HOW TO KNOW GOD EXISTS?

Gents, this email is on how we can know God exists by using reason. We grew up being taught God exists, but we were never taught how to know by reason He exists. This is important for two reasons: a) it helps us to understand that God is absolute and that his laws are absolute, and b) if we were approached by an atheist with questions on God’s existence, we should know how to answer him / her. Otherwise, we would be useless in helping that person “come to a knowledge of truth” (1 Tim 2:4). In this series of emails, we’ll go from how to know God exists to what is the means He created to safeguard and transmit His Truth. Probably around ten emails.

One point on faith and reason – “We…need faith even after we know a truth by reason, to stave off irrational doubts. Reason and faith are not rivals but allies against irrational doubts, passion, prejudice, propaganda, fear, folly, fantasy and fallacy” (Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, p. 47). For instance, we have faith in Christ, but if we are challenged by a non-Christian, how would we explain our faith? We couldn’t just say, “Mommy and daddy told us” or “We read the Bible.” What about times when we doubt certain truths because we don’t understand them? Reason is a gift from God and it helps us to understand and explain truths received from God. Even Christ gave reasons to believe in Him by performing miracles, declaring prophecies that were later fulfilled and by rising from the dead to numerous witnesses.

This first topic, how to know God exists by using reason, will begin with a syllogism. A syllogism is simply an argument containing at least two premises and one conclusion.

This first syllogism is called the Kalam Argument. Kalam is the Arabic word for “speech,” but later came to denote a type of philosophical theology.

Premise 1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. Take a moment and think about your existence. You had a beginning and a cause for your beginning; your parents. Your parents had a cause; your grandparents had a cause and so on. Apply this to animals, plants and all other living organisms and continue working backward in time until there is no matter, energy or space. If you continue working backward in your mind, you will arrive at absolute nothingness. Note: The earth is about 4.6 billion years old and the universe is about 14 billion years old (http://www.ips-planetarium.org/?age). Scientifically, this means the universe had a beginning.

Premise 2 - The universe began to exist (Better yet…matter, energy and space began to exist). Continue working backward. How did the universe come into being? Our best theory is Big Bang. Big Bang Theory was developed because certain physicists, including Father George Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, discovered that objects in space are constantly moving away from one another. By moving backward in time, the objects would move closer and closer together until they became a single, extremely dense mass called a “singularity.” Due to immense pressure, the singularity either exploded or rapidly expanded and, over millions of years, the matter, along with heat released from it, formed planets and stars. Continue working backward. How did the matter, pressure, energy and space come into existence without a being creating them?

Conclusion - Therefore the universe has a cause for its coming into being. We call this “cause,” God.

An atheist would probably offer the following rebuttals to this argument:

Rebuttal 1 – Couldn’t the universe, or at least the matter contained within it, be infinitely old? Answer: If the universe had an infinite past, we would never arrive at today. This is called infinite regression. Think about hovering over an infinite string of dominos. If the dominos have no beginning, you could never number a particular domino. You could never say, for instance, this is the three trillionth domino, because you would have an infinite number of dominos preceding it. The same concept applies to time. We could never say the universe is a trillion years old, because an infinite amount of time would have preceded it. Something outside of matter (i.e. immaterial) must have created space, matter, and energy.

Rebuttal 2 – You say God is infinitely old. Couldn’t the argument above (in rebuttal 1) be used for God. Answer: No. God is not material. He is pure spirit and, thus, does not need to be created. We cannot explain how God is eternal, but we can prove that all matter needs a beginning and that its beginning is outside itself.

Rebuttal 3 – Couldn’t the universe have been the result of random events? Answer: It’s important to understand that philosophers are not painting a picture of an empty space. They’re saying, at some point, there was absolutely no space. Therefore, nothing could have been spontaneously formed in space without an outside cause. Only an outside cause could create space, matter and energy.

Rebuttal 4 – What about evolution? Answer: Darwinian evolution (e.g. men evolved from apes) is pure theory. It is not fact. Even if it were fact, it does not disprove the

existence of God. Even evolution needs a beginning. A thing, no matter how small, cannot create itself.

Less common rebuttals:

Rebuttal 5 - What about Multiverse Theory? Note: Multiverse theory states that there millions or billions of universes constantly in a state of flux. This universe is one within those billions of universes in which the conditions are stable enough for life to exist. Atheist astrophysicists put forth this theory in response to the fact that the odds of us being here without God are astronomically small. In other words, we need billions of universes to explain the one in which we live. Answer: This theory does not answer the problem of an infinite past as discussed in Rebuttal 1. A multiverse still needs a creator.

Rebuttal 6 – What about Oscillating Universe Theory? Note: This theory states that there has always existed an expanding and contracting universe. Once a universe expands too far, it collapses and forms a singularity as discussed in Premise 2. This cycle (or oscillation) occurs repeatedly. Answer: Again, we encounter the infinite regression problem. The oscillating universe must have a beginning. (An additional resource: http://www.magiscenter.com/from-nothing-to-cosmos-study-guide/)

Rebuttal 7 – Scientists have observed particles popping into and out of existence within a quantum vacuum. Note: A quantum vacuum is a state in which matter and energy do not exist. Answer: Even a quantum vacuum is subject to the laws of physics. It is man-made, has temperature fluctuations and has cosmic radiation passing through it. Therefore, it is not absolute nothing. In fact, a quantum vacuum is something. Using this argument is like saying, “Hey look! Mold just appeared on that bread out of nowhere.” No it didn’t. The conditions were right for the mold to “appear.” The bread, temperature and humidity created the environment in which the mold could grow. It did not pop into being from nothing.

Another question an atheist might bring up:

If the human race began with two people, wouldn’t incest be involved? Answer: Yes. Adam and Eve were created directly by God and had no biological or genetic defects. According to the Bible, early humans lived to be hundreds of years old. Adam and Eve could have had numerous offspring over the period of a few hundred years. Due to genetic purity, their offspring could have mated with each other without passing along genetic and biological defects such as retardation, cancer, aids, etc. Further, the law against incest was not given by God until the time of Moses. Where there is no law, there is no sin. Finally, we know the population decreases as we go backward in time.

Biologists have found certain genetic traits present in all human beings. Both the shrinking population working backward and universal genetic traits indicate our origin from a single set of parents. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that we originated from a single set of parents.

One more thing…the relationship of faith and reason vs. faith alone:

Reason and faith go hand in hand. God has revealed numerous things to us over the millennia of human existence. Nowhere in Judaism or Catholic Christianity is faith without reason taught. In fact, you can’t have faith without reason. In the days of Adam and Eve, Genesis tells us that God walked with them in the cool of the evening. Now, God does not literally walk since he has no legs, but He interacted with Adam and Eve, thereby giving them reason to believe. He continued to reveal himself to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets and sometimes to the nation of Israel in general. Finally, He revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. The Jews directly observed Christ’s miracles (including the resurrection) and fulfillment of prophecies. They had plenty of reasons to believe. In fact, many believed and followed Christ because of the reasons he gave them. The reasons for believing were passed down from generation to generation and the Catholic Church continues to proclaim these reasons to the world. Some claim they have faith without reason. This is absolutely false, however. Their reasons for faith were either given to them by their parents or they learned about God and Christ though another means. They all have reason to believe.

It’s important to note that reason acts as a check against faith run amok. Without reason, we could have faith in all kinds of things. We could be Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, materialists, naturalists, agnostics, etc. Reason keeps us from wandering off into false religions or false teachings. Reason helps us explain what we know by faith and helps us to stay grounded in the faith.

WHAT KIND OF GOD IS GOD? WHAT IS HIS NATURE?

As previously discussed, God is absolute. He is the source of all things and is the fullness of being. Without God neither we nor all creation would exist. He must exist. Building on this we can learn other things about God.

God is infinite (limitless) – If God were finite, he would be limited by something or some being. That thing or being would, therefore, be more powerful than God. If this were the case, the next logical questions would be “What is this thing or being” and “Should we worship it?” In other words, “Would we call this thing God?” God is thus infinite.

God is one – If God has no limits, there cannot be other gods. If there were other gods, there would have to be some difference between them, and this would involve nonbeing (meaning something within in them is deficient); the one could not be what or where the other is. Note: Through Divine revelation from Christ, we know God is Trinitarian (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). He is One God in three persons. He is not three Gods. Father, Son and Holy Spirt are in perfect union and are never separated; although, they are distinct. One person of the Trinity cannot do or think something differently than another person of the Trinity. They can never contradict one another. If we think of Christ as God’s Word (John 1 – The Word was with God and the Word was God), we can see that God and his Word are eternally and perfected united.

God is spiritual – He is not material and not subject to change. Further, as we saw above, matter must be created. God was not created (otherwise he would have limits) and is, therefore, pure spirit.

God is eternal – If He were not eternal, He would have been created by another entity. He would, therefore, have limits.

God is transcendent – He cannot be a part of the universe because the universe is created (and material) and God is the creator. Rather, He is immanent in that He is present within his creation without being part of it (transcendence).

God is omniscient (all-knowing) – If he were not omniscient, he would have to learn (another limit). If He had to learn, there was a time when He knew nothing and had to be taught. If He had to be taught, something more intelligent had to teach Him. Also, since He is all-knowing, he is completely and perfectly aware of all activity within His creation.

He is omnipotent (all-powerful) – If He were not omnipotent, He would be limited by the power of another being or by his own deficiency. If He were deficient in even one thing, He would have to be created.

God is good – Evil is the result of a failed good. God does not commit evil, because that would mean he is deficient in good (another limitation). Therefore, He is pure good.

God is love – Just as we can see the mind of an artist through his art, we can see the beauty of God’s mind through His creation. He must love His creation or He would not have made it so beautiful. His creation relies on other parts of creation and ultimately on God in order to exist. Note: Reckless destruction of creation is the product of man’s evil deeds, not God’s deficiency. We will discuss the problem of evil in the next email.

Another note: If God did not love us, He would not have given us laws. Rather, He would act as some kind of divine dictator randomly punishing us for breaking laws He never gave to us.

WHAT ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF EVIL?

Evil does not disprove the existence of God. If anything, it proves the existence of Satan.

Evil came into the world through choice. If Adam and Eve, before The Fall, were innocent and oblivious to right and wrong, would they have ever become knowledgeable of worldly things or would they have functioned purely on instinct? Before the Law (Don’t eat from the tree) was introduced by God, they could not have been guilty of disobeying the Law. If God never introduced the Law and if he did not give them a soul to recognize the Law, they would have functioned like all the other animals; purely on instinct and without the ability to reason. Further, there is no reason to believe they would have evolved into intelligent beings capable of reason. No other creature reasons, analyzes, passes along knowledge, creates or loves in the unique ways humans do, despite being millions of years older. The creation of the soul by God allowed Adam and Eve to recognize His voice. The Law He gave them (not to eat from the Tree) in combination with the soul, gave them the potential to choose. Before this Commandment, they were not aware of choices and they were certainly not aware that they could obey or disobey God. Awareness of disobedience means awareness of right and wrong and the presence of choice. However, it was only when the Commandment was introduced that they understood this ability. Therefore, if the Commandment had never been introduced and a soul had never been created by God, humanity would have continued in a state of instinct.

Why choice? Choice allows us to love or not to love. God could have programmed us to love him, but that would make us like robots and that’s not true love. Instead, he gave us freedom to choose. If we choose evil, we reject God. If we choose to do God’s will (with the aid of His Grace of course), we love Him or at least are open to maturing in love for Him. Some might choose to do God’s will out of fear of hell, rather than love of God. That’s actually ok provided the person matures in love. Often children do things because they fear punishment from their parents, but as they grow older, they begin to obey out of love. They begin to see that their parents punished them for good reasons and were doing so in the child’s best interest. God gives us commands and lets us know what the punishment will be if we persist in our disobedience until death. An unjust or unloving God, however, would punish without letting us know his will. Further, God

gives us a way to obey him through the God-man, Jesus Christ. We’ll talk about this more when we get to faith and obedience.

But what about Original Sin and the evil we experience in the world today? Some atheists claim that because evil exists, there can be no God. Their logic flows as follows: If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and omnibenevolent (all-good), there could not be any evil. Essentially, if God is good itself, is present throughout the universe and has the power to stop evil, then there should be no evil. The problem with the argument is that it fails to recognize God-given human free will. Kreeft and Tacelli (Handbook of Catholic Apologetics) point out that heredity and environment condition our actions, but free will determines them. Regardless of the influences that effect our decisions, we still choose our courses of action. God gave us free will, because without choice, we could not choose to love Him above all and love our neighbors as ourselves. The only alternatives would be to make us like the angels (without heredity or environmental conditions), like animals (without souls) or like robots (without choice). Ironically, the very proposition that some act is evil, begs the question of why it is evil. An act cannot be objectively evil unless God exists and makes his laws known. Without God, actions are either socially unacceptable or personally disliked, but we could never say they are evil. There are two types of evil; moral and physical evil. Moral evil occurs when a person acts contrary to Gods law (murder, rape, lying, idolatry, etc.). Physical evils occur when nature or our bodies rebel against man. For instance, cancer, hurricanes and earthquakes are natural evils. Again, Kreeft and Tacelli provide an excellent illustration to explain why these evils occur. They use the idea of three metal rings being suspended and connected by a magnet. The magnet is God. The top ring is our soul. The second ring is our body. The third ring is creation. In the beginning, God created man without sin and gave them dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26-31). Man (Adam and Eve) disobeyed God’s command not to eat from the tree, and consequently, was removed from the Garden (Genesis 3). Due to man’s disobedience, nature was free to rebel against man and man was free to rebel against other men. Essentially, the rings fell from the magnet causing the other rings to disconnect from each other. This is of supreme importance. If man would have rejected sin from the beginning, he would have maintained his dominion over all the earth, because he would have exercised perfect dominion in accordance with God’s will. Due to rebellion, however, man’s dominion was diminished. Therefore, the rest of creation, including our own bodies, was free to rebel against man. Christ, however, offers a way around this problem through his sacrificial suffering, resurrection and ascension. Through Christ, we can be healed and with his Grace, we can “become perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Also through him, the sufferings we undergo in this life (called

redemptive suffering), whether they result from physical or moral evil, can become efficacious (or useful) for ourselves and for others. St. Paul said, “I complete what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings…for the church” (Colossians 1:24).

HOW DO WE KNOW JESUS REALLY EXISTED AND IS THE WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH?

Lord, liar, lunatic, guru or myth?

Unbelievers almost always say Jesus was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet—not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic, for he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am,” thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)

Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane.

A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly.

Josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma, "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from

the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (Korean religious leader who claimed to be the Messiah) or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche (Communist atheist philosopher who literally went insane). Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most noticeably lack:

His practical wisdom—his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies;

His deep and winning love—his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all

His ability to astonish—his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.

No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage (profoundly wise and perceptive person). Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage.

The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight.

What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!)

But if they know some modern theology, they do have one of two escapes. The first escape is the attack of the Scripture scholars on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church.

In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of

whoever first invented the “myth?” What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.

Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Christianity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. (Note: This paragraph is also an excellent defense for why we can trust the Bible.)

The second escape is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said, "God," neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do.

Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man, Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation to be with the bridegroom (Jesus) and his bride (the Church).

Strange Notions. “Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, Legend, Mystic or Lord” (http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-liar-lunatic-legend-or-mystic-or-lord/)

HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?

All the subsequent paragraphs are good for showing the New Testament’s historicity. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 7, however, are probably the best three. If you’re wondering about the authenticity of the Old Testament, I have attached a list of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ.

1. If the same neutral, objective, scientific approach is used on the New Testament texts as is used on all other ancient documents, then the texts prove remarkably reliable. No book in history has been so attacked, cut up, reconstituted and stood on its head as the New Testament. Yet it still lives-like Christ himself.

2. The state of the manuscripts is very good. Compared with any and all other ancient documents, the New Testament stands up as ten times more sure. For instance, we have five hundred different copies earlier than A.D. 500. The next most reliable ancient text we have is the Iliad, for which we have only fifty copies that date from five hundred years or less after its origin. We have only one very late manuscript of Tacitus's Annals, but it is treated as authentic history. If the books of the New Testament did not contain accounts of miracles or make radical, uncomfortable claims on our lives, they would be accepted by every scholar in the world. The manuscripts that we have, in addition to being old, are also mutually reinforcing and consistent. There are very few discrepancies and no really important ones. And all later discoveries of manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have confirmed rather than refuted previously existing manuscripts in every important case. There is simply no other ancient text in nearly as good a shape as the New Testament.

3. If Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by later generations ("the early Christian community," often code for "the inventors of the myth"), then there must have been at least two or three generations between the original eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus and the universal belief in the new, mythic, divinized Jesus; otherwise, the myth could never have been believed as fact because it would have been refuted by eyewitnesses of the real Jesus. Both disciples and enemies would have had reasons to oppose this new myth. However, we find no evidence at all of anyone ever opposing the so-called myth of the divine Jesus in the name of an earlier merely human Jesus. No competent scholar today denies the first-century dating of virtually all of the New Testament-certainly Paul's letters, which clearly affirm and presuppose Jesus' divinity and the fact that this doctrine was already universal Christian orthodoxy.

4. If a mythic "layer" had been added later onto an originally merely human Jesus, we should find some evidence, at least indirectly and secondhand, of this earlier layer. We find instead an absolute and total absence of any such evidence anywhere, either internal (in the New Testament texts themselves) or external, anywhere else, in Christian, anti-Christian or non-Christian sources.

5. The style of the Gospels is not the style of myth but that of real, though unscientific, eyewitness description. The Gospels are full of little details that are found only in

eyewitness descriptions or modem realistic fiction. They also include dozens of details of life in first-century Israel that could not have been known by someone one not living in that time and place (see Jn 12:3, for instance).

6. There are four Gospels, not just one. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by four different writers, at four different times, probably for four different audiences and with four somewhat different purposes and emphases. So a lot of cross-checking is possible. By a textual comparison, we can fix the facts with far greater assurance here than with any other ancient personage or series of events. The only inconsistencies are in chronology (only Luke's Gospel claims to be in exact order) and accidentals like numbers (e.g., did the women see one angel or two at the empty tomb?).

7. If the divine Jesus of the Gospels is a myth, who invented it? Whether it was his first disciples or some later generation, no possible motive can account for this invention. For until the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313, Christians were subject to persecution, often tortured and martyred, and hated and oppressed for their beliefs. No one invents an elaborate practical joke in order to be crucified, stoned or beheaded. (Remember: All the Biblical authors except John, and many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles and teachings, were tortured and killed. They did not get money, power or fame for their evangelization efforts. They got killed. And during all the persecutions of the first century Christians, no one recanted. No one said, “I made it all up. Please don’t torture or kill me.”)

8. First-century Jews and Christians were not prone to believe myths. They were already more "demythologized" than any other people. Nor would anyone be less likely to confuse myth and fact than a Jew. Peter explicitly makes the point that the Gospel story is historical fact, not "cleverly devised myths" (2 Pet 1:16).

9. Finally, if you read the Gospels with an open mind and heart, you may well conclude, along with Dostoyevsky and Kierkegaard, that no mere man could possibly have invented this story. (This info is from the Handbook.)

I want to take a moment and contrast the Bible with the Koran. Some have said, “If you trust the Bible, then you must trust the Koran.” This is completely false. The Bible was written by Jewish eyewitness who were persecuted, tortured and killed for telling others about Jesus. The Koran was written by a man (Mohammed), who claimed he received the words of God from an angel. There were no eyewitnesses to his accounts; therefore, no one was killed for witnessing an angel talking with Mohammed. Mohammed performed no miracles and provided no prophecies. Mohammed contradicted himself on

numerous teachings throughout the Koran and when criticizing Christianity, he often misunderstood Christian teachings. The two books cannot be compared with one another.

DID JESUS ESTABLISH A PHYSICAL, AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH ON EARTH?

Now that we know God is absolute, that His Son, Jesus Christ, truly came to earth as both God and man, and that the Bible is a trustworthy book, let us now consider whether Christ founded a single, physical authoritative church protected from error regarding its teachings on faith and morality.

1. Matthew 16:18 - Jesus says, “And I tell you, you are Kepha (Aramaic for rock), and on this Kepha I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” (Here we see that Christ founded the Church on Peter, protects it from false teachings and gives it authority to loose and bind rules (cf. Isaiah 22:20-23). If the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church, what would be the first thing to go? Since Satan is the father of lies, the first thing to go would be truth. The absence of truth is what causes relativism (i.e. your truth is good for you and my truth is good for me) and the belief in false teachings. It also causes chaos and contradiction. For example, look at all the Protestant churches. They contradict one another on all sorts of teachings. They exist in a state of relativism. Further, the fact that Christ protects the Church implies apostolic succession and papal infallibility (protection from error when officially teaching on faith and morality).)

2. Matthew 18:15-17 – Jesus said, “If your brother (in faith) sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (“…even to the church.” Jesus says the church is the ultimate arbitrator regarding sin. How can a church render a decision on someone’s sinful behavior if it’s not physical, authoritative and infallible? Protestant churches disagree on immoral behavior such as abortion, homosexual unions, divorce / remarriage, contraception and others.

3. 1 Tim 3:15 – Paul says to Timothy, “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of

the truth.” (Paul refers to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth. A pillar upholds and a bulwark is a defensive wall that protects what’s inside. Therefore, the Church upholds and defends the truth. It must, therefore, be physical, authoritative and infallible.)

4. John 16:13 –Jesus said to the Apostles, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (“…guide you into all truths.” From this passage, it is clear that Christ did not teach all truths. Further, where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church into all truths? It doesn’t. The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church. If we applied this verse to other churches, we would have to say the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic due to their great number of contradictory teachings. But the Holy Spirit is not schizophrenic; therefore, he does not guide the other churches. He, however, can guide individuals towards the Truth.)

***5. Mat 28:18-20 – And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (1st – Jesus has all authority. “Go therefore…” It is because Jesus has all authority that he tells the apostles to go. It is in this authority given by Jesus that they go. They could not go unless Jesus authorized them. 2nd – He commands his Apostles make disciples of all nations. 3rd – He commands them to teach others everything he has commanded them. You cannot teach someone and tell them to obey unless you have authority. 4th – Christ gave his Apostles authority to teach all nations. Since the Apostles would not be able to go to, much less teach all nations during their lifetime, Christ’s authority extended to those they selected to succeed them. If they did not select men to succeed them, no one would have had authority to teach.

Think about a man walking into a high school classroom (without first being hired and without permission from the school) and teaching class. What would happen? He would be removed, because he never received authority to teach. This would happen in any institution in which a man began teaching without authority. Christ gave authority to the Apostles to teach, and to ordain successors to teach after them. When the Protestant reformers broke away from the Catholic Church, they lost authority to teach and to appoint successors. This is one reason for the perpetual contradiction in Protestantism. This passage shows church authority, unity, and succession.)

6. Acts 15:4-29 – Paul goes to the Apostles for a decision regarding a local church dispute over circumcision. (1st – “the whole church” – There is no indication that the church is fragmented. Nor does the bible indicate that the church was ever fragmented. 2nd – “persons gone out from us” – Some from the church, without instructions from the church, went to gentile towns and gave false teachings. 3rd – An authoritative letter from the authoritative leaders was sent to correct this error. 4th – “…good to the Holy Spirit and to us” – Authoritative teaching flows from the Holy Spirit through the leaders of the church to the laity. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that individuals prayed to the Holy Spirit and created their own teachings or transmitted their individual interpretation of the Bible. 5th – The question that must be answered is…which church is this that started at the beginning with authority? Only one has been around for 2000 years and has this authority.)

7. 1 Cor 1:10 - Church must be of one heart and mind. (This could not happen if the Church contradicted itself when teaching about faith and mortality.)

8. The Church is the body of Christ (Rom 12:4-8, 1 Cor 12:12-31). (Therefore, it is a living body, since Christ is the living head. As a living body with Christ as its head, it cannot teach falsely. This is why Jesus said “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” If the gates of hell prevailed, the first thing to go would be truth. If the Church is a living body and is protected from the gates of hell, it must have authority to teach the truth. Therefore, contradictory teachings cannot come from the Church Christ created. Protestantism, conversely, is replete with contradiction.)

9. Titus 1:5-9 – Paul instructs Titus to appoint presbyters in every town. A bishop as God’s steward…must hold fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. (1st – How is one taught “true message” unless by one who is taught before him? 2nd – How does one refute an opponent unless he receives the infallible teachings passed down to him from the Church?)

10. Heb 13:17 – Obey your (spiritual) leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. (If no physical church with authority was created, which leaders? (cf. 13-7 and 24 for context on “leaders”).)

11. 2 Tim 2:2 – And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will have the ability to teach others as well. (Notice Timothy taught

witnesses who taught others and instructed them to entrust his teaching to faithful people who will, in turn, teach others. This is a handing down of Church teachings.)

There are many other verses that prove Christ established a physical, united, authoritative, perpetual and infallible church on earth. This email is a rather lengthy, but it’s important to know the Jesus created only one church. Otherwise, we would be lost in a deluge of contradiction.

DID THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?

1. Acts 1:26 - The Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas’ office (bishopric in Greek).

2. 1 Tim 3:1-7 – Qualifications of bishops, elders (5:17) and deacons (3:8). Philippians 1:1 – speaks to the bishops.

3. Titus 1:5-9 – Paul instructs Titus to appoint presbyters (means elders; old Englsh “preost;” current English “priest.”) in every town and then says, “A bishop as God’s steward…must hold fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. (1st – How is one taught the “true message” unless by one who is taught before him? 2nd – How does one refute an opponent unless he receives the infallible teachings passed down to him from the Church? It can’t be by using the Bible alone. Too many have taken passages out of context yet claim they have the correct teachings. 3rd – Notice also that Paul warns about false teachings by certain members of the Church. The “circumcisers” were early Jewish members of the Church who wanted gentiles to become Jews through circumcision before continuing in Christianity. This problem was resolved in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem when St. Peter condemned it. This is a great example of the passing down of authority to priests and the need for an infallible church. Note: The terms “bishop” and “elder” were used interchangeably in the apostolic era. After the death of the last Apostle, however, bishops rose to higher positions of authority.)

4. 2 Tim 2:2 – And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will have the ability to teach others as well. (Notice Timothy taught witnesses who taught others and instructed them to entrust his teaching to faithful people who will, in turn, teach others. This is a handing down of Church teachings.)

5. Pope St. Clement I, ordained by St. Peter and fourth bishop or Rome, said, “And thus preaching through countries and cities, the appointed the first fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.” “…and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry” (A.D. 70).

6. St. Hegesippus wrote, “And when I had come to Rome, I remained there until Anicetus (eleventh bishop of Rome), whose deacon was Eleutherius. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherius” (A.D. 180). These bishops of Rome were also verified by the early historian St. Irenaeus.

7. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Bishop of Lyons from A.D. 180 to 200, was taught by St. Polycarp named above, and had much to say about succession.

DOES COMMON SENSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS?

Yes. Without Apostolic succession, Christianity would have been corrupted from the beginning. Imagine if Protestantism occurred immediately after Christ’s death and resurrection. Immediate disagreements on a range of teachings would have ensued. They would not have been able to agree on things as fundamental as baptism, the Eucharist, how we are saved, the role of works, end times, the books that belong in the Bible, and many others. Christianity would have fallen into utter chaos and contradiction would most likely not be around today. Apostolic succession ensures that Christ’s teachings are maintained throughout the centuries. This is why St. Paul said, “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” Christ did not die on the cross thinking, “These guys are going to mess things up from the beginning and I will have to wait 1500 years for Luther, Calvin and King Henry the VIII to get it right.” The Catholic Church was founded by Christ 2000 years ago and was / is led “into all truths” by the Holy Spirit.

WHICH CHURCH DID JESUS CREATE?

1. Acts chapters 9, 19, 22 and 24 mention “the Way,” which was the name of the early Christian movement.

2. Clearly, Peter, John and the other Apostles were leaders of the Way.

3. St. Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop), ordained by St. Peter and taught by St. John, said, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” “…the Church that is beloved and enlightened by the will

of him that wills all things according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, that presides in the place of the Romans…” (A.D. 110).

4. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John and bishop of Smyrna. A letter titled the Martyrdom of Polycarp states, “Having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, the governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world” (A.D. 156).

5. St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth under Pope Soter (A.D. 170) – “From the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways…, you Romans (meaning the church in Rome) keep up the hereditary custom of the Romans, which your blessed Bishop Soter has not only maintained, but added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.”

6. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 189 – “…we confuse all those who,…assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Traditions derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.” “For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church (the one in Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, in so far as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those (faithful men) who exist everywhere.”

7. Tertullian of Carthage wrote, “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago, in the reign of Antonius for the most part, and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius…” (A.D. 200).

8. St. Hegesippus wrote, “And when I had come to Rome, I remained there until Anicetus (eleventh bishop of Rome), whose deacon was Eleutherius. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherius” (A.D. 180). These bishops of Rome were also verified by the early historian St. Irenaeus.

9. J.N.D. Kelly’s, “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes,” traces the names and biographical information of all popes from St. Peter to today. Kelly was a Presbyterian who converted to the Anglican Church.

10. Other early church fathers and historical figures who talk about authority of the pope include: St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251), Firmilian of Caesarea (A.D. 255), Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 312), Pope St. Julius I (A.D. 341), Coucil of Sardica (A.D. 342), St. Optatus of Milevis (A.D. 367), St. Jerome (A.D. 376), Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), St. Augustine (A.D. 411) and many others.

It should be clear from the Bible and from history that Christ established the Roman Catholic Church. By Roman Catholic, I mean the original church headed by the Bishop of Rome (later known as the Pope), beginning with St. Peter and still in existence to day. In the earliest days, it was not referred to as “Roman” because no other existed. However, after the Great Schism and especially after the Protestant Reformation, the term Roman Catholic became more and more common.

Note: Although the early Church understood the head of the entire Church on earth to be the Bishop of Rome, only when strife between local churches occurred or clarification of doctrine was needed, did the Bishop of Rome exercise his authority. In other words, there was and is no reason for the Pope to get involved in every single matter. That responsibility falls to the local bishops. However, when bishops oppose one another on a particular matter of faith or morality, or there is widespread heresy in the Church, the Pope has the responsibility of declaring an infallible ruling to end the dispute. This is why Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom.

Second note: Some may say something along the lines of, “The first churches were founded in Jerusalem and Greece and not in Rome.” This is true in a sense, but the entire region, including Jerusalem and Greece, were under Roman occupation. In other words, the early church, regardless of the country in which they were located, was Roman.

Some extra things to think about:

In the Old Testament, eleven of the Twelve Tribes of Israel turned away from God. Through the redemptive work of Christ and his command to “go into the world,” the lost tribes and many gentiles were brought back (or are being brought back) to God. This group of believers was / is known as the Church. From history, we know this Church to be Catholic. For no other existed. Did Christ go through persecution and ultimately death on a cross only to have his bride break into contradiction and chaos? Did he bring the Twelve Tribes back together only to have them fall apart again? Jesus said, “A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth. It, therefore, cannot teach anything that contradicts truth. It cannot be divided

against itself! Again, if we look at Protestantism objectively, we see a kingdom divided against itself.

Eve was created from Adam’s side and was his spouse. Eve was tempted by Satan and persuaded Adam to sin; which became known as Original Sin. Christ came without sin in order to undo what Adam had done. The Church was created from Christ’s side and is his spouse (Rev 21:9, Eph 5:25-27, Rev 19:7-9). By virtue of being created from the side of the sinless God-Man, it is impossible for the Church to lead others to sin through its teachings. Otherwise, the Church would be no different than Eve.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles and they taught the 3000. The Holy Spirit did not descend on the 3000 and teach them directly. The hierarchy is Christ, Holy Spirit, Apostles, and laity. Christ, fully God and fully man, built the foundation of the Church. He was crucified and rose from the dead as God and man. He said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit taught through the Apostles. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit and governed by man; not by one or the other alone.

Note on Eastern Orthodox churches: Orthodox churches believe ecumenical councils made up of bishops from all of the original churches must convene in order to render an infallible teaching. Unfortunately, this means they cannot authoritatively and universally teach that contemporary issues such as embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and human cloning are immoral because these councils cannot convene due to the Great Schism (The Schism occurred in A.D. 1054, when the Eastern Church (now Orthodox) and the Western Church (Roman Catholic) broke away from one another). This directly contradicts Christ’s teaching that if your brother sins against you, take it to the church. If you’re Orthodox, to which church do you take it? Further, Christ taught that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and St. Paul said, “the church…is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” Now, if all bishops from the original churches must convene to render an infallible teaching, and the Orthodox Churches cannot convene such a council without the Catholic Church, then to which church does a Christian take his complaint about a brother’s sin. Further, if the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ’s church and the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, why can’t the Orthodox churches give an infallible teaching on contemporary sins? By asserting that all churches must convene, yet not being able to do so for 1000 years, the Orthodox Church implicitly admits that it is not the pillar and bulwark of truth. If it’s not the pillar and bulwark of truth, then the gates of hell have prevailed against it. Same with Protestant churches. Therefore, you are left with one church…the Catholic Church. (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy )

Example of an argument on authority of scripture:

Protestant: I believe in salvation by faith alone…for the Bible tells me so.

Catholic: You say, “…for the Bible tells me so.” Where does the Bible give itself authority?

Protestant: The Bible says, “All scripture is profitable…so that the man of God may be complete.”

Catholic: First, the operative word is “profitable” not “sufficient.” Second, Paul wrote this to Timothy before most of the books in the New Testament (NT) were written and was referring to the OT scriptures. Further, where does the Bible give us a list of scriptures? Where does each book in the NT refer to itself as scripture? Where in the NT did Christ tell his Apostles to write at NT?

Protestant: Christ gave his Apostles authority.

Catholic: True. He gave them authority to teach and to baptize, amongst other things, but where in the NT did Christ tell his Apostles that the things about which they wrote should be considered scripture? The Apostles wrote about the actions and teachings of Christ and the early church, but just because someone rights about these actions and teachings, doesn’t make the writings scripture. It makes them historical references. So, Christ didn’t tell the Apostles to write scripture. Christ didn’t give the NT authority. The NT books don’t give themselves authority or label themselves as scripture. The Apostles didn’t give them authority. The Apostles never said they were to be included as scripture. In no part of the NT does it provide a table of contents. Please answer the question again but in a logical manner. Why do you believe the Bible is authoritative?

Protestant: Because it’s the word of God.

Catholic: Who says it’s the word of God? (There is nowhere else for this argument to go.) The Catholic Church, the Church that has Christ given authority, gave us a canon of scripture in the late 300s. It is because Christ gave his Church authority that the Bible has authority.  Members of the Catholic Church, the Apostles, wrote the Bible.  The Catholic Church preserved the Bible and it gave us the list of books that belong in the Bible.