Miracles and the Mercy of God

A miracle, as defined by Webster’s dictionary is

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Throughout both the Old and New Testament, a reader is confronted with events and phenomena which fit the above description. From the book of Genesis when God created a spring for Hagar and Ishmael to more commonly known miracles like the parting of the Red Sea.  In the New Testament, Jesus proves to all who will see that he is the promised Messiah by fulfilling a prophecy from Isaiah 29:18.  One of the oldest and most popular attacks on Christianity is that miracles simply cannot occur.  There have also been many champions of miracles, who understood the consequences of a world without such occurrences.  Below we have listed a few of our favorite.

“The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the miraculous also.” ~Fyodor Dostoevsky

“What was wonderful about childhood is that anything in it was a wonder. It was not merely a world full of miracles; it was a miraculous world.”~G.K. Chesterton

"There are only two ways to live life: as if nothing is a miracle or as as if everything is a miracle." ~Albert Einstein

"It is in the ordinariness of the events of life, and in the ordinariness of people that God unfolds His plan for you and me." -Alistair Begg

“Sometimes we get caught up in trying to glorify God by praising what He can do and we lose sight of the practical point of what He actually does do.”  ~Dallas Willard

“Jesus' miracles provide us with a sample of the meaning of redemption: a freeing of creation from the shackles of sin and evil and a reinstatement of creaturely living as intended by God.”~Randy Alcorn

This last quote will be the jumping off point for our defense of miracles.  Our goal is to show the compatibility of this intuition with God.  In doing so, we will address the two main conjectures to the reality of miracles: the impossibility of existence of miracles, and the impossibility of identification of miracles.

The existence of miracles was popularly criticized in the early 17th century by Baruch Spinoza.  He had numerous arguments for the nonexistence of miracles, the most convincing of which was the proposition that a world with miracles was imperfect, for it meant that God would not have created a perfect world, meaning He was not All-Powerful.  A flurry of responses came quickly after this claim.  
To generalize a few centuries worth of arguments, I’ll just list them:

1. Who is to say that God did not just create the world precisely so that miracles would occur. This is to say that assuming the plan for the universe was a consistent, law driven machine is to beg the question in opposition of God’s proposed intention.

2. A world with miracles is intuitively better with respect to perfection, for miracles are a certain presentation of God’s power, both proving His existence and demonstrating His glory.
3. The points in time when miracles occurred were important for a number of historical, cultural, and theological reasons, justifying logically the rare (or never before seen) nature of each particular miracle - God may have intended to “really make a splash” when it was necessary.

Each of these arguments presupposes God’s existence, for Spinoza was a deist, and contentions against miracles is by definition a critique of a theistic worldview.  It would be circular and invalid to say “There is no God, so miracles are impossible.”  This is much different from “If there is no God, then miracles are impossible.”  The first assumes what is trying to be shown to be false.  As you can see, for Christianity, those three simple contentions give good reason to think, given God, miracles are possible and likely from an Omnipotent Creator.

With regards to the identification of miracles, the champion has been, and perhaps will always be David Hume.  In his essay “Of Miracles” Hume proposes an In Principle, In Fact argument.  In other words, he aimed to show that given the Best conceivable scenario for miracles, the conclusion would still be uncertainty, but that in reality, there have been and cannot be any such circumstances, implying absolute uncertainty with regards to miracles.  

Hume claims that, In Principle, the evidence for any particular miracle is in direct clash with all of time and the experience therein.  That is to say, to confirm a miracle happened, you must deny all of the evidence you have, namely, the entire past of your life and others.  Thus, even if the instance was such that you would be certain, no wise man could believe it in confidence, for it is only equal with the supposed certainty of the reality of the past.

Hume takes it a step further claiming that, in fact, no miracle has such evidence.  Claiming :

1. Miracles are only believe by barbarous peoples.  

2. They have never been confirmed by nobles, or someone that had something to lose by believing in them.  

3. People are prone to believe the incredible.  

4.  Miracles are confirmed by all religions, so they contradict each other and must be false

My response:
To the in-principle argument, his characterization of probability is just wrong.  The advent of Bayes theorem (an important theory in statistics and set theory applicable to conditional probability) allows us to reason through broad, supposed “intuitive” claims like that of Hume.  People much smarter than Athanasius and I have proved this.  I recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig (he proves the theorem and applies it to Hume’s argument).  If you have no money (like us), email us and I will write it up for you to see.  Furthermore, this doesn’t even seem intuitively right.  For example, if you saw someone die, and then later heard that that person was alive again, you would be skeptical. But of what?  Not their death for you saw it with your own eyes, but of the truth of that report.  Now if you saw someone that was alive, and later heard they had died a month ago, you would be skeptical; not of their being alive, but of the report of them being dead.  However, this has nothing to do with sense perception, but of reports.  We are perhaps inclined, therefore, to oppose miracles because the difficulty in believing the reports, not our senses.  This seems to align very much with the Dostoevsky quote above.  Identifying a miracle is no more difficult than being able to tell an alive person from one dead.  Just because something is contra-experiential doesn’t mean it is a logical contradiction.  The only way one could say a supposed miracle is impossible is if they confirmed it to be false.  

Consider this powerful illustration.  Imagine twelve men, among them a doctor, a lawyer, a laborer, a scribe, and all noble, respectable, and honest.  Further imagine them all claiming to have seen a man die, then after three day claim He had returned to life.  You have no reason to doubt they cannot tell someone’s being alive from them being dead.  Furthermore, you know for a fact they all witnessed the once-dead man at different times,and reported the incident indepently.  You finally observe them all subsequently put to death for affirming this miracle, denying the right to retract their claim to stay alive, all the while losing all they had (even while alive) and going against the state that ruled them.  No reasonable person could deny the certainty of their identification.

 Hume’s In Fact argument is more insulting than anything.  

1. False. For example, at least four philosophy professors at Oxford are Christians.
2. With respect to Christianity, this is blatantly wrong.  If you didn’t recognize the above illustration as the Biblical story of Christ’s resurrection, then now you know, and can appreciate the loss and seriousness with which the disciples of Christ treated their sightings.
3. This is the genetic fallacy.  The truth of something or some claim cannot be refuted by its origin.  For example, babies are genetically predisposed to believe that when something goes behind a wall or out of sight that that particular thing still exists, but just isn’t visible.  The fact that they did not “decide” that or even think about it has no effect on the truth of the perception.  In effect, (3) is just a surface claim.
4. In a lot of ways, this needs to be handled case by case.  If you want to read a refutation of each of Hume’s examples, email us for some suggested readings.  However, just in itself, this claim isn’t really true.  Christianity is the only religion that I am aware of that precisely claims that miracles are attestation of the Divine.

In scripture, there are two kinds of Miracles:

1) Supernatural Miracles- ie Lazarus being raised from the dead, world-wide flood, etc.

2) Natural Miracles- ie You just took a breath, gravity is working, the sun is shining, etc.

Most people don’t have a problem with the second type of miracle and simply call them scientific laws without a second thought.  These are just as much miracles and the second type however, and we ignore this to our peril.  Science can and does describe to us the how of such natural phenomena, but it cannot tell us why such events occur.  Primary causation is not a question which science can answer.  The simple miracle of existence is most complex.

In regard to the second type, it has been said that the exception proves the rule.  And he who creates laws may bend them to accomplish his will since he is above his own laws.  In the end though, Jesus' miracles were not an aberration of the created order, but the beginning of its' restoration.  Creation was meant to be perfect, untainted by death, disease, or sin.  WIn many ways, Prophecy (which we will have a post on soon) and Miracles fulfill similar purposes; they are a sign and remembrance that the world will not always remain as it is, that Hope is coming and will not put us to shame.  Miracles are brief moments when God shows us that the world will be made right.  We do not see it at present, but if we look there are hints and whispers of the world that will be.  Christ is not actually violating the laws he put in place when he does miraculous works.  Instead, he is beginning to bring the world back to the state of being it is supposed to be. (Heb. 2:6-11)

Many people’s conception of miracles can be shown by the diagram below.

Miracles => Faith  
If they are shown miracles, then they will have faith and believe.

However, this is exactly the opposite of how Jesus works.  As we are faithful and have faith, he reveals miracles to us.

Faith => Miracles

Miracles do not come to us when we want them, but rather when we need them.  Not when we think or believe we need them, but when we actually need them.

“But when first the two black dragons sprang out of the fog upon the small clerk, they had merely the effect of all miracles – they changed the universe. He discovered the fact that all romantics know – that adventures happen on dull days, and not on sunny ones. When the cord of monotony is stretched most tight, it it breaks with a sound like song.” ~G.K.Chesterton

Love in Christ,
Athanasius 

Excelsior
P.S. For further reading, check out C.S. Lewis' indispensable book, "Miracles."

Popes, Priests, and the Price of Salvation

Christians often take lightly or entirely disregard the diversity of doctrinal beliefs between Christianity’s various denominations.  As a few of our blog posts have hopefully illustrated, we believe very strongly and try to show that the truth is important, and thus defending and clarifying the truth has great value.  Some views are apparently Christian, but some digging reveals disparities between these views and orthodoxy (e.g. Mormonism; see our post about it here).  However, some groups aren’t usually questioned.  In the spirit of the Lord’s commandment to test things so that we may know the will of God, and what is holy, acceptable, and perfect, (Romans 12:2)  This time we’d like to step out into troubled waters. Is Catholicism orthodox Christianity?

We know, this may seem a bit unorthodox (haha get it?).  Perhaps it goes without saying, but we feel that many Catholics are saved and love God with all their heart, and love their neighbors as themselves.  It is important to us that we further clarify our utmost respect for many Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, including respectable churches trying to do what they believe is the true will of God.  However, it is concerning how little Christians today know of Catholic doctrine - even those who consider themselves Catholic.  In this post, we aim to briefly examine and explain some of the differences between orthodox Christianity (as explained in our blog post here) and Roman Catholicism, with a few reasons we think orthodoxy is more consistent.

Popes, Creeds, and Councils

The great reformer, Martin Luther in his defense before the Holy Roman Emperor at Worms said the following.  

“I can not submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.” 

Although I disagree with Luther on quite a few points and several of his methods, one cannot help but be blown away by the courage of this lone man standing before the might of both the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman church.  Furthermore, his critique of Popes and councils is quite correct.  A first major difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is where absolute truth is to be found.  Protestants traditionally hold to a doctrine known as “Sola Scriptura” (Latin-Scripture Alone) and thus that all authority on doctrine and theology come directly from Scripture as the inspired word of God.  The Roman Catholic Church holds that in addition to scripture, there is a sacred Church  tradition which is also infallible.

    “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible. The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church, who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church. The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption.”

 We are going to have a post soon explaining why we believe Sola Scriptura; however, for now this will have to suffice.  There is no place in scripture where God gives infallibility to anyone or their teachings.  We realize this is apparently circular on our view - assuming scriptural authority, then recognizing that scripture gives authority to itself and not the view the Roman Catholic church holds.  But reflect on this a bit.  Our presupposition is the Bible.  We deduce from that basis all that we know, and find a beautiful consistency, including knowledge of our Lord, teachings on all aspects of life, and confirmation of our presupposition in practice.

Priests or the Priesthood of all Believers?

Another big question between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is how the believer approaches God.  Roman Catholics believe that it is often necessary to reach God through the intercession of one more holy.  This may be a Saint, Mary, or a priest.

"As the prayers themselves witness, the Church teaches us that we should pray not only directly to God, but also to those who are close to God, those who have the power to intercede upon our behalf. Indeed, we pray to the angels to help and watch over us; we pray to the saints in heaven to ask their intercession and assistance; we pray to the Blessed Mother to enlist her aid, to ask her to beg her Son to hear our prayers. Further, we pray not only on our own behalf, but also on the behalf of those souls in purgatory and of those brothers on earth who are in need. Prayer unites us to God; in doing so, we are united to the other members of the Mystical Body."

To the protestant, this belief is nullified by the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.  Since Scripture specifically says in Revelation 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:4-12 that Christians are a nation of priests to God this seems logical.  Further proof comes from book of Hebrews and the Gospels.  In Hebrews 4, there is a rather extensive demonstration of the fact that since Jesus is our high priest we need no other.  In my opinion, one of the most extraordinary events during Jesus crucifixion is the tearing of the Temple veil.  All three of the synoptic Gospels record this magnificent event.  The veil of the temple dividing “the holy place” from the “holy of holies” was 80 ft high by 30 ft wide and 4 in thick.  Every year it was tested by tying a horse to each end and having them try to break it.  Then in a moment, as the Son of God died it was ripped from top to bottom; that those who have been brought near by his death may enter the Holy of Holies crying out “Abba Father.”  There was only  a need for an intermediary until Christ came.

Saving Ourselves or Saved in Spite of Ourselves?

One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is the understanding of salvation.  Protestants believe in Faith-based salvation, concluding that the Bible’s various teachings of our fallen nature imply that we lack the power to live the life necessary to be seen as pleasing to God.  As explained before, this really is the essence of Christianity.  Despite our radically depraved nature, and inability to do anything right, Christ still came and died for our sins.  We are justified by works, but not our works -  because ours could never be enough.  It follows logically then that is not our works that save us, but rather faith in Christ, whose death atoned for ours.  Roman Catholicism teaches a different understanding.  In the Church’s conception, our good works coupled with Christ’s death cause us to earn salvation.  Works such as belonging to the Catholic Church, doing good things as taught in the Bible, or even following the Pope on twitter (see this link; or a more precise source here; we know that bringing up "indulgences" will strike a cord with some Catholic readers - we encourage you to research history and their current standing, for they are very much still an aspect of the church) can earn one’s salvation, or even do things like take “time-off” purgatory, a place Roman Catholicism teaches exists as an intermediary before Heaven for those that are saved (see explanation here).    The definitions can be explained by these two equations (note from Athanasius: See Excelsior? I can use math words too)

Catholicism:

Good Works + Faith = Salvation

Protestantism:

Good Works + Salvation = Faith

For these reasons and others, we would argue that Roman Catholicism teaches another gospel from that found in scripture, and thus should be rejected as Paul told the Galatians. (Gal 1:8-9)  This does not mean we are hating on those who are catholic or that we condone any hatred toward them.  It simply means that they are being led astray by false teaching.  But for the Grace of God, we would all be in the same place.  This is a controversial question and answer.  If you have any questions or concerns, please comment or email us!  Also, a special shout out to Kevin, a reader who is currently serving America overseas.  Please keep Kevin  in your prayers!

In Christ Alone,

Excelsior

Athanasius

What's a Cult Wednesday: Unitarian Universalism

What’s a Cult Wednesday returns!  We rather neglected any introduction to the idea behind this series of posts in our original, so we’ll try to explain our vision for them and then, this week’s installment: Unitarian Universalism!

How do I get to Heaven?  Does everyone go to heaven?  What is the nature of God?  Where should I look for guidance and revelation on this life?  These are central questions to any set of theological and philosophical beliefs for dealing with life, but they are especially important when evaluating whether a position or group is orthodox in their beliefs.  For a brief explanation of orthodoxy see this post. A quick answer is that orthodox Christianity agrees with the Nicene and Apostles creeds.  A cult is any form of religion which takes from Christianity but does not follow scriptural doctrine as explained in these creeds and the Bible.  What’s a Cult Wednesday will hopefully help you to evaluate whether a group is a cultish or orthodox.  Hopefully, it will equip believers to discern between truth and falsehood as well as searching scripture to know the Truth. (Gal 1:6-10, Acts 17:11)

Before we critique this view, we wish to express our humble appreciation for such a loving worldview - one in which each person ends up in paradise.  Although we’ll argue true love must coincide with justice, the idea of people being punished is sad and heart-wrenching.  In no way do we aim to put-down or belittle anyone holding these views - we merely intend to love well and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us love does not rejoice with wrongdoing, but rather with truth.   The following is taken from Unitarian Universalist Association website here.

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Our goal in  discussing ‘cults’ is twofold: 1) Show disparities with orthodox Christianity.  2)Show inconsistencies logically.

I. Universalism and Christianity:
The theological belief of universalism is distinct from the denomination or cult of Unitarian Universalism (UU). The easiest way to examine universalism (or just the simple claim “all people go to Heaven”) with respect to Christianity is to check scripture directly.  In Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount, he claims:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The key to this teaching is “leads to life,” a common New Testament euphemism for salvation.  It isn’t the teachings of Jesus that gives salvation, but His life.  This is clear in the exclusivity of Jesus claim in the Gospel of John 14:6 “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; nobody comes to the Father except through me.”  These two passages alone give us very good reason to believe that Jesus taught Christian Exclusivism, or the idea that only disciples of Jesus Christ will be saved. (note: this does not [necessarily] cover everything completely - a post for another day, email with questions).

II. Unitarian Universalism:

Beside the 7 tenets above, their presuppositions include:
- There exists an All-Powerful God (created the Universe)

- There exists an All-Loving God (hence salvation for all)

- There exists an All-Just God (tenets 2 and 6)

Can the view “everyone gets to heaven” be logically viable based on these presuppositions?

Here is something about how their theology begins to go wrong.  What is “evil”?  Is the claim, “only believers in x get into Heaven” evil?  If it is, then why should they go to Heaven, and there would certainly be a contradiction between the view of UU’s and the other religion.  If it isn’t, then why believe anything, including UU?  Why be moral at all?

The whole concept of “justice” is what irrefutably falls in this worldview.  
1. If everyone is saved, apart from action, why not do whatever you want (kill, steal, etc)?  Is there ANY justice from God in this view?  No.  It would be impossible for God to be All-Just if wrongdoing was left unpunished.
2. What is “right” or “wrong”?  If humanist teachings combine with, say, Christianity, there are serious contradictions.  The greatest commandment to Christians is “love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength, and all your soul.”  This would certainly be violated by any non-Christian view.  Similarly, every conflicting nuance between religions with respect to matters moral would render something uncertain - good or bad.  This LITERALLY undermines each tenet founding their belief system.  For example, what is “dignity” without an objective moral stanard? (1)  What is a “just human relation” (2)?  Do I kill the dissenters, or ignore them?  It wouldn’t matter. What IS justice? It’d be meaningless.  Do people of opinions contrary to the moral rules voted on in UU have to change? It wouldn’t seem so - the ends are the same.  

In other words, UU logically stops at a morally relative world, where distinguishing between murder and charity is a matter of imperfect views’ votes.  There cannot be both “justice” and “all aren’t punished.”  It’s simply definitionally contradictory.

In the Truth,

Athanasius

Excelsior

P.S. Sorry this post wasn’t actually posted on Wednesday.  We wanted to make sure to include everything. :)  Here’s an incredible gif as an apology:  

Faith, Hope, and Love: The Reality and Beauty of Truth and Meaning

It is easy amidst the logic, philosophy, and arguments pro and con of theology and apologetics to lose sight of the sheer beauty, hope, and power of a Real Truth.  By that I mean a truth that is active, living, and powerful.  Not only so, but this Truth has desired a personal relationship with us, and He has called us no longer servants, but brothers.  How incredible is that?  As awesome (worthy of awe and fear) and glorious as God is, He is also the most beautiful and comforting.  No matter what goes wrong, God's glory protects us for his love.  John Piper explains it this way:

Nothing ugly is ever called glorious in the Bible. There is “great sin” (Genesis 20:9), but never “glorious sin.” The evil one has “cosmic power” (Ephesians 6:12), but not cosmic “glory.” The reason for this is that sin and evil are not beautiful. But glory includes beauty. Glory includes more, but never less. Nothing ugly is glorious.

Therefore, the beauty of God is as pervasive and practical as the glory of God. If we admire the glory of God, we are admiring God’s beauty. If the glory of God has an effect in our lives, God’s beauty is having an effect. If God acts to magnify this glory, he is acting to magnify his beauty.

 Thus, when God saves us and works in us, His beauty is having an effect on us, the effect to be able to believe.  C.S. Lewis explains this beautifully in his work of fiction The Silver Chair.

  In the book, Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum have been captured and brought to an underground kingdom where they are enchanted and told their is no other world.

 "One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

An allegory, Lewis illustrates the hopelessness of a Godless world - the complete, awful, meaningless world rifled with pain and without "right" or "wrong."  It's not apparent that the superior quality of life in having faith qualifies as a good enough reason to believe, though. The brilliant French mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal argued that once at this conclusion, a wager results.

Make religion attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good...Between us and heaven or hell there is only life, which is the frailest thing in the world...Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

So we see from these two great men that we have good reason to wager in favor of faith - both because life's better with belief, but also because it's more probable it's (significantly) better after death.  The conjunction of these ideas from a powerful apologetic in our opinion.  God has not only made us in our image, giving us Faith, Hope, Love, and Meaning, but he has done it all despite our unfaithfulness toward him.  Rejoice!  Our God has blessed us beyond all imagination, and we have every reason to be joyful in even our worst hardships, for with God, we don't have to worry about any evil act going unpunished, any trial being in vain, or any person being worthless.  This means that no matter what, no matter how bad things appear to us, there will always be a better day ahead and the sun(and Son) will always rise again.  This is the grace and glory of God acting upon our lives.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Athanasius
Excelsior

P.S. We've made it a month, writing this blog. Praise God for his mercy!  If you've been following us this long, we'd like to say ('you' here being the strange English second person plural):