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 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. Further, 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?

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

• Defining The Issues:

          -Tim Staples wrote an article with the intention of showing what he thinks are fundamental problems with appealing to Scripture as the final court of authority in spiritual matters. He raises objections to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a proof text for Sola Scriptura, emphasizes the role of extra-biblical oral tradition in the church, lays the charge of circular reasoning, and says that the canon by definition needed to be compiled by an infallible teaching authority (which is assumed to be the Roman Catholic Church). The purpose of this article is to address various weak and misguided objections raised by Catholic apologists 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 other authorities are to be kept subordinate to the written text, and overridden by it if they contradict or invalidate what it affirms. This definition constitutes the classical Sola Scriptura doctrine as expressed by the Protestant Reformers. Thus, it is inaccurate for Roman Catholic apologists to portray all Protestants without exception as believing that Scripture is the "sole rule of faith." That oversimplifies what Sola Scriptura actually means. It is also incorrect for Tim Staples to say that we only accept "explicit approval" from the biblical text, since it contains principles for us to apply to situations it does not mention at all.

          "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..."

           2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not addressing the scope of the canon, but the purpose and nature of Scripture. The Apostle Paul described 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 obviously had the future in mind as he mentioned the coming of false teachers.

          Can anybody produce a list of good works that cannot be found in Scripture? What else does Paul's phrase "every good work" mean? He does not say that Scripture equips one for most or a few good works. Further, James' statement about endurance leading to perfection is descriptive of personal spiritual growth and maturity. The text does not comment on the sufficiency or authority of Scripture as the final rule of faith. James addresses a different theological and practical domain altogether. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 explicitly affirms Scripture's function in the life of a believer, while James 1:4 focuses on perseverance in trials.

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

          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). Further, why would Scripture function as a sufficient rule of faith for leadership, but not also for the Christian who has no formal, advanced theological training? Paul nowhere limited the benefits of studying Scripture only to leaders in the church. If Scripture is sufficient for leaders, it is sufficient for the people that they teach.

          Claims that Sola Scriptura involves circular reasoning are countered by the argument that any ultimate authority must validate itself to avoid infinite regress. This is because, in philosophical reasoning, an ultimate authority cannot appeal to something higher to prove its validity. If it did, it would no longer be "ultimate." Without self-validation, one would need an endless chain of authorities to justify the previous one, which is logically unsustainable. Scripture's consistency, coherence, and accuracy are presented as a rational basis for its authority. Meanwhile, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is needed to validate the canon would also require an infallible validation. Staple's attempt to refute the charge of circularity on the part of Rome fails, as his reasoning relies on its official interpretation of passages like Matthew 16:18-19, essentially, "it is so because Rome says it is so."

          The demand for an “inspired table of contents” reflects a modern, highly institutionalized way of thinking that would have been utterly foreign to the earliest Christians. The first generations of believers did not conceive of Scripture as a bound, uniform volume requiring a prefatory index, but as a living collection of apostolic writings circulating among communities that already knew the gospel through preaching, worship, and shared confession. Their identity was shaped not by possessing a finalized literary corpus but by belonging to a Spirit‑formed people who received and recognized the apostolic voice wherever it appeared. To ask these Christians why they lacked an inspired list of inspired books would have made no sense, since the social reality of the church did not operate on the assumption that divine authority required bureaucratic certification. The canon emerged within the life of the community as a natural outgrowth of its faith and practice, not as the product of an official table of contents handed down from above.

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 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).

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 it does not align with the witness of history itself.

        It is fallacious to paint all religions as being morally bankrupt at the same time, in the same way, and to the same degree. Further, a distinction should be made between religion as a motivating ideology and religion as a tool exploited by governments. The claim of religion causing most wars is contradicted by known historical fact. According to Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod's "Encyclopedia of Wars," which chronicles 1,763 wars, only 123, or 6.98%, are categorized as religious, a figure that drops to 3.23% after excluding those waged in the name of Islam. Some commentators, such as Andrew Holt, have noted that the actual count of religious wars in the Encyclopedia of Wars is 121, not 123, and that the 123 figure was popularized by Theodore Beale, also known as Vox Day.

        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 can be fought among groups who adhere to the same religion. Consider, as an example, the American Civil War. Battles are, for the most part, conducted mainly 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? Moreover, there have been relatively few atheistic societies that have existed throughout history. That fact in and of itself speaks volumes against the claim that religion is the cause of all wars. It renders impossible the process of comparing religious and secular societies in any great detail.

         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 itself. All quarrels originate from the inherently sinful nature of the human heart (James 4:1-2). In fact, secular societies are more guilty of taking innocent lives. Consider examples from the twentieth century of non-religious dictators such as Hitler (a moral relativist), Stalin, and Mao Zedong. While sounding brilliant in theory, the evidence clearly does not point in favor of the view that most people throughout history have died in the name of spreading their religions.

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 part of the Hebrew canon recognized by the Jewish people, who were the original custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus Himself affirmed the traditional Jewish canon by referencing the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44), a threefold division that excludes the deuterocanonical books. Some argue that the Septuagint included these writings, but the Jewish community, especially in Palestine, did not accept them as inspired, and the Septuagint was a Greek translation primarily used by Hellenistic Jews, not by the rabbis who preserved the canon. The deuterocanonicals were written during a period when no prophets were active (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27), and the Jewish historian Josephus explicitly rejected them, stating that the prophetic line had ceased. While fragments of some apocryphal books like Tobit and Sirach were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were not grouped with the texts most frequently copied and revered, suggesting they were valued for instruction or edification but not considered Scripture. Likewise, rabbinic literature such as the Mishnah and Talmud never cite the deuterocanonical books as authoritative Scripture, even though they occasionally reference other non-canonical writings. Early Jewish thinkers like Philo of Alexandria, despite living in a Greek-speaking context where the Septuagint was used, never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture, further indicating that these books were not part of the canon recognized by mainstream Judaism.

• The Divine Inspiration Of The Roman Catholic Apocrypha Was Denied By Many Through Church History:

          -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 story in Tobit talks about using parts of a fish, like its heart, liver, and gall, to drive away demons and cure blindness, which sounds more like magic or folk medicine than a miracle from God. In the Bible, healing is usually done through prayer, faith, or direct acts of God, not strange rituals or animal parts. Just because an angel is involved does not make the method holy. It still does not match how healing works in the rest of Scripture. In fact, this kind of remedy stands out as odd and inconsistent when compared to the clear, God-centered miracles found throughout the Old and New Testaments, making Tobit seem more like folklore than inspired Scripture.

• 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)

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.

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 centuries of church tradition, the subjective appeal of human emotions, and nothing that has been revealed to us by God about the afterlife. It did not arise as a theological necessity, since God alone is more than sufficient to meet all our needs and comforts.

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

          -Throughout the Bible, there are several references to prayer. Every recorded instance is directed to God alone. Further, the central theme of the written text 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). We have no examples in the Bible of people calling on entities other than Him, with the exception being pagans or idolaters. We never see God sanctioning the practice of praying to departed saints or angels. The idea is nowhere even alluded to in the gospels or apostolic epistles. Therefore, we are compelled to conclude that all prayer ought to be dedicated to God alone. No created being is fit to receive our petitions.

• Can Saints And Angels In Heaven Really Hear All Our Prayers?:

          -Finite beings have inherent limitations. They cannot simultaneously hear and comprehend the petitions of millions of people across the globe, expressed in diverse languages, being uttered continually at every hour of each day. Such an ability requires omnipresence and omniscience, unique characteristics of deity alone. This inevitably encroaches upon the uniqueness of God and diminishes the sufficiency of Christ's work of intercession. Further, 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 us on earth.

          -Roman Catholic theology asserts that saints, through the beatific vision, can participate in God’s knowledge and thus be made aware of earthly prayers. Yet this argument falters because the beatific vision does not transform finite beings into omniscient ones. It grants them perfect communion with God, not His incommunicable attributes. Even if one were to argue that glorified creatures share in God’s wisdom in some heightened way, such participation remains finite by definition and cannot extend to the boundless comprehension of countless petitions across languages and contexts. Scripture never teaches that beholding God confers omnipresence or the ability to process infinite communication. To claim otherwise collapses the Creator-creation distinction, since creatures would effectively share in God’s unique prerogatives.

• Heavenly Saintly Intercession Rendered Unnecessary By Divine Intercession Itself:

          -We do not need intervention from saints or angels 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. In fact, the Holy Spirit gives us the strength that we need during times of weakness. He intercedes on our behalf before God (Romans 8:26). Further, only God knows 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 intercede on our behalf 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)

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

          -God expressly commanded the Jews 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 Isaiah 8:19-20 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, but 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 the 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. Luke 15:7–10 celebrates God’s grace and the joy of salvation, not the idea that saints or angels can hear or respond to human prayers. This passage affirms the centrality of God in redemption, not the legitimacy of spiritual intermediaries.

• 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.