Posts Tagged ‘truth’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 20]:

Greetings Soldier,

I am sorry to see that Mr. Reardon did not attempt a reasoned response to the challenges you put forth to his position but, rather, has chosen to ignore the questions and respond with an argument against the Trinity. As a positive, this is confirmation that he has no good reasons or answers for the inconsistencies and discrepancies that have been brought to his attention regarding the Jehovah’s Witness organization/cult. Despite his unwillingness to respond to you, it is important for you as a Christian to exercise a higher standard and make every attempt to provide a reasoned response to intellectually honest inquiries and objections with meekness and fear, per the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15. Therefore, here is my recommended response to his arguments provided in a point-by-point fashion for clarity:

~Mr. Reardon,

Thank you for your comments. Though you have not yet addressed my previous challenges to your position, as a born again Christian who holds to the doctrine of the Trinity as an essential part of true theology, I am commanded to provide a reasoned defense of the Faith whenever possible. With that said, I would like to address some of the fundamental problems in the arguments that you have presented against the doctrine of the Trinity and why they are based upon flawed premises. If I may elaborate:

1st) You said:  “I am a father, a son and a husband. But, none of these TITLES is my name, and I am NOT three different people! These are separate and distinct positions, roles or offices that I occupy and function in, as ONE PERSON! At times I speak and function as a father. At times I speak and function as a son. And at times I speak and function as a husband.”

Your analogy here is a false one, though, as at no time are you your OWN father, son, or husband. Jesus claimed that God was HIS father many times while on earth and even AFTER He was glorified in heaven (which means He was no longer in the flesh–Rev. 3:5, 12). Likewise, God Himself announced openly that Jesus Christ was HIS son numerous times, and this is confirmed over and over again in the Scriptures . Unless you are arguing that Jesus was His own father and God was his own son (which is absurd and un-Biblical), this argument has no merit. Besides, Jesus Himself stated that if you are married, then you and your wife are ‘one flesh’. Surely, you don’t take that to mean that you and her are the same person do you? Rather, you understand Jesus to mean simply that the both of you are ‘one’ in unity. The same type of consistency must be applied to our understanding of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (the term ‘Trinity’ literally means Tri-unity or ‘Three in unity’).

2nd) You said:  “Many Christians are always bringing up ‘the Trinity this’ or ‘the Trinity that’. I defy you to show me where the word ‘Trinity’ is found anywhere in the Bible. Here’s a hint for you:  It isn’t there!!”

With respect, you seem to be arguing that since the word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible, then it therefore does not/cannot exist. Using that same logic, one could argue that automobiles, cell phones, grandfathers, and even the Bible itself cannot exist either, since none of those words is found in the Bible. Surely, you would agree that such a conclusion is absurd, no? Likewise, hopefully you can clearly see the problem with your own argument as well. Although the word ‘Trinity’ is not mentioned in the Bible, the concept of ‘three in one’ is (1 John 5:7; Eph. 4:4-6; ). Not to mention the litany of times that Jesus used the terms ‘we’, ‘us’, and ‘our’ to describe Himself in relation to the Father along with the crystal clear instances at Jesus’ baptism and Stephen’s martyrdom/stoning where all 3 members of the Godhead are present and are individually recognized and described.

3rd) You said:  “Unauthorized changes were made in 325 A.D. when Emperor Constantine and his “scholars” introduced the doctrine of the “trinity” to the world, and established it as the official doctrine of the church of Rome … with the emperor being its head.”

I would say that this is the most troubling argument of all. Here, you are asserting that, at some point in time, the Bible was changed and is therefore not accurate in its description of the Triune nature of God. If that’s the case, how do you know that ANY of what the Bible says is reliable? How do you know that Jesus really was the Son of God who was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead on the third day if the Bible isn’t reliable and doesn’t really mean what it says? Frankly, Mr. Reardon, it seems all too easy for those who disagree with what the Bible says to somehow try to undermine its authority in order to validate their own doctrines and beliefs. This is but one of the distinguishing marks of a Christian counterfeit and/or cult.

As a born again Christian, I hold the Bible to be the infallible, inspired Word of God. It is my ultimate authority and the foundation of my reasoning. The Bible is the lens through which every Christian should interpret the world around us, and not vice versa. I’m sure you would agree that, never should we try to make the Bible ‘fit’ our individual beliefs, but rather we should adjust our beliefs to fit the truth of the Bible. I do not deny that there are some difficult doctrines in Christianity, but the doctrine of the Trinity is undeniable IF we study Bible in a consistent, straightforward manner and interpret Scripture in light of other Scripture. One God existing in 3 persons is not in any way unfathomable, as even water exists in 3 totally distinct, different forms at certain temperatures, yet it still remains H2O at all times and one egg can be separated into three distinct parts, yet it remains ‘one egg’.  I hope that this has provided you with some more food for thought (pardon the pun) and some items to consider with regards to this crucial topic. Consider the very sobering forewarnings penned by the Apostle Paul regarding the satanic deception of the times in which we live:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;    ~1 Timothy 4: 1-2

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
~2 Timothy 4: 2-4

I pray that you will give this some serious thought and am here to help you think through these issues should you need me. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hopefully this will aid in helping him come to see the error of what he is doing and repent of it. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 18]:

Greetings Soldier,

Regarding your last correspondence; I assure you that you’re doing fine. No need to be concerned about the empty allegation that you are engaging in a double standard or being ‘unfair’ in your requests for the unbelievers to provide their worldview’s objective, consistent basis for the existence of preconditions of intelligibility (which must be appealed to and utilized in order to even begin to hold a rational discussion). Besides, as should be crystal clear by now, the unbeliever has no way of justifying such an allegation to begin with, since there can exist no objective standard of logical ‘fairness’ in a worldview without God. Not only that, it should also be pointed out that you have already provided the justification for how abstract, universal, invariants are justified in the Christian worldview, from the get go (as they are a reflection of the abstract, universal, invariant nature of the God of the Bible). Perhaps it would be helpful to remind those making the allegations of how discussions work: you provide your logically defensible argument, they provide theirs, and THEN they are compared and contrasted via internal critique to see whose is true.

Of course, because the unbeliever has no rationally defensible argument or justification to support their belief in abstract, universal, invariants (logic, truth, knowledge, etc.) there can really be no discussion at all, since they must borrow these concepts from the Christian worldview in order to even begin to levy any argument against the Christian worldview. Needless to say, in doing so, they are assuming the truth of the very thing they are trying to refute and, subsequently, destroying their own position. This only further substantiates the undeniable reality that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary (since the contrary position cannot be rationally defended and always ends in some form of absurdity). Don’t ever be shy about exposing this for the unbeliever’s own benefit. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 16]:

Greetings Soldier,

Yes, I can definitely see that your unbelieving opponents are not very happy with your challenges to their professed worldview (in fact, ‘unhappy’ would be quite the understatement to describe the nature of their most recent remarks). Remember, the unbeliever has much to lose in these types of discussions, once it is exposed what their worldview truly amounts to, since they often enjoy being viewed as ‘intellectuals’ on internet forums and loathe the idea that their position is really just one of blind, irrational faith. Therefore, you should expect open hostility such as the name calling being engaged in as of late, since it is no doubt very uncomfortable (think glass palace during an earthquake) to have one’s most fundamental beliefs challenged and then demonstrated to be undeniably false.

As a positive, this is one crystal clear way of demonstrating that the unbeliever is indeed engaging in suppression of the truth (just as the Bible states in Romans 1:18)—that is, they are not continuing to hold to their current professed position BECAUSE of rational reasons, but IN SPITE OF them–simply because they happen to dislike the alternative (i.e. bowing the knee to God). The purely emotional nature of the objections at this point are really exactly what one would expect from someone with simply a personal ‘ax to grind’ and nothing more. Sure, the unbeliever may not like the God of the Bible, but that is definitely not a rational basis for their rejection of Christianity and/or the truth of the Bible. At this point, you’ve done your job and it’s probably just best to politely thank them for sharing their opinions with you and invite them to return to the discussion when they have something rational to contribute. Oh, and do not cease to pray for these individuals–that they might come to their senses, cease their suppression of the Truth, and repent. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 15]:

Greetings Soldier,

It seems the hornet’s nest has been stirred. In fact, the comments you’ve fielded thus far in your online endeavors include remarks from professing atheists, agnostics, theists, Hindus, Buddhists, and the list goes on. What you will find, though, is that each of these positions ultimately contains the same fundamental logical flaws and destroys the possibility of knowledge, truth, logic, or morality–rendering them all rationally indefensible and absurd. Consider one of the first responses you received from the atheist who asserted that ‘it is not possible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty’. Did you catch the contradiction here? Essentially, he is claiming to know with 100% certainty that it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything. Of course, this is a self-defeating argument, which makes it false. On the other hand, if he wants to argue that he is not 100% certain that it is impossible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty, then he is forced to admit that, since he is uncertain of his argument (that 100% certainty is NOT possible), then it IS possible to know things to be true with 100% certainty. Either way, he ends up demonstrating that it is possible to know things for certain to be true and that he has no rational answer as to why that is in his worldview. As such, it is exposed that he must accept the existence of knowledge and truth solely on blind faith alone, whereas the Christian can (and does) justify their ability to know some things with certainty by appealing to God’s Divine Revelation of Himself (via both direct and indirect means) to all mankind. I trust I don’t have to remind you that blind faith is but a form of irrationality (and, not to mention, the basis of all superstition as well). Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

~P.S. It should also be pointed out that, once someone professes that they can’t know anything for certain, then they have forfeited any logical basis or justification for all of the things they may claim to be true (since knowledge (i.e. ‘justified true belief’) is certain by definition, as one cannot know something to be true which could also be false at the same time and in the same way). You should keep this in mind as you address future comments. Nothing wrong with holding the unbeliever to his professed beliefs in order to show the irrational conclusions they ultimately lead to.

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 14]:

Greetings Soldier,

I see that some of the ‘intellectual’ unbelievers have presented arguments for how they can know things to be true in their worldview. Let’s walk through some of these, as they are an invaluable resource for your training in mastering the ‘Bible First’ (presuppositional) method of defending the faith. The gist of the argument from the unbelievers so far is that they are able to know things for certain because they use their senses and reasoning to make observations and formulate rational conclusions about the world around them through ‘trial and error’. Can you spot the inconsistency here? Indeed, human senses and reasoning are wonderful gifts from God and provide the means of exploring and learning about God’s creation and would, therefore, be expected to be basically reliable and trustworthy according to the Christian worldview. However, what basis does any non-Christian have for trusting their senses and reasoning according to their professed worldview? No doubt, they would say that their observations and experiences have told them that their senses and reasoning are basically reliable over time, but this will not suffice. After all, it is via one’s reasoning that their sensory input and experiences are interpreted, which means that they are basically arguing that they ‘sense and reason that their senses and reasoning are reliable’. Of course, this is viciously circular and renders that position an irrational one–and necessarily false. If one does not know for certain that their senses and reasoning are trustworthy to begin with, then obviously they cannot know anything at all. I recommend pointing this out as soon as possible (and for their own good). Remember, the truth only hurts when it should. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 13:  A Word of Encouragement]

Greetings Soldier,

Don’t worry about feeling overwhelmed right now, as these concepts can take some time to wrap your brain around. Remember, though, always doggedly stick to your guns and keep challenging and exposing the internal inconsistencies of the unbelievers’ worldview, as they would like nothing more than for you to stop this line of argumentation and engage them on ‘neutral’ ground. However, ‘neutral’ ground does not exist with regards to this issue, as one either submits to God as their Ultimate Authority and the foundation of their thinking and reasoning, or they do not. I remind you of the very words of Jesus in Matthew [12:30] and Luke [11:23] when He stated that someone is either for Him or they are against Him, but certainly never ‘in between’. After all, when one even argues that there is neutral ground to be held here, they are necessarily disagreeing with the words of Jesus in the Bible and are, therefore, adopting a non-neutral position in relation to Biblical Authority and the truth of Christianity. Do not fall for this tactic! The unbeliever is NOT neutral in their presuppositions about God and the Bible and you SHOULD NOT be either. In the paraphrased words of Peter [1 Peter 3:15], ‘sanctify Christ in your heart and be prepared to give an answer to everyone that asks you of the reason of the hope that is within you with meekness and fear’. The foundation provided by God and His Word is indeed a sure one, and nothing overcomes and exposes that which is false like absolute Truth from THE absolute Authority. Stand upon that firm foundation, and you will always prevail. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’