures proves how intolerate and exclusivistic they actually are. Superiority cannot exist in an inclusivistic mindset. So who or what is this “one religion from God”, this tree, which all the branches or world religions stem from? It’s none other than the Baha’i Faith!
Lest as Christians We Forget.
Another election has come and gone and once again I find myself grievously frustrated with many of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Once again on full display was how so many Christians seem to set aside their Christian worldview–a biblical worldview–in the name of their political affiliation. It grieves me greatly to see those who profess Jesus as their Lord and Savoir and identify with Christianity, but yet support and vote for politicians who do not share any of the moral principles laid out in the Bible. Worst yet, some who profess to be Christians vote for particular political candidate(s) due to an irrational vendetta against the President of the United States. While I do not claim to endorse President Trump, I am saying that a Christian’s vote for a political candidate should not be driven by some irrational vendetta against him or any other political figure. The Christian’s vote for a candidate should always be cast with the biblical worldview as its guide.
So how is this to be done? First it is always important to actually know what the issues are and where the candidates stand on those issues. It is a well known fact that so many Christians vote for candidates and are not really informed about where their candidate of interest stand on important issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. Other issues are important to know about as well such as where they stand on the economy, crime, international affairs, and immigration. At the end of the day, however, it is morality that matters for the Christian when deciding who they are going to vote for. Biblical/Christian ethics is the lense which the Christian voter uses in order to vote in a God-honoring way.
There are those who read this post and say, “Well government cannot legislate morality.” Is this a valid argument? It really isn’t since government has been doing so since the country’s inception.
Micah Watson who is Associate Professor of political science at Calvin College said,
“You can’t legislate morality” has become a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You cannot not legislate morality.” –Public Discourse, Nov. 4, 2010.
If government did not legislate morality, there would be no moral laws to abide by. Theft, rape, murder, lying on your tax forms, drunk driving, etc. would go unpunished if the government did not legislate morality. So why would we think any differently about legislating morality as it pertains to abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and other issues of morality?
As Christians we cannot allow love for patroitism and political party to precede our moral convictions. Even Malcolm X understood this and he wasn’t a Christian!
“You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”
― Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary
Today we are living in a time where what is moral is now considered immoral and what is immoral is now considered moral. The prophet Isaiah in chapter 5:20a “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” So if we know as Christians what is right and what is wrong as the Bible lays it out for us, why do some of us vote like we don’t know? Voting for a candidate(s) or voting a straight ticket for a politcial party who could have candidates who’s moral worldview does not agree with ours as Christians is just plain wrong and is damaging to our Christian testimony. We as Christian must vote in a biblically moral and God-honoring way. Voting any other way is a direct contradiction to who we claim to be: Ambassadors of Jesus Christ.
I honestly don’t care if there are more women in congress than ever before. I care more about where they stand on moral issues across the board. I honestly don’t care if a person of a particular ethnic group is the first ever to be elected to a particular political office. I care more about where he or she stands on moral issues across the board. While it is right to acknowledge such achievements and milestones, still I as a Christian dare not celebrate it like non-Christians do and neither should you as a Christian.
Lest as Christians we forget, we as Christians are held to a higher standard morally because Jesus saved us from our sins and trangressions against the holy Triune God and are now new creatures/creations in Christ. (2nd Corinth. 5:17) We are called now to be holy as God is holy (I Peter 1:16) and to conduct ourselves as such in all we say and do. (I Peter 1:15, I Corinth. 10:31) Our conduct everywhere and in every place should display holiness, righteousness, and goodness. This includes how we approach politics and how we vote and who we vote for. The eyes of the world and Satan is on us lest as Christian we forget.
“My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Homosexuality, the Church, and Apostasy.
On June 19, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by a vote of 371-238 agreed to allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages. When I read about this historical and tragic decision I was greatly grieved, but in no way surprised by this decision. We who are Christians and know their Bible knew this was coming. Some, if not most of us, may have just never thought it would happen in our lifetime. It was inevitable and unavoidable. Despite the apologetics being waged against same-sex marriage and homosexuality overall, still this day arrived and now we as the Christian Church must deal it whether we like it or not. Not only must we deal with the support of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from outside the Church, now we must deal with the support of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from within the Church via the apostates. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church are clear examples of apostates. These “Christian” denominations departed from the faith when they failed to affirm the biblical teaching on marriage which is heterosexual union between a man and a woman. As Scripture says in I Timothy 4:1, ” Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…” Furthermore in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 it says, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition..” Apostasy must happen before the Lord Jesus returns to earth and right now the issue of same-sex marriage in the Church is creating perhaps the greatest amount of apostates we have seen so far. Whether you are a Christian who holds to the doctrine of Eternal Security and say these apostates were not saved in the first place or whether you are a Christian who believes you can lose your salvation (Reform or Wesleyan Arminianism) and say these were once Christians who have departed from the Christian faith, still the reality is that apostates are among us and are perverting the truth of God’s Word as it pertains to marriage. In the remainder of this blog we will revisit the biblical argument against homosexuality and lastly a philosophical argument against same-sex marriage by arguing from the origin of marriage.
It is both amazing and disturbing how groups like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can support same-sex marriage and have little to no biblical arguments for their position on the issue. The main argument for their position on same-sex marriage typically comes down to three words: God is love. While it is true that God is love (I John 4:16), these three words do not address the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in any way at all! Homosexuals and supporters of same-sex marriage will argue that if God loves us He will allow us to marry whoever we want for happiness sake. In a nutshell, If God is love, He wants us to be happy. A god who opposes our right to be happy via same-sex marriage is not a God of love. The problem here is just because something makes a person happy doesn’t means it’s morally good. Some people can be happy abusing a animal, but it doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Some people can be happy jumping from one sex partner to another sex partner, but it doesn’t make it morally good. God, the Moral Lawgiver, judges what is morally good and what is morally evil and His judgment on homosexuality is found in the Bible.
In Leviticus 18:22 it says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Many will argue against this by saying this is Old Testament law and it does not apply to today. The problem with this argument is two-fold. First of all chapter 18 is God’s moral law dealing with forbidden sexuality. No part of God’s moral law, including those of sexuality is out-of-date and yes, sex is a moral issue according to God. Secondly, if we accept the argument that Leviticus 18:22 does not apply to today, then none of Leviticus 18 applies to us at all! That means it’s acceptable for a brother to have sex with his brother’s wife (v.16) and it’s acceptable to have sexual relations with your aunt (v. 13) and uncle (v. 14). Let’s not forget also that based on this argument it would be perfectly acceptable for a son or daughter to have sexual relations with either their mother or father (v.7) or to have sexual relations with animals (v. 23). No holds barred sex-o-rama! No human being has the authority to pick one sexual act and say “this is acceptable” and continue to say that all the other sexual acts are wrong and sinful. Either all of the sexual acts in Leviticus 18 are wrong or none of them are wrong. There is no middle ground to stand on.
In Romans 1:26-27 we read, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” For most of us as Christians this is quite clear; however for some it may not be as clear. In these verses we see both gay and lesbian sexual relationships labeled as unnatural. We see in verse 26 that women exchange or in other words trade in the natural sexual passions for men for unnatural passions with other women which is described here as “what is against nature.” In verse 27 we see men leaving the natural passions for women and trading it in for sexual relations with other men and it is described here as shameful. God defines these same-sex sexual passions and acts as vile. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the definition of vile is: 1. a: morally despicable or abhorrent. b: physically repulsive. So we see here God views homosexuality as morally despicable and abhorrent and homosexual sex acts as physically repulsive. Before leaving Romans 1:26-27 we find something else that God is telling us also about homosexuality: It is a personal choice. Two action verbs are used in verses 26 and 27: Exchanged and leaving. The women “exchanged” the natural sexual desire of men for women and the men are described as “leaving” the sexual desire of women for men. Both have the free will to choose to stay heterosexual or to become homosexual. It is a choice. It is well known that one of the main reasons why men and women become homosexual is because they were unsuccessful in finding the right mate of the opposite sex. Teens confess that truth on social sites like Facebook all the time. While it is true that some homosexuals claim that when they were heterosexuals they constantly felt homosexual tendencies, still they made the choice to cross that dividing line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Just because it feels right does not make it right. Feelings and emotions does not determine what is true and moral; God determines what is true and moral.
Lastly there is a philosophical argument against same-sex marriage. This one deals with the origin of marriage. Where did marriage come from? Who or what started this institution which we call marriage? If marriage has a originator, what is this originator’s view or rules of what is marriage and what is not marriage? If there is a originator of marriage, is this originator fallible or infallible? Sadly this has not been dealt with by those in the homosexual community or among it’s supporters. Why? Because they can not answer any of these questions. Because they can’t answer any of these questions, they make it out to be a civil rights issue and a constitutional issue. Marriage, however, is a universal institution, not an United States institution. Therefore, no country has the right to define marriage unless they are the originator of it. A country’s government should seek to know what or who is the originator of marriage (if there is one) and inquire into what the originator’s definition and purpose for marriage is before changing it’s definition. Of course, if the originator of marriage is a fallible being, then who’s to say this being’s definition of marriage is right? If this being is infallible, however, then the definition of marriage and the purpose of marriage is unchangeable and non-negotiable. If a government goes on to redefine marriage and it’s purpose, then that government is a dishonest and self-seeking government looking to serve a dishonest and self-seeking people who demand the redefinition of marriage. The Christian on the other end do know where marriage originated from and knows who the originator is. This originator is none other than God. It’s the most logical explanation possible with or without the Bible! In the Bible we see the first wedding between a man and woman; Adam and Eve, ” Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:22-24).'” The origin of marriage goes back to God in the Garden of Eden with the marriage of Adam and Eve. There is no place in the Bible where same-sex marriage is condone by God. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality look at in a positive light by God. This we already saw earlier in this blog. The only question left now is whether God is a fallible Being or an infallible Being? According to Scripture and just plain logic, God is an infallible Being. If God was not infallible, God would not be God at all. Even philosophers know this to be true. Malachi 3:6 says, ““For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” Since God does not change, then His moral laws on sexuality and marriage has not and will not change. God’s definition of marriage is heterosexual only. God owns the institution of marriage and it’s definition no matter what anyone else thinks, feels, and does.
In conclusion, same-sex marriage is unwarranted biblically and philosophically. If a local church or denomination is honest with the Bible, then they should never reach the conclusion that it is alright to embrace homosexuality and same-sex marriage. To reach such a conclusion is not to know the heart of the God they claim to teach about and worship. As we have seen, the Bible is clearly against homosexuality and calls it what God intends for it to be called: sin. When a local church or denomination strays from the Bible, it is a matter of time before they begin to spiritually die and eventually become apostates and depart from the Christian faith. The Psalmist said, ” Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:105).” Let us as Christians walk in the light of God’s Word and not be engulfed in the doctrine of demons as we sadly see happening right now. Let us proclaim who the originator of marriage is and why it is important to know this originator of marriage who is God. Ultimately let us pray that it will lead us to share with them the life-saving gospel of Jesus Christ that they may be saved from their sins and God’s final judgment and eternal wrath.
Young Earth, Old Earth, and Hair Splitting.
Recently the world witnessed the “Great debate” between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. The debate was to focus on the origin of life and whether or not creationism is a viable option and model for how life began. I personally was not very impress with either side. I think, however, both men, Ken Ham and Bill Nye, brought out a few descent points. Ken Ham’s primary point focused on the fact that creationism is more than a viable option for the beginning of origins, but is the most logical view based on modern science. Bill Nye on the other hand, though not able to stay on the subject very well, did bring out an interesting point which does give many Christians a headache: How can one say the earth is only 6,000 years old in light of data of the opposite in science today? After this debate the ole debate of young earth creationism verses old earth creationism was refueled. Does the bible tell us how old the earth is? Does it really matter? Should Christians be splitting hairs over it? Let’s deal with these three questions in detail.
First question: Does the bible tell us how old the earth is? The answer: No. There is not a hint in the book of Genesis whatsoever that clearly tells us or even indicates to us how old the earth is. Young earth creationist would want us to believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Young earth creationists interpret creation to have taken place in six literal days over a literal twenty-four hour period of time. Also young earth creationist attempt to use the first genealogical records in Genesis to tell us we have been here for only 6,000 years. Lastly they pull the event of The Flood into play to attempt to further solidify their position. I find the reasons giving by young earth creationists to be lacking and begging many questions.
The first issue is how young earth creationists seem to automatically assume “Yom”, the Hebrew word for “day”, means a literal twenty-four hour day in Genesis chapter one. Yom can also mean “over a period of time” like it does in Joel 2:31 where the “Day of the LORD” will be longer than a twenty-four hour period. So to randomly pick Yom to mean a literal twenty-four period without further biblical reasons is unjustifiable.
The second issue is using the first genealogical records in Genesis to attempt to show that we have only been here for 6,000 years. There is only one huge problem with this: What does our length of time on earth have to do with the age of the earth? There seems to be a categorical mistake here. The issue of debate and discussion is not how long humanity have been here, but how long the earth have been here! This is about whether the earth is a young planet or a old planet, not whether or not humanity is young or old. Therefore attempting to prove how long humanity has been in existence is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.
So then, is the earth a old earth according to the bible? As I stated earlier the answer would be no. An old earth creationist position primarily depends on the scientific data in geology. Geologists estimate the age of earth to be at 4.5 billion years old. Secular and many Christian scientists agree on this age estimate. Old earth creationists find their age estimate to be far most accurate and scientific than the young earth position which has little to no scientific evidence to support their age estimate of the earth. Ultimately the bible is silent on the age of the earth. Christians must therefore rely on science to give us the best estimate of the age of the earth. Please do remember that good science do in fact exist and has been a tremendous blessing to the Christian Church in the past in affirming the scientific truths which are in the bible such as the universe and earth having a beginning (Cosmology) and both being enriched in design (Teleology), just to name a few.
The second question: Does it really matter whether the earth is young or old? No it does not. We must first recognize that the debate of young earth creationism verses old earth creationism is a non-essential issue for the Christian Church. A Christian’s salvation does not depend upon believing in either view regarding the earth’s age. What is essential for the Church and the Christian individually is believing the biblical record in Genesis 1:1, ” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While such a debate can be intellectually healthy and stimulating, the debate is in no way a matter of spiritual life and spiritual death. Those who would treat the issue as such are part of the hair splitting problem which leads now to our final question.
The final question: Should Christians be splitting hairs over this issue? Absolutely not! Only immature Christians and Christians who are unnecessarily and unjustifiably dogmatic about this debatable issue split hairs and cause unwarranted divisions in the Christian Church. There is no biblical reason for dividing over the age of the earth. If the issue was whether or not God is the Creator of the earth and universe, then it would be a serious issue if a professing Christian denied God as the Author of creation and gave that title to macro-evolution. The bible is replete with verses which declare God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all which are in them (Gen.1:1, Ecc. 12:1, Isaiah 40:28, Romans 1:25, etc.). It is heart-breaking when Christians divide over such non-essential issues such as the age of the earth. I recently experienced that pain and hurt when a dear brother in Christ unlike this ministry page because of this issue. He strongly holds to the young earth view and I lean toward the old earth view. Just because I had sound reasons for not agreeing with young earth creationism, he unlike the ministry page. Even more sad was that his reasons for his position was word for word from a YouTube video making the case for young earth creationism. Little to none of his reasons for believing in young earth creationism was his own; which is a huge no no when doing apologetics. You must make the position your own and have YOUR own reasons why you hold to your view. Otherwise you become nothing more than a parrot apologist: Simply repeating what you heard from someone else.
In conclusion we must be mature Christians when we are dealing with this non-essential issue and any other non-essential issue which are regularly debated in Christian circles. In the debate of young earth creationism verses old earth creationism, the bible does not give us a definite answer or any indications as to if the earth is young or old. Instead of being dogmatic on this issue and splitting hairs, we must humbly choose to agree to disagree with the person we disagree with. We must be united in Christ in the one biblical proof we have on this subject: God is the Author and Creator of all which is in the heavens and in the earth. Let us unite with the Psalmist in saying, ” The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork (Psalm 19:1).” Let us grow up in maturity in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Logical Truth Ministries 