Is Science The Only Way To Know Truth? (Can Science Validate Christianity?)

 

            Mankind should always be grateful to science for its incredible foray into the multivarious facets of life. However, a claim that surfaces during religious discussions assert that science is the only way to know the truth.

            Scientism posits science as the only source of human knowledge.  

            So, is science the only way to know the truth? Can science validate Christianity?

            The answer is a definite ‘No.’ Here’s why...

            First, the truth claim that science is the only way to know the truth is self-refuting because this very claim cannot be validated by science.

            Second, science has its limits. Science writer and public speaker, Dr. Alex Berezow posits the limitation of science, “Science has nothing to say about ethics. If we were to follow science exactly as prescribed, we do things like eugenics. Science has nothing really to say about how we should treat other people. I am a religious person. I am a Christian. Science is the best secular source of knowledge that we have. If I want to know how humans evolved, I don’t go to the Bible, I go to science. But if I want to know why we are here and what we are supposed to do, then I go to religious texts, then I go to my priests. I think there are two non-overlapping magisteria—science, which is secular, and religion, which talks about the bigger questions: the whys, the questions kids ask, which are the hardest ones to answer.”¹

            Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity lists the many things that we know without the benefit of science:²

            1. Logical and Mathematical truths

            2. Metaphysical truths

            3. Moral and Ethical truths

            4. Aesthetic truths

            5. Historical truths

            Last but not the least, if science cannot validate religion, are they both mutually exclusive? Or is there a definite relationship between science and religion?

            It may not be appropriate to endorse the idea that science and religion reign over separate conceptual kingdoms – separate “magisteria.” The magisteria of science covers ‘empirical facts,’ whereas the magisteria of religion extends over the search for the spiritual meaning of our lives. These, according to Stephen J. Gould, are nonoverlapping. This is the principle of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA).

            William Lane Craig explains how science and religion can mutually and fruitfully interact. This is the summary of his thesis:³

1. Religion furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish.

2. Science can both falsify and verify claims of religion.

3. Science encounters metaphysical problems which religion can help to solve.

4. Religion can help to adjudicate between scientific theories.

5. Religion can augment the explanatory power of science.

6. Science can establish a premiss in an argument for a conclusion having religious significance.

Endnotes:

¹https://bigthink.com/design-for-good/on-journalists-junk-science-and-why-science-cant-discover-all-truth

²https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-dangers-of-scientism-and-an-over-reliance-on-science/

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/science-theology/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion/

Websites last accessed on 23^rd August 2021. 

Can Truth Be Known With Certainty?

             Some skeptics contend they cannot be sure about Christianity’s truth claims because, they assert, truth cannot be known with any certainty. However, when they claim that truth cannot be known with any certainty, they posit certainty.

            They say with all certainty that truth cannot be known with any certainty. So their statement ‘truth cannot be known with any certainty’ is a truth claim that is predicated on certainty.

            J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity elaborates:¹ [Emphasis Mine]

In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, “You can’t be certain about Christianity because truth cannot be known with any certainty.”

Response #1:

“Are you sure? Are you confident about that statement related to truth? It sounds like you have certainty. But if truth cannot be known with any certainty, then you can’t have certainty that truth can’t be known with certainty. Do you see the problem? As it turns out, all of us are certain about something, even if it’s just that you can’t be certain. But that claim, in and of itself, is self-refuting. It’s important that all of us determine which truth claims what we should trust or distrust. But to claim that nothing can be known or trusted is contradictory and impossible to live out effectively. Can you see why this sort of claim cannot be sustained?”

OR

Response #2:

“What do you mean by certainty? Do you mean “beyond a possible doubt”? If that’s the standard, we would be paralyzed by fear and indecision. Will my car explode when I turn the key today? I can’t be sure beyond a possible doubt. Will my next restaurant meal result in food poisoning? Again, I can’t be certain beyond a possible doubt. We can’t (and don’t) live by that standard, because, if we did, we wouldn’t want to leave our homes. Instead we live by a lower standard known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is also the standard we apply to the most serious criminal trials. If it’s good enough to use in those trials, it’s also good enough for us to use in our daily lives. Do you honestly think truth can’t be known beyond a reasonable doubt? Have you ever applied this standard to the case for God’s existence or the truth of Christianity?”

Endnotes:

¹https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/quick-shot-truth-cannot-be-known-with-any-certainty/, last accessed 31/July/2021. 

Can Science Disprove God’s Existence?

            A common diatribe emanating from the atheistic bandwagon is that science has conclusively disproven the existence of God and the authenticity of Historic Christianity.

            Has science conclusively disproven the existence of God? On what basis?

            Scientific materialists argue that all the workings of the universe can be explained without a need for God. Consider Stephen Hawking’s arguments against God’s existence, here’s an excerpt:¹

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."

Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.

"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

            Inasmuch as scientists from the atheistic camp cry foul to God’s existence, an article in the Time magazine authored by Dr. Amir Aczel questions science’s authority to debunk God’s existence: [Emphasis Mine]²

But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos…

…The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are.

            So it’s adequately evident that science lacks the authority to question God’s existence let alone disproving it.

            Could science be the only way to determine truth? Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, John Lennox says, absolutely not, “Well, obviously science cannot be the only way to truth. Why? Because that's a logically self-contradictory statement. If science were the only way to truth, then the statement, "Science is the only way to truth," would be given to us by science, but it isn't. So the thing falls at the very beginning. But looking at it more broadly, you see, if science were the only way to truth, you'd have to close half the faculties at least at Biola. You'd have no literature, you'd have no theology, you'd have no art, you'd have no music, and so on. There are so many other intellectual disciplines that are perfectly rational, but they are not the natural sciences.

            Now of course, in German, the word for science is wissenschaft, and that covers actually all academic disciplines really. But when we're speaking English, "science" really stands for the natural sciences. Therefore, it's a very dangerous idea to suggest that the natural sciences are the only way to truth. And one of the best comments on it was made by another Nobel Prize winner, Sir Peter Medawar, who worked here in Oxford. He said it is so easy to see that science, natural science, is limited. Why? Because it cannot answer the simple questions of a child. Where do I come from? Where am I going? And what is the meaning of my life? And he pointed out, it's to literature and philosophy and of course theology that we need to turn for answers to those questions. Indeed, the really big questions of life and meaning are not answered by the natural sciences.”³

            Finally, William Lane Craig posits four different truths – ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics and science itself – that cannot be proven scientifically. This is in addition to the logical and mathematical truths that are part and parcel of the scientific method, but these too cannot be proved empirically: ⁴

From a scientific description you can make no inference whatsoever about statements of value, about good and evil, or right and wrong. This is the old distinction between what is and what ought to be…That is a statement of value, or ethics. Thus the whole realm of ethical inquiry is closed to the scientific method.

...the whole question of what it is permissible to do to animals in scientific research. Are you allowed to just do anything you want, to torture or kill an animal, in any way you want in scientific research? That is not a scientific question, that is an ethical question that science really cannot speak to. And if one denies that there is any ethical truths about these sorts of things, then there can be no objection to using human beings as human guinea pigs in this sort of medical research. The world was horrified when it learned that at camps like Auschwitz and Dachau Nazi scientists had used prisoners for medical experiments on living human beings. For example, at Auschwitz, Mengele took pregnant women and used them for vivisection.

A second area is the area of aesthetics. Like the good, the beautiful cannot be determined by the scientific method…there are aesthetic truths, and I think we all intuitively know it. There is an objective difference between the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel and the ceiling in this room. And yet this whole realm of the aesthetic is closed to the scientific method and scientific proof.

Number three, metaphysics. There are truths about the nature of reality which we all accept and yet which cannot be scientifically proven. [7] For example, how do you know that you are not a brain in a vat? Maybe you are just a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated with electrodes by some mad scientist to make you think that you are sitting here in this room hearing this lecture. In fact, he might even be stimulating you to think right now that it is impossible that you could be a brain in a vat. There is no way scientifically to disprove such a hypothesis…Or the belief that other minds exist cannot be proven scientifically. Other persons could just be mindless automata whose behavior exactly mimics your behavior as an organism having a mind. There is no way to prove scientifically that other minds even exist.

Finally, number four, science itself. This is perhaps the most amazing paradox of all, that science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. So that if you say that you should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, you would throw out science altogether…

…science is permeated with assumptions which cannot be scientifically proven, and yet which lie at the root of scientific theories…

…The Copernican Principle states that we occupy no special or privileged place in the universe. This principle underlies all of modern astronomy and astrophysics, otherwise you could say that distant galaxies run on entirely different laws of nature than the ones that we know here on earth. And yet the Copernican Principle is something than cannot be proved scientifically, it is simply an assumption that you have to make.

…According to the Continuum Hypothesis, between any two points on a line there is always another point. This underlies all of modern spacetime theories in physics, and yet again it is a hypothesis which simply cannot be proven scientifically…

…And so in all of these different ways – ethics, aesthetic, metaphysics, science itself – our knowledge is predicated upon truths which cannot be proven scientifically, and yet which are part and parcel of what we know about the world.

…the scientific method in no way undermines belief in God because there are beliefs about the world which cannot be scientifically proven but which we are entirely rational in accepting. The laymen might say that we accept these things by faith, but I would prefer to say they are among the deliverances of reason. And in the same way the person who experiences God as a living reality in his life knows God in such a way that for him God’s existence is a properly basic belief. And thus I think it would be more accurate and less misleading to say that belief in the existence of God is among the properly basic deliverances of reason, and that faith is that relation of love, trust, and commitment which ought to characterize our walk with God.

            So to conclude, can science disprove the existence of God?

            No! Never!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html

²https://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

³https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/can-science-explain-everything

⁴https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/has-science-made-faith-in-god-impossible-tamu-texas/

Websites last accessed on 30^th January 2020.

The god Who Admits All People to Heaven is…

The tenets of Historic Christianity are stated, the nature of truth examined, and adequate reasons to reason out our faith in Christ have been offered in my previous blog. Let us now examine the god who welcomes anyone and everyone into heaven. For the purpose of differentiating the god of the Universalists from the living Triune God, I have termed the god of the Universalists as ‘unigod.’ I have posited few threads of argument from within morality (distinction between right and wrong or good and evil) to question the existence of unigod. But let me begin with worship, which is man’s response to God’s worthiness.

God should be worshipped for HE alone is worthy of our worship (adoration, thanksgiving, prayers etc.). God deserves this response from all people.

From the perspective of Historic Christianity, since God so loved the world, HE gave HIS only Son, so that those who believe in the Son of God will receive eternal life (John 3: 16). Salvation of mankind (those who believe in Christ) is an outcome of God’s love for man. Since salvation is God first act (through HIS love to redeem man from his sin), the believer loves God, and worships HIM always. The living God reveals HIS worth to HIS people by HIS blessed presence, and offers hope that HE, through HIS second coming, will fulfill all HIS promises (e.g. eliminate evil forever). Thus man worships this Almighty, loving, gracious and a compassionate God.

In contrast how does unigod reveal his worthiness to his people? All that he supposedly does is to save all men (universal salvation). If this is his only or primary revelatory act of worthiness, then this god (unigod) has placed himself in a quicksand situation. If one can negate the unworthiness of unigod by confuting universal salvation or expose unigod’s attributes to be unworthy of God, then by entailment, unigod need not be existent and hence worshipped.

The following arguments present the unworthiness of unigod so to eliminate him from the figment of any imagination.

Argument from Attributes of God:

Man, to love and worship God, should be aware of HIS attributes or nature. Minimally, love and justice can be posited as great communicable attributes. Attributes that are perfect in God but also found in humans to a degree are ‘Communicable Attributes.’

A god who loves all, even those who hate and abuse him, seems to be a loving God. But a careful examination of this love reveals cruelty. Please observe this situation, “I don’t want to be with god, but he forces me to be with him, and I have to spend the entire eternity with him” – this certainly is a depressingly bitter hope. Holding people against their will is slavery; none accept, agree, or admire slavery. This is dictatorship in its glory. But this is precisely what unigod does to people. Love in unigod is actually cruelty.

Minimally, justice is a disposition to do that which is morally right. Presence of ‘right’ requires a ‘wrong;’ this is analogous to rust requiring a metal. Since evil is rampant in the world, a common man expects the authorities to punish evil. But unigod, as an apparent ultimate authority, does not punish evil, for he allows even a horrendously evil person to enter into heaven.

At our workplace, we are extremely saddened and frustrated when we are victims of injustice. An authority who fails to provide justice is unjust or evil. By allowing a horrendously evil person to inherit the greatest good (heaven), the unigod reveals his unjust and evil attributes.

Since God cannot be evil and unjust, we reasonably claim that there is no unigod, and that universalism is nothing but a grand illusion.

Argument from Abuse:

If you are unaware of Dawkins’ intense abuse (an act of evil) of the living God, please read the endnote.¹ Proponents of Historic Christianity believe that Prof. Richard Dawkins, the bulldog of Atheism, will not go to heaven, if he doesn’t repent of his sins and accept Christ the Lord as his Savior. The God of Historic Christianity is a holy God and in HIM is no sin, so sin cannot coexist with God.

Please brace yourself for an unmitigated indecent assault on unigod. The unigod is an evil, corrupt, depraved, putrid, brainless blockhead; he is a nonsensical dummy, foolish idiot, insanely ignoramus dolt, a nincompoop, and a senseless monkey. Anyone can mock and thoroughly disrespect unigod.² Despite these abuses on unigod, Universalists will claim that unigod will still save me.

A god who accepts and agrees with abuse of any intensity is a god without perfection and holiness. Even man’s intrinsic dignity and self-worth prevents him from agreeing and accepting to abuses of any form or size. So a god who is awfully comfortable with abuses to the extent of supporting and welcoming evil is an evil god that resides only in the fantasies of certain minds.

Argument from Consistent Discipleship:

The Universalists claim that all people will be saved despite their good or horrendous nature. By the same token, would the Universalists accept abuse? They technically should accept, for if their god allows this upon himself, the Universalists, as the disciples of unigod, should unconditionally allow this upon themselves. Failure of the Universalists to accept horrendous abuses upon themselves or their families and friends will intuitively expose their opposition to their own god.

Historic Christianity asserts Christlikeness in the believers of Christ (Romans 8: 29 et al.). This is not a mere fact from the realm of the spiritual, but from the realm of the physical as well. Christians are called to bear fruit and much fruit (John 15).

The contentment and joy of a parent is directly proportional to the physical and behavioral resemblance of their child. For example, if a child resembles the goodness of the parent, the parent will be greatly joyful and contented.

But in the case of Universalism, there is no resemblance of unigod in the lives of its disciples. The children of the alleged unigod exist in reality, and the child is to resemble the parent, but the resemblance of the children of the unigod is much unlike the unigod. So we can reasonably posit that since unigod exists only in the imagination of the Universalists, they are unable to imitate their god.

Argument from Existence of God:

The ironclad moral argument for the existence of God states:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the analytic philosopher of religion, defines objective moral values as, “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.”

We can extend the moral argument for God to:

4. The unigod saves all people, even the horrendously evil.

5. So there are no objective moral values in unigod.

6. Because objective moral values and duties exist, unigod does not exist.

In conclusion, Universalism is purely mystical and the alleged god who admits all people into heaven is imaginary, and resides only in the minds of the universalists. I simply cannot comprehend a god who saves all people. Please enlighten me if you disagree with me.

I will continue on this subject but from the perspective of Christian Universalism (Christians subscribing to Universalism) in my next blog. Amen.

Endnote & References:

¹ Dawkins’ view of God in his book ‘God Delusion:’ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

² This indecent attack on unigod is perfectly reasonable, since unigod is existent only in the dreams and imagination of universalists.

Do All People Go to Heaven? (Reasoning the Truth of Historic Christianity)

In February 2013, I composed my preliminary thoughts on ‘Universalism’ under the title “Do All People Go to Heaven?” The title remains the same, since I intend to dwell further on Universalism. For the sake of continuity, please observe the synopsis of my previous blog:

1. Universalism is a belief that all people will go to heaven (inherit God’s salvation), irrespective of who, what, why and how they are.

2. All religions are fundamentally different; they contradict each other (E.g. Atheism negates God, and the God of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are fundamentally different). If religions are poles apart, how can all people go to heaven?

3. Hell is not a literal presence for a Universalist. The Universalist will allegorize passages from the Bible that describes hell.

4. Universalism does not explain evil & justice on earth. Universalism advocates an immoral world. Man can do what he desires (even horrendous evil) and still be saved.

5. The god of the Universalist is evil (not offended by sins and cannot stop evil) and unjust (cannot provide justice to people). So we infer that the god Universalist’s posit is imperfect; in the likeness of an imperfect man. This god need not be worshipped or glorified.

In order to expose the errors innate in Universalism, we ought to establish the foundations of Historic Christianity to reveal its intricate composition and to state the basic contradiction between Universalism and the Historic Christianity. Then we need to understand the nature of truth, and subsequently be convinced to reason out our belief.

Historic Christianity

It is important to know the details of Historic Christianity in order to identify the errors of contradictory truth claims. Please observe the intricate interdependence of the essentials of Historic Christianity:

1. Truth: There is absolute and objective truth.

2. The reliability of the Bible: The Bible is inspired (by God), inerrant (no errors), and infallible (trustworthy). It is the only and the final authority for faith and life. The Bible is absolutely truthful.¹

3. Existence of God: The Bible reveals a holy God.²

4. God’s Trinity: There is one God, in the persons of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

5. Miracles of God: God is supernatural and active, so HE will act. HIS supernatural acts are miracles.³

6. Incarnation: The Savior of the world, the Lord Jesus was fully God and fully man.⁴

7. Total Depravity of Mankind: The Bible reveals the total depravity (sinfulness) of mankind.

8. Condemnation of God upon Sinful Man: The holiness of God entails God’s condemnation (wrath) upon sinners.

9. Virgin Birth: Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Thus, Christ is 100% God, and does not inherit mankind’s sin.

10. Sinlessness of Christ: Christ lived a sinless life on earth. Only a sinless God can save mankind of all their sins – past, present and future.

11. Grace: The gracious God saves mankind from their sins. Salvation is a free gift, since salvation is not gained by man’s work.  

12. Faith in Christ: Man should necessarily believe in Christ for the appropriation of Christ’s one-time, perfect sacrifice for his salvation.

13. Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ: Christ died and rose again. Resurrection was mandatory for overcoming evil and death.

14. Christ’s Bodily Ascension: Christ’s resurrection was a bodily resurrection and HE bodily ascended to heaven. Our resurrection will also be a bodily resurrection (glorious body).

15. Christ’s Intercession: Christ lives to intercede for all those who believe in HIM.

16. Second coming of Christ: Christ will come again in glory to judge mankind, to eliminate evil forever, and to usher a life of eternal coexistence with God in the new heaven and earth.  

These are the essentials of Historic Christianity. Unbelief /denial of any one essential will nullify the others through a chain reaction (E.g. If one denies absolute truth, then Bible is not absolutely true, so miracles are denied and along with it Christ’s virgin birth, resurrection, and salvation will also be denied.)  Denial of any one of the essentials of Historic Christianity is to deny Historic Christianity. Thus it is a reasonable implication that those who deny one (or more) essential doctrine(s) of Historic Christianity are cults or liberals or postmodern Christians.

We observe that salvation according to Historic Christianity is by grace through faith. Only those who believe in Christ will be saved (Christian Particularism). Those who do not believe in Christ will not be saved. Since Universalism declares salvation of all mankind, it totally contradicts Historic Christianity. The question that demands verdict is whether Universalism and Historic Christianity, proclaiming contradictory truth claims, are true within the same context of salvation.  

Exclusivity of Truth:

Can contradictory statements within the same context be true? This leads us to examine the nature of truth. Please think through with me:

1. Truth is pure. Truth should not contain errors / lies.

2. Opposite of truth is an error / lie.

3. Opposite of an error / lie need not be truth, but it could be another error / lie.

4. An error / lie could contain strands of truth, but strands of truth will not transform the lie to truth.

If you agree to the flow of thoughts mentioned above, then the entailments are:

1. Truth excludes errors / lies.

2. Truth is absolute, singular and exclusive (also consistent). Hence, the opposite of truth is essentially a lie, it cannot be another truth.

3. Simply speaking, 1+1=2, there cannot be another answer to this equation.

If we have two truth claims, one should ascertain if there are contradictions between the two truth claims. Contradictory truth claims will not be true at the same time and in the same context.⁵

If two people are looking at the sky from the same room and at the same time, and if one says that the sun is brightly shining and the other says that there is no sun in the sky, only one of them can be right. In this context, the truth is that the sun is either visible or invisible; the sun cannot be both visible and invisible at the same time.

Moreover, if someone says, ‘there is no truth,’ then his statement is also not true - it’s nonsensical. Someone else could say that ‘truth’ is only a matter of opinion, and does not possess an absolute meaning. In this case, that very statement is also a matter of opinion and does not possess an absolute meaning, so it’s nonsensical as well.

So we can confidently affirm that truth is absolute, singular, exclusive, and objective.

The nature of truth teaches us that truth excludes contradictions. Since Historic Christianity and Universalism contradict each other, both these contradicting worldviews cannot be true at the same time and within the same context (e.g. Salvation). It’s either Historic Christianity or Universalism, not both.

If we believe that Historic Christianity is true, we ought to give reasons for our faith and hope. But why?

Reasons to Offer Reasons For Our Faith:

Just as Apostle Paul reasoned out with the Jews and the Gentiles in Athens and Corinth (Acts 17: 22 – 18: 4), we are to reason out with those of contradictory views. A few reasons to reason out our faith are:

Perspective of Discipleship: We are mandated to disciple others (Matthew 28: 19). Discipling includes answering / clarifying honest questions. Those who disciple others ought to practice their religion seriously. Serious practitioners of religion should have a basic knowledge of other worldviews. Lack of interest in contrasting worldviews, such as Universalism, is valid if discipleship is an insignificant part of our life. But if we are a disciple of the Lord Jesus and practice our religion seriously (seriously committed to it), we should explain the reason for our serious practice and commitment. Reasoning is innate in discipleship.

Perspective of Biblical Mandate: If we cannot explain the reason for our hope, then we are blind in our faith and practice. If ‘unexamined life is not worth living,’⁶ then ‘unexamined faith is not worth believing.’⁷ The unexamined faith cannot distinguish good from evil, and cannot provide reason for the hope we have in the Triune God and the Bible. Every Christian is mandated to demolish arguments and lofty opinions against God, and provide the reason for his belief in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 10: 4-6; Hebrews 5: 14; 1 Peter 3: 15). This is the biblical mandate. Failure to provide a reason implies shallow faith and an anticipation to disbelieve Christ when confused and confronted with situations or arguments apparently more powerful than our faith. Moreover, failure to offer reason for our hope in Christ is a disobedience to God and HIS commands.

Perspective of Evangelization: We exist to help our family and neighbors. When we know the truth, we should speak of the truth to our neighbor. We live in the digital era; there are many who evangelize their worldview through digital and other mediums. Transmission of our faith mandates us to offer reasons / evidences for our faith. Failure to offer evidences reduces our belief to a lie. Those who believe in lies are liars. If we are not liars, we ought to substantiate the truth of our belief.

These are adequate reasons to reason out our faith. Let us reason together, says the Lord (Isaiah 1: 18, NASB). Thus we ought to reason the truth of Historic Christianity.

Having established the foundations, I will, in my next blog, provide adequate reasons for Historic Christianity from other perspectives, so to debunk Universalism. Amen.

References:

¹ Every apparent contradiction in the Bible can be reasonably explained. The Bible is the only ancient historic document that possesses a plethora of objective reasonings and evidences for its reliability.

² The existence of God can be independently explained by philosophy and science.

³ Philosopher David Hume’s argument against miracles can be reasonably debunked.

⁴ Thus, Christ’s sacrifice was a perfect sacrifice – both from the divine and human standpoint. The Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, the Son of God, and the second person of the blessed Trinity. HE saves mankind from sins.

⁵ Law of Non-Contradiction

⁶ Socrates

⁷ Edwin Navarro