Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Wednesday, January 4, 2023
Let’s accept the reality that there IS a singular truth about the nature of God, so we can truly begin to search for it. Then, let’s earnestly begin the search. If we are unwilling to even accept the premise that there IS an objective truth, we will never begin the search that will eventually lead us to God.

For some of us, it might seem ridiculous to say that truth does not exist, because we have simply assumed the reality and existence of “truth” since we were very small. But others out there have struggled with the idea that there can be singular, exclusive truth in all areas of life, and if you ask your friends to talk about issues of faith, you will quickly discover that few of them are able to agree on a singular, objective truth. In fact, many of us have come to the conclusion that there is no one truth about anything. And when we say that nothing is objectively “right” or “true,” we are actually saying that EVERYTHING is “right” and “true”! If no one particular idea or reality is true to the exclusion of others that are NOT true, then we have to admit that every idea, notion or reality is equally valid and “true.” Something in our intuition tells us that this simply cannot be the case.
Now we may disagree on the nature of truth at the spiritual level, but it’s hard to deny objective truths at the physical level. As I step out into the street, it’s either true or untrue that there are cars racing back and forth in front of me. I make a decision to step out based on the truth that I observe and recognize. If the street is busy with cars speeding back and forth, it is not both true and untrue that I can safely step into traffic. If I do step out, I will not be both dead and “un-dead” as a result of the truth of the situation. The street is either filled with cars or it is not. It is either safe to cross or it is not. BOTH realities cannot exist at the same time. One truth must exist at the exclusion of the other.
Let’s put it another way. As I leave the restaurant tonight and enter the restaurant parking lot, I will need to find my way back to my car.  While there may be other similar vehicles in the parking lot, only one of them is mine; only one of them belongs to me. My key will only fit in one door. If I am caught trying to break into a similar car, I will not be able to tell the police that this other vehicle is both mine and not mine. There is a singular exclusive truth about the car involved here. It is either mine or it is not!
But while exclusive truth seems rational and acceptable in the material world, some people have a much harder time accepting the possibility of objective, exclusive truth when it comes to spiritual matters. For these folks, there exist any number of diverse and divergent truths about God and even more possible paths to this God, all of which are said to be true at the same time! But it’s important for us to take a deep look at this claim of diversity and religious pluralism. We need to remember that the world’s greatest (and even not so great) religions don’t make the same claims about God and the nature spiritual reality. And it’s not just a matter of each religion adding something to the larger picture. Each of the world’s religious systems makes claims about the nature of God (and life after death) that are diametrically OPPOSED! The world’s religions simply don’t agree with each other! Buddhism claims that there is no personal God, while Christianity argues that there is a personal God. Judaism claims that Jesus was simply a man, while Christianity claims that he was God Himself! Islam encourages its followers to eliminate and destroy all infidels, while biblical Christianity encourages its followers to love their enemies. These notions are very different and very opposed and they are only a few examples of the literally thousands of points at which world religions disagree. It is fair to say that ALL of these world religions may be wrong about what they believe (each system must make its own case), but it is simply crazy to say that all of the world’s religions are correct at the same time; their truth claims are opposed to one another! In spite of this obvious conflict in spiritual truths (or perhaps because of this conflict), the world around us is making a couple of claims about the nature of truth.
Truth Does Not ExistFirst, the world tries to tell us that objective, objective truth simply does not exist. This is an “ontological” issue. “Ontology” relates to the nature or essence of “being.” The claim here is that ALL truth is “perspectival” in nature. In other words, all truth depends on your perspective! What may be true for one person may not be true for another; it really simply depends on your point of view.
Truth Cannot Be KnownSecondly, the world around us is also making the claim that even if objective, objective truth does exist, we could never know with certainty what that truth is. This is an “epistemological” issue. Epistemology relates to the nature of “knowing” or being able to know something. The claim here is that we simply cannot trust our human mental faculties to tell us what we need to know to come to a conclusion about any truth we are examining.
For many great philosophical thinkers in history, understanding truth is elusive enterprise based on both its nature and our ability to comprehend it in the first place. But let’s take a close look at both of these concerns about truth. To say that truth does not exist is to simply make yet another truth claim and this nullifies any claim against the existence of truth, does it not? And to claim that all truth is “perspectival” in nature is to once again make a claim that you want others to believe is NOT simply coming from your own perspective. When someone says that all truth depends on your point of view, they want us to believe that this statement is true and not simply their point of view! See the problem? And to say that we simply cannot know the truth, even if it exists objectively, is to once again make a self-refuting claim. How can we know that we cannot know? If certainty is impossible, then how can we be certain that certainty is impossible? Are you starting to understand the silliness of all of this?
Truth is rather brutish in the way that it imposes itself on our lives. It’s like a safe dropping from a ten-story building; we either step aside or get crushed. While we may not know all that can be known about something, and while we may all have a distinct perspective about an issue, to deny the existence of truth or the sufficiency of our own knowledge of truth is to begin a series of silly mental experiments. At the end of the day, if we look up and see the safe falling, we are probably going to find ourselves stepping out of the way.
Now not everyone takes this rather common sense approach to truth. Great philosophers through the ages have at times also been great skeptics:
Andre GideBelieve those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
Molly IvinsI believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth.
Albert EinsteinTruth is what stands the test of experience.
BuddhaBelieve nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books, believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
So how did we get to this place in our world where so many great thinkers distrust anything that is claimed as truth? How did we get to the point where we trust nothing and, at the same time, embrace everything? Let me tell you about my grandmother. She never had any doubt that there was a singular truth. She grew up in Naples, Italy and spent her early life in a world of common dreams, common values, common faith, common enemies, common holidays, and common lives. In a place like this, everyone agrees on what is true and what is a lie, at least when it comes to the major worldview issues. But my grandmother eventually migrated to the world’s greatest experiment in multi-culturalism: the United States. There is no other country in the history of mankind that has tried to blend so many different people with so many different backgrounds. Here, my grandmother had to confront the realization that there is more than one way to consider the world. She found herself in a place where few people agreed about ANYTHING. But she learned quickly that disagreeing about truth is not the same as believing that there simply is no truth to argue about; disagreeing about the truth does not mean that truth cannot be known.
How can we, as individuals, trust that the knowledge we hold is actually true? What is “knowledge” in the first place and how is “knowledge” related to “belief”? Well, philosophers have been thinking about this for some time and the traditional analysis of knowledge is usually described in the following way:
Knowledge=Properly Justified True Belief
Now, what exactly does this mean? It’s important for you and I to understand this simple little equation because our knowledge of ALL things (including our knowledge of spiritual matters) comes down to whether or not we hold properly justified true beliefs. So, let’s examine the definition more precisely, starting backwards from the definition of “Belief” to the definition of “Knowledge”:
“Belief”Let’s face it; you can’t “know” something unless you “believe” it. I can’t “know” that there is a God unless I believe that God exists. But my belief is simply not enough; it is insufficient. You and I can both believe things that are simply untrue. It is possible for us to have false beliefs. And people who believe something that is false often think that they KNOW it. But there is a difference between “believing” and “knowing” in this context. You may “believe” something that is false, but you can’t genuinely “know” something that is false. Now think about this for a minute. We may “know” OF something that is false, but what we “know” is that it IS false! To actually “know” something is to “know” that it is TRUE. And you and I can’t actually “know” something to be true unless it actually IS true. In other words, we can’t “know” something unless it is NOT false.
“True”Most of us like to think that we hold the truth, yet when someone presses us to define what truth is, we might have a hard time trying to define it. How do we determine when something is true? Over the centuries a number of theories have emerged related to assessing, apprehending and understanding truth:
Read More

Related Posts:

Salvation through the Catholic faith is not possible without Mary. Mark Miraville, a leading advocate of Marian theology, states, “It is in the light of Mary’s unique and intimate cooperation with the Redeemer, both at the incarnation…and at the work of redemption at Calvary…that the Church has invoked Mary under the title “Coredemptrix.”

Have you ever been in the position of trying to educate someone on what their particular religion believes and practices? As a teacher of comparative religions for over thirty years, I’ve been confronted with that situation many times. It happens often with Catholics, especially on the topic of Mary.
Today, Mary, the mother of Jesus , is increasingly being given a prominence in Roman Catholicism which finds little or no support in the Bible. When a contrast is made between the biblical Mary and the Mary of Roman Catholic tradition, the result is two very different portraits of Mary. The Roman Catholic portrayal quite often obscures Christ. In many respects, the Mary of Rome is portrayed as a female parallel to Jesus.
For example, consider the following Catholic teachings: Jesus was born without sin; Mary was conceived without original sin. Jesus was sinless; Mary lived a sinless life. Jesus ascended to heaven following His resurrection; Mary was bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life. Jesus is a Mediator; Mary is Mediatrix. Jesus is a redeemer; Mary is co-redeemer. Jesus is the King; Mary is the queen of heaven.(1)
These things are true with regard to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about Mary. And while each one deserves much more space than is available in this article, we will concern ourselves here only with Catholicism’s teaching that Mary was sinless along with the practice of praying to her. See here for more information on other points about Mary: https://arcapologetics.org/will-the-real-mary-please-stand-up/(2)
MARY WAS A SINNER
It has been my experience over the years that some Catholics do not understand the “immaculate conception” of Mary. Some have believed that this refers to Mary being impregnated by the Holy Spirit without carnal sex so she could give birth to Jesus. Somehow they have missed that this doctrine is not referring to Jesus’ conception, but rather the conception of Mary herself. However, folk Catholicism is not official Catholicism. The official position is that Mary, in her immaculate conception, was preserved from original sin. As such, she was miraculously preserved from the pollution of sin inherited from Adam. In both body and soul, she is believed by Catholics to be holy, stainless, spotless, undefiled, pure and innocent in every way. In his papal Bull Ineffabilis of 1854, Pope Pius IX defined Mary’s immaculate conception as follows:
[A]ccordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (3)
This is not a suggestion by the Pope, rather an edict, something to be obeyed by all Catholics. How serious is it to reject this? The same Pope said, “Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid–to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”(4)
Virtually, all catechisms of the Catholic Church teach the sinless perfection of Mary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, affirms the same. On page 252, paragraph 966, it says,” Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory,…”(5) Not only does the Roman Catholic Church teach she was without sin, it teaches she never died.
TO PRAY OR NOT TO PRAY TO MARY
It is logical for Catholics to make a connection between Mary’s sinless human nature and praying to her. All Catholics are not necessarily in agreement on all things including praying to Mary. However, we should not kid ourselves about language. Some say they don’t pray to Mary, but they ask Mary to pray for them either to the Father or to the Son. Whether it is asking Mary or the saints in heaven to pray for them, it is still using words that are in fact the same as praying. Asking, beseeching, urging, appealing, petitioning, communing with, talking to, etc., are all used as synonyms for praying.
Although some do not want to admit they are praying to Mary, the Catholic Church openly endorses praying to Mary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, says, “Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, …We can pray with her and to her. The Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.”(6)
Also, consider the following from the third novena of another Catholic source: “O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.”(7)
RESPONSE
The prayer above confirms what the Catholic Church teaches in regard Mary being sinless and the issue of praying to her. In reference to the latter, we encounter the issue of praying to the dead. There is no Old or New Testament approval of this. Instead, the Bible looks upon this as a pagan practice and equivalent to necromancy (conjuring of the spirits of the dead) which is condemned in Deuteronomy 18: 10-13.
Addressing Mary as ‘the dispenser of all gifts’ is to mean that no salvific benefit can come to us without her mediation. The St. Peter Catechism of the Catholic Church asks, “Did God will to make our redemption and all its consequences depend upon the free consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary?” The Catechism answers, “God willed that our redemption and all its consequences should depend on the free consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”(8)
Salvation through the Catholic faith is not possible without Mary. Mark Miraville, a leading advocate of Marian theology, states, “It is in the light of Mary’s unique and intimate cooperation with the Redeemer, both at the incarnation…and at the work of redemption at Calvary…that the Church has invoked Mary under the title “Coredemptrix.”(9) Also, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order: for by God, it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”(10)
Granting Mary or any of the saints such a prominent position in salvation means that our Lord has other competitors for His one and only advocacy for us. Having others mediating between Him and mankind is contrary to biblical theology. Scripture says, “There is only one mediator between God and man, and that is the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). It is so because He, not Mary, angels, or saints, is qualified as our only mediator and it is to Him and Him only that we have access to our heavenly Father for salvation.  As Luke says in Acts 4:12, “ And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men[a] by which we must be saved.”
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. A Teaching Elder in the PCA, he has pastored churches in Alabama and South Carolina.

Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), 55.
Will the Real Mary Please Stand Up, Clete Hux, https://arcapologetics.org/will-the-real-mary-please-stand-up/
James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 37.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), 252.
, p. 644
https://sacredheartparish.net/novena-prayers-to-our-mother-of-perpetual-help/
Peter Catechism (Liverpool: Print Organization, 1972), question 319.
Mark Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993), XV.
Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper (1894).

Related Posts:

Written by Nicholas K. Meriwether |
Tuesday, March 26, 2024
God requires that the state, a collective entity, punish evildoers (Rom. 13:4). This “sword” can be carried by the state in dealing with its own citizens, or with the army of a foreign power. Of course, to go beyond those directly responsible for the evil being judged and to punish the innocent along with them requires the explicit instructions of God, and this has occurred in only one instance: the herem against the peoples of Canaan, people groups so evil that the land itself “vomited” them out (Lev. 18:26-28). Without explicit divine instructions, however, innocent civilians may not be singled out by an army or the state, which is precisely the evil perpetrated by Hamas against Jews on Oct. 7.

On Nov. 27, Paul Copan responded to a reader’s inquiry concerned about the language of divine judgment in Ezekiel 9, specifically, Ezek. 9:5-6. 6 men, likely angels, are appointed by God to exercise divine judgment against the inhabitants of Jerusalem. One man is assigned the task of marking those who are repentant so that they may be spared, but the others are to kill the rest of the people, including women, young adults, and children:
And to the others he said in my hearing, “Pass through the city after him, and strike. Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark.”
While there may be various factors that lessen the severity of the divine injunction, such as that not everyone in the city is destroyed, there is no getting around the fact that in this and in other instances of divine judgment, some who appear innocent of the actions bringing judgment are not spared, including children, even infants, as well as adults not in positions of authority. The moral question is intensified by the fact that in several passages, it is not angels who execute divine judgment, rather God commands the nation of Israel itself to carry out his judgment, that is, to carry out herem (Deut. 7:1-2; 20:16-18; Josh. 6:21; 1 Sam. 15:1-3).[1]
Paul has written extensively on this topic, most recently in Is God a Vindictive Bully?[2] In his response to the inquirer, Paul claims that such passages do not mean what they appear to mean, rather this is Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, or “trash talk,” mixed with merism, an inclusive rhetorical expression, as when we say we looked “high and low.” While I appreciate the enormous effort Paul has made to exonerate God of acting unjustly, and though I am neither a theologian nor a Bible scholar, I remain unconvinced that he is successful in respect to herem.[3] While it’s always possible that the Bible exaggerates or employs widely-accepted hyperbole, several instances in which herem against the innocent is commanded specifically and in detail make it implausible that mere hyperbole is meant.
Which Cities to Destroy: Deuteronomy 20:10-18
Here God instructs the Israelites regarding how to attack a city. They first must offer terms of peace, and only besiege it if the residents refuse. By contrast, if the city is a Canaanite city, they must “save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction” (vv. 16-17). The interpretation that this is mere hyperbole doesn’t fit with the fact that two categories are specified, and different instructions assigned to each category. Why would mere hyperbole be employed in the giving of instructions if the eventual treatment is the same? I suggest the simpler explanation is that we take the instructions at face value. This interpretation is reinforced in the passages below.
Achan and his Family: Joshua 7
God had commanded Joshua to place the entire city of Jericho under herem (6:17-18) in keeping with the deuteronomic herem policy for all the Canaanite peoples (see above). However, Achan violates the policy by keeping some of the herem bounty for himself, and so Israel is defeated by the people of Ai. When Joshua cries out to God, he is divinely guided to Achan. The latter, his entire family, and all their earthly goods are placed under herem, viz., Achan and his family, including his sons and daughters, are stoned, and all Achan’s goods are buried under rock (vv. 24-26). Joshua’s actions are fully in keeping with the herem policies in Deut. 20; there is simply no reason to think this is hyperbole or merism. But if it is not in this instance, why should we think the original policy is?
The Destruction of the Amalekites: 1 Samuel 15
Saul is instructed to destroy the Amalekites. Speaking for God, Samuel tells Saul,
“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction [herem] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (v. 3).
Yet Saul fails to complete the task, sparing the sheep and cattle as well as the king, Agag, and for this reason, is rejected by God. God tells Samuel, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments” (v. 11). When Samuel goes to deliver the news to Saul, he says, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” (v. 14) Saul responds by saying that although he had devoted the Amalekites to destruction, he had spared the livestock as well as the king (v. 20). Is Saul using hyperbolic language with Samuel? This hardly seems likely. After announcing to Saul that he has lost the throne, Samuel calls Agag, who comes hoping “the bitterness of death is past” (v. 32). Why would Agag anticipate his death if no one other than Amalekite warriors had died in battle? Samuel then kills Agag himself (v. 33). The straightforward reading is that this passage is consistent with Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 7: Saul had violated herem when he spared Agag after killing all the Amalekites.
Read More
Related Posts: