Acquiring Truth

04/09/2026

Christian apologetics focuses on rationally justifying the Christian faith and refuting objections raised against it. It attempts to build a bridge between faith and reason, strengthening the case for Christianity and rebutting the case against it. Apologetics plays a crucial role in today's modern religious landscape by addressing contemporary challenges from the scientific viewpoint. For example, William Lane Craig, with doctorates in philosophy and theology, is best known for his work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and debates on the existence of God. On his website: reasonablefaith.org, Dr. Craig provides us with his answer to the question on the existence of God below.

QUESTION: “God never begins to exist, but has only existed for a finite amount of time in the sense that time only began 14 billion years ago. In the same way, the universe could have had a timeless part that gave way to the physical reality in which we see.”

ANSWER: This is the hypothesis of a quiescent universe. In order for the universe to exist timelessly, it would have to exist absolutely changelessly. But that is impossible for any physical reality. Nothing can reach a temperature of absolute zero, for there will always be atomic and molecular motion."

03/18/2026

Quantum...is it just another language to describe God's creation? Colossians 1:17 notes: “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” While quantum physics looks at the behavior of subatomic particles, believers recognize God as the underlying cause and sustainer of every law and interaction. [bible hub]

01/21/2026

Does "truth" stand outside of "faith"? What are your thoughts?

12/30/2025

We have now entered the season of Christmas. What was predicted and promised through the Prophets, God has delivered upon. He has kept His word.

He has in fact, appeared to all creation... yet laid in a manger out of sight until the fullness of time should come.

Tell me, how can He be fully God and Fully man? Why would He bother?

12/20/2023

Advent 1 Meditation

Advent is the time of year on the Christian Calendar when we celebrate both the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ at His birth and His sure and certain coming ...

10/22/2023

Play the Man – Oxford Martyrs' Day

“Who is famous for saying ‘play the man’ in church history?”

This phrase has its origins in 2 Samuel 10 which reads, “Be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people, and for the cities of our God; and may the LORD do what seems good to him.” Paul uses similar words in 1 Corinthians 16, “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

In church history, we see this phrase connected to the martyrdoms of Bishops Polycarp and Hugh Latimer. Early church historian Eusebius records that at Polycarp’s martyrdom, there was “heard a voice from heaven, which came to Polycarp as he was entering the place: ‘Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.’ And no one saw the speaker, but many of our people heard the voice.” [1]

Well over a thousand years later, the words were repeated in connection to the Oxford Martyrs, Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer, who were put to death by Queen Mary Tudor, sometimes known as “Bloody Mary,” on charges of heresy.

Hugh Latimer was an Anglican Priest, Bishop of Worcester, and chaplain to Queen Anne Boleyn and later King Edward VI. [2] As Bishop of Worcester, Latimer continued his cause against social injustices and corruptions. In addition, he promoted the Reformation and argued against Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory, images, and indulgences. [3] Later he even took up residence with Archbishop Cranmer in Lambeth Palace. There he became the confidant of Cranmer, assisted in writing the Book of Homilies, and was a court preacher. [4]

When the young King Edward VI died in 1553, Roman Catholic Queen Mary I took the throne and soon issued a summons for Latimer. Though he had notification in advance, he refused to flee. He was then committed to the Tower of London along with Cranmer and Ridley on charges of heresy. There he continued for over a year and stated that he might die of cold rather than the fire! [5]

When the time did come and as the fires were lit for the burning of Latimer and Ridley, Latimer spoke these famous words to his younger companion, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” [6]

Oxford Martyrs Day, commemorating the martyrdoms of Latimer and Ridley, is celebrated by many Anglicans and others on October 16th. Though martyred a few months later, Archbishop Cranmer is often also included as one of the Oxford Martyrs and commemorated also on this day.
---
1 - Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 190.

2 - The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 420.

3 - The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 960.

4 - J.C. Ryle, Hugh Latimer, Bishop and Martyr, 273-279.

5 - Gairdner, Hugh Latimer - A Short Biography, 190-195.

6 - Nicholas Ridley, The Works of Nicholas Ridley, D.D., ed. Henry Christmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843), 297.

07/31/2023

“Will we be reunited with our pets in heaven?”

I do think we will be reunited with our pets, either in heaven or in the resurrection. However, the Bible doesn’t explicitly answer this question and theologians historically have been divided on the issue.

The main reason given against believing that we will be reunited with our pets in the afterlife is the claim that animals do not have souls. R.C. Sproul points out that the Bible does not deny that animals have souls. He writes, “I don’t know whether they have souls or don’t have souls—I know they are not created in the image of God in the sense that we are—but I have every reason to expect a new earth that is populated by glorified dogs and cats.” (1)

However, the issue of whether animals have souls or not can be bypassed with respect to being reunited with our pets, for in the resurrection God can simply resurrect the bodies of our pets with or without a soul. So, even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that animals do not have souls, we can still be reunited with them in the resurrection in the new heavens and the new earth.

Advocates for being reunited with our pets in the afterlife span across history and denominations which include Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley, and others. Martin Luther, arguing from the “restoration of all things” in Acts 3 speaks of his dog, “Even for the brave Belferlein there will be a place in heaven” and continues, “Be thou comforted, little dog, thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail.” (2) Peter Kreeft makes an argument from the fulfillment of the command of stewardship. He writes, “We were meant from the beginning to have stewardship over the animals; we have not fulfilled that divine plan yet on earth; therefore it seems likely that the right relationship with animals will be part of Heaven… And what better place to begin than with already petted pets?” (3) Hank Hanegraaff reasons that since animals populated the Garden of Eden, “there is a precedent for believing that animals will populate Eden restored, as well.” (4)

Besides the above arguments, I think there are at least four good reasons to believe we will be reunited with our pets. First, we are told in Scripture that animals are part of heaven and the resurrection. As R.C. Sproul points out, “Images of heaven and future redemption include animals. The lamb, the lion, and the wolf are all mentioned. Again, these images may be only metaphorically illustrative. But coupled with the promise of cosmic redemption, they lend some real hope to the future redemption of man’s animal companions.” (5)

Second, animals in the Bible are linked to the household. They are often blessed or suffer consequences in connection to their owners or heads. All of creation fell because of the sins of Adam and Eve. We recall that in Exodus the Israelite animals are judged differently than the Egyptian animals and escape the plagues. Exodus 9 reads, “And the Lord will make a difference between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt. So nothing shall die of all that belongs to the children of Israel.” We also see animals connected with the household in the judgement of Achan with respect to Ai (Josh. 7) and many other places. Animals are to rest as part of the household in the commandment to keep the Sabbath (Ex. 20).

These connections of animals to the household make it likely that they will be blessed with us in heaven or the resurrection. As C.S. Lewis argues, an animal’s “destiny is through and through related” to man’s. He continues, “the derivative immortality suggested for them is not a mere amende or compensation: It is part and parcel of the new heaven and new earth, organically related to the whole suffering process of the world's fall and redemption.” (6)

Third, Romans 8 elaborates on this connection between creation, including animals, and redeemed humanity. Paul says that the creation “groans” and is “subjected to futility” and yet has an “earnest expectation” and “eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God” [Rom. 8]. Paul continues stating that “creation itself also will be delivered from the bo***ge of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” [Rom. 8].

Commenting on this text, Calvin writes, “there is no element and no part of the world which, being touched, as it were, with a sense of its present misery, does not intensely hope for a resurrection.” He clarifies, “not that all creatures shall be partakers of the same glory with the sons of God; but that they, according to their nature, shall be participators of a better condition; for God will restore to a perfect state the world, now fallen, together with mankind. But what that perfection will be, as to beasts … it is not meet for us to inquire more curiously.” (7) Witherington says that “the future fortunes of all creation are bound up with the believers’ future.” [8] Kruse summarizes this passage, “What is clear from all this is that Paul’s understanding of salvation is not restricted to humanity but encompasses the whole cosmos. Believers will enter their glorious freedom as children of God, and the cosmos too will be renewed.” (9)

Lastly, I would add an argument from the character and nature of God and his heavenly plans for us. We are told that Christ is “able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph. 3). I think this "exceeding abundance" includes being reunited with our pets. The general teaching in Scripture on heaven and the resurrection is that it will blow our minds! As John says, “it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him” (1 Jn. 3). Smith explains, “With our present faculties we cannot conceive it. It must be experienced to be understood. Jesus simply assures us of the felicity of the Father’s House, and bids us take His word for it.” (10)

In conclusion, I think there are good reasons to believe that we will likely be reunited with our pets, either in heaven or in the resurrection. I don’t find the main objection about animals not having souls compelling as it can be argued against directly or simply circumvented by the resurrection. I think it’s safe to say with Martin Luther that the “restoration of all things” likely includes “a place in heaven” for “Belferlein,” and for our pets too.

---
1 - R. C. Sproul, The Gospel of God: An Exposition of Romans (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1994), 140–141.
2 - Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, (London: John Murray, 1911), 362.
3 - Peter Kreeft, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven . . . but Never Dreamed of Asking (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1990), 45.
4 - Hank Hanegraaff, Afterlife: What You Need to Know about Heaven, the Hereafter and Near-Death Experiences (Brentwood, TN: Worthy, 2013), 45.
5 - R. C. Sproul, Surprised by Suffering: The Role of Pain and Death in the Christian Life (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2010), 139.
6 - C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (1940), 145.
7 - John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 305.
8 - Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 223.
9 - Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2012), 344.
10 - David Smith, “The Epistles of John,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary, vol. 5 (New York: George H. Doran Company, n.d.), 183.

06/18/2023

“What were the main views of providence in New Testament times?”

The doctrine of providence deals with understanding how God sustains, governs, directs, and interacts with his creation. It raises questions and seeks answers concerning God’s involvement with seemingly trivial events throughout the day, to life and world changing occurrences. It spans from what one eats for breakfast, to a promotion or the loss of a job, to the rising and falling of nations.

Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century A.D. He gives three prevailing views which corresponded to the three dominant sects among the Jews.

“Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal.” [1]

What is interesting is that these three views roughly correspond to prominent views held today. The view of the Sadducees is similar to that of the deists who, although they believe in God’s existence and that he created the world, deny that God interacts with the world, performs miracles, etc.

The view of the Essenes, that everything is providentially caused by God, generally corresponds to the “traditional” or “reformed view.” The Qumran scrolls indicate that those there believed that God “controlled even the breathing rate, speech cadence, knowledge, and plans of each individual.” [2] Ephesians 1 says that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Augustine held that divine providence “pervades all things from the highest to the lowest.” [3] He elaborates stating that all things, “beginning with the throne of God and going down to a white or black hair, are ruled by divine providence.” [4] The Westminster Confession of Faith states the same in chapter five and Calvin likewise states that God “so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.” [5] He argues, for example, that God doesn’t simply supply food by “ordinary power.” He says that this is “too weak and profane a fiction. As if the fruitfulness of one year were not a singular blessing of God, and scarcity and famine were not his curse and vengeance!” [6] This view matches the sayings of many today like “everything happens for a reason” or to say of every hardship or calamity that it is a “blessing in disguise.”

Finally, the view of the Pharisees, that some, but not all things, are providentially caused by God, corresponds to what I would term a “modified traditional view.” Like the “traditional view,” this position affirms the sovereignty of God, the omnipotence of God, the omniscience of God, his fatherly care, and his direction of and activity in history. However, it does not ascribe every single thing that happens to the action of God.

Berkouwer notes that “German Christians saw the special finger of God in Hi**er’s rise to power in 1933. The Church, it was said, could not without fault fail to recognize this providential sign.” Theologians and ministers at Würtemburg stated, “We are full of thanks to God that He, as Lord of history, has given us Adolf Hi**er, our leader and savior from our difficult lot… as evangelical Christians.” Berkouwer explains that this “opened the eyes of many of us to the dangers of reading God’s purpose from historical facts.” [7]

Proponents of the “modified traditional view” appeal to biblical texts which differentiate between multiple origins. Proverbs 19 says that “Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord.” James argues in chapter 1, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.”

1 Corinthians 3 speaks of some of the works of Christians which are “wood, hay, straw” which will be “burned” up, and the believer will in fact “suffer loss; but he himself will be saved.” These were not “blessings in disguise.”

As in the first century, the doctrine of providence has been understood predominantly in three ways. It is an important doctrine which affects how we view, understand, and interpret events in life every day, which “cuts across several traditional disciplinary boundaries" including philosophical, systematic, and pastoral theology while dealing with “speculative and dogmatic themes that are also of deep existential significance.” [8]

-----
1 - Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 346.

2 - Kenneth M. Wilson, “Providence,” ed. John D. Barry, The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

3 - Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” in St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 303.

4 - Augustine of Hippo, “Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount,” in Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 23.

5 - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 200.

6 - Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 204.

7 - G. C. Berkouwer, The Providence of God, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1952), 162-164.

8 - David. Fergusson, "The Theology of Providence," Theology Today 67, no. 3 (2010): 261.

05/17/2023

Could Jesus Have Avoided Arrest?

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus came to give His life as a ransom for many. Could He and His Disciples have avoided arrest? Was His arrest a foregone concl...

05/14/2023

“Can you talk about William Paley’s ethical theory?”

William Paley (1743-1805) was an Anglican priest and archdeacon who was also a philosopher, theologian, and apologist who taught at Cambridge University. Paley is perhaps most known today for his teleological argument for the existence of God including his watchmaker analogy. The primary source for his ethical theory is found in his "Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy" published in 1785 which was a required text at Cambridge for nearly a century.

Paley offers something of a summary of his ethical view stating that virtue is “the doing good to mankind, in obedience to the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness.”[1] Paley’s view is often called “theological utilitarianism” or “divine utilitarianism” which predates the “modern fathers” of utilitarianism, Bentham and Mill. Bentham’s secular utilitarianism was a “radical departure from the then prevailing version of utilitarian ethics in England."[2]

Theological utilitarianism includes aspects of the Christian worldview which uses both general and special revelation (the Bible). Further, theological utilitarianism is unique in that it has a divine command theory of the good (to be explained below) and incorporates eschatological features (the afterlife) in its motivation and sanctions. As Cole writes, “the future state is vital to theological utilitarianism in all its leading writers.”[3]

Cole states that Paley “represents the clearest exponent of theological utilitarianism” and “on all accounts” is its “key figure.”[4] Part of Paley’s appeal, says Smith, lies in the fact that he did not “divorce ethics from theology, the heresy into which Hume and then Bentham had fallen” and kept the “Christian tradition of the importance of the individual.”[5]

While there is much overlap between theological utilitarianism and the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, there are also important distinctions and unique characteristics. Paley holds to a divine command theory of the good. What is good or moral is grounded in, and defined by, the will and command of God. In Paley’s words, the “Divine will determines the distinction of right and wrong.”[6]

For Paley, utility, benefit, or happiness is not the grounding of good, but is the motivation for acting morally. The motivation of happiness is secured through theistic sanctions. Cole explains, “Doctrinally expressed the Christian doctrines of Individual Eschatology are at the very heart of this theological ethic (death, judgment, heaven and hell).”[7]

Paley states that “there are prepared for us rewards and punishments, of all possible degrees, from the most exalted happiness down to extreme misery; so that ‘our labour is never in vain.’” He continues, “whatever advancement we make in virtue, we procure a proportionable accession of future happiness; as, on the other hand, every accumulation of vice is the ‘treasuring up so much wrath against the day of wrath.’”[8]

Paley summarizes with a practical example, “Let it be asked, Why am I obliged to keep my word? and the answer will be, ‘Because I am urged to do so by a strong motive,’ (namely, the expectation of being after this life rewarded, if I do, or punished for it, if I do not,) ‘resulting from the command of another,’ (namely, of God).” Paley concludes stating, “Therefore, private happiness is our motive, and the will of God our rule.”[9]

Paley's theological utilitarianism has unique qualities and distinct characteristics which arguably provide improvements over the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill.

-----
1 - William Paley and Edmund Paley, The Works of William Paley, vol. 3 (London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838), 20.

2 - James Crimmins, “John Brown and the Theological Tradition of Utilitarian Ethics,” History of Political Thought, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Winter 1983), 550.

3 - Graham Cole, “Theological Utilitarianism and the Eclipse of the Theistic Sanction,” Tyndale Bulletin 42, No. 2 (November 1991), 242.

4 - Graham Cole, “Ethics and Eschatology: Paley’s System Reconsidered,” The Reformed Theological Review, 47, no. 2 (May 1988), 33.

5 - Wilson Smith, “William Paley's Theological Utilitarianism in America,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3 (July 1954), 423.

6 - Paley, Works, 40–41.

7 - Cole, “Theological Utilitarianism,” 242.

8 - Paley, Works, 24.

9 - Paley, Works, 29.

03/26/2023

Lead Us Not Into Temptation

In this short video, Fr. Edlin discusses the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation." Why does the Lord Jesus teach ust o pray this way ...