By Jordan Ferrier

A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.

Classical Theism (CT) is a vast topic. In 2023, Fuqua and Koons released a book, Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God. Taking a look at the table of contents, the individual essays have many types of Classical Theists: there are chapters that reflect a wide variety of faith backgrounds; Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox. 

 CT spans a great deal of time, from Parmenides, who lived about 500 years before Christ, to John Duns Scotus (at least), who lived 1200 years after Christ’s triumph over Satan.

In Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses told Israel that God had told him to tell them, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

If you believe that God is one, you are some sort of Classical Theist; however, for over a millennia, Christian theologians have been asking, “God is one what?” and different Classical Theists have answered that question in different ways, which leads to quite a bit of confusion.

To try and clear up this confusion, I will try and present two very different views of God that were held by two of the theologians that Stockman referred to in his article, Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.), and Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D.)

Augustine was born in 354 in North Africa. His mother was a Christian, and his father was a pagan. While he received a Christian education, when he was 18, Augustine moved to Carthage and fully indulged in its pagan culture and had a son out of wedlock at the age of 19. While he was 19, Augustine read Cicero and declared that while rhetoric was his profession; his heart was in philosophy. Augustine became a Manichaean and struggled with the Epicurean problem of evil. After teaching rhetoric at Carthage, Augustine moved to Italy at the age of 29 and opened a school of rhetoric. After a few years, Augustine moved to Milan, read the works of Plato and Plotinus, and fully embraced Christianity at the age of 33. Augustine worked to fuse Platonic philosophy with Christian dogmas, and continued to struggle to resolve the problem of evil. Augustine returned to North Africa at the age of 34, where he served many years in the church at Hippo as a Priest and eventually as Bishop. (A much fuller account of the life of Augustine may be found at newadvent.org, St. Augustine of Hippo).

After converting to Christianity, Augustine had to reconcile how evil came into the world with his belief in the God of the Bible. We need to think through how Augustine thought of God, and how Augustine rationalized an answer to the problem of evil, which allowed him to believe that God existed, was Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.

The problem of evil has 3 basic components:

An Omnipotent God could stop evil from coming into the world.

An Omnibenevolent God would want to stop evil from coming into the world.

We could easily blame a previous evil for a current evil, but the problem of evil asks how evil came into the world. To answer, “How did evil come into the world”, we need to restrict the discussion to how the first evil came into the world, rather than how evil keeps coming into the world today.

Augustine believed that Adam committed the first sin (Romans 5:12), that God, by his Omnipotent power could have stopped Adam from sinning, thus, it must be good that there is evil in the world.

Augustine wrote, “Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exist, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the Omnipotent Good” (Enchiridion, C. 96).

Augustine used what I call an “Omni-benevolence category theodicy”.  This category of theodicy tries to explain why it was good for God to ordain, permit, or otherwise allow evil to come into the world, because God, being Omnipotent, could have stopped evil from coming into the world.

How God can will evil to happen, and it is good that evil happens, was a conundrum Augustine solved by stating, “Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of the logicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold” (Enchiridion, C. 14). 

God can will evil, and it is good that God wills evil, because the rules of logic do not apply to God’s Omni-benevolence. 

Augustine also believed that everything happens as God wills, “Nothing, therefore, happens but by the will of the Omnipotent, He either permitting it to be done, or Himself doing it” (Enchiridion, C. 95).

In Parmenides, Plato writes, “Must it not be of a single something, which the thought recognizes as attaching to all, being a single form or nature.”

For Augustine, God was one essence, and the essence of God is a will. God is to be conceived of as one will, and the forms of God’s will would be a perfect will, an ordaining will, a will of permission, etc. 

For Augustine, some of the attributes of God are incomprehensible. For example, why did God love one twin and hate the other? Because, “The love, therefore, wherewith God loves, is incomprehensible and immutable” (Tractate 110).  

God, prior to creation, willed everything that would take place, and knew everything that would take place.  After creation, God either did everything himself, or permitted the creatures he created to do what he willed prior to creation of the universe. 

Augustine also spent a great deal of time on Romans 9 and how the election of Jacob and Esau, before they were born, fit into the will of God. Prior to any person being created, God willed the eternal destination of each person. God being in the Heavens, and doing as He pleases, means that God could permit Adam to sin and bring evil into the world, and God could choose to save some from eternal destruction, and pass over others and permit them to spend eternity in hell.

Augustine wrote, “The condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace” (Enchiridion, Ch. 100).

Any parent will tell you that it is difficult to think of one of your children suffering eternal conscious torment in the fires of hell. Augustine had to reconcile a God who is love, whose will is always done, who could give the gift of faith to every person which would guarantee their salvation, with people going to hell. 

Augustine wrote, “Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the Omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished” (Enchiridion, Ch. 103).

Again, Augustine is convinced that an Omnipotent God could save all, so God must have willed many not to be saved. How could a good and just God, will most people to spend eternity in hell, when God could save every single one?

Augustine answers this question in On The Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 1, by positing that God is without passion. If God suffered when a person made in His image went to hell, then God would want to save everyone:

The “creator though He lack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all things without having them, in His wholeness, yet without place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable, without change of Himself, and without passion”.

If God could be made to suffer passion by the creatures He made, God would not send anyone to hell. For Augustine, God being impassible means that God dispassionately predestined most people to hell when he created the world.  God wills all people to sin, and God wills to forgive some people. This is all done prior to creation, according to the will of God, which makes the will of God immutable. God is able to forgive the sins of the elect because God willed to forgive the sins of elect prior to God creating the world, which means God can forgive without His will changing. 

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was a revival of Augustinian theology. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk.  John Calvin stated that he agreed with Augustine. 

John Calvin wrote, “In a word, Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so, with all fullness and satisfaction to myself, out of his writings” (EPG, p. 20).

Calvin, “It would be utterly absurd to hold, that anything could be done contrary to the will of God . . . Whereas, Augustine proves, by this very argument, that everything that is done on Earth, is effectually ruled, and overruled, by this secret providence of God. Nor does he hesitate to conclude, that everything that is done, is done by the will of God” (EPG, p. 190).

Calvin, “But it could not be otherwise. Adam could not but fall; according to the foreknowledge and will of God” (EPG, p. 76).

Calvin, “The eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the fall of Adam, what should take place, in the whole human race, and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined” (EPG, p. 108).

Calvin, “Augustine then adds this short sentence; ‘These are the mighty works of the Lord! Shining with perfection in every instance of His will . . . (God) accomplished what He willed, righteously, and with the height of all wisdom: overruling the evils done, to the damnation of those whom He had justly predestinated to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace” (EPG, p. 26).

Calvin, “Augustine testifies, that men are not chosen because they believe; but, on the contrary, are chosen that they might believe”, “Again, in another place, he says, ‘Who created the reprobate but God? And why? Because He willed it? – Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?’” (EPG, p. 23).

Hopefully you can see from those quotes that Calvin is saying the same thing about Augustine’s version of Divine Simplicity as what I have been describing. This version of Divine Simplicity means that everything takes place necessarily, as God willed it from eternity past, and God is immutable (steadfast) so what he decreed and ordained to happen from eternity past will not change: Calvin, “All we say is that God is in charge of the world which He established and not only holds in his power the events of the natural world, but also governs the hearts of men, bends their wills this way and that in accordance with His choice, and is the director of their actions, so that they in the end do nothing which He has not decreed, whatever they may try to do. Accordingly we say that those things which appear to be in the greatest degree due to chance happen of necessity – not by their own innate properties but because the purpose of God, which is eternal and steadfast, is sovereign in governing them” (BLW, p. 38). Calvin continues, “Accordingly everything that happens, happens of necessity, as He has ordained” (BLW, p. 39).

Martin Luther, a monk in an Augustinian order of the Roman Catholic Church, said much the same thing, “You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so. From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and his wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He forsees and wills” (BW, Sect. 9). 

Luther is rejecting simple foreknowledge, that God knows what will take place in the future: Luther is saying that God wills what will take place in the future, so God knows what will take place in the future.

Luther goes on to clarify what he meant by things “even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily”.  While God is a necessary being, we are contingent beings, thus, when Luther says something is done contingently, he means that it is done by a contingent creature, not that the choice was contingent upon the creature’s decision, “But, (that we may not be deceived in terms) being done by contingency, does not, in the Latin language, signify that the work itself which done is contingent, but that it is done according to a contingent and mutable will – such a will as is not to be found in God!  Moreover, a work cannot be called contingent, unless it be done by us unawares, by contingency, and, as it were, by chance; that is, by our will or hand catching at it, as presented by chance, we thinking nothing of it, nor willing anything about it before” (BW, Sect. 9).

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century, about 900 years after Augustine. The Roman Catholic Church was completely Augustinian by this time. Augustine was a “Doctor of the Church”, and to go against Augustine would be to go against the teaching Magisterium, which would be tantamount to saying that the Roman Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus founded on Peter, the rock. 

In his book on Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton remarks, “St. Thomas, for all his love of Greek philosophy, saved us from being Platonists” (Ox, p. 12).  Chesterton continues, “So the Thomist was free to be an Aristotelian instead of being bound to be an Augustinian” (Ox, p. 18).

Chesterton was simply pointing out the historical fact that Luther, Calvin, etc., were Augustinian Platonists, while people like himself (and C. S. Lewis) were Thomistic Aristotelians. Aquinas would recycle the same words Augustine used, while giving them very different meanings, which means we need to pay careful attention to the details to grasp the differences between the two.

For Aquinas, God is one essence, and is to be conceived of as His attributes. 

Rather than the essence of God being a will, Aquinas taught that God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas gave an example similar to this:

A Pterodactyl has essence and used to have existence.

An Ostrich has essence and has existence.

A Pegasus has essence but has never had existence.

Pterodactyls had existence, but no longer do.

An Ostrich currently has both essence and existence.

The Pegasus is a mythological creature that has an essence, but has never had existence.

Essence and existence are separable in created beings. 

God, having Aseity, was not created, thus, essence and existence are not separable in God, God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas, “God is the same as His essence or nature” (Prima Pars, Q3, A3).

“Therefore, it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence” (Prima Pars, Q3, A4).

Aquinas agreed with Augustine that “God is truly and absolutely simple” (Prima Pars, Q3, A7).

However, Aquinas disagreed with Augustine that everything happens as God wills it: “The foregoing is to set aside the error of certain persons who said that all things proceed from God according to His simple will, which means that we are not to give an explanation of anything except that God wills it” (SCG, 1.87.5).

We need to return to the problem of evil.

Aquinas wrote, “Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of Divine Omnipotence” (Prima Pars, Q25, A3).

Aquinas used what I call an “Omnipotence category theodicy”. This type of theodicy shows that it is logically impossible for God to stop evil from coming into the world after God creates creatures with real freedom.

For example, when God created Adam:

Adam was created in the image of God

Adam was created with rectitude of nature

Adam was adorned with the light of reason

Adam’s will was ordered to the good.

Benevolence is “to will the good of another”, and God, being Omni-benevolent, willed the good of Adam.

God did not both will the good of Adam and for evil to befall Adam. That would be logically contradictory.

God gave Adam real freedom. This good gift was given through the freedom to eat from every tree, with a prohibition of eating from one tree. Even Omnipotence could not give freedom and withhold it at the same time, thus, contrary to Augustine, God could not stop Adam from eating from the prohibited tree after Genesis 2:17.

God did not want Adam to do the opposite of what God commanded Adam to do.

God did not give Adam permission to sin.

God did not allow Adam to sin; to allow something implies the power to stop it from taking place.

God did not will Adam to sin. If God willed Adam to sin, then it is a sin to do the will of God.

Aquinas rejected the Nominalism of Augustine (that two contraries can be predicated of God’s goodness at the same time, thus the rules of logic do not apply to God), and taught that God cannot do what is logically contradictory: give real freedom to Adam and withhold it at the same time, or, lie to Adam and remain the Truth, because a being that is both the truth and a liar is logically contradictory and nonsense.

Ed Feser, in his “Beginners Guides to Aquinas” states, “Aristotle and Aquinas would also be baffled by the modern tendency to think of causation as essentially a relation between temporally ordered events” (p. 20). Feser continues, “For Aristotle and Aquinas, it is things that are causes, not events; and the immediate efficient cause of an effect is simultaneous with it, not temporally prior to it” (p. 21).

Now, if that paragraph does not make much sense to you, perhaps you can concede that the task of explaining Thomistic Divine Simplicity is a bit tricky.

A comparison between the “Kalam cosmological argument” vs Aquinas “argument from motion for the existence of God” may bring some clarity.

The Kalam states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; Therefore, the universe has a cause. God did not begin to exist, God has always existed; Therefore, God is the cause and creator of the Universe.

The Kalam invites the reader to think back in time to the beginning of the universe. It is an argument that uses temporally ordered events. While I am not opposed to the Kalam as an argument for the existence of God, there are a few things to consider:

Could it be argued that God wound up the world and walked away?

Could it be argued that the prior event caused the current event, which stretches back to the creation of the world, which implies that everything was determined by how God created the world? After all, Atheists (like Sam Harris) concede that temporally ordered events means that everything is determined by the universe, and humans do not have free-will.

Can it be proven scientifically or philosophically that the world began to exist?  Aquinas didn’t think so, instead, he thought that the fact that the Universe began to exist could only be known by Divine revelation.

To explain how Aquinas explained causation, I need to define and explain several terms:

Power is “potent”, as in, God is Omni-potent; thus, God is all powerful.

A potential is “potency”.  A dog has the potential to wake up and run across the room.

While the dog is asleep, it is both potent (having the power to run), and potency (having the potential to run).

Act is “actuality”. The dog in the act of running has actualized the power to run and “moved” from the potency of running to the act of running.

In agreement with Aristotle, Aquinas stated, “potency does not raise itself to act; it must be raised to act by something that is in act” (SCG, 1.16.3).

Aquinas, “God is eternal: Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end (SCG, 1.15.2).

Aquinas is saying that God is immutable because God does not move from potency to act, because anything raised from potency to act must be raised by another that is in act; thus, “There is no passive potency in God” (Aquinas, SCG, 1.16).

Next we need to discuss the four causes: efficient, material, formal, and final cause.

Several years ago, I wanted to get a dog for my kids to enjoy.  Before we bought the dog, I wanted to have a fenced in backyard, so I could let the dog out the back door in our suburb and not have to worry about it.

My work, every evening and weekend for months on end was the efficient cause of the fence.

The type of fence I built, made of wood, plastic, and metal, was the material cause.

The fact that it was a fence was the formal cause. You may be imagining a chain link fence, a wood picket fence, a fence made of vinyl panels, etc.; However, when you are driving through a suburb and see a fence, you know it is a fence, because it takes the form of a fence.

The final cause of the fence is fencing. The fence keeps the dog in and the neighbors out. 

In summary:

Efficient cause: person

Material cause: wood, etc.

Formal cause: fence.

Final cause: the good of fencing.

Now, it probably is not too difficult for you to think of examples in your own life where you are the efficient cause, there is a material cause, where you form the material to effect a final cause.

The same four causes also apply to God.

God is the efficient cause of the Universe.

Matter is the material cause of the Universe.

Planets, people, animals, etc. are the formal cause.

The final cause is that what God created He ordered to the good (i.e., Adam and Eve).

After power, potency, act, and the four causes, I need to explain what is necessary and what is an accident.

Think of a loaf of bread that just came out of the oven.

What is necessary for the substance you just took out of the oven to be called a loaf of bread?

Does it have to be moist? No, you could have baked it until it was dry.

Does it have to be dry? No, it could be moist.

It is not necessary for dryness or moistness to be present for the substance to be a loaf of bread, so things that are not necessary are called “accidents”.

God is a necessary being, so there are no accidents in God.

The creatures that God creates are not necessary beings, so we are contingent.

God being necessary is a different “order” than contingent beings.

When God is the efficient cause of all things, God is the – first order efficient cause – of all things.

God, by the fact that he is upholding the Universe at this very moment, is the first order efficient cause of the entire Universe, and the fact that God is upholding the Universe is what makes it possible for a second order (contingent) person to be the efficient cause of building a fence.

The Thomist asks, “What attributes must God necessarily have prior to God creating anything?”

This is done by a process of remotion, where we remove what God is not, to know what God is (See SCG, 1.14).

God is not nonexistent, God is existence, which is the attribute of Aseity.

God is not finite, God is infinite.

God is not unjust, God is justice.

God is not willing the evil of another, God must be Omni-benevolent.

R.C. Sproul explains the Augustinian perspective of everything happens as God wills: 

When evil comes into the world by God’s sovereign will, it is good that evil occurs (NC, 2007).

Vs.

Aquinas, “God cannot will evil” (SCG, 1.95).

God is not impotent, God must be Omnipotent.

God is not composed of potency and act, God must be pure actuality.

God is not composed, God must be simple (not divisible).

God is not changing (moving from potency to act), God must be immutable (always in actuality).

God is not created or His creation, God must be transcendent to His creation.

God does not fail to uphold the Universe, God is immanent to His creation.

God is not a liar, God is truth.

God is not unreliable, God is faithful.

God is not hate, God is love.

Etc.

Necessary attributes are pure actuality, they do not move from potency to act. 

For example:

God is love.

Love is the essence, being, and substance of God.

Because God is love, God is jealous for those he loves.

Jealousy is not a necessary attribute, rather, it is the attribute of love in action.

Aquinas states, “An accident depends on a substance” (SCG, 1.23.7)

Jealousy is an accident, dependent upon the substance of love.

While God is jealous, and jealousy is an accident, jealousy is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

God is just.

Because God is just, God hates evil.

While God hates evil, evil is an accident, evil is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

When Thomists say that there are no accidents in God, that does not mean that the accidents of jealousy, grace, mercy, wrath, sovereignty, etc. are not attributed to God: those things are characteristics of God, that are attributed to God, that flow from the essence of God, and God is simultaneously all of His necessary attributes, but God is not simultaneously all of His characteristics.

As creatures, we are composed of both potency and act.

A tree has the potential to be cut down and made into a table.

The table has the potential to be cut up and used as firewood.

We all know a person who squandered their potential.

In Deuteronomy 30, God tells Israel through Moses, “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction” (v. 15). Moses then explains that the choice is theirs to make. God has given contingent creatures the real freedom to choose to obey or disobey, and the choice is contingent on their decision.

The people Moses was speaking to had a will, an intellect, and a conscience.  Paul explains “their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them” (Rom 2:15). 

Choice is a function of the intellect, which is informed by the conscience.  

People make choices, and then they either have the will to carry out that choice or not.  

God cannot be good and withhold the grace people need to be able to choose him.

God cannot force people to freely choose him.

God has told us, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

When God gives the freedom of choice to people, like when God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, and God gave Israel the freedom to choose, God still knows what will be chosen.

As Calvin explains, foreknowledge is not the cause of things (Institutes, 3.23.6).

Aquinas, “The Divine will does not remove contingency from things, nor does it impose absolute necessity on them” (SCG, 1.85).

God knew that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul (1 Samuel 23).

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not cause it to happen.

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not make it necessary that it happen.

God knew what will happen if David stayed in Keilah. God knew what will happen when he told David that the citizens of Keilah will hand David over to Saul if David chose to stay in Keilah.

God knew what will happen in both possible contingent futures.

When a choice is made by a contingent creature, and it is contingent upon their choice, people are able to do otherwise than what God wills. People are able to do otherwise than what God predestined. When God gives the freedom to choose to people, like he did to all the people of Israel, God cannot make every person choose life and prosperity.  Foreknowledge does not cause an event to happen, and foreknowledge does not make an event necessary; God can intervene, like He did with David, and David made a different choice with his intellect, with the additional information God gave him.

For God to know how to correctly advise David, and for God to know how best to intervene, God needs to know all possible contingent futures. This is why in Thomistic Classical Theism, God is said to exist in eternity, outside of created time, because God is transcendent over His creation, and God simultaneously knows all possible contingent futures, which means that God knows how best to interact with each and every one of us.

The death of the timeless God has only taken place in the small minds of the philosophically inept.

This explanation started out by stating it would be: A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.  Stockman also pointed out that for God to forgive, God would have to suffer passion and be “moved to do something in response to something outside of Himself”.

Aquinas, and Scripture, both say that “God is love”. For Aquinas, God is love in pure actuality. Each of God’s attributes extends to every other attribute, and God’s attributes are all co-extensive simultaneously. 

God’s love is just.

God has the wisdom to love justly.

God has the power to wisely love justly.

The attributes of God that are necessary are all simultaneously one, because God doesn’t stop being just when he loves, and God doesn’t cease to be love when he dispenses justice.

God being impassible means that a contingent creature cannot swap places with God (a necessary being), and become the first order causation that moves God from the potency to love to the act of loving. 

This would be like a stream rising higher than its source. 

God is love, and God is already, and always, in the act of loving his creation. God is immutable because God does not change from potency to act. God can forgive sinners because sinners do not have to be the cause of moving God from the potential to love them to the act of loving them.

Stockman also wrote, “Classical Theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all”, then quotes Aquinas, “But in God relation to the creature is not a real relation, but only a relation of reason; whereas the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, as was said above in treating of the divine names”. 

The Question Stockman quotes from is Prima Pars, Q28, “Whether there are real relations in God?”

Aquinas answers, “Therefore as the Divine procession are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained, these relations, according to the Divine processions, are necessarily real relations” (Prima Pars, Q28). The relations Aquinas is considering are the concepts of paternity and filiation in God. As is stated in Q28, “The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy”.

For Aquinas, God is one nature and His creation is of a different nature. 

If Stockman wants us to be in real relation to God, in the way Aquinas is discussing, then we need to be in very nature God. 

If each of us is in very nature God, then God is a Quadrinity (or Trillioninity), rather than a Trinity.

For Aquinas, the creature is separate from God, and God is transcendent above His creation. 

Stockman has simply misunderstood the definition of relation, and has stated something about Aquinas that is incorrect. If you have read this far, you can probably grasp how easy it is to misunderstand meanings when reading either Augustine or Aquinas. 

By Chris Stockman and Will Hess

I (Chris Stockman) wrote in a previous article about how I found apologetics. I was only in high school. There are a good many others like me that found apologetics at a young age. Also like me, and Will, they eventually “graduated” from the work of popular apologists like J Warner Wallace, Frank Turek, Sean or Josh McDowell, and now almost exclusively study scholars on specific questions within sub-disciplines of apologetics.

These individuals I call the young guns in apologetics (a more generous use of “young” in Will’s case), and you’ll frequently see them online in different discussion groups. Very knowledgeable on certain topics, despite lacking formal training on these issues. We are “autodidacts”; if there is a topic we want to know more on, we will study it for ourselves. We’ll read the primary sources that the popular apologists draw on in their work, and be able to speak confidently on complicated topics in theology and philosophy. By any other label, we would be competent apologists. 

However, there are many of us whose young age and quick study has led to losing sight of the goal of apologetics. These are the cage-stagers. They are bright, but are doing more harm than good at the moment. Tearing down pop apologists (Frank Turek is the preferred punching bag these days) is spare-time enjoyment. Now, Turek isn’t my favorite, but he’s a darn good apologist who has had the career and impact that his detractors will never have. Will and I have had several interactions with these cage-stagers, and have finally had enough, which prompts us to drop this. 

This is a declaration of war on the young apologists. 

What They Intended 

First, what are their intentions? They spend a lot of time criticizing the work of well-known figures. What they want to do is point out flaws in popular arguments (like the moral argument, or minimal facts argument for the resurrection) in order to address them and make the argument stronger and present a stronger Christianity. They’re not merely on a seek and destroy crusade against apologetics. But, in the words of Ultron, “I know you mean well. You just didn’t think it through.” 

The problem is 1) some of them do this far too often, and 2) some of them, if you didn’t know them from Adam, would be confused for the village atheist with what their critiques are as well as how incessant they are. Here, I am not saying not to criticize wrong ideas. Of course, if an apologist like Frank Turek or Michael Licona is incorrect on something, it should be (graciously) pointed out. But, by who? Twenty-something’s with YouTube channels that nobody watches? Even still, that does not call for commenting on everything a popular figure does and criticizing it as if you were giving feedback on an academic article, or chiding it for not drawing on your favorite philosopher’s monograph that costs $100 used. At that point it just becomes friendly fire. Someone who spends so much time criticizing pop apologists has, oddly enough, made their bed with the skeptics. 

What They Are Saying

Below are a couple examples of the sorts of things these individuals actually say in italics. These people are actually serious; they’re not joking. 

“But there are countless examples who are less popular than Frank Turek, but are better at defending the Christian faith. Joshua Rasmussen, Rob Koons, Eleonore Stump, Alexander Pruss, Joshua Sijuwade, Andrew Loke, Timothy McGrew, and Richard Swinburne are all great places to start.”

The claim is that you should start with these. Not gradually work your way up to, but start with. All of these names are indeed great thinkers. Worth reading. These are arguably the cream of the crop when it comes to intelligent Christians. But they are (with the possible exception of Rasmussen) horrible places to start. Starting with them would be the worst thing a young, budding apologist could do. In fact, I would recommend a presuppositionalist as a starting place before I would recommend that someone start with Andrew Loke or Richard Swinburne. (Bear in mind that I believe Presuppositionalism is utterly worthless in advancing Christianity.) 

So why would it be such a bad idea to start with great thinkers? It’s simple: aside from Rasmussen, they have done (practically) nothing at a lay level. I love, LOVE Richard Swinburne. One of the best theologians ever, his career has been in academia, publishing on topics ranging from philosophy of time to epistemology. But he is a chore to read, as he is a prime example of a brilliant mind with poor prose. Someone who just wants to be equipped with how they can give a simple answer to, say, a coworker’s claims of corruption in the Bible, does not need to read any of these great minds (more on that below). The aspiring apologist should start with what they can understand. Start with the accessible, lay-friendly work of the J. Warner Wallace’s and Frank Turek’s, and master it before graduating to the Swinburne’s and McGrew’s (if one has that level of interest). Starting with the high-octane thinkers would just turn away potential apologists by reinforcing the myth that “I’m not a good enough thinker to do apologetics”. (Hopefully, if nothing else, reading a presuppositionalist would show that you don’t need to be a good thinker to do apologetics.) I found apologetics in high school. While I’d love to brag on myself, there is absolutely no way I had any business reading something from those thinkers. I have to either seriously question the humility of these young so-called apologists, or else their self-awareness. 

Now, these young apologists aren’t all bad. They have gotten deep into the academic literature on arguments for God (a good thing! It’s very good to know far more about something than the skeptic.) But they have begun mistaking the tree (the academic sub-discipline they study) for the forest (apologetics). I would wager that 99% of people who listen to pop apologists will never examine each tree and study it to the roots. Rather, they set foot in the forest and that’s all they need. Their faith is edified not by the academic study of the answers, but by the fact that there are such answers that some people will study deeply. 

“This is not a case of people hating on Frank Turek for no reason. We want to raise the quality of Philosophy of Religion discussions.”

When has Frank Turek been billed as an expert on Phil. Religion? Who, of his audience, has even heard the term “philosophy of religion”? Why anyone is looking to Frank Turek as a philosopher of religion is a mystery to me. This is like tearing down the reputation of a high school pitcher for not hitting 90 mph with their fastball. (If you live under a rock as far as sports are concerned, high schoolers that can throw 90 are rare and sure to get a bunch of college offers.)

Turek is an excellent apologist, because he is an evangelist. Not a professional philosopher, but an evangelist. His focus is sharing the Gospel and equipping lay people, and how he does it is a whole lot better than the way his detractors aren’t doing it. Frankly, for someone to say something like this indicates they don’t even know the first thing about apologetics. That’s correct; as intelligent and advanced as they have gotten, they have no idea what they’re talking about when they talk on apologetics. Apologetics is about the gospel and equipping Christ’s church, not the academic discussions. It can involve those but it is not reducible to them. I think it a grievous mistake to reduce the Gospel of Christ to one of many items of discussion in the Philosophy of Religion arena.  

Now, have Turek and other apologists always done their apologetics well? No, of course not. There are times where they dismiss questions out of hand, and sometimes they don’t realize that the question they gave a surface-level answer to is actually a powerful objection. That is, of course, not good. But that is no more of an error than getting so cerebral in your “apologetics” that you’re no longer answering actual doubts that regular people have. For example, it’s great that you can point out the flaws in JL Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument. When’s the last time you met someone who uses that? I would be very surprised if it’s ever happened. So what do you have for college students facing unbiblical views on sexuality, or religious pluralism? 

Christian apologists aren’t preparing people to be academics. But this young fellow thinks they should be: 

“If seasoned apologists spent more time teaching up-and-coming Christian apologists how to respond to the likes of Graham Oppy, JH Sobel, and Evan Fales, they wouldn’t ever have to bother teaching them how to respond to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dillahunty. Showing the flaws in bottom-tier atheist objections to Christianity borders on being a waste of time.”

Don’t you know what it’s like to be in conversation with a skeptic and they bring up Sobel’s Bayesian argument against the resurrection, or quote Graham Oppy’s Arguing About Gods to you?…you don’t? Yeah, me neither. I talk with skeptics regularly (in person, which is the last thing many of Turek’s detractors do), and “the likes of Graham Oppy, JH Sobel, and Evan Fales” have been mentioned a sum total of never. So why should apologists prepare the younger generation to encounter those arguments? There is no need. Apologists such as Frank Turek have done just fine at equipping laypeople to counter the rhetoric and the few actual arguments given by the New Atheists Dawkins and Hitchens and the I’m-not-convinced-ist Matt Dillahunty. And how did they do that? As strange as it (apparently) sounds to these young guns, they did it by showing the things these figures say, and pointing out factual and logical mistakes. Sometimes it is that easy.  

If you are not training to answer the questions and objections you are actually going to face, then you are not training for apologetics. You may be sharpening your thinking, or testing yourself, but it is not apologetics that you are doing. A good Christian thinker does not an apologist make.

There’s a more serious problem here, though, and I believe this indicates a heart issue in this person. The final line: 

“Showing the flaws in bottom-tier objections to Christianity borders on being a waste of time.”

Those bottom-tier objections are objections that Christians face. For the overwhelming majority of people (in general, not just believers), the bottom tier is the only tier. The people that you just run into on the street or on college campuses aren’t appealing to Rowe’s fawn as evidence against God; they’re saying things like “innocent people suffering proves there’s no God”. Practically nobody is citing critical scholars objecting to Pauline authorship of Ephesians; they’re saying that the Bible was compiled at Nicea in the 4th century. Practically nobody is appealing to steady-state or oscillating models of the universe to avoid a cosmic beginning; instead they advance the old “science has made God smaller and smaller” and “religion vs. science” tropes. That rattles a lot of people and can cause a lot of consternation if unaddressed. 

So, your friend just challenged you on good people suffering. But don’t worry, the apologists are here to help! And they say…showing the flaws in that objection is a waste of time. 

Your older brother went off to college and heard a professor say that science has removed the need for a God, and now it’s Thanksgiving and he’s an atheist. Answering your brother? A waste of time. 

Your little sister is hearing at school that she shouldn’t be a Christian because it’s sexually oppressive, and that she should “experiment” and “find” herself? Answering her is a waste of time. 

These scenarios are all too common, and we all know that, despite these objections being low-hanging fruit, answering them means everything in the world. Why? Because it means everything to the person you are answering. If someone has not grasped the inherit relational nature of apologetics, they should stop speaking on the subject, because they do not know what they are talking about. One does not just answer an objection; they are also answering the person in an effort to till the ground for the gospel.

Who They Are Forgetting

I (Will Hess) have been in pastoral ministry for about 10 years and unlike Chris, I found apologetics not in my teenage years, but in my early 20’s around the time I had left my extreme fundamentalist upbringing. The reason I left fundamentalism is a story for another time, but some key topics that led me out of it were topics on church history, textual criticism, doctrinal investigations and so on. After leaving fundamentalism and studying these topics thoroughly, I felt pretty confident in my capabilities to teach and minister.

Thus, I began my first year as a youth pastor at a small baptist church. 

That first year opened my eyes to issues much bigger than I had originally thought and I began to realize – I am woefully ill-equipped to handle these questions being volleyed at me. One night after youth group, I decided to do what any other self-respecting scholar would do: I ran to google. In fact, I specifically googled “proof Christianity is true” and I found the works of Frank Turek, Ravi Zacharias, and William Lane Craig – I was hooked. Soon after this I picked up Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist which was a game changer for me. I even bought the teacher’s guide and created my own curriculum using its material to teach at my church. At this time I had no idea I had barely scraped the surface of the neverending iceberg that is apologetics.

Essentially:  these apologists were my gateway drug. 

You might also notice that of those three men whom I listened to, only one of them is largely considered a scholar: William Lane Craig. However, when I first discovered this world of apologetics I found him difficult to understand and would often have to listen to his lectures multiple times to understand them. Now, as the weeks have turned into years, I find myself not just understanding Craig, but agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of points. I find myself disagreeing with Turek at times while cringing at the memory of Zacharias. 

As time passed, I began to realize that some of those popular apologists didn’t always address the topics or passages that I wanted them to address. This spurred me to explore the forest of apologetics and target the trees that I wanted to check out the most. I ended up getting a lot into works on the nature of God (comparing Platonic and Aristotelian views), on the nature of morality (Boyd, Thorsen, Morphy), on the problem of evil (insert Rowe’s fawn here), on Old Testament violence (Copan, Boyd, DeYoung, Webb), on reliability of the gospels (Licona, Habermas, McGrew), and my list of works on why Christ had to die would be far too long for a simple blog post. Truth be told, I don’t even remember the last time I listened to Turek, and the only reason I’ve recently listened to Sean McDowell is because the church I’m working at is promoting one of his talks.

My point is: I’ve learned. I’ve moved on. I’ve outgrown them.

However, I tire of young “would-be-apologists” flippantly putting down popular apologists for casting a wide net and “not going deep enough”. The reality is, their job isn’t to go deep on every topic. Their job is to present the broadest case for Christianity and address the most common objections to Christianity while inviting people to hear the gospel: to be evangelistic. In my past 10 years of ministry I have never encountered someone who asked me to quantify hedonic units in the face of evil and suffering. Usually what I’m having to address is the issue of pluralism, sexuality, the nature of God, the purpose of Christ’s death, the problem of evil, the resurrection of Christ etc. Whether these young apologists want to admit it or not – the popular apologists are doing the heavy lifting. I have no doubt that many of these boisterous critics of popular apologists are actually here because of the very work of the people they are criticizing. These budding apologists who are upset that J Warner Wallace isn’t responding to Kant’s arguments against miracles or Oppy’s thoughts on Ontological Arguments need to have a serious reality check:

Nobody cares. 

That’s right. Let that sink in for a moment. I’ll give you a minute to clean up your spilled coffee and pick your jaw up from the floor. Nobody. Cares. You can complain, shake your fists, scream, and type in all caps you want, but the fact will still remain: nobody cares. Is it because everyone else is just stupid and you’re a bastion of genius trying to prophesy truth to the ignorant masses? No. Just because someone isn’t interested in a topic that only you and maybe 7 others are interested in doesn’t mean they’re all ignorant chimps. Perhaps, they have simply done enough research in areas to answer their gnawing questions and have since moved on to raise their families, start a business, run a law firm, etc. 

“BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GETTIER PROBLEM!?”

I’ll answer the way I did before:

Nobody cares.

Think I’m wrong? The numbers don’t lie. These popular apologists have reached hundreds of thousands of people for the cause of Christ, seen many come to Christ, and have inspired others (like yours truly) to get in the game. Yet, these starting apologists will condescend these people (or their followers) with such an air of superiority the message falls entirely flat. What’s even more ironic is these young apologists claim to deal with “the real issues” (suggesting that those like CS Lewis never dealt with real issues), but have been unable to amass any following themselves. The ones who haven’t managed to build a following have a much smaller audience (and therefore influence) on the conversation as a whole. You wanna know why? 

You guessed it. 

Nobody cares. 

Think about it. It’s hard enough to get most Christians today onboard with popular apologetics being a regular part of their churches or conversations, and you want to bring in even more technical stuff? For what purpose? So that you (and perhaps one other person) can feel validated while everyone else is catching up on their sleep? Perhaps it’s time for you to admit – not everyone is going to care about these niche topics, and that’s okay. What matters is bringing people to Christ. In your conquest to be the best apologist available, don’t forget the “every man”. Don’t forget the mother of 4 who can barely find the time to read her bible – let alone to read technical scholars. Don’t forget the father who works 60 hours a week while serving as an elder at his church, and don’t forget about the high school student whose entire life is mostly consumed with whatever extracurricular that stole her heart. These are your “every man”, these are the masses, and these people are the real reason we do the work that we do – to be a resource for those in need. As soon as we begin to forget the average person, we have lost sight of the mission. 

No One Can Be An Expert at Everything

These popular apologists serve a specific role in the church: to popularize apologetics. To help people overcome the biggest objections to Christianity today and help the masses give themselves permission to believe. They serve as an entryway to the world of apologetics, philosophy, and theology. That’s their role. To expect them to be an expert on textual criticism, theological disputes, epistemology, metaphysics, and history is just wildly unrealistic. Brian (co-host of The Church Split) is an engineer. Not just any engineer, but a computer engineer. It would be not just unrealistic, but downright foolish for me to expect him to also be an expert in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering (although with that man’s skillset I don’t think it’d take him long if he wanted to). Sadly, this is what many young budding apologists seem to do with mainstream apologists: they expect them to be a specialist on far too many topics. They can’t be. Not if they are to be writing accessible books, traveling to various speaking venues, coordinating and planning entire ministries across the globe, etc. So perhaps instead of having a spirit of chastisement, one of humility would go further. 

By the way, I am not saying to avoid doing what you’re passionate about. By all means bring your iron to sharpen, but be careful not to cheapen the work of those who have come before. Show decency, humility, and respect. Add to the conversation respectfully, not sully it with putrid arrogance. 

Know Your Place

Seriously. Know your place in the world and how to orient yourself in it. If popular apologists are a mile wide but an inch deep, and your desire is to be a mile deep on a few topics – then own it. Be the expert on the “Historicity of the Gospels” or “Theological Worldview of the Ancient Near East”, but just accept the fact that you will have a much smaller audience – and that’s okay. You can help get someone deeper on a topic you know well, but don’t chide others who can’t do the same. The church is a body and we all have our own gifts. Some gifts are needed more often than others and we ought to be okay with where we fit into the grand equation. I know I can talk circles around most people when it comes to how Christ’s resurrection saves us (atonement), and I know Chris can wax eloquently on how God relates to time, but the reality is – only a few people will find it interesting enough to sit through a lecture on the topic or read a book on it. That’s an unrealistic expectation and would be as equally foolish as expecting Brian to magically become adept at chemical engineering. When we know our place in the church it can help us build the church, not tear it down. It can help us to be an encouragement, not a nuisance. 

Let me give you an example. While I was between ministry jobs I was a teaching elder at my pastor friend’s church (hello Pastor John!). I remember it took me a while to convince the leadership that an apologetics class was necessary, but when they finally gave me the greenlight I went all in. Within the first few months the class had expanded to the point where we had to switch to the auditorium just to make room. People were very interested in the subject matter, but I noticed a pattern. When I kept things on the “popular level” many people would attend, but when I dove into deeper and more technical topics, fewer people would attend. Sometimes I even got an occasional text asking me, “what’s the point of this? We’ve been exploring this part for 3 weeks…just seems to be getting lost in the weeds”. Although I believed these topics were important, I was losing the interest of the “every man” when I explored them. It was at this point I realized what I had to do: communicate at a popular level and then offer to meet privately for those with deeper concerns. It worked out great! I ended up making a great friend (Brandon) who would come over after his college classes on Tuesday nights and hit me with a barrage of questions he had over the week. It was awesome! He was the person who wanted to go deeper while everyone else was content having the “main reasons” to believe and moving on. This helped me solidify further why pop apologists are necessary while having some people be the specialists (who are less well known) can take people further in. 

In the end, we need young apologists to learn to respect the work of these apologists who are carrying the apologetics industrial complex on their shoulders. The show fell on hard times later in its life, but there’s a great villain from an early season in Arrow named Slade Wilson who originally trained the show’s protagonist, Oliver Queen, when they had been in exile together. Long after a falling-out (to put it mildly), in one episode, after laying a beating on Oliver to send a message, Slade says, “Don’t forget who taught you how to fight, kid.”  While neither of us could pull off Manu Bennett’s delivery of the line, we would say to these young apologists: Don’t forget who taught you apologetics, kid.

The Turek’s and Childers’ of the world are the ones doing the heavy lifting and they’re the ones bringing many people into the doors and inviting them to go deeper. They will never be experts in niche topics, and that’s okay. You can fill that role, but don’t be cannibalistic. Don’t undermine their work but rather seek to strengthen it, perhaps re-frame it, and at times correct it when it’s not as precise as it could be. It’s okay to disagree with them (I sure do), but I also respect them and want them to keep doing the work that they’re doing. I want people to walk through the same gates I did and be challenged to become an investigator. Chris became an investigator on how God relates to time, I became an investigator on how God relates to the cross, and perhaps you can be an investigator on the historical background of the New Testament. The world is your oyster after all. However, to castigate others for not investigating the same subjects you think are important is foolish, unrealistic, and brash. 

Let’s build the body up, not tear it down. Remember the every man, know your place, and then thrive in it. 

Opinion Piece

First, let me introduce myself. I am a missionary to a Restricted Access Nation in Asia. I spent three years living in this foreign nation before returning home to seek more training. I am currently (2022) finishing up the last few meetings left before I am finished raising the support I need to return to this Restricted Access Nation as a church-planting missionary. However, as a missionary, I have experienced missions both from the perspective of an Independent Fundamental Baptist and as a Non-denominational missionary. One of my supporters, Will Hess from The Church Split, reached out and asked me to share my thoughts on missions from my perspective. I will not attempt to criticize or evaluate denominational missions due to my inexperience in that field. However, I will attempt to explain my experiences in the IFB and eventually as a non-denominational missionary. I will explain my philosophies as a missionary, which I believe to be Biblical. I will explain the problems that I see with missions in our modern environment. Finally, I will explain my burden for missions, and I will attempt to persuade you of the importance of missions. However, before I begin that series, let me explain how I entered the field of missions.

My Introduction to Missions

Despite that wonderful buildup, I didn’t want to be a missionary when I first expressed interest in vocational ministry. I didn’t want to be a missionary at all. I expressly told the Lord, “God, I will serve in any way that you want, except missions.” As a child in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, we had missionaries at our church every year. We were constantly exposed to missionaries. However, as an un-churched kid who grew up in a non-Christian home, I thought that missionaries and their children were strange. It seemed that missions seemed to beckon to the weirdest, most peculiar group of people that I had ever met. This was not necessarily due to their decision to serve as missionaries, but since all the families that I seemed to meet were people that I wouldn’t be caught dead with in real life. Since I wasn’t weird, I ascertained that God must have called me to either a pastoral or an evangelistic role of service. Furthermore, I didn’t like the idea of serving the Lord in a foreign field or having to travel for years to raise financial support, only to have to travel to the United States to beg for more money every 4 years. Since I didn’t have the personality of what I deemed to be proper for an evangelist (more on that in future posts), I decided that I would be a pastor. I am certainly glad that God changed my mind.

While I attended an IFB seminary in Southern California, I initially believed that God was calling me to missions. I had been attending multiple missionary prayer groups, in which we prayed for different missionaries around the world. I am not sure at the time if I was caught in an emotional moment, but I realize now that it is increasingly difficult to listen to stories of people who uprooted their entire life for the cause of Christ and stay content to be a pastor. When the missions conference rolled around, I decided that I was bound to be a missionary. However, I specifically told the Lord, “God, I will serve the Lord wherever you want, but I don’t want to go to this Restricted Access Nation.” During this mission conference, I met multiple missionaries in this specific field, and I felt that God was burdening me with unreached people groups. Thankfully, a wise roommate told me that this specific nation had over a billion people and would be filled with unreached people. I relented and committed to praying to determine if this was God’s will for my life.

Let’s pause for a moment and comment on the idea of “God’s will.” Often this phrase is misused and incredibly misunderstood. Somehow, people believe that God always promised to give people a very specific and very literal calling for their exact life purpose, often during their teenage or pre-teen years. This is usually prompted by some sort of emotional appeal during an altar call of a revival service. Oddly enough, I have only heard this phrase for those going into vocational ministry in this context. Otherwise, God’s will is a vague phrase used to determine your spouse, your house, your car, or explain away anything that doesn’t make sense. Instead, I believe that the following rubric can help determine God’s will for your life:

1. Is there a desire (1 Timothy 3:1; Proverbs 18:1; Psalms 37:4)?
2. Have you prayed about it?
3. Have you sought godly counsel (Proverbs 12:15. 11:14, 15:22)?
4. What does the Bible say? (i.e., is there anything in the Bible that forbids this decision or your qualification?)

Moving on. A year later, God opened the door for my wife and me to serve in this Restricted Access Nation. We served in an Underground church under a veteran missionary, teaching English and working with the youth group. After our first year, the veteran missionary was kicked out of the country, and my wife and I remained for two more years, serving in that underground church under a national pastor. It was during these three years that God began to make it clear that this is where our calling was, and we came back to the United States, where we served in our former sending church for two years before we began deputation (the process of raising financial support). Although I could speak for hours concerning the call to missions, I will openly admit that this looks different for everyone. Everyone who is a missionary was called differently, at a different stage, and to a different place. There is no right way to do this part, but there may be more beneficial ways of clarifying God’s call. For further clarification, this entire process occurred during our years in the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, and our experiences are drawn from this crowd. I appreciated this entire process, and as I look back, I can see that God was doing amazing things.

Our World Is Blown Apart

As I mentioned, it was during this deputation process that our world began to change. In the last 2.5 years, we have traveled to hundreds of churches and seen so many things. We have been to churches that were different shades of IFB than what I grew up in. We have encountered beliefs that are different than ours. We have even visited churches outside of our denominational affiliation, including Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. Throughout these experiences, we have learned a lot. We have hurt a lot. We have grown a lot. We made new friends, and we lost old friends. We experienced some of the best moments and some of the hardest moments of our lives. We lost half of our support overnight, and we lost our sending church. Our friends rejected us, and our supporters left us. Even after that, we experienced the same issues outside of the IFB as everyone was constantly fighting with everyone, and our support and family were the collateral. We have also grown spiritually and doctrinally, and God has reshaped some of our views on missions. It is through some of these experiences that I want to take a few blog posts and explain what I have learned. I may not change the way that the world sees missions, but hopefully, I can encourage a church or a missionary to challenge the way that they think. If we can fix the problems of missions from this side of the field, we might further enhance our ability to reach the world.

Over the next few posts, I intend to cover the following topics:

• Deputation (troubles and philosophies)
• Unity behind the Gospel
• Theology and the missionary
• Missionary Autonomy
• Furlough and support troubles
• Apathy and missions

After these brief posts, I hope that you will have at least a better appreciation of the experiences that missionaries go through to reach foreign nations with the Gospel. Until next