Westboro Baptist Church: Weeds Among the Wheat

The Westboro Baptist Church has been busy inciting the righteous indignation of Christians and non-Christians alike since at least the 1990's. Most recently they have drawn criticism for demonstrating in Newtown, Connecticut, the site of a tragic school shooting.

There is even a White house petition to classify WBC as a government recognized hate group. I am not sure what the practical result of such a classification might be, however, I do think that it is a wrong-headed move. The purpose seems to be to silence the group legally, but WBC has already won several court cases because the courts end up confirming WBC's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. As irksome as some of us might find this, consider the alternative: if hate groups like WBC do not have free speech, then neither do you or I.

However, the purpose of this post is not to defend WBC's rights.

To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. - G.K. Chesterton

The WBC is not "Christian" in any meaningful sense of the word. To be a Christian is to follow Christ. Christ never proclaimed a message of hate, or taught His disciples to hate people. In fact, He said,

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. - Matthew 22:37-40, ESV

While WBC does outwardly appear to uphold Jesus' teaching against sin, they distort the gospel by preaching hatred toward sinners. However, their true purpose may be even more heinous than merely twisting the good news. It seems that their true purpose is not to preach against sin, or even sinners.

Phil Weingart made this observation on a thread on Facebook:

They are not a church. They appear to be a collection of attorneys engaged in a money-making scheme that involves inciting others to violate their rights. They make obnoxious statements in public, but stick scrupulously within protected behavior. Then they get attacked, and they sue--and win. They've apparently won a fair amount of money through these lawsuits.

Phil also provided this article in support. Phil is a published author and a very smart guy (in my humble opinion), so I think he's probably right.

The question remains: How should we deal with Fred Phelps and company? The best thing most of us can do is simply ignore them. They feed off of controversy--in fact they make their living from it. No controversy means no cash flow to WBC, and no money means Fred Phelps' little hate group can no longer afford to travel around the country picketing funerals. Eventually their protests will diminish, and Phelps will pass away at some point, most likely ending the group completely.

The Bible contains much sound wisdom on dealing with offensive people.

Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. - Proverbs 19:11, ESV

Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent. Selah - Psalm 4:4, ESV

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. - 1 Peter 3:9, ESV

Should the evil of WBC never be confronted? No, I am not saying that. Sometimes we should, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" (Proverbs 26:4), and sometimes, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5). It takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit, along with God-given wisdom, to know what to do in any given situation. However, generally it is best not to "feed the trolls."

Consider Jesus' parable of the weeds:

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. - Matthew 13:24-30, ESV

Even if WBC continues to prosper until the end, they will be judged along with everyone else. God will hold them accountable. Rest peacefully in that knowledge. Christians might also well heed Jesus' warning not to pull out the weeds before the proper time.

Has Science Destroyed the Need for God?

In most of my blog posts, I usually think an issue through fairly thoroughly, and study hard the ideas I blog about before even publishing a post. This will not be one of those posts. This post will most likely be a somewhat discombobulated collection of thoughts on the relationship between science, science fiction, and religion. It may have the inkling of some conclusion, but my main purpose at this point is to simply get these thoughts out of my system.

I have been watching reruns of the sci-fi cult classic Firefly today. Firefly is set in a distant future universe in which humans have used a process called terraforming to colonize formerly uninhabitable planets and moons. As I enjoyed the science fiction of the show, I began to wonder how plausible terra forming might be in science fact.

This lead further to a Google search of terraforming, and then a search on Amazon for books on the subject. As it turns out, some serious thinking has been done on the concept of terraforming Mars and Venus (and probably the moon, but I didn't find any literature about terraforming that particular celestial body). On a more terrestrial scale, a strong movement in favor of seasteading has emerged in recent years to colonize the earth's oceans.

The primary motivation for seasteading is freedom from the taxes and laws of strong, centralized governments (the Serenity, spaceship of Capt. Malcolm Reynolds and crew on Firefly, serves much the same purpose). The primary motivation for terraforming is the fear that one day humans will exhaust the resources of our home planet. Whatever the motivation for making the inhabitable habitable, new worlds and the possibility of new rules and new ways of living is exciting. This is one of the things that made Firefly so entertaining.

Science has given modern humanity access to myriad new worlds and ideas. This has led some to reject old ways of living and seeing the world. The Christian worldview that gave rise to modern science is now mocked as arising from tribal, bronze age myths. But is this justified? Have we evolved beyond the need for a supernatural God, Christian or heathen? Has science proven religion to be an outmoded superstition? Has scientific fact shown that the supernatural is only mythical? Can we actually burst the bonds of faith, or cast away the chords of a transcendent Creator and Lawgiver?

I think not. Not even close.

If the natural world is all there is, there is no reason to think that any one thing is greater than any other thing. Yet, everyone persists that somethings are important, and some actions are better than others. Oh, there are certainly some who give lip service to nihilism, but none if those people actually live as if there were no good or bad, right or wrong. For the seasteaders, is freedom really better, or is it just their personal preference? If there is no inherent worth in the continuing survival of the human race, why bother with terraforming?

If we have causes or moral standards they are real or they or not. Unless, and until, humans are prepared to give up completely on any notion of moral duties (right and wrong) or moral values (good and bad), then we can never be rid of God.

I do not believe this will ever happen. We know intuitively that some things are true, and some are not--even if we cannot agree on what is true. We know intuitively that some things are beautiful, and some things are ugly--even if we disagree on what is beautiful. We know intuitively that some things are good and some things are bad--even if we disagree on the value of things. We know intuitively that some things are right and some things are wrong--even if we disagree about the details of a moral standard. We know intuitively that freedom is greater than tyranny. We know intuitively that life is better than death.

1. If God does not exist, then moral duties and values do not exist.
2. Moral duties and values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Contrary to what some scientists and sci-fi authors have concluded, we cannot evolve beyond our need for God. Science needs truth, and truth must transcend us. We cannot run far enough to escape from God in the ocean, or on Mars, or in the science lab. Nor do most people really want to, if it means abandoning truth, beauty, meaning, or morality. As I warned at the top of the post, these are just some random musings, but I hope I've got my readers thinking. At the very least I've gotten these thoughts out of my system.

A Perfect Being 2

In this follow up to A Perfect Being 1 I want to continue with Anselm's second ontological argument. I believe the second argument does much to bolster Anselm's first argument. However, before I get to the second argument I want to deal with some objections raised in comments on the blog and Facebook to the first ontological argument. To review, Dr. Doug Groothuis broke down Anselm's first argument this way:

1. God is understood or defined as a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived." Even the fool possesses this concept of God.

2. A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then existing on the canvas.

3. It is "greater" to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.

4. If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.

5. But God is by definition the greatest possible being (from 1).

6. Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well. By reduction ad absurdum.

It is important to remember that since the argument is deductive in form and logically valid, the conclusion is inevitably true unless the premises are defeated. Any objection that does not deal with the premises fails. I discussed the argument briefly with Christian apologist Tyler Ramey, and I tend to agree with his assessment: "I think the ONTO argument is unassailable as Groothuis has presented it." Nevertheless, the onus is on me to demonstrate that conviction. I will have to apologize to some of those who commented on Facebook because I seem to no longer have access to the comments (I believe I'm having technical difficulties with my computer). I have been able to resurrect some of the objections of Andrew Magee on the basis of my very fallible memory, in addition to a google search, so some of what they said has certainly been left out.

I will begin with the objections raised in A Perfect Being 1. Someone named bob commented,

Sorry but there is no relationship between "the greatest conceivable thing" and "the greatest actual thing" any more than there is a relationship between "the fastest conceivable car" and "the fastest actual car".

First of all, let me say that if bob was trying to defeat the argument, he was hitting at the right place: Premise 4. Someone else actually beat me to the punch--scottpd responded:

Bob, I disagree that there is no relationship between the greatest conceivable being and the greatest actual being. In so much as the argument clearly addresses actuality as part of the definition of great. The argument hinges on "The greatest possible being" actually being a coherent concept, that is, is the greatest possible being even possible. And,is logical necessity entail actual necessity (aka does the universe have to be ultimately rational).

That response hits the nail on the head. In order to deny this this argument in the way that bob did, one has to deny logic. The strength of the first ontological argument is that it is a logical contradiction for the greatest conceivable being to exist only in the understanding, since an actual greatest conceivable being would necessarily be greater. From there, bob attempted to refute scottpd by comparing the greatest conceivable being to a "greatest conceivable doctor," "greatest conceivable scientist," and "greatest greatest conceivable pianist," but these objections fail because they are restricted to a greatest conceivable specialist, whereas we are arguing for a greatest conceivable being. Next scottpd responded,

I agree Bob, but with the word "being" rather than island, or pianist etc, I think we are working with more definable terms in the sense of character and ability. And so I believe the greatest possible being is a coherent concept whereas the greatest possible island is not.

bob replied,

No, using the word "being" we're working with significantly LESS definable terms.

Case in point: consider "greatest conceivable pianist". I can easily conceive of a pianist who can sight read Rachmaninov's third piano concerto, at full speed, with perfect accuracy, while devising a unique and revolutionary interpretation of the piece in real time and keeping in sync with the orchestra. That pianist does not however, exist, even though the term is not difficult to define at all. Changing from "pianist" to "being" only makes the question more abstract and more difficult to define.

Since scottpd did not respond further at this point, I will. The Perfect Being we are arguing for is in some ways harder to define than a maximally great doctor, scientist, or pianist. What of it? It is not necessary to exhaustively define a Perfect Being for the argument to work, and bob's objection is essentially the same as Guanilo's objection that we can form no concept of a maximally perfect being. Dr. Groothuis deals with that objection handily, so I'll quote him here:

We need not understand everything about this superlative being to have a proper apprehension of it; we simply need to understand the definition given by Anselm. The notion of a Perfect Being is not opaque or swamped by mystery. In fact, we can summarize the previous two paragraphs: A Perfect Being is a being who possesses every property it is better to have than to lack and who possesses this array of compossible excellent properties to the utmost degree (or to their intrinsic maximum value).

Rather than requiring an all-encompassing, rigorous definition of God, the argument still works since even the fool can conceive of such a thing as a Perfect Being. Of course, a complete and total comprehension of God is impossible if He is defined as a maximally great being. A God who can fit neatly inside the limits of human comprehension could not be God, but this is the strength of the argument, not its weakness. This realization brings us right back to the logical contradiction of premise 4. If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding. If God is by definition the greatest possible being (premises 1 and 5), then God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well (premise 6).

Andrew Magee linked to an article that claimed the argument was fallacious on the grounds that some of the claims of the argument are unproven:

The argument does not attempt to rigorously define "greatness". Without such a definition, even if the argument somehow managed to prove the existence of an object, it says absolutely nothing about the properties of this object. ...

Even if "greatness" can be defined coherently and unambiguously, it does not follow that greatness can be ranked.  ...

Even if "greatness" can be defined coherently and unambiguously, it does not necessarily follow that there is even in theory a maximum attainable greatness.  ...

Even if "greatness" can be defined coherently and unambiguously, and can be ranked, it doesn't follow that any particular imaginable level of greatness actually exists.

The author of the article fails to overcome the first ontological argument for the same reason bob did. It is simple common sense that a Perfect Being would necessarily be greater than a less than perfect being. One doesn't require a rigorous definition of "greater" to conceive this. If "greatness" cannot be ranked, what makes one thing greater than another--for instance, is Anselm's argument or the linked blogger's arguments "greater"? I'll leave that for my readers to decided for themselves, but I don't think any of us will have to rigorously define "greater" to make this distinction. The readers know intuitively that "truth" is "greater" than "falsehood." On that basis, they will decide based on their understanding of the arguments, which argument is "true" and therefore "greater" without any mental gymnastics or long research on the definition of "truth," "falsehood," or "greater."

Then next objection, that there may be no such thing as "maximal attainable greatness" may give my readers some pause, because God is supposed to be infinite. Dr. Groothuis makes a useful observation that God's infinity is qualitative, rather than quantitative. This means that God's perfections can reach an upper limit, and what this practically entails is that instead of only having some power, God is perfectly powerful (or omnipotent); instead of being ignorant of anything, He is perfectly knowledgeable (omniscient); and instead of being a mixture of good and evil, He is perfectly good (omnibenevolent). Usually when one thinks of God being infinite, one imagines quantitative infinity, and this is the source of the linked blogger's misunderstanding. We are not arguing for a God whose qualities go on and on, but a Perfect Being. Once again, for the argument to work concepts such as "greatness" and "perfection" do not need to be exhaustively defined. We can conceive of such things, and this is why the argument works.

Finally, the linked blogger insists that even if "greatness" can be defined and ranked, it doesn't follow that being able to conceive of such notions means they exist. For a rebuttal of this, see my response to the nearly identical objection raised by bob.

The video portion of the blog reiterates Kant's objection, which was dealt with in A Perfect Being 1. The blogger incorrectly accuses Anselm of equivocating concepts with beings; Anselm's argument still works because a Perfect Being would still be greater than a Perfect Concept (and here we go again with premises 4-6!). It was part of Anselm's point that a being is greater than a concept, so the linked blogger is actually making the case for the ontological argument. The blogger is actually engaging in the sort of word games he accuses Anselm of.  His replacement of the Perfect Being with cookies and unicorns was already dealt with in my response to bob, so I won't rehash what I've said already. His most damning objection may be that the Perfect Being argued for by Anselm does not match the God of the Bible. While I disagree, I'll leave my response to that particular claim for a future post. While I clearly come to different conclusions than the linked blogger (and by extension Andrew) if anyone could topple Anselm's first argument, he could have. His arguments were certainly compelling, even if I did not end up agreeing with him. I could not justly accuse anyone of being intellectually inferior for taking his side of the argument.

Let's move on to Anselm's second ontological argument.

Argument 2 is similar in some ways to argument 1, but the difference is that it introduces the concept of "necessary existence." Dr. Groothuis formally puts Anselm's second argument in this way:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.
2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).
3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.
4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.
5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

As with argument 1, argument 2 is deductive and logically valid. This means that one or more of the premises must be defeated to prevent the conclusion from being true. In fact, the only way to counter argument 2 to prove that the concept of God, a Perfect Being, is self-contradictory or nonsensical. The linked blogger insisted that the concept of God as a necessary being was begging the question, but he did not take Anselm's second argument into account at all.

As [Norman] Malcolm puts it, God's "existence must be logically necessary or logically impossible. The only intelligible way of rejecting Anselm's claim that God's existence is necessary is to maintain that the concept of God, as a being greater than which cannot be conceived, is self contradictory or nonsensical." ~ Dr. Douglas Groothuis

The concept of God as a necessary being is clearly not nonsense, and probably not self-contradictory. In fact, so far we have argued that the contradiction lies in God being conceivable, but not actually existing, since an actual Perfect Being is greater than an purely imaginary Perfect Being. Whoever dissents from Anselm's argument must show that (1) God's attributes are not compossible--as argument 1 states all attributes are perfectly in harmony--or that (2) a single divine attribute is somehow contradictory.

For example, one might object that God cannot be omniscient because He is immaterial--therefore He cannot know what it is like to have a body. This is a bad objection for a couple of reasons. First of all, no theologian claims that God has a first-person experience of everything; this is simply not what is meant by omniscient, or all knowing. Omniscience means that God has knowledge--that is, justified true belief--of everything. Even a finite being like me can know, for example, that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States, even though I have never experienced the city first hand. If God really did create all things seen and unseen, as the Bible claims, then He would know everything about the universe.

Another objection is raised by the classic dilemma, "Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?" This dilemma is supposed to refute the idea of an omnipotent God. Once again, this argument is the result of theological ignorance. Omnipotence does not mean that God has the ability to do anything. He cannot, for instance, do anything that is logically impossible. This means that He cannot make a stone too heavy for Him to lift, or create a square circle, or a married bachelor. Or to use an example straight out of the Bible, God cannot lie. This does not limit His power in any way, and perfect power is all God needs in order to be considered omnipotent. Ability is not the same thing as power, and God does simply does not have ability to do illogical things.

These arguments can be a little difficult to understand, but as far as I can understand them the arguments are sound. The premises ring true, so the conclusion must be valid, since the arguments are deductive. It's hard to deny the necessity of a Perfect Being unless one can also prove that it is impossible for such a being to exist. Good luck with that!

Life of Pi: The Power of a Good Story

I just returned from watching Life of Pi in 3D at a local movie theater. I thought it was very well done and was pleased that Hollywood stayed true to the book for once.

The only part that irked me a little about the book and the movie is the irrational religious worldview espoused by the main character, Pi Patel. Pi considered himself a Hindu, a Roman Catholic, and a Muslim. Apparently, no one ever told Pi about the Law of Noncontradiction. However, rather than cursing the syncretic darkness, I want to encourage my fellow Christian evangelists and apologists to step it up in the arts and entertainment arenas.

You see, Pi Patel was an extremely interesting and likeable character. Life of Pi was one of the greatest adventure stories written in recent times. When I read the book a few years ago, I thought to myself it would make a great movie; now it is a great movie. As a result, some people may watch the movie or read the book and become curious about Hinduism, Catholicism, or Islam. They may even find themselves agreeing with Pi that it is possible to practice all three faiths at the same time. Regardless of whether Yann Martel ever intended to promote syncretism (and possibly universalism) or not, that is precisely what he did by writing such an endearing tale, starring a charming syncretist.

There are street evangelists a-plenty who can explain the four spiritual laws or present a straightforward gospel message. Every day there are more and more apologists who can give rigorous intellectual defenses of the Christian worldview. This is a good thing! However, for various reasons some people will never respond positively to overt biblical truth. Some people will stubbornly resist any argument in favor of Christianity, no matter how rational. The arts, which were once dominated by Christians, can pack a powerful existential punch for those who would resist a more conventional expression of Christian faith.

Great Christian writers once wrote enduring stories that are considered classics today. Even Jesus often taught in parables. Where are the J.R.R. Tolkiens, G.K. Chestertons, or Fyodor Dostoyevskys of our generation? These men wrote treasured literary classics that were rooted in the Christian worldview. In contrast, nowadays most explicitly Christian fiction merely imitates popular fiction while forcing a gospel message into the story. Christians once dominated the arts, including literature. Now Christians are relegated to Christian ghettos. Rather than being a powerful influence through the arts, the Church now settles for cheap derivatives target-marketed to the evangelical niche.

"The Church of our day should be pregnant with passionate propagation, whereas she is often pleading with pale propaganda." - Leonard Ravenhill

Thankfully, there are a few exceptions, but great Christian art and literature ought to be the norm. We have persuasive evangelists and rational apologists presenting plain gospel messages. This does not need to stop by any means! However, we also need clever storytellers to revive Literary Apologetics.

Consider the parables of Jesus, the well-chronicled Old Testament histories of the Jewish people, or the New Testament Gospels and Acts. Consider the Psalms or Song of Solomon. Most of the Bible is made up of stories. If God inspired the biblical authors to win hearts and minds primarily through history, fable, and poetry, perhaps evangelical Christians are neglecting one of the most powerful ways to impact our society? Stories speak to us in a way that mere factual presentations of information cannot.

C.S. Lewis once wrote that, "The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact." When he referred to the gospel as a "myth" he did not mean it was imaginary or was otherwise not true. He was referring to "myth" as a story that explains the world. Unlike the old Pagan myths, the stories of the Bible happened in history. This gives Christianity a distinct advantage over present-day religions that are based on myth (such as Hinduism) or folklore (consider the Islamic Hadith or Buddhist tales of the Bodhisattva). Christians need to capitalize on the fact that our story is verifiably true. Christian writers also should look to our rich heritage of parable tellers and poets.

Live From the Foxhole

The Foxhole Evangelist blog title is turning out to be prophetic. Not that I'm fighting against anybody, but I am wrestling against ideas. I am not out to defeat any person, only false ideas.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. ~ Ephesians 6:12

After posting links to this blog on Twitter and Facebook, a lively debate is going on in the GOD group on Facebook. Thankfully, my opponents also seem to see this as a battle of ideas rather than a battle between people, and have been respectful rather than hateful. In this post I am responding to some of the objections raised to my introductory post. Anyone who wants to see the whole thread can go here.

The objections I address here deal with the justice of God punishing sinners in an eternal hell, and to the idea of free will.

I think you’re missing about eleven million steps of reasoning in between ‘doesn’t believe in the existence of one particular interpretation of one particular deity’ and ‘deserves to suffer for all eternity.’ ~ Andrew Magee

Jared, I second Andrew’s point about the gargantuan jump in reasoning between not believing in one ‘particular deity’ and deserving to suffer for all eternity.’ ~ Steve Curless

I would say that we know enough to choose God or not. God has given sufficient (but not exhaustive) revelation so that if we seek Him we can find Him. Revelation leads to knowledge, which leads faith and to God Himself, which leads to obedience. We are ultimately judged by whether we obeyed God or not. As the Creator and Designer of the universe, if God created humans for a particular purpose, and they fail to fulfill that purpose, then God is “just” or “right” or “correct” to deal with those that refuse His purposes by removing them from His presence and His perfect world (a new heavens and a new earth completely free of evil). Since they have chosen separation from him, they get what they want (or at least what they think they want).

Believe it or not, I think your objection has some merit. The typical evangelical view is that a minority of people will be saved who hear an evangelical Christian preaching from the Bible, and receive the gospel message by faith. I disagree with several points of this view. To begin with, nowhere does the Bible actually teach that justification is by faith alone and nowhere in the Bible does it say that correct doctrine can save anyone. I know this runs contrary to what most evangelical Christians believe, however James 2:19-26 makes it clear that justification is not by faith alone:

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Faith alone is not enough; even the demons believe in God. God judges us based on what we do, which is an indication of what we believe. Even Paul (who is normally credited with “salvation by faith alone”) agrees. In Romans 2:6-11 he wrote,  

He will render each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

In every account of the judgment, people will be judged based on what they did or did not do (see Matthew 25 or Revelation 20:11-15 for examples). Rather than promoting salvation by faith apart from works, Paul taught that good works were the natural result of faith (though he vehemently denied works alone can save anyone). That is why he insisted that, “The righteous shall LIVE by faith,” not that they shall merely believe in Jesus, and therefore be saved. When Paul wrote of justification by faith, it was shorthand for faith leading to obedient good works (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

Paul emphasized faith as a prerequisite to the obedient works God requires. In essence, Paul was highlighting that works without faith are dead, and James was highlighting that faith without works are dead. Works can never earn God’s favor, but God certainly cares about what we do. In the case of the person who is justified by faith and works, works are the result of the transformation of God in the individual in response to faith. Christ in us is the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27). The fire of God burns within the believer, and the smoke of obedience naturally follows. God ultimately only accepts those who know Him and obey Him (see Matthew 7:21-23).

Moreover, I notice that you didn’t answer my question about what hell is like. But am I correct in assuming that you think it’s a horribly unpleasant place or condition and could justify this understanding with scripture? If so, please tell me how any culpably SANE soul would ‘choose’ to endure this horrible unpleasantness forever and ever and ever. And if it isn’t chosen, how is it NOT ‘forced’? ~ Steve Curless

Your assumption is correct, although I couldn’t say specifically how hell is a “horribly unpleasant place or condition.” The scriptures that describe hell seem to be symbolic, which makes sense because it is not accessible until after biological death and therefore cannot be anything we can know about exhaustively. Jesus describes hell in parables as a place of “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12) and “eternal fire” (Matthew 18:8). Obviously, fire and darkness are mutually exclusive, and since He uses these descriptions in parables we can safely assume these descriptions are symbolic of torment beyond what we currently understand.

Which leads us right into your next objection that a sane soul would never choose such conditions. To clarify my position, of course I do not believe anyone would purposely choose eternal torment. They either choose to ignore or reject the revelation of God. None of us debating this topic on Facebook have an excuse. We have access to God’s revelation. Paul affirmed this in his letter to the Romans. Romans 1:18-20 says that,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

He reiterates this in Romans 10:9-13,

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Unfortunately, most Christians are content to stop there. So far, Paul has preached that faith in Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation (keeping in mind that for Paul salvation by faith is shorthand for faith leading to good works). What about Native American tribes and other remote ethnic groups and people who never had a chance to hear the gospel message preached from the Bible by a Christian evangelist?

Paul continues in verses 14-17,

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes through hearing and hearing through the word of Christ.

Unfortunately, most Christians stop to early at this verse, assume the “word of Christ” (or the “word of God” in the King James Version) must mean the Bible only. This would mean eternal damnation for anyone who does not have access to the Bible, since faith comes by hearing… the Bible alone. This interpretation is premature, and obviously conflicts with Paul’s words in chapter 1 that state that we have no excuse because God’s nature and attributes are plainly revealed in the material universe.

But pay attention to what Paul says in verses 18:

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'

Paul is alluding to Psalm 19, which says,

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

“Their” refers to the sky (“heaven” in the context of Psalm 19 is synonymous with the natural sky, as opposed to the spiritual abode of God). The sun, the stars, the moon, and the clouds “reveal knowledge” and their voice “goes out through all the earth.” I am not referring to some mystical communication either. When we see the apparently designed natural world, the most obvious conclusion is that an intelligent agent created the universe (although I’ll leave it at that since it is an entirely different topic).

God has also revealed Himself by writing his eternal, transcendent moral law on our hearts. Although there is some disagreement on some moral standards due to the noetic affects of sin, most people generally agree as to what it is. Every human society believes that lying, stealing, murder, and so on, is immoral. Despite confusion about morality, we tend to know it better by our reactions than our actions. That is, sometimes we do something we think may be right but are not 100% certain, and we may question whether what we did was right. For example, after handing an apparently homeless bum a $5 bill, we may later read an article about people with nice homes who make their living panhandling and wonder whether we did the right thing. But if a homeless bum robs us of a $5 there is no doubt in our minds that the homeless bum did something immoral. Paul affirmed that the moral law is written on our hearts in Romans 2:12-16,

For 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. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. The show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So all sinners will be judged guilty for their actions, whether or not they had a Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, because the law is written on all our hearts.

In addition to general revelation and intuitive moral knowledge we have the Bible, but everyone has access to general revelation and moral knowledge and they are enough. As Leonard Ravenhill used to preach, “Sodom had no Bible.” They were judged based on what they did with the revelation they had access to. This is the same standard that all people will be judged according to. While I am not an inclusivist, I do believe salvation will be more inclusive than the typical evangelical Protestant vision of only a “righteous remnant” being saved while the majority of people go to hell. This view is generally based on Matthew 7:13-14,

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

However, I think Luke’s more thorough record gives more hope. In Luke 13:23, someone asks Jesus directly, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” First Jesus says, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able” (Luke 13:24). In verses 25-30 Jesus warns of a time in the future when “the master of the house” will “shut the door.” Once this happens, those left outside will plead, “‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’” The outsiders will say, “We ate and drank in your presence, and YOU TAUGHT IN OUR STREETS.” It seems to me that Jesus is speaking directly to and about the Jewish people at that particular time and place. In that case, He is not saying that only a few of mankind in general will be locked out, but only a few of His Jewish contemporaries living at that time, first century Roman occupied Palestine. “But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’” (there’s that emphasis on being judged according to our deeds again). He ends the parable in Luke by saying,

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.

Most of the Jewish people of Jesus’ own time rejected the gospel in spite of the fact that they had the greatest access to God’s revelation at that time. Such people will be judged accordingly. It was not a particular doctrine that they rejected, but God incarnate. Doctrine is important as a guide to God, but in and of itself it cannot save. Only God can save. You may have noticed that those included in the kingdom of God include the Patriarchs (who did not have a Bible) and people “from the east and west, and from the north and south” of national Israel. “Some who are last [Gentiles] will be first, and some who are first [Jews of Jesus’ time on earth] will be last.” In the visions of Revelation, John saw,

…a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in the hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ ~ Revelation 7:9-10

Passages like this give me hope that the majority of people will be saved. Jesus doesn’t specifically address the question, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” Instead, He advises the people to “Strive to enter through the narrow door,” and that all sorts of people they thought could not be saved will come from the four corners of the globe to dine in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. John the Revelator sees a vast multitude that is impossible to count from every ethnic group God created. Romans 10:11, 13 says, “EVERYONE who believes in him will not be put to shame,” and “EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” While the Bible never specifies whether the majority of humanity will be saved or damned, passages like these give us hope that many, not few people will be saved.

So in conclusion, God has plainly revealed Himself in the natural universe, in our inborn knowledge of the moral law, and in the Bible. Some ignore God’s revelation, some actively reject it, and some receive it. The knowledge of God leads to faith and to God Himself, and we all have access to that knowledge in God’s revelation. Faith in Jesus leads to God and to holy living (although not perfectly sinless living in this world; however, Christians ought to become better people over time culminating in complete transformation at Christ’s return). Finally, God “will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” How do we know who the real seekers are? “Seek, and you will find.”

The genuine seekers all find their way to Jesus. They either choose Him or not. To choose Him is to find Him, and to reject Him is to choose eternal separation from Him. No one actively chooses the eternal torment; that seems to be the natural consequence of eternal separation from God. They can know enough from provided revelation to choose God and avoid hell, but some reject God out of willful ignorance, and some reject God outright. To more directly address your objection, salvation will not depend on a “particular interpretation” but it will depend on a “particular deity.” It cannot help depending on a “particular deity,” because He is the only one who actually exists. Also, while the “particular interpretation” cannot save us, it might be a reliable indicator of whether we know the “particular deity” that exists in reality and saves sinners from just punishment, or are actually serving an usless idol.

God has plainly revealed Himself. Some suppress the truth about God by ignoring it or opposing it. Others trust in the revelation God has provided them and receive Him. Those people are transformed by God and obey Him. He judges all in the end based on whether they obeyed Him or rejected Him. He made humans with a particular purpose in mind. Just as an employer justly fires an employee who does not fulfill the purpose he was hired for, God justly casts those who refuse His purposes into a lake of fire. Just as a government justly punishes lawbreakers, God justly punishes lawbreakers. The difference is employers and governments are temporal and only deal out temporal punishment. God is eternal and deals out eternal punishment.

Jared, If a God created us then we would be robots to his will. There would be no actual ‘I,’ we’d simply act and decide by how each of us were individually manufactured. ~ Tim Anderson

Tim, if we’re just created by God as robotic automatons how would we ever know it? We couldn’t actually reason it out; reason requires freedom of thought. Strictly speaking, I cannot prove or disprove that we are robotic automatons, any more than I can prove or disprove that I am or am not actually just a brain in a vat of chemicals, or that we were created five minutes ago with all the apparent evidence of age and false memories of the past. I think your statement fails because it is an argument, and arguments presuppose the ability to think rationally. If you are right, then we cannot actually think rationally, so any argument that leads to the conclusion that we are mindless robots devoid of individual personality are the meaningless and inevitable results of our design if the conclusion is true. If the conclusion is not true, of course it is just plain wrong. To put a twist on Descartes, “I think therefore I am” probably not a robot. Consider this (if you aren’t a robot): If you are right and I am wrong, it makes no difference whatsoever—que sera, sera. If I am right and you are wrong, it makes all the difference in the world.

A Perfect Being 1

As I said in my last blog post, those who continued to follow this blog would hear reasons why I believe in the classical, orthodox Christian worldview. As one of my Facebook friends commented, I may as well have posted the Athanasian Creed. Now that my readers know what I believe, I want you to know why I believe as I do. The purpose of this blog is not only to answer skeptics of classical Christianity, but also to help other Christians who have questions about the faith. Unfortunately, most people do not think deeply about why they believe what they believe. In fact, I did not always think much about my faith in Christ. I was sure I had really experienced God and knew Him, but I would not have been able to tell you much else before I began studying Christian apologetics.

While serving in the United States Marine Corps, I found myself in a foxhole* with an atheist in Baghdad, Iraq (contrary to the popular saying). He was not a particularly bitter or angry atheist. He had never had a bad church experience or strong objections to theism. He merely did not see any good reason to believe in God. I desperately wanted to give him a reason to embrace God, but I was not prepared to make a defense to anyone who asked me for a reason for the hope within me (1 Peter 3:15). I hope and pray that someone reached that Marine with the gospel, because I was taken off guard and an ineffective witness for Christ. It was several years later when I discovered Frank Turek’s television show I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Soon after I read the book of the same title he co-authored with Norman Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist was my introduction to Christian apologetics, but  I wish I had begun to think more clearly about my beliefs for the sake of the atheist in the foxhole and other atheists I encountered before I discovered apologetics. In memory of that foxhole atheist, I have decided to re-name this blog The Foxhole Evangelist. Now that I have some answers, I want to give them to anyone willing to read this blog.

One of the most fascinating arguments for God’s existence is the ontological argument. My mind was first opened to this line of reasoning in Dr. Douglas Groothuis’s outstanding book, Christian Apologetics: AComprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. In his words,

The ontological argument claims that proper reasoning about the idea of a Perfect Being generates the conclusion that God exists. For this argument, God’s existence is not merely possible or probable or very likely, but is logically guaranteed. In this sense the ontological argument is “the king of the hill” of all the theistic arguments. It is a priori (depending on no debatable empirical conditions); it is deductive in form, thus making its conclusion certain and not merely probable; and its conclusion is metaphysically superlative: there must be a Perfect Being. If successful, the ontological argument is a masterpiece of a priori or rationalist reasoning and, as such, sharply and deeply cuts against the grain of the empiricism that dominates both the popular and the academic mind.

I was intrigued, although part of me thought at first that this argument might be too good to be true. I have friends who claim to only believe in what is observable, testable, and repeatable. On one hand I realized that the empiricist viewpoint is obviously self-contradictory; the idea that only the observable, testable, and repeatable evidence is trustworthy cannot itself be observed, tested, or repeated. On the other hand, an argument for God that relied purely on logic without reference to tangible evidence seemed like a bit of a stretch to me. Dr. Groothuis persuaded me otherwise.

The ontological argument was first conceived by the monk Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 A.D.). Anselm gave two versions of the argument. For the sake of brevity I will quote Dr. Groothuis’s summary of the arguments, but I encourage my readers to read Anselm’s Proslogium for themselves. Inspired by Psalm 14:1, Anselm reasoned:

1.       God is understood or defined as a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Even the fool possesses this concept of God.

2.       A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then existing on the canvas.

3.       It is “greater” to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.

4.       If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.

5.       But God is by definition the greatest possible being (from 1).

6.       Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well. By reductio ad absurdum.

In other words, even the atheist understands that God is a Perfect Being—the greatest possible being by definition—even though the atheist does not believe such a being actually exists. The atheist understands what God is; if the atheist did not understand God as the greatest possible being, such a being’s existence could not be denied. Things that exist in the real world also exist as concepts in the human mind, but there are also things that only exist in the human mind that are strictly imaginary. The atheist claim is that any Perfect Being is imaginary. Things that exist in the real world are greater than things that only exist in the human mind. If God is only imaginary, obviously He cannot be the greatest possible being, since the real is greater than the imaginary. However, God is by definition the greatest possible being, so He must be real since the real is greater than the strictly imaginary.

Dr. Groothuis points out that,

This argument is deductive and is formally valid. If the five premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily from them.

Of course, that’s a big “if.” If the premises are true, then so must be the conclusion. If any of the premises are faulty, the argument is too good to be true.

Premise 1 is not controversial. God, whether He really exists or is make-believe, is by definition the greatest possible being. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He is perfect in every way and to the nth degree. He has every quality that it would be better to have than to lack, and He has no bad qualities whatsoever. He is as good as any being can possibly be, and cannot be (even a little) evil. He is all powerful, and has no weakness at all. He created the heavens and the earth, and so nothing is hidden from His sight and nothing is too difficult for Him to understand. He is perfect love. He is perfectly holy, perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly wise, perfectly merciful, perfectly compassionate, perfectly creative, perfectly humorous, perfectly clever, perfectly witty, perfectly playful, perfectly delightful, perfectly beautiful, perfectly glorious, perfectly awe-inspiring, perfectly victorious, perfectly perfect, and so on. As the Bible says, He cannot lie, and He cannot fail. The Christian insists that such a being not only exists, but is experientially knowable. The atheist denies the existence of a Perfect Being, but even so must know what God is by definition in order to deny His existence.

Premise 2 is also easily agreed upon. Either a Perfect Being is pure hokum, or a He exists in reality. Both theists and atheists can conceive of a Perfect Being. The concept of God is universally understood, and even those who deny the existence of a Greatest Conceivable Being must be able to understand what such a being is in order to reject Him.

One objection is that such a great being is beyond human comprehension. After all, how can finite humans truly understand an infinitely Perfect God? This is something that had actually occurred to me when I had heard of the ontological argument from Dr. William Lane Craig, who prefers the term Greatest Conceivable Being, where Dr. Groothuis used the term Perfect Being. I thought this description limited God to the scope of the human mind, and I realized that even the greatest genius could not fully comprehend his maker. Such a god could not be the transcendent God of the Bible, but only an idol. While I figured that I must have misunderstood Dr. Craig, given his prominence as a philosopher and theologian, this is how the argument sounded to me, and I ignored it for a spell. However, Dr. Groothuis’s explanation helped me to understand where I had gone wrong. When Anselm wrote of God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived,” he did not mean a God that could be neatly fit within the confines of the human mind, only that we could conceive of such a thing as a Perfect Being. An exhaustive knowledge of God was not implied or necessary to Anselm’s argument.

A possible flaw in the argument might be in Premise 3. Why was God’s existence greater than His nonexistence? The strength of the whole argument seems to hinge on whether or not Premise 3 is true, but this also seems to be the most questionable premise.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted that the idea of existing added nothing to the concept of God, and it was therefore conceivable that God did not exist. A helpful example of Kant’s reasoning was given by Dr. Groothuis,

Kant claims that while being almighty is necessary to the idea of God, existing is not necessary to the idea of God. In the same way, having three sides is necessary to the idea of a triangle, but existing is not necessary for the idea of a triangle. That is, it might be the case that no triangles exist even if the very idea of a triangle requires that it have exactly three sides. One can conceive of God as non-existent, just as one can think of a triangle as nonexistent.

Premise 3 states, “It is ‘greater’ to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.” However, if Kant is right then this is an odd statement to make. We do not typically think of things being greater simply because they exist. We might say a well-trained dog is greater than an undisciplined dog, but we would not think a dog “great” only because it existed. We can apply the same kind of logic to almost anything. To merely say something exists doesn’t seem to add to its greatness. Dr. Groothuis agrees that in most cases, this is true.

It is not a settled principle that for any possible being it is better for that being to exist than not to exist. Indeed, it is better for an unstoppable flesh-eating virus not to exist than to exist, and Anselm is not suggesting otherwise.

The difference here is that we have a Perfect Being in mind. A Perfect Being that actually exists is obviously greater than an imaginary Perfect Being. If the greatest conceivable being that Anselm wrote of exists, then this universe was created for a reason, the best of reasons in fact, because its Creator is maximally good. Our existence has real meaning and purpose. We can take comfort in the fact that fine-tuning is not merely apparent, but evidence that the universe was designed with the greatest wisdom and precision. We can rest in the knowledge that God is not malevolent or arbitrarily making up the rules as He goes along; rather, the standard of all goodness and morality is rooted in His maximally great nature. He is sovereign and just, and worthy of our trust and worship.

Premise 4 states that if God is imaginary, only existing as a figment of the imagination, then He cannot be the Greatest Conceivable Being. If a Perfect Being does not exist then there is no good or evil, right or wrong, truth or falsehood. Mother Theresa was no better than Adolf Hitler, and Adolf Hitler was no worse than Mother Theresa. The world has no purpose or meaning, and we are simply the arbitrary result of the blind physical forces of the universe. However, we are rescued from despair by Premise 5, which reminds us that by definition God is the Greatest Possible Being. The inescapable conclusion is a Perfect Being really does exist. Hallelujah!

There is a bit more to this argument. In fact, I have only given the first version of Anselm’s ontological argument. However, the second argument will have to wait until next time.

*To be perfectly accurate, no Marine nowadays uses the term “foxhole.” It is now known as a “fighting hole,” and any Marine who unwittingly uses the term “foxhole” will be swiftly corrected by their superiors. However, since the proverbial saying is that, “There’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole,” I have retained the older, more popular nomenclature.

 

The Truth Will Set You Free... If You Know It

Jesus taught,

“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ~ John 8:31-32, ESV

"The truth will set you free," has become a truism but very few people fully realize what Jesus meant by it because they quote Him out of context. What is the truth, and how will it set me free? Jesus says if we abide in His word as His disciples then we will know the truth. Only when we know the truth can it set us free. The gospel message is that we can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Here is the problem: what is the gospel, what do we need to be saved from, what is faith, and who is Jesus Christ?

Many well meaning but misguided Christians' best defense of their beliefs is, "Just believe." A popular song by Christian rock band Fireflight insists,

Sometimes it's hard to just keep going But faith is moving without knowing

Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot believe in what you do not know. Jesus taught we must know the truth before it can set us free. The Old Testament prophet Hosea put it this way,

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. ~ Hosea 4:6, ESV

The problem with much present-day Evangelical Christianity is that faith is preached so disproportionately to anything else taught in the Bible is that many Christians no longer know what they believe, only that they will be saved if they believe in Jesus. When I served as a youth pastor I decided to ask the youth one day what they would say if an unbeliever asked them, "What do I have to do to be saved?" I was met by blank stares. I had at expected them not to have trouble explaining why they believed, but they could not even articulate what they believed. These teens were not stupid, but they had never been taught to explain or defend the gospel. I immediately began teaching them Christian apologetics. I hope it sunk in, though by now I am no longer a youth pastor and I attend a different church.

Jesus commanded His disciples to Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. To do this effectively, we must know what we are talking about. In fact, if we do not know what we are talking about then how do we even know that we have the truth? We will never be free until we know the truth.

My purpose in starting this blog is to defend the idea that Christianity (the faith founded on Jesus' word) is the truth, and that by knowing the truth and applying it to our lives (discipleship) we can be free. I do not claim to know all the answers, but I do know enough to tell you what I believe and why I believe it. I am a seeker of the truth, I have managed to find what I believe is the most important Truth. I hope my readers will join me in my quest for truth.

So in conclusion, what is the gospel, what do we need to be saved from, what is faith, and who is Jesus Christ?

The gospel is that humanity rebelled against their creator and condemned themselves to a cursed life on earth and eternal torment in hell. In order to rescue humans from their own self-destruction God took on human form as Jesus of Nazareth about 2,000 years ago in Roman occupied Palestine. Jesus was concieved in a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit and lived a sinless life. He wandered Galilee and Judea teaching and performing miracles. He was crucified, died, and was buried for three days, but on the morning of the third day He rose and appeared to many people alive from the dead. After 40 days He ascended to heaven and will return one day, judge all humanity, reward the righteous, and punish the wicked. He will then set up His eternal kingdom in new heavens and a new earth. In the meantime, His Spirit indwells all who believe in Him.

Salvation means we are rescued from the curse of sin and death we brought on ourselves when we rebelled against God.

Faith is trust in God; we must trust that He exists, that He rewards those who seek Him, and that Jesus Christ's death and resurrection paid our ransom from the curse.

Jesus Christ is God in human form.

This is what I believe. If you want to find out why I believe, pay attention to this blog for future posts.