Making Sense of Christianity 4: The Spiritual War

As I explained last time, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. Human responsibility lies at the core of what is wrong with the world and why we see so much evil. However, the problem runs much deeper than the physical realm in which we choose to satisfy our skewed physical appetites. Underneath it all, there is a spiritual war for the souls of each and every human being.

Souls with Bodies

Orthodox Christians believe that human beings are not merely physical machines. While we have bodies, we are souls. This dual nature involves the interaction between the two, where the soul affects the body and the body affects the soul. They are not one and the same, but are both needed to live according to God’s design for our lives here on the earth. This dual nature is also reflected in the relationship between the brain and the mind. The two are not the same, but work in concert with each other. How we think and what information we choose to take in impacts the brain, and the condition of the brain impacts our ability to think (ie. brain trauma, Alzheimer’s). The immaterial part of ourselves, which we associate with our “hearts” and minds, is where our core identity resides. I can imagine my soul inhabiting a different body and still being the same person, but if I imagine a different soul inhabiting my body, I intuitively know that such a person would not be “me.” So it is self-evident that I am most essentially a spiritual being. Going back to what we said about the “image of God,” it only makes sense that we are most essentially spiritual in nature because God Himself is an immaterial, spiritual being. As Jesus said, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John‬ ‭4:24‬) Therefore worship of God is not rooted in physical action, but spiritual submission to Him. 

Spiritual Beings

God has created us as spiritual beings who inhabit physical bodies, and God Himself is an immaterial, spiritual being who is not bound by any physical limitations. But are there any other beings that are spiritual in nature? There is some debate among Christians as to whether animals have souls, and I believe they do, though they are not created in the image of God (Ecclesiastes 3:21). If they have souls, then human beings are above them in a hierarchy of beings with God at the top. Yet Scripture teaches us that there are other created beings who are spiritual in nature, but are in at least some ways, superior to human beings (Hebrews 2:9). These are what we call “angels.”

Angels and Demons

Like human beings, it seems that angels possess all the qualities we attribute to the image of God. They are rational, moral beings, possessing the ability to choose to submit to or reject God’s purposes for them. Unlike human beings, they do not possess physical bodies, but seem to have some kind of “spiritual body” which allows them to interact with the physical world, but also inhabit the heavenly realm. Regardless of their relationship with God, their spiritual bodies are not under the curse of death, so it seems that they will go on living forever unless God willfully extinguishes their lives. This is not to say that they have existed for all eternity (only God has), but they were created at some point in the past to dwell in the presence of God. 

Like human beings, all angels were created good, but some of them turned against God in an act of rebellion. It is believed by many Christians that as many as 1/3 of all the angels rebelled against God and were cast out of His presence. The leader of this rebellion is called “Satan” or “the Devil.” Those angels, which we call “demons,” are in a continual state of rebellion, and they are actively working in our world to thwart God’s plans for His creation. When it comes to human beings, that means appealing to fellow moral agents to join their rebellion against our Creator. (See addendum below for my theory on why they rebelled.)

Hope for Humanity 

While the fate of Satan and the host of demons is set, ours is open-ended. We will die a physical death, but the destiny of our souls is a matter to be decided. For the angels, their sin is purely an act of the will. Being in the presence of a perfectly good, holy God and choosing to war against Him is something you don’t return from. There is nothing God can do to show Himself more worthy of their worship and devotion, so their decision is made. However, human beings have not known the fullness of the glory of God, therefore we are capable of seeing Him more clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12). It is possible that those of us in a current state of sinful rebellion could come to know more about who God is, and learn that He is worthy of our love and devotion.

Demonic Strategy

Now we can begin to see the war raging all around us. Demons, though they are motivated by pure hatred of God and not physical desires for sin, know that we have those desires, and can influence us to obey them, knowing that doing so will begin to reshape our affections to be in opposition to God’s will for our lives. Hebrews 3:12-13 says, “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” 

Sin’s Deception

How can sin be deceitful? Going back to what I said earlier, the body and soul are interconnected. What we do with our bodies has an impact on our souls. We can become hardened in unbelief by embracing the desires of our flesh. The demons know that if we indulge ourselves, we will become willing to join their rebellion against God. And this is what we see in Romans 1. “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭1:24-25‬). 

Continuing in this thought from verse 28 onward: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;” (Romans‬ ‭1:28-31‬). 

What we see is a progression from physical disobedience to spiritual hostility. The culmination is in verse 32: “who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” At this stage, the individual has joined forces with Satan and the demonic host in waging war against God by encouraging others to join the rebellion. This is why no Christian can be in the business of calling sin “good.” To do so is “Satanic.”

Like Satan

People often get confused by Christians talking about things being Satanic. The assumption is that we are ascribing an intention in those who practice such things to worship Satan. Some Christians might believe this, but most of us do not. The truth is that what is Satanic (or “demonic”) has nothing to do with any conscious acknowledgment of Satan. An accurate definition would be to say that whatever is like Satan in its willful rebellion against God is Satanic. To live in opposition to God’s stated or teleological purposes is to do as Satan and his demons did. This is Satanic rebellion, and those who are “religious” can be be guilty of it, as Jesus makes clear in John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”

The Great Deceiver

Satan is called “the father of lies,” and sin accompanies those lies. Just as the practice of sin can affect our thinking so that we believe lies to justify our sin, we may also first believe lies and proceed to sin in our flesh on the basis of those false beliefs. Remember, the body is dependent on the mind, and the mind is dependent on the body. This is why it is important to be grounded in the truth and to understand what we believe as Christians and why we believe it. 

How does Satan go about achieving his plan? As Jesus said, he is a liar. Through demonic influence, we are deceived into believing that rejection of God’s will is what is best for us. Consider how this played out in the Garden of Eden: “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” ‭‭(Genesis‬ ‭3:4-6‬) 

Just as Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 tells us that the serpent who deceived Adam and Even in the garden was Satan, we are also led on the path of sin through the deception of spiritual beings whose influence in the world can lead us to join their rebellion. 1 Peter 5:8 says: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

Looking Ahead / Catching Up 

Putting all of this together, it would seem that we are in a hopeless situation. We have sinful appetites in our bodies working against us, and we have a whole host of beings more powerful than ourselves who are actively working to deceive and lead us to sin, which itself deceives us into believing the lies that they tell us. It’s a vicious cycle. Yet God has provided a way for us that leads to freedom from sin and death. This way is not dependent on our perfect obedience, for He knows what we are dealing with. This will be made evident next time, as we discuss “Atonement Through Incarnation.” 

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Addendum

The following is my own speculation about why Satan and the demons rebelled against God. Scripture doesn’t give us an answer, so this is my best guess. Take it for what it’s worth. 

I think it could be that Satan resented that God created this world, and particularly that He created human beings in His image. As angels, they had a unique relationship to God as “sons of God” prior to our creation. God’s choice to create lower beings that also bore His image was something Satan found to be beneath Him and defiling to His holiness. As the first to object to God’s plan, Satan found other angels to join him in voicing their disapproval. Lacking trust in His wisdom, and thinking they knew better than the all-knowing, perfectly benevolent God, they sought to turn all of the heavenly host of angelic beings against Him. In response, God banished them from His presence, yet gave them the freedom to influence His created world. God would prove to him that He would succeed in His plan to bring human beings into a loving relationship with Him, and that Satan could try his hardest, but he would still lose. This plan would not only succeed in bringing in many human beings who willfully chose to worship God, but would also succeed in exposing those angels who had enjoyed His presence and worshiped Him in practice, yet did not truly submit to Him as their Lord. 

Now that the demons have been expelled, and certain judgment awaits them, their goal is to make a fool of God and show that His plan failed. They are committed to the task of destroying human flesh by deceiving us into trusting our physical desires above God’s intended design for our lives. Satan desires to annihilate the human race and prove that he was right and God was wrong. But God will win in the end!

Making Sense of Christianity 3: Sin and Death

If there’s one thing everyone can agree upon it is this: the world is not as it should be. While we all see significant problems, we offer vastly different and contradicting solutions to them. Much of our disagreement arises from where we believe the problems originate. The secular world often assigns the blame to external circumstances and accidents of nature, believing that human beings are victims of chance. Those who inflict harm on others do so because others inflicted harm on them, with the blame continually pushed back in an endless chain of prior causes. Christianity offers a different view. Evil exists in our world because we all sin. While each individual cannot change their circumstances, we always have a choice to do what is right or wrong. Therefore, the world is tainted by the effects of sin, but each of us are personally guilty of contributing to the mess. 

What is Sinful about Sin?

While the Christian belief in personal responsibility and the universal sinfulness of the human race is well known, what is not clearly understood by most, including those within the Church, is what makes a sin a sin. Many understand it in terms of “divine command theory.” That is to say, a sin is a sin because God declares it so. The Bible states that such and such behavior, thought, or belief is wrong, therefore it is sin. While God’s commands make it clear to us that such things are sinful, they don’t encompass all of what is sin, especially since Scripture is silent in many areas. While we can apply principles from certain commands to other situations, we cannot always arrive at a clear answer. Perhaps there is a better way to understand sin. I believe that better way is teleology.

Teleology

Teleology is the idea that there is purpose and design in nature. Many of us may be familiar with teleological arguments for a Creator God that show how “fine-tuned” the universe and our planet are to make life possible. We might consider the distance from the earth to the sun, or the strength of the gravitational force, or how we happen to have the water and food we need to survive, as well as the abiltity to reproduce to keep life going. These are a minuscule sampling of the various factors of what is required for us to live and sustain life, and they collectively make a powerful case for the conclusion that this world is not an accident, but the result of an intentional Creator. However, we often fail to make the connection to how we ought to live. If God has fine-tuned the universe for our existence, couldn’t He also have created us with functional purposes in mind? For many, the discussion of teleology stops short at what has been done for us. Doesn’t it also imply what WE should be doing?

Recall what I said in the previous post: “If He (God) IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same.” From this we can logically infer that sin is that which is not in submission to God’s will, which is ultimately irrational, not good, and unloving. From a teleological perspective, sin is the willful rejection of God’s design for human beings to flourish. Having this framework for our definition of sin helps to bring clarity to the issue. On divine command theory, God’s rules may be arbitrary. Theoretically, He can command us to do things that we know intuitively to be morally wrong. From a teleological perspective, He only commands us to do what is good for us collectively and helps us to function properly in this world. This proper function is based on God’s knowledge of His creation and how it is designed to work. Instead of merely “because God says so,” we want to obey Him because it is good for us to do so. Living according to the purpose for which we are created is the way that we flourish. When we disobey, there are negative consequences for us and for others. 

Another advantage teleology provides is that it helps make sense of sin as a universal problem for humankind. For much of humanity prior to Christ, and continuing today, access to Scripture and the stated commands of God is either forbidden or has yet to be obtained. There are corners of the world where the Gospel has yet to be preached and the Scriptures have yet to be delivered to the people. Are those who have not heard accountable for commands they haven’t received? 

Breaking From the Design

Romans 1:18-32 details the universal sin problem, and shows how sin is not rooted in arbitrary commands, but is associated with rebellion against God’s design for human nature. Those who have not heard the specific commands we find in Scripture still have knowledge of God as revealed in the natural world. They have enough of this knowledge that verses 19-20 says, “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” What follows is an explanation of how detachment from God-given design and purpose leads to our affections being for created things, and our behaviors deviating from the form and function for which we exist. Verses 26-27 illustrate the degree to which teleology is rejected. “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” The example Paul uses here may trigger our modern sensibilities, but it is a clear example of sin being defined as a break from God’s intended design for human beings. Following desire over design leads to destruction.

God’s Right to Life

Teleology stands in sharp contrast to our culture’s commitment to autonomy. While we value our own right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, God requires that we submit ourselves to His will. Disobedience is disfunction, and it leads us to destruction. While Christians defend the “right to life,” we often fail to see that it is first and foremost God’s right, and it applies to each and every one of us. Our lives belong to God as our Creator and the one who gives us our purpose. We are accountable to Him. He has the right to give us life and the right to take it away. 

The Consequences of Sin

This brings us to the reality of death. As Scripture records in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they brought damage to God’s perfect design. The thing about sin is that it takes root in the body of the sinner and skews its desires, making the sinner prone to keep on sinning. Once that first sin was introduced to the human race, it began a cycle of sin that was then passed on to the children of the first couple as they inherited the fallen flesh of their parents with its sinful appetites. The human body was misaligned with its perfect design, and would be incapable of restoring itself to its original condition. 

To be in unity with God is to be in perfect alignment with His will. We have each “fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and have incurred the penalty of death as the “wages of sin” (Romans 6:23). As God warned Adam and Eve, “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

The Mercy of Death

Through sin, suffering and death were introduced into the world. The “curse” of death is often seen as punishment, but what is often overlooked is the mercy of God. We are told that God set angels at the Gates of Eden to block entry so they would not have access to the tree of life. The lesson here is that it is not God’s will for the human race to exist eternally in a sinful state. Death is required to free us from our fallen condition. But death is not God’s ultimate desire for us. His desire is that we live forever free of sin. We cannot do so in our present state. 

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

We love to do things our own way, and to make matters worse, there are powerful forces at work to lead us down that path. I will turn my attention to those next time as we discuss “The Spiritual War.”

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 2: Personhood and the Image of God

In the previous post, I made the case that there must be something that has always existed and continues to exist that is the cause of everything else that exists. This is what we mean by “God.” However, I haven’t shown that this God must be anything resembling the personal God of Christianity. Couldn’t it be an inanimate, eternally existing physical substance of some sort that blindly birthed all that has ever come to exist? I’d like to explain how this option won’t work, and that the eternal God must be personal. From there, I will show how this personal God aligns with Christianity and the concept of humans being created in the “image of God.”

Created by Choice

To be eternal is to be changeless, since change is a quality of sequential existence. For an eternal physical substance to suddenly birth the universe would require some change in its condition that precedes that moment. To illustrate this point, imagine a deflated basketball. Without the addition of air into the ball, it will remain deflated. Once it is added, the ball begins to change, and with enough air it will be able to bounce on a hard surface. Its own existence isn’t sufficient to inflate itself and bounce. It needs the addition of air and a hard surface to act on its potential, and it is powerless to do so on its own. So it is with all physical things. Nothing purely physical can go from inactivity to action by itself. So this option won’t work. 

The only other option is something that exists eternally without change in itself that has the capacity to create change. This capacity is what we might refer to as “will” or “intention.” In simpler terms, this boils down to the freedom to choose. Impersonal forces or substances do not have this ability. Only living beings that think can do so. Therefore, at the very least, for anything to exist at all, there must be a mind that willed other things into existence. God is that mind, and all that exists is the result of His choice to create. 

Personhood vs. Instinct

Now, the ability to choose is found in human beings as well as in the animal kingdom, yet we do not consider animals to be persons. So what does it mean to be a person? I would argue that a key distinction is to be found in how choices are made. As humans, we think introspectively and consider the options before us. As philosopher J.P Moreland describes, we have “thoughts about our thoughts.” This distinguishes us from animals that act on instinct and sets us apart from all other living things in the natural world. Animals act purely in response to their environments as their natures dictate. In this sense, their choices are made for them in a system of cause and effect. Humans, by contrast, have the ability to make different choices in the same circumstances. With this comes something significant that animals lack: moral responsibility. We do not think our pet cat is a criminal deserving of punishment if it kills a bird. We do think our neighbor should go to jail if he shoots our cat. This is because he has a choice in how he will respond to it. He could also choose to pet the cat or to simply ignore it. Therefore moral agency is an evident component of personhood. Human beings possess the ability to refrain from doing things that are recognized as morally wrong. We also can do things that are understood to be good. 

A Common Objection

Defining personhood in such a way will inevitably lead to the objection that infants, children in the womb, and those with severe mental disability do not qualify as persons. However, this assumes that personhood is something most people develop in time. It would logically follow then that there is one second when a human being is not a person followed by another where he/she is. Much like the basketball analogy, you have to ask: what is added in that moment to roll one over to personhood? Can non-persons make themselves persons? A better solution is to acknowledge that all human beings are persons from the moment they are conceived, but their capability to express their minds and make moral decisions is inhibited by a lack of experience in the world and/or physical development. The fact that most do shows that humans are born with the potential to express the attributes of personhood, and that is only possible if they are persons to begin with. As a result, personhood is not a matter of degrees. Every human being is equally a person who bear’s God’s image. To be able to ground human value in what God assigns it is a distinct advantage of the Christian worldview.

The Image of God

As the Scriptures teach us, God created man and woman “in the image of God.” Genesis 1:26-27 says, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
‭‭

Having already shown that God is not a physical entity, we can surmise that the image of God is spiritual in nature. Everything I’ve laid out about personhood meets this description. Therefore, we can conclude that God’s image at the very least includes personhood, which entails a rational mind coupled with moral agency. Another aspect is creativity, which is a way humans “image” the Creator. So we see reflecting back at us that bearing the image of God is linked to His own personhood. Therefore, God is not merely a rational mind, but is also a moral agent.

God as the Source

Another way to look at this is to see God as not merely the Creator of all things, but also as the source of all things. What this implies is that nothing can possess an ability that is greater than its source. Humans cannot possess any ability greater than God possesses in Himself. We can’t receive what can’t be given. Since this is true, the fact that human beings are personal requires that God is personal. We couldn’t have obtained personhood if God didn’t have it first to give us. 

Of course, the naturalist will disagree and argue that greater things continually emerge from lesser. From their vantage point, things like consciousness and personhood can and did emerge from physical things that lack them, and the universe (or multiverse) itself at some point was birthed from nothingness. It should be pointed out that if this is true, it is even more miraculous than the intentional act of a supernatural Creator. At least with an eternally existing God, there is always a source that is capable of producing whatever exists in our world. Naturalism logically requires that something (and consequently everything) came from literally nothing.

Why it Matters

The implications of a personal God cannot be overstated. Being personal, we know that He has chosen for this world, and all of us as individuals, to exist. When we consider that God is a rational, moral being, we can conclude that He is the source of rationality and morality. Therefore, all that exists is ordered to His laws of logic, and all persons are subject to His standards of right and wrong. And because God is consistently both rational and moral, we can conclude that His morality is itself rational. As personal beings, we long for connection with others. Therefore, we must have a God who desires connection with other persons. We know that the greatest of all virtues is love, therefore God must highly value love. Perhaps He loves. Perhaps He is love. As 1 John 4:8 says, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” If He IS love, then love is in accordance with what is good, which is in accordance with what is rational, which is in accordance with the will of God. And if this is so, the perfect expression of our love is to be in submission to His will for our lives, and to encourage others to do the same. 

God in Relationship

As a final note, I’m not intending to present a philosophical defense of the Trinity in these posts. I believe that case is best made from the Scriptures, and would require more space than I can give here. What I will say is that we can reasonably conclude that if our personal God cares about His creation, He is likely to reach out to them to make His presence known to them. One way He can do this is through creation itself, but sometimes He might want to speak more clearly to those He made in His image. Scripture is the work of a God who loves the people He created and desires for them to be in relationship with Him. Christianity teaches that it is written by human beings moved under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore our conclusion that God Himself exists as one being in a tri-personal relationship is one derived through the special revelation of Scripture, but it is consistent with the natural revelation of one personal God.

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

Having laid out a definition of what is good, next time we will turn our attention to what is not: sin & death.

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Making Sense of Christianity 1: The Creator God

“Why is there anything at all rather than nothing whatsoever?” This question, famously posed by 17th-18th century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, is the most foundational of all questions. How we answer it will have radical implications for how we live our lives. With this series, I will be presenting a reasonable defense of orthodox Christian theology. Beginning here, I hope to articulate the Christian worldview in a way that is clear, cohesive, and compelling. 

Motivations for this Series 

Christian orthodoxy has been under considerable attack in recent years from both within and without the walls of Christian churches, and the faith of many has faltered. What I believe is presently lacking in our churches is a sensible explanation of why Christianity makes sense of the world. Too many people see it as a religious construction of random rules and beliefs that have been assembled through the ages for no good reason other than to keep people in line. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is built upon what is real and good and true. It is the systems of the world that are built on falsehoods and that keep people in bondage. My hope is that this series will provide a sharp contrast between the philosophies of the world and that of orthodox Christianity. Unlike those false worldviews, Christianity is internally consistent, and makes complete sense of our very existence. I have structured this series to show a logical progression from the most basic idea to the full implications of Jesus Christ for every one of us. As C.S. Lewis said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” And so I begin with the Creator God.

Necessary vs. Contingent

There are many ideas about what a “god” is, but Christianity begins by giving the answer to Leibniz’ question above. God is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. He is the Creator. Everything else is the creation. In philosophy, there is a distinction made between that which is “necessary” and that which is “contingent.” All things, with the exception of God, exist contingently, which is to say that their existence is dependent on something or someone else bringing it into existence. It is possible for any contingent thing to not exist. All physical objects are formed from physical materials. All living things are brought into existence through other living things. Every effect is the result of at least one cause. All of this results in a chain of causes that extends backwards in one of two ways: either 1) infinitely, or 2) to a first cause that is not itself an effect. If option 1 is true, then there is an infinite number of past events in the history of the universe (or multiverse, if it were to exist). However, if this is true, it is impossible (even theoretically) to sequentially lay out its history. There cannot be a first event in the sequence, therefore there cannot be a second, nor a third, nor a 4,000th, nor a 7 billionth,... and so on. Whatever the present is, it has to fit somewhere in the sequence, but you could not actually place it anywhere. To do so would require a first event that you can then proceed from to get to the present. This leaves us with option #2.

Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam) teaches that God “spoke” the universe into existence. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” Likewise, Hebrews 11:3 tells us, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” This means that God’s existence is prior to the existence of everything else. God Himself exists necessarily, which is to say that nothing came before God. There has never been a “time” that He didn’t exist. Christian orthodoxy teaches that God transcends time, which itself came into existence through God. Therefore, it can be said that God “is.” His existence is a constant. It is impossible for Him to come into existence or to stop existing. He simply exists. And there can be no other “god” before Him or that would be “God.” So if God exists, He must be the first and only God. He must be (capital G) God. And since it is impossible for anything to exist apart from Him, God must exist.

Why it Matters

The implications of a necessary God are simply stated: God is God, and I am not! As obvious as this may be, we all struggle either consciously or unconsciously to accept this. But if we do, what we believe about Him will inevitably shape how we live our lives. I will lay this out in more detail as we go further in this series.

Looking Ahead

Next time I will explain why the Creator God must be personal, and how our own personhood is connected to His. By the end of this series, my goal is to have brought some clarity to all of these topics:

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

A Feisty Fall Debate: McGrew vs Slick Reviewed

I must confess that recently I’ve grown weary of the never-ending arguments over Calvinism. The behavior of many on social media from any and every side of each point of the TULIP can be discouraging and tiresome. While there is much division in the Church at large over a wide variety of doctrines and practices, it seems to reach another level when it comes to soteriology. Passions run high, and it’s not hard to see why. These issues are of significant importance as they affect our view of God and His relationship to us. When it comes to secondary issues of the faith, I’m not sure there is anything more important. After catching Warren McGrew’s interview with Leighton Flowers a few weeks ago, my own interest was rekindled. As a former Calvinist, his personal testimony of the effects of reading the Bible from Genesis forward with fresh eyes and finding that the “doctrines of grace” were not to be found was very compelling, and helped to renew in me a desire to write on the subject. Having recently debated Matt Slick of CARM.org, one of the leading voices in Calvinism on the internet, they reviewed what was a very contentious, but also enlightening, discussion on the topic, “Is Total Depravity True?” Being inspired to go back and see it for myself, I thought I would share some points that stood out for me. There is much more that could be said, but for the sake of brevity, I will focus on one key thematic point from each side. Before I do, I will allow its defender (Slick) to define the subject of the debate.

Total Depravity:

 

“Man is completely touched by sin in all of what he is... so his heart, soul, mind, strength... has been affected by sin. That is not to say that he is as bad as he can be... we can always be worse in our sin. Total depravity is still retained upon regeneration, but we (Christians) are regenerate and we war against the flesh... The unregenerate will not of their own free, sinful state freely choose to receive Christ because their hearts are desperately wicked... and they are enslaved to sin. They cannot receive spiritual things. They are dead in their sins. They are by nature children of wrath. They are at enmity with God. They can do no good.” 

1. Slick: All humans are naturally irrational in spiritual matters.

Key Scripture:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”‭‭ (I Corinthians‬ ‭2:14‬)

While Slick concedes that humans are rational beings, he asserts that such rationality doesn’t apply to spiritual things. When it comes to spiritual matters, everyone will reject these truths unless God regenerates them and causes them to receive them. McGrew counters that the “natural man” in the above passage is someone who is not synonymous with “unbeliever,” but is “carnal,” specifically pursuing sin. In this sense, it is possible for an unbeliever to positively receive spiritual truths if they are not driven by selfish pursuits. It is also possible for a believer to reject them if they are hung up in sinful behaviors. He uses the example of children, perhaps up to young adulthood, as being in the former category. They may not yet believe the gospel, but they may still be receptive to it because they are not willfully submitting to sin. McGrew argues that we are created as rational beings in the image of God, there is no reason to believe that our rationality is impaired from birth in spiritual matters, and that Scripture doesn’t make this claim. While he argues that rationality can point us to God’s truth, Slick accuses him of elevating rationality to the level of Scripture. 

This is where Slick’s argument falls apart. If only Scripture can be relied upon for truth, then any interpretation of Scripture (which each of Calvinism’s doctrines of grace happen to be) is unreliable, and cannot also be taken for truth. To do so would be to put them on the same level, by Slick’s own standard. While he can argue that the regenerate believer can be made to understand and believe spiritual things, he must then either say that all regenerate believers will be made to understand spiritual things, like the doctrine of total depravity, or that some regenerate believers will be able to understand only some spiritual things. Therefore, either the only true believers are Calvinists who agree unanimously on all other spiritually discerned matters, or Calvinists are simply superior models of regeneration. The non-Calvinist is a partially regenerated, inferior Christian. Slick seems to suggest the latter, as he says that it is possible for Christians to not fully submit to receiving the things of the Spirit of God, pointing to McGrew as an example of such a Christian. While claiming to elevate the authority of Scripture, Slick only elevates his own. He is sure to remind us that he has a Masters of Divinity from a Calvinist university, and has been teaching Calvinism for 30 years. Surely he is a reliable source of truth on these matters!

Such appeals to extra-biblical authority are all too common among those who shout loudest about “Sola Scriptura.” The Calvinist routinely appeals to his confessions and councils. What conflicts with either is denounced as “heresy.” I counted at least a dozen uses of some form of the “H” word from Slick in this debate, and I honestly lost count on “Pelagian.” Does the Christian have the right to denounce heresies where they are found? Sure, if we allow for rationality to lead us to truths not stated plainly in Scripture. In this debate, only McGrew can do so without undercutting his own argument. 

2. McGrew: The incarnation is devalued by total depravity.

Key Scripture:

 “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”‭‭ (Hebrews‬ ‭2:14-18‬)

Of all the points made in this debate, this one is likely to stir up the most discussion. I don’t recall ever hearing this line of argument in a formal debate before, though it is something I have chewed on in my own mind. What does it mean that “in all things He had to be made like His brethren?” There seems to be a strong connection between the incarnation and the atonement, and it raises the question of how Christ can be a proper representative of the human race. McGrew argues that He had to be made like us, not only in His appearance, but also in His nature. If we are born with a sinful nature, as total depravity says we are, then for Christ to be like us in every way would mean that He would be born with a sinful nature. Yet Christ was without sin, therefore He wasn’t born with a sinful nature. Since He was like us, then we likewise were not born with a sinful nature. 

Slick’s counter to this is that Christ was not like us in His nature because He didn’t have a human father, and that McGrew is a Pelagian. There was much back-and-forth about the definition of a Pelagian, and whether McGrew met Slick’s previously stated definition, but none of that is particularly important. At this moment in time, Slick has effectively defined Pelagianism as the denial of original sin, which is understood as the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to each human from the moment of conception. So if you believe that babies in the womb are innocent until they personally choose to sin, then you are also a Pelagian, which makes you a heretic! I would be too. The actual definition is hard to agree upon, since we only know what Pelagius taught through Augustine and other second-hand sources. Did he teach that men were capable of living sinless lives? Did he believe man makes the first move to God to be saved? Or did he simply believe that human beings were not born guilty of sin? 

Now, while I believe McGrew is on the right track in his argument, I do believe where he goes with it opens him up to these accusations of Pelagianism. By arguing that Christ did not have a sinful nature, therefore we are not born with a sinful nature, he is making a claim about humanity that runs counter to the position of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (both rooted in Augustine’s teachings on the subject) throughout history up to the present. This might be consistent with Eastern Orthodoxy, which has never affirmed original sin. Since I was unsure of McGrew’s exact position, I went to his YouTube series on the topic. I found this quote of his in the comments under the video on “Hypostatic Union,” which brings clarity to his view of the sin nature:

“I don’t believe human nature is sinful. It merely possesses God given drives, appetites and ambitions which can be used to sin or in obedience. The term Original Sin is an Augustinian doctrine asserting our flesh, will, mind and soul are stained by sin, and possessed of concupiscence, therein deserving hell upon coming into existence. The term sinful nature can be used to refer to the effects of Original Sin, or a nature developed through personal sinning.” 

If I understand McGrew correctly, he believes a sin nature is something we develop through our own individual practice of sin once we are mature enough to consciously know what we are doing. In this way, he affirms that all adult humans throughout history (the mentally disabled possibly excepted) have had a sin nature. While Jesus was born like us without a sin nature, He never developed one because He never sinned. All humans suffer pain and die, including children, because of the curse. Jesus also suffered and died because of the curse. 

What I don’t see in his position is anything that makes us more prone to sin than Adam and Eve were before the Fall. Yet we all sin eventually, right? Were Adam and Eve replaceable with any of us? Would we all choose to sin without a prior inclination to do so? Maybe, but I am not sure that our own lived experience, or the full revelation of Scripture, fit this scenario. (I believe there is a better solution, and I will provide that in my next post: “Making Sense of the Fall.” Stay tuned!)

All of this is a stark contrast to Slick’s position of total depravity from conception, which led to his assessment of McGrew’s opening statement as a “heresy-fest.” But even assuming they are “Pelagian,” how does Slick justify calling them heretical? He must appeal to the extra-biblical declarations of men in centuries past in various councils. There is no biblical passage that outlines the “heresy” of Pelagianism. So appealing to the opinions of fallible men is to cut the legs out from his affirmation of Sola Scriptura. If I were McGrew, I would let Slick call him a Pelagian and demand that he justify the claims that Pelagianism (as he has defined it) is heresy without appealing to post-biblical church history. If those councils were not equally inspired as Scripture, then they cannot be held up as infallible. If we assume that they got everything right, then we are guilty of the heresy of raising their opinions to the level of Scripture, according to Slick’s logic.

Closing Thoughts:

One lesson I’ve learned in recent years through much debate in social media is that every Christian is a heretic in the eyes of another. Whether it be the Protestant vs Catholic divide, Calvinism vs Arminianism or Provisionism, or any other hot-button issue within the broader umbrella of Christianity, there are many who consider those on the other side to be heretics destined for hell if they don’t repent of their ideological sins. The divisions in the Church are an opportunity for us to display the grace and kindness of our Savior, but we often choose to drive a wedge between us so as to elevate ourselves above others. 

What viewers of this debate are most likely to come away with, more than a contrast of ideas, is a contrast of demeanors. Slick was uncharitable, impatient, and unwilling to show grace to a brother who disagrees. McGrew on the other hand, while at times clearly frustrated, was eager to embrace Slick as a brother, even thanking him for how his ministry has helped him in the past. His demonstration of grace was striking in the face of its absence. How we treat each other matters greatly, and its impact is felt outside the walls of the church. We never know who is looking in, and we also do not know who is on the inside looking out. My hope is that this debate will lead us to consider how we reflect Christ in our differences, that we might not be a clanging cymbal, but speak truth in love.

Top 10 Resources for Making Sense of the Christian Worldview

 

Having previously discussed the reasons why people leave the Church, as well as sharing my own philosophy on how to raise my own children to avoid those pitfalls, I now would like to share some specific resources that have been helpful to me in developing a Christian worldview that is able to withstand the attacks raised against it. Training up our children in a world that is hostile to Christianity is a heavy task, and we may not have all the answers to the various questions we receive. However, we need not lay such a heavy burden on ourselves. We have a wealth of resources we can lean into for help when those hard questions come. Sometimes our role will not to be the one with the answers, but to be the one who knows where to find them. The following are 10 of the most helpful extra-biblical resources I have found for building and defending a comprehensive Christian worldview. (click on each title to visit)

 

Media

Reasonable Faith (website, YouTube, podcast, etc.)

Anyone interested in building an intellectual defense of the Christian faith needs to be familiar with William Lane Craig and his ministry, Reasonable Faith. Craig is the world’s greatest living Christian apologist and philosopher. He is well known for his version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God’s existence, and is widely recognized as the most formidable Christian debater. For those unfamiliar with his work, I recommend starting with his debate against the late Christopher Hitchens, who was one of the leading voices in the new atheist movement before passing away in 2011. Craig is incredibly prolific, as he has written numerous books, publishes a weekly podcast, and teaches a Sunday school class that covers the finer points of Christian theology. This “Defenders” class is also made available to the public through podcast and YouTube. Of all that Craig has done, it is perhaps my favorite resource. There aren’t many Sunday school classes out there that delve into such topics as God’s necessary existence, His relationship to time, or how we can make sense of the Trinity, but Craig tackles all of these and much more in great detail. As for those issues that are non-essential for the Christian, he presents all sides clearly and does his best to explain why he takes one view over the others. I don’t always agree with him, but I appreciate how he models this approach. 

Whaddo You Meme?? (YouTube)

For some, Craig’s approach may be too intellectual and thorough, especially for those first stepping into the world of Christian apologetics. Jon McCray’s “Whaddo You Meme” is a great resource for those looking for something more accessible and entertaining. This isn’t to say that it is watered down. Quite the contrary! McCray produces short and direct videos responding to cultural events and influential voices, while presenting how Christianity offers a better alternative. Sometimes he employs humor through parody or satire, but oftentimes he responds directly with heavy doses of biblical truth. Originally developed in response to popular memes (hence the name), McCray will take on any voice that speaks against the truth of Christianity, and he does so with style. This is a great resource for parents and teens alike. You guys ready? “Then let’s goooooooo.....!”

Trinity Radio (YouTube/podcast)

It’s hard to pick a favorite here, but I probably spend more time on Trinity Radio than anywhere else on this list. TR is a YouTube channel (also available on podcast) created by Braxton Hunter, President of Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. This channel is primarily focused on rebuttals of videos put out by popular internet atheists, or debates featuring other key voices in atheism/agnosticism. Braxton walks through each video step-by-step, explaining where each argument against the Christian God fails. He is remarkably clear in his critiques, and many unbelievers have commented on how fair and gracious he is in his disagreements. His videos are really a wonderful model of how to speak truth in love. Sometimes though, words need to be spoken a little more bluntly. For this, Braxton often invites his seminary partner, Johnathan Pritchett, to balance his gentleness with a good dose of snarkiness. The “good cop, bad cop” interaction between the two is one of the highlights of the show. I highly recommend this channel for anyone who wants to learn how to counter all the popular arguments against Christianity, and how to reflect Christ in the process.

Unbelievable? (YouTube/podcast)

For those turned off by the recent presidential debates, I offer as a stark contrast the long-running UK radio program-turned-podcast and YouTube channel, “Unbelievable?” with Justin Brierley. Every Friday, Brierley brings together the best of both sides of any argument relating to the Christian worldview. More often than not, the show will feature a Christian and a non-believer, but sometimes they are “in-house” theological discussions. What sets Unbelievable? apart is the level of civility in these debates. It is very rare for one of the debaters to be disrespectful or talk over the other side. Much of this is do to the level of control Brierley maintains, combined with the high quality of the guests he invites to participate. One of the best ways to learn what other people believe is to sit down and listen, and this is a great model for doing just that. For those of us who are listening, we are likewise learning how to hear the other side and how to respond to their questions and arguments. I’ve heard Braxton Hunter say that he recommends listening to debates as the best way to quickly learn apologetics. There is no better source for such debates than “Unbelievable?”

Eric Hernandez (YouTube)

Eric Hernandez is a young apologist who is gaining a lot of attention through his YouTube channel and his online debates in defense of the Christian worldview. His ministry has spent a great deal of attention on making a case for the existence of the soul, and showing how the body alone cannot make sense of things like consciousness and free will. His arguments are devastating for the naturalistic worldview that is so strongly pushed on students in secular environments today. I happen to think that making the evidence for the soul is one of the best lines of argument for the Christian worldview, and one that is often neglected among apologists. Eric’s channel features a mixture of his debates with atheists and some entertaining post-debate rebuttals to those same atheists (this one is especially hilarious!), along with interviews and lectures he’s given on serious issues like abortion.

Truth Unites (YouTube/podcast)

Gavin Ortlund is known for his gracious demeanor and thoughtful approach to theological issues, especially those that divide Protestants from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. As a defender of the truth of Christianity across denominations, Ortlund helps us to understand various issues from different perspectives, always encouraging us to investigate these things for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. He defends the basic principles of Protestantism while rejecting sectarianism. While I don’t always agree with his conclusions, he models how to disagree well. This is how Christians can be light in a dark world!

Books

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

There’s a running joke about how Christians always quote Chesterton, but they’ve never read any of his books. This is a shame! The best way to fix this injustice is to start by reading “Orthodoxy.” While the title might suggest a boring read, those fears are quickly put to rest in the opening lines of the introduction. Perhaps a more accurate title of this oft-overlooked classic would be found in in these words from the introduction; “The man who… discovered what had been discovered before.” Here, GKC chronicles how as an unbeliever he tried to develop a revolutionary worldview through his observations, but found that Christianity had been saying the same things from its beginning. In the quest to make sense of the world, Christianity is the key that fits all the locks. “Orthodoxy” is not a typical apologetics book of specific evidences surrounding the resurrection and other biblical events, and it doesn’t lay out the classic philosophical arguments for God’s existence. What it does is simply present a case that Christianity makes sense of the world while all other worldviews fail. And it does so with all the humor and brilliance you can expect from one of the most quoted Christian thinkers of all time.

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi

The person of Jesus Christ is the central issue of Christianity, and Nabeel Qureshi’s story is a prime example of what a difference our beliefs about who He is can make. Raised in a minority sect of Islam, Qureshi was skilled at poking holes in the faith of the Christians he encountered in high school and college. He was sure they had no intellectual legs to stand on until he ran into David Wood, a fellow student who knew what he believed, how to defend it, and how to shake Nabeel’s confidence in his own beliefs. “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus” chronicles his journey to discovering the truth about Jesus Christ, and how that pursuit of truth is worth more than anything this world has to offer. Following Jesus can cost you everything, and Nabeel’s life was a testimony to this fact. While this book tells the story of how he sacrificed the comforts of his family and Islamic upbringing, his life would take an unexpected turn in the years after its publishing. In 2016, he would be diagnosed with stage 4 stomach cancer, and a year later would die at the age of 34. Throughout his battle, he broadcast his thoughts on a video log uploaded to YouTube. In one of his final videos, he shared how in the midst of all his struggles to understand why God hadn’t healed him, he still could not turn his back on Jesus knowing what he now knew about Him. He had discovered the truth, which brings to mind what it says in John 6:66-69: “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.””

The Case For Miracles by Lee Strobel

Many of us, like Nabeel Qureshi, have prayed for healing that has never come. We can become discouraged and either lose faith or begin to adopt a more naturalistic approach to it. We may find ourselves praying that God would simply use the skilled hands of doctors or that He would bring about some kind of gradual improvement of our condition that, if we were to be honest, would not show any sign of God’s intervention if we were able to put it under a microscope. Such was my approach to prayer for most of my life, but that began to change with Lee Strobel’s recent book on miracles, as he shows that such events as what you might find in the Gospels or the book of Acts are still happening around the world today. Looking at the subject from a journalist’s perspective, Lee interviews individuals on various sides of the issue, and highlights a number of modern cases of miracles. This book brought me to tears of joy on numerous occasions as I began to see that the God of the Bible is still the same God we worship today. Strobel’s book serves as a fatal blow to the philosophy of naturalism. One can reasonably continue to dismiss televangelist “faith healers” as charlatans while also being open to the supernatural work of God in the world we live in. There are legitimate miracles today, and being aware of them can be an encouragement to our faith, regardless of whether we are the recipients. Strobel is best known for his first book, “The Case For Christ.” While I have a copy, I must confess that I haven’t yet read it (though I have seen the excellent movie adaptation). That being said, I am confident that I can recommend any of his work, especially for those new to apologetics.

Counterpoints (Series) by Zondervan Publishing

This is an on-going project of mine, as there are numerous volumes in this series, and I have only read a handful of them. While much remains for me to explore, I have found these written back-and-forths from various scholars on a wide range of secondary issues of the faith to be incredibly helpful in building a flexible and informed Christian worldview. Each book features a representative theologian for each prominent position on the topic at hand. After each presents his own view, the others provide their rebuttals. In this way, each position is presented as it is best explained by its supporters, and each is put to the test by its critics. I’m currently reading “Three Views On the Millennium and Beyond,” which is a subject that I know that I’m needing to be educated in. The main lesson that I’ve taken from these is that there is a wide range of acceptable disagreement among Christians. Many things that we might assume are undisputed among Bible-believers are actually hotly debated, and those who disagree can build strong cases from the same Bible we use to support our own views. We cannot always assume “the Bible clearly says” when there are many today and throughout Christian history who have interpreted things differently. We must approach Scripture with an understanding that it is the authority, not our own interpretations. Once we do so, we can be open to being moved to a new and better understanding of what it has to say. Coupling this series with the work of Alisa Childers can help us to discern between what is acceptable Christian doctrine and what is not. Striking a balance isn’t always easy, but it is worth the effort. Having a properly balanced approach to Scripture is especially useful for teaching our children how to study the Bible. Giving them the freedom to decide what makes sense within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity will help them to develop a faith that endures.

These 10 resources are just scratching the surface of what is out there, but they will be a great start for anyone looking to dive into the thoughtful side of Christianity. As I said on a previous post, anyone who really seeks the truth will find that Christianity holds up to the test. Their faith will be made stronger for having asked the difficult questions and for seeking the answers. I hope you find these helpful, and that they may encourage your faith, and the faith of others through you.