Thoughts on Christian Unity in the Theological Realm

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." - 1 Corinthians 1:10

There are few statement I like less than "agree to disagree". It is a declaration of one's value of truth. I am not saying that we should not agree that we disagree, but what is really being said by such a statement is: "Since we disagree, let's not discuss the matter any further. I am not willing to continue exploring whether my belief or yours should be believed. We disagree, and the work required to overcome this obstacle will demand too much from both of us. The truth isn't really worth the discomfort of continuing this discussion. Wouldn't it be better just to drop the matter and go get some ice-cream?"

Unfortunately, it seems that Christians have all too often opted for this kind of superficial unity. When was the last time you saw disagreeing believers, let alone pastors, really connect with one another in meaningful discussion and arrive at a mutual understanding and agreement on some matter of faith? Is it possible for such a thing to happen? By the grace of God, of course it is! The main problem is not that such a thing is impossible, but that the problem lies in our pride and our egos: we do not believe that such a discussion can happen without someone getting angry or offended. Who wants to admit they are wrong? I am convinced that this is the main reason why people choose to "agree to disagree" rather than seek the God-intended blessing of Christian like-mindedness. Therefore, instead of seeking to terminate our pride, we seek to terminate the conversation. What a failure for humility and truth! Should not pride be eradicated? And is not truth too valuable to be so quickly sacrificed at the altars of our personal egos? Most certainly, this is not what Christianity is all about.

Ironically, it is at this very point - when we as Christians, with our semblance of unity, choose not to move into discussion with those we disagree with - that unity is undermined. We think by 'agreeing to disagree' we are preserving unity, but we are actually killing it. The moment the Church seeks unity apart from truth on account of fear we have become fractured, our fellowship becomes superficial, and what inevitably results is that we all end up going to our own little corners and huddles, never truly experiencing the sweetness of the true brotherly unity that Christ intends for us. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1) How rarely is such a statement heard today. We must understand that for such fellowship to be attained, brothers must dwell together in unity. Dwelling together means encountering one another, not hiding from one another. It means coming into contact with all of our brethren's uncomfortable idiosyncrasies and differing viewpoints. I think that most of us are afraid to dwell together. When we do come together we zip our lips and smile. Instead of connecting, we avoid, and before long we grow tired of saying nothing and so revert back to our corners where we feel free to discuss the things we long to discuss among those who are like-minded. Of course, we say we are all Christians and are unified, but is this the experience of true Christian unity? Is unity in the body of Christ only supposed to be between arm and arm, or foot and foot, and not between every member of the body?

Since I am speaking about unity in the realm of theology and doctrine, it may be objected that there is more to Christian unity than just doctrine. Yes, Christianity is most certainly more than doctrine... but here's the thing: it is never less than doctrine. Every true Christian experience we may have, whether with God or with one other, is based upon truth and never stands alone as an experience by itself. Therefore what, may I ask, is more needful? Without truth we are left with nothing but illusion. It is truth that creates and orchestrates love (Galatians 5:6; Philippians 1:9). What is it that objectively unites us as believers but our "like precious faith" in the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ? That is doctrine. And what has subjectively separated us as believers but our doctrinal disagreements which we refuse to come to terms with as a body? If our unity as believers lies in anything other than that which is the truth of God then we destroy whatever is meant by "Christian unity", and we may have "unity" with any non-believer just the same. One may say, "I still think that other things, like pride and lack of love, are what separates us as believers." This is most certainly true, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but that our failure in the area of doctrine is nothing less than a failure in love and humility. It is not really because we disagree doctrinally that we separate, but because we will not face our disagreements on account fear, carelessness and pride. The issue of doctrine is simply revealing our true problem of pride, and therefore to run from the doctrinal issue is to run from our true problem. Yet should we not also greatly long to be joined together in one mind with our fellow believers? Should we not want our fellowship to include every member of the body of Christ? If we do not, what does that reveal? Should we not also value truth and our fellow brothers so much so that we care when we see a fellow Christian not understanding the Word of God correctly? If we honestly believe a brother to be in error, should we not move toward him and not away? Would we not want someone to do that for us? Thus our casual attitude toward doctrine reveals also our casual attitude toward our brother.

Such a desire for like-mindedness in the Church is perhaps the single greatest contribution to real unity. Just as doctrine really does divide (Matt. 10:35), so doctrine really does unite. It is not that we must all believe the same things before we can be united, but when every member has a desire for like-mindedness - when instead of "agreeing to disagree" we begin to connect with one another in love and humility, seeking to bless and edify and attain to a mutual understanding in those matters in which we disagree - unity actually starts taking place. Real unity is experienced in our moving toward the goal of like-mindedness together, not merely in arriving at the goal itself (that's just the icing on the cake). This is because the act of simply moving toward each other, rather than away, necessitates humility of heart, love for the brethren, and the embracing of a greater vision of the body of Christ.

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13) The average, contemporary understanding of unity is deficient and has brought us into a state that is far below the glorious ideal of Christian unity in the New Testament. Let us not settle for anything less than God's best for His Church: perfection of unity in truth and of love. May we be so dissatisfied with "agreeing to disagree", and may we see our fellow brethren and the truth as so valuable, and our pride as so ugly, that we could not but move toward one another for the sake of that true fellowship we are called to in Christ.

How We Should Respond to the Haitian Crisis

As the world witnesses the horror of human suffering in the wake of the earthquake that decimated the Haitian capital early this year, we must not naively turn away from asking the hard questions, nor settle for the easy answers.

There is something about a natural disaster that leaves us feeling helpless - in fact, that is what they are intended to do. A natural disaster cannot be controlled or anticipated. We are shaken out of our modern delusions of grandeur and are reminded that we, as men, are weak, small, pathetic, and are still at the mercy of the One Who created and rules over nature. The Bible has much to say about natural disasters, yet even those who claim to believe the Scriptures often fail in correctly interpreting such disasters. We are more comfortable saying it was a "random act of nature" rather than a "supernatural judgment". The latter certainly is not a popular message; actually, we may be hated for saying it. Nevertheless, we must be true, not popular.

The prophet Amos, speaking by inspiration, said, "When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?" (Amos 3:6) The historical and prophetic message of the Bible is full of examples proving this point. Nature is no longer in its original state of blessing because God cursed it as punishment for our first parent's sin (Gen. 3:17-19). The greatest natural disaster the world has ever known, the Flood, was directly instigated by God on account of mankind's evil and corrupt works, and nowhere is God ashamed to own that disaster as His doing. "And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." (Gen. 6:17) The destruction of the Egyptians by the ten plagues (Exodus 7-12), the calamities that befell the disobedient nation the Israel (Lev. 26:14-39), and the yet future outpouring of the wrath of God upon the earth (Rev. 15-16), to name a few, are all manifestly declared to be the direct doing of God. In fact, God is jealous that we do not confuse who is really bringing these disasters lest we think that He has not done them (Lev. 26:42, Deut. 32:27)! There is no sense in blushing for God when He Himself is not ashamed. One of the greatest lessons that we must learn about God is that God is a God of judgment.

We are horrified to think that God would do such things because we do not see disaster as judgment upon sin. We have a naive view of ourselves as morally good, and therefore the thought that God would do such things to innocent and good people is for us a cause to accuse God of sin! Many people, attempting to defend God (as if He needed defending), suggest that disasters are not from God at all, but are just unfortunate happenstance. I do not know which interpretation is worse - accusing God of sin or accusing God of passivity- for both are essentially accusing Him of sin. It is only because we are unwilling to own up to our sin, and that we are in fact sinners, and that God is just in judging us for our sins, that we either accuse God of being an evil tyrant or an incompetent ruler. Our proud unwillingness to consider the Biblical message of sin and judgment is the best proof of the reality of our sinfulness, and therefore of God's just judgment against it.

How then should we interpret the present crisis in Haiti? To begin with, we must come to understand that this disaster is, as all such disasters are, a judgment of God against sin. These things do not happen by accident, as if God was clumsy; nor arbitrarily, as if God was cruel. Jesus prophesied that as the age draws to a close earthquakes and other natural disasters would become more and more frequent and intense. "And great earthquakes shall be in various places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven." (Luke 21:11) These "beginnings of birth pangs" (Matt. 24:8) will find their culmination in the final outpouring of judgment upon the world at the end of the age (Rev. 16:18). Therefore such disasters should not surprise us. It is essential that we acknowledge such disasters are from God.

But it is also absolutely essential that we see that these disasters are judgments from God against all sin. An earthquake did not strike in Haiti because they are worse sinners there than in any other part of the world. If we know that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom. 1:18) then truly in any place and at any time could such an earthquake happen. This is true of all calamity, whether it be an earthquake or a mere car wreck. "And Jesus answered and said to them, 'Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.'" (Luke 13:2-5) What happened in Haiti did not just happen to them, but to all mankind as a corporate body of sinners, and should cause all men to repent and confess their sins to God, turning to Him for reconciliation through Christ.

The third most important thing we must understand about the Haitian crisis is that God's judgments are actually mercies from Him, "Who desires all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). God sends His judgments so that men can see and understand the truth about their sin and and the reality of His justice. How else can we be awakened from our egotistical self-righteous stupor when we are unwilling to consider the plain Scriptural revelation? God chastises the world in love, but, as we have seen from the past, the pride of mankind does not humble itself so easily. Pharoah did not humble himself after the first judgment, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth, fifth, sixth, etc... up to the tenth; and even after the loss of his own son he did not humble himself, but pursued the Israelites through the Sea unto his death. What will it take to humble mankind? We are informed by the Scriptures that this Haitian crisis will not be the last. "If men will not repent when God gives opportunity through calamity, then we open ourselves for yet a greater suffering." (Art Katz) God is sending a message to the world: Acknowledge your offenses and humble yourselves, and turn to the Lord your God. It is because God loves the world that He sends these judgments.

"The Lord is known by the judgment which He executes." (Psalm 9:16) To embrace the truth about God's judgment is to embrace the truth about the cross of Jesus Christ, and to find there the mercy and forgiveness which we as sinful people so desperately need. God publicly set forth Christ as a propitiation in His blood for all men to see, and by seeing the cross of Christ as the judgment of God against sin we see the horrid revelation of what our sin is and the inflexible holiness of God in His justice. But we also see, most of all, the incomprehensible love of God that eclipses all love we have ever known. For it was there on the cross that God the Son suffered in the place of sinful men so that the grace of forgiveness might flow freely to lost, guilty sinners. The broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ for the world is all that is needed to reconcile sinful men and women to God. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36) Every chastisement that we experience from God should cause us to stop and consider that one great Chastisement from which comes our peace with God (Isaiah 53:5). But how long will men refuse to look?

A final word: What shall we say about those believers in Christ who are suffering immensely in the wake of this judgment? Shall we say that for them it is only unfortunate happenstance? We dare not. We must remember Job's faith-filled words which he uttered on the day of his calamity: "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21) As we learn from the patience of Job, for God's people, suffering has an entirely different purpose. It accomplishes two things: one, it teaches us how much God truly loves us, for He disciplines us for our own good that we may be a partakers in His holiness (Heb. 12:10). As Christians, we all have many rough edges, and only through suffering can we learn to draw near to Him, to forget ourselves in Him, and to trust wholeheartedly in His goodness. Secondly, suffering works into us compassion and empathy for others who suffer, for even as Christ our High Priest had to learn this also through suffering, so must we as "a nation of priests" learn compassion through suffering. "For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to help them that are tempted." (Heb. 2:18) "For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:14; see also 2 Corinthians 1:3-7) For Christians, as it was with Job and with Christ, suffering does not mean judgment against sin, for we, in Christ, are sinless in the sight of God. But as all suffering is ultimately related to sin, Christ identified with sinners in their suffering so that He could be a merciful and compassionate High Priest. In the same way God causes His people to suffer for their good, to learn to trust Him; and for the good of others, to learn to empathize with the lost.

Let us identify with the sufferers in Haiti at this time. Let us not gloat over them and think that we are any better than they are, or that they are any worse than we are. Let us see this earthquake as a judgment from God against all sin, Who is both just and merciful in all His deeds. Let us learn to know God in His judgments, and God as a God of judgment, that we may see the glory of the crucified Christ as crucified for our sins, and by doing so know God as a God of love. Let us not persist in naive and unreal thoughts about our supposed 'goodness' as people, but humble ourselves as sinners before the Lord, taking refuge in His blood. If we do not learn from these judgments we can only expect to receive worse from God's hand, until all the world finally knows that He alone is God, and that before Him we are all as but a drop in a bucket.

The Pleasure of God in the Gospel of His Son

This message was preached on September 6, 2009, at the Guinavah Campground amphitheater. "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight." (Colossians 1:19-22) Contrary to what we might feel, God does not reluctantly forgive sins but He is pleased and full of joy to reconcile His enemies unto Himself. It pleased the Lord to crush His Son for our sakes, and when we apprehend this wonderful knowledge of God's good pleasure in the gospel, our hearts will be liberated and our lives transformed. Listen below:

Eli Brayley - The Pleasure of God in the Gospel of His Son

Acts 8:26-38 - A Baptism Message

This is the transcript of a message that was given at the baptism of a dear friend of mine.

"And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." - Acts 8:26-38

There are many baptism accounts in the book of Acts that I could have chosen to speak from, but I chose to speak from this one because it’s so simple, and yet so complete, in its testimony of what the gospel is, and what baptism is.

This passage tells us the story of a man’s salvation. I’d like you to notice three things about the man in this story:

1) That it was God who pursued this man, and that if God had not pursued him he would not have been saved. Philip was sent on a divine appointment into the desert to meet this man, a place where he would not have naturally gone. Had God not sent Philip, the man would have returned to Ethiopia in ignorance of God’s salvation and would more than likely have perished in his sins.

2) That this man was truly religious, and yet unsaved. He had just visited Jerusalem, the city of God, to worship God. This verse reveals to us that he was a proselyte, a Gentile, who, like many, had joined himself to the Jews in recognition that the one true God of all was also the God of Israel. He had gone to the right place at the right time, and yet still remained ignorant of the salvation of God through God’s Son, Jesus Christ. An onlooker may have thought this man was alright, but God sent Philip to him because he was not alright. His life was still unredeemed, and the wrath of God still hung over his head because he, like every one else, was a sinner. “There is none righteous, no not one.” (Romans 3:10). Whether you are Jew or Gentile, religious or irreligious, you are a sinner, and until you come to faith in Jesus Christ, you stand eternally condemned before God. You may, like the Ethiopian, go to church and worship God and do all the right things, but be just as unsaved and in peril as he.

3) He read the Scriptures, but did not understand them, and was humble enough to admit that and to ask for help in understanding them. He read the Scriptures, but that was not enough. In order for a person to be saved they must believe in Christ, and in order for them to believe in Christ they must first understand who He is and what exactly He did for them. That is why Philip asked the question: “Do you understand what you are reading?” And it is important that we ask ourselves that same question. Sure you may own a Bible and have read it your whole life, but if you do not understand what you are reading, your faith and your hope of salvation may be completely erroneous and therefore useless. We must “know whom we have believed”.

Now it tells us what place the Ethiopian was reading from. The text of Scripture that he was reading was from the 53^rd chapter of the Prophet Isaiah: the most profound Messianic prophecy in all of the Old Testament. In it describes the death of Christ on behalf of the sins of his people: Isaiah 53:5-12. It is from this very text that Philip opens his mouth and preaches Christ to the Ethiopian. It doesn’t tell us what Philip’s sermon was, because that is unnecessary. He preached Christ, and we know what the preaching of Christ is, not merely because it has already been shown to us before in the book of Acts, but because of the marvelous text that He is preaching from: Isaiah 53. To preach Isaiah 53 is to preach Christ, and vice versa. I can tell you it went something like this:

Jesus of Nazareth, whom you heard all about while you were in Jerusalem, is the man spoken of by the prophet Isaiah. He is the Holy One of God, the Messiah and Savior whom God promised would come and save us from our sins. You see, all people everywhere have gone astray from God, like sheep, and have sinned, falling short of God’s standard of righteousness, so that we all deserve to die. The punishment for sin is to be accursed, eternally separated from God, and to suffer forever in a place of fiery torment. The requirement to be received into eternal life is to be righteous, and in the sight of God no one is righteous. For God to declare a person as righteous they would have to have no sin, or else God would be unjust, a compromiser, and turn a blind eye to sin. Since no one is righteous, all are in need of the Savior. God so loved the world that He sent His Son Jesus into the world to die in the place of sinners and bear their sins on their behalf. Christ Himself said, “The Son of man has come to give His life a ransom for many.” He was cut off, but not for Himself. “All we like sheep have gone astray, each one of us has turned to our own way, but the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” Jesus died upon a cross and paid for the sins of the world, then He rose from the dead the third day proving that He is the Son of the God and that He has atoned for sin by the sacrifice of Himself! Because the Lord laid upon Him our iniquity, it no longer is counted against those who believe, and they are freed from sin, forgiven and justified in God’s sight. Through Christ’s death, God can look upon sinners and declare them fully righteous in His sight, and therefore all those who believe are saved from eternal death and are given the gift of eternal life. That is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

It must have been quite a sight to see that wealthy and regal black man listening in the chariot to a poor and haggard Jewish man, but that day the royal treasurer of Ethiopia believed the message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified and was gloriously saved from his sins! Jesus said, “Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24) “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” (1 John 5:1) The Ethiopian was miraculously born again by the Spirit of God, who opened his heart to receive the Word and gave him the faith to believe!

See now this beautiful picture. They come upon some water along the way. The Ethiopian asks this significant question which we may learn from: “What doth hinder me from being baptized?” An interesting, but helpful way to phrase the question! “The answer, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The only condition: to believe. To believe the record that Jesus is the Christ, the one of whom Isaiah spoke of. The one through whom comes the forgiveness of sins, by His death. He is baptized.

There are only two Christian ordinances in the New Testament: the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Both are symbolic: the one represents Christ’s body and blood that was given for us for the remission of sins: what happened to Him. The other represents the individual’s new birth and union with Christ: what happened to the individual. Both are given to us by God for explanation, for reference, for remembrance. Both focus on the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins, but neither of them actually contributes to that work. As we take communion, we recognize the sacrifice Christ made for us to pay for our sins, when He gave up His life. When we are baptized, we recognize the individual’s participation by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, how that in Christ, the sinner is dead to sin by the body of Christ and alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Baptism is a confession. It is not a step to exaltation and glory, but of humility. The believer acknowledges that he or she is a sinner who deserves to die, and that Christ died that death for them. But it is also a recognition of hope, that as Christ has died and put away our sins as far as the east is from the west, so has He risen, and we have risen with Him to newness of life before God. We are forever justified, saved and possessors of eternal life. Death has no more dominion!

This is what Bethanie is doing in obedience to the Lord today. She is not doing this to tell everyone how great a person she is, or to earn points with God, or to get her sins forgiven. She is confessing to everyone that she is a sinner, but that her sins are forgiven through the blood of Jesus the Christ who died for her at Calvary, just as Isaiah 53 foretold. This is a day of remembrance and celebration for what Jesus, our Victor, has freely done for her. To God alone be all the glory. Amen.

7 Arguments Atheists Can't Use

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." - Psalm 14:1

An atheist, as the wordsmith Noah Webster so aptly defined, is one who disbelieves in and denies the existence of a God, and every now and again a person will find himself in the company of one or more of these kinds of people. Of atheism, here is the outrageous thing: there is not one viable argument which can be given by the atheist to support the disbelief in or denial of the existence of a God. Their position is entirely assumed apart from any reasonable basis. Of course, the atheist will deny such a charge, though it was C.H. Spurgeon who reminded us, "Skepticism is no very great achievement. Nothing is easier than to doubt. A man of moderate ability or learning can doubt more than the wisest men believe. Faith demands knowledge, for it is an intelligent grace, able and anxious to justify itself; but infidelity is not required to give a reason for the doubt that is in it." (The Clue of the Maze, p. 19) As a Christian, I am writing from the faith in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and I have compiled several of the most common arguments that atheists use to support their atheism in order to show how none of them are viable arguments against the existence of God.


1. Evolution

Probably the most common argument used by atheists in recent years to disprove the existence of God is an appeal to the theory of evolution - somehow they think that if evolution is true it follows that God does not exist, but such an argument is completely worthless. Though I myself ardently reject the theory of evolution, there are numerous Christians and non-Christians who see theistic evolution as an entirely tenable explanation of creation. That is the belief that God designed and had a part to play in the evolutionary process. In fact, I would argue that one would have to believe in theistic evolution if one was to believe in evolution at all. Were the theory of evolution true, the thought that the present state of things should have come about by chance is so utterly impossible and beyond all sensible hope that it is nothing short of miraculous. If evolution were true, either God had an active part to play in it or we must throw rationality to the wind. The fact that there are many theistic evolutionists in this world today (who are the only reasonable evolutionists) reveals that the atheistic argument that evolution disproves God is ridiculous, null and void.


2. The "Problem" of Evil

It is argued that because evil exists, God doesn't exist. However, the exact opposite is true: Because evil exists, it proves that God exists. Were it true that there was no God, and that everything in the universe had an impersonal, naturalistic beginning, then evil wouldn't exist at all. Evil is a moral word, and morality has no place in an impersonal, naturalistic universe. Whatever is, is, and whatever is, is not deviant but totally natural. In such a universe murder isn't wrong, it just hurts. Kidnapping children to use them as sex slaves isn't wicked; it's not even twisted. However, to talk like this is nonsense because every human being inherently knows evil exists, and every human experience proves the opposite. Even the atheist knows evil exists because he argues that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God! The existence of evil proves conclusively that we live in a personal universe that was created by a moral God. The "problem" of evil is really the atheist's problem, not the theist's.

That both evil and God exist is also not a problem for the Christian, for the Bible explains why God allows evil to exist, and how God has not turned a blind eye to evil but has condemned it conclusively and will judge it eternally. Therefore this poses no problem. But even if someone chose to reject the Biblical testimony concerning the existence of both evil and God, they still have no grounds to deny the existence of a God simply because evil exists. There is another valid option (though not a convincing one), and that is that an evil God exists. Whatever someone might choose, there is no grounds for atheism by an appeal to evil.


3. Hume's Argument Against Miracles

Another common argument atheists use against the existence of God, and against all things supernatural, is taken from David Hume's argumentation against miracles, or against anything out of the "ordinary". Hume argued, basically, that miracles were "a violation of natural law" and anything that might be purported as a violation of natural law (or anything out of the ordinary) needed such an incredible amount of evidence in order to be believed that he essentially ruled out all possibility of believing anything "supernatural".

But here a few preliminary questions are in order: What is "ordinary"? If indeed God exists, would not God be a part of the ordinary? As even an atheist once told me, "If God exists then anything He does in our world is technically not supernatural but perfectly natural, though we may personally not be accustomed to it." Also, who said a miracle was a "violation" of natural law? Today it has been generally agreed in the philosophical debate that Hume was wrong in his definition of miracle, which seriously undermines his entire argument (see Hume's Abject Failure by John Earman, PhD, Princeton). A miracle is not a violation of natural law but is wholly consistent with natural law, once one takes into consideration God. Therefore, in a theistic worldview, there is nothing so unusual about a miracle that would set it apart in a category making it hopeless to prove. The simple testimony of a miracle is just as valid as the simple testimony of anything else.

Suppose a miracle from God really did happen, and suppose it was in fact witnessed by several people (the number is irrelevant). In Hume's thinking, no one would ever be able to believe the witnesses even though the event actually happened, and thus the world is robbed of exceedingly priceless knowledge. Any epistemology that does not allow for the simple testimony of true events should be re-evaluated as obstructive and insufficient.

Finally, regardless of how untenable Hume's argument is, it contributes nothing to the disbelief in a God, for it concerns miracles, and Deism is still an option. Therefore it should not be used by atheists to support atheism. Meanwhile, the perpetual tide of miraculous testimony still genuinely attests to the existence of the personal God.


4. God is a Crutch

It is frequently stated by atheists that people only believe in God because God serves them as a crutch; something to help or comfort them because of their weakness or need. Of course, there are several obvious reasons why this argument is totally invalid.

First of all, regardless whether or not God helps and comforts people, the existence of God does not depend upon someone liking or not liking God to be there. We could point out the absurdity of the reverse, that since atheists believe that God does not exist, and draw a certain amount of comfort from that, it follows that God must exist. This reasoning is just as ridiculous when applied to the theist. That the existence of God is indeed a comforting reality for believers serves nothing to disprove God, and what shall we say about people who believe in God and yet draw no comfort from it?

The thing is, in order for people to draw comfort from God, they must first believe that there is a God to draw comfort from - there must be some reason why they feel they can call out to a God who will help them. They have faith, and their faith must have a basis, or else there would be no faith. Speaking for Christians, we do not believe in God, as the atheist suggests, because God is a crutch for us. That is no basis. We believe in God because of the uniform testimony of creation, Scripture and human experience. It is because we believe in God (and the Judeo-Christian God at that) that we are able to draw comfort from Him, and not the other way around. Therefore the atheist who argues in this fashion misses the whole point and puts the cart before the horse.

The truth is, believing in God brings with it a certain amount of discomfort. If we believe Biblical revelation, for example, we must believe that God is a consuming fire - a holy and just judge who will punish the ungodly with everlasting destruction. That includes our lost friends, family members and even ourselves before salvation. We must acknowledge that our sinful passions are unacceptable, though we enjoy them so much. We must also face the ridicule and oftentimes persecution that comes with believing the message of Christ crucified. In all reality, to become a Christian is not to take up a crutch but to take up a cross. "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. 16:24-25) I should think, rather, that it is the atheist who finds a crutch in disbelieving the existence of God when all the evidence is finally weighed.


5. Religious Crimes

Another argument put forth, usually in a last ditch effort by the atheist to make his tottering position seem tolerable, is that because so many crimes have been committed in the name of God it must therefore follow that God does not exist, and that religion is false. But when we speak of crime, we are speaking of immorality, and immorality only exists as far as God exists, and immorality is immoral only because it is a transgression of the law of God. There actually can be no "religious crimes" without the existence of God.

Furthermore, it is not religion, true religion, nor God, that commit these crimes, but so-called "religious" people who themselves violate the very idea of religion by their crimes. We must also consider the immeasurable good that faith in God has caused in the world, as well as the immense evil this world has seen on account of denying God. It is always some form of godlessness that is the source of all sin, whether it be categorized as "religious" or atheistic.


6. If God Had No Beginning, Why Not the Universe?

Sometimes it is argued that if theists can say God has always existed, then atheists can equally say the universe has always existed. Whatever one believes, something has had to have always existed, because everything that currently is could not have come from nothing. The thought alone is staggering to both theist and atheist alike. Christians affirm the Scriptural revelation that God has always existed as God, and that at one definite point God created the universe from nothing. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) This verse refers to the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of God. It is the beginning of our history, and it is remarkable that such an ancient sentence holds such profound meaning today. But is it true that if Christians can say God has always existed, so atheists can say the universe has always existed?

The answer is no. As much as atheists would like to believe it, the demise of this argument is that the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn that the universe in fact had a beginning. Scientific research has advanced leaps and bounds in the area of physics, astronomy and cosmology in the last 100 years, and as it has, the truth of Genesis 1:1 has proven itself to be accurate: that is, that there was in fact a beginning to the universe. Christians believed that the universe had a beginning for thousands of years despite the fact that the dominate belief in the ancient and pre-modern world was that the universe was a constant. Today, however, modern science has completely turned the tables. "[Today], the dominant idea of cosmology is that the universe had a beginning." (Dr. Adam Frank, University of Rochester) "The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the universe began with a "Big Bang"... the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan) "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning... This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology." (Stephen Hawking, University of Cambridge)

Therefore, because modern science is revealing the fact that the universe did in fact have a beginning, this argument cannot be used. It is up to the atheist to first prove that the universe did not have a beginning - a belief contrary to the scientific evidence. Nothing comes from nothing, so if the universe had a beginning, as the ancient Scripture declares, it is one of the greatest proofs for the existence of God. Besides, even if the universe had always existed, how does that prove atheism anyway?


7. The Belief in God is Unfalsifiable

Lastly, it is often objected by atheists that the belief in God is a belief that is unfalsifiable, that is, that you cannot disprove it even if it were false, and therefore anyone who believes in God exercises a purely unscientific faith which should not be recognized. They compare believing in God to believing in leprechauns or unicorns, or, to the unfalsifiable claim, "Everything just grew double in size... Prove me wrong!" So they compare this with the theistic assertion, "God exists... Prove me wrong!" But is this really the case with theism? Is this a valid objection leveled against the belief in God?

This argument would be valid if it were accurately and faithfully representing the theist's position, which it is not. Accusing theists of making unfalsifiable claims is just one of the many thoughtless strawmen that atheists have invented to dismiss the belief in God. Despite what some may say, people all over the world believe in God because they have reason for doing so, and it is because they have a reason for doing so that the belief may be disproved and falsified. Since any belief stands upon some argument, destroy the argument and you destroy the belief. Any belief that does not stand upon an argument should indeed be rejected as unintelligent, but such is not the case with theism.

If a man says, "Unicorns exist", one need only ask him the reason for him saying so. If he gives some empirical evidence, like, "I saw one in the zoo", one simply needs to go to the zoo and ask if they have ever had a unicorn there. If he rather says, "Because the great spirit of the unicorn spoke to me", one can investigate whether he is lying, or whether he is mad. But if it is found that he is neither lying, nor mad, and whatever other facts necessarily precede or follow this premise add up, it would be reasonable to believe him. The point is, his assertion may be falsified. Likewise, the belief that God exists does not stand alone without any reasonable basis - ask a Christian sometime why he or she believes in God. If an atheist wishes to falsify the claim, he ought to go about answering the evidence rather than use such an argument as the strawman in question.


Conclusion: I Don't Want There to Be a God

I have learned that the source of all atheism springs from the heart, and not the brain. Atheism is not an intellectual position, but a dogmatic faith cloaked in intellectual jargon - else why do atheists argue so feverishly? Why do the emotions rise so? It is because they do not want there to be a God. It is because of what believing in God would mean, and that is something they are not willing to face. "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works..." (Psalm 14:1) History tells the story of thousands of atheists who have bowed their knees in repentant faith before the Lord God of heaven and earth. Was it because they suddenly gave up their intellect? Most certainly not! Was it not rather because they submitted their wills to the sovereign will of the true and living God? As long as the heart rages against God no amount of reasoning will stop the infinite flow of irrational arguments proceeding from a fool, but all arguments will cease once the heart is still.

To my dear atheist friends: not wanting God to be there does not change the fact that He is there, and as long as you continue to fight against God you are only hurting yourself and others.