2018-06-10T17:46:46-04:00

Polanyi

Hungarian-British philosopher and polymath Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) in 1933: vanquisher of a moribund positivism, and developer of the notion of tacit knowledge, which has strong similarities to Cardinal Newman’s illative sense [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * * *

THEISTIC ARGUMENTS

1. AESTHETIC ARGUMENT

Beauty as a Road to God (Eleonore Stump, 2007) [PDF download]

 

 

2. “PROPERLY BASIC” BELIEF / INNATE KNOWLEDGE / TACIT KNOWLEDGE  / PLATONISM  

 

Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable? (Dave Armstrong, 2010)

Non-Empirical “Basic” Warrant for Theism & Christianity (Dave Armstrong, 2015)

Dialogue w Agnostic: God as a “Properly Basic Belief” (Dave Armstrong vs. JD Eveland, 2015)

The Epistemology Of Soren Kierkegaard (Siegbert W. Becker)

Belief in God (William Lane Craig, 2011)

 

Tacit Knowledge (Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind)

 

“It is Wrong, Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything Upon Insufficient Evidence?” (Peter van Inwagen, 1996)

Christian Belief and the Platonic Conception of Rationality (Peter van Inwagen, 1999)

What is Analytic Philosophy? What is Naturalism? (Peter van Inwagen, 2006)

Can Theology be Tacit? A Review Essay on Personal Catholicism, by Martin X. Moleski, S. J. (Joseph Kroger, 2000)

Are Beliefs about God Theoretical Beliefs? Reflections on Aquinas and Kant (John O’Leary-Hawthorne & Daniel Howard-Snyder, 1996)

Polanyi and Newman: A Reconsideration (Martin X. Moleski, S. J.)

Personal Catholicism (Martin X. Moleski, S. J., 1999)

An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (book by John Henry Cardinal Newman, 1870)

The Illative Sense [ch. 9 of Grammar of Assent] (John Henry Cardinal Newman, 1870)

Passionate Reason: Kierkegaard and Plantinga on Radical Conversion (Richard Otte, 2014)

Kierkegaard and the Modern Religious Mind (Paul Pardi, 2010)

Induction and Other Minds (Alvin Plantinga, 1966)

Induction and Other Minds, II  (Alvin Plantinga, 1968)

Is Belief in God Properly Basic? (Alvin Plantinga, 1981)

Intellectual Sophistication and Basic Belief in God (Alvin Plantinga, 1986)

Swinburne and Plantinga on Internal Rationality (Alvin Plantinga & Richard Swinburne, 2001)

Rationality and Public Evidence (Alvin Plantinga, 2001)

On ‘Proper Basicality’ (Alvin Plantinga, 2008)

Theism, Atheism, and Rationality (Alvin Plantinga)

Science, Faith, and Society (book by Michael Polanyi, 1946)

The Stability of Beliefs (Michael Polanyi, 1952)

Faith and Reason (Michael Polanyi, 1961)

Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy (Michael Polanyi, 1962)

The Structure of Tacit Knowing (Michael Polanyi, 1964)

The Structure of Tacit Knowing (Michael Polanyi, 1965)

The Structure of Consciousness (Michael Polanyi, 1965)

Transcendence and Self-Transcendence (Michael Polanyi, 1970)

Christian Faith and Belief (Alexander R. Pruss, 2001)

Michael Polanyi and Tacit Knowledge (Mark K. Smith, 2003)

Tacit Knowledge (Wikipedia)

 

3. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

[see my long collection of links]

 

4. DESIRE / LONGING ARGUMENT

My “Romantic / Imaginative” Conversion to Christianity (Dave Armstrong, 1997; rev. 2015)

C. S. Lewis and the Romantic Poets on Longing, Sehnsucht, and Joy (edited by Dave Armstrong, 2001)

The Relationship of Romanticism to Christianity and Catholicism in Particular (edited by Dave Armstrong, 2001)

Myth-as-Truth, J. R. R. Tolkien, and the Conversion of C. S. Lewis (edited by Dave Armstrong, 2004)

Argument for God from Desire: Atheist-Christian Dialogue (Dave Armstrong) [8-7-17]

 

The Argument from Desire (Peter Kreeft, 1994)

The Bayesian Argument from Desire (Victor Reppert, 2009)

The ontological argument from desire (Alexander R. Pruss, 2010)

[see also my Romantic & Imaginative Theology: Inklings of the World Beyond web page for more related materials]

 

5. EXPERIENTIAL ARGUMENT

 

“William P. Alston” in The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers (Daniel Howard-Snyder)

Review of Keith E. Yandell, The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Daniel Howard-Snyder, 1997)

A Religious Experience Argument for the Existence of a Holy Transcendent Being (Alexander R. Pruss, 2001)

Willam P. Alston – Religious Experience as Perception of God (John Piippo, 2017)

 

6. HISTORICAL ARGUMENT

[includes: Jesus Christ, Miracles, Prophecy, and the Revelation of Inspired Scripture]

[collected in a separate paper]

 

7. LOGIC AND REASON ARGUMENT

 

 

[defunct links: need to find more articles]

 

8. MATHEMATICS ARGUMENT

 

 

God and the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics’ (William Lane Craig, 2013)

 

 

9. MIND ARGUMENT 

 

[defunct links: need to find more articles]

 

10. MORAL ARGUMENT 

 

Theistic Foundations of Morality (David Baggett & Jerry L. Walls, 2011)

 

Can We Be Good without God? (William Lane Craig, 1992)

The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality (William Lane Craig, 1997)

 

Debate: Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? (William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris, April 2011)

Sam Harris on Objective Moral Values and Duties (William Lane Craig, 2011)

 

Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape (William Lane Craig, 2012)

Can God Ground Necessary Moral Truths? (William Lane Craig, 2012)

 

The Moral Argument for God (William Lane Craig, 2013)

“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? (William Lane Craig, 2013)

 

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (C. Stephen Evans, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014)

Does morality depend on God? (Edward Feser, 2011)

Do We Need God to be Moral? (John Frame vs. Paul Kurtz, 1996)

 

The Argument from Conscience (Peter Kreeft, 1988)

 

 

 

11. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

[see my long collection of links]

 

12. PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS AND THE APOLOGETICS OF BLAISE PASCAL

The Apologetic Methodology of Blaise Pascal (Phil Fernandes, 2004)

Deposed Royalty: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument (Douglas Groothuis, 1998)

 

The Argument from Pascal’s Wager (Peter Kreeft, 1988)

Pascal: The First Modern Christian (Edward T. Oakes, 1999)

 

 

13. PRAYER

 

[defunct links: need to find more articles]

 

14. TELEOLOGICAL (DESIGN) ARGUMENT

[see my long collection of links]

 

15. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT

 

Four Arguments for Transcendence (Peter Kreeft, 2008)

 

 

CUMULATIVE / MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS 

Introduction: The Resurrection of Theism (William Lane Craig, 1991)

“Sobel’s Acid Bath for Theism.” Review Article: Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God, by Jordan Howard Sobel (William Lane Craig, 2004)

Arguing Successfully about God: A Review Essay of Graham Oppy’s Arguing about Gods (William Lane Craig, 2008)

God Is Not Dead Yet (William Lane Craig, 2008)

Theist Arguments (William Lane Craig, 2009)

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God (William Lane Craig, 2010)

Religious Epistemology (Trent Dougherty & Chris Tweedt, 2015)

Classical Theism Roundup (Edward Feser, 2012)

Is Natural Theology Theologically Taboo? (Douglas Groothuis, 1995)

Arguments for the Existence of God (A. J. Hoober, c. 1982)

20 Arguments for the Existence of God (Peter Kreeft, 1994)

Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments (Alvin Plantinga)

 

 

QUALITIES / CHARACTERISTICS OF GOD (CLASSICAL ORTHODOX THEISM)

 

ATEMPORALITY / OUTSIDE OF TIME

 

Before the Mountains Were Brought Forth: A Defense of Divine Timelessness (Lydia McGrew, 2014)

Eternity (Eleonore Stump & Norman Kretzmann, 1981) [PDF download]

 

IMMUTABILITY

Immutability (Brian Leftow, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, rev. 2014)

An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God ( Bruce A. Ware, 1986)

 

IMPASSIBILITY

Aquinas on Divine Impassibility (Paul Helm, 2010)

Timelessly Present, Compassionately Impassible: A Defense of Two Classical Divine Attributes (dissertation by Philip R. Olsson, 2012)

 

OMNIPOTENCE

 

[links defunct]

 

OMNIPRESENCE

[links defunct]

 

OMNISCIENCE

Closing the Door on Open Theism (Martyn McGeown)

 

SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND SIMPLICITY

 

Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple (Edward Feser, 2013)

 

SUSTAINING CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE

Creation and Conservation Once More (William Lane Craig, 1998)

Classical Theism (Edward Feser, 2010)

An exchange with Keith Parsons, Part II (Edward Feser, 2014)

The Place of Chance in a World Sustained by God (Peter van Inwagen, 1988)

 

TRINITARIANISM

The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs (Dave Armstrong, 1982)

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Robert Bowman, Jr.)

The Blessed Trinity (Catholic Encyclopedia)

And Yet They Are Not Three Gods But One God (Peter van Inwagen, 1988)

Trinity (Peter van Inwagen, 1998)

Three Persons in One Being: On Attempts to Show that the Doctrine of the Trinity is Self-Contradictory (Peter van Inwagen, 2003)

Third-Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament (Andrew S. Malone, 2009)

The Personality of the Holy Spirit (Glenn Miller)

The Deity of the Holy Spirit (Glenn Miller)

Pushbacks: Problems in the NT Witness to The Holy Spirit (Glenn Miller)

The Ancient Church Formulas in the NT (Glenn Miller)

NT Passages mutually involving the Father, Son, and Spirit (Glenn Miller, 1996)

Christian Distinctives: The Trinity (Glenn Miller, 2002)

Testing the Trinitarian ‘hypothesis’ in the Old Testament (Glenn Miller, 2003)

Nicene Christology and Introduction to the Trinitarianism of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Matt Paulson)

***

Links last checked for functionality: 6-10-18

2018-04-16T15:03:55-04:00

Jesus13
Christ Crowned with Thorns (c. 1633-1639), by Matthias Stom (fl. 1615-1649) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(1982; slightly revised in 1997)

[KJV unless indicated otherwise]

[this research was updated and switched to (mostly) RSV in my 2012 book, Theology of God]
C O N T E N T S
 
I. DIRECT STATEMENTS OF JESUS’ EQUALITY WITH GOD THE FATHER

II. JESUS IS THE CREATOR

III. JESUS IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED

IV. JESUS IS WORSHIPED

V. JESUS IS OMNIPOTENT (ALL-POWERFUL)

VI. JESUS IS OMNISCIENT (ALL-KNOWING)

VII. JESUS IS OMNIPRESENT (PRESENT EVERYWHERE)

VIII. JESUS FORGIVES SINS IN HIS OWN NAME

 
IX. JESUS RECEIVES PRAYER
 
X. JESUS IS SINLESS AND PERFECT
 
XI. THE PRIMACY OF THE NAME OF JESUS
 
XII. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE MESSIAH (CHRIST)
 
XIII. FIFTY O.T. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS
 
XIV. JESUS’ SUBJECTION (AS MESSIAH) TO THE FATHER

I. DIRECT STATEMENTS OF JESUS’ EQUALITY WITH GOD THE FATHER 

A. Jesus’ Own Words

1) MATTHEW 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. {the devil was tempting Jesus Himself}
2) MATTHEW 10:40 . . . he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
3) MATTHEW 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and {he} to whomsoever the Son will reveal {him}.
4) MATTHEW 13:13-15 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (15) For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and {their} ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with {their} eyes, and hear with {their} ears, and should understand with {their} heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
>>>ISAIAH 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.<<<
5) MARK 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
6) JOHN 5:17-21 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (20) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth {them}; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
7) JOHN 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
8) JOHN 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
9) JOHN 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am {he}, ye shall die in your sins.
10) JOHN 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am {he}, and {that} I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
11) JOHN 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
12) JOHN 10:30-33 I and {my} Father are one. (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
13) JOHN 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father {is} in me, and I in him.
14) JOHN 12:44-45 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (45) And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
15) JOHN 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am {he}.
16) JOHN 14:7-10 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. (9) Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou {then}, Shew us the Father? (10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
17) JOHN 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
18) JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.
19) JOHN 17:10-11 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we {are}.

20) Use of “Father” Jesus constantly referred to God as “My Father” and claimed to have a unique relationship with Him. In Mark 14:36 He called God Abba, Aramaic for “daddy,” an absolutely unprecedented address of God {cf. Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6}. And He says “My Father and Your Father” (Jn 20:17), not “our Father.” The Jews understood full well what Jesus was implying by repeatedly speaking of His singular relationship with God the Father, but thought this was blasphemy, since they didn’t believe that He Himself was God the Son {cf. Jn 5:18, 10:33 above}.

21) Divine “I”Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18,20,22,26,28,32,34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (“The Lord says . . .”). He often talks in a way in which only God could speak. For instance, when He addresses the seven churches in the book of Revelation, He is clearly speaking to them as God (Rev 1:17-3:22). Perhaps the most striking example of this “Divine `I'” occurs in Matthew 23:34-39:

MATTHEW 23:34-39 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and {some} of them ye shall kill and crucify; and {some} of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute {them} from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, {thou} that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under {her} wings, and ye would not! (38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed {is} he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

JEREMIAH 22:5 But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.<<
MATTHEW 7:21-22 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

B. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) MATTHEW 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
2) JOHN 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
3) JOHN 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
4) JOHN 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared {him}.

5) Monogenes (“Only Begotten”) The phrase “only begotten (Son)” (also used in Jn 3:16,18 and 1 Jn 4:9) is the Greek monogenes, which means, according to any Greek lexicon, “unique, only member of a kind.” It does not mean “created,” as some (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) falsely interpret it. Christ is the eternal Son of God, and as such, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood, just as a human son partakes fully of humanness.

6) JOHN 12:37-38 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: (38) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? {cf. 12:39-40}

7) JOHN 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

ISAIAH 6:1-5 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. (2) Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. (3) And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, {is} the Lord of hosts: the whole earth {is} full of his glory. (4) And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. (5) Then said I, Woe {is} me! for I am undone; because I {am} a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.
8) JOHN 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
9) ACTS 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
10) ROMANS 9:5 Whose {are} the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ {came}, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. {RSV, NIV: “Christ, who is God over all”}
11) PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
12) COLOSSIANS 1:15-19 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether {they be} thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all {things} he might have the preeminence. (19) For it pleased {the Father} that in him should all fulness dwell.

13) Prototokos (“Firstborn”) The Greek for “firstborn” is prototokos, which means “preeminence” and “eternal preexistence,” according to Greek lexicons. It does not mean “first-created.” Apart from being untrue linguistically, this heretical interpretation is contradicted in the next two verses, which inform us that Christ “created all things,” and that He “is before all things.” The Hebrew usage of “firstborn” is also instructive, since it illustrates its meaning as “preeminent.” David is called “firstborn” in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, whereas Manasseh was the first child born (Gen 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called “my firstborn” by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning “firstborn of all creation,” that is, the Creator. This is precisely how St. Paul uses the “firstborn” phraseology in Col 1:15.

14) COLOSSIANS 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (10) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
15) 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
16) TITUS 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; {RSV,NIV: “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”}
17) HEBREWS 1:3 Who being the brightness of {his} glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
18) HEBREWS 1:8 But unto the Son {he saith}, Thy throne, O God, {is} for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness {is} the sceptre of thy kingdom. {God the Father calls the Son God – a citation of Ps 45:6-7}
19) 2 PETER 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: {RSV, NIV: “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ”}
20) 1 JOHN 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, {even} in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. {NIV: “He is the true God”}
II. JESUS IS THE CREATOR 

A. God Alone is the Creator

1) GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2) GENESIS 1:27 So God created man in his {own} image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
3) NEHEMIAH 9:6 Thou, {even} thou, {art} Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all {things} that {are} therein, the seas, and all that {is} therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
4) JOB 9:2,8 . . . how should man be just with God? . . . (8) Which alone spreadeth out the heavens . . .
5) PSALM 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
6) ISAIAH 42:5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
7) ISAIAH 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I {am} the Lord that maketh all {things}; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
8) MALACHI 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . .
9) ROMANS 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, {are} all things: to whom {be} glory for ever. Amen.
10) HEBREWS 2:10 For it became him, for whom {are} all things, and by whom {are} all things, . . .

B. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) JOHN 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
2) JOHN 1:10 . . . the world was made by him, . . .
3) 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6 But to us {there is but} one God, the Father, of whom {are} all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom {are} all things, and we by him.
4) EPHESIANS 3:9 . . . God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
5) COLOSSIANS 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether {they be} thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
6) HEBREWS 1:2 . . . {his} Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
7) HEBREWS 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: {God the Father calls the Son “Lord.” Ps 102:25 is cited}
8) REVELATION 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

9) Arche (“Beginning”) The Greek for “beginning” is arche, from which we get our word “architect.” Its literal meaning, according to Greek scholars, is “origin, active cause, source, uncreated principle.” So the above verse is describing Jesus as the “architect,” or Creator of the Universe. In Rev 21:6 “arche” is applied to the Father, so it can’t possibly mean “created being,” as Jehovah’s Witnesses and other heretics maintain.

III. JESUS IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED 

A. God Alone is Eternal and Uncreated

1) GENESIS 21:33 . . . the Lord, the everlasting God.
2) EXODUS 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
3) DEUTERONOMY 33:27 The eternal God {is thy} refuge, and underneath {are} the everlasting arms: . . .
4) PSALM 90:2 . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou {art} God.
5) PSALM 93:2 Thy throne {is} established of old: thou {art} from everlasting.
6) ISAIAH 40:28 . . . the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, . . .
7) ISAIAH 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I {am} the first, and I {am} the last; and beside me {there is} no God.
8) ISAIAH 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name {is} Holy; . . .
9) HABAKKUK 1:12 {Art} thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? . . .
10) MALACHI 3:6 For I {am} the Lord, I change not; . . .
11) ROMANS 16:26 . . . the everlasting God, . . .
12) 1 TIMOTHY 1:17 . . . the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, . . .

B. Jesus’ Own Words

1) JOHN 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
2) JOHN 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
3) REVELATION 1:17-18 Fear not; I am the first and the last: (18) I {am} he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
4) REVELATION 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

C. O.T. Prophecy and N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) ISAIAH 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
{God the Father is called “Mighty God” (the same phrase in Hebrew, El Gibbor) at Deut 10:17, Neh 9:32, Is 10:21, and Jer 32:18. Likewise, the word for “everlasting,” ad, is applied to God the Father in Isaiah 57:15}
2) MICAH 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, {though} thou be little among the thousands of Judah, {yet} out of thee shall he come forth unto me {that is} to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth {have been} from of old, from everlasting.
{The Hebrew word for “everlasting” here is olam, and it is often used in the most explicit way to describe God the Father’s eternal existence (e.g., Ps 41:13, 90:2, 93:2, 106:48, Is 40:28). If this word means “eternal and uncreated” when applied to God the Father (YHWH), then it must mean the same thing when it is applied to Jesus}
3) JOHN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
4) COLOSSIANS 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
5) HEBREWS 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
6) 1 JOHN 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

D. Jesus’ Preexistence in Heaven: His Own Words

1) JOHN 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
2) JOHN 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
3) JOHN 6:32-33 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. (33) For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
4) JOHN 6:62 {What} and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
5) JOHN 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
6) JOHN 7:28-29 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. (29) But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
7) JOHN 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
8) JOHN 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
9) JOHN 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
10) JOHN 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
11) JOHN 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
12) JOHN 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. {cf. Jn 5:30,36-38, 6:38,46,50,57-58, 7:18, 8:18,26}

E. Jesus’ Preexistence: N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) JOHN 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, {even} the Son of man which is in heaven. {cf. 13:3}
2) JOHN 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: . . .
3) JOHN 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: . . .
4) EPHESIANS 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
5) 1 PETER 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

IV. JESUS IS WORSHIPED 

A. God Alone is to be Worshiped

1) EXODUS 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2) DEUTERONOMY 6:13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
3) NEHEMIAH 9:6 Thou, {even} thou, {art} Lord alone; . . . and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
4) LUKE 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. {cf. Mt 4:10}
5) REVELATION 4:9-11 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, (10) The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, (11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
{Worship of angels is condemned (Col 2:18), and angels refuse worship (Rev 19:10 and 22:8-9). Peter refuses worship (Acts 10:25-26), as do Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11-15) }

B. Jesus’ Own Words

1) JOHN 5:23 That all {men} should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

C. Jesus Accepts Worship

1) MATTHEW 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, . . .
2) MATTHEW 9:18 . . . there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, . . .
3) MATTHEW 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
4) MATTHEW 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
5) MATTHEW 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping {him}, . . .
6) MATTHEW 28:9 . . . And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
7) MATTHEW 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
8) MARK 5:6 . . . he ran and worshipped him.
9) LUKE 24:52 And they worshipped him, . . .
10) JOHN 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
11) JOHN 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

D. Jesus Worshiped as a Baby

1) MATTHEW 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
2) MATTHEW 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

E. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of {things} in heaven, and {things} in earth, and {things} under the earth; (11) And {that} every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ {is} Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
2) HEBREWS 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
3) REVELATION 5:8 . . . the four beasts and four {and} twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. {cf. Rev 4:10, 7:11}
4) REVELATION 5:12-14 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, honour, and glory, and blessing. (13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, {be} unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (14) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four {and} twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. {cf. Rev 4:9,11, 7:12, Rom 11:33, Col 2:6-7}
5) REVELATION 7:9-12,15-17 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; (10) And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (11) And all the angels stood round about the throne, and {about} the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, (12) Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, {be} unto our God for ever and ever. Amen . . . (15) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. (16) They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. (17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

F. Worship of Jesus in the Book of Revelation

In the New Testament, the Greek word for “worship,” proskuneo, is used 22 times to refer to worship of the Father, five times of divine worship without specification, and 14 times in reference to worship of Jesus. Proskuneo is also explicitly defined, both in Revelation 4:10-11 and 7:11-12, since both passages define the worship of God by virtue of describing the words directed to God in praise and worship (“. . . worshipped God, saying . . .”). Every Greek word (eleven in all) applied to God the Father in this fashion in Revelation is applied to Jesus as well (eucharistia is used of Christ in Colossians). One word, ploutos, is applied to Jesus only in Revelation, and to the Father in Romans 11:33. There can be no stronger evidence that Jesus is to receive worship equally with His Father, thus making Him equal to the Father, and no less than fully God:

Greek: Pipto English (KJV): Fell down before
Father: Revelation 4:10, 7:11
Jesus: Revelation 5:8

Eulogia (Blessing)
Father: 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13

Doxa (Glory)
Father: 4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13

Sophia (Wisdom)
Father: 7:12
Jesus: 5:12

Time
 (Honour)
Father: 4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12-13
Dunamis (Power)
Father: 4:11, 7:12
Jesus: 5:12
Kratos (Power)
Father: 5:13
Jesus: 5:13

Ischus 
(Might)
Father: 7:12
Jesus: 5:12

Axios
 (Worthy)
Father: 4:11
Jesus: 5:12

Lambano
 (Receive)
Father: 4:11
Jesus: 5:12

Ploutos
 (Riches)
Father: (Romans 11:33)
Jesus: Rev 5:12

Eucharistia
 (Thanksgiving)
Father: 4:9, 7:12
Jesus: (Colossians 2:6-7)

Furthermore, by strong implication, Revelation 7:11-12 can be said to apply equally to Jesus as well, since the “Lamb” is mentioned in the immediate context (7:10,17). Rev 7:11 states, “. . . fell before the throne . . . and worshipped God,” while Rev 7:17 informs us of, “the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne . . .”

V. JESUS IS OMNIPOTENT (ALL-POWERFUL)

A. God Alone is Omnipotent

1) GENESIS 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? . . .
2) DEUTERONOMY 32:39 See now that I, {even} I, {am} he, and {there is} no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither {is there any} that can deliver out of my hand.
3) NEHEMIAH 9:6 . . . thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all {things} that {are} therein, . . . and thou preservest them all . . .
4) JOB 11:10 If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?
5) JOB 42:2 I know that thou canst do every {thing}, . . .
6) PSALM 33:9 For he spake, and it was {done}; he commanded, and it stood fast.
7) ISAIAH 26:4 . . . in the Lord Jehovah {is} everlasting strength:
8) ISAIAH 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times {the things} that are not {yet} done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
9) JEREMIAH 32:17 Ah Lord God! . . . there is nothing too hard for thee:
10) MATTHEW 19:26 With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. {cf. Mk 10:27, Luk 1:37, 18:27}
11) ACTS 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . . For we are also his offspring.
12) ROMANS 1:20 . . . his eternal power and Godhead . . .
13) ROMANS 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, {are} all things: to whom {be} glory for ever. Amen.
14) 1 TIMOTHY 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, . . .
15) REVELATION 19:6 . . . the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
16) REVELATION 21:22 . . . the Lord God Almighty . . .
{God the Father is called “Almighty” in many other verses: Gen 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3, 49:25, Ex 6:3, Job 5:17, 6:4,14, 8:3,5, 21:15,20, 27:2,10-11,13, 31:2,35, etc., Ezek 10:5, 2 Cor 6:18, Rev 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7,14, 19:15}

B. Jesus’ Own Words

1) MATTHEW 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: . . . {cf. Jn 16:15, 17:10}
2) MATTHEW 28:18 . . . All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
3) JOHN 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
4) JOHN 5:19-21 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (20) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth {them}; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
5) JOHN 6:40 . . . every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
6) JOHN 10:17-18 . . . I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
7) REVELATION 1:18 I {am} he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
8) REVELATION 3:7 . . . These things saith he that is holy, . . ., he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

C. O.T. Indications and N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) ISAIAH 9:6 . . . the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
2) JOHN 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
3) JOHN 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, . . .
4) PHILIPPIANS 3:20-21 . . . we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: (21) Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
5) COLOSSIANS 1:17 . . . by him all things consist.
6) HEBREWS 1:3 . . . upholding all things by the word of his power, . . .
7) 1 PETER 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
8) REVELATION 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. {cf. Gen 17:1, 1 Cor 8:6}

VI. JESUS IS OMNISCIENT (ALL-KNOWING)

A. God Alone is Omniscient

1) 1 SAMUEL 16:7 . . . {the Lord seeth} not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.
2) 1 KINGS 8:39 . . . give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, {even} thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;) {cf. 2 Chron 6:30}
3) 1 CHRONICLES 28:9 . . . the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: . . .
4) 2 CHRONICLES 16:9 For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of {them} whose heart {is} perfect toward him . . . {cf. Prov 15:3, Jer 32:19, Zech 4:10}
5) JOB 34:21 For his eyes {are} upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.
6) JOB 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge? {cf. Job 36:4}
7) JOB 42:2 . . . no thought can be withholden from thee.
8) PSALM 44:21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.
9) PSALM 147:5 Great {is} our Lord, and of great power: his understanding {is} infinite.
10) PROVERBS 21:30 {There is} no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.
11) ISAIAH 40:28 . . . the Creator of the ends of the earth, . . . {there is} no searching of his understanding.
12) ISAIAH 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times {the things} that are not {yet} done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
13) ISAIAH 48:3-6 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did {them} suddenly, and they came to pass. (4) Because I knew that thou {art} obstinate, and thy neck {is} an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; (5) I have even from the beginning declared {it} to thee; before it came to pass I shewed {it} thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. (6) Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare {it}? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.
14) ISAIAH 66:18 For I {know} their works and their thoughts: . . .{cf. 1 Cor 3:20}
15) EZEKIEL 11:5 . . . Thus saith the Lord; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, {every one of} them.
16) MATTHEW 6:8 . . . your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
17) MATTHEW 6:18 . . . thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. {cf. 6:32}
18) LUKE 16:15 . . . God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
19) ACTS 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all {men}, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, {cf. 15:8}
20) ACTS 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
21) ROMANS 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what {is} the mind of the Spirit, . .
22) ROMANS 11:33-34 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable {are} his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (34) For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
23) HEBREWS 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things {are} naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
24) 1 JOHN 3:20 God . . . knoweth all things.

B. Indications in Jesus’ Own Words

1) MATTHEW 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
2) MATTHEW 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, {ye} hypocrites?
3) MATTHEW 26:46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me. {cf. Mk 14:42}
4) MARK 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? {cf. Lk 5:22}
5) MARK 5:30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
6) LUKE 22:10-13 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. (11) And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? (12) And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. (13) And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. {cf. Mk 14:13-15}
7) JOHN 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
8) JOHN 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
9) JOHN 13:10-11 . . . ye are clean, but not all. (11) For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

{Additionally, there are many other verses illustrating that Jesus knew the future perfectly (e.g., Mt 12:40, 16:21, 17:9,11-12,22-23, 20:18-19, 21:39, 24:2, 26:2,12,21,31-34,54 Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:32-34, 14:9,18,27-30,42,49, Lk 9:22,44, 11:30, 12:50, 17:25, 18:31-33, 22:15,21-22,32,34,37, Jn 2:19, 3:14, 10:11,15,17-18, 12:32-34, 13:18-21, 14:19, 15:13, 16:20, 18:11, 21:18-19}

C. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) MATTHEW 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, . . .
2) MATTHEW 13:54 . . . he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this {man} this wisdom, and {these} mighty works?
3) LUKE 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
4) LUKE 6:8 But he knew their thoughts, . . .
5) LUKE 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, . . .
6) JOHN 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all {men}, (25) And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
7) JOHN 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? {cf. 4:17-19}
8) JOHN 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
9) JOHN 13:1 Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, . . .
10) JOHN 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
11) JOHN 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, . . .
12) JOHN 21:17 . . . Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee . . .
13) COLOSSIANS 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
14) REVELATION 2:23 . . . I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: . . .

VII. JESUS IS OMNIPRESENT (PRESENT EVERYWHERE)

A. God Alone is Omnipresent

1) 1 KINGS 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; . . . {cf. 2 Chron 2:6}
2) PSALM 139:7-8 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? (8) If I ascend up into heaven, thou {art} there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou {art there}.
3) JEREMIAH 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
4) ACTS 7:48-49 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, (49) Heaven {is} my throne, and earth {is} my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what {is} the place of my rest?
5) ACTS 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
6) EPHESIANS 4:6 One God and Father of all, who {is} above all, and through all, and in you all. {cf. 1 Cor 15:28}

B. Jesus’ Own Words

1) MATTHEW 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
2) MATTHEW 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, {even} unto the end of the world. Amen.

C. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) EPHESIANS 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
2) COLOSSIANS 3:11 . . . Christ {is} all, and in all.

VIII. JESUS FORGIVES SINS IN HIS OWN NAME

A. God Alone Can Forgive Sins in His Own Name

1) EXODUS 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, . . .
2) NUMBERS 14:20 And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word:
3) 2 SAMUEL 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
4) 1 KINGS 8:34 Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, . . .
5) PSALM 25:11 For thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it {is} great. {cf. 25:7,18}
6) PSALM 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. {cf. 32:1-2}
7) PSALM 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. {cf. Psa 65:3, 79:9, 85:2, 99:8,}
8) PSALM 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, {so} far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
9) PSALM 130:4 But {there is} forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.
10) ISAIAH 1:18 . . . though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. {cf. Is 6:6, 44:22}
11) ISAIAH 43:25 I, {even} I, {am} he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
12) ISAIAH 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
13) JEREMIAH 31:34 . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. {cf. 33:8}
14) EZEKIEL 33:15-16 {If} the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. (16) None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
15) DANIEL 9:9 To the Lord our God {belong} mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;
16) MICAH 7:18 Who {is} a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth {in} mercy.
17) MATTHEW 6:12-15 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. (13) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (14) For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: (15) But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. {cf. Mt 18:35, Mk 11:26}
18) LUKE 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
19) EPHESIANS 4:32 . . . forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. {cf. Col 2:13}
20) HEBREWS 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. {cf. 10:2,17}
21) 1 JOHN 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us {our} sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

B. Jesus Forgives Individuals

1) MARK 2:5-10 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. (6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, (7) Why doth this {man} thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? (8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, {Thy} sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? (10) But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) . . . {cf. Mt 9:2-6, Lk 5:21-24}
2) LUKE 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
3) LUKE 7:47-50 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, {the same} loveth little. (48) And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (49) And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? (50) And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

C. Jesus’ Death Makes Forgiveness Possible

1) MATTHEW 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. {cf. Lk 22:20, Heb 9:22}

D. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) LUKE 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
2) JOHN 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. {CF. 1:36}
3) ACTS 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand {to be} a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. {CF. 10:43, 13:38, 26:18}
4) 1 JOHN 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
5) 1 JOHN 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for {the sins of} the whole world.
6) 1 JOHN 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
7) REVELATION 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, {who is} the faithful witness, {and} the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
{See also Is 53:4-6, Rom 3:25, 4:25, 5:9-11,18, 2 Cor 5:19, Gal 1:4, Eph 1:7, 2:13-18, 5:2, Col 1:14,21-22, 1 Tim 2:5-6, Titus 2:14, Heb 1:3, 2:17, 9:14-15,26, Heb 10:10,13,18-19, 12:24, 13:12,20, 1 Pet 1:18-19, 2:24, 3:18, 1 Jn 3:5, 4:10, 5:9}

IX. JESUS RECEIVES PRAYER

A. Jesus’ Own Words

1) JOHN 14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (14) If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do {it}.
2) JOHN 16:23-24,26 . . . Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give {it} you. (24) Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full . . . (26) At that day ye shall ask in my name: . . .

B. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) ACTS 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon {God}, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
LUKE 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
ECC 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
2) 1 CORINTHIANS 1:2 . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, . . .
JEREMIAH 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.
JOEL 2:32 And it shall come to pass, {that} whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered:…
{quoted in Acts 2:21, Rom 10:12-14, using the same word for “call,” “epikaleo,” as that in 1 Cor 1:2}
2TIMOTHY 2:22 . . . follow righteousness, . . ., with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
3) EPHESIANS 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
4) COLOSSIANS 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, {do} all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
5) HEBREWS 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of {our} lips giving thanks to his name. {see 13:12}
6) REVELATION 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four {and} twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

X. JESUS IS SINLESS AND PERFECT

A. Jesus’ Own Words

1) JOHN 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. {cf. 5:30}
2) JOHN 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? . . . {RSV: “convicts,” NIV: “prove me guilty of sin”}
3) REVELATION 3:7 . . . These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, . . .

B. N.T. Apostolic Witness

1) MARK 1:24 Saying, Let {us} alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. {demons speaking} {cf. Lk 4:34}
2) LUKE 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. {cf. Acts 4:27,30}
3) ACTS 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, . . .
4) ACTS 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another {psalm}, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. {cf. Ps 16:10}
5) 2 CORINTHIANS 5:21 For he hath made him {to be} sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
6) HEBREWS 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as {we are, yet} without sin.
7) HEBREWS 7:26 For such an high priest became us, {who is} holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
8) HEBREWS 9:14 . . . Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, . . .
9) 1 PETER 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
10) 1 PETER 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
11) 1 JOHN 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

XI. THE PRIMACY OF THE NAME OF JESUS

We find the phrase, “the name of the Lord” about 50 times in the Old Testament and eleven times in the New Testament. In the N.T., “name of God” is found seven times, “the name of the Father” eight times, but the “name” as referring to Jesus occurs at least 91 times. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, and the One through Whom the Father is now speaking (Heb 1:1-2). Hence, the overwhelming emphasis on His name in the N.T.

1) PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of {things} in heaven, and {things} in earth, and {things} under the earth; (11) And {that} every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ {is} Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
ISAIAH 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth {in} righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

2) Salvation and Faith in Jesus’ Name: Mt 12:21, Jn 1:12, 2:23, 3:18, Acts 4:10,12, 10:43, 22:16, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 6:11, 1 Jn 3:23, 5:13.
3) Jesus – the Most Important Name: 1 Cor 1:2, Eph 1:20-21, Phil 2:9-11 {cf. Is 45:23}, 2 Thess 1:12, 1 Jn 3:23, Rev 2:3,13.
4) Who Should We Be “Witnesses” of?: ACT 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. {Jesus speaking – see 1:1,11}
5) Jesus Talks About the Importance of His Name: Mt 7:22, 10:22, 12:15-21, 18:5,20, 19:29, 24:9, 28:19-20.
6) Christians Are Baptized in Jesus’ Name: Mt 28:19, Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor 1:13,15.
7) Christians Suffer For Jesus’ Name: Acts 5:41, 9:16, 15:26, 21:13.
8) Christians Gather in Jesus’ Name: Mt 18:20, 1 Cor 5:4.
9) Men Healed in Jesus’ Name: Acts 3:6,16, 4:10,30.
10) Christians Speak, Teach & Preach in Jesus’ Name: Lk 24:47, Acts 4:17-18, 5:28, 8:12, 9:27,29.
11) Christians Are Named After Jesus Christ: Acts 11:26, 1 Pet 4:16.
12) Remission of Sins in Jesus’ Name: Acts 10:43, 1 Jn 2:12.
13) Jesus is Called “Lord of Lords”: Rev 19:16.
14) Christians Are to Give Thanks & Praise in Jesus’ Name: Eph 5:20, Heb 13:15.
15) Christians Are to Do All Things in Jesus’ Name: Col 3:17.

XII. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE MESSIAH (CHRIST)


1) MATTHEW 16:15-17,20 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed {it} unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven . . . (20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. {cf. Mk 8:27-30, Lk 9:18-21}
2) MARK 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
3) MARK 14:61-62 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? (62) And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. {cf. Mt 26:63-65, Lk 22:67-71}
4) LUKE 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, . . . Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he . . . suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
5) LUKE 24:25-27 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: (26) Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? (27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
6) JOHN 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. (26) Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am {he}. {See also Mt 1:16-18, 5:17, 11:2,10, 21:42, 24:5,23-24, 26:56,68, 27:17,22, Mk 3:11, 5:7, 13:21-22,26, Lk 1:31-33, 2:11,26, 4:20-21, 22:37, 23:2,35,39, 24:44, Jn 5:39-40,46-47, 15:25}

7) Son of Man Every time the N.T. refers to Jesus as Christ, it is declaring that He is the Messiah, since Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah. Also, when Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man (e.g., Mt 10:23,32-33, 19:28, 23:37 ff., 24:47, Mk 2:19-20, 3:28-29, 8:31,38, 9:9,31, 10:33,38, 14:21,41, Lk 11:30, 12:8,49-50, 17:24, 18:6,8, 21:36, 22:27,48), He is claiming to be the Messiah, since He is referring (esp. in Mk 13:26, 14:62, Jn 5:27; cf. Rev 1:13, 14:14) to Daniel 7:13, a well-known messianic passage. Furthermore, in Mk 14:61-62, Jesus assumes that the Christ (Messiah) and the Son of Man are one and the same (Himself). Matthew 16:16-17 establishes the fact that the Messiah and the Son of God are identical as well. In the KJV, the word Messiah appears only twice in the O.T. (Daniel 9:25 and 9:26), and twice in the N.T. (as Messias): John 4:25 (above) and John 1:41, which shows that Christ is the equivalent Greek term:
JOHN 1:41 . . . We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

XIII. FIFTY O.T. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS

The Apostles, in the N.T., often appeal to messianic promises and fulfilled prophecies as evidence of the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus Christ (e.g., Mt 2:4-6, Rom 1:2-4, Acts 3:18, 10:43, 13:29, 17:2-3, 1 Cor 15:3-4, 1 Pet 2:5-6).

1) Born of a Virgin: Is 7:14 w/ Mt 1:18,24-25, Lk 1:26-35.
2) From the Tribe of Judah: Gen 49:10, Mic 5:2 w/ Mt 1:2, Lk 3:23,33.
3) From the Family Line of Jesse: Is 11:1,10 w/ Mt 1:6, Lk 3:23,32.
4) From the House of David: Ps 132:11, Jer 23:5 w/ Mt 1:1, Lk 3:23,31.
5) Born in Bethlehem: Mic 5:2 w/ Mt 2:1,4-8, Lk 2:4-7.
6) Called Son of God: Ps 2:7 w/ Mt 3:17.
7) Called Lord: Ps 110:1, Jer 23:6 w/ Mt 22:43-45, Lk 2:11.
8) Called Immanuel (God With Us): Is 7:14 w/ Mt 1:23.
9) A Prophet: Deut 18:18 w/ Mt 21:11, Lk 7:16, Jn 7:40.
10) Judge: Is 33:22 w/ Jn 5:30.
11) King: Ps 2:6 w/ Mt 21:5, Jn 18:36-37.
12) Special Anointing of the Spirit: Is 11:2 w/ Mt 3:16-17.
13) Preceded by a Messenger: Is 40:3, Mal 3:1 w/ Mt 3:1-3, 11:10, Lk 1:17, Jn 1:23.
14) Galilee Ministry: Is 9:1 w/ Mt 4:12-13,17.
15) Ministry of Miracles: Is 32:3-4, 35:5-6 w/ Mt 9:32-35.
16) Teacher of Parables: Ps 78:2 w/ Mt 13:34.
17) Triumphal Entry Into Jerusalem: Zech 9:9 w/ Mt 21:5-10,15-16.
18) Messiah to Come Before Jerusalem’s Destruction (70 A.D.): Gen 49:10 w/ Mt 24:1-2.
19) Messiah Will Come to the Temple (Had to be Before 70): Ps 118:26, Dan 9:26, Hag 2:7-9, Zech 11:13, Mal 3:1 w/ Mt 21:12, Jn 2:13-17.
20) Entered Jerusalem on a Donkey: Zech 9:9 w/ Lk 19:35-37.
21) “Stone of Stumbling”: Ps 118:22, Is 8:13-14, 28:16 w/ Acts 4:10-11, Rom 9:32-33, 1 Pet 2:7-8.
22) Rejected by His Own People: Is 53:3 w/ Jn 1:11, 7:5,48.
23) Hated Without a Cause: Ps 69:4, Is 49:7 w/ Jn 15:25.
24) Resurrection: Ps 16:10, 30:3, 41:10, 118:17, Hos 6:2 w/ Acts 2:31, 13:33, Mt 28:6, Mk 16:6, Lk 24:46.
25) Ascension: Ps 68:18 w/ Acts 1:9.
26) Right Hand of God: Ps 110:1 w/ Heb 1:3, Acts 2:34-35.

{The following 24 prophecies were literally fulfilled by Jesus in one 24-hour period of time}:

27) Betrayed by a Friend: Ps 41:9, 55:12-14 w/ Mt 10:4.
28) Betrayed For 30 Pieces of Silver: Zec 11:12 w/ Mt 26:15.
29) Silver Thrown in God’s House: Zech 11:13 w/ Mt 27:5.
30) The Potter’s Field: Zech 11:13 w/ Mt 27:7.
31) Forsaken by Disciples: Zech 13:7 w/ Mt 26:31, Mk 14:50.
32) Silent Before Accusers: Is 53:7 w/ Mt 27:12.
33) Wounded and Bruised: Is 53:5, Zech 13:6 w/ Mt 27:26.
34) Beaten: Is 50:6, Mic 5:1 w/ Mt 26:67, Lk 22:63.
35) Spit Upon: Is 50:6 w/ Mt 26:67.
36) Mocked: Ps 22:7-8 w/ Mt 27:31.
37) Hands and Feet Pierced: Ps 22;16, Zec 12:10 w/ Lk 23:33.
38) Messiah Was to Die: Is 53:8, Dan 9:26 w/ Lk 23:46, 24:7, Jn 19:30.
39) Executed With Criminals: Is 53:12 w/ Mt 27:38.
40) Prayed For His Persecutors: Is 53:12 w/ Lk 23:34.
41) People Wagging Their Heads: Ps 22:7 w/ Mt 27:39.
42) Stared Upon: Ps 22:17 w/ Lk 23:35.
43) Garments Parted: Ps 22:18 w/ Jn 19:23.
44) Garments Gambled For: Ps 22;18 w/ Jn 19:24.
45) Offered Vinegar and Gall: Ps 69:21 w/ Mt 27:34,Jn 19:29.
46) Forsaken Cry: Ps 22:1 w/ Mt 27:46.
47) Bones Not Broken: Ps 34:20 w/ Jn 19:33.
48) Side Pierced: Zech 12;10 w/ Jn 19:34.
49) Darkness at Noon: Amos 8:9 w/ Mt 27:45.
50) Buried in Rich Man’s Tomb: Is 53:9 w/ Mt 27:57-60.

 

XIV. JESUS’ SUBJECTION (AS MESSIAH) TO THE FATHER


Jesus’ subjection to the Father is seen in such verses as John 14:28: “. . . for my Father is greater than I,” 1 Corinthians 11:3: “. . .the head of Christ {is} God,” and 1 Corinthians 15:28: “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” These verses and others have been utilized historically by heretics such as the Arians (of whom Jehovah’s Witnesses are a revival), as well as non-trinitarian theists such as Unitarians, to “prove” that Jesus is lesser than the Father and therefore not God in the flesh. Upon closer inspection, however, a clearer picture emerges.

John 14:28 is to be understood in light of passages such as Philippians 2:6-8, which show us that Christ in John 14:28 was speaking strictly in terms of his office as Messiah, which entailed a giving up, not of the Divine Nature, but of certain prerogatives of glory and Deity which are enjoyed by the Father. Christ subjected Himself to the Father in order to undertake His role as the Incarnate Son and Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). Similarly, one might say that “the President of the United States is a greater man than I am,” but this would not mean he was necessarily a better man. In any event, he is still a man like us. Since Jesus is still God, even while “humbling” Himself (Phil 2:8), Scripture also indicates that the Father is, in a sense, “subject” to the Son:

JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.
JOHN 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give {it} you.

When the Father is called the “head” of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1,5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, “one flesh” (Mt 19:5-6). Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8). Luke 2:51 says that Jesus was “subject” to Mary and Joseph. Yet no orthodox Christian of any stripe would hold that Jesus was lesser in essence than His earthly parents! The same Greek word for “subject” in Luke 2:51 (hupotasso) is used in 1 Cor 15:28, and in 1 Pet 2:18 below. Besides, submissiveness and servanthood is not presented as a sign of weakness in Scripture. Quite the contrary:

1 PETER 2:18 Servants, {be} subject to {your} masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
MATTHEW 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

The word for “greatest” here is meizon, the same word used in John 14:28. Thus, any notion that submissiveness is a lessening of equality is absolutely unscriptural.
Likewise, in 1 Cor 15:28, the subjection spoken of is that of the Son as incarnate, not the Son as Son in essence. While this verse tells us that God will be “all in all,” Colossians 3:11 tells us that “. . . Christ {is} all, and in all.” Thus, Jesus’ office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be “all in all” just as His Father is.

2017-04-27T14:44:33-04:00

Original title: Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?

MassacreKatyn

One of mass graves at Katyn (Russia), 1943, where the NKVD (Soviet secret police) in 1940 massacred some of the estimated 22,000 Polish officers, policemen, intellectuals and civilian prisoners of war [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * *

This is a somewhat abridged version (minus only lengthy quotations from Augustine and Aquinas) of chapter 4 of my book, Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism (2002).

* * * * *

 

I. THE NATURE OF FREE WILL AND THE FREE WILL DEFENSE

Having a free choice to potentially, or to be able, to choose evil does not mean that one will indeed choose it. One is free (by definition, it seems to me) to never choose it, as is the case with God. But God is different in that He not only does not choose evil, but cannot ever possibly choose evil, either, because this violates His very nature. That would be like water ceasing to be wet, or a tiger ceasing to be a carnivore, or 2 + 2 suddenly adding up to 5 instead of 4, etc.

Besides, the Christian defines evil as rebellion against, or separation from, God and His will (as the “embodiment” of the Moral Law). So how can God separate from Himself? That’s not only “morally impossible,” but also logically impossible, it seems to me, if indeed God is omni-benevolent and omnipotent, pure being, and entirely self-sufficient, as orthodox Christians believe.

But free will itself does not explain the rise of evil. Christians believe the initial cause of evil is self-autonomy, or the desire to “go it alone” without God, or rebellion. Free will led to the ability to choose self over against God (radical, disobedient autonomy vs. obedient child of God), which in turn led to the Fall, which in turn can explain the rest of human sin and evil. So free will can still be said to be the “cause” (in a secondary, pre-conditional sense) of all this (a necessary condition) but not a sufficient condition in and of itself.

This initial cosmic rebellion (which Christians call the Fall) was the cause of original sin and its primary component concupiscence (i.e., a marked propensity for, or tendency or desire towards, sin). This is an efficient condition and cause of sin, not free will itself, because mankind could have potentially chosen to always be good (as opposed to a robot which must be good and can’t possibly do otherwise). This is true, for example, of the non-fallen angels (also creatures), who chose to be obedient and never to rebel.

Free will means making choices freely; with full consent of the will and the mind, as opposed to some sort of mechanical, automatic choice. The original choice towards evil was simply a choice between oneself and God, rather like a severely disobedient child. It’s a sort of primeval jealousy as well: “God is in control; I want to be in control like God is; therefore I will cast Him off and be my own god” – an attempt to mirror God’s attributes “psychologically.” But this cannot occur in fact (ontologically), for a creature can never rise to equality with or superiority to, its Creator and Source.

The problem is that – given free will – free agents will likely choose to sin. That being the case, God nevertheless chooses the best of all possible worlds to create, and does create, knowing that some will choose evil as a result of possessing the free will — which is the necessary condition for that choice, making it (tragically but necessarily) possible. God chose to let man rebel (nothing catches an omniscient Being by surprise). If He had prohibited that from happening, that would have been a mitigation of free will, it seems clear to me. Free will is (surprise!) really free!

So – to summarize – “free will” in Christian theology doesn’t mean a necessary inclusion of evil and rebellion, but rather, a true choice of the will as opposed to automaton-like behavior (i.e., lacking a will altogether) that couldn’t possibly have been otherwise. One can simply choose to always be good.

The highly-respected Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his book, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York: Harper & Row, 1974, p. 28), points out that Free Will Theodicy (FWT) is an argument attempting to demonstrate and elucidate what God’s reason for permitting evil (in general) “really is,” whereas the much more modest goal of the Free Will Defense (FWD) is to demonstrate that it is logically and morally possible that God either has a good reason – or, minimally, not an inconsistent reason – for allowing evil (sufficient to overcome the Problem of Evil in its classic Humean formulation), whether known or not.

In other words, it is the difference between outright assertion (FWT) and (merely) allowance of or speculation about any number of logical or theoretical possibilities that defeat alleged disproofs (FWD). Plantinga himself opts for FWD. I also favor FWD in my own apologetics and philosophical theology, yet I sometimes cross over into FWT insofar as I mention or allude to (usually in passing, as a sort of “footnote”) theological answers or speculations that have been given for the existence of evil.

Methodologically and strategically it makes much more sense to stick to a purely philosophical and logical FWD, while on the other hand, I would never deny the validity of serious attempts at FWT, as long as it is permissible to “allow” theology and revelation into the discussion (though always admitting our lack of ultimate explanations and the unavoidable presence of mystery to some degree).

In my comments on natural evil below, I concentrate on inconsistencies in the atheist critique of FWD (in the context of the larger atheological polemic) and recourse to analogy, in an attempt to demonstrate that atheists too often arbitrarily apply different principles to the laws of nature, according to what they are arguing at the moment. This is a sort of “turning the tables” rather than a direct defense of FWD per se. One in effect, however, defends one’s own position in overturning critiques of it, by means of demonstration of radical inconsistency or impossibility of consistent non-absurd application (in this instance, with regard to the laws of nature).

Both FWD and FWT assume that free will makes rebellion possible, which is the direct cause of evil. Free will opens up the possibility of evil, so is necessary for its existence, even though it doesn’t strictly cause it or make it a certainty. And free will resides in man, and is able to bring about evil, insofar as it is used for ends apart from God’s will.

II. NATURAL EVIL AND NATURAL LAWS

Critics object that the free will defense (FWD) doesn’t address natural evils (things such as disease, earthquakes, famine, falling off a mountain, etc.), thus it is insufficient, and fails. This isn’t true at all. FWD doesn’t have to address natural evils because these are a necessary consequence of natural laws themselves. For example:

1. Rocks are hard.

2. Gravity exists.

3. Human faces, after a significant fall due to gravity, do not mix very well with rocks (assuming they happen to sit at the bottom of the fall).

4. The “natural evil” of a crushed skull or broken nose and severe scrapes may, therefore, occur.

Logical conclusion(s):

A. #1-3 are all natural laws (physics, chemistry, and biochemistry).

B. Natural laws are such (by their very nature, and given physical objects) that “injuries” and “annihilations” will inevitably occur.

C. Therefore, “natural evil” (insofar as the term makes any sense at all – it simply reduces to “unfortunate natural events”) is a necessary result of natural laws.

D. Therefore, to eliminate so-called “natural evil” is tantamount to the elimination of natural laws of matter, energy, etc. themselves.

E. Ergo: since elimination of natural laws would produce a chaotic, utterly unpredictable and formless world, this cannot be a possibility in the natural world as we know it; therefore the entire objection to this “absence” in FWD fails utterly.

Natural disasters are a necessary result of natural laws as we currently know them, and this is the real world, not one of the fantasy worlds atheists sometimes invent in order to maintain their rejection of theism, on these grounds. God could have changed these laws and made them operate some other way. But He didn’t.

We don’t have all the answers as to why He did what he did. He also could have made a world where atheists would see the clear evidence for His existence, and never resist it. But He didn’t. That’s because He values human choice and free will more than even obedience to Himself, even when He knows that being children of God is the best and most fulfilling choice for human beings. He doesn’t want coerced slaves; He wants children. And, for our part, we would much rather be sons and daughters of a loving Father than slaves of a wicked Master.

Unfortunately, natural laws as we know them involve decay and death. Everyone dies; we all get a “disease” in that sense. To have no disease and illness would mean being immortal and never having to age, decay or die. But cells, unfortunately, degenerate. Galaxies, stars, and universes all eventually “die.” So does biological life (much more quickly). That’s just how it is. The universe is winding down, and so is every one of us.

It is said that God could and should have performed many more miracles than Christians say He performs, to alleviate “unnecessary” suffering. But this is precisely what a natural world with laws and a uniformitarian principle precludes from the outset. How is it that the atheist can (in their hypothetical theories and arguments against Christianity) imagine all sorts of miracles and supernatural events that God should have done when it comes to evil and the FWD? “God should do this,” “He should have done that,” “I could have done much better than God did,” . . .

Yet when it comes to natural science (which is precisely what we are talking about, in terms of ”natural evil”), all of a sudden none of this is plausible (barely even possible) at all. Why is that? Legions of materialistic, naturalistic, and/or atheist scientists and their intellectual followers won’t allow the slightest miracle or direct divine intervention (not even in terms of intelligent design within the evolutionary hypothesis) with regard to the origin of life or DNA or mammals, or the human brain or eye, or even unique psychological/mental traits which humans possess.

Why would this be? I submit that it is because they have an extreme reluctance to introduce the miraculous when the natural can conceivably explain anything. They will resist any supernatural intervention into biological processes till their dying breath.

Yet when we switch the conversation over to FWD all of a sudden atheists — almost in spite of themselves – are introducing “superior” supernatural options for God to exercise, right and left. God is supposed to eliminate all disease, even though they are inevitable (even “normative”) according to the laws of biology as we know them. God is supposed to transform the entire structure of the laws of physics, so no one will ever get a scratch on their face. He is supposed to suspend a bullet in mid-air so it won’t kill its intended target, or make a knife turn to liquid before it rips into the flesh of yet another murder victim.

In the world these atheist critics demand of God, if He is to be a “good” God, or to exist at all, according to their exalted criteria, no one should ever have to get a corn on their toe, or a pimple, or have to blow their nose, or have chapped lips. God should turn rocks into Jello everytime a child is to fall on one. Cars should turn into silly putty or steam or cellophane when they are about to crash. The sexually promiscuous should have their sexual diseases immediately healed so that no one else will catch them, and so that they can go on their merry way, etc.

Clearly, these sorts of critics find “plausible” whatever opposes against theism and Christianity, no matter what the subject is; no matter how contradictory and far-fetched such arguments are, compared to their attacks against other portions of the Christian apologetic or theistic philosophical defenses. Otherwise, they would argue consistently and accept the natural world as it is, rather than adopting a desperate, glaring logical double standard.

In effect, then, if we follow their reasoning, the entire universe becomes an Alice in Wonderland fantasy-land where man is at the center. This is the Anthropic Principle! Atheists then in effect demand from God the very things they claim to loathe when they are arguing against theism on other grounds. Man must be at the center of the universe and suffer no harm, in order for theism to be true. Miracles must take place here, there, and everywhere, if theism is to be accepted as a plausible or superior alternative to atheism.

The same atheists will argue till they’re blue in the face against demonstrable miracles such as Jesus’ Resurrection. What they demand in order to accept Christianity they are never willing to accept when in fact it occurs to any degree (say, e.g., the healings performed by Jesus). God is not bound by human whims and fancies and demands. The proofs and evidences He has already provided are summarily rejected by atheists, one-by-one, as never “good enough.”

Atheists and other skeptics seem to want to go to any lengths of intellectual inconsistency and hostility in order to preserve their skepticism. They refuse to bow down to God unless He creates an entirely different world, in order to conform to their ultimately illogical imaginings and excessive, absurd requests for what He should have done. They’re consistent in their inconsistency.

By definition, the natural world entails suffering. One doesn’t eliminate that “difficulty” simply by resorting to a hypothetical fantasy-world where God eliminates every suffering by recourse to miracle and suspension of the natural laws He put into place.

In any event, the world as He created it did not originally involve suffering (nor will it in the future, for the redeemed). Man could have chosen to live in such a world, just as the unfallen angels did. They chose never to rebel. But man did, and having done so, now he wants to blame God for everything for which the blame in actuality lies squarely upon his own shoulders.

The natural world can’t modify itself everytime someone stubs their toe or gets a sunburn. That would require infinitely more miracles than any Christian claims have occurred. With a natural world and natural laws, any number of diseases are bound to occur. One could stay out in the cold too long and get pneumonia. Oh, so atheists want God – if He exists – to immediately cure every disease that comes about? Again, the miraculous, by definition, is not the normative. It is the extraordinary, rare event. I might stay underwater too long, swallow water, and damage my lungs. I could fall while ice skating, bump my head severely and damage my brain. I might eat a poisonous mushroom, or get stung by a poisonous snake, etc., etc. That’s how the world works. It is not God’s fault’ it is the nature of things, and the things of nature.

In an orderly, uniformitarian, largely predictable natural world which makes any sense at all, there will be diseases, torn ligaments, colds, and so forth. The question then becomes: “how much is too much suffering?” or “how many miracles is God required to perform to be a good and just God?” At that point the atheist can, of course, give no substantive, non-arbitrary answer, and his outlook is reduced to wishful thinking and pipe dreams.

Materialistic evolutionists resist miraculous creation at all costs precisely because they think miracles are exceedingly rare. Christians apply the same outlook to reality-at-large. We say that miracles will be very infrequent, by their very nature (“SUPERnatural”). And that must be the case so that the world is orderly and predictable enough to comfortably live in, in the first place.

The many atheists with whom I discussed this subject (I was on a list with some 40-60 atheists or agnostics) didn’t really deal at all with the difficulties inherent in making a world where there is not even any “natural evil.” All they did was imagine a world in which there was no suffering (which is easy enough for anyone to do, but extremely simplistic and not exactly a rigorously philosophical approach). They did not ponder all the logical – even physical – conundrums such a world would entail. A small child could opine that the world ought not to have any suffering whatever. But an adult has the responsibility to properly think through all the ramifications of that. He no longer has the luxury of the child, to create fairy-tales at his whim and fancy, about reality.

III. GOD’S OMNISCIENCE AND PROVIDENCE: MUST HE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING TO US?

Critics of Christianity argue that there is so much evil; that its degree, severity and the unfathomable amount of pain resulting therefrom, is not consistent with either a good God, or an all-powerful God Who could conceivably do something to prevent or mitigate all this misery in His own creation.

But the purpose of FWD is not to explain and “reveal” all the deepest mysteries of God’s Providence and omniscience (Christians never pretend to be able to figure everything out, as some atheist philosophers seem to foolishly think they can do). Its purpose is merely to place the origin of evil in man (and fallen angels, which actually preceded man), as a function of his free will and free choice; thereby removing the objection of God’s supposed evil (or weakened) character, due to the existence of evil.

Or it is claimed that God’s foreknowledge is inconsistent with our free will. If we have no free will, then obviously FWD is fallacious and must be discarded. This is based on the fallacious equation of foreknowledge with absolute predestination. The former is merely knowledge without causation; the latter is both. I have “foreknowledge” that the sun will come up tomorrow, and that there will be a time exactly 24 hours from now, when the hands of my clock will be in the same place they are now. Likewise, God knows what I will say and do tomorrow (which is all “now” to Him). But I still have free choice to do and say what I do.

In one sense, God causes everything, for He created everything and enabled everything that exists to possess certain potentialities and actualities. In another (but also equally real) sense, there is secondary, lesser causation, from creatures and immaterial matter. The two do not contradict. God’s ultimate causation of everything is a function of His being Creator, not a function of His omnipotence, and desire to control absolutely everything, down to the smallest detail.

Atheists and agnostics often complain that God hasn’t told us why there is so much suffering. But He certainly has (to some extent, anyway). The answer lies in the Fall and original sin, and (more deeply) the purpose of suffering in God’s redemptive plan; how God uses it for good ends, in His Providence (as He did, e.g., in the death of Jesus). But that’s revelation, and so-called “rationalists” resist that, too, with all their might. Such people cut off their chance of hearing the answer by confining all knowledge to the philosophical realm. One can’t discuss Christian answers and explanations with someone who disallows (as legitimate fields of knowledge) revelation and theology from the outset.

Nor is comfort and solace lacking for people who are suffering. God certainly comforts (or potentially does, depending on our response), but again, that involves becoming a disciple of Jesus, the One who gives peace in the midst of all trials. Since many refuse to do that, they are left with this agonizing quandary as to why God doesn’t seem to “care.” Having refused the cure, or even the possibility of it, they want to now complain that it doesn’t exist.

We learn about reasons for all the suffering we see in the Bible (specifically the book of Job), and in the deep, profound tradition of Christian spirituality. The great theologians, saints, mystics, and martyrs of history have pondered and written about these great mysteries in the most profound depth of insight and wisdom. But non-Christian critics often have so little respect for Christian theology and spirituality that they would refuse to even respectfully consider such explanations. A truly inquisitive, fair-minded person would be open to all explanations, not simply some supposedly “airtight” philosophical argument.

Christians simply acknowledge that we can’t figure everything out (in this case, we can comprehend the broad outlines, but not every jot and tittle of God’s purposes). I should think that would be a rather obvious truth for any philosophically oriented person, whose quest is ostensibly a continual yearning after truth. The very seeking and pursuit presupposes that no one has attained to complete or exhaustive knowledge, as of yet.

Nevertheless, many critics and skeptics appear to demand this of theism and Christianity before they will consider it at all, and make unreasonable and outrageous demands of the position; requiring it to explain absolutely everything, even the deepest mysteries of existence. Of course they don’t apply such a strict criteria to their own beliefs. They can always hide behind the rationale and modus operandi of all skeptics: that there isn’t enough evidence to believe so-and-so, and that atheism, on the other hand, is purely a “negative” phenomenon, and thus worthy of allegiance.

In my opinion, excessive skepticism, which causes one to reject virtually everything as unworthy of belief, is (at bottom) an intellectual cop-out. It is a sort of intellectual pessimism or cynicism. It assumes that the mind is unable to figure out or understand or assent to very much. I do think, however, that a limited degree of skepticism and “hard-nosed” empirical approach is completely warranted. Compared to God’s knowledge, we are indeed relatively very limited in our comprehension. Human beings simply don’t have enough information to be able to say (authoritatively), “I can conceive of a better world than God supposedly made.”

In the Argument From Evil, atheists and other skeptics are attacking the cogency and internal consistency of a Christian argument. Christian arguments presuppose certain characteristics of God. One such characteristic is omniscience. That being the case, it is altogether conceivable that God sees any number of benefits and superiorities to the present world, over against alternate “creative plans” – things we cannot comprehend. Our mental and intellectual inferiority to the Christian God, as Christians understand Him, is self-evident.

Christians, in this instance, are defending an inherently Christian argument, from within our own premises. Whether God exists is another discussion. But if He is indeed as we think He is, then His possession of extraordinary, fathomless knowledge (from the human perspective) clearly follows. That is why FWD is self-consistent and coherent. It works within the Christian paradigm.

To acknowledge a current lack of knowledge is not identical to some sort of “anti-scientific” and “intellectually pessimistic” mentality of “quitting” or claiming we will never know (though it may indeed be the case that we will never know some things). That God’s ways and thoughts are far above our own is a statement of straightforward fact, under Christian assumptions of God’s omniscience. The wise person (e.g., Socrates) instantly recognizes that he knows little (but can potentially learn much).

One atheist argued that God could have done various things to prevent Adolf Hitler’s rise and all the evil and suffering which resulted therefrom: he could have died from a God-induced heart attack in 1929 (sort of like Herod being struck and eaten by worms, in the Bible); he could have had a religious experience and become benevolent and loving, renouncing his anti-Semitism. He could have been created with genes that predisposed him to peaceable behavior, or he could have not been born at all.

God could have done many things. He could have prevented Englishmen from becoming socialist, occultist pacifists with their heads in the sand in the 1920s and 30s. That would, I suppose, have enabled them to hear and act upon Winston Churchill’s warnings for years about the German build-up and obvious intention to resume military, imperialistic activities. They would have seen Neville Chamberlain for who and what he was (an appeasing weakling). The whole thing was easily prevented, as we now know.

Why is it that we must blame God for not preventing it when men easily could have? Could it not be said that God was speaking through Winston Churchill? For if his words had been heeded, then this goal of preventing Hitler’s horrors would have been achieved. Why cannot this working through wise humans be God’s way of achieving His ends, despite human pride, ignorance, and free will? God used prophets to speak His truth to men, and to try to prevent catastrophes, but they wouldn’t listen. Is that God’s fault? Likewise, He can speak truth through individuals today, even if they are not prophets, and He is always speaking in His revelation, the Bible. But men don’t want to hear.

 

IV. WHAT CAUSED THE FALLEN ANGELS AND THE FIRST HUMAN BEINGS TO REBEL AGAINST GOD (AND WHY COULDN’T GOD PREVENT IT)?

I suppose this question might be expressed in the following terms:

1. Evil in the world casts doubt upon either God’s goodness or His omnipotence.

2. Evil results from man’s free choices and free will, thus – for the moment – separating the origin of evil from God.

3. But why would God create a man who would even have that potentiality in the first place? Does that not still place responsibility for evil on God, and cast doubt on His goodness (perhaps even His omniscience – knowing what would happen), as He could have created otherwise, being omnipotent?

Protestant philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) answered this worthy and important question in the following fashion:

The question is asked first of all, whence does evil come? . . . we, who derive all being from God, where shall we find the source of evil? The answer is, that it must be sought in the ideal nature of the creature, in so far as this nature is contained in the eternal verities which are in the understanding of God, independently of his will. For we must consider that there is an original imperfection in the creature before sin, because the creature is limited in its essence; whence ensues that it cannot know all, and that it can deceive itself and commit other errors . . .

. . . properly speaking, the formal character of evil has no efficient cause, for it consists in privation, as we shall see, namely, in that which the efficient cause does not bring about. That is why the Schoolmen are wont to call the cause of evil deficient.

(Theodicy, 1710, translated by E.M. Haggard, New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1952, 135-136)

Frederick Copleston, the noted Jesuit historian of philosophy, wrote of Leibniz’ free will theodicy, and the above citation:

Metaphysical evil is imperfection: and this is the imperfection involved in finite being as such. Created being is necessarily finite, and finite being is necessarily imperfect; and this imperfection is the root of the possibility of error and evil . . .

The ultimate origin of evil is thus metaphysical, and the question arises, how God is not responsible for evil by the mere fact that He created the world, thus giving existence to limited and imperfect things. Leibniz’ answer is that existence is better than non-existence . . . since the imperfection of the creature does not depend on the divine choice but on the ideal essence of the creature, God could not choose to create without choosing to create imperfect beings. He chose, however, to create the best possible world. Considered simply in itself the divine will wills simply the good, but ‘consequently’, that is, once given the divine decision to create, it wills the best possible. ‘God wills antecedently the good and consequently the best’ [Leibniz]. But He could not will ‘the best’ without willing the existence of imperfect things. Even in the best of all possible worlds creatures must be imperfect.

(A History of Philosophy, vol. 4: Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Leibniz, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1960, 330-331)

Belief in God’s goodness rests on many other grounds, so that the Christian is not overcome by the difficulties presented by the Problem of Evil. Does that require faith? It certainly does. In any event, I don’t see that the Problem of Evil disproves God’s goodness or that it presents any insuperable problems for Christianity.

Human beings are finite creatures, much more limited in knowledge than the angels, and unimaginably less knowledgeable than God. So their free will cannot possibly act in the same fashion (i.e., knowing all contingencies and consequences) as God’s free will. Human beings are not the very ground or essence of love, or Good, as God is. Therefore, the possibility always exists for them – being free – to sin and choose the Wrong and the unloving course of action.

To serve and be unified with God is a free act of the will. A will which is free can also choose to not serve and love God. And that very act is the very definition of evil or sin: separation from God and His will, in which reside the essence of love and Good. This was Leibniz’ argument: that creatures are finite, so that their free will is far more likely to produce sin.

The inherent limitation in the human psyche, intellect, and will brought about rebellion. Human beings are far less intelligent than the angels. The majority of angels were sharp enough to realize that it was of no benefit, and great harm, to rebel against God their Creator. They immediately realized the sheer futility and foolishness of such a drastic move.

Other angels, somehow having obtained pridefulness and self-centeredness and a sort of jealousy or envy of God, did conceive in their wills the idiotic notion that they would be better off opposing God, than being on His side. That was made possible by their free will. God gave them free will, which was such that it included the potentiality for self-centeredness, self-autonomy (with no “need” for God as the Sovereign) and hence, rebellion.

In other words, there must be some logical impossibility for even God to create free creatures who can never and will never sin, without some additional “help” from God (supernatural grace). Human beings before the Fall could have chosen to not sin. But they chose to rebel and reject God’s authority. Atheists naturally deny the profundity and great depth of the hold which sin has on human beings. I don’t know how or why that is.

Human history indisputably reveals that man has been abundantly evil and wicked. Who could fail to see that? But the secular mentality simply locates the causation for that in the environment or God, rather than the individual person – or some constitutional shortcoming in human beings.

To summarize, then, the finite nature of creatures (both before and especially after, the Fall) is such that they are unable or exceedingly unlikely to make perfect choices and to never sin. The problem resides in the creature, as a result of his inherent limitations of intelligence and various weaknesses that a Being perfect in essence does not possess. God can’t make another God. He is by nature one: uncreated and self-existent and perfect; therefore He can’t create another like Himself; ergo: creatures will be intrinsically – logically — limited in some sense.

And this means that (quite conceivably) it is logically impossible for God to create (in any possible world) creatures with free will who will definitely never sin, as a free choice, or literally not be able to sin and still somehow be “free.”

This scenario is no more implausible than the normal atheist habit of placing all blame on this theoretical God they don’t believe in, while winking at and constantly minimizing man’s responsibility for the mess that we find ourselves in. The Christian exercises faith. He sees a God who was willing to take horrible suffering upon Himself and come and die on a cross for us, so that we can one day be totally freed from sin and its horrible consequences. We see a God who loved us so much that He was willing to undergo the sufferings that we have to endure. He didn’t excuse Himself from all of the pain and suffering. He didn’t take a pass.

That may mean nothing to an atheist or other skeptics of Christianity, but we Christians see the boundless love and mercy of God and believe in faith that there is some higher purpose, ultimately beyond our understanding, making all the evil explicable in the end. We know for sure that out of evil much good comes (in terms of people’s reaction to it), and that can become a whole mini-apologetic for FWD in and of itself.

Christians believe this is (though quite difficult to conceive for us, I freely admit) the best of all possible worlds; that evil and sin are such profoundly disruptive and serious entities that they can cause all of what we see, in terms of man against man, and would have in any world in which man was truly free. This is what freedom entailed. To eliminate the possibility of all the suffering would be to jettison free will itself.

But a world where such evil is allowed to occur as a “necessary evil” (no pun intended) also can produce amazing examples of grace and lovingkindness, as we see in the saints. I can easily understand the evil in the world (apart from natural disasters, which I have already addressed) as a rebellion against God, and the fruit of self-centered pride and folly. To me that is not something difficult to conceptualize or comprehend (even though the “best possible world” scenario is difficult to grasp or accept).

What is truly noteworthy and astonishing is how much good and goodness can occur in the world as we know it, given the manifest serious weaknesses of human nature. The fact of such sanctity alongside such vile evil is the remarkable and unexpected thing, and the sign of God’s grace at work amongst us.

For every evil despot in the annals of world history, there can be found a St. Francis of Assisi or a St. Vincent de Paul. For every smug, power-hungry, materialistic selfish person, there is a selfless Mother Teresa or a John Wesley. For every thoughtless, feeble-minded, weak-willed person there is a St. Therese of Lisieux or a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or those like them, on a lesser scale. The evil persons are easily explained, by the ubiquitous characteristics of human nature. The saints and saintly persons are not. To explain them it is necessary to have recourse to God’s grace and love shed in their hearts.

The great Catholic philosopher, scientist, and genius Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) wrote:

Talk about humility gives occasion for pride to the proud and humility to the humble. Similarly, sceptical arguments allow the positive to be positive. Few speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, dubiously of scepticism. We are nothing but lies, duplicity, contradiction, and we hide and disguise ourselves from ourselves.

(Pensees, #655; translated by A.J. Krailsheimer, New York: Penguin Books, 1966, 240)

Man is neither angel nor beast, and it is unfortunately the case that anyone trying to act the angel acts the beast.

(Pensees, #678)

Original sin is folly in the eyes of men, but it is put forward as such. You should therefore not reproach me for the unreasonable nature of this doctrine, because I put it forward as being unreasonable. But this folly is wiser than all man’s wisdom . . . How could he have become aware of it through his reason, seeing that it is something contrary to reason and that his reason, far from discovering it by its own methods, draws away when presented with it?

(#695)

. . . if man had never been corrupted, he would, in his innocence, confidently enjoy both truth and felicity, and, if man had never been anything but corrupt, he would have no idea either of truth or bliss . . . we have an idea of happiness but we cannot attain it. We perceive an image of the truth and possess nothing but falsehood, being equally incapable of absolute ignorance and certain knowledge; so obvious is it that we once enjoyed a degree of perfection from which we have unhappily fallen.

Let us then conceive that man’s condition is dual. Let us conceive that man infinitely transcends man, and without the aid of faith he would remain inconceivable to himself.

(#131)

These are some of the Christian answers to the Problem of Evil, accepted by faith, with a recognition of man’s and reason’s limitations, and the presence of unfathomable mystery at a certain point, yet not contrary to reason, and part of a coherent and consistent Christian worldview.

V. THE FALL OF MAN AND THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIL INTO HUMAN EXISTENCE / FREE WILL IN HEAVEN

Atheists critique the traditional Christian understanding of the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man by asserting that God simply could have not put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil there in the first place. “No tree, no fall,” as one atheist put it. God knew what was going to happen, so it is even more outrageous, unjust, and unfair to humanity for Him to let it happen, so the argument goes.

But anyone who reasons in this fashion is missing the whole point of the story (i.e., from within the Christian paradigm and presuppositional framework), which is simply that God told them to obey Him and not to do thus-and-so. What the particular command was is not the crucial thing, but rather, it is the obedience of the creature to its Creator, because that is the reality of “superior-subordinate,” just as a 3-year-old child is subordinate to its parents and no one would think of suggesting otherwise, as if the child can rationally choose to disobey the parent (in normal circumstances) and be better off. Imagine, for instance, a child who decides to no longer eat, or to drive a car, or to do income taxes . . .

The biblical account of Adam and Eve (which is historical and actual) is a morality-tale of obedience vs. disobedience, of union with God vs. unnatural human autonomy. God can’t change the fact of man’s rebellion simply by not putting the tree there so it (supposedly) couldn’t have happened. Why? Because rebellion is an inner condition in the first place. God could have said “don’t stick your tongue out” or “don’t go swimming in the lake with the island in the middle of it.” The particulars don’t matter all that much. Obedience is key, and the acknowledgement of the Creator-creature order of nature or ontological reality.

It has been suggested that God could have created us all in heaven, and thus forego the test that we failed (and which He knew we would fail), to “save a lot of trouble.” But this gets back to the issue of free will and what it means. It happened this way so that we can freely choose God, so that we can attain eternal bliss in heaven, having made a meaningful choice, not because God wound us up like a toy soldier and we followed, not being able to do otherwise.

I am merely speculating now, but I would say that we are rewarded in heaven (as opposed to simply being created there without any “challenge”) because of our free choice. God then empowers us by His grace to live beyond sin. But that wouldn’t eliminate the necessity or near-necessity of evil, because that possibility was opened up in order to have the free will that enabled us to freely choose God and allow His grace to save us so that we can get to heaven.

VI. SUMMARY STATEMENT

It is logically impossible for God to create men with free will and at the same time exclude the possibility of them rebelling and introducing sin and evil into the equation.

God can’t sin because He can’t contradict His own essence, which is pure Good or Love or Holiness. He isn’t schizophrenic. The angels could have rebelled and sinned, and some did (but others didn’t). Mankind could have chosen not to sin, too, but they didn’t take that course. One must take into account the qualitative difference between the free will of God, that of angels (who are far more intelligent than man) and that of man. Free will in the latter is far more likely to result in sin, perhaps almost inevitably so.

Why are human beings essentially imperfect “ontologically” (as created)? They are because it is logically impossible not to be. Creatures by definition are limited and imperfect, because they aren’t self-existent and they aren’t omniscient. God can’t create another God. Only God knows absolutely everything, so that He knows good and evil completely, in all their aspects, contingencies, consequences, what-have-you, and all that is true and false.

The very fact that creatures are not God and neither self-existent nor “pure being” is the problem. Because of that, and given their free will, they can choose to rebel against God their Creator and seek to be autonomous (which is precisely the point where evil is introduced and defined), as if such a thing makes any sense at all and is something other than sheer folly and futility.

Is it possible for God to create human beings free and to create them in such a way that they will always freely choose good? It is possible for those creatures who actually choose to always be good. But God can’t logically eliminate the possibility for others to choose evil without prohibiting free will in the first place. Consequently, some angels chose to never rebel, while others did. So sinlessness is possible, but sinfulness cannot be rendered impossible by God, if free will is to exist.

God offers all men a plan of grace whereby they can be largely – even (theoretically) totally – free from sin. This is what the gospel, justification, sacramentalism, sanctification, regeneration, reconciliation, propitiation, redemption, and related theological concepts in soteriology (salvation theology) are all about.

But this doesn’t preclude the possibility of men spurning God and His plan and continuing on in sin, rebellion, and alleged self-autonomy. They even go to the extent of asserting the historical ludicrosity that Jesus didn’t exist. That’s how far men will go to avoid God and reject Him. God grants the possibility of salvation and sanctification (to be totally perfected after death) for all who will repent of their rebellion, be obedient to His will and become His disciple. That is quite enough.

My position (which I believe to be the orthodox Christian one) is that it was logically impossible given free will, for reality to have been essentially different. Man’s limitations are such, apparently, that in any world where he was given free will, there would likely have been a rebellion (perhaps different in degree in different possible worlds). If there were a world in which this didn’t occur, God would have created it.

So I conclude that such a world is not logically possible (again, coinciding with true free will; of course it would be if men were programmed robots). The difference between theists and atheists is that we place the blame for all this squarely on man’s shoulders, not on God.

What God does is work around this unfortunate state of affairs (in His Providence) and also allow the possibility for all to be made right eschatologically (in the afterlife), in terms of justice and the happiness of each individual person who will humble themselves before God, acknowledge their rebellion and sin, and consciously try to live by God’s will for all mankind. That’s why this is the best of all worlds, because “all’s well that ends well.”

Evil had to occur but it will be completely defeated in the end and heaven will more than make up for all the miseries and suffering which have occurred on earth. Since heaven continues indefinitely, it is infinitely more important proportionately than what has happened here, bad as that often is. Hence the Apostle Paul can state:

I consider that the sufferings of the present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

(Romans 8:18)

And James writes:

. . . What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

(James 4:14)

The fact of eternal life in blissful conditions gives an entirely different perspective on this short earthly life: it is merely the blink of an eye compared to everlasting life. This changes everything. To deny this would be like saying that the time one scratched their finger at age four somehow attained a supreme significance with regard to their entire life. That suffering overcame every good thing that happened to them later on, and overwhelmed all. That’s how silly it is to compare the quantity or quality of this life to that of the afterlife (of the saved).

Atheists perhaps agonize more about the world’s suffering in the sense that this life is all they have and it all seems so unjust (but without any ultimate foundation, under atheist assumptions). Yet many of them think nothing of depriving a human child in its mother’s womb from even living and experiencing this life at all. In so doing they deny the fundamental Christian notion that all creation is good (and all human life is sacred), and that it is better to exist than not to.

That is one reason God created, and why it was better for this world and human beings – even with all its suffering – to have been created than to never have existed. One can endure much hardship, knowing what is coming in the end – some great reward. We observe mothers in the travail of childbirth, for example (I’ve seen all four of my children born): all that tremendous physical suffering and trauma, yet it is forgotten the moment they hold their newborn child. That is how it will be to die in God’s graces and enter into God’s presence. And that puts quite a different slant on the Problem of Evil (at least on a practical, individual level).

Of course this viewpoint is often caricatured by atheists as the “pie in the sky” outlook, but it is not. The Christian believes that this life (and how one acts in it) is supremely important, just as the afterlife is. The Christian asserts that if indeed there is an eternal life of bliss awaiting obedient children of God in the future, that this completely changes the perspective of degree and importance of sufferings endured in this life.

The same sufferings would be almost infinitely worse and unjust if this life were all that existed. And in turn, that makes the Problem of Evil a much-lesser objection, within the Christian paradigm. Evil is a far-worse difficulty to work through under atheist assumptions, where it mutates into the “problem of good.” And that will be the subject of our next chapter.

 

 

2017-04-27T15:06:43-04:00

Original title: Are Atheists “Evil”? Multiple Causes of Atheist Disbelief and the Possibility of Salvation

churchsign

Not a real sign!  I made it up. See the “www” in it? But I contend that such a sign is actually possible, within a biblical / Christian paradigm.

(17 February 2003)

* * *

Jesus taught that those who love Him will at least attempt to follow His teachings:


Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.


(Matthew 7:21; see entire context of 7:16-27)


Also, James writes:

So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

(James 2:17; cf. 2:26; RSV)


You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


(James 2:24; RSV)

As for non-Christians (religious or otherwise) their possible salvation depends on how much they truly know of Christianity, and what they do with that knowledge. If they really do know it and reject it, they cannot be saved. If not, they are judged by what they know and do, according to the teaching of Romans 2:1-24 (particularly 2:13-15):


Romans 2:11-16  For God shows no partiality. [12] 
All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. 

As to the virtuous, “good” atheist, who is kind and loving, forgiving, etc., I believe that a variety of psychological, experiential, cultural, and philosophical factors come into play. The Bible’s position is actually that there are no atheists in fact; that everyone knows there is a God (at some level – perhaps unconsciously), but I would hasten to add that the factors cited above can affect a person so that they might possibly not be culpable to the extent of damnation. I sure hope so. It’s dangerous ground, in any event.

The Catholic Church has always held that there are such things as “invincible ignorance,” “implicit faith,” “baptism of desire,” and so forth. It’s in the Bible itself; Augustine, Aquinas, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and many others all taught this. To the extent that atheists or anyone else think mainstream Christianity holds that only those who literally hear the gospel can be saved, they are incorrect. There are some Christians who believe this (some Calvinists and/or fundamentalists –the two groups overlap), but they are in the minority, even in the sub-group of Protestantism.

My impression of many atheists is that they seem to think it is a slam-dunk case for atheism; that it is very clear, and that, conversely, Christianity lacks any good evidences at all – and suffers from the effects of many counter-proofs – , and is clearly untrue. If that is indeed the case (about clearness), and further, if atheism is true, then there must be an awful lot of Christians and other theists who are resisting this “obvious” truth.

My view is somewhat intermediate: I think (as anyone would fully expect) that the theistic proofs are compelling and the atheist ones implausible and fallacious, yet I believe that the “psychological” aspects of belief (all sorts of belief, not just religious faith; i.e., epistemology) and the many many complex influences which make one believe what they do, “nullify” – in large part -, the clearness of the objective proofs qua proofs.

In effect, then, it would not be such a clear thing, either way, once these other non-philosophical influences and factors are taken into account. Nor (for largely the same reason) is it so straightforward (as some atheists seem to think), that if a person is presented with a fantastic miracle, that they automatically believe in God or Christianity. That is not the biblical teaching, nor what we have learned from human experience and history. And that is because every person comes to the table with a host of prior belief-paradigms and theoretical frameworks, and experiences, including the emotions and the will, which are not to be underestimated, either, in their effect on beliefs, in all people, of whatever stripe.

In my view God’s existence is known by the cumulative effect of evidence drawn from many, many sources and sorts of arguments (which includes the stars and conscience, as Paul argued in Romans 1 and 2). The teleological and cosmological arguments connect God’s existence to the known physical world, which is why they are my favorite theistic arguments; I love that “concreteness” about them.

And if even David Hume could accept a minimalist, deist form of the teleological argument, then I think we are on pretty solid philosophical ground (at least at a level that can’t be immediately dismissed as children’s fairy-tales). Albert Einstein looked at the universe and posited some sort of God; not the Christian God, but some sort (more akin to pantheism). He accepted something that was not atheism.

Furthermore, Christians don’t say that “regular miracles” are unnecessary. Most of us believe they still take place, though less often and less spectacularly than before. Christians believe in empirical proofs (the Resurrection and post-Resurrection appearances by Jesus are precisely that). The dispute here is whether we have reliable eyewitness testimony of same (which takes the arguments into the ground of “legal-type” evidence, rather than strictly empirical).

If one accepts the existence of biblical miracles on a legal criterion of how past events are determined to have occurred (such as a murder or robbery), then one can believe in Christianity for that reason, among others. Beliefs and belief-systems are formed by a huge multitude of contributing factors. As for Christians and scientific proof: if God was so opposed to that, He wouldn’t perform miracles at all, and the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus wouldn’t have occurred.

If indeed there is no God, and people are supposedly “objective, truth-seeking machines” who will inexorably believe only if shown the proper amount of proof, why is it, then (I would ask an atheist) that the vast majority of mankind remain religious and don’t become atheists?

One should use the normal means of inquiry to determine truth. That’s the whole point of Christian apologetics. Christianity, rightly-understood, does not claim for itself some sort of esoteric, hidden “gnostic” knowledge, but attempts to appeal to eyewitness testimony and the tenets of philosophy. We accept natural law, known to all men (Romans 2), and upon which was built the English-American tradition of jurisprudence (Jefferson presupposed a Creator and natural law in the Declaration of Independence, etc.).

Skepticism and hard-nosed rationality and desire to see things proven is fine. I oppose excessive skepticism: the kind that is impervious to any disproof of itself, or evidences for opposing viewpoints because of prior ironclad predisposition. Some atheists may possess this attribute; some may not. Who’s to say? But it is foolish to deny the very concept or possibility of such excessive skepticism. If skepticism is a valid concept, then there is such a thing as an excessive amount of it, as well as too little of it. One must find a happy medium.

I’m not doubting anyone’s sincerity or intellectual honesty (including that of atheists). All I’m contending is that, as a Christian, we must believe that God put awareness of His existence in all men in some fashion. This should come as no surprise. If I believed that God didn’t do so I would agree with atheists that such a Being (if He exists) was unjust, and would I might doubt that He exists, or deny it outright. I don’t deny that such knowledge could be deeply hidden or lost, through no fault of the persons themselves.

I happen to believe that one can know there is a God by looking at creation, just as Paul in the Bible argues (Romans 1). Christians and atheists disagree on that. We disagree on lots of things. Certainly atheists cannot expect a Christian to not believe plain biblical teaching. It doesn’t follow that I am attacking atheists’ honesty or integrity, and I think belief (any belief) is an extraordinarily complex matter. Nor does it follow that I am advocating some sort of idiotic anti-empiricism or anti-scientism.

I do not think all atheists are inherently dishonest and willfully blind (though some might indeed be). I simply believe in Romans 1 and try to apply it to atheists in the most charitable, unassuming way I can. God has made Himself known to all men, as one would hope He would do. No discussion is possible if both sides think advocates of the other opinion are “fundamentally disingenuous.”

How silly is it to hold (like atheist advocates of the argument from non-belief), on the one hand, that because all men don’t believe in God, He obviously hasn’t made His existence clear enough, therefore He must not exist (because this is unjust), yet, on the other hand, hold that someone who does believe in God should not believe that He has made Himself known to all men? One can’t claim that one thing is unjust to the extent that it is grounds to doubt God’s very existence, yet complain loudly about a theist who merely consistently holds to its contrary. What do atheists want Christians to do?: believe in this unjust God that they so object to, and hold that He doesn’t give all people enough evidence, so that some go to hell unjustly? If I believed in that sort of “god,” I would hate him, not worship and adore Him, as I do.

To reiterate: I think that, on a very deep level, even atheists know that God exists. I am trying to be both honest and true to Christian views. In any event, I think any belief is extremely psychologically and intellectually complex, so it works out the same way. I don’t question anyone’s sincerity or intellectual honesty. That’s not the issue. Both sides have to come up with some reason why the “other guys” aren’t convinced by the same evidence. The prevailing atheist view is that Christians are gullible ignoramuses, anti-scientific, anti-rational, etc. Atheists can believe whatever they want about us. But Christians have to agree with biblical teaching about unbelief. That doesn’t mean we have to demonize every individual person. Many Christians do that, and they are wrong to do so.

I believe atheists’ self-report. I think people can get to a place where they truly don’t believe something, by various means. I have no problem with that. If all atheists were rotten rebels who know the God of Christianity exists, and reject Him, then they would all go to hell. But I am already on record, stating that I don’t believe that. I think many, many factors are involved in both Christian or theistic belief and atheist belief.

As for the Bible’s “philosophical” position on unbelief: there is no philosophy per se in the Bible because the Jews were not a philosophically-oriented society. They were much more practically-oriented and historically-minded. Parts of St. Paul come close, though (and he was a highly-educated man who grew up in a very cosmopolitan town of that era: Tarsus in Asia Minor).

Romans 1 is one such passage. It is a very primitive version of the teleological argument (or at least a statement of it, if not an argument – but not that dissimilar to what David Hume stated, as I have shown). Now, does Paul claim that all atheists are wicked people who suppress the truth? No. He seems to claim, as I have stated, that all people know there is a God by looking at creation (Romans 1:19-20). He rails against those who “suppress the truth” in 1:18, but there is no indication that this is intended to include everyone who doesn’t believe in God or Christianity.

This is quite obvious from context. For example, continuing to talk about people who suppress the truth, in 1:23, he condemns idol-worship (“images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles”). As far as I know, that doesn’t describe the ordinary atheist, so Paul isn’t talking about atheists at that point (rather, idolatrous polytheists). In verses 1:26 and 1:27 he describes these people who suppress the truth as lesbians and male homosexuals.

Quite arguably, this doesn’t include all homosexuals, either, as Paul is clearly making a very broad statement, and such utterances allow of exceptions. In verse 29 he says such people are murderers and those who commit all kinds of other sinful acts. In 1:30 he calls them “haters of God” (hard to hate a God one doesn’t believe exists). So, clearly, Paul is talking about those who know the truth and reject it. I don’t see how this can be interpreted as a blanket condemnation as utterly evil, all persons who aren’t Christians.

When St. Paul he was in Athens, he preached his famous sermon on Mars Hill (or, the Areopagus). He observed the idols in the city (Acts 17:16). He argued with the philosophers, including the Epicureans and Stoics (17:17-18). When he started preaching (17:22 ff.) he didn’t utterly condemn the religious practices as utterly evil, but utilized them in his presentation. He commended the people for being “very religious” (17:22). What he did was build upon their knowledge in order to present Christianity in terms they could understand. In so doing, he cited the pagans Epimenides and Aratus (his work, Phaenomena) – 17:28. He mentions that “the times of ignorance God overlooked . . . ” (17:30). Christians have argued from the beginning that there is such a thing as invincible ignorance and the possibility for those who have never heard to be saved.

Therefore, Paul cannot be interpreted to teach that all atheists are wicked God-haters who know the truth and reject it, nor that they cannot possibly be saved. This is a theme throughout the New Testament. For example, when Jesus talked to a pagan Roman centurion who probably knew little about Judaism, He commended him for a faith not seen in all of Israel (Matthew 8:5-13). Paul extends the possibility of salvation to all who do good, even without the law, based on their consciences, while condemning those Jews who hypocritically do not follow the greater revelation they had received (Romans 2:1-28; see esp. 2:6). God judges in the end, and He does so impartially (Romans 2:11).

Christianity holds that “to be saved by Jesus” is not necessarily identical to “knowing all about Jesus” or “hearing the gospel.” But some people are stubborn and rebellious. Many, many religious people will be damned. Jesus talks a lot about that, and states that the “Gentiles” would come in before many of the Chosen People, where the latter were hardhearted, in individual cases. Some atheists are willfully blind or obstinate or rebellious; others disbelieve for many, many reasons (philosophical, psychological, social, moral, cultural, emotional, familial, etc., etc.). Only God knows who will be saved in the end.

Generally (almost always, in fact) people don’t go through the arduous process of testing, proving, reasoning, trying to falsify, with regard to their axioms (upon which grand theories are built). I want to know, in my dialogues, why people accept certain axioms, and try to get them to see that we all have them, and that they are ultimately unprovable. All views require “faith” (in the sense that they are not airtight or demonstrable beyond any possible doubt or disproof). I do believe, however, that atheism becomes either self-defeating or purely fideistic if examined closely enough. Christianity doesn’t do that. Faith itself is neither necessarily self-defeating or fideistic (i.e., entirely devoid of all rational support).

I don’t say the primary atheist problem is intellectual dishonesty; I say it is shoddy thinking and inability to prove their starting assumptions or axioms to an extent at all superior to the theistic and Christian starting assumptions and axioms.

Belief in God is not simply an abstract proposition. If the Christian God exists, we must devote our lives to Him, do everything we do for Him, and tell others about Him. It’s not just an intellectual pursuit to be undertaken in dimly-lit, elegant libraries. It is a way of life; reality itself.

* * * * *

Here is another piece I wrote on 12-12-06; originally entitled, “Can Atheists Be Saved? Are All Atheists Immoral? The Demands of Christian Charity”

* * * 

Here, I was responding to remarks from Theresa Frasch: a former Christian who became an atheist.

* * * * *

Calvinist theology doesn’t allow that an atheist who claims to have once been a Christian ever actually was one. Catholic (and Arminian Protestant) theology does hold that folks can fall away from true faith. I never believed otherwise (thus in my critique of your deconversion I never denied that you were a Christian). I was an Arminian Protestant and am now a Catholic.

The “perseverance” / eternal security position is a minority viewpoint in historic and present-day Christianity. Catholics deny this; so do Orthodox (that’s already some 1.4 billion Christians). So do most pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans and lots of non-denominational groups. It is mainly the Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists, and smaller groups related to them theologically, who hold this (greatly unbiblical) position.

Before Protestantism arose in the 16th century, Christians virtually unanimously agreed that falling away was possible.

So argue against it; you are right when you do that, but be sure to note that this is only one position within Christianity, and a minority one at that.

Of course the downside of the opinion that you were a Christian, would be that you, therefore, rejected Christianity and the first hand experience you had with it (and with God), and are now (by definition) an apostate. The ones who claim you never were a Christian cannot really say that. They’d have to say you were a “wolf-in-sheep’s clothing.” So it’s either that or an apostate.

Either way, the future doesn’t look too bright for you, from where we sit.

But my theology and approach tries to adopt a middle way as much as possible: objectively you are an apostate, but subjectively there may be many reasons (mitigating circumstances) why you left (or that influenced your decision) that would cause God to exercise mercy on the last day. That is my hope.

The key would be if you truly knew Christianity was the truth and rejected it. That is very serious. Only God knows if you had and have full and sufficient knowledge or not.

If you didn’t, and didn’t now, there is hope that you may be saved, because you are not directly rejecting something you know to be true, but rather, mistakenly believing a falsehood that you sincerely believe to be true. In Catholic theology, this is a very large factor.

In any event, our job as Christians (of whatever type) is to convince you to embrace Jesus and Christianity again (or for the first time, so say the Calvinists, etc.). That is obviously far better than to be an atheist, from our vantage point.

You know this; it isn’t like I’m saying anything new. But what we believe on this affects how we approach people. Those who think you are unregenerate and never-saved will tend to be (but don’t necessarily have to be) more rude and presumptuous about your soul and ultimate destination.

I make no claims on either your sincerity or the state of your soul or moral character. None whatsoever. I simply critiqued the reasons you gave for your deconversion. I don’t see why that would be insulting to anyone (as it is merely entering into the arena of competing ideas), yet John Loftus blew a gasket when I examined his story.

Go figure, huh?

 

2017-04-27T15:09:44-04:00

Or, Vigorous Critique of Irrational, Incoherent, Excessive, Arbitrary, & Relentless Atheist Demands for “Empirical” Proofs of God’s Existence

MadScientist

50s Movie poster mad scientist style, by Glen Edelson, 8-30-08 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

* * * * *

This comes from another one of my gigantic discussion threads, that atheists have participated in with great vigor (331 comments in two days, as I write): underneath my post, Blind Faith? Dialogue w an Atheist.

I would have preferred to have made a good dialogue or two from my exchanges there, but as usual, atheist replies went all over the ballpark and strongly tended to gravitate towards critiques of Christianity, whereas my  interest was in their defenses of their own dubious premises, per the subtitle of my post: “Dialogue with an Atheist, Challenged to Produce Any “Positive” Rational Evidence for Atheism.”

That  would make for rambling, far-too-lengthy dialogues and sleeping readers. Therefore, readers can check out the complete exchanges at the link if they wish to, but here, for brevity’s and concentration’s sake, I will post only my own comments. Because they are mine only, they will sometimes appear “choppy”. Asterisks indicate a completely separate comment.

* * * * *

I have no interest in being merely not-something-else. I know what atheism is. I’m saying that it is inadequate as a worldview to merely be not-something-else.

If you lack belief in x [God], yet spend tons of time debating people who DO believe in x and seeking to shoot holes in their x-system of belief, does this mean you are seeking x in a roundabout way (desiring to be persuaded)? Or does it mean that you are justifying your non-belief in x and making yourself feel better and more warranted / justified to disbelieve in x by shooting down the believers in x?

If atheism is merely not-something-else or “not belief in an imaginary being,” then why do atheists talk so much to Christians? What’s the purpose of it? To proselytize others to your view of not- something-else?

***

Atheist vfilipch said that whatever couldn’t be proven or disproven was in the  “realm of fiction or hallucinations.”

Really? I didn’t know that mathematics was fiction and hallucinations. But I can see that your statement, which is the height of ignorance of epistemology, is that. Mathematics is a non-empirical, axiomatic, non-scientific field of knowledge.

[the atheist seemed to dispute this, so I wrote:]

Very well, then; find me some mathematicians who claim that mathematics is 1) empirical by nature, or 2) doesn’t start with unproven, non-empirical axioms, or 3) is a species of science rather than logic / philosophy.

Mathematics is not an empirical thing, and starts with axioms, yet almost all thinking persons accept it. I would contend that mathematical principles are eternal principles (like logic and absolute morality) that are grounded ultimately in the Mind of God. This is why they are already “out there” independently of ourselves.

So why the demand that Christianity must produce empirical evidence, as if that is the be-all and end-all of all epistemological inquiry? It’s plain silly and stupid.

***

We have to know what a particular atheist considers good or compelling evidence and how he defines his terms, what his epistemology is, and if he applies a double standard of epistemology (which is very often the case with atheists): one for atheists and another for Christians.

[one atheist called this basic inquiry a “game”]

The game is altogether on your end, not mine. You folks are the ones who inveterately refuse to accept any and all evidence and reasoning that we bring to bear on the topic. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable, in light of this relentless skepticism, to simply ask: “what evidence would you find compelling?”

I would contend that this is, of all questions to ask an atheist, the most sensible and straightforward of all. And you call it a “game”: which is yet more proof that the problem in epistemology and acceptance of evidences is on your end in the first place.

***

There is a huge body of work from many serious thinkers arguing the theistic God; there is no such body of work painstakingly arguing in favor of Santa Claus (i.e., the mythical figure), the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids. That’s why the theistic claim is a lot more credible.

This observation is not the fallacy from consensus or from authority because I’m not claiming that God is true simply because these arguments exist, or that lots of people have made them. I am pointing out that there is a difference in kind between the tooth fairy and the classical theist God. The latter has innumerable philosophical treatises devoted to His existence, whereas the former has none.

And this would be one way that the rational person could distinguish between the two: one has far more rational defenses that can be made in His behalf.

It has nothing to do with a critique of atheism. I have made that on quite other grounds. It’s a reply to the nonsense that belief in the classic theistic God is no more rational or warranted than belief in good ol’ leprechauns, tooth fairies, unicorns, the Easter bunny, the man in the moon, and all the rest . . .

***

The cosmological and teleological arguments do offer this empirical “evidence” that every atheist carps on about till the cows come home. They claim that empirical data is what it is due to being the effect of God; just as we can observe and test results from things that themselves are not directly observable or — oftentimes — not fully understood or dimly understood (e.g., effects of the Big Bang).

They show that it is much more plausible that the universe came about by the causal agency of God than by self-causation or random chance. We should accept the claims by virtue of the demands of rationality and plausibility, by which we also determine whether anything else is true.

***

I (and millions of others) claim that God indeed has made His existence very clear. It’s so clear that many millions of people are very sure that He exists, and contend that this knowledge is innate within us.

We believe that His existence is evident from observing the universe: His handiwork. This gets into the teleological (design) argument. It’s also quite plausible and believable based on the universe being here at all (cosmological argument).

Now why is it that atheists casually, derisively dismiss the evidence of many millions of people believing that God exists? Why is that not regarded as “evidence” by them? What if every human being who ever lived (except for a lone atheist) claimed that they believed in God? Would that convince the lone remaining atheist that he must be lacking something to not also possess this belief; therefore, he would yield to everyone else’s experience and claim and realize that his was somehow deficient?

One atheist said that we should “feel his presence as surely as we feel pain or hunger or thirst” when in fact that is precisely what many millions would say. So why is it that atheists ignore all that evidence when it occurs in others, and only trust their own negative experience of not experiencing these things that they seek?

***

1. “direct effect on the function of the universe” is precisely what is claimed to be the case in the cosmological and teleological arguments, which deal with aspects of the universe that are “scientifically testable”.

2. “A temporary suspension of natural law, what amounts to a miracle, would convince me of a higher power.”

There are many thousands of reports (including scientifically verified) of exactly that. Why are they not good enough for you? How many do you require? A million? A billion? A trillion? Once we get to 1,000,000,000,001 then it is sufficient?

3. Why is it that you are able to accept something like mathematics or logic: neither of which has the slightest empirical evidence in favor of themselves?

4. How and why is it that you bring to bear science as the final determinant of all knowledge and existence when it itself starts from axioms that are not absolutely proved? In order to do science at all (to even get it off the ground) one must accept a number of axiomatic propositions; e.g.,:

a) the external universe exists and is not illusory.

b) the universe observes scientific laws [is not chaotic].

c) these laws apply to all times and places (uniformitarianism).

d) these actual or potential realities are able to be observed and tested.

e) we can trust our senses to provide us reliable data with which to conduct these experiments, whose utility and epistemological relevance we assume without empirical evidence.

All of these starting premises were provided by Christianity, which is why modern science began in an overwhelmingly Christian milieu (medieval Europe), and why the overwhelming number of important scientists throughout history have been either Christians or some sort of theist (and saw not the slightest conflict between their belief in God and their scientific endeavors. They would have said (like Kepler) that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

5. “But the whole point of faith is to not need evidence.”

To the contrary, we have provided plenty of that; you reject it all out of hand, with mockery, and misrepresentation of what we have done. Therefore, the truth of the matter in your case appears to be the very opposite of what you claim: you are oblivious to any and all evidence, even though you claim that its presence will convince you. You simply deny that any of it exists. You’re like the guy on a clear summer day at high noon, who firmly denies that the sun exists.

Thus, you are the one (if anyone is) who exercises a profound blind faith and disdain for any and all evidence that exists in abundance for you to examine.

***

The atheist typically makes the demand that empirical evidence be produced in order to believe in God. God has to do something absolutely compelling, like turning the Empire State Building upside down, twirling it around (360 degrees) 17 times, bouncing it up in the air 12 times, at exactly 13.2 feet, then transform it into a statue of horse manure in the shape of Kim Kardashian, with a necklace around her (it’s?) neck, saying, “I am God. I exist; I came to earth as Jesus Christ, and Kim Kardashian is a bimbo.”

Then the atheist, satisfied in his irrational and arbitrary demands, will gladly become a theist, and even yield his or her life over to Jesus Christ, happily ever after.

I want to examine this state of affairs all down the line.

I’ve already discussed empiricism and the nature of science in earlier comments. Science starts with non-empirical axioms, that cannot be proven. They must be accepted without proof, in order to do science at all.

The Christian fully accepts this, knowing that for this very reason, modern science began and mostly developed in a profoundly Christian society (medieval Europe). And it was dominated overwhelmingly by Christian or otherwise theist Christians for at least 350 years: folks who started almost every sub-field in science. I’ve documented 115 of these.

Even today, theist scientists make up a good half of the whole.

The Christian freely acknowledges that he starts with unproven axioms, and/or faith in various things: a faith that ultimately transcends reason but is not contrary to it. But the atheist refuses to admit that he has an axiomatic philosophy, and starts with the self-defeating, viciously circular assumption that empiricism is all there is.

How is it circular? It’s very simple. To say, “empiricism gives us all true knowledge and, therefore, for me to believe in God, He has to prove Himself by empirical means,” is itself a non-empirical statement, that cannot be proven or shown to be binding upon one and all. Thus, the atheist makes a non-empirical, completely arbitrary statement that all knowledge must come through empirical means.

One immediately inquires, then, “why should anyone believe that such a demand applies to one and all; even to God: and a viciously self-contradictory statement at that?”

If the atheist can make a non-empirical statement that all knowledge, including that of God and His revealing of Himself, must be empirical, why can’t a Christian, by the same token, make a similarly non-empirical statement that God could also reveal Himself non-empirically? At least the Christian is logical and self-consistent, whereas the atheist is not.

From whence comes this notion of “God must reveal Himself empirically?” Well, it comes from nowhere. It’s an arbitrary demand, trumped-up in a desperate attempt to shore up an unacknowledged kindergarten pseudo-philosophy, with the pretense that it is unquestionable, and which is in fact no philosophy at all.

It has to presuppose logic in order to be stated in the first place. Logic cannot be proven, empirically or any other way. The mathematics that underlies virtually all of science is also non-empirical and must be accepted. Most atheists accept both things, though most seem unaware that they are doing so.

Neither logic nor mathematics are concrete things. In effect, they are non-material things (putting the lie to materialism). Logic is merely the relationship of ideas to each other, whereas mathematics is the relationship of material objects to each other. These are abstract (spiritual?) concepts.

Moreover, there are additional absurdities inherent in atheist positions (or at least the majority of them). Most atheists are not only materialists, but also determinists. Therefore, their very thoughts (in their view) are determined by outside forces of randomness and mere chance, and inexorably tied to a physical brain. When this brain dies, so do their thoughts.

They (but who is the “they”?) then use this brain to produce statements like “empiricism gives us all true knowledge and, therefore, for me to believe in God, He has to prove Himself by empirical means.” Now, why should anyone else believe such a thing? The person saying it has no basis in saying it in the first place, yet expects everyone else to bow to the arbitrarily dogmatic claim.

If it has come from random collisions of atoms in his brain, why or how is it that he deigns to think that these random occurrences have any bearing on anyone else, or the external world as a whole, let alone to God? Well, clearly he plays the game of presupposing logic, which, again, is a non-empirical, non-material entity that exists as a concept “out there” independently of him. He tries to pretend that he doesn’t do this, but he does.

So the atheist presupposes logic, mathematics, and this curious notion that everything knowable comes to us through empiricism: all non-empirical and non-proven notions, and all (for the determinist) produced at random, and therefore, with no ultimate meaning.

Now, if the atheist can do all that: which makes no sense whatever, why is it that they claim that the Christian cannot possess an equally non-empirical knowledge that God exists and has made Himself internally known to them? It’s goose and gander. If the atheist can hold axiomatic, dogmatic, incoherent, arbitrary, nonsensical, self-refuting, non-empirical notions and apply them to others, surely the theist can hold axiomatic, self-consistent, non-empirical theistic notions. The second thing is internally coherent and has as much justification or warrant as the atheist premise, while being consistent and coherent, as an extra bonus. Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga call this a “properly basic” belief.

If the atheist says that God is an extraordinary concept, well, so are logic and mathematics and a science which is worshiped as an idol by so many atheists, and virtually put in the place of God.

It just depends which extraordinary axiom one adopts. The atheist thinks that the universe somehow created itself, or that nothing produced something, whereas the theist believes in faith (with much supporting rational and empirical evidence from the cosmological and teleological arguments) that God (an eternal spirit being) did it.

Atheists must believe (since they have nothing else) that atoms inherently possess all the remarkable powers that we say God possesses. They were, after all, able to create the entire universe (so we are told) without the help of God, even at the initial stages.

That’s a pretty absurd or, at best, extremely implausible hypothesis, given what we know, and it can’t be explained by current science, but that doesn’t stop the atheist from believing it in quite a religious fashion, because he has to. He has no empirical evidence for it, but he believes it, having been limited to it and forbidden from considering any other option.

But the Christian believes that God created the universe, and can produce various empirical evidences that highly suggest this, and in a self-consistent, non-arbitrary way.

Thus, we conclude that if one strives to be consistent, coherent, logical, rational, pro-scientific in every way (not just arbitrarily selected ways), and to follow evidence wherever it leads, and not just to where it “must” lead (guided by the benevolent, arbitrarily dogmatic atheist hand), Christianity is the way to go.

That is the reason why I’m a Christian, because I value and cherish reason, science, and consistency as much as I do faith. I could never adhere to a self-contradictory, nonsensical worldview. Thus I have never been impressed by atheism.

***

I just posted a long list of links regarding the teleological argument (from design). This goes along with a similar list for the cosmological argument.

For  atheists who constantly demand “empirical evidence” for God, this is our answer. Knock yourself out. I also have a third links-page for the ontological argument, which is non-empirical, but a fascinating and classic theistic argument.

I’m in the process of compiling many more links in philosophy of religion, that I’ll be able to handily refer to in the future, when atheists make demands for this and that. They love to demand stuff. They are not nearly as enthusiastic (for some odd and curious reason) when it comes to defending their own beliefs and explaining to the next guy why anyone else should accept them.

***

Belief in God is not absolutely universal because there are always folks who are slow and slow to get stuff that is obvious to everyone else. That’s true in any observable group, regarding any topic. Why should it surprise anyone?

[an atheist bristled at this as a “cheap shot.” I replied:]

Tongue-in-cheek pointed comment [it would be made with a big smile in person] . . . We’re constantly told how stupid, gullible, anti-scientific, anti-reason, indeed insane we are. But we don’t dare even offer a semi-humorous pointed barb back.

***

God revealed Himself in history, in the flesh, in Jesus Christ, performed atheists’ vaunted, yearned-after miracles, including the Grand Finale: His resurrection, post-resurrection appearances (bodily) and ascension. I myself stood in the places where all these things happened, a year ago.

Atheists just blow that all off, with insufficient reason, but it is how God revealed Himself.

***

What to have faith in is guided by the revelation of the Bible (which is verified on other legal-historical-archaeological grounds). But we also believe that faith is an internal state generated by the God Who created us, and is fostered by looking at what He has made (as it states in Romans 1).

The atheist god is empiricism and one’s own intellect. Our God is God. :-) Our advantage is in not being internally self-contradictory. consistent logic is on our side.

Most people who have ever lived have been religious and have believed in a Higher Being or at least a Higher Power. Disagreements come from various interpretation of the holy books, which are natural if people decide to go their own way, rather than follow an established, unified tradition. Catholicism is thus far more coherent and unified than Protestantism.

But I have offered several critiques of atheist presuppositions, and, as usual, because atheists rarely want to talk about those, they so often switch the discussion right back to Christian presuppositions, so they can keep playing their self-satisfying game of shooting us down.

***

Atheists often assume that faith is inexorably opposed to reason, by definition. That’s not how we view it at all. We think that Christian faith is fully in harmony with reason and is supported by it; that it does go beyond, or transcend reason, while not contradicting it.

St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest theologians, spent his entire career synthesizing faith and reason, utilizing Aristotle to do so.

Some fundamentalist groups are opposed to reason and solid thinking and science. Unfortunately, many atheists come out of that fringe and tend to equate it with all of Christianity, when in fact it is a tiny fringe.

***

I’m not gonna go off on rabbit trails. I want atheists to defend their incoherent premises, which is virtually never done. Instead, we have the inevitable topic-switching. Because Christian apologists actually answer questions and don’t want to be discourteous, we do that, and then the atheist can ignore their own severe difficulties by keeping the topic on Christianity rather than atheism.

Atheists who truly are interested in learning how Christians really think about things can hang round my blog, and we can talk for months and years about anything and everything. But the “hit-and-run” types won’t care about that and will leave quickly. It all sorts itself out in the end.

* * * * *

2017-05-17T12:25:46-04:00

Relic
Relic of St. Clare of Assisi; photograph by Judy Flores Partlow, 18 April 2012 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]
(2-18-04)
From my book: The Catholic Verses (2004).

2 Kings 13:20-21 [RSV]: So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

As an introduction to the Catholic conception of matter as a conveyor of grace: the fundamental assumption behind things such as relics and sacramentals, I shall cite John Henry Newman, from his famous, profoundly influential work, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, written in 1845, while still an Anglican (but just before he converted to Catholicism):

Christianity . . . taught that the Highest had taken a portion of that corrupt mass upon Himself, in order to the sanctification of the whole; that, as a first fruits of His purpose, He had purified from all sin that very portion of it which He took into His Eternal Person, . . . It taught that the Highest had in that flesh died on the Cross, and that His blood had an expiatory power; moreover, that He had risen again in that flesh, and had carried that flesh with Him into heaven, and that from that flesh, glorified and deified in Him, He never would be divided. As a first consequence of these awful doctrines comes that of the resurrection of the bodies of His Saints, and of their future glorification with Him; next, that of the sanctity of their relics . . . (Part II, Chapter X, Section 1, 401-402)

Thomas Howard, also an Anglican on the verge of conversion to Catholicism at the time he wrote the following, picked up the same theme of the unbiblical Protestant tendency to pit matter against spirit:

By avoiding the dangers of magic and idolatry on the one hand, evangelicalism runs itself very near the shoals of Manichaeanism on the other – the view, that is, that pits the spiritual against the physical. (Evangelical is Not Enough, 35)

Catholic apologist Bertrand Conway elaborates:

The Catholic Church does not teach that there is any magical virtue or any curative efficacy in the relic itself. The Church merely says, following the Scriptures, that they are often the occasion of God’s miracles. In the Old Law we read of the veneration of the Jews for the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), and of the prophet Eliseus which raised a dead man to life (2 Kings 13:21) . . . (The Question Box, 373)

With this background, let’s examine some examples of how Protestants have interpreted 2 Kings 13:20-21. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary – somewhat typically, it seems – admits the validity of the principle involved but then immediately proceeds to irrationally mock the Catholic belief-system concerning relics which derives from it:

This shows that the prophet did not perform his miracles by any powers of his own, but by the power of God; and he chose to honour his servant, by making even his bones the instrument of another miracle after his death. This is the first, and I believe the last, account of a true miracle performed by the bones of a dead man; and yet on it and such like the whole system of miraculous working relics has been founded by the popish Church.

With this sort of mentality, I guess the examples from the Bible, and explicit biblical precedents and proof texts for any Christian belief or practice are irrelevant. Clarke’s hidden hostile assumption seems to be that the only criterion we have for knowing that a belief is false and implausible (regardless of the biblical data) is whether the “popish Church” espouses it. If it does do so, it must be false.

Presbyterian Matthew Henry, in his very well-known Commentary, manages to recognize the implications of the verse without adding the gratuitous swipe against the “papists”:

This great miracle . . . was also a plain indication of another life after this. When Elisha died, there was not an end of him, for then he could not have done this. From operation we may infer existence . . . Elijah was honoured in his departure. Elisha was honoured after his departure.

To conclude this discussion on relics, I would add that veneration is essentially different from worship or adoration (reserved for God alone); it is a high honor given to something or someone because of the grace revealed or demonstrated in them from God. The relic (and the saint from whom it is derived) reflects the greatness of God just as a masterpiece of art or music reflects the greatness of the artist or composer.

Therefore, in venerating it, God is being honored. The saint is being venerated only insofar as he or she is reflecting God’s grace and holiness. If such an item is worshiped, the person doing it is not following Catholic teaching, which fully agrees with Protestantism with regard to the evil of idolatry, or putting something besides God in the unique place of God.

In the passage above, matter clearly imparted the miraculous and grace from God. That is all that is needed for Catholics to reasonably and scripturally hold such items in the highest regard and honor (veneration). It wasn’t necessary for the whole doctrine to be present in the verse; only the fundamental assumption behind it (matter can convey grace), which is the basis for the Catholic belief and practice.

Many Protestants (including Martin Luther himself, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Churches of Christ) accept this principle with regard to the waters of baptism, which – so they hold – cause spiritual regeneration to occur, even in an infant.

As for the “graven image” of Exodus 20:4: what God was forbidding was idolatry: making a stone or block of wood God. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV).

Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV).

In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood (“them”) are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God. This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of an icon, where God is worshiped with the help of a visual aid.

Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God. We don’t always need an image to have an idol. Most idols today are non-visual: money, sex, lust for power, convenience, our own pride or intellects; there are all sorts of idols. Anything that replaces God as the most important thing in our life and the universe, is an idol.

Idolatry is also a “heart issue.” It’s all about what is going on interiorly, just as lust is. One can lust without having a person of the opposite sex right in their vision. The heart is always key in Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox worship Jesus through images (including crosses, crucifixes, and statues of Jesus), and we venerate saints via images.

The frequent Protestant objection and opposition to veneration of images or of relics (as in this case) is as silly as saying that a person raising their hands towards God in worship and praise during church is worshiping the ceiling. That person may not have an image of God in their mind, but they use the symbolism of “upwards” as being directed towards God (yet God is everywhere, so they could just as correctly stretch their arms downward or sideways).

We are physical creatures; God became man, and so by the principle of the Incarnation and sacramentalism, the physical becomes involved in the spiritual. Icons and relics are both based on these presuppositions.

2 Kings 2:11-14: “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 12 And Elisha saw it and he cried, ‘My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. 13 And he took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.”

Acts 5:15-16: “. . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. 16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.”

Acts 19:11-12: “And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.” (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

Elisha’s bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself. These passages, on the other hand, offer examples of “second-class” relics: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person (Elijah’s mantle and even St. Peter’s shadow), and third-class relics: something that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul).

Surveying a few examples of Protestant commentary on these verses, we find again that no real substantive objection is raised, so that, therefore, the Catholic basis for relics, grounded in these passages, stands unrefuted.

Thus, Matthew Henry refers to Elisha taking up Elijah’s mantle “not as a sacred relic to be worshipped.” Catholics do not worship relics, but venerate them, because they represent a saint who in turn reflects the grace and holiness of God. Henry offers no essential disproof that this is indeed a relic, only a potshot against a straw man.

God ultimately performs all miracles by His power, but in this case and many others He uses physical objects to do so (e.g., Moses’ staff, a Temple made of stone and wood). Belief that God can use something in His creation for a miraculous purpose does not in any way, shape, or form imply that God is not responsible or the cause. Adam Clarke cynically comments on St. Peter’s shadow, offering seven “disproofs” of relics:

A popish writer, assuming that the shadow of Peter actually cured all on which it was projected, argues from this precarious principle in favour of the wonderful efficacy of relics! . . . Now, before this conclusion can be valid, it must be proved: 1. That the shadow of Peter did actually cure the sick; 2. That this was a virtue common to all the apostles; 3. That all eminent saints possess the same virtue; 4. That the bones, &c.;, of the dead, possess the same virtue with the shadow of the living; 5. That those whom they term saints were actually such; 6. That miracles of healing have been wrought by their relics; 7. That touching these relics as necessarily produces the miraculous healing as they suppose the shadow of Peter to have done . . . no evidence can be drawn from this that any virtue is resident in the relics of reputed or real saints, by which miraculous influence may be conveyed.

I shall briefly reply to Clarke’s seven points of contention:

1) That St. Peter’s shadow was instrumental in healings is at least as reasonable and plausible an assumption from the text as its denial.

2) and 3) Whether all the apostles and saints possessed this characteristic is logically irrelevant to the fact that it occurred with Peter and thus sets a biblical precedent for Catholic belief in second-class relics.

4) This is a non sequitur. The evidence for bones also potentially having such power is proven from the example of Elisha.

5) Whether a person was a saint is a matter of rigorous historical inquiry in the Catholic Church (usually taking many years).

6) Whether miracles have occurred historically as a result of relics is also a matter of historical substantiation. They certainly have, but proof of that is beyond our purview here.

7) Catholics are not saying that healing necessarily follows from contact with a relic, only that it may, and that this is one legitimate means that God may in some instances use to heal and otherwise bestow grace upon sinful men.

Clarke’s case against relics based on this Scripture passage is nonexistent (and mostly merely declarative, to the exclusion of substantive rational argument): a combination of irrelevancies, straw men, wrongheaded analogies, conclusions that don’t follow, unwarranted demands, and outright skepticism of the occurrence of the supernatural (many Protestants – called cessationists — believe that all miracles ceased with the apostles). Matthew Henry, in his commentary on Peter’s shadow, is not nearly so skeptical as Clarke:

[I]f such miracles were wrought by Peter’s shadow, we have reason to think they were so by the other apostles, as by the handkerchiefs from Paul’s body (ch. xix. 12), no doubt both being with an actual intention in the minds of the apostles thus to heal; so that it is absurd to infer hence a healing virtue in the relics of saints that are dead and gone.

This is excellent and no different from the Catholic view, except for the last clause, which does not at all logically or biblically follow. Rather than recognize this instance as a clear proof of the principle of relics, Henry belittles relics as “absurd” with one portion of a sentence – itself containing an altogether unproven assumption: that in order for a healing to occur, it must be the intention of a person performing it (thus ruling out miracles as a result of relics, by definition).

But whence comes this “criterion”? To the contrary, Elisha was dead but his bones still raised a man from the dead. He certainly had no intention of healing that person (unless he did so from heaven). By Henry’s reasoning, then, that clear biblical example would be absurd. He himself grasps the implication when commenting on Elisha’s bones, but contradicts himself here and can’t bring himself to admit anything that might have a “Catholic odor” to it.

Catholics, however (like the overwhelming number of those in the early Church), are not limited by this bias against matter as a purveyor of grace and the notion of relics itself, and so can accept the Bible’s teaching, wherever it leads.

Likewise, John Calvin’s “argument” against relics in his commentary on Acts 19:11-12 contains plenty of mockery, straw men, and sophistry:

[T]he Papists are more blockish, who wrest this place unto their relics; as if Paul sent his handkerchiefs that men might worship them and kiss them in honor of them; as in Papistry, they worship Francis’ shoes and mantle, Rose’s girdle, Saint Margaret’s comb, and such like trifles. Yea, rather, he did choose most simple things, lest any superstition should arise by reason of the price or pomp.

But Calvin’s exegesis does not overthrow the fundamental principle illustrated by these texts, which form a strong biblical basis for the Catholic conception of relics – which belief suffers no harm whatever from all the above Protestant commentary.

* * * * *

2017-05-17T14:13:37-04:00

Plantinga2

Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932): widely regarded as the greatest living Christian philosopher, in 2009. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

* * * * *

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times from atheists and agnostics: “how can I believe in a ‘god’ without direct empirical evidence? Unless ‘he’ appears to me personally or rearranges — before my eyes — the Statue of Liberty into a giant sentence that reads ‘God exists’ then I have no reason whatever to believe in such a supposed deity.” It’s a bit of a mantra or sloganistic maxim, I guess. The atheist learns to say this 4,817,022 times, just as the TM practitioner says “om” over and over.

This is the first myth that many of them swallow uncritically: that empiricism is the only method to achieve high epistemological assurance; in effect, the only form of knowledge. What they think is a knockout punch and profound observation is demonstrably an utter falsehood. The usual atheist mantra also exhibits (I must say) considerable ignorance as to what has happened in the field of philosophy since World War II — with logical positivism essentially meeting an ignominious death. I have dealt with this preliminary consideration in several papers of mine:

God, Empiricism, & Atheist Demands for “Evidence”

Dialogue w Atheist on First Premises

Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable?

Atheists’ Unreasonable, Unrealistic Demands for Proof of God’s Existence 

On Whether Atheism is Inherently More Rational & Scientific, … Than Christianity

The Atheist Fairy Tale of “Christianity vs. Science and Reason”

Dawkins & Double Standards of the “Religion vs. Science” Mentality

Ten Common Atheist Claims About Science, God’s Existence, … Epistemology

Dialogue w/ Polymath Agnostic on Root Premises

Dialogue w Atheist About Miracles & Openness to Evidences and Proofs

I have argued (using the reductio ad absurdum technique and satire and sarcasm), that atheism utilizes even more faith, and acceptance of axioms (that are unproven by definition) than Christianity does:

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism”

Clarifications re: Atheist “Reductio” Paper

Now, it is quite fair and reasonable for the agnostic or atheist, granting the above, to proceed to ask: “You’ve given a good critique of a tunnel-vision, philosophically and epistemologically naive, ’empiricism only’ view; but what is the basis of your non-empirical belief in God and Christianity?” This aspect is not something I have written much about, precisely because it is very deep waters, and others have done a far better job of explaining it than I could ever hope to do.

I did enjoy one great recent dialogue on “properly basic beliefs,” and took a shot at presenting a popular, layman’s version of the old ontological argument (one of the classic theistic arguments):

Dialogue w Agnostic: God as a “Properly Basic Belief”

“Armstrong Ontological Argument” for God’s Existence

Ontological Argument: Discussion w a Philosophy Grad Student 

The latter three posts are the closest I came to directly treating these topics of “non-empirical justification for Christian beliefs,” but they barely scratched the surface. The materials recommended below go into it in the greatest depth.

I haven’t dealt in depth with this issue, myself, mostly because Christians aren’t demanding it. People become Christians, by and large, for many reasons, but rarely is it the case that they do as a result of the conclusion of a complicated philosophical chain of reasoning, arguing for God’s existence. They do for reasons that they may not be able to personally articulate, but which are valid and able to be defended by philosophers. Philosophy of religion is the pastime or purview of atheists, agnostics, and apologetics- or philosophically-minded “egghead”-type Christians: the sort of stuff that occupies late-night discussion in dorms of Christian colleges. No one beyond those groups cares much about it.

Since apologists like myself have the task of meeting people (usually Christians, as it turns out) where they are at, and providing answers to roadblocks or stumbling-blocks to faith, I’ve been doing that, and these issues simply haven’t come up very much.

Now I am in a venue (Patheos) where atheists are much more prevalent, and are interacting with some of my stuff and that of other Christians who post on the site. So it is now coming up more often. Sheila Connolly, a friendly agnostic and former Christian who appears to me to be sincerely seeking to find answers to these sorts of important questions, has been pressing me to offer her something solid. Here are her own words:

The real debate between Christianity and atheism/agnosticism is about epistemology, not specific facts, but no one wants to talk about epistemology. They say empiricism is bad, but no one is able to explain how else we are supposed to know about anything, considering humans take in information only through our senses. I don’t know if people are at a loss for an argument or if they’re just bored with the topic, but they always bail when we hit epistemology, calling me “excessively skeptical” or “unwilling to believe.” I’m willing to believe, I just don’t see that these beliefs are justified.

If atheism is something you want to discuss (and you seem conflicted about it; you’ve posted a lot about it lately but I don’t think it’s your main area of expertise), then I really recommend you focus on epistemology. How are we to know the right thing to do is to believe on less evidence than would be acceptable in science or history? What are your methods for separating the true from the false, and do they really work in other cases at separating the true from the false?

I’ve been talking about epistemology all along. I have said (several times in comboxes in various atheist threads) that if you want to understand Christian epistemology and our rationale for belief in God, read Plantinga, Polanyi, and Cardinal Newman. I’ve already had a long dialogue with an agnostic about Plantinga and properly basic belief. Yet you say I have “bailed” from epistemological discussion. Empiricism is great, not “bad.” It’s just not all there is, and anyone who is more than a novice in philosophy knows that.

I read your post on Plantinga and commented there and elsewhere on your blog about the topic of basic beliefs, but no one answered my objections.

To repeat them: given that many intuitive beliefs turn out to be wrong — for instance, you might think you recognize a face in a crowd but it’s actually a stranger; or you think someone is watching you but no one is — how can you check these beliefs? In all other cases, you can consider questions like, “What sense-information leads to this belief? What predictions can I make based on this belief, and if I test them, will they come true?” But with God-belief, it is admitted not to come through the senses (unless we posit a sixth “God sense”) and no one is willing to predict anything based on it, or to test it. In short, I can understand how a person could *have* a basic belief, but I don’t see it as demonstrated that a person ought to *trust* a given basic belief.

My second question is, what should people do who do not have this experience? For me the existence of God is not a properly basic belief. So how do you expect me to move from nonbelief to belief? Why does God expect me to move from nonbelief to belief while neither providing empirical evidence nor providing an interior sense of his presence? And most of all, why do you bother with apologetics if it all comes down to basic beliefs? Those who have an interior experience of God will believe regardless of what you say, and for those who don’t, you acknowledge that you don’t have sufficient proof of any other kind.

I don’t read all your comments everywhere, because I don’t have time to read all of Patheos (does anyone??) but if you’d like to refer me to what you’ve written elsewhere, just drop a link. If you’ve got it, I’ll read it.

This particular thing I haven’t written much on (and certainly not in the depth it deserves and requires), which is why I keep appealing to Alvin Plantinga, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Michael Polanyi, who have done so.

MICHAEL POLANYI

Here is an article about Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) and “tacit knowledge”. The Polanyi Society collects a lot of materials about him, including many papers. Of particular interest for our present topic is Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy” and “Faith and Reason.” See also the Polanyi entry in the Philosophy Research Base, his books on Amazon, articles about him, and a biography.

ALVIN PLANTINGA

Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932) is considered the leading Christian philosopher in the world. Most of his books (see them on Amazon) are available online for free (such as at Goodreads), and here is a long list of his papers, able to be read online. Of particular relevance to this discussion are his papers, “On ‘Proper Basicality'”, “Materialism and Christian Belief”, “Epistemic Justification”, and “The Foundations of Theism.” A second collection offers some more paper, including the enticing title, “Intellectual Sophistication and basic Belief in God.”   See also a great interview of Plantinga in The New York Times.

There are also a number of good You Tube videos of Dr. Plantinga on these questions, such as “Theism, Naturalism, and Reality” (+ Part 2), a Q & A on Science and Religion, a debate with Daniel Dennett on whether science and Christianity are compatible, another lecture on the same topic, and “An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.” PLantinga used to teach at my alma mater, Wayne State University in Detroit.

JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN

Cardinal Newman‘s 1870 book, Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (available online) is very dense and heavy, but if you want epistemology, it’ll fill you to the brim with that, and then some, till it’s coming out of your ears. It’s an extended philosophical treatment of the (mostly non-empirical) warrant or justification for Christian (and Catholic) belief, including his famous treatment of the “Illative Sense.” His arguments anticipated the “tacit knowledge” concept of Michael Polanyi by 80 years. I believe this work is one of the best treatments of philosophy of religion or Christian epistemology ever penned. It would challenge anyone and provide much intellectual stimulation, agree or disagree.

WILLIAM ALSTON

Another renowned Christian philosopher who writes about the basis for Christian experience and belief is the late William Alston (1921-2009). I had the pleasure to meet him once, when I hung out at the Wayne State Univ. Philosophy Club). He specializes in epistemology. Here is a brief biography describing his work, a more lengthy one,  and two of his papers: “Religious Experience and Religious Belief”, “What is Naturalism?”. See also his books on Amazon.

* * * * *

If Polanyi, Plantinga, Newman, and Alston don’t convince an atheist or agnostic (about anything), I certainly won’t come within a million miles of doing so (in which case, I’ll take a pass and Spend my valuable time doing something else). These sources, are, I believe, the very best ones I can recommend to atheists and agnostics, who are truly seeking to understand (not just shoot down) the rational and epistemological basis for Christian belief, and want to read the best Christian philosophical arguments to be had.

 

2020-10-13T18:41:18-04:00

PeterKeys2

[written in 1994 and published on pp. 233-238 of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism]

[see also translations of this paper into French and Portugese]

***
See the following papers for a fuller explanation of exactly what I think these biblical evidences prove, and how I view them in terms of logical force (i.e., what I would claim for them), especially when considered individually:
*****

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:

1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the
Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (cf. Mt 4:19).

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

20. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

25. Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter (“Simon”), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

36. Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

41. Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2021-11-20T13:23:01-04:00

CathedralEly
The choir of Ely Cathedral, Cambridgeshire, England. Photograph by David Iliff, 29 July 2014. [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
(1992; revised on 9-28-05)
*****Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism*****
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian moralityspiritualitysocial ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.

3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., “faith alone” and its missing many other “Catholic” doctrines – see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various doctrines of Catholic Tradition (e.g., the canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., “Scripture alone”; ignorance or inconsistent understanding of of development of doctrine), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic and (in effect, or logical reduction, if not always in actual belief) relativistic.

Disclaimer: I don’t therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot – indeed, I think it is a pretty good thing overall), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the “theory” of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

4. Catholicism isn’t formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).

5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).

6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.

7. Catholicism (institutionally) avoids (and/or has the remedy to) an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).

8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

9. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism – one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.

10. Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological “pick and choose” state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and “every man for himself” confusion within the Protestant system among laypeople.

11. Catholicism rejects the “State Church,” which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice versa, caesaropapism, or a nominal, merely “go through the motions” institutional religion.

12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against equality of all men and the universal nature of historic Christianity (i.e., catholicism in its literal meaning).

13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic, Christian vs. Christian religious wars which in turn led to the “Enlightenment,” in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.

14. Catholicism retains (to the fullest extent) the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.

15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the “public square” largely barren of Christian influence.

16. The secular false dichotomy of “church vs. world” has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, the unscrupulous, the power-hungry, and the Machiavellian. Catholicism offers a sensible, internally-coherent framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.

17. Protestantism leans too much on mere traditions of men. Every denomination stems from one founder’s vision, which contradicts something previously received from apostolic Tradition and passed down. As soon as two or more of these contradict each other, error is necessarily present.

18. Protestant churches (especially evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, often pastors (at least in some denominational traditions) becomes a “pope,” to varying degrees. Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered (Catholic parishes usually don’t experience such a crisis when a priest departs). Many pastors have far more power in their congregations than the pope has over the daily life of any Catholic.

19. Protestantism, due to lack of real authority and dogmatic structure, is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.

20. Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians and the Church Fathers.

21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, especially the years from 313 (Constantine’s conversion) to 1517 (Luther’s arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of “reinventing the wheel.”

22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and certain factions of it remain so to this day (especially in certain fundamentalist and Baptist and Reformed circles). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn’t, then – logically – neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.

23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great ecumenical councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).

24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. Or (in a more sophisticated fashion), the Protestant can simply accept the authority of some denominational tradition, confession, or creed (which then has to be justified over against the other competing ones). There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

26. Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a “Johnny-come-lately” in the history of Christianity (having introduced many doctrines previously accepted by no Christian group, or very few individuals). Therefore it cannot possibly be the “restoration” of “pure”, “primitive” Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its novelties and absurdly late appearance. Christianity must have historic continuity or it is not Christianity. Protestantism is necessarily a “parasite” of Catholicism: historically and doctrinally speaking.

27. The notion (common among many Protestants) of the “invisible church” is also novel in the history of Christianity and foreign to the Bible (Mt 5:14; 16:18), therefore untrue.

28. When Protestant theologians speak of the teaching of early Christianity (e.g., when refuting “cults”), they say “the Church taught . . .” (as it was then unified), but when they refer to the present they instinctively and inconsistently refrain from such terminology, since universal teaching authority now clearly resides only in the Catholic Church.

29. The Protestant principle of private judgment has created a milieu (especially in Protestant America) in which it is easier for (invariably) man-centered “cults” such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science arise. The very notion that one can “start” a new, or “the true” Church is Protestant to the core. Though (I want to stress) these cults are not Protestant themselves; nevertheless they tend to proliferate, given the existence of certain false Protestant principles of epistemology and authority.

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a “Bible, Holy Spirit and me” mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed “infallible” statements about the nature of Christianity.

31. Evangelicalism’s “techniques” of evangelism are often contrived and manipulative, certainly not directly derived from the text of the Bible. Some even resemble brainwashing to a degree. [I speak as a former street and campus and counter-cult evangelist myself, who avoided these techniques then, as I do now]

32. Sadly, too many evangelical Protestant evangelists and pastors present a truncated and abridged, individualistic and ear-tickling gospel, in effect merely “fire insurance” rather than the biblical gospel as proclaimed by the apostles.

33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this “cheap grace.”

34. The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal “freedom,” “rights,” and “choice” now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society.

35. Catholicism retains the sense of the sacred, the sublime, the holy, and the beautiful in spirituality. The ideas of altar, and “sacred space” are preserved. Many Protestant churches are no more than “meeting halls” or “gymnasiums” or “barn”-type structures. Most Protestants’ homes are more esthetically striking than their churches. Likewise, Protestants (particularly fundamentalists and too many evangelicals) are often “addicted to mediocrity” in their appreciation of art, music, architecture, drama, the imagination, etc.

36. Protestantism has too often neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus can’t be so lightly dismissed.

37. Too many brands of Protestantism tend to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and sometimes exhibit Gnostic or Docetic strains of thought in this regard.

38. Catholicism upholds in the fullest way the “incarnational principle,” wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.

39. Some strains of Protestantism (particularly evangelicalism and pentecostalism and especially the Baptists) greatly limit or disbelieve in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Quakers and the Salvation Army) reject all sacraments.

40. Too many Protestants’ excessive mistrust of the flesh (“carnality”) often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).

41. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of “spiritual” and “carnal,” as if God is not Lord of all of life. They forget that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.

42. Many Protestant denominations have removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly (the Reformed are notorious for this). This is against the Tradition of the early Church.

43. Most Protestants (Lutherans and high-church Anglicans being the exception) believe in a merely symbolic Eucharist, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).

44. Protestantism almost universally denies the sacramentality of marriage, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 19:4-5; 1 Cor 7:14,39; Eph 5:25-33).

45. Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

46. Catholicism retains the Pauline notion of the spiritual practicality, prudence, and wisdom of a celibate clergy (e.g., Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:8,27,32-3).

47. Protestantism has largely rejected the sacrament of confirmation (Acts 8:18, Heb 6:2-4), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible.

48. A significant minority of Protestants have denied infant baptism, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 2:38-9; 16:15,33; 18:8; cf. 11:14; 1 Cor 1:16; Col 2:11-12). Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism.

49. The majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

50. Protestants have rejected the sacrament of anointing of the sick (Extreme Unction / “Last Rites”), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 6:13; 1 Cor 12:9,30; Jas 5:14-15).

51. Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk
10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

52. Many Protestants deny that procreation is the primary purpose and benefit of marriage (it isn’t part of the vows, as in Catholic matrimony), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 1:28; 28:3, Ps 107:38; 127:3-5).

53. Protestantism sanctions contraception, in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 – when the Anglicans first allowed it – and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Luther and Calvin, e.g., regarded it as murder. Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition, over against the “anti-child” mentality.

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing, but alarmingly in many other places, too) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; 49:5; Jer 1:5; 2:34; Lk 1:15,41; Rom 13:9-10).

55. Protestantism (largely liberal denominations, but not exclusively so) allow women pastors (and even bishops, as in Anglicanism), contrary to Christian Tradition (including. traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

56. Protestantism is, more and more, formally and officially compromising with currently fashionable radical feminism, which denies the roles of men and women, as taught in the Bible (Gen 2:18-23; 1 Cor 11:3-10) and maintained by Christian Tradition (differentiation of roles, but not of equality).

57. Protestantism is also currently denying, with increasing frequency, the headship of the husband in marriage, which is based upon the headship of the Father over the Son (while equal in essence) in the Trinity, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1-2). This too, is based on a relationship of equality (1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21).

58. Liberal Protestantism (most notably Anglicanism) has even ordained practicing homosexuals as pastors and blessed their “marriages,” or taught that homosexuality is merely an involuntary, “alternate” lifestyle, contrary to formerly universal Christian Tradition, as the Bible clearly teaches (Gen 19:4-25; Rom 1:18-27; 1 Cor 6:9). Catholicism stands firm on traditional sexual morality.

59. Liberal Protestantism, and evangelicalism increasingly, have accepted “higher critical” methods of biblical interpretation which lead to the destruction of the traditional Christian reverence for the Bible, and demote it to the status of largely a human, fallible document, to the detriment of its divine, infallible essence.

60. Much of liberal Protestantism has thrown out many cardinal doctrines of Christianity, such as the incarnation, virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, original sin, hell, the existence of the devil, miracles, etc.

61. The founders of Protestantism denied, and Calvinists today deny, the reality of human free will (Luther’s favorite book was his Bondage of the Will). This is contrary to the constant premise of the Bible, Christian Tradition, and common sense.

62. Classical Protestantism had a deficient view of the Fall of Man, thinking that the result was “total depravity.” According to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvinists, man could only do evil of his own volition, and had no free will to do good. He now has a “sin nature.” Catholicism believes that, in a mysterious way, man cooperates with the grace which always originates from God and precedes all good actions. In Catholicism, man’s nature still retains some good, although he has a propensity to sin (“concupiscence”).

63. Classical Protestantism, and Calvinism today, comes perilously close to making God the author of evil. He supposedly wills that men do evil and violate His precepts without having any free will to do so.

64. Accordingly (man having no free will), in classical Protestant and Calvinist thought, God predestines men to hell, although they had no choice or say in the matter all along.

65. Classical Protestantism and Calvinism, teach falsely that Jesus died only for the elect (i.e., those who will make it to heaven).

66. Classical Protestantism (especially Luther), and Calvinism, deny natural theology, and tend to dichotomize reason against God and faith, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 12:28; Lk 10:27; Jn 20:24-9; Acts 1:3; 17:2,17,22-34; 19:8). The best Protestant apologists today simply hearken back to the Catholic heritage of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many other great thinkers.

67. Pentecostal or charismatic Protestantism strongly tend to place much too high an emphasis on spiritual experience, not balancing it properly with reason, the Bible, and Tradition (including the authority of the Church to pronounce on the validity of “private revelations”).

68. Other Protestants (e.g., many Baptists) deny that spiritual gifts such as healing are present in the current age (supposedly they ceased with the apostles). This position is called cessationism.

69. Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making widespread discipline, unity and order impossible. Some sects even claim to have “apostles” or “prophets” among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting therefrom.

70. Some strains of Protestantism (especially evangelicalism and fundamentalism) have an undue fascination for – even obsession with – the “end of the world,” which has led to unbiblical date-setting (Mt 24:30-44; 25:13; Lk 12:39-40) and much human tragedy among those who are taken in by such false prophecies.

71. Over-emphasis on the “imminent end” of the age (where found in Protestantism) has often led to a certain “pie-in-the sky” mentality, to the detriment of social, political, ethical, and economic sensibilities here on earth.

72. Protestant thought has a strong characteristic or tendency of being “dichotomous,” i.e., it separates ideas into more or less exclusive and mutually-hostile camps, when in fact many of the dichotomies are simply complementary rather than contradictory. Protestantism has been described as an “either-or” system, whereas Catholicism takes a “both-and” approach. Examples follow:

73. Protestantism pits the Word (the Bible, preaching) against sacraments.

74. Protestantism sets up inner devotion and piety against liturgy.

75. Protestantism opposes spontaneous worship to form prayers.

76. Protestantism separates the Bible from the Church.

77. Protestantism creates the false dichotomy of Bible vs. Tradition.

78. Protestantism pits Tradition against the Holy Spirit.

79. Protestantism considers (binding) Church authority and individual liberty and conscience contradictory.

80. Some forms of Protestantism (notably Luther and present-day dispensationalists) set up the Old Testament against the New Testament, even though Jesus did not do so (Mt 5:17-19; Mk 7:8-11; Lk 24:27,44; Jn 5:45-47).

81. On equally unbiblical grounds, some Protestants (notably, Lutherans) opposes law to grace.

82. Protestantism creates a false dichotomy between symbolism and sacramental reality (e.g., baptism, Eucharist).

83. Protestantism strongly tends to separate the individual from Christian community (1 Cor 12:14-27).

84. Protestantism pits the veneration of saints against the worship of God. Catholic theology doesn’t permit worship of saints. Rather, saints are revered and honored, not adored, as only God the Creator can be.

85. The anti-historical outlook of many Protestants leads to individuals thinking that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them, but has not, in effect, spoken to the multitudes of Christians for 1500 years before Protestantism began.

86. Flaws in original Protestant thought have led to even worse errors in reaction. E.g., extrinsic justification, devised to assure the predominance of grace, came to prohibit any outward sign of its presence (“faith vs. works,” sola fide). Calvinism, with its overly stern and rigid God, turned men off to such an extent that they became Unitarians (as in New England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries). Many founders of cults of recent origin started out Calvinist (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, etc.). One error begets another more serious and damaging error.

87. Evangelicalism is unbiblically obsessed (in typically American fashion) with celebrities (TV Evangelists).

88. Evangelicalism is infatuated with the false idea that great numbers in a congregation (or rapid growth) are a sign of God’s presence in a special way, and His unique blessing. They forget that Mormonism is also growing by leaps and bounds. God calls us to faithfulness rather than to “success”; obedience, not flattering statistics.

89. Evangelicalism often emphasizes numerical growth rather than individual spiritual growth.

90. Evangelicalism is presently obsessed with self-fulfillment, self-help, and oftentimes, outright selfishness, rather than the traditional Christian stress on suffering, sacrifice, and service. A visit to the average “Christian bookstore” will quickly confirm this.

91. Evangelicalism has a truncated and insufficient view of the place of suffering in the Christian life. Instead, “health-and-wealth” and “name-it-and-claim-it” movements within
pentecostal Protestantism are flourishing, which have a view of possessions and spiritual well-being not in harmony with the Bible and Christian Tradition.

92. Many evangelicals have adopted a worldview which is, in many ways, more capitalist than Christian. Wealth and personal gain is sought more than godliness, and is seen as a proof of God’s favor, as in Puritan, and secularized American thought, over against the Bible and Christian teaching.

93. Evangelicalism is increasingly tolerating leftist political outlooks not in accord with Christian views, especially at its seminaries and colleges.

94. Evangelicalism is increasingly tolerating theological heterodoxy and liberalism, to such an extent that many evangelical leaders are alarmed, and predict a further decay of orthodox standards.

95. “Positive confession” movements in pentecostal evangelicalism have adopted views of God (in effect) as a “cosmic bellhop,” subject to man’s frivolous whims and desires of the moment, thus denying God’s absolute sovereignty and prerogative to turn down any of man’s improper prayer requests (Jas 4:3; 1 Jn 5:14).

96. The above sects usually teach that anyone can be healed who has enough “faith,” contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Job, St. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh,” usually considered a disease by most Protestant commentators).

97. Evangelicalism, by its own self-critiques, is badly infected with pragmatism, the false philosophical view that “whatever works is true, or right.” The gospel, especially on television, is often sold in the same way that McDonalds hawks hamburgers. Technology, mass-market and public relations techniques have too often replaced personal pastoral care and social concern for the downtrodden, irreligious, and unchurched masses.

98. Sin, in evangelicalism, is increasingly seen as a psychological failure or a lack of self-esteem, rather than the willful revolt against God that it is.

99. Protestantism, in all essential elements, merely borrows wholesale from Catholic Tradition, or distorts the same. All doctrines upon which Catholics and Protestants agree, are clearly Catholic in origin (Holy Trinity, virgin birth, Jesus’ Resurrection, second coming, canon of the Bible, heaven, hell, etc.). Those where Protestantism differs are usually distortions of Catholic forerunners. For example, Quakerism is a variant of Catholic Quietism. Calvinism is an over-obsession with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of God, but taken to lengths beyond what Catholicism ever taught (denial of free will, total depravity, double predestination, etc.). Protestant dichotomies such as faith vs. works, come from the nominalism of the late Middle Ages, which was itself a corrupt form of Scholasticism, never dogmatically sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Whatever life or truth is present in each Protestant idea, always is derived from Catholicism, which is the fulfillment of the deepest and best aspirations within Protestantism.

100. One of Protestantism’s foundational principles is sola Scriptura, which is neither biblical (see below), historical (nonexistent until the 16th century), nor logical (it’s self-defeating) idea:

101. The Bible doesn’t contain the whole of Jesus’ teaching, or Christianity, as many Protestants believe (Mk 4:33; 6:34; Lk 24:15-16,25-27; Jn 16:12; 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3).

102. Sola scriptura is an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition. An objective reading of the Bible leads one to Tradition and the Catholic Church, rather than the opposite. The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.

103. The NT was neither written nor received as the Bible at first, but only gradually so (i.e., early Christianity couldn’t have believed in sola Scriptura like current Protestants, unless it referred to the OT alone).

104. Tradition is not a bad word in the Bible. The Greek paradosis refers to something handed on from one to another (good or bad). Good (Christian) Tradition is spoken of in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, and Col 2:8. In the latter it is contrasted with traditions of men.

105. Christian Tradition, according to the Bible, can be oral as well as written (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). St. Paul makes no qualitative distinction between the two forms.

106. The phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” in Acts and the epistles almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the Bible itself. Much of the Bible was originally oral (e.g., Jesus’ entire teaching – He wrote nothing – St. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, etc.).

107. Contrary to many Protestant claims, Jesus didn’t condemn all tradition any more than St. Paul did. E.g., Mt 15:3,6; Mk 7:8-9,13, where He condemns corrupt Pharisaical tradition only. He says “your tradition.”

108. The Greek paradidomi, or “delivering” Christian, apostolic Tradition occurs in Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3. Paralambano, or “receiving” Christian Tradition occurs in 1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9,12; 1 Thess 2:13.

109. The concepts of “Tradition,” “gospel,” “word of God,” “doctrine,” and “the Faith” are essentially synonymous, and all are predominantly oral. For example, in the Thessalonian epistles alone St. Paul uses 3 of these interchangeably (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Thess 2:9,13 (cf. Gal 1:9; Acts 8:14). If Tradition is a dirty word, then so is “gospel” and “word of God”.

110. St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15, states that the Church is the ground of truth, as in Catholicism.

111. Protestantism’s chief “proof text” for sola Scriptura2 Timothy 3:16, fails, since it says that the Bible is profitable, but not sufficient for learning and righteousness. Catholicism agrees that it is great for these purposes, but not exclusively so, as in Protestantism. Secondly, when St. Paul speaks of “Scripture” here, the NT didn’t yet exist (not definitively for over 300 more years), thus he is referring to the OT only. This would mean that the NT wasn’t necessary for the rule of faith, if sola Scriptura were true, and if it were supposedly alluded to in this verse.

112. The above eleven factors being true, Catholicism maintains that all its Tradition is consistent with the Bible, even where the Bible is mute or merely implicit on a subject. For Catholicism, every doctrine need not be found primarily in the Bible, for this is Protestantism’s principle of sola Scriptura. On the other hand, most Catholic theologians claim that all Catholic doctrines can be found in some fashion in the Bible, in kernel form, or by (usually. extensive) inference, and that the Bible is materially sufficient for salvation, if it was all one had (on a desert island or something).

113. As thoughtful evangelical scholars have pointed out, an unthinking sola Scriptura position (sometimes referred to as solo Scriptura) can turn into “bibliolatry,” almost a worship of the Bible rather than God who is its Author. This mentality is similar to the Muslim view of Revelation, where no human elements whatsoever were involved. Sola Scriptura, rightly understood from a more sophisticated (e.g., Reformed) Protestant perspective, means that the Bible is the final authority in Christianity, not the record of all God has said and done, as many evangelicals believe.

114. Christianity is unavoidably and intrinsically historical. All the events of Jesus’ life (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.) were historical, as was the preaching of the apostles. Tradition, therefore, of some sort, is unavoidable, contrary to numerous shortsighted Protestant claims. This is true both for matters great (ecclesiology, trinitarianism, justification) and small (church budgets, type of worship music, lengths of sermons, etc.). Every denial of a particular tradition involves a bias (hidden or open) towards one’s own alternate tradition (E.g., if all Church authority is spurned, even individualistic autonomy is a “tradition,” which ought to be defended as a Christian view in some fashion).

115. Sola scriptura literally couldn’t have been true, practically speaking, for most Christians throughout history, since the movable-type printing press only appeared in the mid-15th century. Preaching and oral Tradition, along with things like devotional practices, Christian holidays, church architecture and other sacred art, were the primary carriers of the gospel for 1400 years. For all these centuries, sola Scriptura would have been regarded as an absurd abstraction and impossibility.

116. Protestantism claims that the Catholic Church has “added to the Bible.” The Catholic Church replies that it has merely drawn out the implications of the Bible (development of doctrine), and followed the understanding of the early Church, and that Protestants have “subtracted” from the Bible by ignoring large portions of it which suggest Catholic positions. Each side thinks the other is “unbiblical,” but in different ways.

117. Sola Scriptura is Protestantism’s “Achilles’ Heel.” Merely invoking sola Scriptura is no solution to the problem of authority and certainty as long as multiple interpretations exist. If the Bible were so clear that all Protestants agreed simply by reading it with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, this would be one thing, but since this isn’t the case by a long shot (the multiplicity of denominations), sola Scriptura is a pipe-dream at best. About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong, or on doctrines with which they already agree with Catholicism. Of all Protestant ideas, the “clarity” or perspicuity of the Bible is surely one of the most absurd and the most demonstrably false.

118. Put another way, having a Bible does not render one’s private judgment infallible. Interpretation is just as inevitable as tradition, and such individual interpretation is rife with one’s own traditions, and prior theological biases, whether acknowledged or not. The Catholic Church therefore, is absolutely necessary in order for true authority to exist, and to prevent confusion, error, and division.

119. Catholicism doesn’t regard the Bible as obscure, mysterious, and inaccessible, but it is vigilant to protect it from all arbitrary and aberrant exegesis (2 Pet 1:20, 3:16). The best Protestant traditions seek to do the same, but are inadequate and ineffectual since they are divided.

120. Protestantism has a huge problem with the canon of the NT. The disputes and disagreements concerning the exact books which constitute the NT lasted until 397 A.D., when the Council of Carthage spoke with finality, certainly proof that the Bible is not “self-authenticating,” as Protestantism believes. Some sincere, devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible, and others considered books as Scripture which were not at length included in the canon. St. Athanasius in 367 was the first to list all 27 books in the NT as Scripture.

121. The Council of Carthage, in deciding the canon of the entire Bible in 397, included the so-called “Apocryphal” books, which Protestants kicked out of the Bible (i.e., a late tradition). Prior to the 16th century Christians considered these books Scripture, and they weren’t even separated from the others, as they are today in the Protestant Bibles which include them. Protestantism accepts the authority of this council for the NT, but not the OT, just as it arbitrarily and selectively accepts or denies other conciliar decrees, according to their accord with existing Protestant “dogmas” and biases.

122. Contrary to Protestant anti-Catholic myth, the Catholic Church has always revered the Bible, and hasn’t suppressed it (it protested some Protestant translations, but Protestants have often done the same regarding Catholic versions and even various Protestant ones). This is proven by the laborious care of monks in protecting and copying manuscripts, and the constant translations into vernacular tongues (as opposed to the falsehoods about only Latin Bibles), among other plentiful and indisputable historical evidences. The Bible is a Catholic book, and no matter how much Protestants study it and proclaim it as peculiarly their own, they must acknowledge their undeniable debt to the Catholic Church for having decided the canon, and for preserving the Bible intact for 1400 years. How could the Catholic Church be “against the Bible,” as anti-Catholics say, yet at the same time preserve and revere the Bible profoundly for so many years? The very thought is so absurd as to be self-refuting. If Catholicism is indeed as heinous as anti-Catholics would have us believe, Protestantism ought to put together its own Bible, instead of using the one delivered to them by the Catholic Church, as it obviously could not be trusted.

123. Protestantism denies the Sacrifice of the Mass, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Isa 66:18,21; Mal 1:11; Heb 7:24-5; 13:10; Rev 5:1-10; cf. 8:3; 13:8). Catholicism, it must be emphasized, doesn’t believe that Jesus is sacrificed over and over at each Mass; rather, each Mass is a representation of the one Sacrifice at Calvary on the Cross, which transcends space and time, as in Rev 13:8.

124. Many Protestants disbelieve or distort beyond recognition, the development of doctrine, contrary to Christian Tradition and many implicit biblical indications. Whenever the Bible refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians individually and (particularly) collectively, an idea similar to development is present. Further, many doctrines develop in the Bible before our eyes (“progressive revelation”). Examples: the afterlife, the Trinity, acceptance of Gentiles. And doctrines which Protestantism accepts whole and entire from Catholicism, such as the Trinity and the canon of the Bible, developed in history, in the first three centuries of Christianity. It is foolish to try and deny this. The Church is the “Body” of Christ, and is a living organism, which grows and develops like all living bodies. It is not a statue, simply to be cleaned and polished over time, as many Protestants seem to think.

125. Protestantism separates justification from sanctification, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Mt 5:20; 7:20-24; Rom 2:7-13; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 1:2).

126. Protestantism has a strong tendency of pitting faith against works (sola fide), which is a rejection of Christian Tradition and the explicit teaching of the Bible (Mt 25:31-46; Lk 18:18-25; Jn 6:27-9; Gal 5:6; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 2:12-13; 3:10-14; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Heb 5:9; Jas 1:21-7; 2:14-16). These passages also indicate that salvation is a process, not an instantaneous event, as in Protestantism.

127. Protestantism rejects the Christian Tradition and biblical teaching of merit, or differential reward for our good deeds done in faith (Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:8-9; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 22:12).

128. Protestantism’s teaching of extrinsic, imputed, forensic, or external justification contradicts the Christian Tradition and biblical doctrine of infused, actual, internal, transformational justification (which includes sanctification): Ps 51:2-10; 103:12; Jn 1:29; Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 5:17; Heb 1:3; 1 Jn 1:7-9.

129. Many Protestants (especially Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists) believe in eternal security, or, perseverance of the saints (the belief that one can’t lose his “salvation,” supposedly obtained at one point in time). This is contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible: 1 Cor 9:27; Gal 4:9; 5:1,4; Col 1:22-3; 1 Tim 1:19-20; 4:1; 5:15; Heb 3:12-14; 6:4-6; 10:26,29,39; 12:14-15; 2 Pet 2:15,20-21; Rev 2:4-5.

130. Contrary to Protestant myth and anti-Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that one is saved by works apart from preceding and enabling grace, but that faith and works are inseparable, as in James 1 and 2. This heresy of which Catholicism is often charged, was in fact condemned by the Catholic Church at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D. It is known as Pelagianism, the view that man could save himself by his own natural efforts, without the necessary supernatural grace from God. A more moderate view, Semi-Pelagianism, was likewise condemned. To continue to accuse the Catholic Church of this heresy suggests a manifest ignorance of the history of theology, as well as the clear Catholic teaching of the Council of Trent (1545-63), available for all to see. Yet the myth is strangely prevalent.

131. Protestantism has virtually eliminated the practice of confession to a priest (or at least a pastor), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23).

132. Protestantism disbelieves in penance, or temporal punishment for (forgiven) sin, over against Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Num 14:19-23; 2 Sam 12:13-14; 1 Cor
11:27-32; Heb 12:6-8).

133. Protestantism has little concept of the Tradition and biblical doctrine of mortifying the flesh, or, suffering with Christ: Mt 10:38; 16:24: Rom 8:13,17; 1 Cor 12:24-6; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1,13.

134. Likewise, Protestantism has lost the Tradition and biblical doctrine of vicarious atonement, or redemptive suffering with Christ, of Christians for the sake of each other: Ex 32:30-32; Num 16:43-8; 25:6-13; 2 Cor 4:10; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 4:6.

135. Protestantism has rejected the Tradition and biblical doctrine of purgatory, as a consequence of its false view of justification and penance, despite sufficient evidence in Scripture: Is 4:4; 6:5-7; Micah 7:8-9; Mal 3:1-4; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; Mt 5:25-6; 12:32; Lk 16:19-31 (cf. Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:19-20); 1 Cor 3:11-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 21:27.

136. Protestantism has rejected (largely due to misconceptions and misunderstanding) the Catholic developed doctrine of indulgences, which is, simply, the remission of the temporal punishment for sin (i.e., penance), by the Church (on the grounds of Mt 16:19; 18:18, and Jn 20:23). This is no different than what St. Paul did, concerning an errant brother at the Church of Corinth. He first imposed a penance on him (1 Cor 5:3-5), then remitted part of it (an indulgence: 2 Cor 2:6-11). Just because abuses occurred prior to the Protestant Revolt (admitted and rectified by the Catholic Church), is no reason to toss out yet another biblical doctrine. Yet it is sadly typical of Protestantism to burn down a house rather than to cleanse it, to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

137. Protestantism has thrown out prayers for the dead, in opposition to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; 1 Cor 15:29; 2 Tim 1:16-18; also verses having to do with purgatory, since these prayers are for the saints there).

138. Protestantism rejects, on inadequate grounds, the intercession of the saints for us after death, and the correspondent invocation of the saints for their effectual prayers (Jas 5:16). Christian Tradition and the Bible, on the other hand, have upheld this practice: Dead saints are aware of earthly affairs (Mt 22:30 w/ Lk 15:10 and 1 Cor 15:29; Heb 12:1), appear on earth to interact with men (1 Sam 28:12-15; Mt 17:1-3, 27:50-53; Rev 11:3), and therefore can intercede for us, and likewise be petitioned for their prayers, just as are Christians on earth (2 Maccabees 15:14; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10).

139. Some Protestants disbelieve in guardian angels, despite Christian Tradition and the Bible (Ps 34:7; 91:11; Mt 18:10; Acts 12:15; Heb 1:14).

140. Most Protestants deny angelic intercession, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Rev 1:4; 5:8; 8:3-4).

141. Protestantism rejects Mary’s Immaculate Conception, despite developed Christian Tradition and indications in the Bible: Gen 3:15; Lk 1:28 (“full of grace” Catholics interpret, on linguistic grounds, to mean “without sin”); Mary as a type of the Ark of the Covenant (Lk 1:35 w/ Ex 40:34-8; Lk 1:44 w/ 2 Sam 6:14-16; Lk 1:43 w/ 2 Sam 6:9: God’s Presence requires extraordinary holiness).

142. Protestantism rejects Mary’s Assumption, despite developed Christian Tradition and biblical indications: If Mary was indeed sinless, she would not have to undergo bodily decay at death (Ps 16:10; Gen 3:19). Similar occurrences in the Bible make the Assumption not implausible or “unbiblical” per se (Enoch: Gen 5:24 w/ Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Ki 2:11; Paul: 2 Cor 12:2-4; the Protestant doctrine of the “Rapture”: 1 Thess 4:15-17; risen saints: Mt 27:52-3).

143. Many (most?) Protestants deny Mary’s perpetual virginity, despite Christian Tradition (including the unanimous agreement of the Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), some Protestant support, and several biblical evidences, too involved to briefly summarize.

144. Protestantism denies Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood of Christians, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Jn 19:26-7: “Behold thy mother”; Rev 12:1,5,17: Christians described as “her seed.”) Catholics believe that Mary is incomparably more alive and holy than we are, hence, her prayers for us are of great effect (Jas 5:16; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10). But she is our sister with regard to our position of creatures vis-a-vis the Creator, God. Mary never operates apart from the necessary graces from her Son, and always glorifies Him, not herself, as Catholic theology stresses.

145. Protestantism rejects the papacy, despite profound Christian Tradition, and the strong evidence in the Bible of Peter’s preeminence and commission by Jesus as the Rock of His Church. No one denies he was some type of leader among the apostles. The papacy as we now know it is derived from this primacy: Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-2; Jn 21:15-17 are the most direct “papal” passages. Peter’s name appears first in all lists of apostles; even an angel implies he is their leader (Mk 16:7), and he is accepted by the world as such (Acts 2:37-8,41). He works the first miracle of the Church age (Acts 3:6-8), utters the first anathema (Acts 5:2-11), raises the dead (Acts 9:40), first receives the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-48), and his name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together (191 times). Much more similar evidence can be found.

146. The Church of Rome and the popes were central to the governance and theological direction and orthodoxy of the Christian Church from the beginning. This is undeniable. All of the historical groups now regarded as heretical by Protestants and Catholics alike were originally judged as such by popes and/or ecumenical councils presided over and ratified by popes.

147. Protestantism, in its desperation to eke out some type of historical continuity apart from the Catholic Church, sometimes attempts to claim a lineage from medieval sects such as the Waldenses, Cathari, and Albigensians (and sometimes earlier groups such as the Montanists or Donatists). However, this endeavor is doomed to failure when one studies closely what these sects believed. They either retain much Catholic teaching anathema to Protestants or hold heretical notions antithetical to Christianity altogether (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), or both, making this Protestant theory quite dubious at best.

148. Catholic has the most sophisticated and thoughtful Christian socio-economic and political philosophy, a mixture of “progressive” and “conservative” elements distinct from the commonplace political rhetoric and Machiavellianism which typically dominate the political arena. Catholicism has the best view of church in relation to the state and culture as well.

149. Catholicism has the best Christian philosophy and worldview, worked out through centuries of reflection and experience. As in its theological reflection and development, the Catholic Church is ineffably wise and profound, to an extent truly amazing, and indicative of a sure divine stamp. I used to marvel, just before I converted, at how the Catholic Church could be so right about so many things. I was accustomed to thinking, as a good evangelical, that the truth was always a potpourri of ideas from many Protestant denominations and Catholicism and Orthodoxy (selected by myself), and that none “had it all together.” But, alas, the Catholic Church does, after all.

150. Last but by no means least, Catholicism has the most sublime spirituality and devotional spirit, manifested in a thousand different ways, from the monastic ideal, to the heroic celibacy and pure devotion and service to God of the clergy and religious, the Catholic hospitals, the sheer holiness of a Thomas a Kempis or a St. Ignatius Loyola and their great devotional books, countless saints – both canonized and as yet unknown and unsung, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Pope John XXIII, the early martyrs, St. Francis of Assisi, the events at Lourdes and Fatima, the dazzling intellect of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, the wisdom and insight of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, St. John of the Cross, the sanctified wit of a Chesterton or a Muggeridge, elderly women doing the Stations of the Cross or the Rosary, Holy Hour, Benediction, kneeling – the list goes on and on. This devotional spirit is, I humbly submit, unmatched in its scope and deepness, despite many fine counterparts in Protestant and Orthodox spirituality.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
2017-05-17T16:19:00-04:00

Jesus10

Jesus Christ: portrait by Ariel Agemian, based on the image on the Shroud of Turin. [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

* * * * *

Manuscript evidence and reliability and verification from archaeology of the New Testament (and the Old Testament) leads to the conclusion that we can be assured that we have the actual words of Jesus.

Before we even get to the question of miracles, or a purported resurrection, we have to deal with that. This person, Jesus, existed, and said some pretty remarkable things.

Foremost among these striking words was His claim to be God, which is so ubiquitous in many different expressions in the New Testament  that it can’t possibly be denied or dismissed.

The observer has to decide what to do with that. Then it becomes C. S. Lewis’ classic “trilemma”: the choices seem to boil down to “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.”

Jesus seems far too good and compelling of a figure to be a lowly liar. He seems far too psychologically healthy and sane in every way to be a lunatic. That leaves Lord: He was Whom He claimed to be.

If one reaches that point, then the possibility of miracles is much more plausible. If indeed there is a God and if indeed He came down from heaven, then we would fully expect amazing things to happen, including miracles. And of course that is exactly what we get with Jesus. It all goes together.

The Christian looks at all this and says in faith, “Yes; He is God! And God can easily do things like rise from the dead. No problem whatever.” Etc.

We see the beauty and profundity and wisdom in Jesus and it touches our souls. His words move us like no other words. We receive them as self-evidently true, and by God’s grace we believe in Him, in faith. And it transforms our lives in doing so, as it has mine and millions of others.

You can mock us, say we’re gullible and stupid and infantile and anti-scientific, and all the rest (all lies in terms of being generally true), and be skeptical all you like, but when a person’s life is changed for the better, and they have found a peace and joy that surpasses anything else in this life, they’re gonna follow that path, no matter how difficult it may be at times.

It’s like if someone truly falls in love with another person and has found that happiness, and all the people around them try to convince them that they don’t really feel better; that they are not in love at all. It’s just a big illusion. It’s like the old Simon and Garfunkel song, I Am a Rock, where the singer cynically believes that love only causes pain, so he removes himself from it and thinks he is “happy” in so doing. Some of the lyrics might even be thought to apply to how some atheists reject God and the joy and peace therein: that comes from knowing Him and letting Him transform one’s life.

Do you think the young lovers care about all that? Will they give up on their newfound love because others who don’t and can’t experience their love deny that it exists?

No, of course not. They won’t even do it if their best friends or parents advise them to do so. That’s how we are with atheists and skeptics. They’re not in our skins. They can’t deny the validity of our experiences with the waving of hands and the shaking of heads, smirks and rolling eyes, and all the supposed “knowing” and allegedly intellectually superior garden-variety objections. It just doesn’t work.

I have sometimes compared the feeling of being in love (especially unforgettable young love) with belief in God. Asked why we believe in God, Christians are often at a loss at such an incredulous question, because it amounts to a million reasons and yet one overall reason (it’s the truth and reality of things). We feel like a mosquito on a beach on a sunny day: we have no idea where to go first!

Just as a happily married husband or wife can’t readily answer why (or all the reasons why) they love about their spouse; why they chose to marry them; so it is with our allegiance to God and being His disciple. Some things ultimately go beyond words, and that’s okay. Many of life’s finest and best moments are nonverbal. Words aren’t always required. Explanations certainly aren’t always necessary for something to be real and valid..

Following this analogy, what I recently wrote about my wife Judy on the occasion of our 31st anniversary just as easily applies to God in my life.  Just as we likely can’t explain in depth (or adequately) how a treasured spouse has so positively influenced our lives (and the very question seems out of place and inappropriate and even silly), so it is also, explaining how God has done so (especially to atheists, who tend to be very skeptical of it at every turn, and often pointedly dismissive). Here are my words about my wife  (modified only slightly for a better “fit” to describe a relationship with God):

I can’t imagine what my life would be like without You by my side, and (metaphorically) behind me.

I wouldn’t be able to do what I do: not even close.

I wouldn’t even be who I am. I don’t know who I’d be, but I’d be very different, for sure. That’s how much You have formed and shaped me. 

We’re so much “one” that I can’t conceive in the slightest not being your disciple these past 38 years.

I’m so thankful and grateful to You that words can’t even begin to describe it.

I LOVE YOU! I ADORE YOU!

If a person is joyful and happy and fulfilled and at peace as they never have been before, and in a relationship with God, they know it; know that they know that they KNOW it, just as they are quite sure when they are in love with another human being, and absolutely sure that it is neither an illusion nor a delusion.

I wrote similar thoughts in another paper:

When atheists become theists or Christians, it’s almost always based on something other than classic theistic arguments, just as is the case with anyone who converts to Christianity as a result of any sort of sincere, serious reflection: reasons beyond happenstance or wanting to marry a girl or guy, etc. This was true in my own case as well.

My evangelical conversion to Christ in 1977 at age 18 was based on intuitive, moral, and “nature mysticism” considerations, including being deeply moved by an excellent dramatic portrayal of the Gospels: Jesus of Nazareth. And it proceeded in another sense from existential (virtually nihilistic) despair: my six-month clinical depression. My Catholic conversion in 1990 was based on a growing admiration of Catholic moral theology and historical study of development of doctrine and the 16th century religious conflicts.

Neither had anything to do with being convinced by some rational argument in favor of God’s existence [or in favor of the uniqueness and “fullness” of the Catholic Church], though reason was involved at a very deep level: especially in my Catholic conversion. No one cares about the arguments for God except a few philosophers and apologists who love to speculate about such things, and mostly talk to each other up in ivory towers or the back pews of churches after everyone else leaves.

That’s why it makes up very little of my overall work in Christian apologetics that I have been doing for 34 years now. It’s not how probably 99% of people become convinced of God’s existence or the truth claims of Christianity. They usually do because of an intuitive moral sense or some sort of personal experience: either of going through despair (as I did) or finding true peace and happiness within Christianity that they had never possessed before.

And in another:

[We have] internal experiential / spiritual witness of the sublimity and profundity of biblical words. God profoundly changed my life. And this is true of many millions of people. The content and message of Christianity has transformed my life and has brought peace and joy and fulfillment.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives