Christians and non-Christians alike stand behind debate podiums, rally around protests, and speak passionately about whether the act of abortion is fundamentally right or wrong. The fact that abortion is highly politicized makes it even more challenging to talk about.

Despite all the complex political, social, scientific, and theological layers, one thing is simple and clear:

Life is unquantifiable. Invaluable.

From beginning to end, the beauty and fragility of life all points to the One who upholds it—our amazing God. He is our Creator and loving Father who gives the gift of life at conception.

So as followers of Christ, it’s critical for us to know where the Bible stands on this sensitive, controversial topic.

Does the Bible Support Abortion?

As Christians, we hold Scripture as our ultimate authority in governing our worldview and our lives.

So, does the Bible say anything about abortion? Although the Bible doesn’t mention the word “abortion,” what we do find are countless verses that explicitly declare the value of human life.

Thus, humans are commanded to keep, honor, and protect life.

Is Abortion Sin?

We find ample warnings in the Bible that the act of murder is against God’s law and his holiness. It’s a strike against a universal moral code—even for non-Christians. Murder violates the sanctity of life given by God.

Is abortion murder? Abortion can briefly be defined as the killing of an innocent child in the womb. Some Christians would say abortion is morally wrong but would stop short of calling it murder in some cases. Others do equate it with murder. Where in the Bible does it say abortion is wrong?

If we consider abortion as the intentional killing of an innocent life, then one obvious place is in the sixth commandment.

And there are others:

• Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” 
• Matthew 5:21: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’” 
• Proverbs 6:16–17: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood (emphasis added).”
• Leviticus 24:17: “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.”

These verses collectively teach that taking a life is a grave sin. They reflect the explicit, God-given responsibility to protect life as a gift from God.

When Life Begins: Sanctity of Life at Conception

Most people would agree wholeheartedly that life is intrinsically valuable and that murder is wrong. It’s a strike against a universal moral code that all humans seem to recognize.

But the contentious point often boils down to determining when life actually begins.

We won’t explore in-depth the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to life beginning at conception here, but the Bible is very clear that life begins in the womb.

Here are a few verses that describe how God has ordained and planned for every human life in the womb:

• Psalm 139:13–16: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
• Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
• Isaiah 49:1: “Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.”

The Creator of this universe has known our names since the beginning of time. That’s something to ponder.

Every part and stage of our lives, inside and outside the womb, is carefully planned by a God who loves us and is gracious to us. However, trying to draw a line for when that moment of sanctity begins after conception is difficult. It’s wise to err on the side of life so we’re not prone to slippery slope moral arguments.

Conception is not by chance. It’s orchestrated by God. Conception is his intended plan to create a person who holds unspeakable value. And no human being has the right to end a life ordained by God almighty.

Personhood: Unborn Humans Have a Personal Nature

While most people recognize that life begins at conception and that the unborn are indeed human, some people argue that the unborn are not persons. Some advocates of abortion insist that the unborn are not self-conscious; therefore, they are not persons and thus abortion is morally allowable.

However, the Christian worldview sees human beings very differently than does a secular worldview. In Christian theology human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–28) and, therefore, they have a human nature that is personal from the beginning of conception. Personhood is understood as a given of creation, not as something that emerges when one is self-conscious.

So, while some advocates of abortion insist that the human fetus is developing toward personhood, Christian defenders of the pro-life perspective argue that the fetus is a fully human person who is undergoing physical development and growth.

Is Abortion in the Bible?

Despite the overwhelming scriptural evidence that God’s law values human life in the womb, some people try to claim that the Bible condones the act of abortion in Numbers 5:11–31.

They argue that because the passage mentions the priest cursing the unfaithful woman to “miscarry” through drinking bitter waters, the curse is evidence for abortion. God justified the act.

However, a closer study of this verse and specifically the translation of “miscarriage” brings light to the issue. The word is more accurately translated as “womb shriveling.” It’s pointing to the curse of barrenness, not miscarriage. The judgment was not abortion, but a curse of not having children.

Even if we read the text as a miscarriage, the intent of this passage is to portray God’s right to judge. He is the ultimate author of life and death. The passage doesn’t warrant a call for abortion as a result of sinful acts.

If You Had an Abortion . . . There’s Forgiveness

We all live in a fallen world where we make decisions that go against God’s will. We’ve all failed to keep God’s law in many ways. It’s part of our brokenness, and whether we’re admittingly aware, disobeying God is a part of our sinful nature.

If you had an abortion due to various life circumstances, you may be wrestling with a whirlwind of emotions—grief, guilt, sadness, or even relief.

But know that there’s grace.

Regardless of the type of sin we’ve committed, God is a gracious God who forgives through the blood of Jesus Christ.

There’s forgiveness for repentant sinners, and God promises his grace and new life.

• Isaiah 1:18: “‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’”
• 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”
• Ephesians 1:7: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.”
• Psalm 103:12: “As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”

Friends, you are not alone in this walk through troubled times, and there is hope and healing available through Jesus.

If you’re wrestling with thoughts of abortion, whether past, present, or thinking about it for the future, it is our prayer that you receive God’s grace and seek support from loving friends or family. Perhaps God will use your story in mighty ways to be an encouragement to others.

Regardless of your past failures and sin, may you feel his embrace and his relentless love for you. And may God continue to remind you of his unfailing grace that covers you through all seasons of life.

Wonderfully Made

As we have explored what the Bible says about abortion, there’s no denying that the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139).

Each and every process in the womb—every part of a developing body—is carefully crafted since conception, and God is the ultimate giver and taker of life.

He knows every hair on our heads, and has called us by name before we were even in our mother’s wombs.

We have intrinsic value that is instilled by our Creator. And how wonderful to know we are in the care of such a mighty, loving God!

Let’s not forget that value when we see the life of an unborn child. May we hold fast to the infinite value God places on every human life. 

The post What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

So, are Mormons Christian? The short answer is no. The differences between Mormonism and Christianity aren’t minor. The official teachings of the Latter-Day Saints church present a fundamentally different view of God, humanity, and the Bible.

There are deep, foundational divides over the most important questions of faith: Who is God? Who is Jesus? How are we saved? And what is our ultimate authority for truth?

In this post, we’ll explore Mormon theology and beliefs to understand why, despite some shared language, Mormonism and Christianity are two fully separate religions.

What Is Mormonism?

The origin of Mormonism traces back to the early nineteenth century and a man named Joseph Smith. The founder of Mormonism, Smith taught and claimed that God called him as a prophet in 1830 to restore the one true church. According to Mormon teaching, the original church fell into a complete “Great Apostasy” after the apostles died.

This is already a major point of difference. Christians believe the church was never lost. The Bible promises that God’s truth would endure and that no new prophet or special scripture was needed after Jesus and the apostles (Hebrews 1:1–2; Jude 1:3).

What Makes Mormonism Distinct?

At its core, Mormonism introduces new and distinct ideas that, in many ways, conflict with biblical Christianity. Here’s a quick summary of the biggest differences between what Christians and Latter-Day Saints believe:

• A Different God: Mormons teach that God the Father was once a man who became a god and has a physical body.
• A Different Jesus: They believe Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, created by a Heavenly Father and Mother.
• Additional Scriptures: Along with the Bible, Mormons have other holy books like the Book of Mormon, which they consider to be the word of God.
• Ongoing Revelation: Authority in the Latter-Day Saints church comes from living prophets who can receive new revelations that sometimes change or contradict past teachings, including the Bible.
• A Works-Based Salvation: Mormons believe faith is just the starting point. Salvation requires works, obedience, and special temple rituals to achieve the highest level of heaven after we die.

Key Mormon Beliefs

Now let’s look closer at the specific Mormon beliefs that separate the LDS church from Christianity. The differences start with the most ground-laying question of all: Who is God?

Who Is the Mormon God?

Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a physical body of flesh and bone and was once a mortal man who lived on another planet and progressed to become a god. After becoming God, he then went on to create the world (that we’re on) out of preexisting matter, and populated it with “spirit children” born from sexual relations with his wife.

This idea is often summarized in a famous Mormon phrase: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.” This means faithful Mormons believe they, too, can become gods to rule over their own worlds.

This view of God is fundamentally different, antithetical even, from the God of the Bible. Biblical Christianity teaches that God is an eternal, unchanging spirit. He has always been God and was never a created being.

Here are just a few verses from the Bible about our heavenly Father:

• “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).
• “I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6).
• “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

The Christian God is the one and only eternal Creator, and humanity is his creation. We can be saved by his grace, but we can never become gods ourselves.

Do Mormons Believe in the Bible?

While Mormons do use the Bible, it’s not their only source of authority. In fact, they have four main scriptural texts:

1. The Book of Mormon
2. Doctrines and Covenants
3. The Pearl of Great Price
4. The Bible (King James Version)

The LDS church has an official statement of faith that says, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Notice the distinctions: The Bible is accepted with a condition, but the Book of Mormon is accepted without one. This allows their other scriptures or modern prophets to overrule what the Bible says.

In contrast, Christianity holds that the Bible alone is the complete and sufficient Word of God. It is our final authority for truth, and nothing needs to be added to it (2 Timothy 3:16–17; Revelation 22:18–19).

Do Mormons Believe in the Trinity?

Mormonism rejects the traditional Christian Trinity. Instead, it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and individual beings. They are united in purpose and will, but they are not, in essence, one God.

In contrast, biblical Christianity has always held to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: one God who exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). They are not three gods, but one God.

Who Is Jesus in Mormonism?

This leads us to one of the most critical questions: Who is Jesus in Mormonism? The LDS church teaches that Jesus is the firstborn “spirit child” of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. In this view, all humans, including Jesus and Lucifer (Satan), were created as spirit children in heaven before coming to Earth.

This belief directly contradicts biblical teaching about Jesus. Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is eternally God, the second person of the Trinity. He was not created; he is the Creator—“before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).

1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:1–3).
2. “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible . . . all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:15–17).

In Christianity, Jesus Christ is uniquely divine and eternal, not a created being or the spirit brother of Satan. The difference in who Mormons say Jesus is creates one of the most significant reasons why Mormon beliefs are not Christian.

What Does Mormonism Teach About Salvation?

What do Mormons believe about salvation? Mormonism teaches a works-based path to salvation. While faith in Jesus is a necessary first step, it’s not enough to reach the highest level of heaven, which they call “exaltation” or godhood.

To achieve this, a person must also be baptized into the LDS church, obey its commandments, participate in special temple rituals, and live a life of good deeds. Grace helps people do their part, but ultimate salvation depends on their own efforts and obedience.

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that salvation is a free gift from God that cannot be earned. The Bible is clear that our good works can’t save us.

• “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
• “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1).

In short, Christianity teaches that good works are the result of salvation, not the cause of it.

The Afterlife

The Mormon view of the afterlife is also very different from the biblical one. Mormonism teaches there are three levels of heaven, or “kingdoms of glory”:

1. The Celestial Kingdom: The highest level, reserved for the most faithful Mormons who complete all the required temple ordinances, and where they believe they can become gods.
2. The Terrestrial Kingdom: A middle kingdom for good people who were not faithful Mormons.
3. The Telestial Kingdom: The lowest kingdom for those who lived wickedly.

Mormon theology also includes a temporary “spirit prison” where the dead have a second chance to accept the Mormon gospel. A permanent hell, called “outer darkness,” is reserved only for a very small group known as the “sons of perdition.”

This complex system contrasts sharply with what the Bible teaches. Christianity presents two clear outcomes: heaven or hell. Our eternal destiny is based solely on our relationship with Jesus Christ in this life.

• “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).
• “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36).

Who Holds Authority and Revelation Within Mormonism?

In Mormonism, the ultimate religious authority on Earth is a living prophet—the current president of the LDS church. Mormons believe he receives ongoing revelation directly from God for the entire church. These new revelations can change or even override past teachings and policies.

In contrast, Christianity teaches that God’s final and complete revelation is found in the Bible. The Christian faith was “once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3)—meaning the core truths are settled and will not change. God has spoken fully and finally through Jesus Christ, and no new revelation will contradict what is written in Scripture (Hebrews 1:1–2).

Mormon vs. Christian Beliefs

As we’ve seen, while Mormonism and Christianity use some of the same words, they are built on entirely different foundations that define two separate faiths. For easy comparison, here is a chart comparing Mormon beliefs and Christianity.

A Warning Against “Another Gospel”

Let’s be clear—the differences highlighted above are serious. The apostle Paul gave a strong warning to the early church in Galatians 1:8: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

Paul’s message was plain: any teaching that adds to or changes the simple gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus as the eternal Son of the eternal God is a false gospel.

When you take a step back and look, Mormonism, with its extra scriptures, temple rituals, exaltation, and works-based salvation, presents exactly what Paul warned against—”another gospel.” It’s a message that departs from the one found in the Bible, even if it claims to come from an angelic messenger, as Joseph Smith did. Indeed, this lines up exactly with Paul’s warning!

A Different Jesus and a Different Spirit

Paul also warned about accepting distorted versions of the truth. In 2 Corinthians 11:3–4, he cautioned against those who preach “another Jesus,” a “different spirit,” or a “different gospel.”

This warning directly applies to what Mormons believe.

• Another Jesus: The Mormon Jesus is a created being who progressed to godhood, not the eternal, uncreated, and uniquely divine Son of God.
• A Different Spirit: The Mormon Holy Ghost is a separate being, not the co-equal, third person of the Trinity who is fully God.

Paul’s point is urgent. Accepting a different Jesus or a different spirit—even if they sound similar to the real thing—leads people away from the truth.

How to Respond as Christians to Mormonism

Critiquing Mormonism can feel insensitive. But knowing the truth will equip us to respond compassionately and with clarity. As Christians, our goal isn’t to win arguments but to lovingly point people to the real truth of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Lead with Grace and Truth

The Bible calls us to “have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). This means we must be discerning and hold firm to biblical truth. At the same time, we must speak this truth in love—for there is a heart and soul behind those ears.

Ask Questions, Don’t Attack

Rather than debate, try asking thoughtful and clarifying questions. This shows you care about the person, not just about being right. You might ask:

• Can you tell me more about who you believe Jesus is?
• What does grace mean to you in your faith?

Focus the conversation on the most important things: Jesus’s true identity as eternal God, his finished work on the cross for our salvation, and the established authority of Scripture.

Pray and Be Patient

And remember, it’s ultimately not our clever arguments that change hearts—it’s the Holy Spirit. God’s power, not ours, brings the dead to life. Pray before, during, and after your conversations, asking God to open doors and grant wisdom.

Building relationships and sharing your faith can take time. It’s often a long journey of patience and prayer. Your calling is to be a faithful friend who reflects Christ’s love—kindness and consistency will often speak louder than any words you say.

The post Are Mormons Christians? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

How Long Did People Live in the Bible?

To understand the longevity of biblical figures, we must first examine the scriptural accounts of their lifespans. The Bible provides detailed information about the ages of early humans, particularly in the book of Genesis.

Genesis 5 and the Ages of the Patriarchs

Genesis 5 presents a genealogy of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah, recording remarkably long lifespans. For example:

• Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5)
• Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8)
• Methuselah, the longest-lived person in the Bible, lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27)

Interestingly, Genesis 5 adds the phrase “and then he died” at the end of each patriarch’s record. This repetition serves a significant purpose: It demonstrates the fulfillment of God’s warning to Adam that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death (Genesis 2:17). While Adam and his descendants did not die immediately upon sinning, their mortality was established, and death became an inevitable part of human existence.

Old Testament Lifespans After the Flood

A notable shift occurs in human lifespans after the Noahic flood. Genesis 11 records a gradual decline in the ages of the patriarchs:

• Shem (Noah’s son) lived 600 years (Genesis 11:10–11)
• Arphaxad lived 438 years (Genesis 11:12–13)
• Peleg lived 239 years (Genesis 11:18–19)
• Abraham lived 175 years (Genesis 25:7)
• Moses lived 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7)

This decline aligns with God’s declaration in Genesis 6:3: “Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.'” This statement has been interpreted in two ways:

• As a limit on human lifespan to 120 years
• As a 120-year warning period before the flood

Regardless of the interpretation, the biblical record clearly shows a significant reduction in human lifespans following the flood.

New Testament Lifespans

By the time of the New Testament, human lifespans had further decreased to lengths more familiar to us today. While specific ages are not always mentioned, we can infer that most individuals lived between 60–80 years, similar to modern life expectancies in developed countries.

Jesus himself, in his earthly ministry, lived to be about 33 years old. The apostle Paul, though his exact age at death is unknown, likely lived to be around 60–65 years old based on historical records and biblical chronology.

How Did People Live So Long in the Bible?

The assertion that humans once lived for hundreds of years may seem implausible to many. However, recent advances in the field of biogerontology (the study of biological mechanisms of aging) have provided intriguing insights that lend credibility to the biblical accounts. Let’s explore some scientific explanations for how people in the Bible might have lived so long.

Protection Against Reactive Oxygen Species

Think of reactive oxygen species (ROS) like tiny sparks in a machine. During normal activity, these sparks occasionally fly out, and over time, they start to wear down the parts—damaging the machine’s wires, gears, and fuel lines. Similarly, ROS, which are unstable molecules, are produced as part of our cells’ regular metabolism. These molecules can harm vital components like DNA, proteins, and fats, which contribute to the aging process as the damage builds up over time.

Thankfully, our bodies have their own built-in “fire extinguishers”—protective enzymes like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase—that help keep ROS damage in check. Studies have shown that by increasing these protective enzymes in laboratory animals, scientists can extend their lifespan by up to 40%.

This discovery suggests a potential explanation for biblical longevity. God could have designed early humans with enhanced expression of these protective enzymes that allowed them to live for hundreds of years. Later, he could have altered this expression to gradually reduce human lifespans.

Caloric Restriction

Another well-documented approach to extending lifespan is caloric restriction. Studies have shown that reducing calorie intake by 30–70% can increase lifespan by up to 40% in various organisms, from yeast to mammals.

The mechanism behind this phenomenon involves an enzyme called Sir2, which is activated when cellular energy levels drop. Sir2 helps silence certain genes within chromosomes, reducing wear and tear on DNA and thereby extending lifespan.

It’s possible that the diet and lifestyle of early biblical figures naturally aligned with the principles of caloric restriction, contributing to their longevity. Alternatively, God could have designed their metabolism to mimic the effects of caloric restriction without requiring a severely restricted diet.

Altered Telomerase Activity

Telomeres, the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes, play a crucial role in aging. As cells divide, telomeres naturally shorten, eventually leading to cellular deterioration and contributing to the aging process.

An enzyme called telomerase can counteract this shortening by adding DNA sequences to the ends of telomeres. Some researchers believe that manipulating telomerase activity could potentially halt or even reverse aging.

In the context of biblical longevity, God could have designed early humans with enhanced telomerase activity, allowing for much slower telomere shortening and, consequently, longer lifespans. The gradual reduction in lifespans after the flood could be explained by a divinely orchestrated decrease in telomerase activity over generations.

Changed Radiation Levels Reaching Earth

Cosmic radiation is a significant factor limiting human lifespan. Interestingly, the levels of cosmic radiation reaching Earth have not been constant throughout history. A major source of deadly cosmic radiation affecting Earth today is the Vela supernova, which occurred approximately 20,000–30,000 years ago.

Before this event, Earth was exposed to much lower levels of cosmic radiation. Under these conditions, lifespans of up to 900 years might have been more feasible. The increased radiation following the Vela supernova could have contributed to the gradual decrease in human lifespans recorded in the Bible.

The scientific understanding gained from these four advances aligns with the biblical narrative and suggests that environmental factors, possibly altered by God, played a role in the changing lifespans of humans throughout history.

Lifespans in the Bible: Frequently Asked Questions

How Did Adam Live 930 Years?

Adam’s extraordinary lifespan can be attributed to a combination of factors discussed earlier. As the first human created directly by God, Adam likely possessed optimal genetic makeup, enhanced protection against cellular damage, and possibly more efficient metabolic processes. Additionally, the pre-flood environment may have been more conducive to longevity, with lower levels of cosmic radiation and potentially other beneficial factors not fully understood today.

Who Lived 900 Years in the Bible?

Several individuals in the Bible are recorded as living around 900 years or more:

• Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5)
• Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8)
• Enos lived 905 years (Genesis 5:11)
• Cainan lived 910 years (Genesis 5:14)
• Jared lived 962 years (Genesis 5:20)
• Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27)

These exceptionally long lifespans are primarily found in the pre-flood genealogies of Genesis 5.

How Did Methuselah Live So Long?

Methuselah, who lived 969 years, holds the record for the longest lifespan in the Bible. His longevity can be explained by the same factors that allowed other pre-flood patriarchs to live for centuries. These may include enhanced cellular protection mechanisms, optimal genetic expression, and a more favorable environment. Additionally, as the grandfather of Noah, Methuselah’s exceptional lifespan may have served a specific purpose in God’s plan, allowing him to pass down crucial knowledge and wisdom to future generations.

How Long Did Noah Live?

Noah lived for 950 years (Genesis 9:29). He was 600 years old when the flood began (Genesis 7:6) and lived for 350 years after the flood. Noah’s lifespan bridges the pre-flood and post-flood eras, demonstrating the gradual decline in human longevity that followed the flood.

How Long Did Moses Live?

Moses lived for 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7). His lifespan is significant because it aligns with God’s declaration in Genesis 6:3 that human lifespans would be limited to 120 years. Moses’s age at death serves as a benchmark for the new “normal” human lifespan in the post-flood era.

God’s Purpose for Long Lives in the Bible

The extraordinary lifespans recorded in the early chapters of Genesis serve several important purposes in God’s plan for humanity. Understanding these purposes can help us appreciate the wisdom behind God’s design for human longevity.

Rapid Development of Human Civilization

Long lifespans in the early stages of human origins facilitated the rapid development of technology and civilization. Living for 900 years would have given individuals ample time to make discoveries, develop and refine technologies, and pass on their accumulated knowledge to subsequent generations. This accelerated progress allowed human civilization to advance dramatically in relatively few generations.

Preservation and Transmission of Knowledge

The longevity of early biblical figures ensured that important knowledge, including the account of creation and humanity’s early history, could be preserved and transmitted accurately.

Demonstration of God’s Provision and Blessing

Humans’ long lifespans reflect God’s abundant provision and blessing. In the perfect environment of Eden and the still-favorable conditions of the pre-flood world, humans could experience a quality and duration of life that demonstrated God’s goodness and care for his creation.

Limiting the Spread of Wickedness

The subsequent reduction in human lifespans after the flood served an important purpose in God’s plan. As human wickedness increased, shorter lifespans helped limit the spread and impact of evil. An exceptionally wicked person living for 900 years could cause immense harm and corruption. By reducing lifespans to around 120 years, God mercifully limited the potential for evil to dominate society, ensuring that righteousness would always have a presence in the world.

Emphasizing Human Mortality and Need for Salvation

The gradual decrease in lifespans throughout biblical history serves as a poignant reminder of human mortality and the consequences of sin. This decline emphasizes humanity’s need for salvation and eternal life through Christ. Rather than an extended earthly existence, humans can look to the promise of eternal life in God’s presence.

Conclusion: Bridging Science and Scripture

The question of how people in the Bible lived so long presents a fascinating intersection of scientific inquiry and biblical interpretation. While the lifespans recorded in Genesis may seem implausible at first glance, advances in our understanding of aging processes and environmental factors provide plausible explanations for these extraordinary ages.

Moreover, the purpose behind these long lifespans reveals God’s wisdom in designing human history. From facilitating rapid technological and cultural development to preserving crucial knowledge and demonstrating divine provision, the longevity of early biblical figures played a vital role in God’s plan for humanity.

As we continue to explore the mysteries of aging and longevity, we can appreciate how scientific discoveries often align with and illuminate biblical accounts. This harmony between science and Scripture reminds us that true knowledge, whether derived from nature or revelation, ultimately points to the same Creator.

The post How Did People in the Bible Live So Long? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But does science affirm that life begins at conception? Or is this a matter of personal belief? How do we connect scientific views with what the Bible says about when a new life starts?

Let’s explore these questions with an open mind, seeking to understand when life begins and what it means for people in our world today. We’ll examine scientific definitions, biological facts, and biblical insights into the time when a new human being begins and what these views mean for both faith and science.

When Does Life Begin According to Science?

Science confirms that human life begins at conception—the moment when sperm and egg fuse to form a zygote. From that instant, a genetically unique human being comes into existence, complete with distinct DNA.

This process, called fertilization, is widely recognized as the starting point of human life. In fact, 96% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization, making it the prevailing scientific perspective.

This shared view among scientists is echoed by many OB/GYN physicians who advocate for recognizing the zygote as a new human life from conception. They affirm that the fertilized human egg has all the necessary genetic parts that define a new individual human life. Let’s track that journey from fertilization to birth.

Human Development Journey

From the point of conception, the zygote goes through the development journey to become a fully formed human. Here are some of the major milestones:

Watch the following video to see the journey every human takes from fertilization to birth:

When Does Life Begin Medically?

Dual Patient Approach

The medical field considers both science and ethical responsibility when addressing the question of when life begins. Many medical professionals recognize the pregnant mother and her unborn baby as two distinct patients, highlighting the view of the unborn as a unique individual. This is known as the dual patient approach.

If a concern arises, medical staff are ethically required to consider the health and life of both human beings, both collectively and independently. This dual patient approach by the medical field supports the understanding that all human life begins at conception and each life is important.

What Does the Bible Say About When Life Begins?

According to the Bible, the question of when life begins is answered by considering teachings and principles found in Scripture. Psalm 139:13–16 artfully suggests that life begins in the womb, likely at conception. There, God is intimately involved in creating a person. The Bible affirms that he:

and

This Psalm not only stresses the sanctity of life from its earliest stages but also demonstrates remarkable scientific accuracy that matches well with what science tells us about human development.

Scientific and Scriptural Insights

Further support for the biblical viewpoint stems from studies about the placenta showing the extraordinary design and function needed to support new life. This research showcases what many see as the work of a Creator to protect and nourish an early, distinct life. Consequently, the placenta’s design argues against the idea that a fetus is “just a parasite.”

Instead, it shows the important relationship needed for growth and health. Plus, new findings in neuroscience reveal changes in a woman’s brain during pregnancy, spotlighting the profound biological and emotional changes that happen while caring for new life.

Some people use Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam, to say life begins with the first breath. But this idea doesn’t align with the full scriptural context.

Instead consider the similarity between Adam’s creation and yours when you were in the womb—God intricately created both up to the point of their first breath. In Luke 1, we read phrases like “the baby leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb,” and “the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” These expressions make it clear that what’s in the womb is a human life and there’s no indication that life doesn’t begin until that first breath is drawn.

Addressing Common Objections

When addressing common arguments against the pro-life view, such as why spontaneous abortions occur and the idea that Christians are only pro-birth and not pro-life, it’s important to think about these concerns carefully.

Understanding these sensitive topics will help us to have compassionate and informed conversations, based on both faith and facts.

Especially when we want to make a biblical case against abortion.

This approach honors the Bible’s view of when life begins and invites a deeper appreciation for the amazing scientific process that happens from conception to birth.

When Does “Personhood” Begin?

The debate over when “personhood” begins is a pivotal, often heated topic in discussions about human life. Many pro-choice supporters acknowledge that a human embryo or fetus is a human being, but they argue it is not the same as a human person.

This issue brings up two essential questions: What exactly defines a “person”? and Who decides the criteria for personhood? These questions show how unclear and arbitrary it can be to separate being a person from just being a human.

The Christian View of Personhood

From a Christian point of view, personhood starts at conception. At this point, a human being is, by definition, endowed with the image of God. This concept is known as the imago Dei. It affirms that every human, from the moment their history is set in motion, is a person because they bear this divine image which gives them inherent dignity and worth.

Challenges with Sentience and Self-Awareness

Critics often argue that attributes such as sentience (the ability to experience feelings and sensations) or self-awareness (consciousness) should define personhood. But these ideas often cause more problems.

• The capacity to feel or perceive is difficult to measure and varies widely among individuals.

• Likewise, self-awareness is a trait that develops over time and is not present at birth.

The lack of measurable standards for sentience or self-awareness leads to the question: Why should these characteristics serve as the benchmarks for personhood?

Such traits are not only arbitrary but can leave out individuals who are in certain developmental stages, such as infants or those with cognitive impairments.

Developmental Milestones and Personhood

Developmental milestones like a heartbeat, brain activity, or the ability to live outside the womb are sometimes used as markers of personhood. However, these are just stages of growth and don’t fully encase what it means to be a person. From a Christian viewpoint, personhood is linked to identity as image bearers of God, not on mere capacity for bodily function.

The Importance of Language in Human Value Discussions

The importance of using clear, precise language when talking about human value can’t be overstated. How we define “human” and “person” shapes our ethical and moral views about life and how we protect it. In the biblical worldview, every life is sacred from conception—a position that supports arguments against abortion by highlighting the value inherent to all human beings.

We encourage everyone to think about the language they use when discussing early human life. Important meanings and moral responsibilities arise from words and definitions.

Takeaway

The question of when human life begins according to science and the Bible is often deeply debated but should be likewise deeply researched and considered. Our minds should be open to facts and our hearts willing to reflect on something more than just ourselves and on what it means to be human.

People from all worldviews and backgrounds have thought about when a new human being begins. The majority agree that life starts at conception—not at 8 weeks or 24 weeks, and not at birth, but when the new human DNA is created.

There’s great support for the belief that life begins at fertilization, which in turn has important ethical and moral implications. It makes us think about the value of life from the very start and the need to care for and protect it, even before that life takes its first breath.

When we consider the evidence for when human life begins, we step into a profound truth—life is not an accident, it’s a purposeful gift. Science and Scripture together affirm that every human being is wonderfully made, intentionally created, and endowed with purpose from the very beginning.

The post When Does Human Life Begin? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?”—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. 
—Deuteronomy 18:20–22, ESV

What is a prophet?

I imagine that when asked this question, most people conjure up an image of a mysterious old man wearing a cloak who foretells future events. I also doubt that anyone would think that scientists wearing white lab coats would qualify as prophets, but in many respects they do. 

“How so?” you might ask.

The connection between biblical prophecy and science becomes more apparent when we examine how both prophets and scientists serve as arbiters of truth.

Biblical Prophets 
The biblical role of a prophet is more expansive than just functioning as a seer. It’s true that biblical prophets did foretell future events but, first and foremost, they spoke on behalf of God, admonishing and encouraging his people. In the Old Testament, prophets brought God’s Word to Israel and exhorted the Israelites to conform their lives to his will. 

But how were the people to know if a prophet truly spoke for God? They were instructed to test the prophet’s words and prognostications. If they didn’t match Scripture or come to pass, the prophet was considered a false prophet. But, if the prophet’s proclamations came to be, then he truly was God’s mouthpiece. 

Prophecies were also part of the early church and the idea of testing appears in the New Testament. Both the apostles Paul and John encouraged those in the early church to not just test prophecy (1 Thessalonians 5:20–22), but also scriptural teachings (Acts 17:11), and the spirits (1 John 4:1). 

In other words, testing serves an indispensable role for people of faith as they seek to discern truth.

Prophecy and Science
So, what’s the connection between biblical prophecy and science? Some scholars argue that the biblical ideal of testing influenced the development of the scientific method, contributing to the birth and flourishing of modern science in “Christianized” Western Europe. Others claim that the origin of the scientific method has a richer and more varied history that arose independent of Christian influences. Perhaps. Regardless, the biblical practice of validating spiritual claims through testing reflects the heart of the scientific enterprise and provides an important bridge between Christian faith practices and science. The biblical call to test spiritual claims aligns with the approach scientists use to evaluate scientific proposals about how the world works.

To understand the world and its processes, scientists formulate hypotheses, theories, and models. (I’m going to treat these as roughly synonymous terms.) Scientific proposals have consequences that lead to predictions about future scientific observations and experimental findings. If the predictions that flow from a scientific hypothesis, theory, or model are satisfied by future scientific insights, then the scientific claims associated with the model are regarded as valid. If not, then the theory is either discarded as false or revised to accommodate the new insights. 

Scientific Predictions
While the biblical prophets’ predictions focused only on future events, scientific predictions can be made retrospectively. The predictions that flow out of scientific hypotheses, theories, and models are logical entailments and consequences of these scientific ideas. This means that some scientific predictions—retrodictions, if you will—can be evaluated immediately, as soon as scientists advance their proposal based on what we already know. Testing doesn’t need to wait for future scientific investigations. 

Another way scientists refer to successful retrodictions is to say that a hypothesis, theory, or model accounts for the information we already know, or it explains the available data. So, when scientists make these types of statements, they are really saying that the theory makes successful retrodictions. 

Scientists as Prophets
Unlike biblical prophets who are labeled false prophets—and put to death—if their predictions aren’t realized, scientists celebrate when the predictions associated with scientific proposals come up short. Scientists are even applauded if they provide the means to overturn their own ideas. Ideally, scientists’ chief objective is to falsify their own models and invite others to do the same. If they can’t falsify the predictions that flow out of their model, it indicates that their theory has scientific merit.

Scientists prize failed predictions. These failures help scientists to abandon flawed ideas or force them to revise and refine those models showing promise. Each time, the scientific community moves a little closer to understanding the truth about the world. Those scientific proposals that withstand the rigors of testing (or those that can be salvaged by revising them) are regarded as approximating reality. Each iteration of scientific testing moves them closer to a truer understanding of the world. 

Science serves as a tool to discover truth, with scientific predictions functioning as a barometer for the credibility of scientific ideas. Likewise, testing the words of a prophet becomes the means available to Bible believers to determine if proclamations made on behalf of God are to be trusted. Again, testing becomes the means to uncover truth. When both spiritual and scientific claims are made, believers and scientists alike have an obligation to test them. It is unacceptable to receive either prophecy or scientific ideas on faith alone. 

The difference between established scientific and spiritual truths is that the former are discovered, and the latter are revealed. This means that scientifically discovered truths are provisional. On the other hand, confirmed spiritual truths are unchanging.

The Creation Accounts as a Type of “Biblical Prophecy”
The Old and New Testaments contain passages that speak about God’s work as Creator. Few theological experts would regard these passages as prophetic. The primary purpose of the creation passages is theological, declaring that God the Redeemer is also God the Creator, the maker of all things in the heavens and on the earth. Everything we see is his handiwork and has been made as he intended. A subset of these passages teaches that God made us, too, as human beings. We were made to bear his image, which grounds our unique relationship with God. 

So, while communicating theological truths, the creation accounts also give glimpses into the origin, history, and features of the universe, earth, life, and humanity. Today, questions of origins also fall into the domain of modern-day science. Scientists actively investigate questions about the origin, history, and features of the cosmos, our solar system, our planet, life, and humanity. Along the way, they propose hypotheses, theories, and models about each of these aspects of nature.

Because of the overlap between the creation accounts and the interests of many in the scientific community, it’s feasible to test the creation accounts in the same way that we would test scientific ideas. That is, are they credible in light of modern science? Yet, a growing number of scholars and laypeople alike question if the creation accounts have any connection to the discoveries of modern science. They often argue that the creation accounts were written in a prescientific age, with the author and the immediate audience possessing no inkling about the modern-day insights we possess, thanks to science. Accordingly, if anything, the creation accounts reflect the erroneous “science” of the ancient Near East (ANE). The Bible’s creation accounts, they assert, were shaped by ANE mythology and share much in common with these myths. If so, they are mythical, devoid of any historical or scientific content. Instead, they merely communicate theological truths. 

This perspective leaves little room for the divine inspiration of the biblical texts. What if the biblical authors who wrote the creation accounts were, indeed, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t it make sense that these passages were written in a way that would have been accessible to the original audience? Wouldn’t the texts describe the world in terms they could apprehend, yet, at the same time, convey historical and scientific concepts and ideas in ways that are true and that anticipate future scientific discoveries? 

If so, then it’s proper to regard the creation accounts as prescient, maybe even prophetic.

These claims about the creation passages may make some uncomfortable. Most people understand biblical prophecy to be centered around foretelling Israel’s future and the coming of the Messiah. Accordingly, some of these prophecies have already been fulfilled, and some have been partially fulfilled. Others have yet to be fulfilled. Because many prophecies have successfully transpired, Christians confidently trust that those unfulfilled prophecies will soon come to pass. 

A special group of prophecies have double fulfillment, meaning that they successfully foretell events close to the time the prophecy was delivered by the prophet and also anticipate events much further in the future. The idea that some prophecies will be fulfilled twice provides the basis to think that the creation accounts have a prophetic (already/not yet) nature to them—foretelling future scientific discoveries while communicating theological truths to the original audience. The creation accounts communicated to their original audience in terms they would understand, while at the same time they communicate to us today in terms that we understand.

Just as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy gives us confidence in Scripture and inspires hope that unfulfilled prophecies will soon transpire, testing the creation accounts for their scientific validity also has the potential to elevate our confidence in Scripture. This is especially so because of the foundational role that the creation accounts serve in the story that unfolds in the Bible.

The prophetic aspects of the creation accounts function as the undergirding for the creation model approach we use at Reasons to Believe. Through this approach, we put our understanding of the creation accounts in harm’s way by seeking to determine if they can withstand the ongoing scrutiny of scientific testing.

Our creation model is a scientific theory for biblical creation. It operates as a bona fide scientific model, replete with predictions about scientific discoveries.

The Creation Model Approach
Our creation model bridges biblical hermeneutics and the scientific method. To build our model, we:

• collate all creation accounts and passages that describe God’s creative works
• interpret each of these scriptural passages in their immediate context using sound exegetical techniques
• check our interpretations against interpretations of other relevant passages, spiraling toward a consistent reading of the collected passages
• integrate the passages into a comprehensive and coherent description of God’s creative acts
• recast this description in the form of a scientific model,
• and from this model develop predictions about what scientists should discover

While the biblical texts constrain our model and define its framework, as is true for any scientific model, considerable freedom exists to adjust and fine-tune our model as scientists and theologians make new discoveries about nature and gain new insights on Scripture. Our creation model is dynamic, like any other scientific model. We also recognize that for some biblical passages, a range of valid interpretations exists. These possibilities mean that there can be variants of our creation model.

Yet, our model does have constraints. Out of those constraints arise core, inviolable predictions. Like biblical prophecy, these predictions are nonnegotiable and must be fulfilled for any reasonable version of our model to be valid. If any of these core predictions fail, then our model is invalid. In this sense, the core predictions of our creation model—predictions that arise out of a robust interpretation of the creation passages found in Scripture—are like the predictions associated with biblical prophecy. It is all or nothing.

To date, none of the core predictions of our creation model have been falsified. In fact, many of these predictions have been satisfied in spectacular fashion, producing a confidence in the scientific integrity of the biblical creation accounts.

Some Key Biblical Predictions Satisfied by Scientific Advance
To illustrate this testing process, I’ve included 12 key predictions of our creation model. These predictions have survived the gauntlet of scientific testing.

The universe has a beginning. Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 teach that the creation had a beginning, formed at God’s command. This scriptural claim finds support in big bang cosmology and the discovery that the universe had a beginning about 13.8 billion years ago.

Time has a beginning. According to 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2, God’s plan for redemption was put in place before time began. The biblical notion that time has a beginning finds fulfillment in the space-time theorems of general relativity, which indicate that time had a beginning that coincides with the beginning of matter, energy, and space.

The laws of nature are constant. Jeremiah 33:19-26 describes the unwavering regularity of natural processes. This regularity implies that there’s a constancy to the laws of nature, an idea that is a key assumption of modern science. This assumption has been borne out by countless observations and is an integral part of the theory of relativity.

The universe undergoes decay. Romans 8:20 teaches that the creation has been subjected to decay. This aspect of biblical cosmology anticipates the discovery of the second law of thermodynamics, and the idea that the universe continues to inexorably experience an increase in its entropy.

The universe has been designed for life. Romans 1:20 teaches that we should expect to see evidence for God’s fingerprints in nature. We also learn from Psalm 19, for example, that the heavens declare God’s glory. These concepts have been affirmed by the discovery of the cosmological anthropic principle—the idea that the constants and numerical parameters that define the universe must assume exacting values for life to exist. If even one of these numerical values deviates from its current value—in some cases, imperceptibly—life simply couldn’t exist in the universe. The fine-tuning of the constants of physics reveals the design of the universe for a purpose—the advent of life.

The earth has been designed to harbor life. According to Isaiah 45:18, the Creator intended Earth to be filled with life. Astronomers have learned that hundreds of features of Earth, the Moon, Sun, solar system, and the Milky Way Galaxy must be just-right for Earth to be a life support planet. The likelihood of all these just-right features coinciding is so remote that it appears as if Earth is rare, perhaps unique, in its capacity to support life—an idea called the Rare Earth Hypothesis. The just-right conditions needed for life implies that Earth was designed so that it could be filled with life.

Earth began as a water world with continents appearing much later. Genesis 1:2 describes Earth in its primordial state. As part of this description, Earth is depicted as a water world. The Genesis 1 text doesn’t describe the appearance of land until the third creation day. Planetary scientists now recognize that Earth’s entire surface was covered with oceans in its early history and that continents appeared about 1 billion years after Earth formed.

The early conditions of Earth were desolate. Genesis 1:2 also teaches that the earth was formless and empty. In the original Hebrew, this expression implies that early Earth was a desolate wasteland. Planetary scientists have discovered that early Earth was pummeled by impactors that would have rendered the planet a magma ocean—a place of desolation that would be inhospitable to life.

Animal life in the oceans appeared after continents formed. In the Genesis 1 creation account, animal life in the oceans wasn’t created until the fifth day, after the creation of land. Paleontologists have discovered that animal life didn’t appear in the earth’s oceans until around 540 million years ago, after continents had formed.

Humans and animals share biological similarities. Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19, which teach that both humans and animals were made from the dust of the earth, implies that humans and other animals should have similar biological makeup. These passages anticipate the anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarity that anthropologists have discovered for humans and chimpanzees.

Humanity started from an original pair. Genesis 2 teaches that humanity started from two people created by God. While current population estimates suggest that humanity began from a population of several thousand individuals, not two, this prediction of our model hasn’t been falsified. These population numbers are time-average values, meaning that even though the average population for humanity may have been a few thousand people within the time window corresponding to humanity’s first appearance on Earth, there could easily be points of time—say, at the beginning of the time window—when humanity’s population was two and then rapidly increased in number as implied by Genesis 1–11.

Human beings are unique and exceptional. Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. This concept aligns with a growing recognition among anthropologists that humans are exceptional.

This list is by no means complete. There are many more features and predictions of our creation model—and there will be more to come as we continue to develop our model. Yet this sampling should be sufficient to illustrate how the creation accounts in Scripture can be reformulated into a scientific model. The core predictions presented here are logical entailments of our model, flowing naturally from the teachings of Scripture. These predictions have been satisfied, meeting both the criteria of biblical prophecy and science.

The fulfilled predictions of our creation model, like the fulfilled predictions of a biblical prophet, gives us confidence that Scripture is indeed God’s Word to us.

Resources

• More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation by Hugh Ross (book)

• Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (book)
• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)

The post Are Scientific Predictions Like Biblical Prophecy? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

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.

However, as fallen sinners human beings channel their love and worship away from God and toward other things. So while creation makes humans lovers and worshipers, our fallen condition makes us idolaters. 

The apostle Paul describes that fallen and idolatrous human condition in his letter to the Romans: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:21). 

St. Augustine (354–430) described these sins as reflecting “disordered loves.” Fallen human beings love temporal things more, and eternal things less, which leads to a deep-seated discontentment and unfulfillment in life. These disordered loves, in turn, disrupt the natural order of people’s lives. Augustine and the Protestant reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546) described the sinful condition as incurvatus in se—Latin for the person being “curved in on himself” rather than outward toward God as intended in creation.

Three Common Disordered Loves¹
The deep irony of the fallen condition is that the sin one often commits is actually the misuse of things that are in and of themselves good. Let’s consider three such sins of disorder and their virtuous biblical counterparts.²

The sin of gluttony can be described as the excessive love or overindulgence or lack of self-restraint when it comes to food and drink. Of course, food and drink are good, necessary, and enjoyable things. So gluttony is the misuse of the good. 

The contrasting biblical virtue is temperance or self-control. In the context of sexual immorality, the apostle Paul’s general injunction can apply: “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies” (1Corinthians 6:19–20).

The sin of greed or avarice is the excessive love or concern for money. It is seen as a common vice of the sinful nature and is compared to idolatry (Colossians 3:5–10). The apostle Paul states: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10). 

The contrasting biblical virtue is generosity. Jesus teaches that God is generous in giving us his grace, mercy, and love. God promises to provide for his children’s needs and we should also be generous in our giving in return (Matthew 6:19–34). The author of the book of Hebrews states: “And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Hebrews 13:16).

The sin of lust is described as a strong craving or inordinate desire or love for sexual relations. While sex is also a good thing, lust and sexually immoral actions spoil God’s good intended plan for sex. Lust begins as a thought in a person’s mind, but, as Christian thinker David Naugle notes: “Adultery is the offspring of lust.”³ And as Jesus warned: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). 

The contrasting biblical virtue is sexual purity. Paul says: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:3–5).

The perverse nature of sin is that it isn’t just doing bad things but also misusing good things. Thus, the sinful condition is reflected in disordered loves or affections.

Grace: Unmerited Favor and Power
If you feel convicted by the content of this article, recognize that as the writer I do as well. As a Christian teacher, I never talk about human sin without also talking about God’s grace. Sin disorders our lives and separates us from God. But God’s saving grace in Christ reconciles us back to God and motivates and empowers us to live a godly life.

Here’s what the apostle Paul reveals about God’s saving grace in our Savior Jesus Christ:

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone. (Titus 3:4–8)

Here’s the Scriptural pattern of salvation:⁴

• Saved by grace
• Through faith
• In Christ 
• Not by works
• Saving grace motivates good works

Takeaway
As divine image bearers we were initially created with the end or goal of loving and worshiping our holy and benevolent Creator. However, our common fallenness before God has led to the catastrophe of becoming idolaters who are now separated from him. That fallen and disordered state often causes us to misuse the temporal and finite good things in our lives—food, money, and sex.

But the good news of the gospel is that we have been rescued from our sins by the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross and that God’s grace through the Holy Spirit has begun the sanctifying process of reordering our moral lives.

Be encouraged by what Paul states in Ephesians 2:4–5: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.”

Resources

• Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace

• David K. Naugle, Reordered Love, Reordered Lives: Learning the Deep Meaning of Happiness

• Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas, chapters 9 and 10

Endnotes

1. For a discussion of divine grace and human sin as disordered loves, see Kenneth Samples, “God’s Grace Is Greater Than the Seven Deadly Sins.”

2. Concerning the sins of gluttony, greed, and lust, see David K. Naugle, Reordered Love, Reordered Lives: Learning the Deep Meaning of Happiness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 72–77.

3. Naugle, Reordered Love, 65.

4. For a discussion of salvation by grace and living the Christian life of sanctification, see Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989).

The post Sin as a Disorder of the Good appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Before I discuss what are known as the seven deadly sins, I’ll begin with a brief discussion of salvation as a gift of God.

Salvation by Grace
The apostle Paul reveals to us the good news: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:4–5)

I hope these words never get old for you. God, the creator of all things, saved us in and through our redeemer Jesus Christ. And this salvation came while we were spiritually dead and at enmity with God. Yet it was motivated by God’s great love and rich mercy. Theologians refer to this gracious act on God’s part as justification.

Concerning the gospel of grace theologian Anthony Hoekema reminds us that “one of Paul’s strongest emphases is that no one can earn eternal life by his or her good deeds.”¹ Salvation is never something we deserve and it cannot be earned by our spiritual and moral efforts. It is a gift of God’s goodness and kindness—not merited by our works. 

The apostle Paul makes the contrast between grace and works clear: “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” (Romans 11:6)

Consider this formula:

Grace = Unmerited Favor

• Merit = Earned
• Grace = Gift
• Therefore, merit contradicts grace in terms of salvation. (In the process of sanctification we cooperate with God’s grace but not in justification.)

Hoekema continues: “The idea that one can ‘merit an increase of grace’ would seem to be a contradiction in terms. For if something is of grace, how can it be merited? And if it is merited, how can it still be grace? Further, the teaching that one can merit everlasting life is clearly contrary to Scripture.”²                           

The apostle Paul summarizes how we should think of grace, faith, and works in the salvation that comes to us from God. It’s comforting to know that all three members of the Trinity are involved in our salvation.

“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.” (Titus 3:4–8)

In the scriptural pattern of salvation, we are:

• saved by grace
• through faith
• in Christ 
• not by works
• and saving grace motivates good works

Motivation for Living the Christian Life
Not only are we saved by grace but we should also seek to live the daily Christian life by grace. We rely on the Holy Spirit to produce his fruit in our lives, including the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22–23). The Spirit’s work in sanctification is consistent with our own effort to conform to godliness. Theologians Anthony Hoekema and John Jefferson Davis emphasize the Spirit’s role in the process of sanctification:

“The Christian life is now to be lived, not first of all in obedience to a set of rules (though the rules of God are still important guidelines for Christians), but in the strength of the Holy Spirit.”³

“In this view, the state of holiness begins with regeneration and conversion, and is to grow throughout the believer’s life through the ministry of the Word and the Spirit and through personal faith and obedience. In this understanding, the old sin nature is progressively subdued, but never entirely abolished in this life.”⁴

For as our Lord stated: “Then he [Jesus] said to them all: ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.’” (Luke 9:23)

Despite the good news of what God has done for us in salvation, we can be swamped by doubts due to our ongoing struggle with sin. What do we do when some sins seem too difficult to overcome and even deadly? 

The Seven Deadly Sins
The so-called seven deadly sins are not found as a specific list in Scripture. But all seven are mentioned in the Bible as sins first against God but also against our neighbor and even against ourselves. Christian thinker David Naugle tells of their origin:

“The list of the seven deadly sins was originally formulated to protect monks and nuns from misbehavior in monasteries and nunneries. Yet it was quickly apparent that they applied to regular people in everyday life whether they were in religious orders or not. Sin is no respecter of persons.”⁵

Here are the seven deadly sins listed alphabetically:  

1. anger (or wrath)

2. envy

3. gluttony

4. greed (or avarice)

5. lust

6. pride

7. sloth (or lack of affection)

These sins present a tangle of vice. Naugle describes how they’re interconnected: “The seven deadlies are causes, other sins their effects. Murder, for example, is anger’s son. Theft is the daughter of greed. Adultery is the offspring of lust.”⁶

Naugle uses St. Augustine’s description of these sins as reflecting “disordered loves.” As fallen human beings we love temporal things more, and eternal things less, which leads to a deep-seated discontentment. These disordered loves then, in turn, disorder our lives. Augustine and the reformer Martin Luther described the sinful condition as incurvatus in se—Latin for the person “curved in on himself” rather than outward toward God.

Building on the idea of sin as disordered loves, theologian Michael Reeves describes the broken condition of human beings after the fall: “Lovers we remain, but twisted, our love misdirected and perverted. Created to love God, we turn to love ourselves and anything but God.”⁷

In his classic text Confessions, St. Augustine writes about his own disordered life, which mirrors our own: “But my sin was this, that I looked for pleasure, beauty, and truth not in him but in myself and his other creatures, and the search led me instead to pain, confusion, and error.”⁸

Human beings pay a heavy existential price for these twisted affections. Naugle again provides helpful connections on the seven deadly sins: “Pride, envy, and anger flow from an obsession with the self. Avarice [greed], gluttony, and lust originate in excessive love for money, food, and sex. Since these things rank high in our hearts, love for God ranks low, and this deficiency of affection for him is called sloth.”⁹            

During times of doubt over our disordered lives, that’s when we need to cling to what we know is true about God. The words “when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” are our assurance of God’s good favor to us.

Takeaway
The biblical concept of a fallen humanity possesses significant explanatory power. And if the Bible can explain the enigma of the human condition, then there is good reason to believe it is a true revelation from God. 

Yet in light of the seven deadly sins and their power to disorder our lives, let me remind you that as a believer in Christ, you are saved by grace. And that saving grace motivates the believer to pursue virtue, which is its fruit instead of its root. 

Resources

• Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace
• David K. Naugle, Reordered Love, Reordered Lives: Learning the Deep Meaning of Happiness
• Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas, chapters 9 and 10

Endnotes

1. Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved By Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 165.

2. Hoekema, 166.

3. Hoekema, 44.

4. John Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts: Every Key Passage for the Study of Doctrine & Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 94.

5. David K. Naugle, Reordered Love, Reordered Lives: Learning the Deep Meaning of Happiness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 65.

6. Naugle, 65.

7. Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 67.

8. Augustine, Confessions, R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York, NY: Penguin, 1961), Book 1, 20.

9. Naugle, 66.

The post God’s Grace Is Greater Than the Seven Deadly Sins appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Let’s look briefly at a heresy that is arguably the deepest doctrinal challenge historic Christianity has ever faced. And yet while church theologians and apologists effectively responded to that heresy in ancient times, it never died and still remains evident today. 

Beginnings of Ancient Arianism
The First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 was called to principally confront the great doctrinal controversy surrounding the teachings of Arius of Alexandria (c. 250–336). Arius was a presbyter who taught that the Son (Jesus Christ) was a highly exalted creature of God but not equal with God himself (a denial of the full deity of Christ and, by implication, a rejection of the Trinity).

He said, “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not.”²

Christian theology affirms the creator-creature distinction, meaning that the triune God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable and the creature comes into existence by an act of God’s sovereign will. But Arianism places the Son clearly on the side of the creature.

This challenge rocked historic Christianity. Historical theologian Ryan Reeves states: “The Arian controversy is one of the most important, if not the most important crisis that the church has faced in all its history.”³

Fortunately for historic Christianity, they had a champion of Christ’s deity in the Eastern church father Athanasius (c. 296–373).⁴ Athanasius was a highly adept theologian with a deep knowledge of Scripture and biblical exegesis. He had a mastery of the New Testament content that buttressed the deity of Christ, such as Jesus’s explicit and implicit divine claims (John 8:58–59; 10:30–33), instances of equating himself with Yahweh (John 5:17–18; 14:9), his insistence that he possessed divine prerogatives (Matt. 28:17–18; Mark 2:5; John 5:22), and his application of divine titles to himself (Mark 14:61–64).

But Athanasius focused on how the identity of Christ in the incarnation made it possible for him to achieve salvation. Being both God and man, Christ could represent both parties and reconcile them through redemption. For Athanasius, the logic of New Testament doctrine on salvation assumed a divine-human Christ.

Here are two of Athanasius’s biblical arguments for the deity of Christ and thus against Arianism set forth in logical form:⁵

First, for an orthodox Christology (the person and nature of Christ):

1. Only God can save people from sin (Isa. 45:21–22).
2. Jesus Christ saves people from sin (Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12; Heb. 2:10).
3. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God (incarnate). 

Second, against an Arian Christology:

1. Only God is to be prayed to and worshipped (Ps. 105:1; Jer. 10:25).
2. The Arian Jesus is not God.
3. Therefore, praying to and worshipping the Arian Jesus constitutes idolatry (Arianism makes historic Christians, as seen in their scriptural practices [Matt. 28:17; Acts 7:59], into idolaters).

Athanasius’s arguments demonstrate that he viewed the acceptance of an Arian Christology as leading to two devastating results for Christians. Namely, an Arian Christ cannot serve as the Savior of human beings and an Arian Christ transforms Christians into practicing idolaters. 

While the Council of Nicaea came to the clear consensus that the Son was homoousios (Greek: of the same substance) with the Father and condemned Arianism as a Christological heresy, this perspective nevertheless remained popular in various quarters of Christendom for many years. 

Modern-Day Arianism
Arianism has not gone away. Arianism or Arian-like beliefs are found in contemporary religious sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, and some forms of Unitarianism, among other groups.⁶

Takeaway
The Arian view of the Son is that he was a creature and thus inferior to the Father. The historic Christian view of the Son is that he was fully divine and equal to the Father. In accordance with Scripture, historic Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ was God incarnate (a single person with both a divine and a human nature).

Reflection: Your Turn 
Have you been challenged by a person who affirms a contemporary version of Arianism?

Resources

• For a detailed biblical, theological, and apologetics discussion of the incarnation (Jesus as the God-man) and the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt, chapters 5 (Trinity) and 9 (incarnation).
• For a detailed discussion of how the incarnation relates to the Trinity in terms of mystery and logic, see Christianity Cross-Examined, chapter 5.
• For a brief online article about the Scriptural grounding of trinitarianism, see my blog post “The Trinity’s Biblical Basis.”
• For a summary of the historic Christian view of Arius and Arianism, see Justin S. Holcomb’s Know the Heretics, chapter 7.
• For a summary of the historic Christian view of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed, see Justin S. Holcomb’s Know the Creeds and Councils, chapter 2.

Endnotes

1. Justin S. Holcomb, Know the Heretics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 11.

2. See Arius. Rejecting Arius’s language, historic Christianity came to view that which is begotten as reflecting anequality of nature while that which is created or made reflects an inferiority of nature. 

3. “Arius and Nicea,” Ryan M. Reeves, February 24, 2015, video, accessed June 9, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nduka-QqXbQ.

4. Kenneth R. Samples,  Classic Christian Thinkers (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019), chapter 2.

5. Samples, Classic Christian Thinkers, 41.6. Wikipedia, “Arianism,” last modified June 3, 2023, 7:39 PM (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism.

The post Heresies Never Die: Arianism appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

“I imagine what happens to human consciousness when we die is much like turning off a computer. I don’t believe in a heaven for computers. I think the afterlife is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Earth is our home and its exquisite beauty amidst our vast, elegant universe has led people throughout history to contemplate the cosmos and our place in it. Some scientists have dedicated their lives and their research to understanding how the universe came about and what its future holds.

Thus, it has been a privilege for me as an international visiting research astronomer to work alongside some of the world’s top scientists who devote their time to such quests. In 2008, some of these eminent scientists descended on the seaside resort of Muizenberg, South Africa, to support an initiative to find an African Einstein. Albert Einstein is often regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time—but could there be another such genius? If so, what wisdom would he or she offer to humanity?

A Gathering of Minds
These distinguished scientists chose to meet the public at the Muizenberg Pavilion near Cape Town. Among the stellar personalities in attendance was a former administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin. Next was Nobel Physics Laureate, David Gross, who revolutionized our understanding of atoms and their nuclei. Also in attendance was George Smoot, who won the Nobel Prize in physics for mapping the early universe in which galaxies later formed.

Thunderous applause then followed as the world’s best-known scientist of recent times, cosmologist Stephen Hawking, came onto the stage in his wheelchair. The audience in the pavilion was jam-packed (it seats only 800 people). The interest was so intense and the excitement so high that members of the public (and some scientists) actually stood outside and broke down a door in the Muizenberg Pavilion!

As most people know, Hawking had Lou Gehrig’s disease, which restricted him to communicate only by moving a cheek muscle that sent messages to a voice synthesizer connected to his computer. Using the synthesizer, Hawking then (very slowly) asked the Muizenberg audience three questions:

Question 1: Why are we here?

Question 2: Where do we come from?

Question 3: Where are we going?

Figure: The author (at left) gently touching the shoulder of Professor Stephen Hawking.
Photograph provided by David L. Block

Hawking’s Scientism
I live in South Africa and was privileged to spend a day in the presence of Stephen Hawking in Muizenberg (see figure), before I accompanied him to meet our former President, Nelson Mandela, in Houghton, South Africa. Here are my personal impressions.

Hawking was truly obsessed with a Creator God, though not in the positive sense at all. He dared to expunge God by bringing his (atheistic) philosophies into science—disguised under the mantle of science.

He was undoubtedly one of the greatest cosmologists of all time, and his triumph over disability was truly astonishing. But—and here lies an agenda which many members of the public may not know—Hawking was a leading light for scientism.

Scientism is an optimistic faith in the power of science alone to resolve the mysteries of the world, encapsulated in his fundamental three questions above.

Seeking a Balanced View of Science and Scripture
In earlier times, during the life of Galileo Galilei, the church and its cardinals ruled supreme and they misused the book of Scripture. They claimed that it asserted things about science that it did not, and they weren’t ready to accept experimental science. This view was clearly out of balance. Scripture is true in all that it claims, and when interpreted rightly, it harmonizes perfectly with the book of nature. The church had misunderstood this principle and used Scripture to silence science.

The situation today is equally out of balance, but to the other extreme. The scientific book of nature is paramount today, and some scientists would have us abandon the Scriptures as a source of truth about our world. The philosophical viewpoint of these “cardinals of scientism” is driven as much by the mood of the age and the personalities and beliefs of individuals as it is by scientific data and rigorous theory. Atheistic fundamentalism flourishes today, and its basic philosophical agenda avoids any need for a Creator.

Some of my scientific colleagues, evidently blind to scriptural revelation, consider theology as an inferior and worthless discipline, devoid of all truth. This is the ideology of scientism—a form of science that dismisses God as a fairy tale.

We now see two “cathedrals” before us; the traditional cathedral in which the Scriptures are expounded, and the new cathedral of scientism, wherein science is the bearer of all truth. In the traditional cathedral, the Scriptures tell us to take science seriously. In the new cathedral, scientism has no place for the Scriptures.

For the great scientist Blaise Pascal, Jesus, who grants us salvation, was the prize beyond all prizes. The cathedral of scientism never threatened his God-centered worldview. Such is not the case for contemporary scientists like Hawking.

Hawking believed that invoking “God” was historically necessary only to solve mysteries that science had not yet solved. The great inexorable advances of science have solved many of those mysteries and will continue to do so. Thus, as readers of his books will note: science has made God unnecessary. What need, then, for a Creator? Hawking asks. In his book The Grand Design (coauthored by Leonard Mlodinow), he explicitly stated:

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”¹

Such remarkable assertions attract worldwide media attention, as if by a magnet. A colleague and friend of mine, Lord Martin Rees (a former President of the Royal Society, who was a student at the University of Cambridge in the 1960s where Hawking was also enrolled), painted a moving and glowing tribute to Hawking upon his death in 2018, but Rees noted a crucial defect, too:

“He [Hawking] had robust common sense, and was ready to express forceful political opinions. However, a downside of his iconic status was that his comments attracted exaggerated attention even on topics where he had no special expertise—for instance philosophy.”²

As a Christian and a scientist, I distance myself from Hawking’s utilitarian understanding of God. Hawking’s “God” is always on the retreat in the face of new scientific discoveries. This “unnecessary God” does not interact with us or with our universe and its laws of nature. I believe otherwise. The incarnation is an act of divine grace. Salvation is an act of divine grace. To quote the literary giant G. K. Chesterton:

“Right in the middle of these things stands up an enormous exception. . . . It is nothing less than the loud assertion that this mysterious maker of the world has visited his world in person.”³

Although science can illuminate the glories of the creation, I believe that it is beyond the domain of science to infer that God does not exist.

The Self-Existent God
The God I am writing about is a personal God—the God-man, Jesus Christ, who is uncreated and who made the world.

Jesus is the Logos (word) who became incarnate (John chapter 1) and he exists outside space and time. Science does not have the weapons to expunge God or the revelation of his spiritual kingdom of grace. On the contrary, it everywhere reveals more and more of his handiwork.

Hawking asked the right questions, but his philosophical commitments led him to the wrong answers. My goal, and I hope yours, too, is to show how the wonders of our universe lead us naturally to the Creator and how we can come to know him.

Endnotes

1. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2012), 180.
2. Lord Martin Rees, “Stephen Hawking: Martin Rees Looks Back on Colleague’s Spectacular Success against All Odds,” The Conversation, March 14, 2018.
3. G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (New York: Image Books, 1955), 265–66.

The post My Visit with Professor Stephen Hawking appeared first on Reasons to Believe.