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. Further, discernment is the process of investigating presented options in any given scenario by eliminating 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

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. Further, 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. 

• Details On 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.

• Details On 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.

• Details On 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)

• Details On 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: 

          -Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, certain Lutherans, and certain Anglicans believe that we can pray to and receive assistance from various saints as well as angels in heaven. It is taught that God has enabled them to intercede on our behalf before Him for nearly every aspect of life. On the contrary, this concept is rather fanciful, relying heavily on tradition and emotional appeal. It is not based on demonstrable fact or demanded as a theological necessity.

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

          -Throughout Scripture, there are dozens of references to prayer (Psalm 25; 2 Samuel 7:18-29; 1 Kings 8; Matthew 6:6-14; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 11:1-4; John 14:14; John 17; Acts 7:51-58; Romans 10:1; 15:30; Colossians 3:16-17; James 1:5-6; etc.). Each recorded instance was directed to God alone. Further, the central theme of the biblical narrative is man trusting only in God (Psalm 23:1-2; Psalm 50:15; Psalm 71:1; Psalm 91:15; Joshua 1:1-6; Isaiah 48:17-18; Jeremiah 33:3; Matthew 6:25-34; John 16:23; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Ephesians 5:19-20; etc.). We have no examples in the Bible of people calling on entities other than Him, with the exception being pagans or idolaters. In the text, we never see God approving of the practice of praying to departed saints or angels. Therefore, the consistent application of biblical principles compels us to conclude that all prayer should be dedicated to God alone.

• Can Believers In Heaven Really Hear All Our Prayers?:

          -It is important to recognize the inherent limitations of finite beings—limitations that make it impossible for them to simultaneously hear and comprehend the petitions of countless individuals across the globe, expressed in diverse languages and contexts. Such omnipresence and omniscience are unique characteristics of deity alone. By attributing this ability to saints and angels in heaven, one inevitably encroaches upon the uniqueness of God and diminishes the sufficiency of Christ's work of intercession. The very notion of finite beings being able to receive prayers undermines the biblical truth that God alone possesses the attributes necessary to fulfill this role. Furthermore, this premise dilutes the distinction between Creator and creation, a distinction central to the Christian understanding of divine worship and dependence. Notice that in Scripture, all occasions involving two-way communication between or among beings from heaven (with the exception 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 created beings). This is perhaps the clearest indication that creatures in heaven are incapable of receiving prayers from earth.

• Heavenly Saintly Intercession Rendered Unnecessary By Divine Intercession Itself:

          -We do not need intervention from Mary or the saints in heaven, for Jesus Christ always intercedes for us before God. He is able to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation by Himself (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). His intercession alone is sufficient to meet all our needs. Moreover, the Holy Spirit gives us the strength that we need during times of spiritual weakness. He also intercedes on our behalf before God (Romans 8:26). If two persons of the triune God intercede on our behalf in prayer, then what more could we possibly need? We can approach God with "boldness" and "confidence" as a result of Christ's atonement (Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 4:14-16). Moreover, 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 or angels in heaven to grant our prayer requests is pointless because they do not have the same abilities that God Himself 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)

• A Distortion Of Worship And Covenant Relationship:

          -At its core, prayer is not merely a request for help—it is an act of worship, a declaration of dependence, and a sacred expression of covenantal intimacy between the believer and God. Throughout Scripture, prayer is consistently portrayed as a relational dialogue rooted in trust, reverence, and submission to the divine will. To redirect this act toward any created being, no matter how glorified, is to misplace the object of worship and distort the covenantal framework established by God. The first commandment—“You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3)—is not limited to idolatry in the form of statues or false religions. It encompasses any spiritual practice that shifts our dependence away from God alone. Praying to saints, even with the intent of seeking intercession, introduces a spiritual intermediary that Scripture neither prescribes nor permits.

          -The biblical model of worship is exclusive and uncompromising. God repeatedly warns against syncretism—the blending of true worship with unauthorized spiritual practices. The golden calf incident in Exodus 32 was not a rejection of Yahweh per se, but an attempt to worship Him through a man-made image. Similarly, prayers to saints may be framed as devotion to God, but they introduce unauthorized channels that compromise the purity of worship. The New Testament affirms that believers now have direct access to the Father through Christ (Hebrews 10:19–22), and any attempt to supplement that access with additional spiritual figures undermines the sufficiency of the gospel. In this light, the practice of praying to saints is not merely a theological misstep—it is a breach of the worship God demands and deserves.

• Why Accusations Of Prayers To Saints Being Necromancy Are Correct:

          -God expressly commanded the Israelites to avoid all forms of contact with the dead and the spiritual realm beyond His direct mediation. Passages such as Deuteronomy 18:9–14, Leviticus 19:31 and 20:27, and Isaiah 8:19 make it clear that consulting the dead, seeking messages from spirits, or engaging in any form of spiritual communication outside of God's ordained channels was strictly forbidden. These prohibitions were not merely cultural boundaries. They were theological safeguards against spiritual deception and idolatry. The Law condemned necromancy not only because it involved forbidden knowledge, but because it represented a breach in the covenantal relationship between God and His people.

          -What prayers to departed saints share with pagan invocations of the dead is the act of personal communication with those who have passed into the supernatural realm. Whether one seeks intercession, guidance, or comfort from a deceased figure, the underlying action remains the same: initiating contact with a spirit that is not God. This is precisely what Scripture forbids. While the Roman Catholic Church may argue that such prayers are not necromantic because they are directed toward glorified saints in heaven, the Bible does not recognize such distinctions. The Law does not differentiate between “holy” spirits and “unclean” ones. It simply forbids communication with the dead. Thus, those who pray to Mary or other saints, however well-intentioned, are engaging in a practice that mirrors condemned pagan rituals.

• 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 people 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 an instance of conversion cannot simply translate into biblical evidence of them receiving our prayer requests, since there could be other ways of them obtaining that information, such as when a soul is added to the Book of Life. Further, 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 2 Timothy 1:16-18 Offer Support For Praying To Mary And The Saints?:

          -Perhaps Onesiphorus was alive and simply away from home, so Paul had an urge to pray for his companion's family. What we can gather from this text beyond a reasonable doubt is that the two were not together at the time. One commentator says the following: "Knowing that even these good deeds could not save Onesiphorus and his house, the apostle asks the Lord to show mercy to his friend — to keep him in the grace of God that he might persevere until the very end." This makes perfect sense because Christians were persecuted during this time. A prayer for perseverance to the end would, by definition, mean that he was still alive. 

          -Even if Onesiphorus was dead at this point in time, that would only mean the apostle was petitioning God to show mercy to the man and his family on the Day of Judgment. After all, he was very beneficial to Paul during his ministry. He wanted his household to be blessed as a result of his faithfulness and loyalty. This scenario would be similar to King David blessing the household of Jonathon and his descendants (2 Samuel 9:1-7). Paul would essentially be expressing a hope for Onesiphorus to be resting in peace. These comments from English divine and scholar Edward Hayes Plumptre are insightful here: "It is, at any rate, clear that such a simple utterance of hope in prayer, like the Shalom (peace) of Jewish, and the Requiescat or Refrigerium of early Christian epitaphs, and the like prayers in early liturgies, though they sanction the natural outpouring of affectionate yearnings, are as far as possible from the full-blown Romish theory of purgatory."

          -Onesiphorus received complete forgiveness of sins at the moment of his conversion. If he was dead when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, then his fate was already sealed. No amount of prayers could possibly alter or help his eternal destiny. Paul was neither praying to him nor supporting the idea of anybody else doing such. He was not praying that Onesiphorus would be released from purgatory or anything in those lines.

• 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. However, 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?:

         -Revelation 5:8 and 8:3–4 describe saints and angels in heaven presenting the prayers of believers to God, but these verses do not imply that prayers were directed to those saints or angels. The text simply states that they “hold” bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, without suggesting that they received or heard those prayers themselves. There is no indication of how these heavenly beings would be aware of our prayers, nor any permission given for believers to address them in prayer. This is a symbolic scene of heavenly worship, not a doctrinal endorsement of intercession through saints. If we were to argue that prayers should be directed to saints because they carry them, then by the same logic, Revelation 16’s mention of angels pouring out bowls of wrath would imply that wrath was directed to them, which is clearly not the case. Carrying something does not mean it was addressed to the carrier. The consistent biblical pattern is that prayer is directed to God alone, and Revelation’s imagery should not be stretched beyond what the text actually says.