Thomist Tacos for the Soul

EDWARD = Would you still believe in Christianity if the body of Jesus were to be found?

FRANK = Of course, I would. Wouldn’t you?

EDWARD = No, I wouldn’t.

FRANK = Well, if you stopped believing you would be unfaithful.

EDWARD = And what would that make you?

FRANK = I would be a faithful Christian.

EDWARD = But, your faith would be contrary to the evidence that Christ rose from the dead.

FRANK = Faith doesn’t need any evidence. Didn’t Jesus chastise Thomas for requiring evidence?

EDWARD = Yeah in a way.

FRANK = Doesn’t Hebrews 11:1 say that faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen.

EDWARD = Yeah.

FRANK = Therefore, evidence is not required for faith.

EDWARD = How does that follow from Heb 11:1?

FRANK = Faith is THE evidence not AN evidence. So, if faith is THE evidence, no other evidence is needed. Faith itself IS THE EVIDENCE.

EDWARD = Let me get this straight. Since FAITH is THE evidence, not AN evidence, the only evidence needed is faith?

FRANK = Yup.

EDWARD = Since, the only evidence that is needed is faith, all other evidence is unneeded?

FRANK = Yup.

EDWARD = Whether the body of Jesus is found or not found would be another evidence. Correct?

FRANK = Now, you got it.

EDWARD = Therefore, the resurrection is inconsequential to the Christian faith. Correct?

FRANK = You’re a quick learner.

EDWARD = Now, I am confused.

FRANK = What about?

EDWARD = Based on Heb 11:1, you have concluded that faith is its own evidence, and therefore, it does not require any other evidence.

FRANK = What’s so confusing about that?

EDWARD = There is nothing confusing about that in itself. However, I am confused because this contradicts what Paul says in 1 Cor 15

FRANK = What are you talking about?

EDWARD = Paul says in 1 Cor 15:14 that if Christ has not risen, then our faith is “kenos,” whose semantic range is empty, void, senseless, or foolish.

FRANK = What’s your point?

EDWARD = According to the apostle Paul, he says that without the resurrection of Christ, your faith is empty, foolish, and void.

FRANK = And? So, what?

EDWARD = So, Paul is saying that EVIDENCE of the resurrection IS necessary for faith. So you must have interpreted Heb 11:1 incorrectly.

FRANK = I don’t think so. Don’t you know that I hold a seminary degree, and I am filled with the Holy Spirit. I speak in tongues and God talks to me, and God has revealed this truth to me: faith does not need evidence. He also gave me Heb. 11:1 and John 20:29.

EDWARD = Well, I don’t contest that you speak in tongues, nor do I contest that you have a seminary degree. What I am contesting is that God spoke to you and gave you that truth and those verse substantiating that truth.

FRANK = Well, I never heard so much insolence from an uneducated, ungifted and unfaithful Christian. Don’t you know that I hold a bachelor in Bible, a Masters in apologetics, and a doctorate in Theology.

EDWARD = So, does it follow that you are infallible because you hold those titles.

FRANK = Well, no.

EDWARD = So, it is possible that you are incorrect.

FRANK = Possible but not probable.

EDWARD = So, do you think that Paul in 1 Cor 15 was contradicting the author of Hebrew, who some believe to be Paul.

FRANK = No.

EDWARD = Do you think that I have interpreted 1 Cor 15:14 incorrectly?

FRANK = No.

EDWARD = Do you think that contradictions are true?

FRANK = No.

EDWARD = Therefore, there must be a problem in your interpretation of Heb 11:1.

FRANK = Okay, smarty pants if you know so much show me the error.

EDWARD = You stated that faith is the substances of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen. Correct?

FRANK = Yes.

EDWARD = The text does not say that FAITH is the evidence FOR ALL THINGS. Rather, it states that it’s the evidence for things not yet seen

FRANK = Okay, what are those things.

EDWARD = Well, there is parallelism going on in the text. Faith is the basis (substance, means that which stands under) of things hoped for. However, that which is hoped for is not present and is not attained, for if it were attained, one would not hope for it.

FRANK = Okay.

EDWARD = Furthermore, to hope means to have some future expectation of some good

FRANK = So.

EDWARD = Given the parallelism, FAITH is the BASIS for our future expectation of some good.

FRANK = So.

EDWARD = Given the parallelism, faith is also the PROOF (i.e., evidence) of something that is not yet seen (i.e., future).

FRANK = I don’t understand.

EDWARD = Via our action and our words, we demonstrate the faith that we have concerning some future good (e.g., the coming of Christ, the resurrection, etc.) to others and to ourselves, and our faith is the BASIS (i.e., substance) for our HOPE.

FRANK = I get it. Our present FAITH IS THE BASIS AND EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING YET FUTURE.

EDWARD = That’s correct.

FRANK = However, the BASIS FOR OUR FAITH is that which happened in the past: the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

EDWARD = Yeah, hold up a second. Let me draw a sketch on a piece of a paper. It looks like this:
DEATH & RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [IS THE BASIS FOR] FAITH [IS THE BASIS FOR] FUTURE HOPE OF A REALITY NOT YET ATTAINED.

FRANK = So when some one ask me what is the basis for the hope that I have about the future. I can say, “My Faith.”

EDWARD = That’s correct.

FRANK = However, when I am asked what is the basis for my faith. I can say, “The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

EDWARD = Yup. Otherwise, if faith were its own basis, then all religions would be equally true because the adherent of a religion all have faith about their religious tenets.

FRANK = So, the fact that we can point to an historical and evidential event shows that our faith is not solely an experience that Mormons, philosophers, or the adherents of other religions experience. Instead, our faith is more than personal experience. Our faith is grounded in the historical fact that Jesus did rise from the dead.

EDWARD = That’s correct.

FRANK = Now, I am confused.

EDWARD = About what?

FRANK = John 20:29. Jesus chided Thomas for not believing.

EDWARD = That’s only true in part. Jesus chided John for not believing with out seeing. In other words, Jesus left evidence of his resurrection in the mouth of the other apostles, for the other apostle’s had told Thomas that they had see the Lord. Instead of accepting their eye-witness testimony, he wanted to be an eye-witness himself.

Therefore, Jesus says “Blessed are those who did not see, and yet believe.” Jesus did not say, “Blessed are those who did not have evidence, and yet believed.” In other words, Thomas was not chided for desiring evidence, but for not accepting the evidence that Jesus had left. Those of us who have never seen Jesus are blessed for we have accepted the evidence that Jesus left of himself though we haven’t seen him, but some day, we will.

Free Will/ Predestination
Posted: 10 Jul 06 6:59 PM (United States)


Hey Max,

I recently had a new believer ask me this question and I would love to be able to give them a solid answer. If God knew those that were going to accept Christ ahead of time, why did God create those that He knew wouldn't accept Christ and condemn them to an eternity in hell?

If you could hit this on two levels that would great. On one level if you could hit this in a way that I may be able to convey it to a very new believer. And two, if you could answer it from the perspective how those two biblical principles (free will/predestination) interact or co-exist with eachother. I hope I am asking my question in a way that is understandable. Thanks Max.

If God knew those that were going to accept Christ ahead of time, why did God create those that He knew wouldn't accept Christ and condemn them to an eternity in hell?


This is a complex question fallacy; it is like the question "Do you still beat your wife?" It is called a complex question fallacy because there are three questions posed, but one is only allowed to answer one of the three.

Let us split out the questions and make explicit that which is implicit.
“WHY” Can denote the motivation for performing some action. For example: Why does Fat Albert bike every day? (i.e., what is his motivation?) Answer: Dumb Dave’s sister said that she would go out on a date with Fat Albert if he loses 100 pounds, and Fat Albert wants to go out with her on a date.

“WHY” Can denote an intended goal. For example: Why does Fat Albert bike every day? (i.e., what does Fat Albert intend on achieving by biking?) Answer: He intends to lose 100 pounds.

Implication: It would be morally better had God not created people if He knew that they would be loss.

Summary of Questions
Question 1: What was God's motivation for creating people that would end up in hell?
Question 2: What was the purpose for creating people who would be loss?
Question 3: Would it not be better had he only created people who would be saved?

Answer to Question 1 (Motivation for . . .):
The scripture does not tell us why God created things as He did. That is to say, Scripture does not tell us His motivation. Even the apostle Paul did not know why God created some who would be lost and others who would be saved, so he speaks ex hypothesi (i.e., he speaks hypothetically). Rom 9:22 "What if God, although willing to demonstrate . . . " Notice, Paul does not say: "Because God was willing to demonstrate . . ." Many Calvinists quote Rom 9:22 as if it were not hypothetical, so they claim that God wills the non-elect to be condemned and the elect to be saved, and God can do so because He is sovereign. Given that the apostle Paul did not know, and given that God has not stated His motivation, I can only say that I do not know God’s motivation.

Answer to Question 2 (Intended purpose):
What was the intended purpose for creating people who would be loss? I think that this question is a “category mistake.” It is akin to asking, “What does the color blue taste like?” There is a problem in the question because blue is a color; it is not a flavor.

Similarly, there is a problem in the question “what was God’s intended purpose for creating people to go to hell?” God does not create people for the purpose of condemning them to hell. God creates people for the purpose that they get to heaven. (John 3:16-17) However, people by freely choosing to reject God’s plan and intended purpose condemn themselves to hell (John 3:19-20).

God gives us a will to use so that we may get to heaven; however, some of us choose to abuse our will and end up in hell. By the way, “ab use” means to “fall away from the proper use.” For example, an aluminum chair is made for the purpose of being sat in. However, when professional wrestlers use the chair to smack their opponent, they ruin the chair by using the chair contrary to its intended purpose. Similarly, when people abuse their freedom, they condemn themselves to hell. God gives the ability to use our will so that we may respond to the gospel; we choose to abuse our will by rejecting the gospel.

Answer to Question 3 (Would it not be better . . . :)
In order to compare two things, there must be two things to compare. For example, I can compare an apple with another fruit, or an apple with an elephant, or I can compare two apples against each other.

It is not possible to compare something with nothing because nothing does not exist, and in order to compare things, they must exist.

In order to determine whether something is better or worse, there must be a difference between the things that are being compared. For example, Alan is taller than Max. If there were no difference in height between Alan and Max, one cannot say that one is taller or shorter than the other.

Comparing a thing to itself will never result in a difference. For example, what is the difference between your left index finger and your left index finger? Answer: there is no difference because there is only one thing.

Thereone, one cannot determine whether something is better or worse if a thing is being compared to itself.

The question would it not be better had God not created those who would be loss is a category mistake because it compares something with nothing. How so?

World 1 is our actual world: In this world, God created Alan and John Doe. Alan is saved and John Doe is not.

World 2 is a world that God could have created: In this world, God created Alan who is saved, but He does not create John Doe because He knows that had John Doe been created, John Doe would have been loss.

Which world is better? World 1 or World 2?
Assuming that one can compare World 1 with World 2, one find that if Alan in World1 is identical to Alan in World2, one is comparing Alan with himself. However, there is no difference between a thing and itself. Therefore, by comparing Alan, one cannot determine whether world1 is better than world2. In other words, comparing the saved persons in World1 to the saved persons in World2 cannot help me decide whether World 2 is better than World1.

What else is there to compare? Can I compare John Doe in World1 with nothing in world2? Nope, that’s a category mistake. I can’t compare something with nothing. Nevetheless, by affirming that World 2 is better necessitates that I affirm that nothing is better than something. Yet, nothing cannot be better than something because nothing does not exist.



I hope that helps. I’ll get to the second part of your question later on this week, God willing.

Love in Christ
Max

Introduction

bethinking.org is a website that aims to put the best Christian thinking and communicating resources right into your hands. Whether you are a student, at home or at work we want to help you to talk about the Christian gospel in a way that is relevant, true, culturally aware and attractive. There are hundreds of interesting articles and audio talks on bethinking.org for you to use and think through. The website is organised and run by uccf:thechristianunions in partnership with the organisations on the right. We also send out a monthly email which highlights new talks and articles.