That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.¹

Of course, there are plenty of religious groups that are antitrinitarian (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Latter-day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, Muslims, etc.) and they insist that God is not triune. They contend that the Trinity doctrine is not taught in Scripture, and therefore it is idolatrous to worship the Trinity (one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

In fact, I recently received the following challenge about this topic on social media. Here’s the stated challenge followed by my response. I think this interaction can be helpful to Christians who engage in evangelism and interreligious (or counter-cult) apologetics.

Respondent:
I found your article entitled “Is the Trinity Doctrine Biblical?” to be not only extremely one-sided, but also scripturally inaccurate. If the Trinity doctrine truly is biblical, then the two must be in complete harmony. But are they? See for yourself.

The Trinity doctrine says: “In all things . . . , the Trinity is to be worshipped.”

In the Bible, Jesus said: “But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way” (John 4:23, NLT). Nowhere in this verse are the “true worshipers” (Christians) instructed to worship three persons as a single God. Only the Father is “looking” for worship, not the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Me:
Greetings. Thanks for your challenge concerning whether the Trinity should be worshiped.

When interpreting Scripture, we must consider all relevant passages on a given topic and then evaluate their harmony. While you’ve cited John 4:23, you haven’t considered other critical passages concerning the proper worship of God.

In fact, in John 5:23 Jesus says: “[T]hat all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”

The ESV Study Bible comments on this passage:

The statement that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father in effect establishes Jesus’ right to be worshiped and also amounts to a claim to deity. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him shows that religions such as Judaism and Islam that consider Jesus merely a great prophet do not represent the truth about God, because they fail to worship and honor Jesus.²

Also, consider Matthew 28:16–17 and John 20:27–28:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted (Matthew 28:16–17).

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:27–28)

In both cases Jesus is worshiped by his disciples after his resurrection.

Theologian John Jefferson Davis explains: “In neither instance does Jesus give any indication that such acts of adoration are inappropriate. Contrast Acts 14:11–15, where Paul and Barnabas refuse religious veneration from the crowds in Lystra and Derbe, and Revelation 19:9–10 where the angel refuses worship from John.”³

Further, in Isaiah 45:22–23 we see that only God or Yahweh is to be worshiped:

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.

So only before God will every knee bow and every tongue swear, which constitutes worship. Yet in Philippians 2:9–11 the apostle Paul applies this worship to Jesus:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So the worship that is only to be given to God or Yahweh in the Old Testament is given to Jesus in the New Testament. Therefore, to worship God is to worship both the Father and the Son.

Now how about the Holy Spirit? Is the Spirit worshiped in the New Testament as well? I think the implication is yes. Consider Acts 13:1–13:

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

So while the Christian leaders at Antioch were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit spoke and commissioned Saul and Barnabas. “The Lord” or God who was worshiped includes the Holy Spirit and that’s why the Holy Spirit responded.

Is the Spirit the Lord or God as well? Consider 2 Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

The ESV Study Bible says one viable way of interpreting this difficult and compressed passage is to conclude that the Spirit is also the Lord (and like the Son, the Spirit is also an extension of Yahweh). “Paul is saying that Yahweh in the OT is not just Father and Son, he is also Spirit.”⁴

Further, in Acts 5:3–4 the Holy Spirit is equated with being God and in various other places in Scripture the Spirit has divine attributes.⁵ I think it’s therefore reasonable and in accord with sound exegesis to conclude that the apostle Paul and the other leaders of the primitive Jewish-Christian church viewed the Holy Spirit as the Lord and God and worshiped the Spirit along with the Son and Father. Thus the triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is worshiped in the New Testament.

Historic Christianity therefore sees the worship of the Trinity as being harmonious with the Bible.

Takeaway
When Christians through the centuries, including today, have worshiped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God in their creeds and church liturgies they were acting in accord with the teaching of the apostles as seen in the New Testament.

Resources

• My friend and colleague Robert M. Bowman Jr., provides over 1,000 biblical references for the doctrine of the Trinity. See The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

• For more on a biblical treatment of the Trinity, see Peter Toon, Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity.

• For more on the history of the Trinity, see Robert Letham,  The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.

• For more on the general doctrine of the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions, chapter 5: “How Can God Be Three and One?”

• For a discussion of the Trinity as a divine mystery, see Kenneth Richard Samples Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good?, chapter 5: “Aren’t Theological Mysteries Just Logical Contradictions?”

Endnotes

1. Athanasian Creed, Christian Reformed Church, accessed February 1, 2024.

2. ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2031.

3. John Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts: Every Key Passage for the Study of Doctrine & Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 72.

4. ESV Study Bible, 2227. 5. See Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 135.

The post Is the Trinity to Be Worshiped? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The Covid pandemic seems to get most of the blame. During the pandemic, Christians either were compelled to participate virtually through livestreaming via online platforms such as Zoom or to meet outdoors where everyone could be socially distant and watch the worship service on a large screen.

With the subsiding of the pandemic, parishioners began making a return to in-person gatherings, but many have not yet come back. They’ve either dropped out completely or chosen simply to watch or listen to a church service on their electronic devices—computers, television screens, or smartphones. 

While I still teach a class at my home church, I often speak in other churches, and I have yet to visit a church where in-person attendance has returned to pre-pandemic levels. In some cases, in-person attendance has risen to barely above half that level. 

Reasons people offer for preferring to watch or listen to a church service are the obvious ones—virtually all related to convenience. They don’t have to commute. They don’t have to get dressed or get their kids dressed. They can eat and/or take care of their children and pets during the service times.

The convenience factor becomes even more significant when the service is recorded and posted online. Christians can watch or listen when it best suits them, not necessarily at the scheduled meeting time. They can also pause the recording at any time to take care of household duties or answer their phone. They can even listen to the service while driving to work or the store.

The Passivity Factor
From my personal observations and conversations, I’ve come to think that one of the biggest reasons—if not the biggest—for Christians’ departure from church participation is not so much the availability of livestreaming and recorded services, but rather the lack of the very thing churches seek: participation. Many church services and meetings in America have become predominantly passive experiences, with some small opportunities for social interaction. 

Nearly all the action occurs up front. A pastor or elder opens the meeting in prayer. A worship team performs several worship songs and choruses. Someone makes announcements and prays. In some cases, offering plates are passed. A pastor (or visiting speaker) presents a sermon, and the meeting closes with prayer, and perhaps one more song.

Some churches do involve their congregation in liturgical practices—participatory prayer, responsive readings, recitation of creeds, and the sacrament of communion and/or baptism. Many churches wisely involve their parishioners in ministry to the poor and disadvantaged. Nearly all host potlucks and events for kids and encourage small groups for fellowship, and all these things are good. However, they typically provide little opportunity for open discussion of questions that challenge our faith, questions about biblical truth claims, and/or questions frequently raised by non-Christian skeptics. There’s little or no opportunity to engage in dialogue that can equip us to be effective witnesses to our world.

What I most often hear from young people is that church feels like a waste of time. While a few enjoy singing, most don’t. They say the sermon messages tend to repeat what they’ve already been told. They may or may not engage briefly in chitchat, and then they leave, feeling that their time could have been better spent. These young adults see neither growth nor ministry value in what they’ve given their time to, and they can’t think of any non-Christian friends or associates they’d feel comfortable inviting to attend with them.

Lost Causes?
Many pastors I know readily acknowledge that their church services, even Bible study groups, are predominantly passive. Nevertheless, they hope that by attracting passive Christians and making the services comfortable for them, they can gently encourage these folks to become active Christians. “At least these Christians,” they say, “are committed enough in their faith to attend church, unlike the others.”

I can’t help but question this approach because a significant number of dechurched Christians I know are trying to obey God’s command in Hebrews 10:25 by continuing to meet together. They meet up with friends, sometimes including strangers, too, at coffee places, cafés, outdoor spaces, homes, or in online chat groups to discuss and debate theology. They actively participate in social media, where they post or respond to posts on issues and questions that challenge or support Christianity and/or belief in the Bible. They get together to watch debates between Christians and atheists on YouTube (or other streaming platforms), intermittently stopping the recording to discuss key points or consider better responses than the ones being offered.

The Engagement Factor
Dechurched Christians I meet most often tell me they want dialogue, not monologue. They want open discussion, even constructive (as opposed to heated) debate. They want to be participants, not spectators. They want to see Christianity tested by the best challenges from skeptics and shown strong. They want to be equipped and mentored for a variety of ministry opportunities and endeavors.

In my many years as a Christian apologist, I’ve spoken in several hundred churches across America and in other parts of the world. Along the way I’ve made some observations that I’d like to share with pastors and other church leaders. Churches that offer an extended Q&A session after the Sunday message, a session in which the questions are not screened or preselected, are successful in attracting newcomers and returners. Most are growing by adding adult converts to their congregations. People come to the church first to observe this “unusual” interaction, this openness to questions, even challenging ones. They come back when they see that questions and questioners are treated with gentleness, thoughtfulness, honesty, and respect. 

At the church where I teach, “open forum” events are part of the annual church schedule. Every few months, an entire two-hour time slot is devoted to Q&A. We have four rules: (1) Only one question per person per turn. Questioners who want to raise more than one question go to the back of the line after each question is addressed; (2) Questioners may offer comments and present points of disagreement, but these comments cannot turn into lectures; (3) No profane language or cursing is allowed; and (4) Most importantly, no “softball” questions are allowed. Meanwhile, coffee and snacks are available.

The Hospitality Factor
In my reading of the New Testament epistles, I note a strong emphasis on hospitality, not just to be practiced by those with a special gift for it, but for all believers. The gift of evangelism (Ephesians 4:11) refers to a church elder who is gifted to train and equip Christians to do evangelism. All Christians, without exception, are called to engage in hospitality and evangelism. 

Hospitality and evangelism go hand in hand. In my experience, the churches that are most successful in bringing adults to faith in Jesus Christ—and keeping them—are those that combine Q&A, dialogue, and discussion with abundant, gracious hospitality. 

Most people think offering hospitality means providing people with food and drink, and it often does. However, while meeting people’s physical needs is important, meeting their intellectual, emotional, and spiritual needs may be equally important or, in some cases, even more so. Compassionate, wise, and encouraging listeners offer the kind of hospitality people long for. Who is drawn to events where people speak but don’t listen? It’s through compassionate, attentive, encouraging listening that Christians can gain trust and make an impact. There’s no better way to discern what holds a person back from faith in Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.

The Courage Factor
I readily acknowledge that inviting questioners to challenge our faith takes courage. Nevertheless, through exposing our faith to questions and challenges, our faith becomes stronger. At the same time, we become better equipped to respond to future questions and challenges. In 1 Corinthians 16:13–14, Paul offers this clear and succinct exhortation:

Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be people of courage. Do everything in love. 

Courage comes from recognizing that as followers of Jesus Christ, we are never alone. The Holy Spirit permanently indwells us and is available always to assist us in our ministry to others. Whenever I’m about to participate in a Q&A session or engage in conversation with a non-Christian, I ask the Holy Spirit to provide the wisdom, grace, humility, and compassion to speak whatever words are needed.

As Christ’s followers, there’s another sense in which we’re not alone. We are connected with other believers. Being people of courage does not mean venturing into situations where we’re set up for failure. Pastors often tell me they can’t invite public, unscreened Q&A because they know they’re not adequately prepared to answer some of the questions and/or challenges likely to come up. While they may not be, other people in their congregations might be. If not, “I’m willing to do some research and get back to you” is a reasonable and appropriate response. Another option may be to bring in a scholar with relevant background and training via Zoom or another link. (Several Reasons to Believe scholars make themselves available for such occasions.)

Even when a panel of experts is fielding questions, there may be questions for which no one in the group has a ready answer. Here again, the same response is appropriate: “If you’ll give us a week to do the needed research, we’ll be glad to get back to you.” In fact, at times it may be encouraging to the questioner to invite him or her to participate in the research.

New Testament Vitality
Prior to Christ’s coming, synagogue gatherings were substantially participatory. During the week, the synagogue served as a kind of community center. On the day of worship, Jews and interested Greeks met together in a rectangular room with step-style seating on three or all four sides, facing each other. They rejoiced as Scripture scrolls were brought into the center of the room and then listened intently as various individuals (chosen by the person in charge of the place) read substantial portions of Scripture. (Bibles were not yet available).

When the apostles reached out beyond Jerusalem to people unfamiliar with Jesus’s life and teachings, death and resurrection, they went to synagogues. There, they recited and explained how familiar Old Testament events and prophecies had been fulfilled by Jesus. They answered questions and engaged in dialogue and debate. 

Early Christian church services were anything but passive. They equipped believers, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to withstand a massive effort to snuff out their faith. In the face of severe oppression, the body of believers grew and became a mighty force that continues to spread the Good News “to the uttermost parts.”  

I’m convinced God wants to stir up his church. He’s calling all of us to adventurous faith,²  moving us to reconsider how we “do church.” It’s time to apply creativity and courage in ways that will enliven our gatherings, make them less entertaining and more engaging. His call holds potential to attract the unchurched, bring back the dechurched, and help the church fulfill its kingdom-advancing mission on Earth.

Endnotes

1. In this article I’m not addressing deconversion, a process in which a person gives up the Christian faith for another religion or none at all.
2. Hugh Ross with Kathy Ross, Always Be Ready: A Call to Adventurous Faith (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018). 

The post Engage Churchgoers Now So They Don’t Dechurch Later appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

These are questions I hear from people in nontrinitarian religions as well as Christians who believe in the Trinity but aren’t quite sure of its biblical basis. Given that the Trinity describes the nature of the God Christians worship, one might expect to see obvious trinitarian language in Scripture.

In fact, I recently received the following question about this topic on social media. Here’s the question followed by my response. I think this interaction can be helpful for Christians who engage in evangelism and interreligious (or counter cult) apologetics.

Question:
A religious person who recently knocked on my door said the Trinity doctrine was invented by the Christian church a couple centuries after Christ and has no biblical support. She said the word Trinity is not even a biblical term.

How can I effectively respond to this challenge?

My Response:
Thanks for your inquiry. I have had members of multiple non-trinitarian religious sects (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Latter-Day Saints) say the same thing to me.

Here’s my way of responding:

Since the word “trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible, some people may wonder whether the Trinity doctrine is simply an innovation of historic Christianity. The term trinity comes from the Latin trinitas. Church father Tertullian (c. A.D. 160–230) used this term when he wrote about “the trinity of the one Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”¹

Some people are troubled that the word trinity doesn’t appear in the Bible. But the absence of this word in no way invalidates the doctrine. Many important biblical concepts are conveyed by terms not actually contained in the Bible—for example, terms like Bible, canon, and inerrancy. Nothing in the text prohibits the use of extrabiblical terms to express proper meaning.

Although the word trinity doesn’t appear, Scripture clearly reveals the doctrine of God’s tri-unity (three in one). Here is the Trinity doctrine in six biblically based propositions:²

1. There is one, and only one, God (1 Timothy 2:5).
2. The person of the Father is God (2 Peter 1:17).
3. The person of the Son is God (Titus 2:13).
4. The person of the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4).
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct and simultaneously distinguishable persons (Luke 3:22).
6. The three persons (Father or God; Son or Christ or Lord; and Holy Spirit or Spirit) are frequently listed together in a triadic pattern of unity and equality (John 14:26).

Now here’s the logical inference drawn from these passages:

Since there is only one God, and because the three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are all called God, and since the three persons are distinct from each other, and because the three persons are all equal, then the three distinct and equal persons are the one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Thus, the Trinity doctrine is not formally and explicitly taught in the Bible but it is derived implicitly from the content of Scripture. Though the apostles of Jesus were Jewish monotheists who believed strictly in one God, they nevertheless recognized that two other persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) were revealed as God. All three persons possessed the qualities and prerogatives of deity. The apostles therefore modified traditional Jewish monotheism³ in light of the revelation concerning first the Son (Jesus Christ) and later the Holy Spirit.

The formal creedal doctrine of the Trinity took a few centuries to define and defend in light of various heresies that challenged it (modalism, tritheism, etc.).⁴ It was confirmed as church doctrine at the Council of Nicea (325). But the basis of the Trinity is found in the Bible.

Christian historian Mark Noll has written that “the ancient creeds became authoritative in the early centuries because they were thoroughly, profoundly, comprehensively, and passionately rooted in Scripture.”⁵

Takeaways

• The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the truth that God is three and one is biblical. 
• The doctrine of the Trinity is not presented explicitly in Scripture but it is clearly derived implicitly. 
• The formal creedal doctrine of the Trinity did take a few centuries to define and defend.

Resources

• For more on a biblical treatment of the Trinity, see Peter Toon, Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity.
• For more on the history of the Trinity, see Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
• For more on the general doctrine of the Trinity, see “How Can God Be Three and One” in Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions, chapter 5.
• For a discussion of the Trinity as a divine mystery, see “Aren’t Theological Mysteries Just Logical Contradictions?” in Kenneth Richard Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good?, chapter 5.

Endnotes

1. Tertullian, De Pudicitia, The Tertullian Project, 21, updated June 13, 2023.

2. For a fuller outline of the Trinity doctrine, see Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 131–132.

3. New Testament and ancient historian Larry W. Hurtado describes the primitive Jewish-Christian church’s view of Jesus as an extension of Yahweh as a mutation within monotheistic Judaism. See Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about  Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005). A similar mutation would take place in also seeing the Holy Spirit as an extension of Yahweh.

4. See “Trinitarian Heresies,” monergism.com, accessed July 27, 2023.

5. Mark A. Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 2.

The post Is the Trinity Revealed in Scripture? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

People who know that I’ve traveled and spoken globally for decades have asked me what I think about demon possession and exorcism. I offer these thoughts as a scientist and a Christian with some experience in this spiritual realm.

Angels and Demons
Angels are supernatural, intelligent beings. They are a fundamental component of every theistic religion. In Christianity there are two categories of angels: (1) those who are righteous and serve God, and (2) those who are evil and in rebellion against God. The latter are referred to as fallen angels or demons.

According to Job 38:4–7, angels were present when God laid the foundations of Earth. The Bible is silent on how much time transpired between the angels’ creation and their witnessing the laying down of Earth’s foundations. It is possible that God created angels before he created the universe.

The Bible declares that Satan is the most powerful of the angels. He was the first being and the first angel to rebel against God. Exactly when Satan’s rebellion occurred we do not know. The Bible does seem to indicate (Revelation 12:3–4, ESV) that Satan persuaded a third of the angels to join him in rebelling against God. Thus, according to this passage, two thirds of the angels are righteous and allied with God and the remaining third are wicked and enemies of God.  

According to the Bible, angels, both righteous and fallen, inhabit and operate in a dimensional realm that is distinct from the cosmic space-time dimensions. However, while humans are constrained to the space-time dimensions of the universe, angels are not. The Bible indicates that angels, both righteous and fallen, can enter and exit the human realm at will. They can enter immaterially or materially. They can even appear in human form. Biblical examples of angels appearing materially can be found in Genesis 18–19, where both Abraham and Lot (on separate occasions) served food to angels that the angels ate. 

Do Angels and Demons Really Exist?
I have been to places in the world where nearly everybody believed in angels and demons and a large fraction of the people claimed to have personally encountered angels and/or demons. I also have been to places in the world where very few people believed that angels and demons exist and no one claimed to have an angelic encounter. Examples of the former would be rural parts of Africa during the 1980s and the Soviet Union of the late 1980s. Examples of the latter would be many parts of present-day America and western Europe.

Given what the Bible says about demons, this dichotomy of belief about angels is not at all surprising. Satan and his army of demons employ two strategies in their attempts to prevent humans from receiving God’s offer of redemption and eternal life. Their first strategy is to persuade humans that there is no supernatural realm. A key component of this strategy is for them to remain hidden. Their second strategy is to overwhelm and terrify humans with their supernatural powers so that humans will be motivated to appease them.

Discerning the Physical from the Psychological and from the Demonic
One of the things I most appreciated about Amorth’s writings is his statement that 98% of the people who came to him with the concern that they were possessed by a demon needed a psychiatrist or a therapist, not an exorcist. Mental illnesses appear to have risen dramatically since Amorth made that statement. Therefore, the percentage today is likely even higher.

One of my sons is a clinical neuropsychologist. In his diagnostic work he first looks for physical brain abnormalities. Is there a brain injury, tumor, or brain chemical imbalance that is responsible for the patient’s mental distress or mental abnormality? He next looks for a genetic link. Was his patient born with one or more genetic mutations? If none of these factors explains the mental distress/abnormality, he then quizzes his patient about past traumatic events. After uncovering one or more major traumatic events, he then refers his patient either to a therapist or psychiatrist.

The same process my son employs needs to be applied to anyone who claims to be harassed, oppressed, or possessed by a demon. First, eliminate possible physical or chemical causes of the distress. Second, eliminate possible psychological causes. Then, and only then, pursue the possibility of demonic harassment, oppression, or possession.

Demonic Possession, Oppression, and Harrassment
The Bible does not explicitly state that Christians cannot be demon possessed. However, when one becomes a born-again Christian, the Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence within that Christian (Romans 8:9–11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). The Holy Spirit will not share that residence with anyone other than the Christian. As 1 John 4:2–6 states, spiritual darkness is not inside Christians. 

For non-Christians to become demon possessed, they must grant permission to the demon(s). Permission is granted through involvement in the occult or through a close relative’s or a sexual partner’s involvement in the occult where that involvement has not been confessed to God as a sin that must be repudiated. Ephesians 4:26–31 explains that deep-seated, long-lasting bitterness, anger, or rage can give Satan and his demons a foothold into people’s lives.

Another way one or more demons can gain a foothold is when a person gives up control of his or her mind. That loss of control can occur through abuse of alcohol or drugs or through such mind-altering practices as hypnosis or mind-emptying meditation. 

Christians can be harassed or oppressed by demons when they pose a discernible threat to the demons. Such threats occur when Christians are ministering, or are seen as potentially ministering, to non-Christians who are being targeted, oppressed, or possessed by a demon or demons. In such circumstances the demons do what they can to scare the Christians away from interfering with their objectives. 

Personal Encounters
My first encounter with the demonic after I became a Christian occurred about two blocks from the campus of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). I was walking back to the campus when a woman on the other side of the street started screaming obscenities. In the midst of those obscenities she shouted at me to stay away from her and not to come any nearer. I thought her shouts were strange since I never came within 50 feet of her and hadn’t looked at her or even in her general direction. When I did look at her, she fell to the ground into the fetal position, began to shake with fear, and repeatedly yelled for me to go away. 

When I got back to Caltech, I talked to fellow astronomer and devout Christian, David Rogstad, who currently works part-time for Reasons to Believe. He explained to me that I had encountered a woman who was demon possessed and that the demons were worried that I intended to cast them out.

A couple years later, I and a recently converted Christian were visting people who had filled out registration cards at our church indicating that they had attended for the first time. One of those visits was to a woman who was living in a witchcraft coven. The leader of the coven, a warlock (male witch), was holding six women captive in his house as sex slaves. We noted that the six women were terrified of him and even more terrified to attempt to leave him. More specifically, they were terrified of the demons living within him. 

When the coven leader learned that we were Christians, he bragged that he knew the Bible better than we did. He asserted that he had the entire New Testament memorized and could quote any verse forward or backward. He challenged me to pick a verse from the Bible for him to quote. I responded by challenging him to pick any verse from the New Testament and to explain to us what that verse means. We quickly found out that he was unable to discern the meaning of any Bible verse. Though the demons within him performed miracles in front of us, it was obvious that they were devoid of truth. 

Several of us Christians committed to praying and fasting and, in time, all six women were able to escape the clutches of the coven leader. A few months later, a police raid resulted in the coven being shut down, though I suspect it may have simply moved to a different city.

That same year, I had another encounter. A young man began to intermittently attend one of the Bible studies I taught. His actions, words, and lack of self-control made it obvious to the Christians in the study that he was demon possessed. At one of our Bible study sessions he claimed he wanted to be delivered. After the study, several of us gathered around him and prayed intently in the name of Jesus Christ for the demon to be cast out. Suddenly, the young man began to speak and behave like a normal human being. His facial expression and body language immediately changed. No more charges against Jesus Christ of despicable immoral acts came out of his mouth. He had self control. However, when we asked him if he was willing to receive Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, he said, “Not yet.” Within days, we discovered that his parents, who were both heavily involved in the occult and much opposed to Christianity, were very angry at what we had done—reminiscent of the account in Acts 16:16–21 of the owners of the slave girl who had been delivered from a demon. 

For the following two weeks, the young man’s words and demeanor were morally exemplary. However, during the following third week, his actions, behavior, and words were even more abhorrent and evil than they were before our prayer gathering for him—reminiscent this time of Jesus’s warning expressed in Luke 11:24–26. 

We told the young man that we would continue to pray for him, but until he was truly willing to be delivered from the demons he had invited into his being and until he was willing to repent of his sins and receive Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior he was not welcome to attend our Bible study. We never heard from him again.

In chapter 9 of our book, Always Be Ready, I write about my encounter with demon possessed philosophers during two lectures I gave in Kiev, Ukraine, when Ukraine was still under the tight control of communists, the KGB, and the Soviet Union. During my 11 years as minister of evangelism at Sierra Madre Congregational Church (now Christ Church Sierra Madre) and my 36 years as president of Reasons to Believe, I had several other encounters with people who were either demon possessed or demon oppressed. 

Responding to the Demonic
My consistent counsel to Christians is that when they encounter the demonic, the first thing is to deal with it prayerfully and carefully, but never seek it out. There are too many people who are eager to hear and respond to the Christian gospel message for us to spend an inordinate amount of time on people who are resolute in their unwillingness to repent of their rebellion against God and to receive Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Second, I remind Christians that the demons are more powerful than we are. People can be delivered from demon possession and demon oppression only through the power of Jesus Christ. We are to cast the demons out through prayer in the name of Jesus Christ.

Some demons are more resolute and powerful than others. As Jesus warned, some can be cast out only through prayer and fasting (Mark 9:14–29). In such circumstances, gathering a group of Christians together in dedicated fasting and prayer is the key to seeing someone delivered from demons.

Third, exorcism should only be attempted when a person wants to be set free from demons, is willing to repent of the sins that invited the demons to come into their lives, and who is willing to receive Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. As noted above, I once failed to heed this advice to the detriment of the person I was attempting to set free. Jesus declared this counsel in his teaching Luke 11:24–26.

Finally, demons need permission to invade the life of a human. They are granted this permission when a human pursues the occult, places a higher priority on power than on truth, hangs on to deep-seated bitterness and anger, or gives up control over their mind through alcohol, drugs, and/or mind-altering practices. Delivering people from such pursuits is the first step to setting them free from the demonic. 

Occasionally, a demon or demons gain access to a human through the forbidden pursuits of a close relative or a sexual partner. In such cases, it is crucial for the person to confess the forbidden pursuits as sins and to agree with God that such pursuits are dangerous and against the will of God. Such confession will cut the demonic link between the person and his or her close relative or sexual partner. It is reassuring to know and understand that God only holds us responsible for confessing immoral pursuits that we’re personally aware of.

In the educated western world of the twenty-first century, any talk about demons may invite mockery. Such disdain for the spiritual realm is consistent with the state of human beings who are in rebellion against their Creator. God is a spiritual being. May we be wise in our interactions with people and seek ways to show how they can be reconciled to God.

The post A Scientist’s Take on Demon Possession appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My Answer: Muslims who make this argument usually presume that Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and the Inquisitors were Christians. They may have lived in nations where many referred to themselves as Christians, but history shows that these despots were slaughtering people who were committed followers of Jesus Christ. Also, keep in mind that in Islam there is no separation of religion and state. Hence, in nations ruled by Islamic law there is no distinction between the violence committed by the state and the violence committed by Islam. Note, too, that Islamic doctrine has promoted evangelism by the sword whereas Christian doctrine condemns it.

The post Are Christianity and Islam Violent Religions? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

One of the hotly debated topics within Christian theology is the question of how God can be sovereign and yet allow evil in the world. Two people asked me about this issue on social media recently and I offered a brief response. See what you think of the questions and objections raised as well as my replies. Please consider also my recommendations for further reading about this important topic.

Respondent 1 (paraphrased):
If God is sovereign in a traditional sense and is thus in control of how all things ultimately unfold, then isn’t God responsible for such evil things like rape? God not only knew about it, but his sovereignty brought it to be.

My reply:
Greetings, brother. Your question is a challenging one. I’ll offer a brief response and then recommend some sources that address the topic further.¹

Three different but related theological traditions within Western Christendom have more robust views of divine sovereignty, including the Augustinian, Thomistic, and Reformed traditions. All three of these traditions have high views of divine sovereignty and they see it as fairly representing Scripture. For example: “According to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). But contrary to their critics these theological traditions don’t view God’s sovereignty as a type of theological fatalism.

Instead, they affirm a compatibility between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility just as God decreed Christ’s crucifixion and yet also held those who carried it out personally responsible (Acts 2:22–23):

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”

Here we see a divine sovereign decree and human responsibility in the very same verse. So God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are somehow compatible.

Concerning your question, all of these theological traditions—while allowing for mystery with regard to God’s exact relationship to evil—could nevertheless say that God’s decree includes the willful actions of human beings. So the rapist actively commits evil and God’s providential decree either allows and/or ensures that it transpires. However, these compatibilist views would also say that God not only allows evil but also uses evil for his good purposes (Romans 8:28). But in doing so God doesn’t actually commit evil and is not ultimately morally responsible for it. The compatibilist view says that God will punish evil and set all things right in the age to come (Revelation 21:4).

It is certainly your prerogative to differ with the biblical interpretations and theological explanations of compatibilism. But this is the basic view of many of Christianity’s classical theologians (including, with some important differences of course, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Edwards, and Warfield).

My book Classic Christian Thinkers may be of some help as it introduces such thinkers as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Pascal, and Lewis.²

Respondent 2 (paraphrased):
Respectfully, much of your “more robust” theology seems to be merely restating the problem in your own terms and then punting to “mystery” at the very point where the circularity is most evident to non-Reformed scholars.

My reply:
Thank you for your comments. Here are some thoughts in response:

1. My use of the words “more robust” describe not the strength of the compatibilist view per se but the significance that providence plays in the various theologies I mentioned.

2. My very brief response above is an attempt to answer the question asked from multiple theological perspectives (Augustinian, Thomistic, Reformed), which requires explanation or restating.

3. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were not Protestants scholars, so it is not just the Reformed who affirm a form of compatibilism. Again, while there are real differences among these theological traditions, I think it’s fair to say compatibilism is the consensus view among the more classical theologians (whether Catholic or Protestant).

4. Since God is infinite and eternal and humans finite and temporal then everything about God from the human perspective involves mystery. With all due respect to my learned colleagues and friends who don’t affirm compatibilism (such as Molinists³), in my view the middle knowledge perspective functions as a model of theological explanation, not as an ultimate solution to the mystery.

5. I don’t think circularity is the central objection that Molinists bring forth against the compatibilist view. I think it’s usually the challenge of determinism.

6. It may seem that I didn’t resolve the mystery in this brief response. Please see my latest book where I have a chapter entitled “Aren’t Theological Mysteries Just Logical Contradictions?” There I address challenging topics like God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.⁴

7. In addition to my books, I think you’d get more from reading some of classical Christianity’s greatest scholars who affirmed compatibilism (such as Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards).

Best regards in Christ.

Takeaway
Christians and Christian theological traditions differ over how to best explain God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and the problem of evil. My strong recommendation is to read the best books on all sides of the issue before making up one’s mind.

Reflections: Your Turn
Other than Scripture, what do you consider to be the best books on God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and evil? Visit Reflections to comment.

Endnotes

1. Along with recommending Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. firsthand, two contemporary Reformed sources include these two books: J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008) and Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994).
2. See my book Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019).
3. Molinism, named after sixteenth-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is the theological view that attempts to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human free will. Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what his creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance. Thus God could place someone in a circumstance where they would freely choose God’s sovereign will. For an explanation and defense of Molinism, see Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2010).
4. See my book Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chap. 5.

The post Reconciling God's Sovereignty with Human Choices and Evil appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Here are twelve general characteristics of the newest version of Christianity as I see it. Again, many of these characteristics are reflected in the modern-day representatives of the Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century. Think of this list as a paradigm or model rather than an exact description or classification.

1. Followers of Jesus: Many people in this new branch want to avoid being called “Protestant” or even “Christian.” Rather, they prefer to be called “followers of Jesus” or similar terms. Since Christianity is a way of life centered on Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, all Christians could be considered Jesus followers. But believers within fourth branch churches don’t want to be associated with the divisions and schisms that are so prevalent in church history. So, they want their identity to be found not in historic churches but in Jesus himself.
2. Nondenominational: Building on the point above, fourth branch Christianity tends to be nondenominational. Or if these churches have denominational connections (and most do) they tend to downplay those connections. Again, there is little direct historical connection to church history.
3. Charismatic or Pentecostal: Many individuals and churches who are part of this new formation of the faith have adopted a charismatic or Pentecostal spirituality. The historical roots of these churches may even be connected to traditional Pentecostal denominations. This form of piety isn’t a universal characteristic of the new branch, but it is common. There are also what we may call Bible churches in this fold that are cessationists concerning the spiritual gifts.
4. The Bible only: Fourth branch churches and individuals interpret the Bible in its own right apart from Christian history. This position is in the spirit of what traditional Protestants call sola Scriptura, but I think it is a little different. The fourth branch believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and the sole authority for doctrine and Christian living; they also affirm the creedal expressions of the Trinity, the incarnation, etc. Yet these churches view biblical authority as functioning seemingly independent of collective church councils, church tradition, or church history.
5. Affirm mere Christianity: The doctrinal perspective of the new branch encompasses generally basic Christian doctrine. This term “mere Christianity” refers to a group of essential and “agreed, or common, or central”³ Christian doctrines (such as creation, the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the ascension, and Jesus Christ’s Second Coming) that all branches of historic Christendom affirm. 
6. Noncreedal: This fourth branch typically has a statement of faith but no formal creeds (e.g., Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed) or confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession or Thirty-Nine Articles). However, while these churches may not formally recite a creed, they may and sometimes do sing it in their regular times of worship.
7. Nonliturgical: Services at fourth branch churches are typically much more informal compared to the structured liturgy and religious rites found in traditional church services.
8. Nonhymnal: Instead of formal hymns and liturgical songs, worship services at fourth branch churches feature popular praise music, bands, and contemporary Christian songs.
9. Nonsacramental: These ecclesiastical bodies emphasize ordinances instead of sacraments. So while a sacrament is understood as a means of divine grace, an ordinance is a practice that involves the participants’ obedience to faith. For example, instead of affirming baptismal regeneration which is often associated with infant baptism, a Jesus Follower would be baptized to publicly announce his or her intention to live for Jesus.
10. Congregational polity: For these houses of worship their church government reflects independent congregational church authority instead of an episcopal (led by bishops) or presbyterian (led by elders) form of order.
11. Revivalism: Fourth branch churches conduct revival meetings in order to gain new converts and to inspire members to greater discipline and devotion. Church services are marked by evangelism, which commonly takes place by means of altar calls.
12. Megachurches: Some of the congregations within this emerging branch are megachurches. A megachurch has an extremely large membership and also offers a variety of educational and social opportunities for its congregants.

Takeaway
Again, some traditional Protestant churches share a number of these characteristics with fourth branch churches or Jesus Followers. And this description should be seen as a general pattern rather than an exact definition. Nevertheless, I think there is enough difference to warrant acknowledging a new and distinct branch of Christendom.

Churches in this new branch have strengths and weaknesses just like the churches they differ from. Some find this form of Christianity very appealing while others detect deficiencies.

Reflections: Your Turn
Have you attended a megachurch? What did you think?

Resources

The Appeal of Common Christianity

Finding One’s Place in Christ’s Universal Church

Debating Denominational Difference While Non-Christians Watch

Promoting Truth, Unity, and Charity within Christendom

Endnotes

1. For a discussion of these three branches of Christendom in terms of their areas of agreement and disagreement as well as the historic divisions, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 10.
2. Because Orthodoxy consists of two historic church traditions—Eastern Orthodoxy (Chalcedonian) and Oriental Orthodoxy (non-Chalcedonian)—sometimes people speak of four branches of Christendom. As well, sometimes Anglicanism is viewed as independent of Protestantism and thus labeled the fourth branch of Christendom. However, I think for the most part the two versions of Orthodoxy are seen as one branch and more often than not Anglicanism is viewed as being one of the churches of Reformation and thus Protestant.
3. See C. S. Lewis’s idea of “mere Christianity” in his book by the same title, Mere Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 8.

The post A Fourth Branch of Christendom? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post How to Appreciate Early Jesus Symbols appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Doing Apologetics in a Scientific Context appeared first on Reasons to Believe.