Primitive Churches Were Not Governed By A Pope

"The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . .Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord."

Jerome's commentary on Titus 1:7

A Critique Of The Secular Humanist Worldview

• Discussion:

          -There are various kinds of humanism that have been held to, ranging all the way back to Greco-Roman civilization. For instance, Desiderius Erasmus was a Catholic humanist, but the context of this article concerns the atheistic variety. Following are a handful of excerpts in bold from a classic humanist manifesto titled "The Philosophy of Humanism" by Corliss Lamont, with a critique of those assertions:

          "There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy: First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes man is an evolutionary product of the Nature of which he is part; that his mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of his brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality he can have no conscious survival after death.”

          It is interesting to note how the author of this book capitalizes the word nature. This could be interpreted to have religious connotations. It can even be argued that atheists themselves belong to a religion to which they themselves are their own gods. After all, there are atheist churches. There are atheist missionaries. There are evangelistic atheists who preach their worldview as being the truth. There are atheist circles that consider others who disagree with them as being heretical. Atheism is clearly a belief system with religious tendencies.

          Notice how the quotation above presupposes the validity of scientism, which is the belief that all truth is determined by the science laboratory. However, this view is refuted because there are many truths that exist beyond the realm of science (view full article). How can atheists be so quick to claim that there is no supernatural realm when they have no tangible evidence ruling in favor of their verdict? If we reduce the thinking processes of the human mind to being random chemical reflexes, then we have no legitimate reason to believe the claims of atheism because we would not be able to trust our own thoughts. Selfhood would be an empty illusion!

          Life without God is meaningless. If the universe came into existence by mere coincidence, and we just so happened to have evolved from a different species of primate forefathers over a period of several billion years, then it would follow that human life has no intrinsic value. The inevitable consequence of eliminating God from the equation of life would be that we possessed no more dignity than the soil, rocks, or other components which constitute the physical and chemical composition of this planet. The universe itself most certainly has no compassion for life. Time would simply progress as we wait for the natural, appointed termination of our physical existence. No afterlife means having no ultimate sense of purpose or fulfillment.

          “I believe that the facts of science offer overwhelming evidence in support of the Humanist thesis of the inseparable coexistence of body and personality. To begin with, biology has conclusively shown that man and all other forms of life were the result, not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but of an infinitely long process of evolution probably stretching over at least three billions years….”

           A Supreme Mind still could have created the universe by means of a giant cosmic explosion of expanding matter to accomplish the formation of animal species through evolutionary processes. Consequently, the "humanist thesis" does not really negate the possibility of supernatural creation. Further, the universe and the human body are so complex that countless factors remain unexplained or unproven. It is completely wrong for one to assert that supernatural intervention in creation has been ruled out. Even if scientists did manage to successfully develop a scientific model that functions without God, proof of being unnecessary is not the same as proof of nonexistence. The biblical worldview presents us with a universe that absolutely depends on God for its existence.

          “Humanism believes that Nature itself constitutes the sum total of reality…and that supernatural entities simply do not exist. This non reality of the supernatural means, on the human level, that men do not possess supernatural and immortal souls; and, on the level of the universe as a whole, that our cosmos does not possess a supernatural and eternal God.”

           Naturalism maintains that everything existing emerged from natural properties and causes to the exclusion of supernatural intervention. In other words, this logical framework operates on the premise that all things are physical and are thus dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry. However, we know that this position is false because things such as numbers, moral laws, and information are nonphysical entities. These things transcend the five senses which scientists use to make observations and draw inferences. The elementary concept of free will disproves naturalism because this philosophy assumes that scientific laws and states are literally in control of all things.

          “the scientific concept of evolution…effectively negates the old religious idea of a divine creation of the whole universe.”

           This assertion raises more questions than it does clarify issues. Can something come from nothing? Can meaningful and functional design arise from chaos? Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Can rationality arise from non-rationality? Can consciousness arise from non-consciousness?

          “Matter is self-existent, self-active, self-developing, self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic.”

          Is this not a circular argument (i.e. matter has power in of and itself because that is how it is)? How can matter be self-existent when it is comprised of finite particles? What infinite source of energy do atoms possess that enables matter able to act of itself without external causes? How can physical matter come from nothing or create itself? How could non-living matter become alive by itself? 

          ''A careful analysis of both the natural and the social sciences shows, in the first place, that we do not attain something that is to be called ‘absolute’ truth, but rather what John Dewey cautiously describes as ‘warranted assertibility''

          If there are no absolute truths, then a.) scientific laws are subjective, b.) no point in education because truth is subjective, c.) the concept of certainty is illusionary, d.) no such thing as crime because nobody can definitively declare an action to be evil, e.) no such thing as human rights, and f.) reality itself becomes an illusion. If there are no absolute truths, then there is no reason for us to believe any of the arguments made in favor of secular humanism. A society that functions consistently on a morally relativistic framework will be characterized by the basest forms of heathenism and barbarism. It would lose any right to call itself a civilization.

          “For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves. Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by the consequences for the individual and society.”

          Secular consequentialism is the ethical system which maintains that the morality of an action is dependent on its results. In other words, this worldview judges the morality of actions in accordance to their conclusions (not in the action itself). But this method of moral discernment is quite perplexing. What constitutes the authentic definition of good? Who gets to determine the meanings of good and evil? Good for who? What about bad personal motives that just so happened to produce positive consequences for other people? What about the fact that we cannot predict the outcomes of our actions before we act? From whence would morality come from in the first place?

          ''The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. He bows down to no alleged supreme moral authority either past or present…But we can say…some ends justify some means. In getting at the ethical significance of a means-end situation, it is always necessary to be specific and inquire,‘Does this particular end or set of ends justify this particular means or group of means?''

          It is unsurprising that atheists openly reject the notion of objective moral laws, since they are living in rebellion to the God who created them. The above quoted statements are symptomatic of a puffed-up heart. If individuals get to determine their own moral law codes, then what happens when they contradict each other or themselves? How would such an idea not render the building of civilization impossible?

Never Hesitate To Do That Which Is Good

"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Support Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Tim Staples wrote an article with the intention of revealing what he thinks are fundamental problems with appealing to Scripture as the final court of authority in spiritual matters. In his article, Tim raises objections to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a proof text for Sola Scriptura, stresses the role of extra-biblical oral tradition in the church, charges that the Protestant position on biblical authority is "contrary to reason" because it "is a textbook example of circular reasoning," and that the canon by definition needed to be assembled by an infallible teaching authority (which is assumed to be the Roman Catholic Church). The purpose of this article is to answer a number of the weak and misguided assertions of conventional Catholic apologists (touted here) against Sola Scriptura:

          "If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians."

          Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible spiritual standard for the Christian church to use. All uninspired authorities are to be kept subordinate to the written Word of God because it is inspired by Him. This explanation constitutes the classical Sola Scriptura doctrine as articulated by the Protestant Reformers. Thus, it is inaccurate for Roman Catholic apologists to portray Protestants who subscribe to this concept as having a "sole rule of faith" or "Bible only Christians." It is also incorrect for Tim Staples to say that we only accept "explicit approval" from the Bible, since it provides us with principles to apply in our daily lives.

          "First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all...Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians...James 1:4 illustrates the problem...Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture...Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained..."

          The first Roman Catholic objection is refuted because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not discussing the scope of the canon, but rather the purpose and origin of Scripture. The Apostle Paul was speaking of it general terms. Further, no one can limit the scope of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 to the Old Testament, since the context itself places no such limitation. The Apostle Paul had the future in mind as he mentioned the coming of false teachers.

          The second objection to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not work for this reason: Scripture is said in that text to equip the man of God for every good work. Can anybody produce a list of good works that cannot be found in Scripture? What else does the phrase "every good work" mean? Paul does not say that Scripture equips one for most or a few good works. While James 1:4 speaks to personal character perfection, 2 Timothy 3:17 addresses Scripture's role in thoroughly equipping believers for every good work, indicating the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice.

          The third objection is absurd because it utilizes circular reasoning. Tim Staples has not proven that the traditions spoken of by the Apostle Paul were uniquely Roman Catholic dogmas (click here for full discussion).

          The fourth objection does not hold water because even if it were true that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 originally addressed ordained ministers, that would be irrelevant. Leaders in the church were given for the edification of the saints, who in turn do their own works of ministry (Ephesians 4:12). Why would Scripture function as a sufficient rule of faith for leadership, but not also for the average Christian in the pews? The Apostle Paul nowhere limited the benefits of studying Scripture only to leaders in the church. 

          As for claims of Sola Scriptura being circular reasoning, it is defended on the grounds that any ultimate authority must be self-validating to avoid infinite regress. In this framework, the inherent consistency and coherence of Scripture provide a rational foundation for its authority. Asserting that an infallible interpreter like the Roman Catholic Church is necessary to validate Scripture would itself require an equally infallible validation, leading to a similar circularity. Further, Staple's attempt to escape the charge of circularity on behalf of the Rome is unsuccessful because his argument itself is circular. It is based on the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of texts such as Matthew 16:18-19. It is thus because Rome said that it is thus.

           Tim Staples maintains that Sola Scriptura is an untenable theological position because the canon of Scripture needed to be determined by an infallible teaching authority. The author of the article further asserts (correctly) that the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents. However, it needs to be understood that 1.) The early church fathers were guided by divine providence in identifying the canon, 2.) The long-standing acceptance of books like Genesis and the gospels demonstrates their intrinsic authority, 3.) The adherence to the received tradition by the Protestant Reformers underscores the continuity of the canon, 4.) The Eastern Orthodox Church developed a canon independently of the Roman Catholic Church, and 5.) That using early church writings and ecumenical councils to affirm the canon is consistent with Sola Scriptura.

1 Corinthians 10:9 And The Deity Of Christ

"tc Χριστόν (Criston, “Christ”) is attested in the majority of mss, including many important witnesses of the Alexandrian (Ì46 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) texttypes, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (kurion, “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al). A few mss (A 81 pc) have θεόν (qeon, “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar (cMn, kMn, and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9,” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 pc] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “Christ” instead of “God” in 1 Cor 10:9. See the tc notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the original reading."

Commentary from the New English Translation on 1 Corinthians 10:9

Exegetical Analysis Of 1 Corinthians 10:3-4

        “All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

        In context, the Apostle Paul briefly brought into recollection events from the period of the Exodus. He alluded to the Jews who were freed from the authoritarian grasp of the Egyptian pharaoh and made to temporarily wander in the wilderness under the divine providence of God. They escaped only on the basis of divine power, which kept the waters parted for them to cross over into the Promised Land.

        Paul used Old Testament events as illustrations to drive home his point that the Corinthians should not be arrogant in their privileges and liberties that they have in Christ. They ought not succumb to sexual immorality and idolatry as did the Jews. Paul shows that God's plan of redemption provided through Christ functions as a continuous whole and is fulfilled in Him.

        The manna (i.e. “spiritual food”) and water which sprang forth from a rock smote by the rod of Moses (i.e. “spiritual drink”) were all supplied because of His supernatural intervention. The quoted rabbinic tradition gives us literary imagery of a flowing rock that lingered in the presence of the Israelites with the intention of enforcing the point that God continually guides our experiences. Christ is the source of all spiritual blessings.

        Paul calling the food and drink "spiritual" is not a denial of their reality or physicality. This same word is used in other contexts by him (Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 3:1; 15:44-46). Here, Paul is emphasizing God's presence, protection, and continued provision. The Spirit of God provided these things to the Jews in the wilderness.

        The rock reference is a typology of Jesus Christ, namely of His bold character and propitiatory sacrifice for the salvation of those who believe on Him. Him being spiritual food and spiritual drink means that He imparts life to us. All things consist because of Him. He is the same Lord and Rock who governed the Nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:3-4), and overthrew the people who put Him to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16; 1 Corinthians 10:9).

Secular Biologists Declare: ‘There Is No Sex Spectrum,’ Science and Medical Worlds Must ‘Stand Up for Reality of Biological Sex’

"Two secular biologists have penned an op-ed combating the notion that biological sex may be more than just male and female, and contending that gender identity ideology has “no basis in reality” but is rather harmful to society. They urged those in the science and medical fields to “stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex.”

“If male and female are merely arbitrary groupings, it follows that everyone, regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female, or to reject sex entirely in favor of a new bespoke ‘gender identity,'” wrote Colin Wright and Emma Hilton. “To characterize this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.”

Wright is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State University and Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester.

They outlined that in both human and animal life, biological sex corresponds with reproductive anatomy and the subsequent use of sex cells — whether egg or sperm — to reproduce.

“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex spectrum or additional sexes beyond male and female,” Wright and Hilton wrote. “Sex is binary.”

While intersex individuals, those who were born with ambiguous reproductive organs, do exist and are very much a rarity, they are “neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a spectrum or a social construct.”

The biologists opined that rejecting biological sex for subjective “gender identity” is detrimental to society as it abrogates the work of those who have sought, for example, protections for women — if being a woman is simply up to an individual’s feelings.

“Women have fought hard for sex-based legal protections. Female-only spaces are necessary due to the pervasive threat of male violence and sexual assault. Separate sporting categories are also necessary to ensure that women and girls don’t have to face competitors who have acquired the irreversible performance-enhancing effects conferred by male puberty,” they wrote.

https://christiannews.net/2020/02/20/secular-biologists-declare-there-is-no-sex-spectrum-science-and-medical-worlds-must-stand-up-for-reality-of-biological-sex/

Our Actions Have Lasting Consequences

“Still, there will be a connection with the long past-a reference to forgotten events and personages, and to manners, feelings, and opinions, almost or wholly obsolete-which, if adequately translated to the reader, would serve to illustrate how much of old materials goes up to make the freshest novelty of human life. Hence, to, might be drawn a weighty lesson from the little regarded truth, that the act of the passing generation is the germ which may and must bear good or evil fruit in a far-distant time; that, with the seed of the merely temporary crop, which morals term expediency, they inevitably sow the acorns of a more enduring growth, which may darkly overshadow their posterity.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 2

The Uniqueness Of Biblical Sexuality

“In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time-exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure. Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage-and marital sexuality-with love.”

Rod Dreher, Sex After Christianity, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time

The Myth That Religion Causes War

        It has been commonly charged by atheists that most wars throughout the history of mankind were enacted in the name of religion. In other words, it is argued that the greatest amount of lives lost in the pages of previous ages was due to zealous religious people attempting to conquer other nations for the sake of their own gods. Many atheists reason that if no religions existed, then the world would function peacefully because there would also cease to be controversy over the validity of contradictory sets of religions customs, traditions, and practices. The claim that religion is the number one cause of war has been advanced to give people the impression that a secular worldview is optimistically plausible. However, this idea is untenable as will be shown in this article.

        It is fallacious to paint all religions as being morally bankrupt. Moreover, this argument is historically inaccurate. Robin Schumacher noted the following,

        "An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%."

        In his work titled Lethal Politics and Death by Government, Professor R. J. Rummel noted that death in battle was not usually inspired in the name of religion, but rather that naturalistic philosophies were the primary cause. Though religions may be used by governments to influence a large population of a people to wage war, that still does not make religion itself the cause of war. Logically speaking, wars have oftentimes been fought among groups who adhere to the same religion. Consider, as an example, the American Civil War. Battles are, for the most part, conducted strictly for secular purposes, which can include but are not limited to controlling foreign territories or obtaining resources. Therefore, governments are the source of war, not religions.

        The idea of war is not limited to the scope of the human race. In other words, the notion of battle can even be found within the organizational ranks of the animal kingdom, from ants, to bees, and to monkeys. If religion is the cause of all wars, then would this not mean that animals have the intellectual and rational capacities to subscribe to a belief system? Consider also, that relatively few atheistic societies have existed throughout history. That fact in itself speaks volumes against the claim that religion is the cause of all wars because it renders impossible the process of comparing religious and secular societies.

         We cannot consistently affirm the existence of moral values without a supernatural Law Giver. If we choose to abide by the relativistic moral code presented by secularism, then it follows that truth can be self-contradictory and thereby self-refuting. If we cannot uphold objective morals, then neither can we uphold objective human rights. There would also be no such thing as value, certainty, or purpose. Nevertheless, we can never condone the establishment of atheistic governments in the twentieth century that treacherously usurped power and inhumanly murdered hundreds of millions of innocent people. So it is incumbent to understand why religion is an indispensable support for continual survival of the human race.

        The assertion that religion is the cause of all wars is historically inaccurate, as well as it is philosophically indefensible. Governments cause war, not Christianity. All quarrels originate from the inherently lustful nature of the human heart (James 4:1-2). In fact, secular societies are more guilty of taking innocent lives. Consider the examples of non-religious dictators such as Hitler (a moral relativist), Stalin, Karl Marx, and Mao Zedong. The evidence clearly does not point in favor of the theory that most people throughout history have died in the name of spreading their religions.

The Evidence For Darwinian Evolution And Fossils (An Overview Evaluation)

• Defining Transitional Fossils:

          -Evolutionists are notorious for claiming that they have found definitive proof for Darwinism through transitional fossils, which are organismal remains that purportedly reveal characteristic, behavioral, and adaptive transformations of animal species within the fossil record. In other words, they are fossils that inherited shared traits from ancestral groups. Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution maintains that descendant groups of organisms exhibit similar features from derived ancestral relatives. The express purpose of transitional fossils, also known as missing links, is to provide scientists with information regarding historical evolutionary trends. This concept is regularly illustrated through colorful diagrams in our science textbooks (i.e. transition series from ape-like species to human beings).

• There Is No Such Thing As A Transitional Fossil:

          -Contrary to the widely promulgated Darwinian conviction that all fossils are transitional, scientists have never really discovered fossils going through intermediary stages of metamorphosis to become different animal species. We have neither found nor observed animals that were only half way or three fourths complete with an evolutionary process. What has been confirmed through the study of the natural world is the constant pattern of animals having complete anatomies and procreation after their own kindred. It has rightly been said that Darwinists have mainly based their transitional diagrams on artistic proficiency. In fact, the claim that fossils lend irrefutable support to Darwinian notions is not an argument at all. It merely assumes the existence of transitional fossils and the validity of evolution to work backwards in proving that all presently existing remains of formerly flourishing organisms are transitional in nature. In other words, evolution has been used to prove evolution. Circular arguments are, by definition, irrational. Even if we grant the premises that all fossils accurately resemble their laboratory reconstructions and find sequences vindicating evolution, these factors would still not assist atheists in furnishing a case for their belief in macroevolution because there is no available method of determining which fossils are related. The fossil record can, at best, be consistent with Darwinian interpretations of data. We can analyze the natural world independently of the evolutionary framework by examining chemical, environmental, and genetic factors.

• N. Heribert Nilsson, Who Is A Botanist And Professor At Lund University in Sweden, Admits That The Fossil Record Lends No Credence To The Darwinian Hypothesis:

          -"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed...The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

• Dr. Colin Patterson, A Senior Paleontologist At The British Museum Of Natural History, Said Concerning The Lack Of Evidence For Transitional Fossils:

          -"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil of living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transitions, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it...Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not parts of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (correspondence w. Sunderland)

• Charles Darwin Himself Recognized This Dilemma In His Famous Book Titled The Origin Of The Species: 

          -"If evolution had actually taken place we should expect that the fossils would provide evidence of a continuous gradual evolution of life from a simple original organism to complex advanced forms. There are countless millions of fossils out there, but they tend to fall into major groups and intermediates expected between these major groups are not there. This is one of the strong scientific arguments indicating that evolution from simple to complex never occurred."

• Casey Luskin, A Geologist, writes:

          -"Darwin attempted to save his theory of gradual evolution by maintaining that intermediate fossils are not found because of “the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”69 Even Gould noted that Darwin’s argument that the fossil record is imperfect “persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.”70 But in the last few decades, this excuse has lost credibility."

• David B. Kitts, A Former Student Of George Gaylord Simpson, Said That Fossils At Best Can At Best Be Consistent With The Evolutionary Worldview:

          -“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” (“Search for the Holy Transformation,” Paleobiology (Vol. 5; Summer 1979), p 353)

Lust Is The Antithesis Of Love

"Lust is in opposition to love. It means to set your heart and passions on something forbidden. And for a believer it’s the first step out of fellowship with the Lord and with others. That’s because every object of your lust—whether it’s a young co-worker or a film actress, or coveting after a half-million dollar house or a sports car—represents the beginnings of a lie. This person or thing that seems to promise sheer satisfaction is more like a bottomless pit of unmet longings. Lust always breeds more lust. “What is the source of the wars and fights among you? Don’t they come from the cravings that are at war within you?” (James 4:1 HCSB). Lust will make you dissatisfied with your husband or wife. It breeds anger, numbs hearts, and destroys marriages. Rather than fullness, it leads to emptiness."

Stephen and Alex Kendrick, “The Love Dare,” p. 117

A Definitive Case Against The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

• Introduction:

          -A major source of division between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the numbering of books that should officially be included in the Old Testament canon. While the Protestant canon of Scripture is comprised of sixty-six books, the Roman Catholic canon contains seven additional books. The seven disputed books that the Church of Rome embraces are Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and Baruch. Further, translators of Catholic Bibles have incorporated a few extra verses into the protocanonical texts of Daniel and Esther. While Roman Catholics confidently parade this group of ancient writings (the term "deuterocanonicals" was first used in the sixteenth century) as canonical Scripture, there are solid reasons for rejecting them as being a product of divine inspiration.

• Rejection Of The Apocrypha By The Jews:

          -The apocryphal books were never included in the Hebrew canon of Scripture. Jesus Christ spoke of the Law and Prophets (Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:16). He also alluded to the threefold division of the Jewish canon which is accepted by Jews today (Luke 24:44). The deuterocanonicals were written during a time when no prophets were alive (1 Maccabees 4:41-46; 9:27). The Jews were the ones most acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, since they were the ones who wrote them. The Jewish historian Josephus rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

• The Divine Inspiration Of The Roman Catholic Apocrypha Was Denied By Many In The Early Church:

          -Contrary to the popular proclamations made by Roman Catholic apologists, the early Christians were far from unanimous regarding whether the Apocrypha should be included in the canon of Scripture. Members of the church throughout history such as Julius Africanus, Melito of Sardis, Jerome, Athanasius, Ruffinus, John of Damascus, Epiphanius, and Cardinal Cajetan rejected the deuterocanonical books as being inspired. Sometimes people would accept one apocryphal book while rejecting the inspiration of another. Pope Gregory the Great, speaking of the Maccabees, said, "...we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony" (Commentary on Job, 19, 34). Athanasius wrote, "There are other books besides the aforementioned, which, however, are not canonical. Yet, they have been designated by the Fathers to be read by those who join us and who wish to be instructed in the word of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon; and the Wisdom of Sirach; and Esther; and Judith; and Tobias..." (Thirty-ninth festal letter, 367). "Theologians of the Eastern Church, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilochius drew up formal lists of the Old Testament in which the Apocrypha do not appear." (Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 179) While patristic writers did indeed cite from extra-biblical writings, quotation of a source in itself does not imply acceptance into the canon or belief in divine inspiration. It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Apocrypha was officially deemed to be a part of the Roman Catholic canon. The online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says, “In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”). "From the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament an Old Latin Version was made, which of course also contained the Apocryphal books among the canonical books. It is not strange, therefore, that Greek and Latin Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria (none of whom knew any Hebrew), quote the Apocrypha with the same formulas of citation as they use when referring to the books of the Old Testament. The small amount of Fathers, however, who either had some personal knowledge of Hebrew (e.g. Origen and Jerome) or had made an effort to learn what the limits of the Jewish canon were (e.g. Melito of Sardis) were usually careful not to attribute canonicity to the Apocryphal books, though recognizing they contain edifying material suitable for Christians to read." (Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 178)

• 2 Maccabees Contains A Reference To The Unbiblical Practice Of Praying For The Dead:

          -"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin." (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)

           *How can these soldiers be said to have gone to rest in godliness when they were killed by God for acts of idolatry? 

• 2 Maccabees Contains A Reference In Which Suicide Is Commended:

          -But when the troops, on the point of capturing the tower, were forcing the outer gate and calling for fire to set the door ablaze, Razis, now caught on all sides, turned his sword against himself, preferring to die nobly rather than fall into the hands of vile men and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth. In the excitement of the struggle he failed to strike exactly. So while the troops rushed in through the doors, he gallantly ran up to the top of the wall and courageously threw himself down into the crowd." (2 Maccabees 14:41-43)

• 2 Maccabees Contains Two Contradictory Accounts Of The Death Of Antiochus Epiphanes In The Same Book:

          -Was Antiochus “cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests” (2 Maccabees 1:13-16)? Or was he “taken with a noisome sickness...ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land” (2 Maccabees 9:19-29)?

• The Consumption Of Magic Potions Is Prescribed In Tobit: 

          -"The angel then told him: “Slit the fish open and take out its gall, heart, and liver, and keep them with you; but throw away the other entrails. Its gall, heart, and liver are useful for medicine.” After Tobiah had slit the fish open, he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he roasted and ate part of the fish; the rest he salted and kept for the journey. Afterward the two of them traveled on together till they drew near to Media. Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?” He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return. As for the gall, if you apply it to the eyes of one who has white scales, blowing right into them, sight will be restored.” (Tobit 6:5-9)

           *Contrast this incident with other instances of illness in the Bible: "Nebuchadnezzar's madness was a rare but authentic clinical condition called boanthropy. "Made-up" miracle stories contain outrageous elements with no clinical analogy (e.g. in Tb 2:9-10, another Apocryphal book, Tobit goes blind because of sparrow droppings in his eyes." (Archaeological Study Bible, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Duane Garrett general editors)

• The Apocryphal Additions To Daniel Are Not Canonical Scripture

          -"Daniel, Apocryphal Additions to the Greek translation of Daniel, like that of Esther, contain several pieces which are not found in the original text. The most important of these additions are contained in the Apocrypha of the English Bible under the titles of The Song of the Tree Holy Children, The History of Susanna, and The History of...Bel and the Dragon -1. a. The first of these pieces is incorporate into the narrative of Daniel After who three confessors were thrown into the furnace (Dan. iii. 23), Azarias is represented praying to God for deliverance (Song of Three Children, 3-22); and in answer the angel of the Lord shields them from the fire which consumes their enemies (23-27), whereupon "the three, as out of one mouth," raise a triumphant song (29-68), of which a chief part (35-66) has been used as a hymn in the Christian Church since the 4th century. b. The two other pieces appear more distinctly as appendices, and offer no semblance of forming part of the original text. The History of Susanna (or The Judgement of Daniel) is generally found at the beginning of the book (Gk. MSS. Vet. Lal); though it also occurs after the 12th chapter ( Vulg. ed. Compl.). The History of Bel and the Dragon is placed at the end of the book; and in the LXX. version it bears a special heading as "part of the prophecy of Habakkuk." 2. The additions are found in both the Greek texts, the LXX. and Theodotion, in the Old Latin and Vulgate, and in the existing Syriac and Arabic versions. On the other hand there is no evidence that they ever formed part of the Hebrew text, and they were originally wanting in the Syriac.3. Various conjectures have been made as to the origin of the additions. It has been supposed that they were derived from Aramaic originals, but the character of the additions themselves indicates rather the hand of an Alexandrine writer; and it is not unlikely that the translator of Daniel wrought up traditions which were already current, and appended them to his work." (William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 188)

• The Inclusion Of The Deuterocanonical Books In Later Versions Of The Septuagint Does Not Translate Into Evidence Of Them Being Canonical:

          -The only noteworthy support for the deuterocanonical books is that they were included in copies of the Septuagint. However, some Septuagint manuscripts also included writings such as the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Psalms of Solomon. Yet, these are not found in any Roman Catholic translations of the Bible. So the mere fact that the Apocrypha may have been included in Septuagint translations does not prove this collection of books to be inspired by God.

          -"...many Protestant scholars have noted that while the Septuagint was first translated several centuries before the time of Christ, it apparently was not until after Christ that the Apocrypha was appended into this translation. We know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha, suggesting that the Apocrypha was not in the original Septuagint. But even if a first-century manuscript were found with the Apocrypha in the Septuagint, that still does not mean the Apocrypha belongs in the canon." (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 39)

• The Roman Catholic Church Did Not Declare The Apocrypha As Being Canonical Until The Council Of Trent In 1546. It Did So With The Intention Of Establishing Scriptural Support For Its Unbiblical Traditions:

          -"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)

An Exegesis Of Micah 6:8

          "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)

          From this text of Scripture, we learn that God expects us to be a righteous people. Authentic transformation of the human heart from a sinful state requires the grace of God. Our words and actions make plain whether or not such has happened. People who truly love God will by His grace align themselves with His will. "To do justly" means to treat our neighbors in a fair and honest way. "To love mercy" presupposes devotion to the precepts of God which thereby offers vindication of our profession to know Him. The phrase "to walk humbly with thy God" denotes having the proper desire to serve Him. We do not look down on other people as if we are better than they. We must worship God in sincerity and truth.

What Is The Relationship Between Doubt And Certainty?

        Certainty entails knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that something is the case or reliable. Doubt is the exact opposite, involving that which is vague or unclear to one's mind. We need to doubt in order to obtain certainty. Discernment is the process of investigating presented options in any given scenario by eliminating all other possible choices to reach a final verdict on that which best corresponds with goodness and truth. If we learn to discern correctly, then we have a foundation on which to build in life. Things will make sense and have purpose.

Science And Underlying Philosophical Presuppositions

"Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.” Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation of paleontologists to the “lunatic fringe” who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.” Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector” (i.e., one who does not theorize)."

Phillip E. Johnson, Objections Sustained, p. 25

On The Pursuit Of Self

"You will find very few people who can pursue self-actualization without devaluing other selves. One of the marks of the man who concentrates on himself is a withdrawal of interest in other people and objects. Finally he comes to view outside concerns as interesting only insofar as they serve his own self-realization. They become merely means to an end. Tools. Throw-aways. This kind of attitude, of course, actually tends to subvert one’s chances for actualization. The self does tend to become more interesting as the world becomes less interesting, only more demanding and restless. Before long, the man who started off pursuing self finds it such a burden that he will make any kind of desperate attempt to get rid of it. He turns to drugs or alcohol, or to some other anesthetic."

William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p. 63

Why Is Language Important?

Language determines the realities we attend to. If certain words fall into desuetude, it means that certain realities have dropped from our attention as well. Words, for example, such as valor, nobility, honor, sanctity, chastity, and purity hang on to life but seem to be written in the past tense, as though the realities they refer to are remnants of some dim history. Such words appear rarely, if at all, in the vocabulary of social scientists or in the popular media. Other, more “relevant” words have edged them aside. For every purity that gets to print, there are a hundred needs, naturals, and sexuals to crowd them out.

What is perhaps most effective about such a technique is that it requires no confrontation. It does not deny the other realities. It by-passes them the way a superhighway bypasses a village so that after a while people forget that the village is there.

William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p.127-128

Roman Catholic Apologists And Circular Reasoning

• Defining The Issues: 

          -Following are comments from a brief exchange with De Maria on the issue of Sola Scriptura and defining the Trinity. His comments are provided in bold quotation marks and my own criticisms of his claims come after each of them:

          "...that Sacred Tradition came before the New Testament. And this Sacred Tradition was passed down by Christ, through His Church. All you have for your side is denial of the truth (Matthew 28:16-20)."

           Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the New Testament Scriptures were originally taught orally.

          The problem is that De Maria is unable to come up with a spiritual standard which judges the validity of "Sacred Tradition," apart from the say-so of the bishop of Rome (i.e. circular reasoning). How does he know that the pope possesses the gift of infallibility?

          "On the contrary, the infallible authority of the Catholic Church is proven by Scripture. You can object all that you want, but Scripture doesn't advise us to go to Scripture alone to learn the Faith of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:7)..."

          In what manner does Scripture support the alleged infallible authority of the Catholic Church, apart from the interpretations of Scripture which Rome commands its members to use when questioned about their faith (i.e. circular reasoning)?

          How can we submit to leaders in God's church, if we do not have an established standard to judge the validity of their claims? Even Mormons could cite Hebrews 13:7 in telling us to submit to their leadership. 

          "No, Jesse. The Teachings of Scripture reflect Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition came first. The New Testament was written based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Not the other way around."

          How can we know with any degree of certainty which oral traditions are inspired (i.e. not just because the pope said so)?

          "No one said the relationship was supplementary. That is your straw man argument."

           De Maria has been contradicted by more authoritative Catholic sources than himself:

          “. . . the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

          "Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." (James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72)

          "...oral revelation serves as an additional source of revelation alongside the written word” (Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone, p. 126)

          De Maria does not get to speak for everyone else. Why should we believe what he says over any other person?

          "On the contrary, the New Testament records the customs, Traditions and Doctrines that were already in place. Here's a very simple proof. Answer this question and don't ignore it. Was the Doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ written before or after Christ was resurrected? Answer it, Jesse. Don't ignore it. Because it is obvious from the Gospels, that Jesus Christ taught His Resurrection long before it was ever written down."

           This is nothing short of ridiculous. The resurrection was not passed down to us by oral tradition, but Scripture. Jesus' words carry weight because of who He is, not how His words were transmitted. Moreover, Roman Catholics are unable to come up with an objective standard that judges the validity of "Sacred Tradition," apart from the say-so of the Magisterium, which is circular reasoning.

          "ON the contrary, it is you who is guilty of circular thinking. Your entire process is, "because the bible tells me so." But the Catholic Church goes by the true Bible Teaching. Which is, because we know from Tradition and Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6)."

          The charge of Sola Scriptura being circular reasoning is false, as this article shows:

          https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-sola-scriptura-based-on-circular.html

           How can we know that the Roman Catholic Church (or its interpretations of Scripture) are infallible (apart from the occupation of circular reasoning)? This is not an unfair question to ask. It is also not hard to understand.

          "Because Christ appointed the Catholic Church as the Teacher of His Doctrines...Our Church is infallible because Jesus Christ said so (Matthew 16:18)...."

         De Maria is simply making a circular argument based on the text of Matthew 16:18. He resorts to the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of that passage. How do we know that interpretation of Scripture is correct? How can we know which oral traditions are of divine inspiration?

        "You are simply ungrateful about the fact that it is from the Catholic Church that you learned all that you know about the Holy Trinity."

          The Council of Nicaea simply submitted itself to the supreme authority of Scripture as it defined the doctrine of the Trinity.

          Why should we bother with submitting to the "Holy See" when people like De Maria invest time into didactically lecturing us on the official Church doctrine? How can he prejudge me as being ungrateful for anything?

          "And of course, your entitled to your opinion. But I have proven that your opinion, is false."

          De Maria's arguments fall short of anything but proof. It does not appear that there is a way for the Papacy to circumvent the charge of circular reasoning.

          Karl Keating, in his book titled Catholicism and Fundamentalism, posits that the Roman Catholic Church does not argue in a circular fashion, but instead uses "spiral reasoning." But his attempt at rebuttal does not work for the reason that it in and of itself is an instance of begging the question.

           The Roman Catholic Church claims that only it can correctly interpret the Bible. In other words, Rome's interpretations are correct because it declares them to be such. The Roman Catholic Church gets to define the canon of Scripture and Sacred Tradition while also using the Bible to support its own assertions to having been invested with divine authority. How circular that is!

Interaction With The Synoptic Problem

• Why Do The Four Gospels Contain Differences?:

          -The reasons for the differences between the gospel accounts is not that they disapproved of each other's content. Rather, they were writing with a slightly different theological emphasis or intended audience. Matthew, for example, wrote mostly to Jews. Luke is more accessible to Gentiles. There were differences in reporting, which is only natural for reporters as they have biases and different perspectives. There were different points of emphasis. There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing not to include certain content. John himself wrote, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). That is a hyperbolic way of saying Jesus Christ said and did many things; certain details were included while others were not. If the material of the four gospels was a fabrication, then we should expect very few dissimilarities in reporting. If the four gospels were exactly the same in terms of content, then there would be no need to have more than one narrative of the life of Christ. We should expect more than a few similarities between the four gospels because they cover the same subject matter. 

• On The Q Source Hypothesis:

          -This is a hypothetical source of the original teachings of Jesus Christ and proposed by scholars in an attempt to account for similarities in Matthew and Luke's written material. This Q document has not been discovered, but that does not necessarily mean it did not exist. It is a hypothetical idea, and, if it did exist, remains separate from the four gospels themselves. They, not some speculative reconstruction, are to remain our primary source for the life and teachings of Christ. Further, early writers such as Jerome never spoke of a source that is today called a Q document. The general theological message of Scripture is not to be sacrificed in the name of some historical critical method. There may have been sources akin to Q, but that does not prove such a hypothesis to be correct. Nor does it follow that we can reliably reconstruct what they would have looked like. 

• The Gospel According To Matthew: 

          -The Gospel of Matthew was written for the purpose of convincing Jews that Jesus Christ is their promised Messiah and legitimate King. Matthew's narrative contains more quotations from the Old Testament, demonstrating in greater detail how Jesus fulfilled prophecies than any of the other three gospel accounts. It also traces His ancestral lineage from King David. In addition, Matthew utilizes language from the Old Testament that the Jewish people would have been more comfortable with hearing. For example, Peter is said to have called Christ the Son of the living God in Matthew 16:16. That is distinctly Jewish terminology. This gospel has a decidedly Jewish flavor to it and places a special emphasis on the kingdom of God. Matthew likely gleaned material from Mark's gospel without source attribution as well as circulated oral traditions concerning the life of Christ. This way of borrowing ideas from other authors in writing a text is consistent with what we know about authorship at this time.

• The Gospel According To Mark:

          -The Gospel of Mark was originally directed to Gentile Christians, most particularly those who were thriving in the midst of persecution under the Roman Empire. Terms such as "census" (Mark 12:14) and "denarius" (Mark 12:15) are consistent with such an audience. This short biographical narrative of our Lord Jesus Christ was written for the purposes of building up the faith of fellow brethren and teaching what it really means to be a disciple. In this narrative, Christ seemingly keeps His true identity hidden and reveals Himself as the Son of Man. That title emphasizes His humility. His character is a point of consideration in this narrative. As does Matthew's gospel, this one emphases Peter's confession of faith in Christ as the Messiah (Mark 8:27-9:1). Tradition has it that Mark was a companion of the Apostle Peter and wrote a narrative based on his eyewitness testimony. He was reputed by Paul to be of benefit in ministry (Colossians 4:10). This gospel has no birth narrative of Christ or list of descendants. It records several miracles that He did. Roughly ninety percent of this gospel is found in Matthew. Roughly fifty percent is found in Luke's gospel. Matthew and Luke may have taken Mark's narrative and expounded further on it.

• The Gospel According To Luke:

          -The Gospel of Luke strives to bring into light "all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1-2). It was intended to be an accurate, organized narrative that gives readers certainty regarding the teachings and events surrounding Jesus Christ (Luke 1:1-4). The composition is concise. The Greek style is of a superior quality. Luke undoubtedly had access to Mark's gospel as well as other written and oral sources. Moreover, this book oftentimes records details that were omitted in the other canonical gospel narratives. Consider, for instance, the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). This chronicle which was authored by a Gentile physician and historian named Luke presents Christ as showing compassion to all people of different societal classes. The point being made is that Jesus did not come just to save the Jews, but also Gentiles who turn to Him in faith and repentance. This gospel places a special emphasis on woman that is unique for its time. French critic Joseph Ernest Renan said that this book was the most beautiful one ever written. "The ancient opinion, that Luke wrote his Gospel under the influence of Paul, rests on the authority of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. The two first assert that we have in Luke the Gospel preached by Paul ; Origen calls it " the Gospel quoted by Paul," alluding to Rom. ii.16; and Eusebius refers Paul's words, "according to my Gospel" (2 Tim. ii. 8), to that of Luke, in which Jerome concurs. The language of the preface is against the notion of any exclusive influence of St. Paul. The four verses could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the exclusive guidance of Paul or of any one apostle, and as little could they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another." (William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 492)

• The Gospel According To John:

          -Rather than providing us with a chronological listing of the major events that took place during the earthly life of Jesus Christ, the purpose of the Gospel of John is to reinforce His divinity. It speaks of Christ as the eternal Logos who took on flesh and dwelt among us (John 1). Therefore, it would not have been suitable for John to provide an account of His earthly birth or a genealogy. This gospel has a unique purpose and scope when compared to the other three gospels. It was written to bring about the conversion of souls to Christianity through the recording of Christ's miracles (John 20:30-31). This book has been reputed by many to be the evangelistic gospel. The Gospel of John occupies metaphors such as "bread of life," "born again," and "living water," none of which can be found in the other three gospels. It is very much distinct from the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The Gospel of John places a unique emphasis on the miracles of Christ and the nature of truth.

Is Praying To Departed Saints A Biblical Practice?

• Introduction: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, and certain Lutherans and Anglicans believe that we can pray to and receive help from certain saints (and even angels) in heaven. It is believed that God has enabled them to intercede on our behalf before Him in heaven and offer assistance for nearly every aspect of human life.

          -"A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Down to the Council of Nicaea")

• A Practice That Is Not Consistent With The Biblical Pattern Of Prayer:

          -Throughout Scripture, there are dozens of references to prayer (Matthew 6:6-14; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 11:1-4; John 14:14; John 17; Psalm 25; 2 Samuel 7:18-29; 1 Kings 8; Colossians 3:16-17; Acts 7:51-58; James 1:5-6; Romans 10:1; 15:30; etc.). All were directed to Him alone. Furthermore, the theme of the Bible is trusting in God alone (Matthew 6:25-34; Jeremiah 33:3; Isaiah 48:17-18; Psalm 23; 50:15; 71:1; 91:15; Joshua 1:1-6; Ephesians 5:19-20; John 16:23; 1 Corinthians 10:31; etc.). We have no examples in the Bible of calling on entities other than God, with the exception being pagans. We never see God approving of the practice of praying to departed saints. If we are going to be consistent with the principles of Scripture (which we ought to be), then we are forced to conclude that all prayer should be dedicated to God alone.

• Can Believers In Heaven Really Hear Us?:

          -It is impossible for finite beings with inherently limited abilities to simultaneously hear the requests of every person around the world in different languages. Such an ability could only characterize deity. If saints are able to answer our prayers, then the uniqueness of God has been compromised and the self-sufficiency of Christ's work diminished. Notice that in Scripture, all occasions involving two-way communication between or among beings from heaven (with the exception, of course, being God) and earth required the creations to be in the same realm (i.e. earth on earth communication), rather than being in two separate realms (i.e. heaven to earth contact is never found in Scripture for mere finite beings). This is perhaps the clearest indication from Scripture that saints who are in heaven are incapable of receiving prayers from earth.

• Unnecessary Assistance:

          -We do not need any support from Mary and the saints in heaven because Jesus Christ always intercedes for our prayer requests. He is able to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation in hell Himself (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). Christ's intercession alone is sufficient for all our needs. Moreover, the Holy Spirit gives us the strength that we need during our times of spiritual weakness. He also intercedes on our behalf (Romans 8:26). If two persons of the triune God intercede on our behalf in prayer, what more could we possibly need? We can approach God with "boldness" and "confidence" as a result of Christ's atonement sacrifice (Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 4:14-16). Only God knows all of the thoughts and intentions of the human heart (1 Kings 8:37-39; 2 Chronicles 6:30). Consequently, praying to saints in heaven to grant our prayer requests is pointless because they do not have the same abilities that God has.

          -"The church appears to have painted itself into a theological corner. In trying not to detract from Christ, its theologians have so defined the role of Mary as to make it entirely indispensable: everything we need we get from Christ. If that's the case, what is the point or importance of Mary's mediation? One the other hand, the oft-heard affirmation that Mary can influence her Son to help us necessarily implies that the Son otherwise would be less disposed to do so. In fact, the very concept of a mediator presupposes that there are differences that need to be reconciled between two parties. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that, apart from Mary's mediation, Christ himself would not be perfectly reconciled to us. All this seriously compromises the integrity of his high priesthood. The church is stuck in a hopeless dilemma wherein either Mary's role is rendered superfluous, or the all-sufficiency of Christ's mediation is diminished. In trying to avoid either of these perceived pitfalls, it has fallen headlong into both." (Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary, p. 56)

• Why The Charge That Roman Catholics Are Guilty Of Necromancy Is Correct:

          -God expressly commanded the Jews to not have any sort of contact with spirits who have departed into the supernatural realm (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; 26:13-14 Leviticus 19:31; 20:26-27; Isaiah 8:19; 19:1-4). What Roman Catholic prayers to departed saints have in common with pagan prayers to the deceased is this: personal communication. That is condemned in the Law. This is the underlying reason that we correctly lay the charge that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of promoting necromancy. There are no prayers for, to, or through the dead.

• Do Psalm 103:20-21 and Psalm 148:1-2 Support Prayers To Deceased People And Angels?:

          - The Psalmists are simply telling all creations in all places to praise God's name. Creation is a reflection of His glory. These passages do not in any way exhort us to honor or pray to beings other than the Lord. In Psalm 103:22, inanimate objects are told to praise God. In Psalm 148:3, the sun, moon, and the stars are also told to praise God. Should we also pray to these things?

• Does The Transfiguration Support Prayers To Deceased People, Since It Shows Jesus Speaking With Moses And Elijah?:

          -The point of the transfiguration was to show the preeminence of Jesus Christ. He was speaking to Moses and Elijah in His glory. These verses do not say anything in regard to prayer. Are there even any Catholics who offer prayers to Moses and Elijah?

• Does Luke 15:7-10 Support Prayers To Deceased People, Since It Says Angels In Heaven Rejoice Over The Conversion Of Sinners?:

          -Angels rejoicing over a conversion cannot simply translate into support for them receiving our prayer requests because they most probably know when a soul is added to the Book of Life. Even if saints and angels in heaven were conscious of events on earth, could hear prayers, and had the ability to pray for somebody on earth, it would not follow that we are justified in offering prayer petitions to entities other than God. Satan is without a doubt conscious of events taking place in this world, yet no Roman Catholic would ever suggest prayer to him.

• Does Hebrews 12:1 Support Prayer To The Saints, Since It Speaks Of Believers Being Surrounded By A Cloud Of Witnesses?:

          -The context of this passage relates to viewing the Old Testament saints as good moral examples. We are all united into a spiritual family by faith in Christ. There is nothing in that which would even remotely suggest prayer to these witnesses. People enter into the supernatural realm at the moment of physical death. So in that sense, believers on earth certainly are separated temporarily from those present in heaven.

• Do Revelation 5:8 And Revelation 8:3-4 Support Prayer To Saints, Since They Speak Of Them Offering The Prayers Of Saints To God?:

         -This simply means that God allowed saints in heaven to "hold" bowls of prayers. The text says nothing about prayers being directed to saints or angels in heaven, nor gives us permission to do so. The text does not indicate how these saints would be aware of our prayers. Bowls of wrath are mentioned in Revelation 16. Should we conclude that they were directed to the saints in heaven because they also carried them?

How Come God Does Not Stop Evil Right Now?

"While nearly everyone asks why God doesn’t stop evil, few people ask why God doesn’t stop pleasure. Stopping pleasure would be an effective way of stopping evil while maintaining human freedom. That’s because no one does evil for evil’s sake. We do evil to get good things, such as money, sex, and power. Take away pleasure and the incentive to do evil would vanish. But if God were to stop evil by ending pleasure, would the human race continue? If it did, would anyone like the pleasureless world that remains?"

Frank Turek, Stealing From God, p.142

Early Christian Belief In A Hell Of Eternal Consciousness

                                                  By Jason Engwer

John Loftus recently posted an article [as of 2006] on Hell that makes a lot of misleading claims and ignores a lot of relevant evidence. I think that some of his errors in evaluating the Biblical evidence should be easy for most readers to discern, but a comment he made about the early church, apparently a reference (in part or entirely) to the church fathers, may not be as easy for most readers to evaluate. Loftus writes the following, though it's unclear whether he's quoting somebody else or writing in his own words:

"L.E. Froom claims that conditional immortality was generally accepted in the early church until its thinkers tried to wed Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul to the teaching of the Bible.' [The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Herald Pub., 1966]."

I don't know what Loftus has in mind when he refers to "conditional immortality". A person can believe that God needs to extend a life in order for the person to exist eternally, yet also believe that every life is so extended. It's also possible to define "immortality" as eternal life, in contrast to eternal death. Both the person with eternal life and the person with eternal death will exist forever, but one existence is portrayed positively as "life" and the other is portrayed negatively as "death". The life in question has to do with the quality of the existence, not existence itself. This is seen, for example, in the many Biblical and extra-Biblical references to unregenerate men as spiritually "dead". A term like "immortality" can be used differently in different contexts. A reference to the need for God to extend people's lives in order for them to be immortal or a reference to people attaining immortality doesn't necessarily imply that some or all people will cease to exist.

The early patristic sources suggest that belief in a Hell involving eternal consciousness was the general belief, not annihilationism. Somebody like Origen will sometimes express a different view, whether as a speculation or as a belief held with confidence, but that doesn't mean that such a view was widely held. Below are several examples of early expressions of a belief in eternal conscious existence in Hell, and more examples could be cited.

When Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles (more than one apostle, not just the apostle John) was martyred, an account of that martyrdom was written by his church. The account expresses the views of both Polycarp and his church. In that account, we read of the contrast between suffering in a temporary fire and suffering eternally:

"And, looking to the grace of Christ, they [Christian martyrs] despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by the suffering of a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them. For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and never shall be quenched...Polycarp said, 'Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.'" (The Martyrdom Of Polycarp, 2, 11)

In contrast to Loftus' distortions of the view of Hell presented in the book of Revelation, notice that both Polycarp and his church (the church of Smyrna, addressed in Revelation 2) were in contact with the author of Revelation, the apostle John. And the passages quoted above make more sense in light of a Hell of eternal consciousness. The eternal fire is being compared to the temporal fire in terms of suffering, not annihilation. If annihilation was in view, we'd expect references to how a temporal fire can't annihilate the soul, whereas the eternal fire can. What Polycarp and the authors of this document seem to be focusing on is the suffering, the burning, associated with fire. It's more natural, then, to read the references to eternality as references to an eternal experience of such suffering, not annihilation or temporal burning followed by annihilation.

Justin Martyr wrote:

"For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold....For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils....And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: 'Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched" (First Apology, 28, 52)

Irenaeus illustrates some of the points I made near the beginning of this post. He writes of how God's creation continues to exist only because God so wills:

"For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance." (Against Heresies, 2:34:3)

And he continues:

"And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: 'He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;' indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed the gift upon him, deprives himself of the privilege of continuance for ever and ever." (Against Heresies, 2:34:3)

Surely this passage supports John Loftus' argument, right? No, because we know, from the surrounding context of Irenaeus' writings, that he believed in eternal consciousness in Hell. As the editor of the edition of Irenaeus quoted above comments:

"As Massuet observes, this statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness." (note 307)

For example, elsewhere Irenaeus writes:

"Inasmuch, then, as in both Testaments there is the same righteousness of God displayed when God takes vengeance, in the one case indeed typically, temporarily, and more moderately; but in the other, really, enduringly, and more rigidly: for the fire is eternal, and the wrath of God which shall be revealed from heaven from the face of our Lord (as David also says, 'But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth'), entails a heavier punishment on those who incur it, - the ciders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, arguing from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against these punishments what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them; while they keep silence with regard to His judgment; and all those things which shall come upon such as have heard His words, but done them not, and that it were better for them if they had not been born, and that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the judgment than for that city which did not receive the word of His disciples." (Against Heresies, 4:28:1)

As the references to Sodom and Gomorrah suggest, Irenaeus is referring to degrees of suffering, not annihilation. Thus, what Irenaeus seems to view as enduring forever is the suffering of the wicked, not non-existence.

And elsewhere Ireneaus suggests that experience of "every kind of punishment" will last forever, in contrast to being annihilated forever:

"But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending." (Against Heresies, 5:27:2)

Irenaeus seems to have viewed the afterlife of the wicked as something consistent. It would endure forever. They wouldn't experience suffering for a while, then cease to exist.

Theophilus of Antioch approvingly quotes the Sibyl, applying these words to the unregenerate:

"Therefore, upon you burning fire shall come, And ever ye shall daily burn in flames, Ashamed for ever of your useless gods. But those who worship the eternal God, They shall inherit everlasting life, Inhabiting the blooming realms of bliss, And feasting on sweet food from starry heaven." (To Autolycus, 2:36)

Theophilus refers to the people in Hell being "ashamed for ever", which would involve consciousness. Notice, also, that Theophilus, like the Biblical authors and other early patristic sources, parallels the eternality of Hell with the eternality of Heaven.

Athenagoras contrasts the temporal life of animals with the eternal existence of humans:

"For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated." (A Plea For The Christians, 31)

Tertullian wrote:

"Think of these things, too, in the light of the brevity of any punishment you can inflict - never to last longer than till death. On this ground Epicurus makes light of all suffering and pain, maintaining that if it is small, it is contemptible; and if it is great, it is not long-continued. No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin, - we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges, - even God, I mean, and not the proconsul....When, therefore, the boundary and limit, that millennial interspace, has been passed, when even the outward fashion of the world itself - which has been spread like a veil over the eternal economy, equally a thing of time - passes away, then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged - the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire -that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. The philosophers are familiar as well as we with the distinction between a common and a secret fire. Thus that which is in common use is far different from that which we see in divine judgments, whether striking as thunderbolts from heaven, or bursting up out of the earth through mountain-tops; for it does not consume what it scorches, but while it burns it repairs. So the mountains continue ever burning; and a person struck by lighting is even now kept safe from any destroying flame. A notable proof this of the fire eternal! a notable example of the endless judgment which still supplies punishment with fuel! The mountains burn, and last. How will it be with the wicked and the enemies of God?" (Apology, 45, 48)

Minucius Felix:

"Nor is there either measure termination to these torments. There the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them, feeds on them and nourishes them. As the fires of the thunderbolts strike upon the bodies, and do not consume them; as the fires of Mount Aetna and of Mount Vesuvius, and of burning where, glow, but are not wasted; so that penal fire is not fed by the waste of those who burn, but is nourished by the unexhausted eating away of their bodies. But that they who know not God are deservedly tormented as impious, as unrighteous persons, no one except a profane man hesitates to believe, since it is not less wicked to be ignorant of, than to offend the Parent of all, and the Lord of all. And although ignorance of God is sufficient for punishment, even as knowledge of Him is of avail for pardon, yet if we Christians be compared with you, although in some things our discipline is inferior, yet we shall be found much better than you." (The Octavius Of Minucius Felix, 35)

Cyprian:

"There is no faith in the fear of God, in the law of righteousness, in love, in labour; none considers the fear of futurity, and none takes to heart the day of the Lord, and the wrath of God, and the punishments to come upon unbelievers, and the eternal torments decreed for the faithless." (On The Unity Of The Church, 26)

The historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"There never was in the Christian church any difference of opinion concerning the righteous, who shall inherit eternal life and enjoy the blessed communion of God forever and ever. But the final fate of the impenitent who reject the offer of salvation admits of three answers to the reasoning mind: everlasting punishment, annihilation, restoration (after remedial punishment and repentance)....Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory....the majority of the fathers who speak plainly on this terrible subject, favor this view....The generality of this belief among Christians is testified by Celsus [an opponent of Christianity who wrote in the second century], who tells them that the heathen priests threaten the same 'eternal punishment' as they, and that the only question was which was right, since both claimed the truth with equal confidence." (History Of The Christian Church, 2:12:157)

The patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly wrote the following about the later patristic sources:

"As regards the fate of the wicked (that of the blessed will be treated in the next section), the general view was that their punishment would be eternal, without any possibility of remission. As Basil put it, in hell the sinful soul is completely cut off from the Holy Spirit, and is therefore incapable of repentance; while Chrysostom pointed out that neither the bodies of the damned, which will become immortal, nor their souls will know any end of their sufferings." (Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 483)

Allen Clayton writes:

"Some scholars have argued that a notion of the annihilation of the wicked, and not eternal punishment, is present in the writings of such thinkers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Arnobius. The textual evidence, however, does not seem to bear the weight of this conclusion. The overwhelming majority of Christian writers held that the wicked were to be eternally punished." (in Everett Ferguson, editor, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 517)

G.S. Shogren writes:

"If the extant literature is any indication, then an overwhelming majority within the ancient church were persuaded that damnation leads to everlasting, conscious suffering." (in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, editors, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 461)

The beliefs of mainstream professing Christians were sometimes different from the beliefs of the church fathers, and the fathers themselves held a variety of views of the afterlife in general and Hell in particular. However, the concept that Hell involves eternal consciousness for every person who goes there is a Biblical concept and is supported by the best patristic evidence. We see it early, in many locations, and advocated by people with a variety of backgrounds and personalities. The reason why men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus can be quoted out of context to make them seem to have opposed a Hell of eternal consciousness is because their affirmation of the concept was accompanied by some reservations and some of the common philosophical beliefs of their day. Still, they did affirm the concept of eternal consciousness in Hell, and the best explanation for that affirmation is that it was a concept taught by Jesus and the apostles.