Post #32 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed: "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" - Biblical Passages And Introduction To The Filioque Controversy

Introduction:

     In our last post we noted the deity of the Holy Spirit as confessed by the Nicene Creed "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life" here Growing Christian Resources: Post #31 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed: "Lord And Giver of Life" - The Deity of the Holy Spirit. Today we will look at the Nicene Creed's next clause in its section on the Holy Spirit, namely where it states: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son". 

    We will look today at the main New Testament passages that speak of the Holy Spirit's eternal relation that He has from the Father through the Son along with how the Nicene Creed itself was historically (and controversially) changed to reflect this teaching. Let me first introduce what is known as the "filioque controversy". 

    When I say "controversy", I'm talking about the insertion of the phrase "filioque" (and the Son") into the Latin translation of the Nicene Creed. during the third council of Toledo in 589 A.D. Stephen Nichols years ago wrote a great summary of this controversy in an article in Table Talk at Ligonier Ministries The Great Schism of 1054 by Stephen Nichols:

    "The single Latin word on the sign means 'and the Son.' And this single Latin word holds the dubious honor of being one of the main factors responsible for the largest church split to date: the Great Schism in 1054 between the Roman Catholic Church in the West, with its seat of power in Rome, and the Orthodox Church in the East, with its seat of power in Constantinople. That’s a lot for a single word to bear."

Nichols goes on:

    "Theologians in the West were drawn to filioque because it reflected their understanding of the Trinity. They believed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In AD 589, at the Council of Toledo, the Western church officially adopted the phrase and amended the Nicene Creed (from 325/381) accordingly. Since 589, the churches in the West have said the extra Latin word when reciting the creed. Christ’s teaching in John 16:7 offers biblical warrant for the phrase. Eastern churches, however, never appreciated that argument."

Nichols then concludes:

    "The Eastern churches, while affirming the Trinity as three persons in one substance, tend to emphasize the threeness of the Trinity, the individual persons. The West, again while affirming the orthodox definition of the Trinity, tends to emphasize the unity of the Godhead."

What the Scriptures teach of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son. 

    I wanted to at least introduce the "filioque" or "and the Son" situation to readers, since it is highly relevant to this series of posts on the Nicene Creed. We will look further into this controversy as to its history, dispute, and theological importance. For now, I want to spend the rest of today's post exploring what the New Testament Scriptures have to say about the Holy Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son.

    Whenever we consider the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit as "proceeding from the Father and the Son", we begin with the New Testament in three areas: direct teaching, indirect teaching, and titles of the Holy Spirit. 

Direct affirmations of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son.

    As for the direct teaching about the Holy Spirit in this regard, Jesus' thorough instruction in John 14,15, and 16 is where we start. In John 14:16 Jesus teaches:  

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you."

    This blessed promise from Jesus affirms that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father per His request, giving us at least the Spirit's procession from the Father alone - an argument used by the Eastern Orthodox in their arguments against the Western version of the Nicene Creed's "and the Son". However, as we go further into Jesus' final instructions to His disciples on the eve of His crucifixion, we begin to see reference to the Holy Spirit's "double procession". 

    In John 14:26-27 we see Jesus once again reiterating the promised Holy Spirit:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful." 

    No one in the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant branches of Christianity dispute the Holy Spirit coming forth or proceeding from the Father. What Jesus indicates in these verses is that the Father will send forth the Holy Spirit "in my Name", giving us a hint that the Holy Spirit's promised coming is associated with the Son. It is in John 15:26-27 that Jesus makes explicit not only the Holy Spirit's double procession, but we even see the language "proceed" in the passage:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning."

    As one goes forward in narrative of John's Gospel, we come to the sixteenth chapter where Jesus next teaches how this same promise is expressed by the Son Himself as source of the Holy Spirit's procession in John 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.'" Thus, the full picture of the Holy Spirit's double procession and the Nicene Creed's confession in its Western version of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" seems to have strong Scriptural warrant. 

    Jesus makes one final mention of this promise of the Holy Spirit by issuing a statement that explains why the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son is important in John 16:13-14 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

    The Holy Spirit's double procession would bring to the apostles what they needed to write what would be the New Testament documents. The whole 27 book canon was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17) as much as the Old Testament (2 Peter 1:20-21). In light of Jesus' inaugurating of the New Covenant would be the promised sending forth of the Holy Spirit, predicted in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8). 

    The Holy Spirit's procession and then sending brings to Christians the ability to confess Jesus as Lord (1 Corinthians 12:1-3) and God as Father (Galatians 4:4). The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity that unites us to the glorified incarnate Son in saving faith (1 Corinthians 12:12-13) and that affirms our adoption by the Father (Romans 8:14-16). 

Indirect examples of the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son.

    Those at least are examples of explicit Scriptures on the Holy Spirit's double procession from the Father and the Son. Some examples of more indirect examples include Jesus' breathing of the Holy Spirit onto His disciples in John 20:22 and of Peter's statement in Acts 2:33 -  "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear." Peter in that same sermon attributes the promise of the Holy Spirit as associated with the Son in Acts 2:38. 

    What we notice sometimes is that the New Testament will alternate in some places between the Father and the Son as the source of the Spirit's procession, whether to remind readers and listeners of certain Old Testament predictions of the Spirit's outpouring (Acts 2:17-21 quoting Joel 2:28-31, drawing attention to God the Father) or explaining how Christians worship the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18).

Titles and activities of the Holy Spirit that show His eternal relating from the Father and the Son. 

       As we begin to draw this post to a conclusion, one final set of New Testament texts that tend to support the teaching of the Holy Spirit's double procession from the Father and the Son (and thus the Nicene Creed's filioque clause "and the Son") has to do with various titles of the Holy Spirit. 

A. "Spirit of God", indicating on the one hand the Holy Spirit in His eternal relating to the Father. 9x. Romans 8:9,14; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:16; 7:40; 12:3; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3.

B. "Spirit of Christ", "Spirit of Jesus Christ", indicating on the other hand the Holy Spirit's eternal relation through and thus also from the Son. 2x. Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19.

C. "Love" and "Gift", the Spirit's two main titles that show His eternal relation to the Father and the Son. 2x. Acts 2:38; 1 John 4:7-10. 

     I'm certain I've not given an exhaustive listing, nonetheless we have enough passages to lay forth Biblical warrant for the Nicene Creed's confession "who proceeds from the Father and the Son". 

       We can point out how the New Testament will often use certain effects produced by the Spirit in believer's lives to indicate His connection of them to the Father and the Son, thus giving us application of the importance of the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son, whether in the realm of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-6); daily living (Ephesians 5:18-19; Colossians 3:15-16); prayer (Romans 8:26-27); and endurance in the faith (Ephesians 1:3-14). In the next post we will look more into the historical and theological background of how the phrase "and the Son" ("filioque" in the Latin versions of the Nicene Creed in Western Christendom) came to be. Stay tuned!

Post #31 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed: "Lord And Giver of Life" - The Deity of the Holy Spirit

Introduction:

    In the last post we looked at the Nicene Creed's next major section on the Holy Spirit here Growing Christian Resources: Post #30 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed: "And we believe in the Holy Ghost" - Fighting For The Importance of the Holy Spirit. I reviewed the history between the Creed of Nicaea 325 and the expansion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. 

     The 381 Nicene Creed reads as follows on the Holy Spirit:

"And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

    I then offered a brief outline of this statement:

1. The Deity of the Holy Spirit.

"And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life. 

2. The Divine relation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

" who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

3. The Divine equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

"who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified."

4. The Divine Author of the Scriptures.

"who spoke by the prophets."

     What we will do in this post is discuss that first main point of the Holy Spirit's deity, co-equality with the Father and the Son, and why He as truly God by nature matters.

Lord and Giver of Life

    In the Greek text of the Nicene Creed of 381, the term "Lord" ["to kurion", τὸ Κύριον] uses the same Greek noun that the Greek New Testament assigned to define the deity of Jesus Christ. This same Greek noun in the Greek Old Testament translation, The Septuagint, is used to translated the underlying Hebrew noun for the Divine name of God, "Yahweh", which is found some 6,000x in the Hebrew Old Testament.1 As "LORD", the Holy Spirit is confessed as truly God in as much as the Father and the Son are truly God by nature. 

    Then we notice the second part of this opening line of the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit, that He is "Giver of Life". This preserves what the Bible teaches about God's unique ability to bring to life what would otherwise be inanimate life (Genesis 2:7), as well as to raise to life that which was formerly dead (Romans 8:11). These two truths (creation from nothing and resurrection) provide the most basic definition of His deity.

    Theologian Fred Sanders wrote a post in his blogsite regarding "10 Things You Should Know About The Holy Spirit" here 10 Things You Should Know About the Holy Spirit · Fred Sanders. In that post, Sanders wrote these words in number two of his list:

"The most obvious truth that emerges from locating the Holy Spirit in the Trinity is that the Spirit is fully God. He is not a mere impersonal force emanating from God, or a poetic way of talking about God in action, or a creature commissioned by God to do his work for him. Nor is the Holy Spirit a slice of God, one third of God, or part of a team that adds up to be God. He is one of the persons who fully possesses the entirety of the divine essence. Sound Trinitarian theology is a constant, helpful guide that keeps us from thinking unworthy thoughts about the Holy Spirit."

    The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 notes in its first sentence under its confession of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine." Numerous Scripture citations are given that provide proof for the deity of the Holy Spirit, which support also the confession of the Nicene Creed's "Lord and Giver of Life".2 

The battle to make clear the Biblical teaching on the deity of the Holy Spirit

    We saw in the last post that denial of the Holy Spirit's deity and Personhood stemmed from a heretical group called "the Spirit-fighters" or "Pneumatomachoi". As Basil of Caesarea fought their teachings, he noted in his "On the Holy Spirit" how they taught the Spirit having a different nature than the Son and the Father. As far as this heresy was concerned, the Holy Spirit was unworthy of mention or of worship with the Father and the Son. 

    In chapter 11 of "On the Holy Spirit", Basil offers this airtight Scriptural argument for why the Holy Spirit is worthy of worship, and thus of the same nature as the Father and the Son:

     "I testify to every man who is confessing Christ and denying God, that Christ will profit him nothing; to every man that calls upon God but rejects the Son, that his faith is vain; to every man that sets aside the Spirit, that his faith in the Father and the Son will be useless, for he cannot even hold it without the presence of the Spirit. 

     For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father. For none can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Corinthians 12:3 'and no man has seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him."

Basil then offers this conclusion to his exposition:

"Such an one has neither part nor lot in the true worship; for it is impossible to worship the Son, save by the Holy Ghost; impossible to call upon the Father, save by the Spirit of adoption."

      Certainly in our day we have heretical teachers that deny the Holy Spirit's deity, not only by rejection of His equality of Divine nature with the Father and the Son but also of His Personality as a Triune member of the Godhead. This is why the Nicene Creed's confession of the Spirit as "Lord and Giver of Life" includes reference to His Divine Personhood. The term "Lord" is used to refer to the Holy Spirit in equal relation to the Father and the Spirit in two noteworthy places in Paul's letters. 

      Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:12-13 "and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; 13 so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints." 

    To summarize Basil of Caesarea's observation of this particular passage in his work "On The Holy Spirit", what other Lord would be in the text? We have God the Father and the Son clearly referenced in verse 13. The only "He" or "Lord" left is the Holy Spirit. We can make similar observations from 2 Thessalonians 3:5 of the Holy Spirit's Divine personality and nature being on par with the Father and the Son. 

     I've heard Christians throughout the years unintentionally refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it" rather than a "He". To do so is to unwittingly deny His deity. Jesus Himself reinforced the Spirit's Divine personality by utilizing the masculine pronoun "He" in His teachings about the Spirit (John 7:37-39; John 15:26-27; John 16:8-12). 

Closing thoughts:

    The battle for the Holy Spirit's deity ever wages as it did in the late fourth century. To remain faithful to the Bible's revelation of God we must assert His full deity and equality with the Father and the Son as One True and Living God. The Spirit of God is indeed "The Lord and Giver of Life". Why does this matter? 

    First, if the Holy Spirit is not truly God, He cannot deliver and apply salvation to sinners at the time of regeneration and saving faith, for "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9). Second, if the Holy Spirit were not God, creation would never had been completed, nor would there be life (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30). Lastly, were He not a Divine Person, no personal knowledge of God would be feasible. 

Endnotes:

1. Another interesting feature of the Nicene Creed's use of the definite article the ["to" in the Greek] to modify "kurion". This form of the article is a grammatical neuter, keeping in line with the grammatical gender of the proceeding Greek noun for "Spirit", "pneuma". The proper name and title "kurion" or "Lord" is grammatically masculine. Daniel Wallace in his "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" would refer to this use of the definite article as a pronoun, specifically, it used as a "relative pronoun" which points back to whichever word it is referring.  

     Hence, when we look at the Nicene Greek text of the confession of the Holy Spirit, we see the neuter article throughout its phrases. I've listed the Greek text of the relevant section below with my own English translation. I've also highlighted the relevant grammatical points. 

καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ 

Ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,

τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν·

and unto the Holy Spirit, the (one who) is Lord and Giver of life; the (one who) proceeds from the Father; the (one who) is to be worshipped together  and glorified together with the Father and the Son; the (One who) spoke through the prophets.

       Why point this out? Because the article is keeping in gender with the word "pneuma" before it, while it directs our attention to the noun "kurios" or "Lord", which is a masculine noun and thus reminds us that the Holy Spirit is not an "it" but a "He", a Divine Person. 

2. Here are the cross references given by the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Article on the Holy Spirit - Genesis 1:2; Judges 14:6; Job 26:13; Psalms 51:11; 139:7ff.; Isaiah 61:1-3; Joel 2:28-32; Matthew 1:18; 3:16; 4:1; 12:28-32; 28:19; Mark 1:10,12; Luke 1:35; 4:1,18-19; 11:13; 12:12; 24:49; John 4:24; 14:16-17,26; 15:26; 16:7-14; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4,38; 4:31; 5:3; 6:3; 7:55; 8:17,39; 10:44; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6; 19:1-6; Romans 8:9-11,14-16,26-27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14; 3:16; 12:3-11,13; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30; 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:19; 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 9:8,14; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 4:13; 5:6-7; Revelation 1:10; 22:17.

Post #30 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed: "And we believe in the Holy Ghost" - Fighting For The Importance of the Holy Spirit

Introduction:

    As we return to our extended series on observing 1700 years of the Nicene Creed, we come to the section that treats confession about the Third Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit. As I have pointed out in previous posts in this series, the original Creed of Nicaea from 325 A.D. and the Nicene Creed of 381 A.D. do differ from one another in several respects. 

    Perhaps the two most notable features first involve the wording about the confession of the Son and anathemas for denial of His deity being removed from the 381 version. The second difference between the two versions of the creed involve an expanded section on the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. It is this latter difference that will occupy our time in this post and the next several ones.

Those that opposed the Holy Spirit and the need to fight for His importance.

    The Creed of Nicaea 325 A.D. stated the following about the Holy Spirit: 

"And in the Holy Ghost." 

    The Nicene Creed of 381 greatly expanded the confession of pneumatology, or the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as follows:

"And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

    What transpired in the fifty or so years between the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople? This expansion on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was precipitated by the doctrinal challenge leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381. 

    The focus of the 325 council was not the canon of Scripture (as some try to allege) but rather dealing with the heresy of Arius who denied the co-equality and deity of the Son. I've dealt with this in more detail in previous posts (see part 15 of this series here for more details on the Arian heresy Growing Christian Resources: Post #15 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What Is Meant By The Son Being "One Substance With The Father" ). 

    Arianism's core teaching was that the Son was a lesser nature than the Father, making Him to be the highest created being according to the heresy. Arius' common tagline for his error was the statement "there was a time when the Son was not". 

     A side entailment of Arianism was that the Holy Spirit was even less than the Son, not so much a Person as a "force" emanating from the Father. Followers of Arius such as Eunomius would perpetuate this false teaching which was roundly condemned at Nicaea in 325. 

    As with all doctrinal heresies there is a tendency for them to rear their ugly heads. In 370's A.D., shortly after the main defender of Christ's deity at the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius, had died in 373, a theologian from Caesarea named Basil (later known as "Basil the Great" for his defense of orthodox Christianity) took up the responsibility of continuing to preach and defend what had been fought for at the Council of Nicaea. Author Michael A.G. Haykin [Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Volume 07:3, Fall 2003, Page 75] notes of Basil's work in this time:

"Basil was not only a Christian activist, he was also a clear-headed theologian. When Athanasius (c.299–373), the great defender of Trinitarian Christianity, died, Basil inherited his mantle. Arianism, which Athanasius combated, was still widespread in the eastern Mediterranean. There is little doubt that Basil played a key role in this region of the Roman Empire in the victory of orthodox Trinitarianism over Arianism, which denied the deity of both the Son and the Holy Spirit."

   Suffice to say, there was a heretical group challenging the Personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit that was a warmed-over error precipitated by the Arian controversy that sparked the need for expanding the original Creed of Nicaea's confession of the Holy Spirit 

How the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 fought for the importance of the Holy Spirit 

   What the 381 A.D. addition did was to assert the importance of the Holy Spirit in our overall confession of the Triune God. As mentioned already about Basil, he had to deal with a new wave of error perpetrated by a group known as "the Spirit-fighters". This movement taught that the Father and the Son were co-equal and co-eternal - good so far as it goes. However the "spirit-fighters" latched on to Arianism's denial of the Holy Spirit's deity. 

     For Basil, this was painful on two fronts. Not only did he have to engage an old heresy that refused to die, but he also found out that the "Spirit-fighters" was led by a former friend and mentor.  Author Michael Haykin notes of this in the same article I cited earlier:

"Leading these “fighters against the Spirit” (Pneumatomachi), as they came to be called, was one of his former friends, indeed the man who had been his mentor when he first became a Christian in 356, Eustathius of Sebaste (c.300–377). The dispute between Basil and Eustathius, from one perspective a part of the larger Arian Controversy, has become known as the Pneumatomachian Controversy."

     Basil grieved over his former friend's actions but knew the truth of God's Word had to be defended. In the mid-370s A.D. Basil wrote a book that is a precursor to the famous Council of Constantinople called "On the Holy Spirit". Far from being a dry treatise on theology, Basil wrote the book to a young protege by the name of "Amphilochius" who needed discipled on the right understanding of God and who needed wisdom for daily Christian living. 

     When I read "On the Holy Spirit", it reminded me of how Luke wrote his Gospel to Theophilus with the aim to present the historically accurate retelling of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Of interesting note too in Luke's Gospel and his second volume, "Acts of the Apostles", he mentions the Holy Spirit's work more than any other author in the New Testament. 

      In the first eight chapters of "On the Holy Spirit", Basil rehearsed the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly the equality of deity shared by the Father and the Son. It is then beginning at chapter nine all the way to chapter twenty-nine that Basil lays out the Biblical and theological reasons for the Holy Spirit being as much God and as much of a Divine Person as the Father and the Son. 

      It would be this work that would lay the ground for what would be the by-product of the Council of Constantinople in 381 - the Niceno-Constanipolitan Creed that is our focus in this series. To quote Haykin one last time: "The article on the Spirit is deeply indebted to Basil’s On the Holy Spirit." The church had to fight for the importance of the Holy Spirit as taught in the Bible - a battle thankfully won.

Summarizing the Nicene Creed of 381 in its teaching on the Holy Spirit

    I'll offer four headings to the 381 Nicene Creed's statement about the Holy Spirit.

1. The Deity of the Holy Spirit.

"And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life. 

2. The Divine relation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

" who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

3. The Divine equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

"who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified."

4. The Divine Author of the Scriptures.

"who spoke by the prophets."

Closing thoughts:

      In the next few posts of this series we intend to unpack these four main areas of the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit. My hope is readers will find the posts insightful and honoring to the Lord. 

P4 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith: Conclusion - Steps To Reconstructing A Faith In Crisis

Introduction:

    In our last post we evaluated the process of faith deconstruction, concluding that it is not a helpful method for trying to reconstruct a faith impacted by crisis. In this post we want to look at a contemporary example of a Christian who had a crisis of faith and found his way back. My hope is this series of posts have helped readers who are in faith crisis or those who want to help others.

Reconstructing faith.

     As we loop back to our main text at 2 Timothy 4:5-8, after Paul has warned Timothy of what will be mass defection by alleged professors of the faith, he gives this exhortation in 2 Timothy 4:5-8 

“But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.” 

    This urges us to run the race and finish strong. What happens when our faith is in crisis? Let’s look at someone in fairly recent times, a Bible-believing Christian who influenced a whole generation for decades – Francis Schaeffer. 

A man who reconstructed a shattered faith.

      This case study will recall Schaeffer’s own crisis of faith in 1951 when he and his wife Edith were living in Switzerland, what he experienced, and the steps taken to put the pieces back together and to be stronger in one’s faith [two main sources for my case study are these: Edith Schaeffer. “The Tapestry”. W Pub Group. 1985, and Francis Schaeffer. “True Spirituality”. 1971. Tyndale House Publishers].

    Schaeffer remarked how the coldness and staleness of the churches contrasted

with the vitality and love for Christ he saw in the New Testament. This challenged his faith. 

    In her book “The Tapestry”, Edith notes her husband’s words: 

“Edith, I feel torn to pieces by the lack of reality, the lack of seeing the results the Bible talks about, which should be seen in the Lord’s people. I’m not only talking about people I’m working with in the movement. I’m not satisfied with myself. It seems the only honest thing to do is to rethink, re-examine the whole matter of Christianity. Is it true? I need to go back to my Agnosticism and start at the beginning.” 

    As one reads the preface to “True Spirituality” and Edith Schaeffer’s “The Tapestry”, five steps to reconstructing faith were discernable from Francis Schaeffer. As I list these in the prepared slides below, we can not how the following verses of Scripture aided Schaeffer back to a stronger faith (Ps 13; Ps 88; Jer. 29:13; Luke 11:9).

       

     

 In her “Tapestry”, Edith Schaeffer closed Her recollections with this poem penned by Schaeffer after his crisis of faith.

Lord keep our feet in the slippery place

When friends are gone away;

When we stand alone in dark and cold

And all men answer “nay”

Lord keep our feet in the slippery place

When all friends crowd around

When men as echoes with smiling face

Give but an echo’s sound.

Conclusions.

      In this series we’ve looked at faith deconstruction and how to reconstruct a faith in crisis. One path leads to spiritual death, the other to a stronger faith. Let us finish with final thoughts. 

1. First, not everyone who professes faith in Christ necessarily possesses faith in Christ. Assurance of one’s genuineness of faith is found in Christ Himself as the objective anchor (Hebrews 6:19-20). 

2. Secondly, do I love Him for Him? Is He the joy of my heart? (1 Peter 1:8). 

3. Thirdly, are my actions and thoughts overall curved Christ-wardly or only me-wardly (2 Corinthians 13:5)? 

4. Fourth, if you have a loved-one who is undergoing faith deconstruction, be prayerful, be patient, don’t take it personal, be prayerful, and don’t quit loving that person. 

5. Lastly, don’t give up the above, since we cannot be certain who is ultimately apostate and who is not. All we can do is live the Gospel, share the Gospel, and leave the results up to God.

P3 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith: Evaluating faith deconstruction.

Introduction:

    In our last post we drew out some important comparisons between genuine saving faith and counterfeit professing faith. Understanding how the Bible presents these will aid us as we continue on in this series. In today's post we want to evaluate faith deconstruction as a process. Before we do that, it is important to note that examining one's Christian faith from time-to-time is urged in Scripture (2 Corinthians 13:5). Whenever a Christian faces any challenge to their faith, they are forced to consider how much they're leaning on Christ versus how much they're leaning on themselves (Proverbs 3:5-6). I would go as far as to say that testing of one's faith is normal for the Christian, and that failure to closely understand where on is spiritually is a sign of spiritual laziness at best and quite possibly a sign of an unregenerate heart at the worst (2 Corinthians 13:5). 

    When one compares Judas Iscariot and Simon Peter in the Four Gospel records, the above observations bear out. We see no evidence of Judas ever evaluating his heart or profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Whenever he was enticed to sell our Lord for pieces of silver, we never see Judas once checking his heart or truly repenting. Simon Peter on the other hand had a sensitivity to how far short he was in his spiritual life. 

    Although Peter would end up denying the Lord Jesus three times, nevertheless He was repentant. Jesus in a post-resurrected appearance restored him, commissioned him, and reinstated him in John 21. Simon Peter faltered for a moment but ultimately showed He was looking to Christ as His Savior and Lord. Judas, sadly, proved he was only looking to self-interest and ended his life in despair, lost in his sins. Such observations as these are why I am pursuing this current series and am presenting this material at the upcoming apologetics conference I referenced in the first ppost of this series. 

Evaluating faith deconstruction.

     Now that we’ve introduced faith deconstruction and have distinguished true faith from its counterfeit, let’s dig deeper. We can evaluate faith deconstruction by noting its three cycles: unchanged heart, short-term fruit, truth for lies.

A. Deconstruction comes from an unchanged heart.

      In the book I cited in our last post, the authors cite one who underwent faith deconstruction: 

“Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It's not about trying to make your views match reality. It's about tearing down doctrines that are morally wrong to you to make them match your own internal conscience, moral compass, true authentic self, or whatever else it's being called these days“ [Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond. Tyndale Publishers, 2023. Page 25]. 

    A non-Christian or someone who never professed faith in Christ, though in spiritual danger, is in a different category from someone who once professed Christianity but then turned away.

Deconstruction is dangerous because it leads to apostasy if not abandoned – what older preachers call “crossing the dead-line”. Adrian Rogers once preached a sermon called “Crossing God’s Deadline”. He noted this: 

“There is a line by us unseen that crosses every path; it is the hidden boundary between God’s mercy and God’s wrath”. 

Proverbs 29:1 “A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.” As to the “dead-line” or “too far to ever repent”, no one knows with certainty when it is crossed, except God. 

B. What prompts a professing Christian to deconstruct?

 There are some factors that legitimately ought not to be in the Bible-believing church today. Too often churches do not own their sins, for which those who deconstruct are not completely off-base for calling out the local church. Jesus certainly warned the seven churches of the Book of Revelation of how they tolerated unbiblical things or acted in hypocrisy. Revelation 3:1 “‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.”  

The rate of falling away in our day and time ought to cause us to look closely at ourselves as a people who claim to be loving, yet often are cold; or as a people who champion the truth, yet will tolerate error; or those who promote godly marriages between men and women, yet evidence moral failure and public scandals. With those observations in mind, what leads people to deconstruct?

    Many are unable to square the problem of evil and suffering with what they understood Christianity to teach. 

    Secondly, perceptions that certain Christian doctrines are toxic (examples being male headship in marriage, sexual abstinence before marriage, the Bible's rejection of homosexuality, church scandals, abuse in the church & perceived contradictions in the Bible). 

    Thirdly, any present or past political climate and Christians equating Christianity with objectionable platforms of political parties involved. Fourthly, not knowing how to handle doubts and thus concluding it's better to jettison Christian beliefs than to deal with the doubts. Experience and research has shown that deconstruction doesn't happen overnight. It represents what has been a long-term process of gradual pulling away from church life, prayer, and Bible reading as a response to such factors. Those are the factors that prompt deconstruction. Let’s look at another observation.

C. Those who deconstructed may have shown short-term fruit.

The scary thing is those who once professed faith in Christ did seem to be saved. I’ve listened to many deconstruction testimonies over the years and have noted the following common traits. They were very zealous, sincere people. They knew the Bible very well. They became highly involved in church. 

They’re convinced they’re a Christian because of their profession or because they said a prayer. They may have held positions in the church. Many will speak of a “religious experience” or “an emotional event”. 

In the eighteenth century Jonathan Edwards wrote a classic book that dealt with how we can know we are truly of the faith [“Treatise Concerning Religious Affections”]. He notes: 

“for as we observed before, as we ought not to reject and condemn all affections, as though true religion did not at all consist in affection; so on the other hand, we ought not to approve of all, as though everyone that was religiously affected had true grace, and was therein the subject of the saving influences of the Spirit of God.”

     D. Exchanging truth for lies (Romans 1:25).

     The true possessor of faith, such as the Apostle Peter or Timothy, truly desired and trusted in Christ above whatever benefits He offered (John 6:60; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). A false professor, such as a Judas, or Demas, followed Jesus in so far as it served their motives for wanting peace but not the peace-maker, freedom but not the Liberator. 

       False professors crave acceptance by men rather than accepting Christ who makes them acceptable in the sight of God. The temporary fruit of a fraudulent profession is bent self-ward, only desiring the benefits and not the benefactor and falls away because that person was never saved to start (again 1 John 2:19). 

      The truth of God’s words about us is exchanged for self-deception. In our main text in 2 Timothy, we see how Timothy was truly born again in 2 Timothy 3:14-15 

“you, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”  

      As I noted earlier in this post, faith deconstruction embraces a postmodern view of truth. If truth is not whatever corresponds to reality for everyone, everywhere, and instead is what I personally feel it is, then such an act is an exchange of truth for error. This is why Paul urged Timothy to stick close to Jesus, close to the Bible, and close to those from whom He learned. We’ve introduced faith deconstruction, noted what distinguishes a false professor of faith from a genuine possessor of faith, and have evaluated why deconstruction is not the way to deal with a faith crisis. How then does one rebuild their faith when it seems like everything has fallen to the ground?

More next time.....

P2 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith: What Distinguishes True Faith From Counterfeit Faith?

Introduction:

    In the last post I began a series that will discuss faith deconstruction and how one can reconstruct their faith when they experience a faith crisis. We introduced what faith deconstruction is and noted its view of truth. In this post we will continue on from where we left off in the last post, mentioning Biblical examples of one-time professors of Christianity that walked away from their faith. We will then dive into what distinguishes counterfeit faith profession from genuine faith possession (that is, someone who has been truly born again in saving faith). 

Examples of former professors of Christian faith.

      It may surprise some how often we find examples of people in the Bible who once claimed to follow the Lord but then deny Him [Cain, Genesis 4; sons of Belial or unbelief Deut 13:13, 2 Cor. 6:14-15; 1st generation of Israelites after the Exodus, Exod. 32; Heb 3-4; Korah, Num 16, Jude 1:11; King Amaziah 2 Kgs 14; Judas, Mt 27:3-5; Hymenaeus and Alexander, 1 Tim 1:19-20; Phygellus and Hermogenes, 2 Tim 1:15; Demas 2 Tim. 4:10]. Paul in our text reminds Timothy of how this pattern will only get worse over time. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - 

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”  

    Sadly, Paul knew this all too well, naming a former ministry colleague “Demas” who was a major ministry partner (Colossians 4:14). Demas’ defection was relatively recent from the writing of Colossians to 2 Timothy (roughly three or four years). Paul notes of Demas in 2 Timothy 4:10 “for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica”. 

    Jesus warned His disciples before His crucifixion of the last days in Matthew 24:10 -

“At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.” 

    That Greek word translated “fall away” is whence we have our English term “apostasy”. Such will characterize more and more this age as we approach Christ’s second coming.

What distinguishes true faith from counterfeit faith?

     Historically, theologians have noted 3 components of saving faith:

1. First, contents of faith (notitia) (1 Cor. 15:4-5). 

2. Agreement with the contents (theologians call this “ascensus”) (James 2:19). 

3. Then lastly, Trust (fiducia) in Christ, along with the contents and agreement.

    We can summarize these in the following diagram:

 

    True saving faith, with trust in Christ as its heart, will entail love for Him and joy in Him (2 Timothy 1:12; 1 Pet 1:8). Years ago I heard one theologian note: “Profession of faith does not always equate to possession of faith”. 

    True saving faith must always include agreement with the contents or doctrines of the Christian faith along with trust; yet it is never less than that. True saving faith is gifted by God with trust, love, and rejoicing in Jesus Christ until life’s final breath and into eternity (Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 Peter 1:8; Jude 1:24-25).

     When trials come or when sudden successes appear, the true possessor of faith becomes distinguished from false professor of faith (as was the case with Paul’s former worker Demas).

     Those who pursue the path of deconstruction as self-professed “exvangelicals” will say they were sincere, had a “religious experience”, and said the prayer of confession. Yet, Heb 6:1-8 reminds us that despite such experiences, such persons had not been truly born again (see 1 Jn 2:19). Their sincerity is not in question, instead, was there ever a heart change? Our Baptist Faith & message 2000 summarizes it this way: 

“Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” [Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article 5].

More next time....

P1 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith - What Is Deconstruction?

Introduction:

    Years ago my wife and I helped a family pack for their next move. The family had a massive treadmill that needed disassembled. The husband and I worked on the equipment. I asked him if he had the instructions, to which he replied: “Eh, we lost those years ago”.

    As we kept taking things apart, he tossed some parts in one container and some parts in another. I asked him if we needed to label the items, to which he replied: “Eh, we’re just winging it”.

    As we loaded vehicles for transporting their possessions, I noticed we had leftover nuts and bolts, which my friend dumped in a bag to put in yet another unmarked container. Moving can be a difficult time for many people, especially if you don’t have things marked, or instructions, or at least a well thought out plan (trust me, we’ve moved 11 times in our thirty years of marriage!)

    In our culture a similar disorienting experience has taken shape called “faith deconstruction” or what some call “exvangelicals”. In the next several days I'll participate with other speakers in an upcoming apologetics conference here BCNY Apologetics Conference 2026 | Baptist Convention of New York I plan to lead a breakout session that will deal with this very subject.

    Just like the illustration above, those who choose to “deconstruct” a faith they once professed attempt to do so apart from the Bible while winging it and letting go whatever they feel is unacceptable. Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett define faith deconstruction as follows: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard“ [Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond. Tyndale Publishers, 2023. Page 26.]

    In our Scriptural text for this post, we find Paul urging young pastor Timothy to persevere in His preaching of God’s Word as those he knows or others around him walk away or drift away from their profession of faith. Deconstruction is nothing necessarily new – only in name and expression.

    Perhaps someone reading this is going through a crisis of faith. Whether or not your salvation experience is genuine is often part of the reason why such struggles occur (2 Cor. 4:16-18; 2 Peter 1:7). Only as you yield to the Word of God and the Lord’s process can you truly affirm that indeed you are truly born again (2 Cor. 13:5).

    It is to Jesus Christ and our current trust in Him we look to for objective (that is, outside of ourselves proof). It is in detecting trust, love, and joy in the Savior we find personal or subjective proof. With that said, understanding how someone picks apart a faith they once professed and how to reconstruct your faith that is in crisis is the goal of this blog series.

Introductory issues about deconstruction. 2 Timothy 3:13-17

    The denial of Christ by people in Paul’s time motivated him to write what he did to Timothy. Notice 2 Timothy 3:13-17 -

“But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What is faith deconstruction?

    Now I already gave the definition for this at the beginning of today’s message, but let’s hear Childers and Barnett’s definition again: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard.“

    Let me first comment on one word in this definition that might be new to some – “postmodern”. Postmodernism is a
philosophical approach that denies
objective truth in favor of relativism,
decrying any one right way to 

understand all of life. Postmodernism defies ultimate meaning in favor of personal preferences. Its cousin concept, relativism, states there is no one 

“capital-T” “Truth”, but only person-specific “small-t” “truths”. Over the years I’ve observed those who deconstruct adopting the “true for you but not true for me” view of truth.

More to come.....

What Truth Is And Why You Cannot Have It Without God's Existence

Introduction:

    In John 18:37-38a, Pilate, the Prefect of Judea representing the Roman Empire of His day (26-36 A.D.) was having a final conversation, a cross-examination if-you-will of Jesus Christ, whom He would sentence to die by crucifixion. In the exchange we pick up the following short dialogue:  

"Therefore Pilate said to Him, 'So You are a king?' Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?'" 

What is truth?

    No greater question was ever asked by an unbeliever in all the Bible at a more pivotal point than this one - "What is truth?" Philosopher and theologian Douglas Groothius in his book "Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith", page 124, notes the following observations about truth:

"A belief or statement is true if it matches with, reflects or corresponds to the reality it refers to. For a statement to be true it must be factual. Facts determine the truth or falsity of a belief or statement. It is the nature nature and meaning of truth to be fact dependent."

    When Jesus stood before Pilate, He did not respond to Pilate's question "what is truth". If anything, Jesus Himself was (and is) Truth incarnate, as He Himself revealed in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father by me". 

    This is a startling statement by Jesus, since no other religious figure in all of religious literature - ancient or modern, and no other philosophical figure have ever claimed themselves to be "the truth". What Jesus meant by that statement in John 14:6 and the question Pilate raised later in that same book of the Bible tells us is that truth as a reality is impossible without God's existence. 

The God who is truth

    The reason Jesus' statement is so startling is because the God of the Bible is truth by nature. John MacArthur notes in his book "The Truth War," page 2: 

"Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God."

MacArthur later notes:

"Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so."

    Theologians over the years have noted how much the Bible speaks about God as "truth" by nature (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 31:5; Isaiah 65:16; John 10:35; John 14:6; John 17:17; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:21). 

    For instance, when Jesus was on the cross, He as Truth incarnate cried out of His humanity to the Father in Heaven these words in Luke 23:46 “'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.' Having said this, He breathed His last." Interestingly enough, Jesus was citing Psalm 31:5 "Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have ransomed me, O Lord, God of truth." 

    When Jesus arose from the dead, He proved Himself to be what He claimed - The Truth. His resurrection was the public self-vindication of His character, claims, and teachings. He taught that He Himself was The Truth because He was God incarnate and He taught that God by nature is truth.

    Truth by its very nature demonstrates the existence of God. God's very existence and character as truth is the basis for it. I call this "the interdependence of God and truth". One must not see these two as eternal, independent realities. 

    In other words, something is not true because God says it is true, rather, something is true based upon the fact God Himself is true. He is the ultimate standard. Truth is the very nature of God - He is truth by His very essence. The late Christian apologist Norman Geisler has pointed this out in the first three steps of his argument for Christian theism.

1). Truth about reality is knowable.

2). Opposites cannot both be true.

3). It is true that the theistic God exists.

    I do not have time to expound on Geisler's three points. They do however express what I noted already of the interdependence of the reality of truth and God's existence (readers may look further into these three points of Geisler's here 12 Points - NGIM.)

    Due to God being truth by nature, it follows that creation would bear the tell-tale marks of the reality of objective truth in its fabric. Truth, as Geisler notes, is "telling it like it is". Before creation, the Triune God was all there was. When He created the heavens and the earth, He endued it as a truth-bearing reality, awaiting discovery by the creatures He had made. If there was no truth, there would be no reality, and thus no God. Conversely (or put another way), if there is no God, there is no reality, and thus no truth. 

Current post-modern spirituality and three leading worldviews fail in their attempts to deny the reality of objective truth

    Sadly, so much of what passes off as "spirituality" or even movements such as the current "Christian deconstruction" movement, which features a growing number of former professing evangelical Christians denying key doctrines of the Christian faith in place of ideas of their own making, will deny objective truth and will deny much if not all of what the Bible reveals about God Himself. 

    MacArthur again notes: "The goal of human philosophy used to be truth without God. Today's philosophies are open to the notion of God without truth, or to be more accurate, personal spirituality in which everyone is free to create his or her own God."

    Such an approach to spirituality fails because of the influence of three worldviews upon it that I'll spell out below: pluralism, naturalism, and relativism.

    Pluralism, Naturalism, and Relativism are among the three leading worldviews today that rule the academy, the media, postmodern spirituality, and many people in our current generation. They all have in common the denial of objective truth and their rejection of the God of Biblical revelation. In noting each of their weaknesses, we can then note why God's existence is necessary for there to be truth.

    The first of these, pluralism, claims all religions are the same and that no one religion has "the truth". Pluralism proceeds on the assumption that religion is mankind's response to what he or she cannot explain to an otherwise inexplicable sense of mystery. 

    The famous (or rather infamous) parable of the blindmen and the elephant is often evoked to prove their point. In the parable, one of the blindmen holds the trunk and says it's a snake; the second blindman touches the side and claims it's a rock; the third has the tail and claims it is a rope; the fourth as an ear and claims it is a leaf; the fifth has a leg and claims it's a tree. The alleged moral of the parable is all truth claims are relative and personal, with no one having the true picture of "what is real" or "what is true". 

    The parable actually is self-defeating for the pluralist, since the one question not being answered is: who said it was an elephant! Pluralism is self-defeating, since it denies objective truth and claims itself to be objective. 

    It is often alleged that pluralism proceeds on the basis of neutrality and tolerance, claiming that since all religions are equal, then no one of them have the right to claim to be "the one true religion". Yet, this very assertion shows pluralism to be intolerant and non-neutral! This appears especially in its attacks on Christianity as being intolerant and verging on immoral. It fails to recognize that other religions that it touts as tolerant and neutral are themselves claiming to be "the truth". Buddhism in its Dhammapada chapter 14 has these words within its text:

"He who has gone to refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and his order demonstrates with transcendental wisdom the four noble truths."

    To have such wisdom is a claim to be outside other systems devised by men. Hinduism in its Bhagavad-Gita 18:66 notes an alleged conversation between the main character, Krishna, to the protagonist Arjuna: 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

    Pluralism not only fails because of its self-defeating nature, but also due to its ignorance of what other religions that it touts as holding the pluralist ideology say about themselves.     

    Naturalism, our second worldview, denies objective truth, and would claim the search for truth to be irrelevant. According to naturalism, all that exists is physics + chance + time + chemistry. We can never know the true nature of reality, ourselves, or even meaning. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga has noted, naturalism fails because if I cannot know anything to be true (or truth itself to exist for that matter), then we would have to say we cannot know if naturalism itself is true! (see a summary of his argument here Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Alvin Plantinga, Templeton Prize 2017 )

    The third view, relativism, claims "what is true for you is true for you, but is not true for me". Thinkers such as Paul Copan and Norman Geisler have pointed out how relativism, the notion that there is no such thing as "objective truth", but only "personal truths" or "your truth", is actually making an objective truth claim: namely, that it is absolutely the case that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Conclusion: God's existence is necessary for truth.

    We've traced out the Biblical data for God being truth by nature. We've also spelled out what we mean when we say that God's existence and truth are interdependent. The three worldviews of pluralism, naturalism, and relativism were shown inadequate in their accounts of truth. Hopefully this post has caused readers to think more deeply of the interdependence of God and truth.