Galatians 5:22- Peace

"From the time Padina was 4 years old, she followed every rule of Islam in an attempt to grow closer to Allah. But Padina could never reach Allah. “I never felt peace,” she said. “I would cry for hours to Allah, saying, ‘I am so far from you. I can never go into your presence.’” She felt depressed and hopeless."

According to VOTM ministry, Padina had already made plans to commit suicide when she happened to hear a Christian pastor on her TV say, "Why do you want to kill yourself tonight? Our God is so powerful that he can change your life. Give Jesus a week!" Amazingly, Padina considered the proposal, and shortly thereafter came to receive Him as Lord and Savior. Her decision changed everything. She is currently "sought by the Iranian secret police” because of her involvement in the underground church, a choice she daily, willingly makes for the chance to share the good news of Jesus Christ with her Muslims neighbors.

I know many ex-Mormons who can tell a similar story to Padina's. My own mother, a veritable model of mainstream Mormonism, eventually confessed to me how often she'd cried in her bedroom when church services were over. Genealogy and temple work, ward callings and responsibilities, Mormon scripture study, a large family, gardening, canning, journal keeping... no matter how many wholesome endeavors she fit into her day, there was always more she should have done. Though the church authorities considered her "worthy" of a temple recommend, she still never knew if she would make it home to be with God or not. And indeed, the Mormon "gospel" was not the good news she desperately needed to hear. Thankfully, she found the biblical gospel of the Grace of God through Christ, and believing it, also found her hope and new life.

Months ago, when I began to discuss Galatians 5:22-23, it was to challenge the LDS religion’s claim that the Holy Spirit gives nice feelings of love, joy, and peace to the person who prays to find out whether or not his beliefs are true. I first demonstrated how erroneous it is to believe that our emotions can be trusted; how we need to trust God and His Word (the Bible) above our own hearts. Then, I tried to flesh-out the ideas of “love” and “joy," to show that Galatians 5 is not talking about the short-lived high of a good feeling, but rather something entirely more meaningful. This is my final post on the subject; now what about "peace?"

Jesus said:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

He went on to say how we who believed Him would find ourselves at odds with our own families. He talked about us daily picking up our crosses in order to follow Him. He even said:

"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)

But, in the very next chapter, Jesus also said:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

Does the average Mormon have the kind of peace that Jesus spoke of above? I think the answer to that can be found in whether or not she is remaining with “the Church” in order not to be ostracized, even though she is aware of some doctrinal shortcomings. I think the answer can be found in whether or not he is pretending that he is really as “righteous” as he tries to behave in public. What guides her life? How does he spend his time? And most importantly, does he believe that his eternal safety comes from his membership in the LDS church, rather than from his personal knowledge of, and relationship with, the God or Jesus Christ of the Bible.

The Mormon, or Muslim, or... person who is striving to be righteous and fit in with their religious crowd may find a kind of peace in their efforts. But it's an outward peace, the kind that Jesus was not sending. Jesus didn't fight, but His claims disturb us. He claimed that absolute truth exists and is knowable; He claimed to be that Truth! He claimed that righteousness and acceptance by God was impossible to attain, except through Him alone! These ideas are what separate the Muslim from the Christian, the Mormon from the Christian, the ideas that bring them to argument and war. But ironically, these are the same ideas that bring... peace.

Do you know that what you believe is the truth? How sure are you? If you died today, would you die a perfect person, ready to be ushered into the presence of Almighty God? If you truly did know these things - if you knew that you actually had found the ONE TRUTH that matters, and you had total certainty that you are going to heaven, completely forgiven of the sin in your heart at this moment, how would that understanding change your life? Deep down, is this the life you really want? Are you willing to consider these questions?

You must understand that God is right, and accept Jesus as your Savior, to have that kind of inner peace. It is this salvation through Christ, and Him alone, that makes all the difference.

In Galatians chapter five, just before Paul describes how a person walking "in the Spirit" will exhibit the virtues of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, and etc, he describes the "fleshly" person, who has not come to Christ. The works of the flesh, he says, are such things as adultery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, murder. Are the people who cheat on their spouses following their feelings? How about the ones whose need for revenge has brought them to man-slaughter? Clearly, "peace" is not gained in the long-run, much less in eternity, by trusting your emotions to rightly guide you. And as can been seen in the stories of ex-Muslims and ex-Mormons, neither can seeking to attain your own righteous virtues, apart from a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

Will Jesus bring peace? He has, and He will. With the saved, He uses sword of the Spirit and the Word of God to bring assurance and rest, and reason to live. Won't you leave your self and your religion behind for the one true pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46)?

Galatians 5:22- Peace

How Can a Pro-Life Christian Support the Death Penalty?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 223

Are we inconsistent as Christians when we argue for the sanctity of life and oppose abortion, yet support the death penalty? Jim answers this question and addresses listener email related to the presence of the miraculous in the gospels. Jim also offers a strategy for defending Christianity when non-believers equate it with Islam and accuse both religions of promoting terrible violence.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

How Can a Pro-Life Christian Support the Death Penalty?

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Way?

Most skeptics I know feel pretty confident that all religions "say basically the same thing." If there actually is a God, they're not particularly worried, because in their view, "being a good person" is really all that matters. As long as you are "sincere" in your beliefs, whether you're Muslim, Christian, Hindu or a member of your own individual religion, it will turn out fine in the end. Many go so far as to say that they simply "won't believe" in a God who warns of a narrow path to salvation.

This view has always struck me as particularly odd, coming as it often does from people who subscribe to a view that nature is all there is, and that science is the best way to attain knowledge. It's odd because neither nature nor science operates in this fashion. Neither cares about the sincerity of one's views and beliefs, and neither cares about what led someone into the position he or she currently holds about the way things really are. What matters is whether the person is getting it right. After all, stepping off a cliff will result in a nasty fall, regardless of whether the unfortunate soul knows or cares that there is a cliff in front of him and regardless of how sincerely he believes the cliff is not really there.

Consider another example from the natural realm. You awake one morning with a crushing weight on your chest. You're sweating and short of breath, and pain begins to shoot down your arm. It quickly occurs to you that these are the symptoms of a heart attack, so you dial 911 and soon find yourself in route to a hospital. But a surprise awaits you there. You have a choice of several doors. Behind one is a primitive medicine man, ready to bring you comfort and healing with various incantations and potions. Behind another is an ancient herbalist. Knowing what compounds result in what physical effects, he plans on using a variety of roots and extracts to restore health. Behind a third is a hypnotist, who believes that your symptoms are the product of anxiety, and that clearing away some of the baggage of your past will eliminate both your physical and mental pain. And behind the fourth, is a gruff, unfriendly and disinterested surgeon who tells you that your coronary arteries have collapsed and that without a bypass operation, you will soon be dead.

A frightening prospect one hopes never to face. But imagine for a moment what considerations will be going through your mind: the pain is real and intense and growing stronger with each passing moment. You need help, someone who can save you. Before today, you cared very little about healers or hypnotists or herbalists, nor much for surgeons either. Each, you believe, has something to offer, something he or she can contribute, and each is right in his or her own way. But right now, you don't care what makes the four similar; what matters is what makes them different. Will each be just as effective in saving you, and if not, which one can best deal with the particular problem you are facing?

Their individual sincerity doesn't matter. Nor does the confidence that they express that their approach will work. The medicine man may seem more confident than the surgeon, who tells you what the risks are. But confidence and sincerity don't guarantee that a person's views correspond to reality. What matters here is basic: which one actually has the solution to your problem. The herbalist and hypnotist might solve some problems, but your particular problem needs a surgeon. Because nature doesn't care about what you like or don't like.

Of course none of this proves that Christianity is true, or that Jesus Christ is the "surgeon" that you need. But that is not the point. In the example, the crushing weight could not be ignored. For us, the prospect of death can be ignored, at least for a while. But every thoughtful person knows that it awaits in the end. Here we deal not with possibilities or probabilities, but with dead (excuse the pun) certainty. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, we have a "problem" that we can't avoid forever.

Christianity explains the source of the problem. Man has rebelled against his Creator and is now paying a price for that rebellion. Eternal separation from God - from the source of all goodness and power and love - is the necessary consequence of that rebellion. But there is a solution, a particular way that God has provided through which we can get right with Him. Through the centuries, this belief has offended many, who view it as exclusive, small-minded and unfair. But having a heart attack is "unfair" and so is dying. Reality can be quite harsh at times.

So next time a naturalist tells you that, if there is a God, he will certainly accept "good" people, ask him where in the world he got that notion. Nature itself stands in testimony to the fact that surviving requires more than wishful thinking - it requires that you actually get things right.

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Way?

Explaining the Trinity

Over the years I have tried to explain what Christians believe regarding the Trinity many times and many ways to LDS (as well as Muslims, atheists and often even to those who maybe grew up in the church but have incorrect or confused ideas regarding the Trinity). I will attempt to explain, as best I can, using the examples that have worked best to clearly communicate the ideas in my conversations.

The Trinity is based on the Biblical ideas that 1) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine. They all have the names, powers, and attributes of God. 2) They are distinct. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is not Father or the Son. 3) There is one and only one God.

The Father, Son and Spirit are all divine.

I usually get very little push back on this proposition from LDS. Most Mormons agree that with this statement right away and others agree only with some clarification.

They are distinct.

This is usually the most surprising for LDS as they are quick to point out that Jesus prayed to the Father. “Was He talking to Himself?” they will ask. Of course not. I will add that scripture is full of examples of the distinctiveness of the Father, Son and Spirit. This has to be the most common misconception associated with the Trinity. I have had people swear to me that this is what Trinitarians believe more times that I can count. The idea that the Father becomes the Son who later becomes the Spirit is a heresy known as Modalism. So again it would seem that LDS would agree with the proposition that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct from one another.

There is one God.

Here is where the Christian and Mormon part ways. While Heavenly Father might be the only god that Mormons worship, they certainly don’t believe that he is the only god in existence. After all, Heavenly Father was once a man who worships and obeys a god above him (a Heavenly Grandfather if you will), who in turn has a god above him. There is an endless line of gods. It is fair to ask if Heavenly Father was the only child to be exalted. That would seem to cut down the chances for all faithful LDS to become gods if Jesus is already a god. The amount of Heavenly Uncles and Heavenly Great Uncles would then be endless as well.

Now it could be that the Christian position is true. There is also the possibility that the Mormon claim is true. I hold my position from reasoning through the scriptures but LDS have evidence for their case as well. I believe that carefully considering the Bible reveals the truth of my position and shows the weakness of their case, BUT, I simply want to CLARIFY what we mean when we refer to “the Trinity” here.

I tend to think of the Trinity as an understanding of the nature of God derived from His testimony of Himself in the Bible. But right off the bat we have a problem in communication between the Christian and the LDS. The problem is that the Mormon pictures a man like himself, but exalted, having progressed to godhood. The Christian is describing an eternal spirit being that is many things, but definitely not confined to the form of a man. Although we ascribe human descriptors to God (anthropomorphisms) like He and Himself, Father, etc., we do not mean an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds as is represented in movies and cartoons. From the Simpson's to Monty Python to Morgan Freeman’s role in Bruce Almighty, TV and movies perpetuate the unbiblical notion that God is like a man. The understanding that God was once a man is a central tenet to understanding the nature of God and man within Mormonism. So here we have another point of disagreement.

God is not a man.

It could be said of the Trinity then that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three distinct PERSONS that are the one BEING that is God.

Before we continue, we need to define some terms. Although every PERSON we know is a BEING (a human BEING), not everything that has BEING is a PERSON. Put simply, a BEING is something that exists. People, animals, plants and even inanimate objects have BEING although only people are PERSONs. PERSON, PERSONhood, PERSONality and imPERSONate are words that are connected with the idea of self. While we are uni-PERSONal BEINGs, God is a tri-PERSONal BEING (a stop sign or plant would be a non-PERSONal BEING). While it might seem foreign to our notions of BEING and PERSON, there is nothing irrational or illogical about the idea. It is simply outside of our experience with people. But then again, if God was just like us, He wouldn’t be God.

This brings me to the topic of analogies. Analogies are used to help describe something by comparing it to something else that is similar in a similar way. The problem is that all analogies break down at some point because eventually you get to the attributes that are dissimilar. Analogies about God should break down at some point because God is uniquely God. If God was a bowl of fruit, you could just say that God was like a bowl a fruit. Remember that LDS are taught that God was like we are and that we will be like God. The analogy of God and man are not analogies at all but in fact just different stages of development. A good analogy should help makes things clearer for the hearer. We see these throughout the Bible when God is described as a “Father”, a “rock”; as a protector, He is described as covering us with “his feathers, and under his wings”. Jesus is described as the “Good Shepherd”, the “Bridegroom” and the “Bread of Life.” All of these metaphors are used to draw analogies about the nature of God.

The Trinitarian analogies I like to use are these. As a triangle has three sides, but is one TRIANGLE, so the Father, Son and Spirit are three persons, but is one GOD. “Three or one? Which is it? Three or one?” was what he was yelling at me. Unfortunately he was not the first LDS to ridicule in this way. He didn’t want to hear what I had to say, even though he had asked me to explain the Trinity. Fine, but just imagine someone explaining what a triangle was and mocking them with, “Three or one? Which is it? Three or one?” Obviously something can be both if it is not identical in the same way. “But a side is not a triangle,” you say and you’d be right. As TIME is past, present and future, but each is distinct - the past is not the present or future, the present is not the past or the future, the future… (you get the picture) so GOD is Father, Son and Spirit, but each is distinct – one is not the other. The question of “WHAT is the Trinity?” is answered with God. The question of “WHO is the Trinity?” is answered with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity then is three WHOs in one WHAT.

The question of “substance” often comes up in this conversation with Mormons. I assume because they believe that it is some sort of sticking point for Trinitarians. In the context of the discussions around the Athanasian Creed, it simply means that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, nature or constitution as the Father. Whatever makes God God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are made of as well. Even though Jesus adds a human nature to His God nature, this in no way diminishes His God substance. This seems highly uncontroversial especially when in discussion with LDS because Mormonism teaches that not only are the Godhead of the same substance, but every man, woman and child is as well. Mormonism describes man as being gods in embryo and all creation coming from a material of eternal intelligences. For most LDS I think that the image of some three-headed monster is somehow connected with idea. I know that it was for Joseph Smith, who said.

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster," (Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 372).

In discussion with LDS regarding the Trinity, we are in agreement that:

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine. They all have the names, powers, and attributes of God.

They are distinct. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is not Father or the Son.

Person and Being are not the same thing and (hopefully) that something can have differences if the differences are not describing the same attribute in the same way.

The Godhead does not differ in constitution (substance).

In discussion with LDS regarding the Trinity, we are in disagreement that:

There is only one true and living God.

God is a spirit and uniquely not like man.

One thing is for certain though, as I have made the case before, where LDS and Christians disagree about the Trinity has nothing to do with the Council of Nicaea. LDS are taught again and again that the concept of the Trinity is a fourth century idea constructed by men during the meetings that produce the Nicene Creed. Again, if we look at where we disagree, that there is one God who is not like a man, these were hardly new ideas. These are an ancient Jewish perspective that has not changed within the Judeo/Christian tradition until the 1800s with the rise of many new religions declaring restored truth about the nature of God/Christ that included Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians and Christian Scientists. Faithful Jews were and have always been monotheistic. That doesn’t mean that they only worshipped one of many gods like many of the Greeks and Pagans. The Jews were clear in that they believed that there was ONLY ONE true and living God and they were hated by outsiders for this belief. The God of the Jewish people said that He knew of no other gods; He is the first and the last; He was the only one and there were no others like Him. The God of Israel has always maintained that all other “gods”, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath (even an “exalted man”) were merely wood, stone and metal idols that had no power.

Explaining the Trinity

Should Cities Allow Christians to Gather in Homes?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 222

Jim answers listener email this week and reads an article about a local city’s effort to require a small group Bible study to obtain a permit prior to being able to meet in a home. Jim also addresses several atheist objections related to the morality of God, the relationship between faith and reason, and the reliability of the Bible.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Should Cities Allow Christians to Gather in Homes?

Why Our Beliefs Count More Than Our Actions

For many atheists, no amount of argument will ever convince them that a loving God could consign any of His creation to Hell. One such challenger put his objection like this:

"It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions."

It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide a satisfying answer to this challenge. After all, even for believers, the doctrine of hell is difficult, and goes against our own inclinations - to forgive ourselves, to lessen our own culpability, to judge ourselves as "basically good." It's only by resort to Scripture, and a bit of philosophy, that we affirm that a just God must have a place of punishment if there is to be such a thing as free will.

A "just" God does justice, which means to punish or reward appropriately. In the Western tradition, we punish people for the actions they commit, but the extent of punishment is dependent also on the person's mental state, and a person's mental state is reflective of his or her beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person's beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices and wants the victim dead; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering a person's beliefs may well be relevant, especially if those beliefs have motivated the criminal behavior.

But the challenger's mistake is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for not accepting the gospel. Christians believe that people are condemned for their sinful behavior - the "wages of sin is death" - not for what they fail to do. The quoted challenge is like saying that the sick man died of "not going to the doctor." No, the person died of a specific condition - perhaps cancer or a heart attack - which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can - and does - provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don't normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift - i.e. eternity spent in His presence - from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.

The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our "kind" or "generous" behavior. This fails to grasp what God is - a perfect being. We cannot impress Him. What we do right we should do. We don't drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. This is expected of them. They can't commit a murder and then claim that punishment is unfair, because they had been kind and generous in the past. When a person gets his mind around the idea of what perfection entails, trying to impress a perfect Creator with our "basic goodness" no longer seems like such a good option.

So, in the end, we find ourselves in a predicament. We use our free will to rebel against our Creator, but we want Him to accept this rebellion, and us, with "no questions asked." When God judges us, He finds us wanting in both our actions and our beliefs. But in His goodness, He also provides a solution to our problem, a bridge that gaps the divide that exists between us and Him. There is nothing unfair in any of this.

After all, entry onto that bridge is free, and available to everyone. But we must first want to cross over.

Why Our Beliefs Count More Than Our Actions

Why Church Is the Place to Commemorate 9/11

It’s interesting the conversations that sometimes arise when a skeptic knows you are a believer. Earlier this week, a friend mentioned that she went to church on Sunday. That made her think of me, apparently, and she felt like talking about it. It was her first visit in many years, but she felt that the commemoration of the 9/11 tragedy required something, well, solemn. She told me she was once a believer but had rejected “all that” a long time ago.

I asked her what she thought was tugging at her on Sunday morning, that would make her think that a church was the right place to go. She didn’t know what I meant, so I explained.

“When we’re hungry, we look for a place to eat. When we’re lonely, we seek out the company of a friend. When we’re sick, a doctor. On and on it goes. So what was it that caused you to desire a connection, or at least proximity, to something or someone that you would find in a church?"

She thought for a moment, and then said simply, “I don’t know. Maybe it’s just something left over from childhood, something that brings me comfort in difficult times, even if it’s not necessarily true.”

I considered a moment and asked, “You mean, like the story of Santa Claus?”

She nodded.

“But is it really?” I pressed. “After all, I bet you don’t still write letters to the North Pole when you’re hoping for something. You don’t look in the closet for monsters before going to sleep at night either, I’d guess.”

She threw me a quizzical look.

“I think you know where I’m going. If you really knew that this notion of God was false – like these other childhood stories – you wouldn’t still feel a tug to find something in church that you know is somehow otherwise missing. You’re just not willing to take the next step yet – the one that involves the heavy lifting necessary to evaluate the truth claims of Christianity.”

But she wasn’t interested, and it didn’t take long to hear what I hear from most skeptics:

• "I’m perfectly happy with no religion, but if that works for you, that’s good for you."
• "After all, I’m a good person so I’m not really worried."
• "You don’t really expect me to believe that the vast majority of people who ever lived are condemned to hell?"

It was the typical “shotgun” approach. A variety of objections being fired in my general direction, none of which needed an answer because they weren’t really questions. They were a smoke screen to hide the apathy that really motivated her approach.

So, what is the apologist to do? Not much, as far as I can tell. Apathy about finding answers is pretty difficult to overcome. And it’s not going to happen in one conversation. It took her many years to develop these views, and most, if not all, of the people in her sphere of influence probably reinforce them. The arguments we seek to make are rational ones; they’re not likely to have an impact when the decision in question is more emotional than rational in nature. But minds are capable of changing, and if a change is to occur, someone has to offer a view that is worth considering. It may be a minor point or two, simply stated and not overdone, that may begin that process.

So I left her with a parting thought about the nature of “goodness”, the stuff she felt confident she had and that any god would recognize. I made the point that seeking a reward for good behavior was a rather odd concept when you really think about it. After all, we don’t give awards for following the law; we expect it. For instance, we don't qualify for a reward by listing all the people we haven't assaulted or killed in our lives. Come to think of it, we don't get rewards for doing charity either. The act is reward itself for people so motivated.

More importantly, I asked, what makes her think that a God with whom she has sought no relationship would be interested in the "good" she thinks she has done.

Think of it this way, I suggested: can I ask the teacher of a different class to give me an A based on the good work I am doing in my class? Can I ask your employer to pay me for the good work I am doing for my employer? Should I expect my friend to give my son an allowance for the chores he performs at my home?

I concluded with a last question:

"If you weren’t doing the work for someone you knew, the way you knew he wanted it done, why would you expect a reward?"

Why Church Is the Place to Commemorate 9/11

What About All Those Evil Christians?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 221

If Christianity is true and virtuous, how can someone like Adolph Hitler call himself a “Christian”? How can there be so many radical Christian militia groups? Do people like Hitler and groups like these demonstrate that Christianity is just another mistaken worldview? Jim answers these questions and listener email related to the supernatural nature of the Bible and archeological evidence for the Exodus.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

What About All Those Evil Christians?

Why We Don't Need To Have Complete Knowledge In Order to Know God

In my last post, I made the comment that as limited beings, we could never fully know the mind of a perfect Creator. I said that because, I think, a proper sense of humility requires that we acknowledge our limitations. If we start off our study of theology with the presupposition that complete knowledge of God is somehow possible, we will in the end be disappointed. Complete knowledge is simply not attainable.

A challenger commented on my statement by saying:

"if this is true, then all modes of worship and ideas about gods must be thrown out as imperfect and more likely error ridden. There is no way to live your life around guesses so better to live as if there's no god and be the best person that you can be."

The reasoning employed here is faulty in a number of respects, and as apologists, it is important to be able to recognize, and point out, where the challenger's thinking is going astray.

Let's begin with the conclusion: there is, of course, nothing wrong with being the "best person that you can be." But what does "best" mean? In common usage, "best" is simply the superlative form of "good." Products are often rated "good," "better," and "best." Measuring "good" requires us to have some notion of the function of the thing in question: a laptop that doesn't turn on would not be a "good" computer, though it might pass muster as a paper weight. Calling it "good" because it kept papers in place on the desk would sound silly though, as everyone knows what the function of a laptop is. What makes a car "good?" Great gas mileage, power and speed, or freedom from breakdowns? Again, it would depend on the use to which it is designed to be put. Perhaps a balance of all three for the average driver; an optimized blending of characteristics.

When we apply this inquiry to human beings, how does one know whether he is living his "best" life? Should he measure it by worldly success, by wealth, by the number of friends he has? Does "best" change depending on the person? On his stage of life? On his preferences?

It doesn't take much reflection to see that the challenger is offering no guidance at all. The whole point of the religious enterprise is to get at the mind of the one who designed us and who left us here for some purpose. Understanding what he wants from us is the main way - the only way - for us to determine whether the lives we are living are "good," let alone "best."

But the challenger doesn't believe this is possible for limited beings. He responds with a false dichotomy: either we can know fully the mind of an infinite being, or we should "throw out" as imperfect and "error ridden" all modes of worship; it is better, in his view, to live as if there is no god.

This may be the conclusion the challenger wishes to reach, but logic does not support it. Examples abound all around us. I have a rough idea of how this computer I am using operates. I could provide a general explanation and probably not be too far off the mark. But move into any real detail, and my lack of knowledge would soon become evident. I certainly could not take it apart or rebuild it from scratch. What conclusion should I draw from this? Because I cannot fully know the mind of the computer designer, or the intricacies of the computer hardware, am I better off living as if there were no computer? How about the electricity that powers it? Should I start lighting candles and turning off the power because I lack a detailed understanding of how transformers and circuit breakers work?

Complete knowledge of a subject is never necessary in order for the student to have gained something useful from the acquisition of knowledge. And moving closer and closer to the truth about a subject will often increase our power. Faced with limited knowledge of the workings of a computer, I am better off learning more about it, and thereby increase its usefulness, than I am in pretending that it really doesn't work, simply because I can't know fully how it works.

So too with the most important subject of all: the one that involves the study of who left us here, and why? Learning more about Him, and want he wants from us, is not just a "good" move. It's the very "best" one we can make.

Why We Don't Need To Have Complete Knowledge In Order to Know God

Did God Know What Would Happen in the Garden?

Some of the most fascinating science fiction plots involve time travel. Our minds are naturally intrigued, and ultimately confused, by the concept of how and why things play out the way they do, and what, if anything, could be done to change the flow of history. If we could go back in time, could we alter our present by tinkering with the past, or would a new timeline in some parallel universe result? We will never know.

Sometimes, believers too get caught up in inquiries regarding what might have been. Recently, a believer posed this question about God and his plan for mankind:

Wouldn’t God have known what would happen in the Fall?If he knew why did he go through with making us? With making the tree?

Because limited beings can never fully know the mind of a perfect Creator, the only correct answer to this question is probably "We'll never know... at least not in this life." However, considering the attributes of God that we do know and recognize, we can try to make some sense of the state of affairs in which humanity finds itself.

As Christians, we believe God to be omnipotent and omniscient. Stated in another way, we believe that there is nothing beyond God’s power or beyond his knowledge. All things that are capable of being done, He can do, and all things that are knowable, He knows. There is nothing doable or knowable that is beyond His reach. Consequently, He must have known of the Fall and that the first two humans would "eat of fruit of the tree." As limited and temporal beings, our minds cannot really grasp what foreknowledge entails. The passage of time, in the sense that we experience it, is a limitation. We move in one direction only; we see only dimly the past and the future is at best an exercise of our imaginations. While God may be in some sense temporal, time - as we experience it - could not limit His potentiality. For God, all things must exist in an eternal present, which His omniscience allows Him to access without limitation.

We recognize that God has given us "free will," but what exactly this means is not entirely clear. There are certainly things that we cannot will to do, such as reading another person's thoughts; there are other things that we have no desire to do, such as living in conditions that are hostile to life; and still other things of which we are unaware, so that willing them is not even contemplated. In short, our will is not unfettered. Whatever limited set of choices He gave us, they are meaningful to Him as it relates to love. Love, as we know, must be freely given and received to have any value. So, if we are to share an eternal loving relationship with Him, we must be sufficiently free to make that choice real.

The tree, whether real or figurative, is obviously one of the choices God gave us that mattered to Him. To “love” Him meant - and continues to mean - to recognize that as God, He is entitled to our respect, our obedience, our worship. When we put other things first - when we put ourselves and our desires first - we sin against Him.

So, knowing where our free nature would lead us, why did He nonetheless create us? Why did He create beings who in their nature could not, on their own, fulfill His expectations? Who needed to be saved by Him, but first needed to be prompted by Him to even want salvation?

The answer has eluded the greatest minds, and no doubt always will. I think the most we can say here is that he had perfectly adequate reasons. My suspicion is that those who are saved are where they belong, and that those who aren’t are where they belong as well – given their free-will choices. In other words, I can only trust that a perfect God has effectuated His plan for salvation in a perfectly fair way.

Did God Know What Would Happen in the Garden?

Why Can’t Christians Agree?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 220

If the Christian God is the one true God, why is all of Christianity divided into so many denominations? In this podcast, Jim examines the “Problem of Christian Denominationalism” and answers listener email related to the topic. In addition, Jim reads and discusses Timothy Williamson’s opinion piece in the New York Times, entitled “What is Naturalism?” Can an investigation be in the “spirit of science” without employing the scientific method?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Why Can’t Christians Agree?

Discussing Eternal Life with a Skeptic

I was discussing ultimate things with an atheist friend and the topic of eternal life arose. She seemed quite indifferent to the whole concept, so I tried to hone in with a specific question:

"Do you desire eternal life? Do you feel something inside of you longing for life that is full and robust and filled with relationships, where you have time to do all the things you want, where your physical health remains perfect, with no end? I think the answer must be yes - that all rational people feel this, but I really am not sure how you will answer it."

She sidestepped: "How about 'maybe' or only with certain conditions. Does eternal life have a single meaning? How come you get to decide what the meaning of eternal life is?"

Her response surprised me. I assumed that everyone shared a similar positive view of "eternal" life. Her question about why I get to decide confused me. I responded:

"Okay. I think I get you now. You mean that your desire for eternal life would depend on what that entailed? You're thinking that you can imagine scenarios where perhaps oblivion would be preferable? I hope I don't come off as arrogant," I said. "I don't 'get to decide' what eternal life is. I simply have a frame of reference that I'm seeing the world from, so at first I didn't see that you were viewing it differently. In my frame of reference, eternal life isn't something I acquire; its something I already have. That's both good and bad news. The good news is obvious: this feeling that there is never enough time and that I always desire to have more time will get fulfilled; the bad news is that I may not like my circumstances.

For instance, if I embark on a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow - nature has consequences built into it - and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. So too is eternal life, in my view. The 'I' part of me is eternal, even though my current body is not. That's why I say that I 'have' a body and not that I 'am' a body. Even linguistically, we realize that the 'I' part of us is something different - something ephemeral - from the physical part of us.

So therein lies the reason for my question to you. How can you be indifferent about such a question? I know you will say that no one has the answers, but don't you think its worth an investigation? To satisfy yourself that you really can't know? Take my drugs example. Since you're young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time, but it wouldn't be a smart move for you to say that you really don't care what effect it will have on you in 20 years. Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all need to do."

Apparently not. At least not in her view. She responded:

"No, I don't think it's worth my investigation. I also don't think I should spend my time investigating UFO's, zombies, or Big Foot. I hate things that require lots of time and thought where you are virtually guaranteed not to accomplish anything or get a definitive answer."

"Of course," I responded, "the obvious difference is that you will never meet a UFO, a zombie or a big foot, but you will face the question of what comes when this life draws to a close. And concluding before examining the evidence that you won't accomplish anything or get an answer stands in pretty stark contrast to millions and millions of people who have concluded that the opposite is in fact true."

She wasn't impressed:

"Well," she said, "you are assuming people meet god; that's a pretty big leap too. Who do you know who has met him? And I think most believers do so blindly; I don't believe most of those people do any scholarly inquiry and draw conclusions based on evidence. They believe what they raised on, like me, or what they want to believe."

"The fact that people believe what they were raised to believe," I countered, "does not amount to a real argument. It's a variant of the genetic fallacy. You're trying to prove why believers might be wrong - they just were raised that way - without first proving that they are wrong. So, if I told you that I believed the earth was flat, and I was raised that way, you wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say I'm entitled to that belief. You would show me evidence that the earth is round and expect me to use reason to conform my view to the evidence. If I told you that you were entitled to that belief but you just believed it because you were raised by some round earthers and you never saw the whole earth so you couldn't really know, then... you'd start to see how I feel."

"One last analogy. Let's say this was 50 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your kids always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know those things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that its really bad for you. You respond, 'see, it's a tie, so stop bothering me. Each believes what they were raised to believe. Plus, other things can kill me too, so why should I worry about cigarettes? Or, maybe you say that even if I am right, you'll be one of the lucky ones who won't be hurt by it.

Do you see that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?"

Again, she didn't bite:

"Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad/wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don't eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don't. I think the 'answer' to many of these things is unknowable. At one time it would have been totally unacceptable to all of society for a mother to work and put a child in daycare 10 hours a day. Now, 10 hours of daycare is the norm. I get that most people think that daycare schedule is fine, but I don't. I make up my own mind by doing what feels right. Have you ever considered that the answer doesn't matter? Maybe the search is the whole point and maybe I am done already and you're just slow.

I don't think you can prove God like you can prove that the world is round. To prove the world was really round and have everyone believe, we needed real-time pictures from space. Bring me a picture of god and we'll talk."

I made one last attempt:

"These are good examples of things that change, but I hope you can see from them that there must be a 'right' answer. The right answer might be 'it doesn't matter.' For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. But for other things - like smoking - it will never come back around. Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won't necessarily kill you, but not that it will 'balance your humours' like they said 200 years ago. Same thing with child care: it may not irreparably harm your child to put her in daycare 10 hours a day, but your position is more than just a 'feeling.' So, the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or like I'm smoking with my kids in the room? All questions are not of equal importance.

I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking 10 hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence."

But she really didn't see... at least not yet.

Discussing Eternal Life with a Skeptic