Part Seven: The Most Dangerous Adversary Confronting the Church Today

I began studying Christian apologetics in the mid-1980s. Back then, tough-minded non-Christians typically responded to the Gospel by making statements like, “How do you know Jesus rose from the dead? Can you prove it?” Or, “Jesus never claimed to be God!” At this point, Christian evangelists trained in apologetics would switch from Gospel to apologetics. We would demonstrate why Christians know for sure that Jesus rose from the dead and in fact did claim to be deity. We would provide evidence that the Bible is historically reliable. With the aid of the Holy Spirit, we demonstrated that Christianity is Truth.

This approach worked well until the 1990s because most people—Christians and non-Christians—accepted the reality of objective, absolute truth. They differed over what constituted truth, but they agreed that truth existed and appealed to evidence and reasoned arguments to support their perspectives.

This is not always the case today. Successful apologetic tactics used during the twentieth century are often ineffective now. Why? Because during the last decades of the twentieth century, a profound and socially jarring worldview shift occurred relating to how people view truth. Modern critics of Christianity often deny the effectiveness of human reasoning and reject the notion of absolute truth. As a result, it’s common for people to say something like this, “You’re so intolerant! What gives you the right to claim Jesus is the only way to God? Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists—all are equal.” Or, “It’s not immoral to have an abortion; people are free to do as they choose!”

This emerging view of truth and reality is called postmodernism, and it’s a politically charged, highly influential, radical departure from how Western cultures viewed truth and reality for centuries. It has also caused a tactical shift in how apologists deal with it.

Postmodernism 

 Postmodernism is primarily a Western intellectual phenomenon, and it has dramatically impacted contemporary culture. It’s responsible for an ongoing worldview shift of such magnitude that it changes how many people think and behave in practically every area of knowledge, including science, history, law, education, sociology, psychology, entertainment, ethics, and religion. Many Christian apologists believe postmodernism is the most dangerous adversary of the church today. As one author, writing for the Christian Research Journal put it, today the church faces a challenge far greater than the Renaissance, potentially more divisive than the Reformation, and more insidious in its inroads into the life of the church itself than the secularist rationalism of the Enlightenment. I am referring to postmodernism.” (Donald T. Williams, “The Great Divide; The Church and the Postmodernist Challenge,” Christian Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 02, 35).

Two fundamental presuppositions (assumptions) form the doctrinal infrastructure of postmodernism. Both directly oppose the governing principles for determining truth that has guided Western cultures for centuries—and they directly affront biblical teachings. ©

In next week’s blog post, I’ll identify and examine the two governing presuppositions (assumptions) of this 21^st-century assault against Christianity.

Part Six:  How to Prove Christian Truths-Claims Are Factual

In the previous two blog posts in this series, I demonstrated that modern science depends on a philosophical assumption called Scientism—which claims nothing can be considered true or factual unless it passes through the filter of scientific testing, that is,  demonstrated scientifically. This includes religious truth-claims. I pointed out three responses that refute this assumption. We looked at the first two in last week’s blog. This week we’ll examine the third response: Christian truths can be proven to be factual.

3. Christian Truth-Claims Can Be Established as Factual

In an online article I wrote for the Christian Research Journal  (“Can Apologetics Go Beyond Evidence for Christianity to ‘Proof’ of Christianity?” 5-13-2020), I established that if we apply the same method for determining truth to religious claims that are used to determine truth in virtually all other areas of knowledge, such as history, law, and even science, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity is true and all other religions are false. Why? Because the methodology for determining truth I’m referring to is used to determine scientific truths,  legal truths, historical truths, and most of the decisions we make in everyday life. All these areas of knowledge depend on inductive reasoning—as does the scientific method.

Inductive reasoning essentially determines truth by accumulating a preponderance of reliable evidence to reach a probable conclusion—to achieve the highest level of certainty attainable in the areas under investigation. In science, this involves accumulated evidence through observations, experimentations, and verifications. But the scientific method is not limited to just empirical science. This same truth-test (inductive reasoning)  is used to verify everything from the odds of winning the lottery to the guilt or innocence of a murder suspect. It’s the method used to ascertain the historicity of George Washington and establish the likelihood of dying in a plane crash. It’s the truth-test doctors use to diagnose an illness, stockbrokers use to direct their investments, and consumers use to select a reliable used car. In all these instances, decisions are based on their probable outcome.

Religion is no different. We can’t prove or disprove religious truth through scientific observation or experimentation because that approach doesn’t apply. Yet the vast amount of accumulated evidence demonstrates to the highest level of certainty attainable in the area of religious truth that God exists, the Bible is His only authentic written revelation, and that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the grave to redeem us. No other religion in the world can be proven true by applying inductive reasoning.

In sum, just because something can’t verify by modern science doesn’t mean it’s untrue. This is precisely the case for Christian truth-claims. To be consistent, if modern secular science denies the factuality of Christian truth-claims,  it must also deny as factual other areas of knowledge that do not pass through Scientism’s filter. This would include denying as factual all legal, historical, aesthetic, philosophical, and all other truths of a non-scientific nature that people take for granted as factual.

There is no logical, philosophical, or scientific reason not to recognize that truth and knowledge can reside in the unseen, spiritual world as well as in the physical, natural world. ©

Next week we look begin looking at the most dangerous adversary confronting the church in the 21^st century.

Part Five:  Can Science Prove Religious Beliefs Are Fiction and Only Science Is Factual?

In my previous blog post, before my annual Christmas break, I explained that the foundational assumption of modern science is the philosophy of Scientism, which alleges all spiritual truth-claims are merely personal feelings, experiences, and values—beliefs based entirely on subjective faith. Science, on the other hand, allegedly, is objective knowledge attained by impartial fact-finding. Therefore, only science can determine what is true.

This claim is egregiously false and unsubstantiated. The fact is, modern science has nothing to say about spiritual truths—or any other nonscientific topic. There are (at least) three responses that refute the assumption that only science can determine what is true or false. The first two responses are below; next week’s blog will explain the third response.

1. Scientism Is Self-refuting

Scientism is self-refuting because it falsifies itself. Its claims that nothing can be considered truthful unless it passes through the filter of scientific testing. But this is not a scientific statement at all. It’s a philosophical assumption that imposes its own definition of what can be regarded as factual or fiction. Thus, Scientism can be rejected by its own tenets because it can’t be proven scientifically; that is, it can’t be tested or verified by the Scientific Method. It dies the death of inconsistency.

2. Scientific Knowledge Is Limited in Scope

Scientism’s claim that nothing can be considered factual unless it passes scientific scrutiny is erroneous for a second reason. The fact is, modern science is incapable of proving anything outside of scientific matters. To prove something scientifically, according to the Scientific Method, one must be able to test it, observe the results, repeat the experiment, and come up with the same conclusions each time. But this kind of test cannot be applied to nonscientific matters, including religious truth-claims. Indeed, science routinely makes assumptions not derived from empirical observations. For example, strictly speaking, no one has observed electrons, quarks, quantum particles, black holes, etc. They are inferred from other studies, yet virtually everyone agrees they are factual phenomena.

There are many areas of truth and knowledge not open to scientific verification. Can observation and experimentation be applied when investigating historical matters? No—yet historical facts exist. Can observation and experimentation determine guilt or innocence in a crime? No—legal reasoning and eyewitness testimony are called for. Can aesthetics (the reality of beauty), ethics (moral behavior), and philosophical assertions be tested scientifically? Of course not. Yet, people agree such truths are valid. More importantly, for our purposes, science has no way to prove or disprove the worldwide phenomenon of spiritual realities. Only God can impart such truths and knowledge. ©

Next week’s blog post will demonstrate how Christians can prove Christian truths-claims are factual by applying the same methodology for determining truth used in history, law, everyday life, and even science.

Part Four:  How Does Secular Science Attempt to Disprove God’s Existence?

Let me begin by saying that science is not atheistic—in fact, it provides compelling, unarguable evidence that God does exist. But the foundational assumption of a secular view of science (philosophical naturalism—see part two for a definition) does attempt to argue against God’s existence. Here’s what wrong with this.

God and naturalism are mutually exclusive; if a creator God exists, naturalism as the foundation of secular science can’t be true because it denies anything supernatural. So, it’s in the interest (the very survival) of naturalism to deny God’s existence and other religious truth-claims. The primary way it attempts to do this is by promoting science as the only reliable source of truth. In other words, if there is no transcendent, supernatural Being that reveals spiritual truth, it leaves only secular science to explain reality as it is. This philosophy is called “Scientism,” and refuting it is our apologetic response.

Scientism

According to Scientism, nothing can be considered true—factual—unless it passes through the filter of scientific testing. If something can’t be explained by modern science—that is,  can’t be proven scientifically—it can’t be considered true or even rational. Naturalists usually say something like this: “You can’t know for sure if something is true unless you can prove it scientifically.”

The most serious fallout from this dogma is that it elevates scientific truth above religious truth. On the one hand, science is supposedly objective knowledge attained by impartial fact-finding, particularly observation and experimentation.  On the other hand, allegedly, religion is said to fall within the category of things that cannot be known for sure because they can’t be demonstrated scientifically: observed in nature or tested in a lab. Religious truth is said to be subjective, merely feelings and experiences. It’s only faith, values, and beliefs, not objective facts and knowledge. In short, science is fact and religion fiction.

The fact is this claim is patently false. Scriptures contain much factual data in science, psychology, human behavior, ethical principles, history, and more. Furthermore, the statement, “You can’t know for sure if something is true unless you can prove it scientifically,” is inconsistent and contradictory. It is a philosophical statement about science—not a scientific statement. Why? Because the statement can’t be proven scientifically. It’s an assumption that nothing can be truthful outside of scientific testing, which itself can’t be tested scientifically! Thus, in terms of spiritual truth, the claim is an inconsistent, irrational, meaningless statement.

Now think about this. Why should any thinking person believe truth and knowledge are confined only to the realm of empirical science? There is no logical, philosophical, or scientific reason not to recognize that truth and knowledge can reside in the unseen, spiritual world as well as in the physical, natural world. In short, the secular view of science, grounded in scientism, has nothing legitimate to say about religious truth. When it attempts to do so, it falsifies itself. ©

By the way, I have two chapters on modern evidence for creation vs. evolution in my book, Defending Your Faith: Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics, Revised and Expanded (Kregel Publications, 2019)

Next week we’ll look at specific apologetic evidence demonstrating why Scientism is a false and deceitful argument against religious truth.

Part Three: What Is “Naturalism,” and How Is It an Excuse to Live Immoral Lives?

Although most people associate naturalism with modern science (see last week’s blog), the fact is naturalism has moved far beyond science to become the secular infrastructure—the foundational presupposition (assumption)—of ethics, psychology, sociology, education, and law. Its influence, however, is particularly significant in three areas: (1)The justification for moral relativism, (2) the basis for rejecting the existence of God, and (3) the philosophical grounding for evolutionary science. We’ll examine and refute all three beginning in this week’s blog post.

Naturalism As a Justification for Moral Relativism

Because naturalism is a philosophy rather than science (last week’s blog), it can and does permeates all facets of modern society. Nowhere is this more evident and dangerous than in the area of ethics. Naturalism’s godless worldview is foundational to moral relativism and the rejection of absolute standards of right and wrong. Follow these thoughts: 

• If naturalism is true, there is no God.
• If there is no God, people are elevated to supreme beings, and there is no objective basis for moral absolutes.
• Without absolute standards of right and wrong, and if people are supreme beings, ethics arise from human feelings and experiences.
• Since individual societies and people differ in their acceptance or rejection of particular moral behaviors (e.g., abortion and homosexuality), and since no absolute higher authority exists to say whose view is correct (i.e., God), it logically follows that all moral perspective must be equally true and acceptable.

This is moral relativism, and here’s the danger. Without God, there is no ultimate “good” to identify what is ultimately “bad.” Ethical behavior becomes descriptive rather than prescriptive. It’s how we choose to behave, not how we ought to behave. “Sin” in an absolute sense is nonexistent. The whims of the most powerful determine moral behavior: the physically (or militarily) strongest, the most influential, the richest, or the dominant political party. In terms of naturalism, what people think is immoral or evil is actually the fruit of natural selection—”survival of the fittest.” It’s merely nature.

Sadly, the cultural pacesetters in America today—especially in academia—are increasingly endorsing this moral philosophy. For example, Princeton University professor of bioethics, Peter Singer, openly advocated infanticide. Singer wrote, “No newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot . . . ” because “they are not persons.” Therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee. (Quoted in Scott Klusendorf, “Death with a Happy Face: Peter Singers Bold Defense of Infanticide,” Christian Research Journal, Volume 23, Number 3.)

Singer and like-minded academicians illustrate the godless philosophy of naturalism, carried to its logical and lethal conclusion, results in a total disregard for the sanctity of human life. Sadly this is what students are taught in many of America’s stellar universities. And why not?  If there is no God to condemn such behavior, there is no objective reason not to eliminate the weak and dependent. It’s frightening to imagine what this nation will be like if these students become the moral pacesetters in society. ©

Next week we’ll see how naturalism offers irrational excuses for rejecting God’s existence.

Part Two:  What Caused the Decline of Christian Dominance and Influence During the Twentieth Century?

As I look back on my life, it seems as if I’m living on an entirely different planet than the America of my youth. No time in the history of humanity has a culture experienced such profound ethical changes during such a short timespan as America after the 1960s. Readers my age know exactly what I’m talking about. Who would have imagined in the 1960s that Americans could freely kill their unborn children? Who would have dreamed that a person could marry someone of the same sex—but could not discuss their religious beliefs in public schools? No one in the 1960s would have forecast that people would soon be free to engage in pornography under the umbrella of freedom of speech.

By every cultural indicator, America before the 1960s was a safer place to live. It was more emotionally stable and less violent. It embraced greater personal and political integrity and healthier moral behavior. It had less crime, less divorce, less child abuse, and fewer teenage suicides. There was fewer drug and alcohol addiction. Out of wedlock pregnancies were uncommon. Graphic sex and violence on television and in the movies were virtually nonexistent.

It’s no coincidence that the same five decades that witnessed the decline of Christianity as the guiding moral light in American society witnessed the decay of America’s moral health. Remove God and biblical values from society, and elevate godless secular humanism in their place, and civilization begins to crumble. (Secular means non-religious; humanism espouses that all values, activities, and interests revolve around human ambitions and goals.) Today, secular humanism is center stage as the dominant worldview in America, and Christianity has been shoved into the wings.

Philosophical Naturalism

Secular humanism rests on philosophical naturalism, which alleges everything that exists is a product of nature (natural phenomena) and governed by natural laws. It denies anything supernatural. Naturalists preach that all of reality is material; that is, merely matter—even our thoughts. The human mind is no more than physiological and neurological processes. Most people associate naturalism with modern science because many of the battles between naturalism and Christianity involve the creation/evolution debate. However, science is only one area in which naturalism exerts influence in modern cultures.

The first thing to understand about naturalism, to formulate effective apologetics (which we’ll do in future blogs in this series), is that it is not science—it’s philosophy. It’s a way of looking at all of reality, not just the origin of life. When the late Carl Sagan voiced his now-famous dictum on the Cosmos television program, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be,” he wasn’t making a scientific statement. There is no scientific proof that the cosmos is all there is. Sagan was speaking philosophically. He was expressing a metaphysical, naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe that omits the supernatural. ©

The next few blogs will show how naturalism permeates virtually every aspect of modern culture—especially science and morality—often in direct conflict with Christian principles and values.

Part one:  What Happened to Christianity in the late 20^th Century?

A while back, I watched a DVD of a 1950s weekly television show called  “Leave it to Beaver.” The main character was a boy nicknamed “Beaver” (Jerry Mathers). During this particular episode, Beaver tore his pants and lied to his parents about how it happened. Of course, he was found out. As the show concluded, his mother reminded Beaver that God sees his actions and knows when he lies, even if no one else does. The show ended with Beaver and his brother, Wally (Tony Dow), recently home from Sunday School, reflecting on the lessons learned.

Before the mid-twentieth century, Christianity was the dominant religious belief in America and set standards for moral and social behavior. Until the 1960s, even non-Christians generally accepted and obeyed Christian values. Practically every episode of pre-1970s sitcoms presented implicit lessons on honesty, courage, sacrifice, kindness, and other values intrinsic to Christians and American culture in general. The shows often included church scenes, showed pastors in respectful roles, and often ended with moral lessons. An episode of the 1960s TV series “Route 66” even included a full Gospel presentation given to a prisoner.

As in the 1960s, television today remains a barometer of American values. What one sees on TV usually reflects current values—or at least those the entertainment industry wants us to accept. When was the last time you saw a TV show that encouraged godly behavior? Rarely, if ever. Many openly include adultery, fornication, homosexuality, cohabitation, swearing, lying, cheating, pride, self-centeredness, disrespect for parents, and much more. Go to the movies, scan magazines at a grocery store checkout line, and attend a play. American culture rarely promotes biblical morals and values.

Today, Christianity no longer sets the standard for ethical and social behavior in America, and Christians are struggling to maintain a vibrant voice and influence in popular culture—especially in the area of morality. As we consider evangelism and apologetics, we must be prepared to address a host of moral issues people rarely encountered forty or fifty years ago, especially in universities and colleges, the media, and the entertainment industry. They include moral relativism, religious pluralism, multiculturalism, political correctness, and the new definition of tolerance. (We’ll examine all of them in this new blog series.)

As a result of these growing godless ideologies, attacks against Christianity have increased in dimension. In addition to challenging specific doctrinal beliefs, such as the Bible’s reliability and Jesus’ resurrection, cutting-edge apologetic issues today include Christian ethics and other values. The Christian stand against abortion, gay marriage, cohabitation, internet pornography, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and cloning have come under increasingly strong criticism due primarily to dramatic moral and sociological changes that have taken place in Western culture since the 1960s.

It is crucial we Christians understand these anti-Christian ideologies and identify how they permeate our thinking and behavior—and prepare successful apologetics. This is especially important for young people raised in Christian homes, up to 80% of whom walk away from their faith upon entering secular colleges and universities. My goal in this new blog series is to identify today’s secular ideologies and present effective apologetics. ©

Next week we look at what caused the collapse of Christian dominance in America and Western Culture.

Part Eight:  Two Ways Christianity Offers Spiritual Fulfillment That No Other Religion Can

This week’s blog post concludes my present series. Moving from apologetics to application, we’ll see that Christianity offers spiritual fulfillment in two ways:

 Philosophical Fulfillment:

In the Christian worldview, spiritual fulfillment includes gaining answers to precisely the same questions that the non-Christian world cannot answer:

• Who am I? What is my relationship to the rest of life and the cosmos?
• Where did I come from? What is the origin of my existence?
• Why am I here? What purpose do I have for my existence?
• What happens to me when I die? Is there life after death, and how do I attain it?

All these questions are unanswerable by science or philosophy because they involve issues beyond the scientist’s or philosopher’s ability to respond. They are unanswerable by non-Christian religions because they do not have divine revelation. These questions can only be answered by an all-powerful, all-knowing God who stands above and apart from humanity.

Christianity is true precisely because it offers answers to life’s great mysteries that are in total harmony and consistency with the world as it exists. Unlike other religions, the Christian worldview is coherent and believable; it is not mystical, esoteric, or far-fetched.

Practical Fulfillment:

 Christianity is also true because it meets human needs at their deepest level in a pragmatic way. Being a Christian is not always easy, but it promises something no other religion in the world can offer—and accomplish: it replaces the old, beaten self with a new spirit-filled self. Christian has been the world’s most successful religion not only because it’s the true revelation of God but because it makes changes in the inner person (2 Cor. 5:17). While other religions have rules and regulations to follow, Christianity has a risen Savior that promises a born-again life (John 3:3) if we trust in Him. Jesus assures us that He “came that [we] may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10; see Phil.4:5-7, 19).

Jesus is our crutch because we cannot attain eternal peace and life without Him. Only in Jesus Christ can we experience spiritual peace of mind. Prominent theologian, the late J. I. Packer, put it like this: “Once you become aware that the main business that you are here for is to know God, most of life’s problems fall into place of their own accord: (Knowing God)

Is Christianity a crutch for weak people? Yes, in the same sense that gasoline is a crutch for an automobile. As C.S. Lewis said, Christians “run” on Jesus Christ—not because they are weaklings, but because God’s power becomes our power through acknowledging our dependence on Him. The apostle Paul says it best:

“And He [Jesus] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.’ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weakness, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am well content with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10, NASB)  ©

Next Week I’ll begin a new series titled, “The World Beyond the Church—Moral Issues Confronting Christians in the 21^st Century.”

Part Seven:  Two Objections:  You Can Have Inner Peace and fulfillment Through Non-Christian Religions—or Without Any Religion

 The previous six blogs in this eight-part series give effective apologetics that Christianity is not a “crutch” for weak and insecure people. Moreover, they show that only Christianity provides real and lasting inner peace and spiritual fulfillment—natural desires innate to the entire human race. However, critics may raise two objections that need a response.

“I have peace of mind, and I am not a religious person.”

Response:  I am not saying peace of mind cannot result from, for example, good health or emotional stability. Fulfilling either of these two basic God-give human needs can result in a certain amount of satisfaction, or else they would not be genuine human desires. But this is a much different peace of mind than what one attains through spiritual fulfillment. Peace of mind that relies on good health, financial security, or emotional stability is tenuous and will vanish if these things are lost or even threatened. On the other hand, peace of mind founded on spiritual fulfillment will never die because its stability rests on God’s eternal power, love, and grace—not human strength, good health, emotional stability, financial success, or earthly objects (see last week’s blog post).

“Christianity is not the only religion that offers spiritual fulfillment. So do the hundreds of other religions around the world.”

Response:  This objection contains a degree of truth. Spiritual fulfillment can be achieved in non-Christian religions. However, the error here is that other religions are counterfeit. Christian apologetics show that non-Christian religions are perversions of religious truth. They are not genuine—objectively demonstrable—revelations from God. If Christianity is the only true religion, then Christianity alone will offer eternal peace of mind. False beliefs can only provide a false sense of security. They do not have the answers to life’s bewildering questions, especially “What happens to me when I die,” or “What is the purpose and meaning of life?” At best, they can only provide a degree of emotional comfort.

To see this played out in real life, one need only examine religious conversions. Throughout church history, countless millions of practitioners of false religions and non-religious ideologies have converted to Christianity. They all acknowledge that Christianity is the only true religion. What they previously thought was spiritual fulfillment turned out to be spiritual deception.  It is much more natural to walk from darkness to light than walk from light to darkness. Jesus put it powerfully when He said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). ©

Next week I’ll conclude this series by looking at two ways Christianity provides spiritual fulfillment that no other religion can.

Part Six: What Innate Desire Does Every Human on Earth Have That This World Can’t Satisfy?

C. S. Lewis and other scholars have correctly argued that every natural desire the human family possesses expresses a real and necessary human need. In the physical realm, we need food, shelter, rest, and warmth to live comfortably. Humans also desire love, self-esteem, and acceptance to feel emotionally content. These two needs are tangible, easy to recognize, and satisfied by our environment and human relationships.

As Lewis further explained, if human beings possess a natural desire for something in which the world offers no fulfillment, something outside the world will fulfill it. That something is God. Every human (whether ignored or denied) craves spiritual fulfillment because God has placed that desire in us (e.g., Eccl. 3:11; Rom. 1: 18-20). Fourth-century theologian, Augustine, put it like this: “Thou [God] has made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee.” Only by satisfying our spiritual needs can we experience genuine and lasting inner fulfillment and peace.

The quest for spiritual peace of mind is a worldwide phenomenon and a characteristic of the entire human race as far back as history and archaeology allow us to investigate. All peoples in every culture exhibit belief in supernatural beings and seek to live in harmony with them. Moreover, modern secular societies that have attempted to suppress this instinctive drive have invariably met with failure. The resurgence of religion following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the estimated 100 million-plus Christians in communist China demonstrates that even an atheistic society cannot suppress humankind’s spiritual needs.

But let me add this. Of the three innate drives we seek to fulfill, our desire for spiritual fulfillment is the most vital for lasting peace of mind and meaningful life. Physical health does not necessarily lead to peace of mind. Many disabled people experience genuine spiritual peace of mind. Likewise, neither does money nor material possessions guarantee peace of mind. Many spirit-filled poor people are vastly more content and happy than many rich people. Nor does emotional fulfillment necessarily lead to peace of mind. Many thousands of prisoners isolated from normal social interactions and after years of living angry, violent, and bitter lives have come to possess a profound peace of mind and deep spiritual fulfillment by experiencing God’s love and forgiveness.

What’s my point? Whereas fulfilling spiritual needs can result in peace of mind despite unfulfilled physical or psychological needs, the opposite is not true. Fulfilling physical or psychological needs does not lead to lasting peace of mind without spiritual fulfillment. Regardless of how healthy, wealthy, or satisfying one’s life seems to be, there remains a longing for something this earth or human relationships cannot provide: spiritual fulfillment. Only God through the “crutch” of Jesus Christ can satisfy this longing. (Read last week’s blog for the definition of “crutch” and “weak” as I’m using it concerning Jesus.) ©

Next week  I’ll respond to two common objections: (1) Many people claim to have peace of mind without religion, and (2) non-Christians religions can also provide spiritual peace of mind.

NOTE:  If you would like to receive personal notification when I post a new blog, please joining my private email list. Click on “contact” above and send me your email address. I do not share email addresses.