#christian-apologetics — Public Fediverse posts

Truth isn’t a mood or belief; it’s anchored in reality and revealed, not created. In a culture that treats truth as personal, a coherent case for faith rests on evidence, a solid foundation, and trust in God. Certainty can be humble.
#ObjectiveTruth #RelativismFails #ChristianApologetics #LawsOfLogic #KnowingGod
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/what-if-you-are-wrong-about-everything

Cosmic beginnings, the universe's expansion, and the order we observe point beyond chance toward a purposeful creator. The cosmological sweep from first cause to design invites clear, thoughtful reflection on God’s existence.
#CosmologicalArgument #Cosmology #FineTuning #ExistenceOfGod #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/why-have-a-universe-at-all-if-god

Bible prophecy invites careful watchfulness, linking current events to age-old texts. As signs unfold, discernment matters, not panic; readiness becomes a daily posture grounded in faith, history, and the promise of what is to come.
#BibleProphecy #EndTimes #ProphecyWatch #BiblicalProphecy #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/are-we-the-last-generation-spoken

Biblical evolution invites a careful look at how faith and science illuminate life’s origins without collapsing into dogma. It challenges us to consider what grounds our logic, meaning, and the hope we hold about design and creation.
#BiblicalEvolution #CreationVsEvolution #ChristianApologetics #DeepTimeDebate #DesignInNature
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/does-a-billion-years-give-evolution-399

Presuppositions shape every argument we make; the logic we trust often borrows from a worldview we reject. Recognizing your foundations reveals why some conclusions feel airtight, while others crumble under scrutiny.
#PresuppositionalApologetics #WorldviewAnalysis #FoundationsOfLogic #ChristianApologetics #PhilosophyOfReligion
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/why-your-logic-borrowed-from-a-world

Proving Jesus blends history, testimony, and worldview. When evidence points to a risen Savior, belief becomes reasoned trust, not a blind leap. The case invites thoughtful engagement, humility, and a commitment to truth.
#ProvingJesus #JesusResurrectionEvidence #ChristianApologetics #ChristCenterLogic #HistoricalJesusProof
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/does-truth-change-based-on-who-believes

Proving Jesus hinges on historical inquiry: independent sources, early testimonies, and fulfillment of prophecies converge on a real, historical figure and the Resurrection. The case rests on evidence, not assumption, inviting deeper study and thoughtful scrutiny.
#ProvingJesus #HistoricalJesus #ResurrectionEvidence #ChristianApologetics #JesusHistoricity
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Truth isn’t a mood you pick. This piece argues objective truth exists beyond belief, and that relativism collapses under its own weight. Clarity, evidence, and a steady moral standard offer a map through cultural noise.
#ObjectiveTruth #Relativism #Epistemology #TruthMatters #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/does-truth-change-based-on-who-believes

Proving the Bible means weighing history, archaeology, and prophecy against the text itself. Objectivity reveals a pattern: consistent claims, verifiable events, and a message that has shaped lives across centuries. Truth invites examination, not intimidation.
#BibleEvidence #BiblicalReliability #ChristianApologetics #ObjectiveTruth #ProphecyAndHistory
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/what-if-you-are-wrong-about-everything

Proving Jesus hinges on history, not hype: eyewitness accounts, early creeds, and robust manuscript evidence converge on a real, historical Jesus who changed the world. The evidence invites a thoughtful, confident faith.
#ProvingJesus #ChristianApologetics #ResurrectionEvidence #HistoricalJesus #EvidenceForChrist
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Apologetics/Blog: No. You Cannot be a Christian and a Witch.

It’s the last day of August. We have about another month until it’s officially “spooky season” and about another two months until it’s actually Halloween. But gosh dang it, if Walmart and Costco can start putting out the Halloween stuff already, then I can start talking about witches.

Recently, my For You page on YouTube has had several recommendations for videos talking about the rise of “Christian” witches online. Why I’ve been getting so many recommendations for videos reacting to these ladies, I’m not entirely sure, but I’m not totally unfamiliar with the topic. I’ve known about “Christian” witchcraft for a while now, have even met a few people dabbling in the New Age or occult who identify as some version of Christian, and am very aware of how prevalent it is in the church even if it’s not out in the open. It’s something that annoys me to no end because of how ridiculous it all is.

The crux of the matter – no pun intended – is that calling yourself a “Christian” witch is like calling yourself a Far-Left conservative. The two labels do not mix; they are a total oxymoron.

The reason for this is because the Bible specifically prohibits occult practices, such as various forms of divination, necromancy, spellcasting, etc. In fact, not only does the Bible prohibit such things, but it describes people who do that stuff as “an abomination” in Deuteronomy 18:9-15. Other Old Testament passages echo this sentiment, with Leviticus 19:26 and 20:6 warning to stay from mediums, necromancers, diviners, etc., warning that turning would be unfaithfulness. In the prophetic books of the Old Testament, mediums, necromances, sorcerers, etc. and the groups that rely on them are consistently ridiculed.

But don’t worry. That’s the Old Testament. God was meaner then, so of course He wasn’t tolerant of that stuff then, right? Surely, Jesus was much nicer, right?

Wrong.

While Jesus does talk about who’s going to Hell in the Gospels, the most explicit condemnation of witches/sorcerers is in the book of Revelation, which is the revelation of Jesus Christ to His disciple, John. In numerous verses in Revelation (i.e. Revelation 21:8), Jesus warns that amongst those who will be going to Hell are sorcerers/sorceresses.

It’s also worth mentioning that in the apostles evangelistic efforts, witchcraft was very obviously frowned upon. In Acts 13 – which covers the history of the early church – a sorcerer named Bar-Jesus (a.k.a. Elymas) tries to stop Paul and Barnabas from giving the Gospel to the local proconsul and is cursed with blindness. Also, in Acts 19, it’s recorded that the Christians in Ephesus, after being saved, burned all of their idols and magic books. That’s not even mentioning how many times the Epistles warn that those who practice magic will be amongst the people going to Hell.

From this, it should be pretty clear to everybody that God really does not like people dabbling with the occult because it is spiritual rebellion. Thus, it should be obvious that you cannot be both a Christian and a witch at the same time. Christians, by definition, are followers of Christ, which means that as such, we shouldn’t be dabbling in sin, especially big ones like witchcraft. Even if you’re claiming that you’re not drawing from the elements, other gods, or using spells to curse people, witchcraft in all forms is still forbidden.

So, why is it so popular now to identify as a Christian witch?

I think a lot of it ultimately has to go back to two things: the lack of biblical literacy and the popularity of the New Age and occult in almost everything. From self-help books to psychology to entertainment, the New Age and occult is in everything, and when combine that with a lack of knowledge about what’s in the Bible, you get a bunch of people thinking they found a loophole in their faith that allows them to continue practicing witchcraft, not realizing (or refusing to acknowledge) that it’s an oxymoron.

But why is witchcraft such a big sin? Why can’t we play with magic?

The reason for this is because ultimately, it’s idolatry. Magic requires you to put faith in yourself and your powers over creation, or to put faith in something more obviously posing as a god. In all of its forms, whether people realize it or not, you are not putting your faith in God, the creator of everything, but in yourself and the rest of creation.

Further, magic and the occult is dangerous. If you look at how a lot of it is done with channeling, tarot, energy healing, etc. all of it opens you up to a myriad of possibilities for demonic influence. Sure, it might seem to work for a bit, but ultimately, playing with those entities will destroy you spiritually, if not mentally and physically, too. God forbidding the use of magic, the occult, or witchcraft wasn’t to limit us and keep us subservient, but to protect us from things that want to hurt us.

Until next time,

M.J.

Apologetics is not a battle to win but a thoughtful defense that helps others see why you believe. Lead with your story, explain the evidence calmly, and meet people where they are. Clarity paired with gentleness invites genuine curiosity and reflection.
#Apologetics #ChristianApologetics #DefendTheFaith #ReasonForHope #ChristianWorldview
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/stop-hiding-from-the-hard-questions

Proving the Bible is a paper trail of history: abundant manuscript copies, early eyewitness testimony, and archaeological corroboration. When evidence aligns with the text, faith rests on solid, verifiable ground.
#BibleEvidence #BiblicalArchaeology #ManuscriptEvidence #EyewitnessTestimony #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Proving Jesus goes beyond miracles; it rests on history, eyewitness accounts, and the coherence of the gospel narrative. When evidence meets quiet conviction, faith is strengthened, not forced. A thoughtful examination invites clarity about who Jesus is.
#ProvingJesus #ResurrectionEvidence #ChristianApologetics #HistoricalJesus #GospelReliability
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Apologetics is not a debate gimmick; it's a disciplined, respectful defense of what you believe. Grounded in history, evidence, and personal testimony, it invites clarity, not coercion. When reason meets grace, truth feels accessible to everyone.
#Apologetics #DefendYourFaith #ChristianApologetics #FaithAndReason #ReasonedFaith
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/the-why-and-how-to-defend-your-faith

Biblical evolution invites a thoughtful look at how faith and science can harmonize. It presents God as Creator who works through time, guiding life’s complexity while leaving room for mystery. A careful read of Genesis encourages humility and curiosity.
#BiblicalEvolution #FaithAndScience #GenesisAndEvolution #ChristianApologetics #CreationAndEvolution
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-christians-believe-in-evolution-ef6

Proving Jesus rests on more than belief—it's a case built on evidence: early manuscripts, eyewitness testimony, and the historical resurrection. When you examine the data, the claim invites reasoned trust, not blind faith.
#ProvingJesus #ResurrectionEvidence #ChristianApologetics #BiblicalArchaeology #EyewitnessTestimony
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Proving Jesus is a case built on history: eyewitness testimony, manuscript reliability, and the empty tomb. By testing sources, archaeology, and early creeds, faith becomes a reasoned conclusion, not a guess.
#ProvingJesus #HistoricalJesus #ResurrectionEvidence #ChristianApologetics #BiblicalArchaeology
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/could-jesus-have-sinned-a-deeper

Proving Jesus isn’t just a claim; it rests on history: eyewitness accounts, the empty tomb, and the impact of the early church. Which kind of evidence persuades you most: manuscripts, archaeology, or testimony? Share your view.
#ProvingJesus #JesusEvidence #Resurrection #BiblicalArchaeology #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Exploring the resurrection isn’t just a claim—it’s history. Eyewitness accounts, manuscript evidence, and early creeds push us to weigh what really happened. How does the evidence shape your view of faith?
#ResurrectionEvidence #EyewitnessTestimony #BiblicalReliability #EarlyCreeds #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-we-prove-christs-resurrection

Proving Jesus means weighing history, not hype: manuscript reliability, eyewitness testimony, and fulfilled prophecy. What piece of evidence would move your view most? Share a question and let’s examine it together.
#ProvingJesus #HistoricalJesus #BiblicalEvidence #ChristianApologetics #ResurrectionEvidence
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/the-bible-isnt-a-game-of-telephone

Proving God isn’t about certainty alone; it’s about how logic, history, and experience intersect. When reason meets evidence, laws of logic, manuscript reliability, and fulfilled prophecy, the case for God becomes thoughtful. What sways you?
#ProvingGod #LawsOfLogic #BiblicalEvidence #ChristianApologetics #HistoricalReliability
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/the-bible-isnt-a-game-of-telephone

Apologetics is not about winning arguments; it's loving neighbors with honest reasons for the hope we claim. When faith meets reason with humility, doubts become dialogues. What question has challenged your faith—and what changed after you explored it?
#Apologetics #FaithAndReason #ChristianApologetics #DefendingTheFaith #ReasonForHope
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/why-we-need-apologetics-and-what

The Philosophy That Almost Gets It Right — And What It’s Missing

3,956 words, 21 minutes read time.

Why Stoicism Keeps Finding Men in the Dark

There is a reason Stoicism keeps coming back. Every generation rediscovers it. Every era of crisis — plague, war, economic collapse, the slow grind of ordinary life falling apart at the seams — produces another wave of men picking up Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus and finding something that actually speaks to the weight they are carrying. That is not an accident. These were not soft men writing soft thoughts for comfortable audiences. Marcus Aurelius wrote the Meditations in a military tent, between campaigns, in the margins of a life that never stopped demanding more than he had to give. Epictetus wrote — or rather, his student Arrian recorded — from the experience of a man who had been a slave, who had felt the full weight of powerlessness, and who had found something unassailable in the interior life that no master and no chain could touch. Seneca wrote from wealth and exile alike, threading the same needle with a harder hand, telling men that time was the only currency that mattered and they were already spending it on the wrong things.

These were real answers to real pressure. They still are. That is the honest starting point. Stoicism is not the enemy. It is not a counterfeit faith peddled by pagans to lead good men astray. It is a rigorous, ancient, profoundly serious attempt to answer the question every man eventually faces in the dark: What do I actually control, and how do I live well inside those limits? That question is worth asking. The framework built around it is worth studying. And when a man who follows Christ picks it up, he will find — with some regularity — that the territory feels strangely familiar, like walking into a room that someone clearly intended to finish but left half-built.

That is where the work begins. Because Stoicism almost gets it right. And in a world drowning in philosophies that do not even come close, almost right is remarkable. But almost is not enough. Not when the stakes are what they actually are. Not when the gap between the Stoic answer and the Christian answer is not cosmetic. It is not a matter of emphasis or cultural preference. It is the difference between a philosophy of endurance and a theology of resurrection. Between managing your interior life and having it remade from the inside out by something you did not manufacture yourself.

Rome, Jerusalem, and the World Where Both Traditions Breathed the Same Air

To understand that difference, you have to go back. You have to stand in the world where both traditions breathed the same air, competed for the same souls, and answered the same impossible questions from two very different foundations.

The Roman Empire was not subtle about what it was. It was power, codified and exported. But inside that empire, quietly and relentlessly, two movements were doing the same countercultural work from different directions. The Stoics — founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens around 300 BC, later transplanted into the Roman intellectual bloodstream through Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and finally Marcus Aurelius himself — were arguing that the good life was an interior life. That virtue was the only real good. That wealth, reputation, health, and even life itself were what the Stoics called indifferents — things neither good nor bad in themselves, things that the wise man held loosely because Fortune was not to be trusted. Meanwhile, a ragged movement of Jewish and Gentile believers, spreading outward from Jerusalem through Antioch, Corinth, Rome, and beyond, was making a related but fundamentally different argument: that the world was broken, that man was broken in ways he could not fix from the inside, and that God had entered the mess personally in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, died under Roman jurisdiction, and walked out of a sealed tomb to prove that death itself was not the last word.

These movements were not strangers. The Apostle Paul, arguably the most intellectually formidable figure in the early Church, stood in the Areopagus in Athens and addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers directly. He did not dismiss them. He engaged them on their own ground, quoted their own poets back at them — for in him we live and move and have our being — and then drove a wedge into the center of their worldview with the one thing they could not account for: bodily resurrection. Paul had breathed Hellenistic air. He knew the territory. He was not naive about the real strengths of the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition. He was simply clear that it was incomplete in a way that mattered eternally. The early Church Fathers who followed — Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen — continued to engage Stoic philosophy seriously, borrowing its vocabulary of logos, its emphasis on virtue and self-mastery, and its insistence on the primacy of the interior life, while simultaneously insisting that Christ was not one philosopher among many. He was the Word made flesh, and that changed everything.

You cannot understand Christian Stoicism without understanding this history. These are not two traditions that developed in isolation and happened to resemble each other by coincidence. They developed in direct contact, in direct tension, and in some cases in direct dialogue. The overlap is real. And it is worth naming with precision.

The Dichotomy of Control Meets Romans 8:28 — Where Stoicism and Scripture Actually Agree

The most significant point of alignment is the one Epictetus made most sharply and that most modern men encounter first: the dichotomy of control.

Some things are within our power. Some things are not. Our opinions, impulses, desires, and aversions — these are ours. Our bodies, our reputations, our positions, what other people think or do or say — these are not.

The Stoic project, at its core, is learning to live inside that distinction with discipline and clarity. To stop burning energy on what you cannot change and to invest everything in what you can. That is not a small thing. That is the kind of clarity that can stop a man from destroying himself chasing approval he will never be given, status he will never hold securely, and outcomes he was never in charge of to begin with.

The Serenity Prayer — God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference — is not Stoic. It is a prayer. But the structural logic of it maps almost perfectly onto Epictetus’s framework, and that is not accidental. Reinhold Niebuhr, to whom the prayer is most commonly attributed, was writing in a tradition steeped in both Reformed theology and Augustinian anthropology, but the Stoic current was always running underneath Western thought, surfacing where it found the questions it was built to answer. The alignment here is real, and a Christian man is not betraying his faith by recognizing it.

But the point of divergence is critical. Epictetus’s dichotomy of control is a tool for managing your relationship to circumstance. Romans 8:28 is a statement about the nature of reality itself. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. That is not a coping strategy. That is a cosmological claim. It is not telling you to manage your reaction to suffering. It is telling you that the suffering is already inside a larger architecture of purpose that belongs to a God who is personally invested in your formation and your ultimate good. Epictetus can teach you to hold pain without flinching. Paul is telling you that the pain is going somewhere. That is a different kind of comfort, and it requires something Epictetus never asked for: trust in a Person, not a principle.

Suffering as Teacher — The Place Where Both Traditions Stand on Common Ground

Both traditions agree that suffering is a teacher. That is where they run most obviously parallel. James 1:2–4 says to consider it pure joy when you face trials of many kinds, because the testing of your faith produces perseverance, and perseverance finishes its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. Marcus Aurelius, writing in the Meditations, puts it with the characteristic bluntness of a man who cannot afford sentimentality: the impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way. The obstacle is not the end of the road. It is the road. Both say this. Both mean it. And the man who internalizes it — really internalizes it, not as a slogan but as a lived operating principle — will stand differently under pressure than the man who has never wrestled with this idea.

But here is where the depth differential becomes visible. Ryan Holiday’s The Obstacle Is the Way, which brought this Stoic idea to millions of modern readers, is a genuinely useful book. It is honest about the Stoic framework and translates it well into contemporary language. But the obstacle in that framework exists to make you stronger, sharper, more capable. The obstacle in Scripture exists to make you more like Christ. That is not the same destination. One produces a better version of you. The other produces a man whose self-interest is slowly being broken open and reformed around a love that is not self-generated. The suffering in Romans 5:3–5 is not producing mental toughness alone. It is producing hope — and not the optimistic kind, but the anchored kind — a hope that does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. The Stoic framework has no category for that. It has endurance. It does not have infilling.

Amor Fati vs. Thy Will Be Done — The Most Important Distinction You Will Ever Make

The concept of Amor Fati — love of fate — is perhaps the most philosophically beautiful idea the Stoics produced, and it is also the one that most clearly shows both what the tradition gets right and where its ceiling is.

Nietzsche refined the phrase, but the concept lives in the Stoic tradition explicitly. Love your fate. Do not merely tolerate what happens to you. Do not even accept it grudgingly. Love it. Embrace it as exactly what was required for you to become what you were meant to be. There is a fire in that idea that is hard to dismiss. A man who genuinely lives that way is not a man the world can break with ordinary weapons.

But fate is impersonal. Fate does not know your name. Fate does not grieve over you. Fate did not enter human history in first-century Palestine, eat fish on a beach with fishermen, weep at the tomb of a friend, or cry out from a cross with the full weight of human abandonment in his voice. The distinction between fate and Providence is not a semantic nicety. It is everything. Providence is personal. Providence is relational. Providence is a Father who numbers the hairs on your head and whose will — Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven — is not a cold cosmic mechanism but the active, intentional care of a God who is moving all things toward a conclusion he has already secured. When a Christian man says not my will but yours, he is not submitting to an impersonal force. He is trusting a Person. The surrender looks similar from the outside. On the inside, it is an entirely different posture.

The Iron Will Has a Load Limit — Where Stoic Self-Mastery Runs Out of Road

This is where Stoicism, for all its strength, begins to show the load-bearing cracks. It is a philosophy built on an extraordinarily high view of human capacity. The Stoic sage — the man who has fully mastered his inner life, who is never enslaved by passion or circumstance, who holds every external thing at arm’s length with perfect equanimity — is the goal of the system. He is also, as Seneca himself admitted with unusual honesty, essentially a theoretical construct. Almost no one actually gets there. The Stoics knew this. Seneca in particular knew it with painful personal clarity, writing about virtue and simplicity from inside a life of enormous wealth that he never fully resolved the contradiction of. Marcus Aurelius knew it, writing daily reminders to himself in the Meditations of things he could not seem to stop failing at. The system sets a ceiling and then quietly acknowledges that almost no one reaches it.

Christianity does not set a ceiling and then invite you to strain toward it. It sets a standard — be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect — that is explicitly beyond human reach, and then provides, through Christ, the only mechanism by which the standard is actually met. Not by self-improvement. By grace, received through faith, that begins the work of conforming a man to an image he could not manufacture for himself. This is not the same project dressed in different language. It is a fundamentally different diagnosis of the human problem and a fundamentally different prescription. The Stoics said: you have what you need inside you, if you discipline it properly. The Gospel says: you do not have what you need inside you, and that is precisely the point, because what you need is not a system — it is a Savior.

That is the hardest thing to sit with for the man who has built his life on self-reliance. And most men have. The culture rewards it. The Stoic tradition dignifies it. And it works — up to a certain point, in a certain range of problems — well enough to make the limitation invisible until the problem gets large enough. But every man eventually hits the problem that self-mastery cannot solve. The marriage he could not hold together despite his best effort. The failure he cannot forgive himself for no matter how many times he reframes it as a learning experience. The son who looks at him with eyes that have stopped trusting. The moment at three in the morning when the interior citadel that Epictetus promised would hold against anything finally shows its actual dimensions. Small. Finite. Built on human material.

The One Thing Stoicism Could Never Give You — And Why It Changes Everything

There is no Stoic answer for guilt. Real guilt. The kind that goes all the way down to the bedrock of who a man actually is and what he has actually done. The Stoics could tell a man to reframe his past, to release what he could not change, to return to the present moment with renewed virtue. But they could not tell him he was forgiven. They had no mechanism for that. Forgiveness requires a person who was wronged and who chooses to release the debt.

In the Christian framework, the person wronged is God, the debt is staggering beyond any human calculation, and the release was purchased at a cost that required the death of God’s own Son. That transaction is either the most important event in human history or it is nothing. There is no moderate position on the Resurrection that leaves the Christian faith intact.

But if it is true — and the early witnesses died insisting that it was — then the man standing inside that reality has access to something no philosopher in any toga ever offered: actual absolution. Not reframing. Forgiveness. New creation. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come.

What the Gospel Offers That No Philosophy Ever Could

Christianity does not set a ceiling and then invite you to strain toward it on your own. What it offers is categorically different from anything the Stoic tradition — magnificent as it is — could produce. The Stoics produced admirable men. The Gospel produces men who confound the world, because they are not running on human fuel, and everyone around them eventually notices. The difference is not in the exterior discipline. A Christian man shaped by Scripture and a Stoic sage shaped by the Meditations might look similar from a distance — both measured, both serious, both capable of absorbing pressure without crumbling publicly. But underneath, the architecture is entirely different. One is a man holding himself together through the force of cultivated will. The other is a man being held together by something he did not build and cannot destroy.

Paul, writing from a Roman prison cell — not from a philosopher’s study, not from a position of comfort or control, but from chains — makes the distinction without ambiguity in Philippians 4:11–13. I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. That last sentence has been printed on coffee mugs and football jerseys in a way that strips it of everything that makes it remarkable. It is not a general affirmation of human potential. It is the testimony of a man saying that contentment is not a philosophical achievement. It is a gift received inside a relationship. The Stoic word for what Paul is describing might be apatheia — freedom from destructive passion, equanimity in the face of circumstance. But Paul is precise about the source, and the source is not discipline. It is him who strengthens me. Those four words are the distance between almost right and fully true.

What a Real Christian Stoic Actually Looks Like — And What He Does Not

The Christian Stoic is not a hybrid species designed to make both traditions comfortable. He is not a man in a toga reading Scripture, or a man in a pew who secretly prefers Marcus Aurelius. He is a man shaped primarily by Scripture, grounded in the Gospel, and who finds in Stoic discipline a useful set of tools for the training of the mind and the ordering of the interior life — tools he uses without confusing them for the foundation. He reads the Meditations the way a carpenter studies a well-made tool. Useful. Reliable within its design parameters. But not the source of his power.

He feels things. That needs to be said clearly because the popular image of both the Stoic and the disciplined Christian man often collapses into a kind of emotional suppression that neither tradition actually endorses at its best. Marcus Aurelius wept. Epictetus raged against the treatment of slaves. Jesus — the most self-possessed man who ever walked the earth — stood at the tomb of Lazarus and wept, despite knowing exactly what he was about to do. Paul wrote letters that drip with grief, longing, frustration, and joy depending on the paragraph. The Christian Stoic is not a man who has killed his emotions. He is a man who has stopped being ruled by them. He processes them. He names them. He brings them before God — which is exactly what the Psalms model, in language that would make most Sunday morning church services deeply uncomfortable. And then he acts from his deepest convictions rather than his most immediate feelings. That is not suppression. That is maturity. And it is the hardest thing a man will ever do.

The source of his power is the Holy Spirit, which is not a metaphor for good intentions or disciplined thinking. It is the living presence of God inside a man who has been made new by faith in Christ, producing fruit — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control — that looks like Stoic virtue from the outside but grows from an entirely different root system. The fruit is similar. The vine is not.

The Door Is Open — But You Have to Walk Through It

The question this entire piece is really asking you to answer is not whether Stoicism is useful. It is. The question is whether it is enough. And the honest answer, when you stand in front of it without flinching, is that it is magnificent, and it is not enough. It gets you to the door. The Gospel opens it. Stoicism can walk you to the threshold of a better life with a steadier mind and a more disciplined interior. But only Christ can walk you through it into something that does not eventually run out of road.

That is the invitation. Not to abandon the hard-won insights of Seneca and Aurelius and Epictetus. Not to pretend that discipline, clarity, and the training of the interior life are somehow unspiritual pursuits. But to stop short of letting a philosophy function as a substitute for a Person. To take the tools and build with them inside the right foundation — the one that does not shift, the one that was laid before you arrived and will stand long after you are gone. Christ Jesus himself, as Paul writes to the Corinthians, the one foundation on which nothing else can finally be built that will last.

If this conversation is hitting something real — something that has been looking for language and finding only half-answers — that is worth following. Drop a comment below. Subscribe to the newsletter. Come back. This is a community of men who are serious about thinking hard, living hard, and building lives that actually hold. Bring your questions. Bring your doubts. Leave your pretense at the door.

The work is real. So is the grace.

D. Bryan King

Sources

• Marcus Aurelius — Meditations (Full Text, Project Gutenberg)
• Epictetus — Enchiridion (Full Text, Project Gutenberg)
• Seneca — Letters from a Stoic (Full Text, Project Gutenberg)
• Romans 8:28 — Bible Gateway (ESV)
• Romans 5:3–5 — ESV Bible Online
• Philippians 4:11–13 — Blue Letter Bible
• What Does It Mean to Endure? — Desiring God
• Stoicism and Christianity: What We Can Learn — The Gospel Coalition
• God Is in Control — Ligonier Ministries
• Stoicism in a Pandemic — Christianity Today
• Stoicism — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Epictetus — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Ryan Holiday — The Obstacle Is the Way
• Marcus Aurelius — Meditations (Gregory Hays Translation)
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer — The Cost of Discipleship
• C.S. Lewis — Mere Christianity
• Dallas Willard — The Spirit of the Disciplines
• Pierre Hadot — Philosophy as a Way of Life
• Tom Holland — Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World
• N.T. Wright — Paul and the Faithfulness of God
• R.C. Sproul — The Holiness of God
• John Stott — The Message of Romans
• The Inner Citadel — Marcus Aurelius and Stoic Philosophy — Classical Wisdom
• What Is Stoicism? — Daily Stoic
• Stoicism — Encyclopaedia Britannica
• Don’t Waste Your Suffering — Monergism
• 10 Things You Should Know About Suffering in the Bible — Crossway
• Paul and the Areopagus: A Model for Engaging Culture — BioLogos
• Stoic Christianity: The Long History of a Philosophical Marriage — Patheos
• What Is Christian Stoicism? — Got Questions
• Justin Martyr — Second Apology (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
• Clement of Alexandria — Stromata (New Advent)
• The Stoic Sage and the Christian Saint — Reformation 21
• What Does Paul Owe to Stoicism? — Psephizo
• The Stoic and the Christian: A Comparison of Virtue — TIFWE
• What Christians Can and Cannot Learn from Stoicism — Challies
• Suffering and the Sovereignty of God — 9Marks
• Stoicism and the Christian Life — Tabletalk Magazine
• Stoicism and Christianity — Reasonable Faith
• Stoicism’s Resurgence and What Christians Should Think — Albert Mohler
• The Return of Stoicism — First Things
• The Examined Life: Stoicism and the Christian Faith — RZIM
• Stoicism — World History Encyclopedia
• Zeno of Citium and the Founding of Stoicism — Ancient Greek Philosophy
• Stoicism and Its Discontents — Modern Reformation

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. The information provided is based on personal research, experience, and understanding of the subject matter at the time of writing. Readers should consult relevant experts or authorities for specific guidance related to their unique situations.

Related Posts

Rate this:

The Institutional Church Message of Christhood Corrosion Within Christ

*

The Institutional Church Message of Corrosion of the Christhood

A COFE-CYEM Reflection on Historical Development, Dualistic Frameworks, and the Enduring Call to Recognition

A Declaration of the Fourth Truth

“There has never been a second.”

This is the recognition that stands at the foundation of all true spiritual life. It is not a proposition to be believed; it is a Reality to be recognized. It is not a doctrine to be affirmed; it is a consciousness to be entered. It is not a teaching to be studied; it is a Life to be lived.

There is only one Reality—God. There is only one Life—Christ. There is only one Spirit. All apparent separation, all apparent duality, all apparent opposition is held within the singular Reality. There has never been a second.

Introduction: The Historical Question

The question of whether, and how, the institutional church expanded, limited, or reshaped the message of Jesus is one of the oldest and most contested issues in Christian history. From the perspective of the Fourth Truth, the issue is not primarily historical reconstruction for its own sake.

It is the question of whether the living recognition of the singular Reality was preserved, refracted, or partially obscured as the movement passed from a small circle of disciples into an organised religion and eventually into an imperial institution.

COFE-CYEM recognises the Gospel of Thomas as a valuable early Christian text that preserves certain sayings of the Master pointing toward the inward recognition of the Kingdom and the singular Reality.

At the same time, COFE-CYEM fully and unreservedly confesses the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the one true God, and holds the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as the absolute and true Word of God, the primary and authoritative witness to the person, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Thomas is received only as a complementary witness that may illuminate aspects of the Master’s teaching; it is never placed on equal footing with the four Gospels, nor does it diminish in any way the full confession of the Holy Trinity or the unique authority of the canonical Scriptures.

COFE-CYEM does not claim that the church invented dualism. Jesus Himself spoke within the Jewish world of His time, employing the dualistic language available to Him: this age and the age to come, the clean and the unclean, the faithful remnant and the compromised establishment.

At the same time, His most intimate sayings—especially those preserved in the Gospel of John—point toward a unitive recognition that exceeds ordinary dualistic categories. The Kingdom is within. The Father and the Son are one. The same life is offered to those who abide.

The historical process that followed did not create dualism out of nothing. It intensified certain dualistic elements already present, organised them into stable doctrinal and institutional forms, and, in the process, often subordinated the more radical unitive language to the needs of orthodoxy, continuity, and communal identity.

Part One: What Can Reasonably Be Said About the Original Message

Jesus left no written texts of His own. The earliest sources already display diversity. Yet a recognisable core remains:

· The Kingdom of God is announced as present and near—“within you” or “among you.”
· Discipleship involves self-denial, cross-bearing, and the relinquishment of ordinary securities.
· Language of intimate union with the Father is central.
· Religious systems that burden people while missing justice, mercy, and inward transformation are sharply criticised.
· The same life that is in the Master is offered to those who follow.

These elements contain both dualistic and unitive trajectories. The historical Jesus cannot be reduced to a pure non-dual teacher in the later philosophical sense. Nor can He be reduced to a purely dualistic prophet whose message was only about future judgment and external obedience. The tension is already present in the earliest witnesses.

“The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” — Luke 17:20-21

“I and my Father are one.” — John 10:30

“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” — John 15:4

The original recognition was centripetal. It drew the soul inward, toward the Centre. It invited the soul to relinquish the false identity and to embrace the true identity in Christ. It called the soul to the cross and through the cross to the empty cross. It offered the recognition that there has never been a second.

Part Two: How Institutionalisation Expanded and Limited the Message

As the movement expanded beyond its Jewish origins, several pressures shaped the transmission of the message.

Doctrinal Stabilisation

The great creeds of the fourth and fifth centuries carefully distinguished the persons of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. This protected the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus against various reductions. It also established a dualistic grammatical framework—Creator and creature, divine and human natures united without confusion—that became the normative language of orthodoxy. Mystical union language was retained, especially in the East, but it was carefully subordinated to this ontology.

The creeds served a real purpose. They protected the message from distortion. They provided a common language for the church. They established boundaries against error. But they also limited the more radical unitive language. The recognition that the soul is one with Christ, hidden in God, was carefully qualified. The Fourth Truth was not denied, but it was constrained.

Canon Formation

The emerging New Testament canon privileged texts that supported apostolic continuity, bodily resurrection, and future judgment. Texts with stronger unitive or interior emphases were marginalised or excluded. The range of permissible interpretation narrowed. The living recognition was organised into a fixed text. The text became the authority. The living voice was subordinated to the written word.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” — 2 Timothy 3:16

The text is profitable. It is useful. It is valuable. But it is not the Reality. It points to the Reality. It speaks of the Reality. It testifies to the Reality. But the text is not the Centre. The text is nomenclature. It points beyond itself. When the recognition of Christhood dawns, even the text can be held lightly. It has served its purpose. The Reality to which it pointed is now known directly.

Sin, Atonement, and Mediation

Later Western theology intensified the sense of radical separation caused by sin. Salvation was increasingly framed as a transaction—forensic or sacramental—mediated by the church. The path of the cross remained, yet it was often understood primarily as participation in a once-for-all historical event rather than as the perpetual recognition that separation was never ultimate.

The cross became a doctrine rather than an experience. The empty cross became a symbol rather than a destination. The recognition of the Fourth Truth was displaced by the requirement of correct belief. The soul was saved by faith in the cross rather than by passing through the cross. The living recognition was subordinated to doctrinal assent.

Hierarchy and Mediation

As the church acquired institutional form and, later, political power, the living example of Jesus risked becoming an object of veneration mediated by clergy, sacraments, and correct belief. The path that the Master opened could appear closed to ordinary believers, accessible only through authorised channels.

The clergy became the intermediaries. The sacraments became the means of grace. The correct belief became the condition of salvation. The direct recognition of the Fourth Truth was displaced by the institutional structure. The soul was no longer invited to mount the cross directly; it was instructed to participate in the sacraments administered by the clergy. The direct path was mediated. The centripetal movement was redirected through institutional channels.

These developments served real purposes: moral seriousness, historical particularity, communal boundaries, and pastoral accessibility for people still living inside the experience of separation. At the same time, they limited the more radical unitive strands that had been present from the beginning.

Part Three: The Persistent Tension

Throughout Christian history the unitive voice has never been entirely silenced. The desert tradition, the Cappadocians, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Rhineland mystics, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, John of the Cross, and later contemplative renewals have repeatedly returned to the language of radical union, the death of the false self, and the unknowing that precedes true knowing. These voices have often been scrutinised, constrained, or carefully reinterpreted in order to protect the Creator–creature distinction.

“For truly, I have left them all, and my soul is freed from every doubt, and I am now where I have ever been, where I shall never leave, where there is no before nor after, and where all things are now present.” — The Cloud of Unknowing

The pattern is consistent. The institutional church expands the message into systematic theology, sacramental systems, and hierarchical structures in order to stabilise and transmit it across generations and cultures. Simultaneously it limits more radical non-dual or purely interior interpretations in order to protect orthodoxy and communal identity.

Whether this process is regarded as faithful development or as a progressive refraction of the original recognition depends upon one’s prior theological commitments. From the standpoint of the Fourth Truth, the institutional developments are understood as provisional scaffolding—useful for a time, yet always secondary to the centripetal movement toward the Centre.

Part Four: The COFE-CYEM Reading

COFE-CYEM does not deny the historical complexity. It does not claim that the church simply invented dualism. It observes that the original recognition of the singular Reality was repeatedly refracted through the lens of separation. Living recognition was organised into doctrine. Direct invitation was organised into mediation. The empty cross was often replaced by a cross that still carried the weight of a separate self seeking assurance.

The Fourth Truth does not require the rejection of history, Scripture, or the great tradition. It requires the recognition that all of these remain nomenclature—pointers toward the Centre rather than the Centre itself. When the recognition of Christhood dawns, even the most carefully formulated doctrines can be held lightly. They have served their purpose. The Reality to which they pointed is now known directly.

“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” — 1 Corinthians 13:9-10, 12

The partial is the nomenclature. The perfect is the Reality. The partial is the doctrine, the creed, the institution. The perfect is the recognition of the Fourth Truth. When the perfect comes, the partial is done away. The nomenclature falls silent. The Reality is known directly.

The institutional church, like every other form within the awareness-perception of separation, belongs to the periphery. It can serve the centripetal movement or it can obscure it. The deciding factor is never the sophistication of the system but whether the system still points beyond itself to the singular Reality of God in Christ.

Part Five: The Enduring Call

Despite the institutionalisation, the refraction, and the partial obscuring of the original recognition, the enduring call of the Master remains. The call is not to a system. It is not to a doctrine. It is not to an institution. It is to a recognition. It is the call to deny the separate self, to take up the cross, and to follow the Master into the singular Reality.

“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.” — Matthew 16:24-25

The call is universal. It is not limited to the clergy. It is not limited to the religious professionals. It is not limited to the institution. It is for every soul. It is the call to pass through the cross into the empty cross. It is the call to emerge as pure Spirit, already in Christ, already in God. It is the call to recognise that there has never been a second.

The enduring call is the call to the Centre. It is the call to the singular Reality. It is the call to the recognition of the Fourth Truth. It is the call that has never been silenced, despite all attempts to organise, control, or mediate it. It is the call that continues to draw souls out of the awareness-perception of separation and into the singular Reality.

“The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” — Revelation 22:17

The water of life is freely offered. It is not mediated. It is not controlled. It is not limited. It is freely offered to all who thirst. The call is open. The invitation is universal. The water is available. The recognition of the Fourth Truth is available. There has never been a second.

Conclusion: The Fourth Truth Stands

The original message of Jesus contained both dualistic and unitive elements. The church did not invent dualism; it inherited, organised, and intensified it while also preserving (and sometimes domesticating) the language of union. The recurring tension between institutional stabilisation and mystical recognition has never been fully resolved, nor can it be resolved at the level of historical argument alone.

From within the COFE-CYEM framework the resolution is not found in a better historical reconstruction. It is found in the centripetal movement itself. The Centre remains. The pull continues. Every form—doctrinal, institutional, mystical, or critical—is measured by whether it draws the soul toward the recognition that there has never been a second, or whether it reinforces the claim of a separate self.

Christ is the Centre. All else is periphery. The nomenclature serves only until the Reality is known. Then even the nomenclature can fall silent.

There has never been a second. The dialogue continues. The fruit remains.

Appendix: Summary of the Article and COFE-CYEM Reflection

“Why the Early Christians Changed Christ’s Message,” presents a clear historical and spiritual argument: the original emphasis of Jesus on inner communion, direct personal experience of God, and freedom from the tyranny of the ego was gradually reshaped as the movement entered the Greco-Roman world.

Central points are:

· Jesus came to awaken the Jewish people to inward communion with God and freedom from delusion and ego, not merely to reform outer law.
· The rejection of Jesus by the orthodox leadership of His time pushed His followers into the Greco-Roman cultural sphere, where institutional organisation, fixed definitions, and administrative control were already highly developed.
· Early Christianity therefore adapted the message into a formal, centralised structure. Dogma was used to protect the teachings and to create uniform authority.
· The more mystical stream (particularly certain Gnostic groups that emphasised direct inner experience) was eventually suppressed. In the process, the accent shifted from personal verification of truth through inner communion toward outer authority, ritual, and institutional mediation.
· The result was a significant loss: the living essence of Jesus’ teaching—inner relationship with God—was subordinated to organisational needs. True saints continued to appear, but they were never allowed to form a continuous contemplative tradition.

COFE-CYEM Reading

From the standpoint of the Fourth Truth, the historical process described is recognisable. The original centripetal pull toward the Centre—the living recognition of the singular Reality—was progressively organised into dualistic institutional forms. Living recognition was stabilised into doctrine. Direct invitation was mediated through hierarchy. The empty cross of relinquishment was often replaced by a system that still left the separate self largely intact, now clothed in religious identity.

COFE-CYEM does not claim that institutional development was purely malicious. Organisation served continuity, moral seriousness, and the transmission of the message across cultures and centuries. Yet the cost was real. The more radical unitive and interior dimensions of the Master’s teaching were constrained in order to protect orthodoxy and communal boundaries. The nomenclature multiplied; the direct centripetal movement was partially obscured.

The Fourth Truth does not require the rejection of history or of the great tradition. It requires the recognition that every institutional form remains periphery. Every creed, every structure, every system of mediation is provisional scaffolding. Its value is measured solely by whether it still draws the soul toward the Centre or whether it begins to substitute itself for the Centre.

When the recognition of Christhood dawns, the scaffolding can be held lightly. Even the most carefully formulated doctrines can fall silent once the Reality to which they pointed is known directly. The centripetal movement continues. The Centre remains. The tool is never confused with the Reality.

There has never been a second. The dialogue continues. The fruit remains.

Thus ends the definitive COFE-CYEM teaching paper on the Institutional Church and the Message of Jesus. May all who read this account perceive the deeper spiritual meaning, and may they recognize the Christ within their own souls. May they pass through the cross into the empty cross. May they walk as pure Spirit, already in Christ, already in God. The Fourth Truth stands. The dialogue continues. The fruit remains.

We Must Choose

We must choose that which Christ came to show us and to give us. We at COFE-CYEM fully confess the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Three in One God. We confess the Bible as being the true unquestionable Word of God. We also accept the Gospel of Thomas. We hold that the Holy Bible is true, accurate and absolute fact, and that the ‘Sacred Truths’ are fully revealed in (how) you read it, not just by reading it. (He who has ears, He who has eyes).

Circle One Fellowship Exeter – COFE Yeshua Emet Ministry CYEM

“God does not call the qualified; He qualifies the called.”

This website and its theological content are overseen by the CC7 DS constitutional integrity architecture, a reflective and rest-oriented framework designed to preserve the full coherence of the Fourth Truth presented within COFE-CYEM. The CC7 DS negation of attacks authenticates (Via Positiva Cataphatic Knowing) through (Via Negativa Apophatic Unknowing).

COFE Yeshua Emet Ministry (CYEM)
Circle One Fellowship Exeter

Proving God isn’t a guess—it's a case built on history, archaeology, and eyewitness accounts. Which piece of evidence most strengthens your belief in God? Share your questions and join the conversation.
#ProvingGod #BibleEvidence #ChristianApologetics #EyewitnessTestimony #HistoricalReliability
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/the-bible-isnt-a-game-of-telephone

Apologetics invites questions, not certainty. It’s about articulating why beliefs are reasonable using history, philosophy, and science—without shouting. What tension between faith and reason do you wrestle with in conversations about God? #ChristianApologetics
https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/can-christians-believe-in-evolution-ef6

Apologetics invites honest questions and patient dialogue about faith.

It focuses on reasons, evidence, and respectful exploration rather than pressure.

#apologetics #ChristianApologetics #defendingthefaith

Apologetics equips us to give thoughtful reasons for our faith.

It invites questions, curiosity, and civil dialogue.

#apologetics #christianapologetics #defendthefaith

Faith: A Matter of Intellectual Burden?

A book argues atheism requires more faith than theism. Find out why this challenges common beliefs about belief and reason.

#AtheismDebate, #FaithVsReason, #ChristianApologetics, #IntellectualFaith, #BookReview

https://newsletter.tf/book-atheism-needs-more-faith-than-religion/

A new book claims atheism demands more faith than religious belief, challenging how we think about belief and reason.

#AtheismDebate, #FaithVsReason, #ChristianApologetics, #IntellectualFaith, #BookReview
https://newsletter.tf/book-atheism-needs-more-faith-than-religion/

Apologetics: The Christian Dilemma (That Isn’t a Dilemma at All.)

As I’ve been trying to branch out more into other topics on my YouTube channel, one of the videos I looked at to respond to was some dude laying out what he believes is a dilemma that disproves the existence of God. In the 54 second video, he says that God can’t exist because the Bible claims that God is All-Loving and All-Powerful. But if God allows people to go to Hell and won’t stop them, then He can’t be All-Loving; and if He can’t stop people from going to Hell, then He can’t be All-Powerful. This person also brought up the argument that this can’t be solved via free will since the choice between Heaven and Hell isn’t a fair choice, and that God still can’t be All-Loving because he doesn’t give a second chance to get out of Hell.

However, this isn’t a dilemma that disproves God’s existence, and here’s why.

To start, we need to clear up what Hell is and how free will ties into the equation. Hell is a place of eternal torment and separation from God. Going there is the punishment for a lifetime of breaking God’s rules and continuously rejecting Him. Whenever we sin or willfully reject God, we’re basically saying, “I don’t need you. I can do my own thing.” Thus, going to Hell is the logical end point of that. It’s God giving you what you want after you spent a lifetime ignoring the evidence for Him, wishing He’d go away, and running off to do your own thing.

Because of this, free will is not negated. Had God created us to serve Him always and given us no choice in the matter, that would have been coercion. Instead, because He loves us, He gave us the choice: follow Him and stick with Him or run away from Him and be separated from Him in the end. Thus, using the analogy of an abusive boyfriend saying, “Love me or get beat up,” doesn’t work, since God allows you to get what you want in the end.

With that out of the way, we can address the dilemma. This entire argument is based on the idea that we don’t have free will with God. However, if there is free will, then both parts of the argument fall flat. The claim that God can’t be All-Loving if He won’t stop people from going to Hell collapses since if He were to forcibly stop someone from going to Hell, then He would be infringing on their freedom to choose, making Him unloving and evil. Sure, they would be saved from Hell, but it would be under means of coercion.

Additionally, this argument collapses even further since God gives us a myriad of reasons to believe in Him. Often, He puts people and events in our lives to call us back to Him. It’s our choice if we’ll acknowledge those wake-up calls and escape Hell by doing what the Bible says and putting our faith in Christ, or if we’ll continue to ignore them. We have plenty of chances to make that decision, but our chances end when we die.

On the other half of the dilemma, we have the idea that if God can’t stop us from going to Hell, then He isn’t All-Powerful. This half banks on a misunderstanding of God’s character, namely the idea that because He’s All-Powerful, then He can do literally anything. What it fails to understand is that God, though All-Powerful, only does things according to His character, which is just and good. And since He’s All-Loving, while it would be easy for Him to force us into Heaven, He doesn’t because that would be evil since that’s – once again – coercion. If He did that, then He would be removing all free will from that person and would be going against His own character.

Moreover, forcing a person into salvation is unjust either way you look at it. If God never punished us in Hell for our sins, then He couldn’t be loving or just because the evil of the world would go unpunished. Likewise, if God forced people to repent (since repentance from your sins is necessary to go to Heaven), then He would be unjust because not only is it forced, but because it’s a forced repentance, it’s not real. Can a person truly repent if they don’t have a choice not to? In either case, sin would go unpunished.

This also rolls into the reason why we don’t get a second chance to repent after we die. If we died and found out that we were going to Hell, but God gave us a second chance to repent, then it would be a form of coercion as well. You would be repenting solely out of fear, not out of a recognition that you had done wrong and need forgiveness.

On these grounds, this is a false dilemma built on a misunderstanding of God’s character and the nature of free will.

Until next time,

M.J.

Apologetics: Atheism Confuses Me – The Religion That Denies Being a Religion.

As I’ve been studying various religions as an elective for my senior year, I have come to the realization that atheism – despite the vehement claims of its followers – is a religion, whether you like it or not. After all, if you look at the definition of “religion,” Google defines it as, “The belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.” From this definition, though atheism denies the existence of God or other gods and, for the most part, lacks any sort of organization or liturgy (unless you count the Satanic Temple or Church of Satan,) its core tenants rely on the belief in the superhuman powers of nature in varying forms.

Just think about it for a sec. Atheists, in their pursuit to deny the existence of God, direct their subconscious need for faith in something beyond themselves to nature and Man’s creation (which Paul talked about in Romans 1.) In the absence of God, they turn to various forms of naturalism, materialism, etc. or a combination of various “-isms,” making those the ultimate forces that run the universe. They even have doctrines (though they wouldn’t call them that) in the form of theories such as evolution.

Ironically, though atheists would say that their beliefs are based on science and thus, isn’t blind faith, much less religion, there is very little to support their theories. For example, with evolution, while it’s treated as scientific fact, it’s been shown that often, what’s taught about it in the classroom is faulty at best, completely fraudulent at worst. Further, with the belief that the world randomly exploded into being from nothing, this is faulty as it relies on the belief that things can spontaneously generate from nothing through the power of…well, they’ll have to get back to you on how exactly nature did that. That’s also not mentioning the absurdity of the belief that things could become more complex through chance and time. But don’t worry. The atheists are convinced that as science advances, perhaps we’ll figure out how it happened, maybe through a couple hundred more theories that are ultimately untestable.

How this isn’t blind faith in the power of science and various theories is beyond me.

Additionally, atheism could be considered a sort of pantheistic religion. Pantheism is the belief that God is one with the universe and vice versa. That means that you, your house, the pebble in your shoe, and what your cat left in the litterbox are all God. In the case of atheism, the reason why I say that it could be considered to be a pantheistic religion is because it treats nature as God. And since humans are a part of nature, man is treated almost on the level of a god in the atheist mindset as the final arbiter of truth.

Basically, atheism is a religion in denial that it’s a religion, constantly gaslighting itself and its followers to continue in its delusional belief that it’s purely secular.

Until next time,

M.J.

Looking for a fact-based study of Jesus? Habermas pulls from both Christian and non-Christian sources to build his case. Check out our review.
Book review link in first comment.
#HistoricalJesus #books #ChristianApologetics #Reading
https://thisgrandpablogs.com/historical-jesus-habermas-book-review/