The Coin Argument

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

I have heard many ask “If God exists, then why is there so much evil in the world?” and there are many responses to this question all throughout history. There are even great Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga and Ravi Zacharias who have delivered great responses to this problem of evil. If I was asked this question, here is one way that I would respond and that is with the coin argument.

If God exists, then why is there so much good in the world? The question in its very nature is problematic because it relies on a partial-variable. It depends on the assumption that God and evil cannot both exist.

If this assumption is true, then God and good cannot both exist. Thus, leaving the universe amoral, which we all know is a flawed and true conclusion. It is true based off of basic deductive reasoning from our previous premises, yet flawed because evil and good are both quite evident in our universe.

For examples of evil look no further than the horrors of war, famine, pestilence, natural disasters, and the like. For instances of good look no further than the sacrificial love of a mother for her child, giving to those that are in need, treating others the way you want to be treated, and so on. The existence of evil and good is too evident in the world to ignore.

Let me use an analogy to further my point: let’s say I have a coin. You say that if I flip this coin 100 times with it landing on heads every single time in a row, then there must be no coin maker. Now I say if I flip this coin 100 times with it landing on tails every single time in a row, then there must be a coin maker. Let’s surmise that such a scenario occurs where you’re right: the coin lands on heads 100 times in row. Does your conclusion logically make sense that there is no coin maker? No and neither would mine any more so than yours because it is focused on the coin’s mathematical probability of landing on heads or tails. When the focus should shift to “where did we get the coin in the first place?”

That’s the root issue here. Where do objective moral values come from in the first place? For the sake of time, objective moral values will be abbreviated to OMV. In my analogy, the coin represents OMV and likewise each side of the coin represents one side of those OMV (heads = objectively negative moral values -> “evil” and tails = objectively positive moral values -> “good”).

Therefore, as is the case with all things there must be an objective standard to determine what are objectively negative moral values (evil) and what are objectively positive moral values (good). This objective standard can only be 4 things: from something less than myself [nature](1), from something equal to myself [individual](2), from others equal to myself [society](3), or from something greater than myself [God](4).

Now, how am I obligated by something less than me [nature](1) to obey these OMV? There’s no need to be obligated by nature since nature is beneath mankind. Why should I lower my standards to comply with values of nature? When something within nature kills it is survival of the fittest, yet when we kill it is murder. So, should I obligate myself [individual](2) to these OMV? Do I have that absolute authority? If so, I myself can remove that absolute authority if I want to, which throws out the second conclusion all together making it obsolete.

Then can others [society](3) obligate me to OMV? Why does the majority have that absolute authority over the minority (myself)? How does a single variable like majority vs. minority suddenly change who can enforce OMV? If there is a society that can, then which one? And if there is one, what happens when that society eventually crumbles like every society before it has in the past? Thus, this objective standard must be greater than myself [God](4) because it (He) is superior to me and can rightfully demand obedience to these OMV as He is greater than I.

Hence, evil and good can only exist if there is a set of OMV determined by an objective standard [God](4) that can enforce these OMV onto us. This is the most logical and reasonable conclusion. God as the objective standard gives us the ability to discern what is evil and good. Without Him, nothing is sin while everything is live and let live. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/

The Lovely Trinity Argument

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

This blog-post is a little different than past blog-posts in that I will be showing you briefly my first argument for the Christian Trinity. My argument is called “The Lovely Trinity Argument” and was heavily inspired by the works of C.S. Lewis, especially his arguments in Mere Christianity. The argument resides on the central question found in premise seven and is actually what I asked myself a few years ago when the original concept for the argument began to take shape in my mind. Shout out to my friend, Kevin King, for helping me fine-tune my argument to make it as logically airtight as possible. Here is the argument down below presented in a premise-by-premise structure like almost all other philosophical arguments:

The Lovely Trinity Argument

By Christopher Cribari

  1. Before Creation, there was God (✝).
  2. God was alone and nothing existed, except for God before Creation.
  3. Therefore, God is the objective standard for all things pertaining to morality and the like, including love because He is all that existed.
  4. Thus, God is love (✝), love is God*, and God is all-loving.
  5. Love is an action expressed towards an object.
  6. Love is actively expressed from person to person.
  7. But if God is love, love is God, and God is all-loving, who would God love?
  8. A Unitarian God cannot love Himself because He is one person.
  9. Thus, God would need to be 2 or more than 2 persons to actively express love, in order for God to be love, for love to be God, and for God to be all-loving.
  10. Therefore, God is one being (✝), but multiple persons.
  11. But in order for love to be expressed for others to see, there has to be a third party or person.
  12. Thus, a Binitarian God cannot love another person without a third party or person to validate that love.
  13. Therefore, God is one being, but three persons (✝).
  14. Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity is true because it validates that God is love, love is God, and God is all-loving, while at the same time affirming that God is triune.
  15. For God is a Trinitarian God: one being, but three persons.

Argument Footnotes

* = C.S. Lewis penned “love is God” in his work, Mere Christianity, in chapter 4 of book 4 entitled “Good Infection.”

✝ = Biblical References

  • Premise 1) Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:10
  • Premise 4) 1 John 4:8, 16
  • Premise 10) Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Timothy 2:5a
  • Premise 13) 2 Corinthians 13:14

Well, that is my argument for the Christian Trinity and I hope it helps you wherever you are in relation to God. If you would like to hear my newer argument for the Christian Trinity, click here. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels
  2. Disclaimer

An Argument For Apologetics: Part II

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

Since this is apart of a blog-post series, let me briefly remind you of what I have already gone over in Part I of my argument for apologetics. In the first post in this series, I defined faith, described apologetics, and went over my first point on why we need apologetics in Christianity. That point being that it is pre-evangelism. The way I argued this was with a knight allegory, but I will instead use an expression used at the film school I attend to make the point clearer.

When it comes to film, it really boils down to 2 things: knowing your audience and knowing your story. Relating this back to the topic at hand, apologetics is about knowing your story, while evangelism is about knowing your audience. Let me quickly explain what I mean by that.

Apologetics is all about understanding on a logical and technical level who you’re, what you believe, and how to appropriately answer any objections to Christianity. Evangelism is all about understanding on a moral and spiritual level who someone is, what is holding them back from the cross, and how to appropriately guide them to the cross. Both are equally relevant and dependent on each other in outreaches to the world. Whether that’s a missions trip, feeding the homeless, street witnessing, etc. As my Dad once said, “Apologetics is pre-evangelism and if it’s not, you’re doing it wrong.”

2) Apologetics Saved the Church From Heresy

In A.D. 325, there was the Council of Nicaea and this meeting brought church leaders from the East and the West together to discuss a series of current Christian topics at hand. These topics included, but were not limited to the calendar date of Easter, defining the Trinity, and the nature of Jesus Christ. The latter being the most prominent topic of the meeting because it was debated by two opposing forces within the church at the time.

One side of this debate was Arius the priest who thought that Jesus was not eternal, but created. He was literally punched in the face for this heretical claim during the proceedings by Bishop Nicholas. The other side of the debate was led by Deacon Athanasius and Bishop Alexander who argued the biblical stance of Jesus being eternal like God the Father. The whole council, which consisted of hundreds of bishops and other prominent Christian leaders, watched as one of the most important debates in Christianity took place over one of the most central truths of Christianity: Jesus is God.

It was a debate that had so much riding on it: the future of Christianity, the foundation of the church, and so much more. The emperor of Rome, Constantine, resided over the proceedings looking to end the division in the church, which he thought would end political division within the Roman Empire, only added to the tension. It was the debate of the century. After much back and forth, a vote was taken and the vast majority agreed with Bishop Alexander and Deacon Athanasius that Jesus is God. Arius was eventually expelled as a heretic from the church, along with Arianism altogether.

Why do I bring this up? Because it is instances like this where large opposition has risen against the church, usually from within the church, and without the use of apologetics, would have destroyed the church. Another time where this has happened was the Protestant Reformation. This was when Martin Luther boldly left the Catholic church, which had seriously deviated from correct biblical truth, to bring them back from their heretical claims. Such as the Pope’s word was equal in measure to God’s Word (the Bible) in authority.

So the greatest Christian church split in history happened. It was a time when apologetics was absolutely necessary to defend the Christian faith from those who had twisted it. Other instances when apologetics saved the skin of the church from either destruction from the outside or manipulation from the inside were the following: the rise and fall of Gnosticism, the Enlightenment when the church was under attack from the intellectuals of the time, or even today with the rise of Prosperity Theology, otherwise known as the Faith Movement.

Every generation of the church body has had its heresies, cults, false religions, and worldly belief systems to deal with that help the body of Christ stay alert. This “always be ready” mentality of confronting heresies head-on with apologetics to protect the flock of God from falling away is essential to continual growth in Christ. Some notable apologists who defended the Christian worldview are Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (The Cosmological/Contingency Argument, invented binary language), Rene Descartes (The Origin of the Idea of God Argument, invented the cartesian coordinate system), and Blaise Pascal (Pascal’s Wager, invented the first working mechanical calculator).

These men were also the fathers of modern philosophy and science, who still impact the culture with their use of apologetics centuries later. As was once said in a lecture at Rice University by Professor John Lennox, “Far from being a hindrance to science, belief in God was the motor that drove it.” In short, without apologetics Christianity would not be where it is today because of those bold enough in the faith to protect others from the deceit of the Devil, the world, and even our own corrupt selves.

3) Apologetics Builds Up the Church

If you do not know why you believe what you believe, why believe? This is the motivating question behind my apologetics passion and why I care so much for it. I strongly believe in the fact that every believer needs to not only know what they believe, but to know why they believe it in the first place. Christianity is not led by blind faith, but is led by bold faith. But this faith is not bold because of blind passion like followers of other worldviews.

Rather, it is because we know what we believe to be true, which causes the believer to understand certain things like the fear of God, the compassion of Christ, and that there are billions of people living today who are not ready for the return of Christ. It’s an abundance of emotions to know God, while at the same time know how few know God. It’s sad and joyous all at the same time. It’s the motor that drives the believer to distant lands all across the globe or to local rough parts of town in our cities. We are driven by the burden of the broken to mend them with the good news of the Gospel.

But with this burden for the broken comes questions from the broken that wish to be built back up, yet are afraid of being broken again. How can the broken be reassured that what you have and offer from God is any different from say Islam, Buddhism, or any other belief system with the same exact claims? Claims of fulfilling meaning, purpose, and value? This is when apologetics is to be appropriately used in defending the Christian worldview by differentiating it from other worldviews. This in turn builds up the believer at the same time as reassuring their broken spirit.

Apologetics not only defends against outward opposition and intense inquiry, but also from inward doubts and fears. One fear that used to cloud my mind early in my faith was ‘How do I really know that God exists? Is what I am experiencing really a supernatural experience that I can personally interact with God or just my feelings overcoming my emptiness for relevance in life?’

Eventually, I came to the same conclusions that the late C.S. Lewis came to in his lifetime. That for every desire, there exists a satisfaction for these desires of ultimate meaning, purpose, and value. This is better known as The Desire Argument famously made by Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity.

There was also the fact that the universe screams for a necessary, intelligent, mindful, personal, first-cause that could conceive of the universe itself. This was my starting point as to why I believed in the existence of God and has helped me when going through times of doubt or times of spiritual struggle. Knowing God is always there is something that I always find comfort in and helps me cope with the harder times in life as I bet it does for other believers as well.

You see, apologetics builds up the church by reinforcing the spiritual connection the believer has with Jesus with logical and relevant facts to support such an ambitious relationship. I mean, how many people really understand the uniqueness of interacting with God on a day-to-day basis worldwide? Not many because it sounds too strange at first to accept, but in reality is far from it.

That dynamic with God really starts when we admit we are wrong and He is right. It’s so simple it boggles the minds of the greatest skeptics around the world! Lunacy to some to even consider they could be wrong or better yet, indebted to God.

The more you learn in the realm of apologetics, the more you appreciate and understand your relationship with God. Things like how the persons of the Trinity interact, essential doctrines that define the specifics of certain aspects to Christianity, and the list goes on. It’s encouraging to know that I know what I believe in and then to have even more joy when sharing that faith with others because I fully grasp what I am sharing. It’s logical substance fueled by fiery passion equaling a great servant of God. Apologetics is meant to build the body of Christ up, not tear it down.

Just as a mother tells their child to put on their coat to protect themselves from the weather, so too you ought to put on the shield of apologetic faith to protect yourself from the horrors of spiritual warfare. In so doing, the church in general is built up knowing that whatever comes opposing truth can be deflected with that same truth.

Basically, every Christian should know a little apologetics because God commands us to in 1 Peter 3:13-16, in order to further the Gospel. In that passage, the Apostle Peter writes that we should give a defense for the hope that is in us. So above all else, the believer needs to know apologetics and use apologetics because God commands us too in His Word, in order to further the expansion of the kingdom.

To end, here are some great resources in no particular order that you can use to sharpen your apologetics utility belt in furthering the message of the Gospel, as well as strengthen your own faith:

  1. On Guard by William Lane Craig
  2. Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli
  3. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
  4. Know What You Believe by Paul E. Little
  5. Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler
  6. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul
  7. Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias

Of all of these resources, I recommend Paul E. Little’s book, Know What You Believe, the most because it covers everything the Christian absolutely needs to know in detail without the extra baggage. It’s short and covers everything the Christian absolutely needs to know about their faith. Highly recommended resource and it’s one book I turn to often to sharpen my faith. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://wikipedia.com
  2. Disclaimer

An Argument For Apologetics: Part I

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

In recent years, there has been a rise in the claim that apologetics is no longer necessary in Christianity. Well, I disagree with that notion and here’s why: apologetics is a quintessential aspect to the life of every Christian. It is the shield, so to speak, that the believer stands behind and gives a defense of the faith from, with, and through. There is a reason that when Paul the Apostle mentions the armor of God (2), he refers to the shield, as a shield of faith. And that is exactly what apologetics is in the tool belt of the believer: a shield. As Professor John Lennox of Oxford University said in a dialogue with Richard Dawkins, “My faith is a faith of evidence.”

In another lecture he quipped that “Faith is a response to evidence, not a rejoicing in the absence of evidence.” Put succinctly, the Christian faith is on the higher ground right from the get go compared to every other belief system in world history. Apologetics is merely quintessential to the Christian faith because it a) reveals this higher ground and b) shows you how to defend this higher ground from all who look to capture the flag of victorious truth that rests on Calvary hill. Like the author of the book of Hebrews put it, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (3).”

The word apologetics is derived from the combination of the word ‘apologetic’ meaning to give “a formal defense” in Middle French and the suffix ‘ics’ for “nouns that denote a body of facts, knowledge, principles, etc.” (4). But to be more specific, apologetics is the “the branch of Christianity that deals with the defense and establishment of the Christian faith” (5). With all of this in mind, here are 3 reasons why apologetics is necessary for every Christian.

1) Apologetics Is Pre-Evangelism

Have you ever seen a medieval knight charge into battle against an opposing force? Put more bluntly, if an opposing knight is charging towards you with their sword preparing to strike you down, how would you counter their attack? With your sword or with your shield? The obvious answer should be to deflect the sword with the shield and then proceed with your own sword to strike back.

This analogy is the relationship of apologetics and evangelism in a nutshell: apologetics is the shield and evangelism is the sword of Christianity. But the problem with those who misuse apologetics is twofold: they either use the sword (evangelism) first or they just use the shield (apologetics) without using the sword (evangelism). Let me explain the problem with both of these tactics.

Let’s start with the first tactic: using the sword first. Now at first glance, going out to preach the gospel seems simple enough. I mean who really needs apologetics, right? Plenty can get done with just a sword! Well, let’s set the spiritual battleground with a simple story. 

You’re on a train going to the big game tonight. There are hundreds of people on the train wearing their team’s jersey and excitingly talking about the game. Now you being a believer, overhear a heated conversation between a New Atheist and a devout Hindu who just so happen to be in the same section as you on the train. 

The two are discussing the idea of God and whether or not belief in God, or as the Hindu would argue, many gods makes logical sense. In fact, there are about 330 million gods according to the devout Hindu. So you being an active believer, burdened with the work of the ministry, jump politely into the conversation in order to win them to the faith (6).

At first everything seems fine. You’ve prayed beforehand, you’re well versed in the Scriptures, and you’re humbly listening before engaging in the conversation. Hearing what the discussion is about before you present your worldview. Then it happens: your turn to speak. So you being a cheerful giver, give them the gospel, but there’s one problem. Neither see the need for the gospel. Now what do you do? 

Well, you stumble a little over your words and begin to reiterate how much God loves them and has this wonderful plan for their life! How much Jesus loves them! Neither seem the least bit interested, laugh at your little love speech about a Middle Eastern man, and continue with their conversation without you.

Now what? You then in a fury, spew Bible verse after Bible verse of how Jesus is God! Yes, this must work! Nothing. Absolute zero attention is paid to your poetic spewing. So you, in utter defeat, walk away embarrassed and mad. What happened? Let me explain.

You see, using the knight analogy, you kept using your sword when you should have been using your shield. As a matter of fact, you were using your sword as both the shield and the sword, causing you to be spiritually exhausted because you had only offense as an option. No time to counter correctly or to pause on an important point like the existence of God, which was the original conversation the two were having in the first place. Remember, the New Atheist doesn’t believe in God and the devout Hindu believes in many gods, so without addressing that topic you have no firm footing in this fight.

Now let’s try a different option, using only the shield. So the same scenario, but you are an apologetics nut. You know every argument, every counter-argument, and every rebuttal. So you boldly go into the discussion without any fear because you know how to defend the faith. And after a little back and forth you finally convince both the New Atheist and the devout Hindu that there is only one God. But now you come across your first hurdle. Why does that matter? 

Sure, they now believe in a single God, but where do you go from here? What was the point of proving that there was a God in the first place? So then the conversation quickly dies off and goes back to simple things like the big game tonight. What did you do? How did this happen? You knew everything! Or so you thought. Let’s go back to the knight analogy.

You’re going to war, but you decide to only take your shield and leave your sword behind. Do you see the problem? By only taking the shield, you can only survive the war intact, instead of ending the war intact. You can only deflect opposition without ending opposition. Eventually you’ll be too tired from blocking the opposing knight’s attacks that they will kill you by simply fighting until you are exhausted. Or in the case of the train story, you’ll eventually just go back to simpler things because you knew no way out. 

How sad is this? That you can disarm your opponent, but cannot finish them? Yet that is the reality of those who only use apologetics in outreaches or ministry. They deflect the accusations of the mind, without getting to the heart of the issue. And the other tactic of just using the sword to cut to the heart of the issue without addressing the logical issues of the mind is also unuseful. Both are foolish ways to enter the spiritual battleground because a true knight of God is well equipped with a shield and a sword.

Now let’s see what happens when you bring both your shield and sword to the battle. Again, same scenario, but this time you’re prepared in all aspects that matter: spiritually, mentally, etc. First you use the shield, deflecting every fiery arrow with logical and truthful answers. It works and neither the New Atheist nor the devout Hindu has a shield anymore.

Now is the time to strike with the double edged sword. Their mind is ready, but the heart is not. This is the time to finish their seeds of doubt by driving the sword of spiritual truth through them. So you being a faithful steward, drive the point home with the sword of evangelism. The end result? Two new believers in Christ. Well, in this train story at least.

There will be times when people do not come to faith in Jesus. Not because you didn’t do your part in sharing the truth, but they didn’t do their part in accepting the truth. Your job as a believer is to share the truth with others, but how they react to the message is not up to you. That’s up to them and God from that point on. How exactly did this work? Because the tools at your disposal were used properly for what they were designed to do: reach the lost by sharing what has been found in Christ.

Although I use very blunt analogies with knights to describe the relationship between apologetics and evangelism, that does not mean that you should be mean or rude towards whoever you’re reaching out too. Far from it! I am speaking in spiritual terms when I speak of the war terminology and this shouldn’t actually spill over into actual witnessing. Just something to keep in mind to help with witnessing. Understanding that you’re in a spiritual war, not a physical or verbal war with the lost that you’re reaching.

Remember, these are tools that the believer should use together when at an outreach, but they do not always have to use them together. There will be times where simple evangelism will bring someone to the cross or vice versa with apologetics. The reason I argue that they should be used together is because most of the time people have a spiritual wall that is blocking them from a relationship with Jesus. So the walls need to come down before the real evangelism can work. 

But the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, so don’t take this as factual, but more as suggested when outreaching to the world. Then again this approach can be seen used by Jesus (7), Paul the Apostle (8), Stephen (9), Peter (10), and so on. Usually this is a combination of apologetics and evangelism, not a simple one-two punch when outreaching. More of a back and forth dynamic when talking to others with civility and respect.

But without love, none of this information matters. You’ll be nothing but sounding brass speaking to the lost, yet not reaching the lost (11). As Ravi Zacharias once said, “Love is the greatest apologetic. It is the essential component in reaching the whole person in a fragmented world.” In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is quoted saying “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets (12). “

You have to have a loving heart for the lost in order to be effective for the work of the ministry. It is the single greatest aspect in the life of the Christian. Just as Jesus did, you too have to have a heart for the harvest (13). So to put it sufficiently, apologetics is pre-evangelism and only works when done in love. Come back next time for Part 2 of this series, which delves into my second point: how apologetics saved the church from heresy. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://www.deviantart.com/pandarice/art/knights-mounted-fight-32834504
  2. Ephesians 6:16
  3. Hebrews 11:1 (NKJV)
  4. https://dictionary.reference.com
  5. https://carm.org/apologetics
  6. 1 Corinthians 9:19-27
  7. Luke 24:13-35
  8. Acts 17:1-15
  9. Acts 7:1-53
  10. Acts 2:14-42
  11. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3
  12. Matthew 22:35-40 (NASB)
  13. Matthew 9:35-38
  14. Disclaimer

Legalism: Movies + Music

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

Although there are many global issues I could write about that are very prevalent in the world today, today I would like to talk about an issue that may seem minor, but can result in cataclysmic effects in Christianity. The issue I want to talk about is legalism. Since legalism is too large of a topic on its own, I am going to narrow down my discussion to two things: movies and music.

This post was inspired by a couple things and experiences from the past. Namely an open letter written by John Givez to Christian Hip Hop that was posted by Rapzilla (2) and a conversation I had with my good friend Jeremiah. In John Givez’ open letter to CHH, he touches on the stigma that is attached to him because everyone considers him to be so edgy that he has lost his spiritual edge, so to speak. That the way he operates and lives his life is not like the typical white, suburban, Evangelical-Christian. You know, that typical generalization and stereotype of every Christian in America. Take me for instance: the guy that looks like the 99 cent version of Leonardo Dicaprio, but who also always looks like he either just got back from the gym or is about to go to one.

Yet as Christians, we project these misconceptions of what a Christian should look, talk, and act like. These legalistic type and their keyboard warriors decided to call out John Givez for the way he lives his life and the way he goes about impacting the culture. So John Givez wrote a response letter to answer his skeptics. Then after reading the letter, I talked to my friend Jeremiah about legalism which led to a discussion on movies and music.

We talked about how we feel convicted by certain things that the other is not convicted to such an extreme degree. For instance, my friend is not comfortable watching an R-rated movie usually, but I on the other hand don’t mind depending on why it is rated R. Then when it comes to music we are again at opposite ends of the spectrum, but the positions are reversed. I cannot listen to music with foul language, but my friend is a lot more open to it then I am which is fine. I mean, I have no place to call out my friend for listening to music with foul language, if I watch movies with foul language. Right?

Now I am a film fanatic and I actually went to film school, so I am biased towards watching films over listening to music. I grew up watching war movies with my Dad and brothers late at night all throughout my childhood. War movies like Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, We Were Soldiers, Gladiator, and so on that were very R-ratedWhen it comes to music on the other hand, I am a lot more cautious and skeptical to what I listen too.

In fact, I could count how many secular artists that I listen too off the top of my head on a regular basis. So now I ask myself, “Why is it that I am so restrictive towards music when it comes to whether or not it is Christian creators, but when it comes to my movie collection it is exclusively secular?” Why is that? Why do hold to this double-standard like a lot of other Christians?

I know for me personally that I honestly hate nearly every movie made by Christians because they are usually garbage, with the one exception being The Case For Christ movie which was actually pretty good. That may play a part in why I have more secular movies in my possession than secular music because there is a smaller supply of quality, Christian-oriented films that are also good. When comparing how many Christians are in the movie industry versus the music industry, it is pretty evident where the quality is best. In general, Christians in the movie industry are a joke compared to the Grammy-winning Christians in the movie industry.

Going back to legalism, when does someone go too far in what content they consume like movies or music? When is it okay for a fellow believer to correct another believer in love on what they are participating in? The best answer I can come to is that someone who has gone too far in whatever they are doing, is someone who is a) not glorifying God and b) is not reflecting Christ. If you can listen to secular music or watch secular movies, and not be hindered spiritually then go for it. If not, then you might want to reconsider what you are interested in as far as movies and music go.

For me, I have set up certain boundaries to ensure that I do not stumble into sin by going too far when it comes to these two mediums of art. This includes reading reviews from Common Sense Media (3), which is a website that tells you the content of most media and to what degree of content. For instance, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol has a 4 out of 5 stars for violence on Common Sense Media‘s review of the film, which means there is a lot of violence throughout the movie.

It could also be how you started your relationship with Jesus and became a Christian that influences what your specific borders for certain non-essential beliefs are going to be in your life. For example, I have these old family friends whose sons had such violent tendencies that just watching violent films would influence them to act extremely violently towards each other. So for that family, violent movies were not allowed because it tempted the two brothers into sinning towards each other.

Paul the Apostle wrote about legalism in two different places: Colossians 2:16-23 and Romans chapter 14. In the end, I could continue to discuss and try providing answers, but really I cannot truly say why I have certain standards for these two different mediums of entertainment. I will need to investigate and understand what pulls me away from God and draw borders accordingly on my own. One way you could go about finding safe boundaries for yourself is by studying these two passages in the Bible and understanding what hinders you or what doesn’t hinder you as a Christian. Like always, I hope this helps you if this is something that you struggle with in your life. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://rapzilla.com/2015-08-john-givez-pens-open-letter-to-christian-hip-hop/
  2. http://www.rapzilla.com/rz/news/38-backstage/11361-john-givez-pens-open-letter-to-christian-hip-hop
  3. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/
  4. Disclaimer

Why I Am Not A Calvinist

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/21/2019

 In the first installment of my “Why I Am” series, I will be giving three brief reasons as to why I do not adhere to the Judeo-Christian school of thought known as Calvinism. As I have studied and read about Calvinism, there have been many sources I have used to write this blog-post. Some of these sources were Norman Geisler’s sermon called “Why I Am Not a 5 Point Calvinist” (2), George L. Bryson’s book on Calvinism (3), and Tim Stratton’s 4-part series “The Petals Drop” on his website (4). There were other resources, but these were the main three that inspired me to write this blog-post.

So what is Calvinism exactly? Calvinism is a type of Christian doctrine created in the 16th Century by the French Theologian John Calvin to answer how God’s Sovereignty and Humanity’s Free Will coexist together. There are five main parts to Calvinism. According to gotquestions.org (5), Calvinism can be summarized by the acronym TULIP and is defined as the following:

  1. Total Depravity: “Every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord.”
  2. Unconditional Election: “God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual.”
  3. Limited Atonement: “Jesus only died for the elect.”
  4. Irresistible Grace: “When God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation.”
  5. Perseverance of the Saints: “A person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him.”

In other words, a Calvinist is a Christian that sees everything with an over-emphasis on God’s Sovereignty, which entails either a deterministic or compatibilistic philosopical view of the world. Here is a quick illustration that I made to put into perspective where Calvinism stands in the grand spectrum of the issue of God’s Sovereignty vs. Humanity’s Free Will within Christianity:

God's Sovereignty & Humanity's Free Will- 6 Stances

One last thing is that when I refer to a Calvinist or Calvinism, I am referring to a 5-Point Calvinist. Not those that claim to be any combination that is short of a 5-Point Calvinist like a 4-Point Calvinist or a 2-Point Calvinist. But the whole point of the 5 points of Calvinism is that they are supposed to work together like the pillars to a building. By removing one point you fracture the legitimacy of the other four points and the foundation of Calvinism in general because they were designed by John Calvin to work together, not to work independently of each other. With that said, let’s look at my objections and see why I am not a Calvinist.

1) Calvinism is Great Exegesis Without Hermeneutics

In general, with the Calvinistic perspective on Scripture, there are massive misinterpretations of certain passages within the Bible. Most notably, Scriptures such as Romans chapters 9-11, John chapter 6, Ephesians 1:1-4, and the list goes on. In contrast, there are Scriptures like 1 John 2:2, Romans 1:16-17, or 1 Timothy 2:3-6 that explicitly go against Calvinism. Put simply, context is key and exegesis without context is like a madman with a sword.

2) Calvinism Makes Sharing the Gospel Logically Incoherent

If you think about the Gospel from the Calvinist perspective, Jesus only came to save the elect, only the elect will go to Heaven, and only the elect will get saved. So then sharing the Gospel becomes useless and pointless because those who are predestined to go to Heaven will go to Heaven and those who are predestined to go to Hell will go to Hell, while at the same time you have no say in the matter.  As Bryson put it in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism, “You will be saved or damned for all eternity because you were saved or damned from all eternity.” (Bryson, 121). Although some of the most prominent preachers have been Calvinists like Charles Spurgeon, their actions are not logically consistent with determinism. It is the equivalent of preaching to tombstones because no matter what some people are just doomed to damnation because it somehow glorifies God.

3) Calvinism Makes God the Author of Evil

If God is completely sovereign, then from the Calvinistic perspective God is the author of evil because He brought it into existence. This goes against everything that characterizes God as worthy of worship and completely good. How can a perfect being bring about imperfection? Only through the Calvinistic perspective is this possible because God is the cause of everything that exists including evil, instead of Eve and Lucifer bringing sin into God’s creation by going against God in their own free will. Philosopher William Lane Craig on the subject of Calvinism once said “according to this view (causal determinism and compatibilism), the way in which God sovereignly controls everything that happens is by causing it to happen, and freedom is re-interpreted to be consistent with being causally determined by factors outside oneself (6).”

So since God is ultimately the first cause of everything, God is therefore the author of evil and good. Something that is completely contradictory to the Bible and Judeo-Christianity as a whole. There are even Calvinist’s that affirm that God is the author of evil. People like R.C. Sproul Jr. affirm this idea of God being the author of evil several times throughout his book (7) that deals with this issue.

Now these are just 3 of many objections I have to Calvinism and are just reasons as to why I do not affirm to be Calvinist. Other objections I have include sin being excusable or God lying to people in the Bible, but that would take awhile to explain every objection I have to Calvinism, so for the sake of time I only chose 3 objections. Hopefully, this helps you with understanding this issue and maybe one day you can decide where you stand on the issue of how God’s Sovereignty and Humanity’s Free Will interact together. My advice for those of you do not understand this issue quite yet is to just believe what the Bible affirms: 1) that God is Sovereign and 2) that humans have Free Will. This is the safest stance concerning this issue because it is strictly Biblical avoids the gridlock nature of philosophical schools of thought like Calvinism among others. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/a-conversation-about-calvinism-and-arminianism/
  2. https://youtu.be/fPpkSiO1Ci
  3. The Five Points of Calvinism, George L. Bryson
  4. http://freethinkingministries.com/the-petals-drop-why-calvinism-is-impossible/
  5. https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html
  6. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism
  7. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/taking-calvinism-too-far-rc-sproul-jr%E2%80%99s-evil-creating-deity/http://amzn.to/2xM4F1Q
  8. Disclaimer