Here are a series of stupid atheist assumptions I’ve heard as to how morality can be accounted for, along with my rebuttals: (There are more to come)

1. “Majorities determine what is right and wrong.”

Rebuttal:

a. This assumes that majority opinion, or popular consensus, determines morality, yet just begs the question because we then need to know by what standard majorities get to determine anything. And then we need to show that that standard is correct. Once we know that standard is correct, then we can say that majorities determine morality and thus be sure that all moral claims made by majorities are correct every time.

b. If it were the case that majorities determine morality, however, then what is considered morally right is subject to change, thus nothing can really be considered moral or immoral at all times. Either the majority could change it’s mind, or the minority could one day kill all the majority and become the majority. Not doing “A” could be morally right on Monday, but doing “A” could then become morally right by Friday.

c. The majority could someday decide that majorities do not determine morality. But again, this would take us back to (a). This assumes there is a standard, apart from the majority, which determines that majorities get to determine anything.

d. When we examine this claim under the microscope, we see that majorities are only good at telling us the majority opinion, nothing else. Popular consensus only accounts for a status quo, not a standard we ought to follow. They can’t determine what ought to be correct behavior, thinking, and intention any more then drawing moral opinions out of a hat can.

2. “Morality is determined by that which helps us survive as a species.”

Rebuttal:

a. Again, this is begging the question because what is the bases by which we determine that surviving is moral?

b. All species die, therefore, according to this logic, it is also morally right to die. In fact, even moreso because we are dead way longer then we are alive. In this sense, it is more natural for species to die, then stay alive.

c. According to this logic, we are allowed to murder others so long as our rate of murder does not exceed the optimal rate for survival (whatever that is).

d. According to this logic, we can do all kinds of things which Scripture says is immoral, i.e. adultery, homosexuality, lying, pride, idolatry, stealing, pedophilia, and even beating others up so long as our species is still surviving.

3. “All is permissible (there are no absolute morals), yet there are still consequences to your actions which society as a whole has determined.”

Rebuttal:

a. According to this logic, one may murder, but just needs to do so in secret in order to get away with it and avoid the consequences.

b. Some one may not care about the consequences and be provoked to murder because they need a place to live and figure that prison could be their real estate of choice.

c. This logic does not say something is immoral, but simply just states there are consequences to our actions, nothing more. Just like there are consequences to walking on ice, but that doesn’t mean walking on ice is immoral.

4. “We know what is immoral by that which causes unnecessary harm.”

Rebuttal:

a. This begs the question because it assumes that there is a correct standard which determines what kinds of actions are unnecessary. How do we know what types of harm are absolutely unnecessary in all cases? People disagree on what types of harm are necessary and unnecessary, thus there needs to be a bases to say that someone is more right.

Conclusion: “Atheism is a morally bankrupt worldview where all is permissable in the end, therefore, all atheists are acting like hypocrites when acting like injustice (a violation of morality) and justice (penalizing the violation) are realities.”

Here’s a question for you to ponder on your way to the grocery store today: “Is the Trinity more correctly 3 who’s and 1 what, or 3 who’s and 1 who?” In other words, the orthodox position of the Trinity is that God exists as 3 persons together making up one being.

The question I am raising is, what do we mean by “being” when we refer to the oneness of God? Is this being personal or impersonal? Is it a “what” or a “who”? If we can’t know for certain, then which should we at least lean towards?

What is Modalism? Modalism says that God is one person while that one person acts in different “modes” or functions. Namely, God functions as a father, a son, and a spirit. It’s like God is a dad, a son, and a grandson all at the same time. It makes God more like us. We are one person but have different roles we take on as one person.

However, the orthodox position is that God is not merely 1 person acting 3 different ways, but is 1 being who eternally consists of 3 persons, while all three persons are equally God and together make up God. This is a paradox, nevertheless is the Biblical conclusion of God’s being which He has revealed to us through His special revelation of inspired Scripture.

Then, there is what I call the “reverse of Modalism”. This is simply what we get when we take Modalism, but instead say there are 3 persons who make up 1 “mode”. In other words, the oneness of God is impersonal. It is more like a function, an idea, or a thing. Kind of like a “team” or a “unified purpose”.

I personally believe it is better to define the Trinity as saying that God is 3 persons while simultaneously 1 person. Why do I believe God in His oneness is personal, or a person? For me there’s one major reason. It’s because there’s no Scriptural evidence that Yahweh, the one true God revealed in His oneness, is impersonal. Yahweh is not a “what”, a “thing”, or an “idea”.

I did not make this up on my own. Other Christians have explained this possibility to me and after hearing it I seemed to be more satisfied with these conclusions. I have asked many fellow believers what their take on these ideas are. Some who have heard of this before already agreed with me. Some who have never heard of it before got excited and agreed with me. Some who have never heard of it pondered it. Some who have never heard of it rejected it. And some who have heard of it before disagreed with me, called me names and said I was espousing heresy, was on a mission to make others fall into heresy, and was being unorthodox!

I did email a question about this topic to Gene Cook Jr. who hosts The Narrow Mind. You can go to the website and listen to him read and answer my question on show #958, at 7:30 min into the show. Cook actually agreed with me on this position! I am not one who is going out on the deep end of my theology or trying to be confrontational, but am earnestly seeking out these matter by asking others who might have some good insight. It is sad that I have experienced some believers accuse me of having ill motives over this matter against the backdrop of other believers who welcomed me with courtesy and Biblical reasoning.

I have no agenda to try and make anyone believe what I believe when it comes to this particular matter! It is a secondary matter and does not determine one’s salvation! A matter such as this should NEVER cause fellow believers in Christ to snap at each other.

But I also have no problem defending my belief! If you’re one who takes a liking to apologetics, let me ask you, are you familiar with that feeling you get when you hear non-Christian’s arguments against Christianity and they turn out to be so bad that it only reinforces your beliefs all the more?! Well that happens to be the way I feel when it comes to this issue of the Trinity! All of the arguments I’ve heard which say that God in His oneness is not personal have been so poor that I’m feel I am only left to believe that He is personal all the more.

Now for the rest of this thread I would like to take an opportunity to layout all of the objections I’ve heard so far. I hope you will consider these arguments as well and decide for yourself what you believe to be a Biblical conclusion on this matter.

Argument 1: “Saying that God is 3 persons and 1 person is contradictory.”

Rebuttal: No, saying God is only 3 persons and only 1 person is contradictory. But if we say that God is 3 persons while simultaneously 1 person then that is a paradox, which the doctrine of the Trinity is anyways! But saying God is 3 persons while also 1 person is not contradictory but demonstrates that God is in a category of being beyond our understanding, which the doctrine of the Trinity still is anyways.

“Yet, we reply, how could God be both one person and three persons? Isn’t that a blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction? In seeking an answer, we must acknowledge that Van Til considered this an apparent contradiction and not a real one (see Common Grace and the Gospel, p. 9). A contradiction is said to occur when something is asserted to be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense.”

Steve Anderson

http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html#AIV2 (under section 2. Van Til rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity)

Argument 2: “If you say there are 3 persons in the Godhead, and that God is also a person, then you’re saying there are a total of 4 persons! That is completely against the orthodox position.”

Rebuttal: The answer to this is yes and no. Yes in the sense that we can count a total of 4 persons, namely, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the God whom they make up together. No in the sense that there are not 4 persons together making up God, or making up the Godhead. Further, since all 3 persons exhaust one another, and each are fully the one true God, then we don’t distinguish each individual person, the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, from God (God in His oneness). We distinguish the 3 persons making up the 1 God, but we don’t distinguish the 3 persons from the 1 God. See the difference? In other words, if we’re going to count a 4th person, then we’re only re-counting the 3 persons we’ve already counted, who together would make up God.

So what then is the “4th” person? Can you see it? It is in this case shorthand for “the one true God”! Each 1 person is the true God and all 3 persons together makeup the one true God. But do we say “that means there’s 4 true Gods?” No.

When we are referring to God in His oneness, are we referring to 1 person being the one true God or to all 3 persons together being the one true God? The answer is yes. The answer is both are equally correct because when we’re referring to just 1 person (say the Holy Spirit) as being the one true God, we are at the same time referring to all 3 persons since they all exhaust (overlap if you will) one another. Therefore, we don’t just say that the Father is the one true God, the Son is the one true God, and that the Spirit is the one true God, but also that all 3 together are the one true God.

Referring to 1 is just as good as referring to all 3. None are lacking what the others have. Each individual person is fully God, and all 3 together are fully God. And each individual person is fully God, because all 3 together are fully God. Saying 1 person is fully God and that all 3 are fully God are really interchangeable terms when it comes to God’s triune nature, because both are equally true.  We don’t conclude that this is contradictory, however. We say it is a paradox, or is only seemingly contradictory. Notice then how no orthodox Christian says “so you’re saying there are 4 true Gods?” But why? We’d have every reason to say there are 4 true Gods if we’re going to argue that there might be 4 persons. I believe each individual person is a person, and that all three together are a person. Just like how each person is fully God and the 3 together are fully God.

Argument 3: “This is an un-orthodox position. The creeds and confessions only state that God in His oneness is a “being” not a “person”.”

Rebuttal: I fully agree with the creeds and confessions. I just believe more then what they tell me, hence that the “being” of God is a person. You’ll find, however, that the creeds and confessions don’t define (let alone define exhaustively) what a “being” even is. Is a “being” a person, a non-person, or semi-personal? This is why I derive my conclusions of the Trinity from Scripture, not creeds and confessions as they are not inspired texts, while Scripture is. The creeds and confessions try their best to derive their conclusions from Scripture, but that doesn’t mean they tell all there is to know.

Let’s look at some important and commonly referred to creeds and confessions and see what they tell us.

The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):

“The Lord our God is the one and only living and true God; Whose subsistence is in and of Himself”

Now, is there such thing as an impersonal Lord? I have never heard of one. It’s funny to me how those who reject this view of the Trinity never allow themselves to say that “God is impersonal” or that “yes there is such thing as an impersonal Lord”, because it is so ridiculous to fathom. Yet, they still reject saying that God in His oneness is personal. So either God in His oneness is 1. personal, 2. impersonal, or 3. something else (whatever that means!). So which is it?!

The Athanasian Creed:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

The Athanasian creed also says there is “but one Lord”. So I ask again, “have you ever heard of an impersonal Lord, or are you going to now start believing in one?” Lines 16 and 18 reaffirm what I stated in ‘rebuttal 2′. The 3 persons together make up 1 God. “They” plural, are numerically 1 God and Lord. Have you heard of an impersonal God or Lord? And again, if each person is fully the one true God, and all 3 together are the one true God, then there aren’t 4 true Gods.

Moreover, apologists who defend the personality of the Holy Spirit (usually against Unitarians and JW’s) point to texts in Scripture which demonstrate that the Spirit speaks, wills, is referred to with personal pronouns (rather than neuter pronouns at times), is grieved, knows things, etc. Yet, doesn’t God as revealed in His oneness do all these things too? I would say He does. Therefore, for the very same reasons that the Spirit is said to be a person, I would argue that God in His oneness is also a person.

Sometimes God speaks as a single individual (while first person singular pronouns are used, i.e “I”) and sometimes He speaks in unity (first person plural pronouns are used, i.e. “we”, “us”). When Yahweh speaks as one person (“I [Yahweh] will…”), and the context does not reveal to us which person of the Trinity is speaking, does that mean one of the 3 persons is actually speaking or that all 3 together making 1 person is speaking? Likewise, when Yahweh seems to speak as all 3 persons (“We will…”, or “let us…”), does that mean all 3 persons are speaking together or that all 3 together making 1 person is speaking? Or does it not matter how we answer this and could we conclude that all are correct answers, given God’s triune nature? I believe we could.

Argument 4: “God in His oneness is personal but only in the sense that God is tri-personal. God in His oneness can be said to be personal only to the degree that God’s being consists of 3 eternal persons and therefore is the essence of what it is to be personal.”

Rebuttal: This is basically saying that God in His oneness is “indirectly personal”, simply because the oneness consists of 3 persons, while all along God in His oneness is still not considered to be “a person”. In other words, God in His oneness is wrought with the personal, but this does not make His oneness a person.

Perhaps for the sake of clarity we could say that for God to be “uni-personal” is to emphasize that His oneness makes Him personal. On the other hand, we might say that to be “tri-personal” is to emphasize that His three-ness makes Him personal. So which is it? Which mostly accounts for God’s person-hood? Is it His unity or His diversity? I would say both.

I once argued with a person that God in His oneness is personal. They said “yes tri-personal, not uni-personal”. I said, “but God in His oneness is not impersonal, but is personal.” They said, “yes, God is “tri-personal”. I repeated my point again, then they said, “we’re beginning to repeat ourselves now aren’t we?” In actuality, we were both repeating ourselves. Now that I look back on it, I see why we were talking past each other. I was trying to say that God is both “tri-personal and uni-personal” and they were trying to say that God is only “tri-personal”. They were saying that God’s three-ness means His oneness is wrought with the personal, thus, in a way can be said to be personal. I was saying that unless God in His oneness is a person, He is impersonal, and there is no middle ground.

Here is what someone else has written in regard to this: “The suggestion that the tri-personality of the Trinity is sufficient to furnish this personal unity misses the obvious point: tri-personality involves a plurality of personhood, not a singularity of personhood. A triad qua triad is not a unity.”

(http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/van-tils-serious-trinitarian-theology.html)

I believe a “person” is best defined as being able to possess the attributes of person-hood via relationship, and is able to be a single person as well.

It becomes a semantics game when we use the word  “personal” because we can imply different meanings with it. I equate the term “personal” to an actual person. I choose not to equate the term “personal” (when referring to the nature of the Trinity), as being semi-personal, or merely being wrought with the personal. Thus, when I say “personal” I actually mean “a person”. If we want to say that God in His oneness is only “personal” merely because He consists of persons who eternally relate to one another, then why can’t the Unitarian or Jehovah’s Witness use these same word games and agree with us that the Holy Spirit is a person? They could just say, “I believe the Holy Spirit is personal because it is power which comes from and is connected to a person”. But how personal is the Holy Spirit in that case when we examine this view closer? Not very. It is still a mindless force.

I do agree that God in His oneness consists of 3 persons, thus is wrought with personal attributes, but I do not say that this is ONLY as far as we can go in saying that God is personal. I also believe more then this. I believe we can say that God in His oneness is a person.

We could just cut to the chase and define a person as something which has a mind. So does God have 1 mind or 3 minds? I would argue both! If we say only 3 minds, then we get the reverse of Modalism and the idea of having a single mind is only in the sense that God is acting like a business committee working together for a common goal. Vice-versa, If we say only one mind then we get Modalism because the 3 persons of God get reduced to being different masks or functions of God, not 3 persons with distinct wills.

Argument 5: “Van Til did not believe that God in His oneness is a person, and if He did he only thought so in the sense that God is wrought with personality.”

Rebuttal

1. It’s one thing to interpret Van Til on this matter, and it’s another to formulate one’s conclusion based on Scripture. Maybe Van Til believed “A”. Maybe he believed “B”. Maybe “A” is correct, or maybe “B” is correct. Maybe both are incorrect. Either way, we need to look at Scripture.

2. It is very easy to believe that Van Til did in fact believe that God in His oneness is a person.

“We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person. [...] Even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective ‘personality’ may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality.”

Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 229

Gordon Clark and John Frame condemned the idea of God in His oneness being a person, and took issue with Van Til’s frank statements on this. But Clark’s view itself leans more towards Modalism, and Clark believed weird things like the laws of logic are separate from God. Of course this is an ad-hominum, but it’s a good one for theological purposes. I’m not going to take my ques from Clark on this matter! And no matter how you look at it, neither of these men are the standard of the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, Scripture is.

Not only can we easily deduce that Van Til held this belief form researching his position, but also from looking at his fundamental philosophy which we’ll get into on point 4.

3. It is argued that Van Til, even if believing that God in His oneness is a person, is not being un-orthodox.

“There is no doubt that this is a provocative, confusing, and potentially misleading teaching, and a full discussion of the issue is far beyond the scope and purpose of this article. My aim here will simply be to indicate the motivation behind Van Til’s statements and to argue that he is guilty of neither irrationalism nor unorthodoxy.

Van Til did not reject the orthodox formulation at all. In fact, the passage quoted above immediately follows a discussion of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in which he endorses the statements of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession. He also outlines and criticizes the historic anti-trinitarian heresies, including Sabellianism (Modalism). His complaint with the traditional statements was not that they were in error, but that issues which have arisen in the intervening centuries and which demand a further defence of orthodox doctrine could not be adequately addressed without intensifying those statements. Van Til’s concern was that we should avoid any implication that the unity of the Godhead is an impersonal unity, that the Being who is the ground of all being is ultimately impersonal in nature. One of the implications of denying this, Van Til argued, would be that since interpretation is a personal act (existing in the mind of a person) there could be no ultimately unified interpretation of reality. The universe would be fundamentally unintelligible.

This, then, was Van Til’s basic motivation for stating that God must be one person as well as three persons (as per the Nicene definition). In addition to the conceptual argument, he claimed biblical support through verses which express God’s personal unity (e.g., Deut. 6:4-5, a supremely personal text).”

Steve Anderson, http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html#AIV2 (under section 2. Van Til rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity)

4. One of Van Til’s most clung to beliefs was that both God’s unity and diversity are equally fundamental. This was his bases for accounting for the one and the many, and the laws of logic. This article, written by Colin D. Smith, was offered to me to read in order to clarify that Van Til can be interpreted as being “orthodox” only in the sense that ‘argument 4′ states. (At least I think that’s why it was offered to me.) It is a great article which philosophically explains how God is “absolute personality” by virtue of being the ultimate and eternal bases of relationship.

Like I’ve said above, I believe that God does account for the personal, because like Smith points out He is ultimately personal, but I also believe more then this. Let’s consider that which is perhaps Van Til’s most quintessential philosophical conclusion, namely, that God is both ultimate unity and diversity. Even Smith takes this into account when it comes to interpreting Van Til. You can’t really get around this idea when it comes to reading Van Til!

On page 23 of the article, Van Til is quoted as saying “In God, “unity… is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity… is no more fundamental than unity.”

Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 25.

A human analogy of this would be like comparing God to an actor. The actor is a single person (unity) taking on multiple roles (diversity). This illustration is like Modalism. The individual is one person, but the roles the actor plays are merely just different functions. The roles are different ways of acting or doing things, but not persons.

Then consider the flip side. For example, in a baseball team you have many persons (diversity) making up a non-personal team (unity). This illustration is like the reverse of Modalism. The individual players who make up the team are personal, but the team itself is not a person. A team is a “thing” or an “idea”.

Now let me ask you in light of Van Til’s claim that God’s “oneness” and “many-ness” are equally fundamental, which is more fundamental in accounting for acting roles? Is it the personal actor or the roles themselves? The actor is more fundamental to having roles, because the actor is personal. Roles just don’t come about by themselves. You need a person to first portray the different roles in order for them to come about.

Again, look at the flip side. What is more fundamental to making up a team? Is it the personal players, or the idea of “team” itself? It’s the personal players because if you take them away, then you don’t have a team. But once they’re there, then you have a team. The players are more fundamental because you need them first in order to have a team.

Likewise, if God’s unity is more fundamental then His diversity, you end up with abstract diversity, or Modalism. If God’s  diversity is more fundamental then His unity, you end up with abstract unity, or the reverse of Modalism.  Thus, God must be 3 persons while simultaneously 1 person (philosophically speaking that is). Neither can be more fundamental then the other, otherwise you’d end up with either Modalism or the reverse of Modalism.

An attempt for a natural illustration of the Trinity

Lastly, I would like to throw out what I believe to be the most helpful natural illustration (while it still has its limitations) of what we can most closely compare the Trinity to. This wold be the picture I have at the top of this thread which shows the primary colors. The primary colors are blue, red, and green, and together make up the single color white (if we can allow white to be a color). Notice the color white consists of all three colors, and all three colors exhaust one another entirely to make up white. No one color is more of a color then the others. All the colors are distinguishable, yet inseparable in terms of comprising the color white.

Most Mormons that come to my door, that I see on tv, or that I hear on the radio seem to always assure everyone that they’re “good people”. They’re quick to say this without hesitation as though they’re the finest top-notch specimens of human beings. They put the wonder back into the phrase “wonderful people”. The context in which they say they’re “good” is that they keep their sin level to a minimum. It’s NOT because Christ made them good and is making them good.

It’s not because He lived the life they couldn’t, died the death they deserved (for not living the life they should have), and rose from the dead to prove it all satisfactory. Instead, it’s that they are good on their own and are making themselves good on their own.

They’re good people because they have a big list of things they do, and a big list of things they don’t do. Scripture would show us that these are the WORST kinds of people. Scripture would have us own up to being evil, confess it with a smile, and do so only because of the acknowledgment that Christ is a sinner’s Savior. The gospel is only for those who first realize the complete hopelessness of their sin.

First I would just like to point out that the Apostle Paul said this: “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” 1 Tim 1:15

Thus, most Mormons are more holy then the Apostle Paul.

Rom 3:20 says, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (and the entire law is summed up in loving God and others, Deut 6, Mat 22. Thus, any sin in thought, word, deed, intention, etc strips us of our righteousness.)

1 John 1:8, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

Luke 18:9-14 “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ (Note: the Pharisee, or super religious person, fasts twice a week which isn’t even commanded in Scripture! Kind of like how Mormons don’t drink coffee.)

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Sure, Mr. and Ms. Mormon, you’re not a murderer or an adulterer. Well, actually you are in your heart according to Jesus in Mat 5. OK, but you’re not as bad as others, right? Well, in one sense you are because a single sin is enough to separate anyone from God for eternity, just like it did with Satan and Adam, the first two recorded for sinning.

Here is why. God is holy, holy, holy, thus if we break God’s law by thought, word, deed, motive, or omission, then we are found to be sinful, sinful, sinful! This is true. If you’re a Mormon reading this, then let the KJV (which is part of the Quad) of James 2:10 and Gal 3:10 ring in your ears.

James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

Galatians 3:10 “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

On top of all this, if this wasn’t enough, Scripture will again put a bullet in your righteousness. If you claim to be a good person and say that God ultimately accepts you because of your awesome self, then you’re actually making God the most mad. Congratulations!

Proverbs 6:16-17 says, “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes,
a lying tongue”

If one does not admit to themselves that they are sinful, then they are guilty of the sin of pride. It’s a big one. It got Satan kicked out of Heaven. Further, one would be lying to themselves if they said they were good. It takes humility to realize one’s sinfulness. This is a pathetic weakness in the world’s eyes, but is enormous strength in God’s eyes. His grace gives us the strength to have humility and admit that we are evil, thus greatly in need of Jesus Christ.

So Mormon, my question to you over this impersonal blog is: “Why do you call yourself good by minimizing your sin? Why do you act like you’re more holy then you are and pretend that God is less holy then He is when it comes to the atrocity of your eternal God-separating sin? And saddest of all, why do you look to yourself to be good, not Christ?”

If you’re a Mormon, reply to me on here. I would love to talk with you!

Welcome to my worst-news/best-news blog!

		R.C. Sproul gospel excerpt (3:48 ) Mark Driscoll on “religion” (17:23) Testimony of Johnny Cash (6:49) Andy Hunter Outro (3:25)

What does Galatians 3:6-14 tell us about the real gospel? Answer: What it really is! (click here for more)

Read about the missing gospel here.

Listen to the missing gospel here.

Good luck finding a church today that loves truth and loves the real gospel. The church is plagued with anti-nomianism and legalism…

First, anti-nomianism is a fancy word meaning we either abuse grace by carelessly sinning, or over-emphasize grace by likening God to Barney. Many Christians today act like heretics because they gloss over the doctrine of repentance, which should prevent us from glossing over sins such as divorce, homosexuality, pride, etc. Rather we should be marveled at God’s great beauty in covenant marriage, opposite sex lovers, meekness, etc. Further, there are many churches which over-emphasize grace, such as Joel Olsteen’s and Rick Warren’s. They offer ego-stroking, therapeutic, negative 5% offensive sermons. Mantras like “smile… Jesus loves you” and “God loves the sinner but hates the sin” stem from these types of Disney Channel style Christians who seek to please people more then God. Gandhi said “God loves the sinner but hates the sin”, not Jesus.

On the flip side, the church is plagued with legalism. Legalism is another fancy word referring to those who equate their man-approved traditions with Scripture, or think they are better than you because they minimize their dirty laundry and maximize yours…

Legalism, in the form of man-centered tradition says “don’t get a tattoo”, “don’t drink alcohol (ever)”, or “don’t have a worship style different than ours”, etc. These people are guilty for making Christ seem bitter and as boring as watching paint dry for the sake of making Christ look like them. Others are legalistic because they are self-righteous. They think God daydreams about them and wishes everyone was like them. This is a very un-biblical notion which stems from rotten pride. It comes from people thinking God is less holy then He is and that they are more holy than they are. They think God grades sin on a curve and that they’re somewhere at the top of the list. They forget that God grades only one way – perfection. One sin is enough to separate us from God forever. It took that one person only one sin. I think his name was Adam.

In summary, the Church today remains either un-repentant, embracing therapeutic gospels, clenching pointless traditions, or reeking of self-righteous pride. In reality, every Christian has a bit of all these things in them. Yet, we must go through detoxification, and re-approach Christ for who He really is. Both Christians and non-Christians are not impressed with Jesus Christ because no one dares to see how wild He really is. He is not safe, manageable, or tamable. With all of our anti-nomian and legalistic rigmarole, we cover up Christ and are left with our boring selves.

If you claim to be a Christian does any of this concern you?

What do we do? We must stand up and shout “let Him in!” We must let Christ back into the Church (Revelation 3:20). Then we will begin to see Christ as He really is and see ourselves for who we really are. He is outside knocking. Please let Him in.

There’s much gospel restoring to do. The gospel message needs no restoration itself – it is forever perfect. We must see that it becomes restored as center focus in ourselves and the Church. Please join with me and others to fulfill this seemingly impossible task!

The answer is yes. The answer is both. It’s not that we talk about either/or, but both/and! In fact, the gospel could be stated this way: “Christ has loved us to death!” The gospel reveals God’s love for us because He died the death we deserved.

What I’m going to ask next is what most “churches” and “Christians” are too pansy to talk about these days. What was Christ not saved from? If you call yourself a Christian, you should know! The answer is God’s wrath. He was NOT saved from God’s wrath. The answer to that question is the same answer to another question. What is the believer saved from? We are ultimately saved from the wrath and anger of God for having sinned as we have not loved God with all our heart, soul, and strength, nor others as ourselves. Christ loved us to death by dying the death we deserved. So He loved us to death… quite literally. And that’s the ultimate death that believers get to escape by grace.

Therefore, all sinners deserve God’s wrath. Jesus took God’s wrath for us on the cross. Thus, our greatest need is righteousness, death (through a substitute), and new life. Christ lived the perfect life we couldn’t. He perfectly loved God with all His heart, strength, and soul and He loved others as Himself. He was never selfish for a millisecond. Then God crushed Him and killed Him instead of us who deserve it. Kind of makes you think about how evil you are considering that that’s what you deserve because of your sin. Wipe that hesitant look off your face because that’s a GREAT thing to realize! Then, Christ rose from the dead proving that all of His work on our behalf was satisfactory. Of course it was. He was God! It was satisfactory for those who believe in Him and repent.

But now you should be able to understand Christ’s great love for you in doing all this which you utterly don’t deserve. Nor do I of course. Nor does anyone. This is true.

So what should we do as believers who won’t compromise on this great message of Christ? We ought to begin to do what many AREN’T doing today who call themselves Christians.

WE NEED TO PUT THE “DEATH” BACK IN “JESUS LOVES YOU”, WHICH WOULD THEN BECOME “JESUS LOVES YOU TO DEATH”!

That way Jesus’ “love” will really be love. It’s not enough to just tell people that “Jesus loves you”. The gospel is NOT that Jesus loves you in spite of your sin but that if you believe His message and receive Him as Lord (Boss), you will know that He did in fact loves you to death – and did on the cross.

What good news!

In my short lifetime, I have seen so many “gospel” proclamations by churches and evangelists which are a joke. Christians give alter calls via plays, puppet shows, and preaching, yet, all they end up telling you is that “God has a purpose for your life”, “your Creator wants to restore you and this world”, or that “if you have emotional problems in your life then God wants to help you”.

Then people walk down the aisle, throw the popsicle stick cross in the fire, or do whatever “spiritual” action is suggested and ______. Fill in the blank. I have no idea what happens next. I know they didn’t hear the actual gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. They weren’t clearly told how Christ is our Creator, how He is holy, perfect, and good, and we sinners are NOT! The real gospel wasn’t proclaimed to them. Our only hope in Christ wasn’t proclaimed to them. So what’s the use?

Proclaim the bad news, present the good news, then allow people to have a sobering response to the Biblical gospel. Not a psychological response which your stupid half truth gospel can’t save a soul with. If you have people’s attention and you’re trying to share the goodnews, then go ahead and do it.

What do YOU think?

What is the gospel? How should we refer to it? Is it the entire Biblical story or a specific part of it? What does it begin with? Where does it end? Should we explain the gospel message primarily to be God making all which is broken fixed, that God’s purpose for you is to better the world, or a proclamation that the Messiah is the risen Lord, like many today are advocating to be the “good” of the “good news”?

The Chinese translation of “gospel”, which is “fuyin”, doesn’t mean “good news” but rather “all the good news about God”. While I at times refer to the gospel as everything accomplished or purposed by God in Christ, I am increasingly becoming hesitant with this language. The more I look at how the Apostles use the term “gospel” the more I see it as a specific message, NOT an all encompassing story. I see this message being a narrative (specific truths) to a meta-narrative (all of God’s truths). In other words, it is a message by which all other parts of the story get to be carried out and equally cherished.

If this is so, we ought to make sure that when we say “gospel” we mean what Scripture means and we proclaim what Scripture proclaims. This would be for the purposes that the message was intended, hence the power of God unto salvation and people entering God’s kingdom by actually being born again, not because they acknowledge a secondary truth (which wont save their soul).

Why do I personally come to this conclusion and believe that Christians should too? Because Scripture primarily shows the gospel to be a gospel of salvation whereby Christ is received as Lord (Boss) and no matter how much we talk about God making all which is broken fixed, that God’s purpose for you is to help better the world, or proclaim that the Messiah is the risen Lord, we may be forfeiting the gospel of God unto salvation by confusing it with greater implications of the actual message. This type of thinking I am presenting is somewhat of a backlash to certain Post Millennialist thinking, all-ecompassing gospel thinking (such as this article by ‘Christianity Today’), and New Perspective on Paul (NPP) thinking. Many of the things advocated by these are great truths and greatly needed today, yet shouldn’t replace the gospel, or namely, the message which Scripture calls the gospel which is used to save the soul and make all other implications of the gospel possible (even possible to proclaim)!

Therefore, this is my reaction to conversations I have had and remarks I have heard in which the gospel message was replaced with implications of the gospel. This might be for possible reasons of tiring of the same ol’ “boring” truths, wanting to soften to gospel’s offense, or over reacting in an attempt to bring Biblical balance where much balance is due.

I say “amen” to all truths of Scripture. I say “amen” to all truths being properly emphasized. Yet, I do NOT say “amen” to the gospel being said to be something it specifically isn’t – if in fact it is understood by the Apostles to be a narrative to a meta-narrative (if you will).

What is my Scriptural backing? It’s very simple. Go to www.biblegateway.com and search the word “gospel” and see how the Apostles use it.

All throughout Acts and the NT, the gospel is referred to as a “message”, NEVER a story (or an over-arching story at that), nor is it a message that God is restoring all which is broken to be fixed, that God has a purpose for your life, or that Christ is merely to be acknowledged as the risen Lord (as even all unbelievers will do this, thus the first issue is becoming right with the Lord, by the Lord – who is also the Savior). So the question is, what is the specific message about?! Here is what the Apostles show us:

Mark 1:1, 1 Cor 9:13, 2 Thes 1:8, the gospel is about Jesus Christ.

Acts 20:24, Rom 1:9, the gospel is about God’s grace.

Rom 1:16, the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.

Rom 1:17, the gospel reveals a righteousness from God and is recieved by faith.

Rom 2:16, the gospel is God judging sin through Christ.

1 Cor 1:17, the gospel is connected to the cross of Christ and its power to save is in the form of being a humbling truth.

1 Cor 15:2, by the gospel one is saved.

2 Cor 4:4, the gospel is about the glory of Christ (probably referring to the glory of redemption, John 17, 2 Thes 2:14).

Gal 3:6-14 (gives a gospel message summary which entails God requiring perfection and sinlessness, judgment upon those who fall short of that standard, and being justified through the faith of Abraham by Christ being our substitute for God’s justice).

Eph 1:13, it is a gospel of salvation

Eph 3:6, through the gospel a great mystery is revealed that Jews and Gentiles share together in the promise in Jesus Christ (a promise of redemption, Eph 1:14)

Eph 3:8, it entails unsearchable riches in Christ.

2 Thes 1:8, there is punishment from Christ of those who do not obey the gospel.

2 Timothy 1:10, Christ has destroyed death and brought life and immortality.

2 Tim 2:8, the gospel is that Christ has been raised from the dead and was descended from David.

Heb 4:2, the gospel message is of value if it is combined with faith.

1 Pet 4:17, the gospel is to be obeyed (reference with 1 Pet 1:9, the goal of our faith is salvation).

Therefore, the Apostles emphasize the gospel to be a message about our sin, God’s judgment, what Christ did, and what we do to know we are right with Him so that we get to enjoy everything else which Christ offers. Never do we see the gospel message being described or proclaimed as God making all which is broken fixed, that God’s purpose for you is to better the world, or a proclamation that the Messiah is the risen Lord. These are definitely implications of the gospel and branches which grow out from the gospel soil, but why should we confuse the plant with the soil? I see there being a narrative (the gospel message as revealed by the Apostles) that ought not be confused for the meta-narrative (God’s overarching story and accomplishments).

In Acts 2 and 17, the Apostles (the big dawgs) share the gospel by addressing the people’s specific sins, the reality of God’s judgment, and a call to belief in Christ and repentance. People believed as a result to this (hence the gospel being the power of God unto salvation), and as a result we can say all those who believed will get to be a part of God’s meta-narrative and all the wonderful and endless implications of the gospel message. In these passages, we never see the Apostles talking about how God is restoring a fallen world unto Himself or that He is establishing a holy society. I’m sure these things were touched on after the fact, however.

What are your thoughts?

This is just your splash of water wake up call, and friendly reminder, that you’re going to die. It could be soon or it could be after a while. Either way, it will happen. Make sure you’re right with Christ. And may Michael Jackson’s death remind us all, not only how good his music was, but that everyone, everyone, yes EVERYONE, whether a king or a street sweeper, must dance with the Grimm reaper.

If you think you’re alone in death, don’t. Death is the common denominator for everyone. It’s something you’ll participate in with everyone else. If you’ve ever been to a funeral or heard of someone dying, you’ll soon experience what they experienced after death!

And in case you’re power hungry, want to control people, and dread being victimized or vulnerable in any way, shape, or form, then you’re still a victim who is vulnerable to death’s grip and the chance that your life could end any moment. Congratulations. Death will mock your sense of dignity.

But don’t let fear of death remain a sub-conscious thing but a continual conscious reminder to strive to do that which is most important. We would do well to heed the words of Mark Twain, a man of many great quotes who said, “let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.”

Let it also remind you that it is the first time you will meet Christ face to face. Make sure your OK with Him by Him. Make sure you have the faith of Abraham and that you know that Jesus lived the life God demands, took the wrath you deserved, and rose to prove it all satisfactory and enable you to mock the grave forever.

That way death will be the first day of your new life, namely, the first day of eternity you will get to be closer to Christ, will get to see Him more fully, and will get to know Him more deeply. John 17:3 “this is eternal life: that they would know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”.

The great thing about Heaven is, you’ll never have to say “goodbye”.

As a Christian, are you scared of popular opinion? Especially when you believe something the Bible says that isn’t popular according to popular opnion? Why? Do you have it on your to-do list to “make sure the world approves of me”? Are you afraid that people will be intolerant of your intolerance of silly and evil beliefs? If so, why? Either way, someone is being intolerant, and the truth is always more liberating and freeing. Have you spent any time learning about why only the Christian worldview makes sense so you can be more confident about what you believe and sleep like a baby? If not, why? Let Jesus be the hero of every sermon, the point of every text of Scripture, the answer to all the questions, and the focus of all the lives.

Consider Mat 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

I have often thought this verse taught that many wont be saved, which seemed in direct contradiction to Heb 11:12 which says that in the end there will be countless believers when all is said and done. “And so from this one man (Abraham – the Father of the faith which justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5)), and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.”

However, here is what I believe to be an excellent commentary on Mat 7:13-14 which takes into account the entire context of the passage, as there were no chapter and verse divisions in Scripture until the 11th century (which can make this passage misleading).

“These verses lead into His teaching on false prophets. From its context, it appears that Jesus says that false ministers will neither acknowledge or teach the narrow way that leads to life, the narrow way that leads to persecution. Instead, they will do just what God shows the Old Testament false prophets did: They will teach “peace, peace”—the smooth, easy, and broad way.

In other words, they will teach that Christians need make no sacrifices in their obedience to God. It is so interesting that, in the last few years in the church, so many things have been liberalized. Are we getting away from the straight and the narrow, the difficult and the sacrificial way?”

~ John W. Ritenbaugh

What is the answer to our world’s problems? Is it Christ doing away with sin and Him reigning, or is it keeping our sin and trying to find a way apart from Christ? People say that Christianity is the way of an old system which hasn’t worked. We are supposedly so advanced now because people have college degrees, can be little Socrotes’ running around, and have ipods. But doing away with Christ IS an old system too which hasn’t worked. The real matter at hand is, “what is truth?” Christ says “the truth will set you free”. He also said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”.

So many Christians today are increasingly backing down from the truth. We are more prone to impress the World then impress God. We fear the World and go out of our way to not offend it and be approved by it, rather then God. The thing is though, God’s ways are good, right, and true, and God is the final Judge in the end. He gets the last word and the last laugh. Why would you want to be on the team that will get put to shame in the end? Even if it is popular right now. It’s not popular in Heaven where the God of the Universe rules. Who is God to you, a God-hostile college professor, a non-God fearing politician, or is Jesus Christ who is returning to judge?

On the other hand, are you too distracted by the World to be of any Christian good before you stop sucking oxygen here and die soon?

Check out this other commentary following Mat 7:13-14 by Martin G. Collins:

“The thorny ground symbolizes those who become consumed by the anxieties of this physical life and the deceitful enticement of wealth. The constant pressures of everyday life, providing sustenance, maintaining employment, seeking education, performing social duties, etc. can be distracting, causing Christians to ignore God and spiritual growth.

The desire for wealth magnifies this distraction. It is enticing but yields the expected rewards: It promises to make us happy, but when gained, leaves us spiritually empty (I Timothy 6:7-10). The temptation and pursuit of wealth produces bad fruit: dishonesty, stealing, oppression of the poor, and taking advantage of others.

The good ground corresponds to those whose hearts and minds are softened by God’s calling and receive it genuinely. They are a rich and fine soil, a mind that submits itself to the full influence of God’s truth (Acts 22:14; Ephesians 4:1-6). The called of God not only accept His Word, the message of Jesus Christ, as rich soil accepts a seed for growth, they also bear much fruit (John 15:5, 8).”

~ Martin G. Collins

What is distracting you as a comfortable American to not be about doing God’s will and serving His kingdom? Are you witnessing to anyone? Do you even know how to? Are you helping those in need? Do you even want to? Are you contending for the truth and standing strong on God’s Word? Even if that means you wont be approved by a deranged popular opinion? I find myself along with others far too distracted by the American lifestyle. Even in this time of economic uncertainty we are distracted if not more distracted with our own problems.

Our attention is focused too much on our jobs, our pleasures, our hobbies, our needs, our wants, our pointless plans, etc. We must deliberately make time for that which is most important, God’s kingdom. It’s all about me, me, me, and the person in the mirror. No, it’s about God’s will and His kingdom. What we do now counts for eternity. Your luxuries and your avoidance of being inconvenienced and irritated at all costs is not most important. What about God and His kingdom and His righteousness and His truth?

And in case you’re looking for more meaning, fulfillment, and adventure in your life like everyone else is, then start being about these things.

So what can we do? Be about God’s kingdom at your job, at your home, and wherever you go. Who can you share the good news with? How can you help someone in need? How can you contend for the truth and stand for what’s right? How can you make much of Christ in yourself and to others? How can you love fellow believers and enemies today? How can you do so while being clever, innocent, and loving, even if you’re hated like Jesus for it? You can’t avoid persecution like Christ, and you can’t outgive Christ.

Over the last year this best selling book by William P. Young has created quite a stir among believers. Many praise it and many reject it. Here are my quick thoughts on the book ‘The Shack’:

Pros:

The main character Mack dialogues a lot with God. You can tell that Young would have had to crack his doctrine 101 books about the nature of God, the nature of man, and other important doctrines in order to present this type of dialogue as being Biblically sound (Orthodox). In many parts, Young does a good job of remaining Orthodox and some of the explanations that God gives Mack are very practical and insightful.

I think he does a good job of upholding a Biblical view of free will (page 95), God’s self-sufficiency (pages 98-99), the Trinity (page 101), and even does a beautiful job of explaining why the Trinity is a precondition to something such as “love”, hence page 102 which says “Or maybe worse, you would have a god who, when he chose, could only love as a limitation of his nature”.

The book is also insightful in dealing with emotional or personal esteem issues. Young writes God as a type of man-infatuated cosmic counselor. Nevertheless, a lot of the encouragement given in the book by Papa (God the Father) would probably be very helpful for many who could use more encouragement and hope.

Lastly, I personally think that for his first published book, Young is a very decent writer. I was in complete suspense at the beginning of the book.

Cons:

Some portions of the theology presented in the book are not only boarder line off but are dangerously off. This is probably because 1. much of the theology leans towards a liberal Arminian Christian worldview, and 2. the book is essentially Christianity thrown together with modern pop-psychology. In other words, it is tantamount of the modern evangelical’s gospel which is drenched in sensationalism, self-esteem, flattery, ego-boosting, and a “God” who is a cosmic flirt. It seeks to obtain the ultimate goal of every comfortable modern Christian: “SELF CONFIDENCE!” And it doesn’t help that Christ is portrayed like a soft girl instead of a manly Lord.

On page 96 it is said that the Father didn’t forsake Jesus on the cross, but that Jesus only felt forsaken because He was in such great pain. [emphasis mine] This is supposed to cushion Mack’s dread of being forsaken by God since he was forsaken by his own biological father. Papa ties this into a lesson for Mack to not focus on his pain but focus on God so he will see that he’s not forsaken after all. The jacked up thing about this left field interpretation of Scripture is that it assumes that Christ wasn’t focused on God because He felt forsaken! But isn’t that what Christ’s mission all along was?! To fulfill the Father’s will perfectly?! Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 6:38) What Mack needs to know is that Christ was forsaken by the Father so that he didn’t have to be. That is the therapy he’s looking for.

On page 99 it’s said that Jesus never drew upon His God nature to do anything. Well, happy to inform you Mr. Young, Jesus did say He would raise Himself up on the last day. Page 100 further says that Jesus had no power within Himself to heal anyone. Again, Jesus could heal anyone with His own power because He has authority to raise Himself from the dead with His own power. (John 2:19 Jesus says “I will raise it” (speaking of His own body), where “I will” is “egero”, a first person active verb. Because the verb is 1st person active, this means Jesus is the doer of the action)

On page 120 Papa says that she doesn’t “need to punish people for sin”, but that “sin is its own punishment”. It’s not her “purpose to punish it”, it’s her “joy to cure it”. But Jesus Christ is Lord and is in fact the one returning to punish sin (Phil 2, 2 Thes 1:8-10, Rev 19), NOT God the Father! Mack has a problem with the Father seeming vengeful and Jesus only being the “nice one” within the Trinity. Give me a break! If Mack just had proper theology, or received proper theology from Papa (that’s an irony of ironies), this would all be cleared up and Christ would be known comprehensively. And as far as the four letter word “justice” goes, it is because God loves Himself that justice is a reality. God loves Himself and does not over look any sin, thus does in fact punish sinners. Sin is its own punishment, but so is God’s eternal wrath. However, the good news of the gospel is that God remained loving to Himself and us by crushing sin in the God-Man substitute, Jesus Christ!

On page 165 Papa says that the tragedy which Mack faced was “no plan of Papa’s. Papa has never needed evil to accomplish his good purposes. It is you humans who have embraced evil and Papa has responded with goodness”. Like I said earlier, this book is drenched with an Arminian worldview whereby God is the great cosmic responder. This has problems because it assumes that God does not intend all evil for good. Yet in the OT, Joseph specifically says that “what you meant for evil, God meant for good”. This shows that God actually means for evil to happen, yet the major difference is WHY He means it. Sinners mean evil for evil, while God means evil for good, while all along meaning it! In addition, as God only being a responder to evil, this would mean that God must learn what humans will do and then must pick up the pieces of their mess. This takes away from God’s omniscience because He must first learn what people will do, before He learns what He will do in response. The other logical conclusion then would be that human “free will” is sovereign over God to a degree because God’s actions are predicated upon His response to human actions. Humans do have wills, but not totally free wills which are free of the influence of their own natures. This is the same for God as God always acts according to His own nature and is without sin! Likewise, the saints will be forever preserved in Heaven and perfectly unable to sin. Why? Because they choose not too? No. Because their new natures in Christ will secure this forever!

Similarly, on page 185 Papa says “Mack, just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don’t ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead you to false notions about me.” But Isaiah 45:7 says “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.” Disaster = “ra”, basically the opposite of “prosperity” given the context. God “bara” or creates this. Just like in Gen 1:1 “God created (bara) the heavens and the earth”. This is just one example from many in Scripture. Also, it would more properly be said that God uses evil to all the more REVEAL His goodness, not to make His goodness actually good.

On page 186 Papa says “It’s not easy being the judge of the entire world”. Ummm. Need I really respond to this one and defend an omniscient and all-powerful being?

On page 186 Mack says “But I always liked Jesus better than you. He seemed so gracious and you seemed so…” Then Papa fills in the blank with “Mean?” In other words, God the Father is cranky and God the Son is like Richard Simmons. Sarcasm aside, the thing is that it isn’t even God the Father who is returning in judgment! Scripture teaches it is Jesus Christ! The greatest display of wrath in the Bible is not in the OT, it is in the NT when Christ returns and there is final and eternal judgment. And it’s not going to go well for those who reject Him! 2 Thes 1:8-9 “He (Jesus Christ) will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power”

On page 203 Mack asks Papa “are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” Papa responds “Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” This seems to be how Young personally likes to view God because it does away with the notion of a God who would be overbearing and demanding. But God is only demanding and overbearing in Young’s mind because he views God the Father through the lens of his biological dad. All this is then transfered to Mack’s character. But Jesus says that he who loves me is the one who obeys my commands. (John 14:21) And the phrase “you are not under law” is a reference to Rom 6:14. The context says that “sin shall not be your master because you are not under law but under grace.” Paul is actually explaining the difference between being under the law as a strict tutor to control sin as opposed to the new covenant of being under the Spirit of grace to control sin. In either case, however, sin is needing to be controlled! Sin is just ultimately being controlled by different means.

Conclusion:

In conclusion there are 2 major things I’d like to say. 1. I fully agree with Douglas Wilson’s critique of ‘The Shack’ in that God the Father needs to be properly revealed, not pushed aside and replaced with a female identity in order to help cushion certain emotional triggers in a man who hates his biological father!

2. Let us consider the story of Job and compare this story which really happened to Young’s fictional story of Mack. Job experienced more physical and emotional pain then Mack. Job’s entire family was murdered, his wife resented him, he had horrible soars all over him, he had to put up with 3 accusing friends, and God remained silent to Job way longer then Mack!!! Yet, how did God reveal Himself to Job? Did He appear as a black woman who bakes a lot of food, sings, and looks at Job with emphathetic puppy dog eyes? Ummm, I’m gonna answer that with a “NO” times infinitey. All it took was for God to ask Job 4 chapters worth of questions in regard to His own nature and abilities which Job wasn’t able to respond to. This was so Job would get the proper perspective of God to himself, thereby freeing him to trust God like never before.

“Either the laws of logic are separate from God,

or

the laws of logic were created by God.”

Just as John 1:1 says that “and God was the Logos”, thus what God is the Logos is (speaking of the Logos’ nature), so I believe that the laws of logic are neither divine axioms (just as the Logos is not the Father), nor are the laws of logic created by God (just as the Logos is not “a god”).

This is extremely profound!!! This philosophical issue which has perplexed countless people for centuries is answered in John 1:1. The very arguments which atheists, Clarkians, and others use to try and say that it must be either/or when accounting for the laws of logic, have left out the only actual possibility: they are part of God’s very own nature. This is not just something the Christian apologist says but can point to from Scripture itself!

(Note: I will use the terms “laws of logic” and “meanings” synonymously, since the 3 laws of logic (classical logic) ultimately stem from the first law, namely, the law of identity – the ability to identify all things with meanings and classifications. Without meanings we can’t identify things, classify things, be rational, hence think at all.

The laws of logic aren’t simply divine axioms, nor are they inventions of God. They aren’t above God (able to exist independent of God) or below God (something He created). In actuality, the laws of logic are right along side God – part of God’s own nature which is eternal and unchanging.

The “logos” is a Greek word where we get our word “logic” from. The logos was referred to by philosophers for centuries, even before Christ, as that which is the source and derivative of all knowledge, rationality, teleos (meaning), purpose, design, morality, creation, etc. John is writing his gospel to Hellenistic Jews (Jews who were influenced by Greek philosophy). Thus, he explains what, actually WHO, the Logos is. It is Jesus Christ. He is outside of time (eternal), is with God, and is God’s own nature and being. It gets even more mind blowing when John mentions that this Logos (Jesus Christ) became “sarx”, or took on human flesh and bone (verse 14)!

Moving on, if we accept the former idea and say the laws of logic are separate, above, or self-existent from God, then we concede that they do not derive from God, thus God is not needed to account for them. (This is what many try to believe in rejection of Christ – a fulfillment of Rom 1:18-20 and 8:6-8)

If we accept the latter and say the laws of logic are inventions, below, or creations of God then we concede that they can be anything. God could have created them to be whatever He wanted, thus could re-invent them. Further, some say we invented them, thus why couldn’t we re-invent them or destroy them? Yet, then meanings would forever be subject to change and not even God or us would have a sure basis to know anything for certain. For example it could be said that 1=2=3 and so forth.

So why can’t meanings exist by themselves? Why can’t they be self-sufficient, self-existent, or exist independent of a mind, whether God’s or ours? Well for one, how would we detect them? Meanings are immaterial. They are abstract, or non-physical. We can’t detect them with our 5 senses. Thus, if they exist independent of God and us, how does God or anyone else detect them? If they can’t be detected with the 5 senses then how do we locate them and find them in order to use them?

Second, if we could somehow locate these abstract entities which exist independent of minds, how then would these meanings get inside people’s minds? Would God or we go shopping for them and say “I need the meaning of “addition” (so that I can check out when I’m done buying all these), and I need the number “2″, etc.” What would apply them to God’s mind or our mind? And if we are purely physical (which Naturalists believe) then how could abstract meanings get into us? How could they get into our minds which are believed to only be physical? How do non-marbles get inside something only comprised of marbles? Especially when those “marbles” are absolute (can’t change) meaning there’s something outside of the finite forever determining what they are!

You see, when something is finite, it is only descriptive, thus it can be subject to change because it was invented or created. This would be like natural laws of the universe, conventions of human language, rules for football, etc. These can all change, hence why there once was no universe, why there can be different languages (different linguistic sounds refer to absolute meanings), and why football rules have changed in the past, yet it is the same game. But that which is eternal, must by definition be part of God’s own nature which is eternal, thus is prescriptive and cannot change. Meanings (the laws of logic) would fall into this catagory, as well as a real morality. All humans live like these exist and do so consistently and universally. Both meanings and real morality are absolute. Meanings cannot change, hence why 1+1 always equals 2 and why selfishly hating someone is always evil. Each are a reflection of God’s own being, hence why they are absolute, prescriptive, and eternal truths which will never change and can never change.

So why don’t meanings exist independent of God? Contrary to what atheists are trying to say today, meanings do not derive from manifestations of nature or matter. In other words, saying that because one has the ability to use their 5 senses in regard to matter, distinguish between sizes, shapes, colors dimensions, etc, then one can automatically categorize things by themselves – thus logic forms on its own. But watch closely. This is only answering how to categorize things, thus is assuming the existence of meanings by which things can be distinguished, thus categorized! In other words, the meaning of existence must exist, the meaning of “thereness” must exist so you know that something is there, the meaning of color must exist so you can then begin to distinguish colors, the meaning of height must exist in order to distinguish sizes, etc. Nice try Mr. Atheist in trying to say that the laws of logic evidence themselves because of our ability to distinguish between things. You first must have meanings before you can even begin to categorize things, hence being able to identify an apple, tree, or dog. You see, you must have the meaning of size, shape, texture, color, etc exist before you can distinguish things by using those meanings, thus begin to categorize things such as apple, tree, or dog!

Scripture accounts for this because all humans are created with bodies and spirits (dualism), not just with physical bodies (monism). We are created in the likeness of God who eternally thinks logically and is eternally active in using all possible meanings, as He is omniscient. So because all human natures come from other human natures which bare the image of God, then the capacity to use logic is passed down to humans. This is why we don’t go searching for logic, because it is part of our nature, as our nature is part of God’s nature, and logic is part of God’s nature. Meanings are not something that God carries around in a cosmic bag, but are reflections of His own eternal unchanging knowledge and thinking.

Lastly, what about saying that God or we created the laws of logic or meanings? What if a being were to have created the laws of logic. Well for one it would have no basis to know what it was creating! It would be like a non-conscious thing trying to create the reality of consciousness itself without 1. even knowing what consciousness is, and 2. consciousness ever having existed! In other words, how can something mindless make itself mindful, when one needs a mind to know it wants a mind?!

Basically, how can 1. a blank computer program itself, and 2. do so considering there is no such thing as computer code? This is the real dilemma we would face if we were to say that God or us created the laws of logic and meanings.

And again, as I stated above, we can’t say that God or us created or invented meanings because that would mean we could destroy them or re-invent them. This would be impossible because then we could destroy all numbers or say that 1=2=3 and so forth.

In conclusion, since the laws of logic are tantamount of the Logos (which our modern word “logic” derives from) then they are part of God’s own nature, as the Logos is part of God’s own nature. If we say that God must obey the laws of logic, then we are just saying that God acts according to His own nature. Of course He does! He’s eternal, immutable, and holy according to Scripture. Whether we say God obeys the laws of logic or that the laws of logic obey God doesn’t matter. One is not above the other, nor are they seperate. Logic is just a description of the Logos, which is God’s own nature, John 1:1.