Podcasts about Lactantius

This week Jeff and Dave are back in the studio to discuss the leading light of early fourth-century Christian rhetoric. 'No whey', you say? Yes, it's true. The guys again take a look at the North African rhetorical tradition that produced such greats of Christian apologetics as Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, and Arnobius of Sicca. What should we make of Lactantius' accomplishment? Is he really the crème de la crème, or merely pushed forward by inevitable social forces, not an instance of the 'great man theory'? And what about his rhetorical feats in the grisly Deaths of the Persecutors, Divine Institutes, God's Workmanship, and more? Was Pico della Mirandola correct that Lactantius "equalled Cicero, or maybe even surpassed him in eloquence"? Come along for the ride as we wrap up this two-parter on the man who was well suited to his times, interacting with the cabbage-loving Diocletian, a host of enemies of the Christian faith, and even the big guy, Constantine. And bee sure to check out Dave's free Latin lessons here: Deaths of the Persecturors Epitome of the Divine Institutes  

This week the guys teeter on the edge of Late Antiquity, caught in that liminal space between pagan and Christian, west and east, Latin and Greek. And what better guide through it than Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (the "Milkman"), the early Christian apologist who converted to the faith during Diocletian's persecution and ended up working for Constantine? Dave and Jeff spend the hour trying to assemble the threadbare, but fascinating biography of the man, all the while investigating such questions as: where does Lactantius stand in the larger picture of apologetics? What was his career like before his conversion? What does it mean to call him the "Christian Cicero"? And what's with all these North Africans punching above their weight? Is there something in that Carthaginian coffee? Lastly, speaking of coffee, if you're out driving and the brew in your tumbler is less than ideal, just try to keep 'er steady, ok? (Don't ask, just tune in).

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/italian-studies

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Augustine believed that slavery is permissible, but to understand why, we must situate him in his late antique Roman intellectual context. Slaves of God: Augustine and Other Romans on Religion and Politics (Princeton UP, 2024) provides a major reassessment of this monumental figure in the Western religious and political tradition, tracing the remarkably close connections between Augustine's understanding of slavery and his broader thought. Augustine is most often read through the lens of Greek philosophy and the theology of Christian writers such as Paul and Ambrose, yet his debt to Roman thought is seldom appreciated. Toni Alimi reminds us that the author of Confessions and City of God was also a Roman citizen and argues that some of the thinkers who most significantly shaped his intellectual development were Romans such as Cicero, Seneca, Lactantius, and Varro—Romans who had much to say about slavery and its relationship to civic life. Alimi shows how Augustine, a keen and influential student of these figures, related chattel slavery and slavery to God, and sheds light on Augustinianism's complicity in Christianity's long entanglement with slavery. An illuminating work of scholarship, Slaves of God reveals how slavery was integral to Augustine's views about law, rule, accountability, and citizenship, and breaks new ground on the topic of slavery in late antique and medieval political thought. New Books in Late Antiquity is presented by Ancient Jew Review Toni Alimi is Assistant Professor at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University Michael Motia teaches in Classics and Religious Studies at UMass Boston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

In this episode we will examine the story of a real life demon who betrayed his brothers in arms, deceived many in a craven lust for power and murdered his own wife and child. With a resume like that, it goes without saying Roman Emperor, Saint Constantine the Great is held up as an iconic Christian hero. Also making special guest star appearances we have Romans, CAESAR, Christians, Eusebius, Lactantius, Christianity, Roman Empire, France, Britain, Italy, Rome, Tetrarch, Maxentius, Tiber river, Milvian Bridge, Jesus Christ, Chi Rho, Greek, Christos, Twitter, X, staurogram, crucifix, Arch of Constantine, Tetrarchy, Licinius, Maximinus, Edict of Milan, RON BURGUNDY, Paganism, Pontifex Maximus, pagan, Pope, council of Nicaea, Nicene Creed, Holy Trinity, Arius, Holy Land, St Helena, Constantinople, Fausta, Crispus, Jupiter, Persians, Armenia, Tiridates III, Persia, river Jordan, Bishop of Nicomedia, Pentecost, Holy Ghost, Mary, Apostles, Heaven, #SketchComedy #Sketch #Comedy #Sketch Comedy #Atheist #Science #History #Atheism #ConspiracyTheory #Conspiracy #Conspiracies #Sceptical #Scepticism #Mythology #Religion #Devil #Satan #Skeptic #Debunk #SatanIsMySuperhero #Podcast #funny #sketch #skit #comedy #comedyshow #comedyskits #HeavyMetal #RomanEmpire #Rome #AncientRome #Romans #RomanEmperor 

Synopsis: Part 2 of a two-part Spotlight series on the rise and fall of the Roman Emperor Galerius: refugee, herdsman, soldier, Caesar, Augustus, Tetrarch, conqueror, schemer, would-be ruler of the (Dacian?) Empire, and persecutor of the Christians. A rollicking Third Century romp inspired by my current residence in his former tetrarchal capital of Thessaloniki, Greece. “Galerius…was born to wipe out the disgrace incurred by Valerian's capture.” – The Historia Augusta “Had I a hundred mouths, a hundred tongues, A voice of brass, and adamantine lungs, Not half the dreadful scene could I disclose.” – Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors Episode Images: https://audio.ancientworldpodcast.com/S8_Images.pdf References and Further Reading: https://audio.ancientworldpodcast.com/S8_References.pdf Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com if you would like to advertise on this podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Synopsis: Part 1 of a two-part Spotlight series on the rise and fall of the Roman Emperor Galerius: refugee, herdsman, soldier, Caesar, Augustus, Tetrarch, conqueror, schemer, would-be ruler of the (Dacian?) Empire, and persecutor of the Christians. A rollicking Third Century romp inspired by my current residence in his former tetrarchal capital of Thessaloniki, Greece. “Galerius…(was) trained to arms in the severe school of Aurelian and Probus.” – Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire “In this wild beast there dwelt a native barbarity and a savageness foreign to Roman blood; and no wonder, for his mother was born beyond the Danube.” – Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors Episode Images: https://audio.ancientworldpodcast.com/S7_Images.pdf References and Further Reading: https://audio.ancientworldpodcast.com/S7_References.pdf Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com if you would like to advertise on this podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seventeen hundred years ago this year, Constantine defeated his co-emperor Licinius, ending a series of civil wars and consolidating power as sole emperor of Rome. At the time, Christians saw this as the defeat of old pagan ways and the triumph of a new Christian vision of Rome.   Constantine's turn to Christianity began before he abandoned Roman paganism. His children had been tutored by Lactantius, a Christian who opposed coerced worship and argued for religious liberty as long as a religious practice did not disrupt public order. Years later in 312, as Constantine went into battle against a rival, he claimed to have a vision of a symbol of Christ with the words, “in this sign, conquer.” He had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields. Constantine won the battle and converted to Christianity. The following year, he issued the Edict of Milan, which declared religious liberty across the Empire in terms that Constantine had learned from Lactantius.   Constantine has been a controversial figure throughout Church history. Both the genuineness of his conversion and his impact on the Church have been consistently questioned and scrutinized. Many think that Constantine's actions to tie the Church to the empire compromised the Gospel. Often, these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what Constantine did and fail to consider what followed from the legalization of Christianity.   The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity, along with other religions. It did not declare Christianity the official imperial religion. Though Constantine's promotion of Christianity made it more popular, it was not named the imperial religion until Emperor Theodosius I in 380. Even then, Theodosius did not suppress paganism.   Despite what you may have read online or seen in The Da Vinci Code movie, Constantine did not dictate doctrine to the Church. When he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 to deal with the question of the nature of Christ, a controversy that was threatening to tear the Church apart, he was performing a traditional function of Roman emperors who often acted as mediators in religious conflicts.   Despite claims to the contrary, neither Constantine nor the Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the formation of the canon of Scripture. Constantine did not control the discussion at Nicaea, nor did he dictate the outcome. And even if he had tried, many bishops who attended the council had been tortured by his predecessor Diocletian. If they didn't compromise their faith then, it is silly to assume they would roll over for Constantine.    The most direct result of Constantine's conversion was the end of the persecution, torture, and execution of Christians. Obviously, this was welcomed by Christians in his day, but it should also be recognized as a historical good.    The Edict of Milan also furthered Christian evangelism. Prior to Constantine, the Gospel had spread to India, Armenia, and Persia, and then from Persia across Central Asia into China by the early 600s. The legalization of Christianity led to churches being founded across the Roman Empire and missionaries sent to regions outside the empire. St. Patrick was a Romanized Briton who grew up as a Christian and brought the Gospel to Ireland. In the fifth century, a Syrian Christian named Frumentius converted the king of Axum in modern Ethiopia. Together, they evangelized that kingdom. Cyril and Methodius brought the Gospel to the Slavic people of Central and Eastern Europe in the ninth century. The evangelization of these regions can be traced to the actions of Constantine.    Of course, the legalization of Christianity set up a tug-of-war between Church and state. Because the faith had existed as an illegal and sporadically persecuted minority religion for centuries, the Church functioned fully independent of the state. With Constantine came new questions, such as, what properly belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God?   That question remains a central issue of Western political thought today.  Even in view of the historical difficulties that emerged from his conversion, we can thank God for Constantine and for the freedom for faith and the Gospel he established.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

In Episode 123 of Theology In Particular, Dr. Jason Montgomery returns to talk about the Patristic Era. Here we focus on the persecution of the church leading up to the time of Constantine and the privileged position that was given to the church in Roman society under his rule.   Links: International Reformed Baptist Seminary: irbsseminary.org If you have feedback, questions, or suggestions, please email Joe at: tip@irbsseminary.org   Recommended Resources: Primary Readings: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Books 6-7 will address the persecution under Decius and Valerian. Books 8-10 will address the Great Persecution under Diocletian and company.) Eusebius, The Life of Constantine (Hagiography in the Early Church; Both of these by Eusebius are in the NPNF, Vol 1) Lactantius, Of The Manner In Which The Persecutors Died (In the ANF, Vol 7, 301) David Gwynn, Christianity In The Later Roman Empire: A Sourcebook Secondary Sources: W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Chapter 9: Struggle and Advance; Chapter 13: The Age of Diocletian; Chapter 14: The Constantinian Revolution) Bruce Shelley, Church History In Plain Language (Chapters 4 and 9 are helpful) Philip Jenkins, The Lost History

On The Literary Life today, we wrap up our series on The Mind of the Maker by Dorothy L. Sayers. Angelina, Cindy, and Thomas begin the conversation with C. S. Lewis' critique of Sayers' work, both what he agreed with and disagreed with in this book, as well as touching on Tolkien's idea of artists as sub-creators. Cindy talks about what it is like writing a book in relation to Sayers' thoughts on the subject of authorship. Thomas shares why he took issue with part of her examples of scalene triangles and the Trinity in relation to aesthetic failures. Angelina shares her dilemma with this same portion, and they discuss the principle they think Sayers was trying to illustrate. The House of Humane Letters is currently having their Christmas sale until December 31, 2023. Everything is now 20% OFF, so hop on over and get the classes at their best prices now. In addition to the sale, you can also sign up for Atlee Northmore's webinar “A Medieval Romance in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: How to Read Star Wars.” Cindy is also offering at 20% OFF discount throughout the holidays. Use coupon code “advent2023” on MorningTimeforMoms.com/shop until January 2024. If you missed it, go back to last week's episode to get all the information about our 2024 Reading Challenge, Book of Centuries. Commonplace Quotes: Truth herself will, at the promptings of Nature, break forth from even unwilling hearts. “Veritas ipsa cogente natura etiam ab invitis pectoribus erumpit.” Lactantius, from Divine Institutes, Bk. II Curiosity may elicit facts, but only real interest may mold these facts to wisdom. Anna Botsford Comstock, from Handbook of Nature Study I must therefore disagree with Miss Sayers very profoundly when she says that ‘between the mind of the maker and the Mind of the Maker' there is ‘a difference, not of category, but only of quality and degree' (p. 147). On my view there is a greater, far greater, difference between the two than between playing with a doll and suckling a child. But with this, serious disagreement ends. This is the first ‘little book on religion' I have read for a long time in which every sentence is intelligible and every page advances the argument. I recommend it heartily to theologians and critics. To novelists and poets, if they are already inclined in any degree to idolatry of their own vocation, I recommend it with much more caution. They had better read it fasting. C. S. Lewis, from Image and Imagination Thoughts by Thomas Beddoes Sweet are the thoughts that haunt the poet's brain Like rainbow-fringed clouds, through which some star Peeps in bright glory on a shepherd swain; They sweep along and trance him; sweeter far Than incense trailing up an out-stretched chain From rocking censer; sweeter too they are Than the thin mist which rises in the gale From out the slender cowslip's bee-scarred breast. Their delicate pinions buoy up a tale Like brittle wings, which curtain in the vest Of cobweb-limbed ephemera, that sail In gauzy mantle of dun twilight dressed, Borne on the wind's soft sighings, when the spring Listens all evening to its whispering. Books Mentioned: Murder Must Advertise by Dorothy Sayers Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers Home Economics by Wendell Berry Support The Literary Life: Become a patron of The Literary Life podcast as part of the “Friends and Fellows Community” on Patreon, and get some amazing bonus content! Thanks for your support! Connect with Us: You can find Angelina and Thomas at HouseofHumaneLetters.com, on Instagram @angelinastanford, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ANGStanford/ Find Cindy at morningtimeformoms.com, on Instagram @cindyordoamoris and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/CindyRollinsWriter. Check out Cindy's own Patreon page also! Follow The Literary Life on Instagram, and jump into our private Facebook group, The Literary Life Discussion Group, and let's get the book talk going! http://bit.ly/literarylifeFB

“Irreligion, the lack or rejection of religious beliefs or practices. Irreligion is a broad concept that encompasses many different positions and draws upon an array of philosophical and intellectual perspectives, including atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, rationalism, and secularism. These perspectives themselves are multifaceted, such that people who are irreligious may hold a wide variety of specific beliefs about religion or be related to religion in varied ways. Around the world, hundreds of millions of people do not identify with any religion, particularly in China, which is officially an atheist state. The term irreligion can be challenging to apply in specific circumstances and is frequently characterized differently depending on context. Surveys of religious belief sometimes use lack of identification with a religion as a marker of irreligion. However, this can be misleading, as in some cases a person may identify with a religious cultural institution while not actually holding the doctrines of that institution or participating in its religious practice. Some scholars define irreligion as the active rejection of religion, as opposed to the mere absence of religion. “ I learned that “Spare the rod, spoil the child”, “Trinity” “Denomination”, and “The Lord helps those who help themselves” are not in the Bible. “An interesting quote from the 1915 “Gospel Advocate” (Pg 589) says: “The word ‘Church' is really not a translation of any word that was used by either Christ or His Apostles, but is the Anglican form of a different word which Roman Catholicism substituted in place of the word used by Christ and His Apostles… It is in our english scriptures by order of King James, who instructed his translators of 1611 not to translate the word “Ecclesia” by either ‘Congregation' or ‘Assembly' but to use the word ‘Church' instead of a translation.” “What does the word “Church” mean and from where did it come from? The scriptures? No.” “The word “Church” is neither Hebrew nor Greek. In point of fact, when these languages were translated into English Bibles, the word “Church” was already in existence. The greek word used in the renewed covenant for “Church” is “Ekklesia” which basically means “Called Out ones”. Ekklesia does not refer to a building, but rather a group of people. Proper English translations should read: Congregation, Assembly or Group. Strangely in Acts 19:32, 39 and 41, Ekklesia is the word that is translated as “Assembly”, but in other passages, it is translated as “Church”. Jesus and His disciples never spoke the word religion. “The term religion comes from both Old French and Anglo-Norman (1200s AD) and means respect for sense of right, moral obligation, sanctity, what is sacred, reverence for the gods.[15][16] It is ultimately derived from the Latin word religiō. According to Roman philosopher Cicero, religiō comes from relegere: re (meaning "again") + lego (meaning "read"), where lego is in the sense of "go over", "choose", or "consider carefully". Contrarily, some modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell have argued that religiō is derived from religare: re (meaning "again") + ligare ("bind" or "connect"), which was made prominent by St. Augustine following the interpretation given by Lactantius in Divinae institutiones, IV, 28.[17][18] The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[19] “From Middle English sinne, synne, sunne, zen, from Old English synn ("sin"), from Proto-West Germanic *sunnju, from Proto-Germanic *sunjō ("truth, excuse") and *sundī, *sundijō ("sin"), from Proto-Indo-European *h₁s-ónt-ih₂, from *h₁sónts ("being, true", implying a verdict of "truly guilty" against an accusation or charge), from *h₁es- ("to be"); compare Old English sōþ ("true"; see sooth). Doublet of suttee.” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

In which we take a look at another member of the Constantinian court: Lactantius, tutor to Crispus and writer of treatises. What does he have to tell us about the Great Persecution and its aftermath?

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on his discussion of objections that might be raised against his position that God does and should be angry with some people. These objections would focus on the fact that God provides precepts for human beings that say they shouldn't get angry, shouldn't express or act upon anger, or should resolve their anger quickly. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on the question of what genuinely differentiates human beings from the brute animals. Lactantius considers speech, laughter, and even reason and prudential planning, and notes that at least some animals share in these in some ways. The difference for Lactantius resides in religion, and the associated virtues of wisdom and justice. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on his discussions bearing on what has come to be called the "problem of evil". He considers the positions of several schools of antiquity, in particular the Stoics, Skeptics, and Epicureans, and he provides a proposed solution to the problem of evil as framed by Epicurus To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on his discussion about God being moved by anger to punish, or by mercy to pardon. Lactantius maintains that God is angry against those who break to despise his eternal law, and that punishing is actually protecting the good from the bad, but that there are also good reasons for God to exhibit patience towards human beings and to forgive. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on his discussion of virtues and vices, particularly as they apply to anger. He frames virtues and vices in relation to the body and the soul as well. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on his discussion of various definitions of anger, which he finds deficient, put forward by Stoics, Cicero, and Aristotle. These all work for unjust anger, but do not apply to just anger, which he defines as "a motion of mind arising for restraining faults". To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on his discussions of what emotions (affectus) God would feel. He distinguishes between emotions it doesn't make sense to attribute to God, because they are associated with vice, and emotions that God should feel precisely because they are expressive of virtue. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on the criticism of the Stoics' position on God(s) and anger. He makes several main criticisms of them: first, for thinking that God exhibits kindness but not anger; second, for claiming that everything in the universe has some usefulness for human beings; and third, for failing to distinguish between just and unjust anger, leading to mistaken definitions of the emotion. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on the criticism of Epicurus' position on God(s) and anger. He has three main lines of criticism: one dealing with whether God has emotions ; another bearing upon God as active or inactive; and another applying to the Epicurean version of the argument from evil To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - https://amzn.to/3Ikenvr

This is part 11 of the Early Church History class. Have you heard of the Roman emperor Constantine? He had a massive impact on Christianity. Not only did he end the brutal persecutions of his predecessors, but he also used the Roman government to actively support the Church. However, his involvement also resulted in significant changes that eventually led to the merger between Church and State called Christendom. In this episode you'll learn about the good and the bad effects of Constantine's involvement in Christianity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQDFaIh2SsY&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=11 Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts —— Links —— More podcasts about Constantine Get Kegan Chandler's book, Constantine and the Divine Mind Find out more about this summer's Family Camp here. More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Today, we're looking at one of the most influential people in church history: Constantine (272-337). Also called Constantine the Great or Constantine I There would be 10 more emperors named Constantine. Constantine 11th was the last Roman emperor who died when the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453. Constantine's “Edict of Milan”[1] 303-313 - The Great Persecution 313 - Toleration granted to Christians and all religions Restore confiscated property Constantine's Favoring of Christianity Exemption from public office Tax exemption Use of cursus publicus Printing of Christian scriptures Closing of law courts on Sundays Abolition of face-branding as a punishment Constantine and Churches Donated 3,000 bags of money to church in African provinces Rebuilt and enlarged damaged churches Built new churches, especially through his mother, Helena Helena also allegedly finds the true cross (relic). Constantine's Government Appointed government officials that were Christians Sought advice from Christian bishops on decisions Shared his table with Christians Had bishops accompany soldiers Christian Attitude Toward Military Prior to Constantine Jesus and his apostles taught to love enemies (Matthew 5.5, 9, 38-48; 1 Thessalonians 5.15; Romans 12.14, 17-21; 1 Peter 3.8-11) Didache 1.3-4; Justin Martyr, First Apology 39, Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.34, Tertullian, On Idolatry 19, Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 16.17-19, Origen, Against Celsus 5.33, Cyprian, Epistle I: To Donatus 6, Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.6, Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.8.[2] Preston Sprinkle: “Despite the presence of Christians in the military, it is clear that no single Christian writer before Constantine sanctioned the use of violence, not even toward bad guys.”[3] Constantine's Vision Had been a worshiper of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun) Allegedly saw something above the sun Had a dream in which Christ told him to use his initials, chi rho (also called, labarum), on his soldiers' shields (“in this you will conquer”) At the battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine defeated Maxentius, fished his body out of the river, decapitated him, and paraded his head through the city on a stick. Christian Leaders Seek Favor Christians requested the emperor to persecute other Christians. Constantine's Edict Against the Heretics Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians Currying imperial favor to defeat one's Christian enemies became a standard tactic. The Constantinian shift initiated a new stage in church history—Christendom, the idea that a society or nation could be Christian. Before long, all infants would be baptized, making everyone a member of the church by birth. Everyone would be raised Christian. The government would pay clergy their salaries. How many of these so-called Christians followed Christ? Evangelism was no longer needed. The kingdom had come. The Roman Empire became the holy Roman Empire and was seen as God's kingdom on earth. Review Constantine's involvement in Christianity brought several significant changes, both good and bad, initiating the “merger” of the church and the state known as Christendom. Constantine ended the persecution of Christians, issuing the Edict of Milan (along with Licinius) in 313. Constantine donated large sums of money to rebuild churches, build new churches, and support clergy. Constantine's favoritism of Christianity incentivized people to join the church. Christians changed from discouraging military participation to blessing it. Christians pursued the emperor's favor to persecute pagans, Jews, and other Christian sects with different beliefs. Constantine's desire to have Christian advisors in his entourage caused some Christians to begin identifying the Roman Empire as God's kingdom on earth. Rather than strict obedience to the teachings of Christ, Christendom came to lower the requirements for all, while the zealous left, pursued monasticism whether as isolated hermits or in communities. [1] Scholars point out that the “Edict of Milan” was really a letter sent from Nicomedia. [2] More quotations in David Bercot, Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. [3] Preston Sprinkle, Fight (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2013), 212-3.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient Christian rhetorician and philosopher's short treatise, On The Anger of God Specifically it focuses on the first several chapters in which he discusses why philosophers, relying upon human reason unaided by divine revelation, go astray by relying upon plausible conjectures about matters. He also distinguishes three steps or levels (gradus) the philosopher would need to ascend and not slip back down from in order to more fully grasp truth To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Lactantius' On The Anger Of God - https://amzn.to/3Ikenvr

Lamentations 2:1-13 “the three goals of the initial poem—articulating grief, helping the community take responsibility for their shortcomings by means of spiritual interpretation, and helping members turn in prayer back to God as the only one who could take them beyond their catastrophe—are repeated in the second poem but at a more emotive and strident level in order to drive these messages home and encourage the community to turn to God in their own prayer.”  - Leslie Allen "In the dust of the streets  lie the young and the old;    my young women and my young men  have fallen by the sword;    you have killed them in the day of your anger,  slaughtering without pity." - Lamentations 1:21 “The Lord has done what he purposed; he has carried out his word; which he commanded long ago; he has thrown down without pity;
he has made the enemy rejoice over you and exalted the might of your foes.” - Lamentations 1:17 “But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.  The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me.”  - Deuteronomy 28:15-20 “What would happen to our faith if we believed that God reigns sovereign over both our celebration and our suffering?” - Soong Chan Rah “This whole question of divine anger (ira dei) has been the subject of some sharp debate in the history of the church. It became known as the question of divine possibility (the quality or aptness in God to feel, suffer, or be angry) or impassibility (the denial of those qualities). Under the strong advocacy of Gnosticism (a philosophy that combined Greek and Oriental ideas with Christian teaching and professed access to truth that was a mystery to outsiders) a doctrine of God emerged that took the strongest exception to any claim that God could feel or suffer anything or that He could be angry.” - Walter Kaiser “believed that the God of the Old Testament was a ‘Demiurge' (a god subordinate to the supreme God and responsible for the creation of evil) whose involvement in war, suffering, and judgments disqualified Him from being the God of grace and goodness whom Marcion found in most of Paul's epistles in the New Testament.” - Walter Kaiser “Lactantius, wrote his De Ira Dei, ‘The Anger of God.' For him passions or emotions were not in themselves evil, but avenues of virtue and goodness when kept under control. Furthermore, God must be moved to anger when He sees sin and wickedness in men and women just as He is moved to love them when they please Him.  - Walter Kaiser “He who loves the good, by this very fact hates the evil; and he who does not hate the evil, does not love the good; because the love of goodness issues directly out of the hatred of evil, and the hatred of evil issues directly out of the love of goodness. No one can love life without abhorring death; and no one can have an appetency for light, without an antipathy to darkness.” - Lactantius “our problem with anger is that we define it as Aristotle did, ‘the desire for retaliation' or a desire to get even and get revenge for a slight or real harm done to us. With anger goes the idea of a ‘brief madness' and ‘an uneasiness or discomposure of the mind, upon the receipt of an injury, with a present purpose of revenge.' But Lactantius defined anger as ‘a motion of the soul rousing itself to curb sin.' - Walter Kaiser  

Western Christianity is fundamentally African in the way that Eastern Christianity is fundamentally Greek. It was in Africa that a vigorous Christian Latin culture first developed. Carthage had a Latin liturgy for a full century before Rome switched over from Greek. Africa gave the Church great saints and Fathers such as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius—and the greatest of all: Augustine. For a Western Christian, to know early African Christianity is to know one's own roots. LINKS Mike Aquilina, Africa and the Early Church: The Almost-Forgotten Roots of Catholic Christianity https://www.amazon.com/Africa-Early-Church-Almost-Forgotten-Christianity/dp/1645852598/ Mike Aquilina's website https://fathersofthechurch.com Mike Aquilina's books https://catholicbooksdirect.com/writer/mike-aquilina/ Theme music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed http://www.ccwatershed.org

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.This a well-known passage, even though it is not in the original manuscripts of John's gospel.This pericope is not written in the style of John, nor is it original to John.It is missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts of John. Of course this was the original language of the gospel, and evidence here should be weighed most heavily.It is missing also from the oldest Syriac manuscripts.The passage is found in the following manuscripts, though often with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating doubt as to its authenticity:The later Koine Greek manuscripts.The Latin Vulgate (c.400 AD) and some Old Latin manuscripts.The Ethiopic version.The writings of Augustine and Ambrose (c.400 AD).Codex D.It often does not appear at its present position. Other locations include:Following Luke 21:38.After John 7:36.After John 7:44.After 21:25.No eastern commentator mentions the passage before the 10th century, and no Greek commentator mentions the passage before the 12th century.Still, it rings true, is of early origin, and is therefore is found in most Bibles. Few scholars believe the account to misrepresent Jesus, even if it was not originally in its present location in John.[53 Then each of them went home, 8:1 while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them.As was Jesus' custom during the feasts, he taught in the day and stayed evenings somewhere on the Mount of Olives (v.1). He probably enjoyed the hospitality of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. (Search your concordance under Bethany.)The venue for his teaching was the temple complex. (And by forgiving the adulteress, he was challenging, "usurping," the authority of the priests.)The time was early morning, before the heat of the day.He taught in the seated position (v.2), which was the normal posture of a rabbi with his disciples.3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him.Then comes the shocking interruption (v.3).The question, and the arrest of the woman, seem staged.Since adultery takes place in secret, it is likely that the accusers had been waiting (and hoping) for the transgression to take place. Their posturing, like the adultery itself, was premeditated.Only the woman has been brought in, despite the implicit charge that the man had been present (v.4).The accusers have little concern for her.Their aim is only to trap Jesus.Would Jesus then contradict himself, or the Mosaic law?Here is the trap (vv.5-6).Jesus advocated compassion. He forbade us even to hate our enemies. He had intimated that the new covenant was in the process of being inaugurated -- that the old law might not apply anymore.And yet the Torah required the death penalty for both parties (Leviticus 20:10).Would contradict the Torah, or his own teaching?Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."]Masterfully, Jesus extricates both himself and the woman from the dilemma.His reply is perfectly suited to the occasion. Jesus was always an excellent thinker on his feet.About Jesus' writing in the dirt:Many have speculated what word(s) -- if any -- he wrote.He seems to be deflecting the attention from the woman and her accusers -- perhaps regaining control of the situation.Acknowledging the demand of the law for adulterers ("Let anyone without sin cast the first stone...") while confronting all present with their own sin (and potential hypocrisy in judging her) (v.7ff).Everyone in the group is challenged!The older in the crowd, realizing that Jesus occupies the moral high ground and will not be trapped, walk away.The younger in the crowd, less savvy and more moralistic, linger longer, but they too in the end leave the scene.The accusers apparently depart as well.In the end, only two persons remain.While offering her divine forgiveness, Jesus hardly condones her immorality. "Sin no more" (v.11).The heart-warming vignette demonstrates the church's attitude towards erring members.Sin will not be taken lightly, yet...... forgiveness is always available -- if there is repentance.ConclusionAlthough most NT scholars reject the story as original in the fourth gospel, they are also of one mind in accepting its veracity.It is perfectly in character with what we know of Jesus and his attitude towards sin/sinners.It is unlikely to be an invention of the later church, since in the second century sin was dealt with much more harshly than it is in this passage.Some early Christian preserved the story, and some early copyist of John placed it between chapters 7 and 8, probably because it seemed a good fit (verses about judgment, tensions between Jesus and the Pharisees).This passage is one of several understood by early Christians to forbid capital punishment.For example, consider the words of Lactantius (c.290-300 AD): When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is injustice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature.For more on this, see my article on The Death Penalty, or the various lessons on crime and punishment. Had I been present, which of the characters in this story would I have been: an older person, a younger person, the woman, or the accusers?

Thank you for listening to Will Wright Catholic. Please share it by clicking the blue button below!The Nature of Human BeingsLet's start with… well… everything! Reality exists: both natural and supernatural. The natural realm is everything that we can detect, observe, or measure. This part of the created order includes atoms, molecules, and matter, in general, but it also includes unseen forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and the like. All of this exists in space and time, in a closed system where matter is neither created nor destroyed. But is there more? The “more” would be above nature or “supernatural.” The supernatural is all that exists apart from the material and natural realm. Angels, demons, and the Creator Himself all exist apart from the visible observable universe. Truly, God deserves His own category as the only Necessary Being whereas everything else is contingent on Him.We speak of the things of our material universe as Nature. Here on Earth, nature includes the elements: earth, fire, water, wind, and life. However, there is another usage of the term “nature” which is more important to our conversation today. The nature of a thing is the basic or inherent features of that thing. So, when we speak of human nature, we are not necessarily referring to the things which can be observed in human behavior or external characteristics shared by homo sapiens. Human nature is the basic or inherent features of being human. What is written into the very heart of man? What pertains to the nature of the human person from the beginning, now, and forever? This is what we mean by human nature.All Human Beings Have the Same NatureAll human beings have the same nature. If they did not, then they would not be human. Again, the vital distinction is in the difference between observable behaviors on the one hand and those intrinsic and essential aspects on the other. The former is merely behavior and the latter is the necessary realities of being human. We are human beings, after all, not “human doings.” So, if someone has a mental disorder that causes them to act in a way that is opposed to human nature, they are nonetheless still human. This distinction is important because we hear people speak of such and such phenomena “existing in nature” and drawing the conclusion that the observed phenomena must be “natural.” Quickly falling apart upon examination, this line of thinking leads to great confusion about human nature. A coworker recently brought up an example of this with the phenomenon of geophagy. In certain instances, pregnant women will begin to experience an inordinate desire to consume dirt and clay. The ingestion of this non-food item is compulsive and might derive from a deficiency in iron. At any rate, it is not “normal” or “well-ordered” to eat dirt and clay. Yet, geophagy “exists in nature.” So, is it part of human nature to eat dirt and clay? No. Something is seriously off in this phenomenon. Just because some human beings do certain things or even desire certain things, this does not make it part of human nature.What We Ought to BeBecause all human beings have the same nature, endowed by the Creator, there are certain standards consistent across the entire human race. When we say what a human being essentially is, there is an implication of what human beings ought to be.From before recorded History, human beings have been self-reflective - incidentally, self-reflection and powers of abstraction is an intrinsic part of human nature. In this self-reflection, human beings have interrogated the known and the unknown, within and without themselves. The fundamental questions resound through the ages: who are we? Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why is there life at all? Who am I? What is a human being? What does it mean to be a human being? Is there something after death? Do I have a soul? And so on…These questions are universal: in every time and in every place, human beings have voraciously questioned everything. Many of these questions require philosophical investigation and others require scientific examination. But philosophy and science can only get us so far in inquiry. From the beginning, human beings have also relied on the queen of the sciences: theology. Admittedly, theology was not called the “queen of the sciences” until the High Middle Ages. Schools of higher learning used the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy to investigate the universe - both seen and unseen, within and without. Nevertheless, theology as the study of God and the divine in general could be called religion.What is Religion?Before we can define what religion actually is, we need to understand what we, as human beings, are capable of. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Being made in the image and likeness of God is to possess a rational soul. Human beings have the ability to know things (intellect) and the ability to choose freely the good (will). Endowed with freedom, man seeks the good and is capable of understanding the ordering of reality, established by the Creator. Given possession of a rational soul, man ardently seeks after reality. The disposition of the soul towards the good, true, and beautiful, in practice, is religion. The word religion has derived diverse meanings over the last few millennia. Cicero seeks religion as deriving from the verb relegere which means “to treat carefully.” On the other hand, the fourth century Christian apologist Lactantius says:“We are tied to God and bound to him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name (Divine Institutes, IV, xxviii).”Speaking in a Neoplatonic mode, the great St. Augustine in City of God gives a sense of recovering God: “having lost God through neglect [negligentes], we recover Him [religentes] and are drawn to Him.” However, he later leaves behind this idea in favor of Lactantius' view, saying, “Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God.”St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, does not make a decision between the three views but sees them as all valuable: careful consideration, recovering God, and binding oneself. In a general sense, religion is the free choice to subject oneself to God. We are binding ourselves to God and Him to us in the practice of true religion. Are Human Beings Religious? Certainly, some human beings are religious, but would it be proper to say that all human beings are religious? Controversy is perpetual surrounding this question, especially in the modern world. How many times have you heard someone say, “Oh. I'm spiritual, but not religious.” Or perhaps you have heard the usually evangelical Christian idea that religion is opposed to the true practice of faith in Jesus Christ which is a relationship. However, I hope to show by the end of this short article that all human beings are truly religious, at the deepest metaphysical level. The first example of being spiritual and not religious is something that I will get to in a moment. But, let us begin with the second notion of relationship versus religion. If religion is about voluntary subjugation to God and binding ourselves to Him and Him to us, then I would suggest that religion, properly understood, is entirely about relationships. Right relationship with God bears fruit in the right relationship with our neighbor. The practice of true religion is all about relationships. Often, when people levy this rejoinder, it is from a misconception or false view of what religion ought to be.Spiritual, But Not Religious?Now to the notion of spiritual, but not religious. At the core of our being, as human persons, we are religious. This is the fundamental fact of our nature. It is right to say that we are spiritual, but it would be equally correct to say that we are corporeal. We are body and soul. If we were bodies without souls, we would be zombies. And if we were souls without bodies, we would be ghosts. So, our bodily-ness and spiritual-ness are part and parcel of our humanity. Yes, we are spiritual. But how then could we not also be religious? The human heart is made to worship. The notion of worship comes from the Middle English word worthschipe. Literally, it is an amalgamation of the word worth meaning “worthy” or “honorable” and the suffix -ship which means a denotation of a property or state of being. To worship something is to show with the depths of our being, body and soul, what we put worth in. What is worthy to us? This is what we worship. Centering and prioritizing our lives conveys what we worship and bears fruit in our actions.Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said in 2011 that, “We tend to see purpose in the world. We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see it… All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking… If you've got something so deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests. There is quite a drive to think that religion is private. It isn't just a quirky interest of a few, it's basic human nature.”Professor Trigg hits the nail on the head. Religious thinking is basic human nature. All human beings have a hardwired religious drive. Now, an atheist might say that this is a bio-evolutionary oddity which motivated us in the past but is antiquated. They might say, like Marx, that religion is the opiate of the masses. I would say that the atheist and the marxist are in denial about their own nature and are dismissing as a nuisance the idea that perhaps God is in control. Because what is marxism or atheism if not a deep desire for control over the uncontrollable, for knowledge over the unknowable? Everyone puts worth in something. If they are not worshiping God - who alone is worthy - then that religious drive, essential to human nature, will be directed to something else. The rub is that the new object of worship will always be infinitely less than the Almighty. And so, aiming far below the Way, the Truth, and the Life, man falls prey to his base desires and can never find happiness. The conception of “spiritual, but not religious” does not conform to reality and will always result in the worship of creation rather than the Creator. Our soul, at the deepest level, desires to bind itself to the higher things. If we aim at God, then He will bind us to Himself. If we aim at lesser things, then we will be bound to them, to our detriment and perhaps even our damnation.Human Nature Cannot Be RepressedAny attempt to repress, control, or snuff out human nature in the realm of religion has miserably failed and has always been accompanied by widespread human suffering. In the 20th Century alone, we can look to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Nazi regime in Germany, the later Soviet policies in Russia, the Cultural Revolution in China, and other instantiations of godless Communism and Socialism. Human nature is hardwired into our being at the deepest levels. The human heart will always seek out God and will only be satisfied in Him. As St. Augustine said in the opening of his Confessions, “Our hearts are restless, until they rest in Thee.” Our restless hearts are religious. They want to worship. Who or what are they worshiping? Even for the believer, the exercise is worthwhile: what is the object of our worship, our desire, and our ultimate affection? If the answer is God, then we must beg the Lord for the grace to grow in this. If the answer is anything else, the pruning shears need to spring into action. Thank you for reading Will Wright Catholic. If you've enjoyed it, please share it by clicking the blue button below! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit willwrightcatholic.substack.com

In most of the world today, slavery is unthinkable. Is it possible that we could ever reach that same place with abortion in America?  Just as there were once states where it was legal to own slaves and other states where it wasn't, we are now a nation deeply divided on the issue of abortion on a state-by-state level. In certain states, abortion is allowed, encouraged, and even subsidized abortion. In others, abortion is all but illegal. The history of the Church's stance on both issues, abolition and abortion, is instructive as we seek to obey Christ in a post-Roe world.  Clearly, the early Church did not like slavery. The New Testament condemns behaviors that were endemic to the slave trade. In his letter to Philemon, Paul gave broad hints that masters should free their Christian slaves. Early Christians often purchased slaves specifically to set them free.   Even so, neither the New Testament nor the early Church pushed for full abolition of slavery, for at least two reasons.  First, taking a public stand would have brought even more unwanted attention to an already targeted group. Second, the ancient world offered no model to Christians for a society without slaves, so few could envision what that would look like. Though Christians saw slavery as a curse, they could not conceive of being rid of it entirely (any more than they could imagine a world rid of disease or poverty). This failure of moral imagination meant that it would be centuries before the implications of the Gospel would lead Christian rulers to take definitive steps toward abolishing slavery.  By the Middle Ages, overt slavery was rare in Europe, and Church leaders spoke out against it. Thomas Aquinas claimed that slavery might be part of the “law of nations” but was against the law of nature and therefore a sin. When, centuries later, the infamous Atlantic slave trade began, Portugal and Spain defied the decrees of four different popes to spread it in their colonies. In the English-speaking world, the rampant practice of slavery found opposition among Quakers and a rising evangelicalism that eventually ended first the slave trade, then slavery altogether.  All this means that the American theologians who defended slavery were following the culture's lead, not Church teaching. Though it took far too long for the implications of the Gospel to become clear, the teaching of both Jesus and Paul of the spiritual and moral equality of all persons meant that slavery was incompatible with Christianity, and its abolition in Christian states was only a matter of time. Eventually, because of the commitment to the worth and dignity of every human being as created in the image of God, Christians fought to end the abuse of slavery.  In contrast, the Christian position on abortion has been clear from day one. In the Didache, the earliest non-New Testament Christian work to survive, Christians are instructed “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.” Similarly, the late first or early second century Epistle of Barnabas, a manual of ethics in this early period, says “you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor again kill it when it is born.” In “A Plea for Christians,” written in 177, Athenagoras of Athens wrote, “[w]e say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder …”  Similar teaching can be found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, the pseudonymous Apocalypse of Peter, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Lactantius, which takes us up to the de-criminalization of Christianity by Constantine. The teaching of the Church on abortion has been clear from the start and continued to be clear well into the 20th century.   Only recently have some claiming the name of Christ accepted abortion as morally licit, or worse, have celebrated it. Christian opposition to abortion is based on precisely the same reasoning as Christian opposition to slavery. Every human being is made in the image of God and is crowned with glory and honor, a dignity we dare not ignore. The same dehumanizing and depersonalizing claim that undergirded the idea that slaves were less worthy as human beings, and further undergirded the horrific treatment of African Americans in the Jim Crow South, is also at work in pro-abortion thinking. And yet, the same liberating power of the imago dei that broke the chains of slavery demands that we see the dignity of preborn children and work to protect them.   Slavery and the subsequent dehumanizing treatment of African Americans was evil, and that the crusade to end both was (and is) God's work. May we also recognize that dehumanizing and killing the unborn is at least as evil, and rightly abhorred.   

THE HOLY SPIRIT MAKES US HOLY – A MESSAGE TO HISTORY'S MOST DEFILED GENERATION James 1:26-27 – If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 – Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.  PURPOSE OF PENTECOST? 1.     POWER - Acts 1:8 - 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 2.     REVELATION - Acts 2:17-18 -17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 3.     HOLINESS - Acts 2:37-38, 40 - “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…“Save yourselves from this perverse/wicked generation.” GOAL = A NEW VISION for Holiness and the Holy Spirit's work in our lives A.W. Tozer – Holy Spirit makes us holy Name? Power Spirit?? NO – The HOLY SPIRIT Porn Stats 1978 vs. 1985 – 5% vs. 55% Viewed hardcore porn video / 2022?? John Bevere – 2/3 of men IN CHURCH are watching porn regularly 1/3 of women50% of the pastors POWERLESS – Kryptonite – Defiled Church Billy Graham – “If we lose THIS BATTLE, we lose the battle of the Christian life” 20th Century = Explosion of Perversion – the occult (sex magick), film, video, the internet, (technology), abortion, homosexuality, human trafficking, pedophilia, freedom=bondage Matthew 27:37 - 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Sinfulness Stage 1 - Genesis 3 – Fall of Adam/Eve (Satan) Sinfulness Stage 2 - Genesis 6 – Fall of the Watchers – effect?? ManyEFFECTS - Sexual perversion/lust/gross immorality/homosexuality/beastiality/abortion •       Quote: “We were sinners because of the Fall of Adam, but the Fallen Watchers taught mankind to be even better sinners” – Heiser Genesis 6:1-8 - 1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.Two Views about WHO the “Sons of God” were:1.     Angels – Who? 2nd Temple Judaism, the Apostles, Early Church2.    Humans – Who? (called the “Sethite View”) - 1st suggested by Julius Africanus (3rd Century), Augustine (5th century)It really wasn't until the 5th century that the so-called “Sethite View” (i.e. that the 'sons of God' were humans and not angels) was INVENTED.The evidence from history is insurmountable that the Sethite view is wrong.  That the Sethite interpretation was a late innovation and not the Apostolic understanding (or the historic Jewish one).A. New Testament writers who refer to these angels in Genesis 6:1-4 The Apostle Peter - 2 Peter 2:4-5 - 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into tartarus (the abyss) and committed/delivered them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; The Apostle Jude (Jesus' brother) - Jude 1:6-7 - 6 And the angels who did not stay/keep in their proper domain, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. B. Early Church leaders who affirm that the Sons of God were in fact angels and whose offspring were the Nephilim/giants.   Clement of Rome (1st century, the Apostle Peter's Disciple) Justin Martyr (2nd century) - The angels transgressed this appointment and were captivated by love of women. And they begat children [nephilim/giants], who are those who are called demons. (AD160)     Athenagoras (2nd century) But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them. ...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh. ...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. (AD175) Irenaeus (2nd century) Clement of Alexandria - The angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets that had come to their knowledge. In contrast, the rest of the angels concealed them, or rather, reserved them for the coming of the Lord. (late 2nd/early 3rd century) Tertullian - If it is on account of the angels—those whom we read of as having fallen from God and from heaven because of lusting after females—we can presume that such angels yearned after bodies that were already defiled and were relics of human lust.  (late 2nd/early 3rd cent. – gave us the word “Trinity”) Ambrose (4th century) Lactantius (4th century, tutor of Emperor Constantine) C. Well-known Evangelicals who affirm w/ the Early Church that the Sons of God were angelic beings.  A.W. Pink – Reformed theologian  Donald Grey Barnhouse – Presbyterian theologian, pastor Henry Morris – author of The Genesis Flood, founder of CRI (Creation Research Institute) Merril F. Unger – Dallas Theological Seminary professor, theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum – Messianic leader, Dallas Theological Seminary-trained Hal Lindsey – author of “The Late Great Planet Earth John MacArthur Pastor Chuck Smith – Calvary Chapel Dr. Michael Heiser – OT scholar, Ancient Near East language scholar Chuck Missler – Bible teacher I Corinthians 6:9-13, 18-20 (3 out of 9 in the list!)9 Or do you not know that the unrighteouswill not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body….  18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sina person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body. WHAT SHALL WE NOW DO? (Acts 2:37)1.     AGREE w/ God's assessment = DefiledMatthew 24:9-13 - 9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness (wickedness/iniquity) will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.  Sin will be rampant everywhere/multiplication of wickedness/abundance of evil2.     SIN = SLAVERY (John 8:34 – everyone who sins…) – Message of FREEDOM!!3.     Reject False Grace teaching (Titus 2:11-12 – Grace teaches us to turn from ungodliness and sinful pleasures/worldly lusts) Titus 2:11-12, 14 – “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 – TEACHING US TO RENOUNCE UNGODLINESS and WORLDLY PASSIONS (immoral desires/lusts), and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age...14 – who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people…”4.     REPENT - Acts 2:38, 40 – REPENT, SAVE YOURSELVES from perverse generation5.     Get rid of whatever is needed / No Moderation (“Porn on Tuesdays”)Matthew 5:30 – “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”6.     Confess – James 5:16 – To each other, MAY be healed7.     FLEE - 1 Cor 6:18 (Tolerate?)8.     Believe holiness is possible (1 Pet 1:16 – “Be holy…”)I Peter 1:15-16 – “but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 For it is written, “Be holy even as I am holy” Ephesian 5:3 - But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people9.     Get the Holy Spirit working more in your life (“eagerly pursue…”) for HOLINESS

 HOLY SPIRIT PRODUCES HOLINESS POWER - Acts 1:8 - 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Act 2:1-4 - When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. REVELATION - Acts 2:17-18 -“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. EXPLOSION OF REVELATION!!!  Questions – What did you get? Tongues of fire? Do you want MORE?A.W. TOZER Quote - "Whatever else the Holy Spirit does in your life, minimally He makes us holy" A NEW ASPECT of the Day of PENTECOST 1.     A REVERSAL of the Genesis 6 perversion – Holy Spirit comes 2ND ANGELIC FALL - Fall of the Sons of God/Watchers (Gen 6:1-8) – more corruption 6:1-8 - 1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. When? Genesis 6 BEFORE the floodTwo Views about WHO the “Sons of God” were:1.    Angels – Who? 2nd Temple Judaism, the Apostles, Early Church (till 5th century)2.    Humans – Who? (called the “Sethite View”) - 1st suggested by Julius Africanus (3rd Century), Augustine (popularized in the 5th century)It really wasn't until the 5th century that the so-called “Sethite View” (i.e. that the 'sons of God' were humans and not angels) was INVENTED.The evidence from history is insurmountable that the Sethite view is wrong.  That the Sethite interpretation was a late innovation and not the Apostolic understanding (or the historic Jewish one).A. New Testament writers who refer to these angels in Genesis 6:1-4 The Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:4-5)  Jude (Jude 1:6) B. Early Church leaders who affirm that the Sons of God were in fact angels and whose offspring were the Nephilim/giants.   Clement of Rome (1st century, the Apostle Peter's Disciple) Justin Martyr (2nd century) Irenaeus (2nd century) Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd/early 3rd century) Tertullian (late 2nd/early 3rd century – gave us the word “Trinity”) Ambrose (4th century) Lactantius (4th century, tutor of Emperor Constantine) C. Well-known Evangelicals who affirm w/ the Early Church that the Sons of God were angels.  A.W. Pink – Reformed theologian  Donald Grey Barnhouse – Presbyterian theologian, pastor Henry Morris – author of The Genesis Flood, founder of CRI (Creation Research Institute) Merril F. Unger – Dallas Theological Seminary professor, theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum – Messianic leader, Dallas Theological Seminary-trained Hal Lindsey – author of “The Late Great Planet Earth John MacArthur  Pastor Chuck Smith – Calvary Chapel Dr. Michael Heiser – OT scholar, Ancient Near East language scholar Chuck Missler – Bible teacher  2 Peter 2:4-5 - 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into tartarus (the abyss) and committed them to chainsof gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; Jude 1:6-246 And the angels who did not stay/keep in their proper domain, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion. 12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them. ...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh. ...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (AD175) Angels sinned and revolted from God.  Justin Martyr (AD160) The angels transgressed this appointment and were captivated by love of women. And they begat children [nephilim/giants], who are those who are called demons. Justin Martyr (AD160)     The angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets that had come to their knowledge. In contrast, the rest of the angels concealed them, or rather, reserved them for the coming of the Lord.  Clement of Alexandria (AD195)   Those angels who invented them [jewelry, etc.] are assigned under condemnation to the penalty of death. They are the same angels who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men. ...If it is true, they laid bare the operations of metallurgy, divulged the natural properties of herbs, promulgated the powers of enchantments, and traced out every curiosity, even to the interpreta­tion of the stars. They conferred appropriately—and as it were, peculiarly—upon women that instrumental means of womanly ostentation: the radiances of jewels,...the dyes of orchil with which wools are dyed, and that black powder itself with which the eyelids and eyelashes are made prominent.  Tertullian (AD 198) If it is on account of the angels—those whom we read of as having fallen from God and from heaven because of lusting after females—we can presume that such angels yearned after bodies that were already defiled and were relics of human lust.  Tertullian (AD207)                               Extent of corruption?•       Watchers “taught” mankind things – “secrets of heaven” (see Tertullian below)•       Lust/perversion –taken to a new level•       Technology – misused •       Quote: “We were sinners because of the Fall of Adam, but the Fallen Watchers taught mankind to be even better sinners” – Heiser•       Gen 6:1-4 PRECEDES the Flood•       Watchers judged – imprisoned in the abyss (tartarus) Acts 2:37-38 - “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:40 - “Save yourselves from this perverse generation.” 1)    crooked, curved 2a) perverse, wicked Matthew 5:20 - For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I Peter 1:16 – For it is written, “Be holy even as I am holy” Ephesian 5:3 - But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people I Corinthians 6:9-20 (3 out of 9 in the list!)9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body.

In this episode we deep dive into the mother of all conspiracy theories, the Flat Earth where science denial alone is nowhere near enough cognitive dissidence to keep the belief alive.This is a deep state cover up that predates the very actors that are covering it up. It goes back at the very least 2500 years and has been perpetuated and hidden from the world by quite literally billions of people. It is very easy to understand how pre-seafaring civilisations believed the Earth was flat. You could be forgiven for assuming that flat earth theory is ancient and it is round earth theory that is new but you would be wrong. The flat earth movement is only a couple of hundred years old.From early antiquity onwards as sailors moved away from hugging the coastline to open sea the horrible truth of a spherical Earth became hard to deny as previously unseen land masses would begin rising out of the horizon upon approach. We will delve into the history of not only Flat Earth Theory but the great thinkers who first figured out our planet is an oblate spheroid flattened at the poles like, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Claudius Ptolemy, Strabo, Seneca, Bishop Isidore of Seville  and The Venerable Bede.We'll also look at the first written accounts of OG Flat Earthers like Lactantius and Cosmas the Monk to Illustrious modern day philosophers like former cricketer Andrew ‘Freddie' Flintoff. But of course it really becomes a movement of outright science denial with the arrival of Patent Medicine seller and self-proclaimed curer of old age, Samuel Rowbotham in the 19th century with his dubious experiments on the Bedford canal in Cambridgeshire, England.Rowbotham would light the way for followers like John Hampden, William Carpenter, David Wardlaw Scott and precursor to the modern televangelists Wilbur Voliva.Then just as the idea was dying out, Dover sign writer Samuel Shentoncreates the International Flat Earth Research Society. Taking a step away from scripture and into full blown conspiracy theory.The tinfoil hat wearing likes of Charles Johnson and Daniel Shenton will then bring this ludicrous movement into the 21st century. Primed and ready for some truly despicable swindlers to infiltrate this seemingly harmless pastime for dummies and turn this ironically circular thinking into one of the most pernicious conspiracy theories going. 

HOLY SPIRIT PRODUCES HOLINESS POWER - Acts 1:8 - 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Act 2:1-4 - When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. REVELATION - Acts 2:17-18 -“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. EXPLOSION OF REVELATION!!!  A.W. TOZER Quote - Holiness A NEW ASPECT of the Day of PENTECOST 1.     A REVERSAL of the Genesis 6 perversion – Holy Spirit comes2.     A REVERSAL of the Tower of Babel event / Languages confused vs. Language uniting 2ND ANGELIC FALL - Fall of the Sons of God/Watchers (Gen 6:1-8) – more corruption 6:1-8 - 1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. When? Genesis 6 BEFORE the floodTwo Views about WHO the “Sons of God” were:1.    Angels – Who? 2nd Temple Judaism, the Apostles, Early Church2.    Humans – Who? (called the “Sethite View”) - 1st suggested by Julius Africanus (3rd Century), Augustine (5th century)It really wasn't until the 5th century that the so-called “Sethite View” (i.e. that the 'sons of God' were humans and not angels) was INVENTED.The evidence from history is insurmountable that the Sethite view is wrong.  That the Sethite interpretation was a late innovation and not the Apostolic understanding (or the historic Jewish one).A. New Testament writers who refer to these angels in Genesis 6:1-4 The Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:4-5)  Jude (Jude 1:6) B. Early Church leaders who affirm that the Sons of God were in fact angels and whose offspring were the Nephilim/giants.   Clement of Rome (1st century, the Apostle Peter's Disciple) Justin Martyr (2nd century) Irenaeus (2nd century) Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd/early 3rd century) Tertullian (late 2nd/early 3rd century – gave us the word “Trinity”) Ambrose (4th century) Lactantius (4th century, tutor of Emperor Constantine) C. Well-known Evangelicals who affirm w/ the Early Church that the Sons of God were angels.  A.W. Pink – Reformed theologian  Donald Grey Barnhouse – Presbyterian theologian, pastor Henry Morris – author of The Genesis Flood, founder of CRI (Creation Research Institute) Merril F. Unger – Dallas Theological Seminary professor, theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum – Messianic leader, Dallas Theological Seminary-trained Hal Lindsey – author of “The Late Great Planet Earth John MacArthur  Pastor Chuck Smith – Calvary Chapel Dr. Michael Heiser – OT scholar, Ancient Near East language scholar Chuck Missler – Bible teacher Extent of corruption? (from the Watchers in Genesis 6)•       Watchers “taught” mankind things – “secrets of heaven” (see Tertullian below)•       Lust/perversion –taken to a new level•       Technology – misused •       Quote: “We were sinners because of the Fall of Adam, but the Fallen Watchers taught mankind to be even better sinners” – Heiser•       Gen 6:1-4 PRECEDES the Flood•       Watchers judged – imprisoned in the abyss (tartarus) God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to tartarus (the abyss) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah.  2 Peter 2:4,5 The angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.  Jude 6Jude 1:6-246 And the angels who did not stay/keep in their proper domain, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion. 12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.But some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the oversight entrusted to them. ...These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjugated by the flesh. ...Those who are called giants were begotten from these lovers of virgins. Athenagoras (AD175) Angels sinned and revolted from God.  Justin Martyr (AD160) The angels transgressed this appointment and were captivated by love of women. And they begat children [nephilim/giants], who are those who are called demons. Justin Martyr (AD160)     The angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets that had come to their knowledge. In contrast, the rest of the angels concealed them, or rather, reserved them for the coming of the Lord.  Clement of Alexandria (AD195)   Those angels who invented them [jewelry, etc.] are assigned under condemnation to the penalty of death. They are the same angels who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men. ...If it is true, they laid bare the operations of metallurgy, divulged the natural properties of herbs, promulgated the powers of enchantments, and traced out every curiosity, even to the interpreta­tion of the stars. They conferred appropriately—and as it were, peculiarly—upon women that instrumental means of womanly ostentation: the radiances of jewels,...the dyes of orchil with which wools are dyed, and that black powder itself with which the eyelids and eyelashes are made prominent.  Tertullian (AD 198) If it is on account of the angels—those whom we read of as having fallen from God and from heaven because of lusting after females—we can presume that such angels yearned after bodies that were already defiled and were relics of human lust.  Tertullian (AD207)                                                Acts 2: 37-38 - “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:40 - “Save yourselves from this perverse generation.” 1)    crooked, curved 2a) perverse, wicked Matthew 5:20 - For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I Peter 1:16 – For it is written, “Be holy even as I am holy” Ephesian 5:3 - But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people I Corinthians 6:9-209 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body.  

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:2-4).Comment:Jesus said not if you give alms, but when you give alms.We are not to trumpeting our piety.Hypocrites: hypokritēs literally meant a play-actor. People who trumpet their almsgiving are only pretending to care about the poor.There is a reward in heaven for giving alms, but not when we do this to impress others.The words about the left hand and the right hand are metaphorical (like cutting off the hand in Matt 5:30). The focus is on the heart, not the hand.Our giving should, as much as possible, be in secret (private).HistoryA great source for the views of the early church is A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. (The subtitle is A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers.)Early churchAristides: “Christians do not proclaim in the ears of the multitude the kind deeds they do. Instead, they are careful that no one notices them. In fact, they conceal their giving just like one who finds a treasure and conceals it.” Apology 15 (ANF 9.278)Tertullian: “Our compassion spends more in the streets than yours does in the temples!” Apology (ANF 49)Lactantius: “Be generous to the blind, the feeble, the lame, and the destitute. For they will die unless you bestow your gifts upon them. They may be useless to men, but they are serviceable to God.” Divine Institutes (ANF 7.175)Hermas: “Instead of lands, buy afflicted souls, just as each one is able. And visit widows and orphans.” The Shepherd, 3, Parable 1 (ANF 2.31)Tertullian: They used alms “to support and bury poor people, to supply the needs of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons who are confined to their houses. These gifts also help those who have suffered shipwreck. And if there happens to be any of us in the mines, banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons—for no reason other than their faithfulness to the cause of God's Church—they are supported because of their confession.” Apology (ANF 3.46).Lactantius informs us thatChristians also paid to ransom their brothers from barbarian raiders and to bury the poor, including abandoned strangers. Lactantius, Divine Institutes (ANF 7.177).Julian the Apostate (the pagan Roman emperor of the 360s), in a private letter to friend: “Why then do we think our meagerness is sufficient? Do we not observe the kindness of Christians to strangers, their care for the burial of their dead, and the seriousness of their lifestyle? Do we not see how this has done the most to advance their cause? …The godless Galileans do not only take care of their own poor but of ours as well!” Julian the Apostate, Letter to ArsaciusMiddle ages: It was believed that almsgiving wiped out sins. (See Tobit 12:9.)Reformation (1500s+): Luther overreacted and ended up creating a new gospel where righteous deeds and obedience play no role in salvation. Luther diluted what Jesus taught about almsgiving.Today: "Tithing" (an OT practice, not practiced by the early church as it is not commanded in the NT) is preached in today's churches. Almsgiving, sadly, usually is not. Is this for fear that giving to the poor might compete with building programs, staff salaries, and various financial drives?What's the take-away?Give to the poor.Give discreetly. No hoopla / try not to tell others what you've done, particularly others who don't need to know.Intend to give—plan for it. (Keep on hand money, food, or clothing, so that when you are asked you can give.)Donate to an organization you trust.Study what the NT says about giving. Notice especially how much emphasis is given to helping the needy, as compared to other financial causes.Tomorrow: Prayer

If the entire bible clearly and repeatedly teaches that there is one supreme God who is over all and that Jesus is his subordinate son, then surely we should find evidence of this idea in the historical writings of Christians after the New Testament period. Within the four broad strands of Christianity in the second Read more about 422 One God 12: Early Church History[…]

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.   "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.      Blessed are you when men speak abusively of you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil things against you for my sake.      Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, because great is your reward in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt 5:10-12). PersecutionBy the second century, it was a capital offense merely to be a Christian.Tertullian (around the year 200) writes, “You put Christians on crosses and stakes. ...We are cast to the wild beasts. ...We are burned in the flames. ...We are condemned to the mines. ...We are banished to the islands.” Tertullian, Apology 12 (ANF 3.28).Lactantius adds, “They torture, put to death, and banish the worshippers of the Most High God—that is, the righteous. Yet, those who hate us so vehemently are unable to give a reason for their hatred.”  Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.1 (ANF 7.135).Blessed?The world may consider us to be losers, but in fact we're on the winning side. We are on God's side!"Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion; instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot; therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion; they shall have everlasting joy (Isa 61:7).We may excluded now, but a reversal is on the way—if not in this life, then surely in the next. Oppressors misuse their power—but ultimately ours is the kingdom of heaven (where the real power is, in submission to our sovereign Lord).For the right reason: Jesus doesn't say the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are persecuted because of their wickedness or because of embracing a false religion.It must be "for righteousness' sake."Kingdom of heaven:Matthew's preferred term for the kingdom of God.It is the domain of the Lord, the realm in which his will is obeyed.The kingdom is on earth and in heaven; it is past, present and future; it is not an institution or church, but the reign of Jesus Christ.When we're misrepresented:Blessed are you when men speak abusively of you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil things against you for my sake (Matt 5:11).We're not blessed when we are needlessly offensive, or when we equate opinion matters or political positions or eccentric doctrines with Christianity. Jesus specifies that the perfection must "for my sake."Consider the slanders against Christians in the early centuries: The three most common false accusations current in the early Christianity were atheism, incest, and cannibalism. Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians 3 (ANF 2.130); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 10 (ANF 1.199).Theophilus writes: “Godless lips falsely accuse us, ...alleging that we hold our wives in common and use them promiscuously. They even allege that we commit incest with our own sisters.”Tertullian reprimands the Romans: “Monsters of wickedness! We are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat him. It is said that after the feast, we practice incest. ...This is what is constantly laid to our charge. Yet, you take no pains to investigate the truth of what we have been accused of for so long.” Tertullian, Apology 7 (ANF 3.23).How are we often misrepresented as Christians today? Christians are often called;Arrogant—think only you are right—because you share your faith. We are sharing God's word, the good news, a cure, an opportunity, a message of the greatest importance.Cultic—because your local church expects more engagement than just showing up on SundayHomophobic—even if we do love gays et al.Judgmental—even if all we are doing is taking a stand where Jesus took a standPrudish or Puritanical—because we accept what God says about sexual purityUnpatriotic: Refuse to kill enemies in warfare—unpatriotic (doesn't love his country), or is cowardly. Quite the opposite!Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, because great is your reward in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Matt 5:12).This is how early Christians responded. After the apostles had been imprisoned and threatened with further punishment by the Sanhedrin, “They departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41).Why should we be joyful about being slandered and persecuted?If we faithfully endure persecution, our "reward in heaven is great."We are like the OT prophets, who challenged the system.How's our conviction?Do we ever question or challenge the system?Do we even see the need for prophetic voices to bring the Word of the Lord to the modern church?The Beatitudes: the world's responsePoor in spirit: We should please ourselves.Mourning: We should stay upbeat. Don't overreact—sin is no big deal.Meek: Power is exalted! Trample the meek (the "losers").Hungry for righteousness: It's okay to support righteous causes—like cancer research—but don't overdo it. A little corruption is no big deal. Look our for yourself.Merciful: Mercy is selective. No need to think about the pressing needs of world poverty etc.Pure: Who's to say what counts as purity? Don't judge!Peacemaker: It's a good thing—though an even higher premium is placed on standing up for our rights.Persecuted: No way! We seek approval, cringing at the thought of being considered fanatical or extreme.Final thoughts:Leadership: Again, as suggested, this isn't a bad checklist if we're seeking a spiritual leader. We may view the beatitudes as elements of a portrait of a godly man or women who will influence others for Christ.Memory: P-M-M-H-M-P-P-P. Learn the 8 beatitudes in order.We're about 1/8th of the way through the SOM (12/91 verses). Next: Salt

Alberto ManguelCollège de FranceL'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures (chaire annuelle 2021-2022)Année 2021-2022Leçon inaugurale :Au commencement, il y a le mythe. Zeus s'éprit d'Europa, la fille du roi africain Agénor, et, métamorphosé en taureau, l'emporta en Crète où elle lui donna deux fils. Agénor envoya les deux frères d'Europa à sa poursuite, leur interdisant de réapparaître chez lui sans l'avoir retrouvée. Ils ne revinrent jamais. Le mythe est, au sens essentiel, un déplacement, une métaphore, une traduction, une « parole » (Barthes) qui signifie : « emporté d'un lieu à un autre ».Les mythes sont transformés, altérés, renouvelés pour correspondre aux besoins d'un temps et d'un lieu. Mais ils restent eux-mêmes pour l'essentiel, car ils ne sont pas créés en tant que fabrications de l'imagination humaine, mais (sans vouloir tomber dans un universalisme facile) comme des manifestations concrètes de certaines intuitions primordiales. Au Moyen Âge, Lactantius proposa de banaliser le mythe grec en prétendant que le taureau était simplement le nom d'un bateau. Mais le mythe perdura et en fit lever d'autres dérivés de l'histoire initiale : mythes de souveraineté (Europa, une princesse), de féminité (la bien-aimée de Zeus), de prééminence culturelle (ses frères envoyés à sa recherche) et aussi, plus mystérieusement, d'immigration et d'établissement (Europa, une résidente étrangère). Le contenu de ces mythes constitue peut-être la pierre de touche qui prête aux peuples de l'Europe une identité commune intuitive.Toute définition (celle du mythe, par exemple) nécessite tant une limitation qu'une invention. Une limitation de ce que nous croyons que l'objet de la définition n'est pas, et une invention de ce que nous imaginons susceptible de constituer quelque chose que nous connaissons déjà, puisque nous ne pouvons définir ce que nous n'avons pas encore imaginé. Le mythe d'Europa reflète cette double nécessité.-La chaire annuelle L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures, créée en partenariat avec le ministère de la Culture (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), porte sur les enjeux contemporains de la création intellectuelle et artistique en Europe

Alberto ManguelCollège de FranceL'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures (chaire annuelle 2021-2022)Année 2021-2022Leçon inaugurale :Au commencement, il y a le mythe. Zeus s'éprit d'Europa, la fille du roi africain Agénor, et, métamorphosé en taureau, l'emporta en Crète où elle lui donna deux fils. Agénor envoya les deux frères d'Europa à sa poursuite, leur interdisant de réapparaître chez lui sans l'avoir retrouvée. Ils ne revinrent jamais. Le mythe est, au sens essentiel, un déplacement, une métaphore, une traduction, une « parole » (Barthes) qui signifie : « emporté d'un lieu à un autre ».Les mythes sont transformés, altérés, renouvelés pour correspondre aux besoins d'un temps et d'un lieu. Mais ils restent eux-mêmes pour l'essentiel, car ils ne sont pas créés en tant que fabrications de l'imagination humaine, mais (sans vouloir tomber dans un universalisme facile) comme des manifestations concrètes de certaines intuitions primordiales. Au Moyen Âge, Lactantius proposa de banaliser le mythe grec en prétendant que le taureau était simplement le nom d'un bateau. Mais le mythe perdura et en fit lever d'autres dérivés de l'histoire initiale : mythes de souveraineté (Europa, une princesse), de féminité (la bien-aimée de Zeus), de prééminence culturelle (ses frères envoyés à sa recherche) et aussi, plus mystérieusement, d'immigration et d'établissement (Europa, une résidente étrangère). Le contenu de ces mythes constitue peut-être la pierre de touche qui prête aux peuples de l'Europe une identité commune intuitive.Toute définition (celle du mythe, par exemple) nécessite tant une limitation qu'une invention. Une limitation de ce que nous croyons que l'objet de la définition n'est pas, et une invention de ce que nous imaginons susceptible de constituer quelque chose que nous connaissons déjà, puisque nous ne pouvons définir ce que nous n'avons pas encore imaginé. Le mythe d'Europa reflète cette double nécessité.-La chaire annuelle L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures, créée en partenariat avec le ministère de la Culture (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), porte sur les enjeux contemporains de la création intellectuelle et artistique en Europe

Alberto Manguel Collège de France L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures (chaire annuelle 2021-2022) Année 2021-2022 Leçon inaugurale : Au commencement, il y a le mythe. Zeus s'éprit d'Europa, la fille du roi africain Agénor, et, métamorphosé en taureau, l'emporta en Crète où elle lui donna deux fils. Agénor envoya les deux frères d'Europa à sa poursuite, leur interdisant de réapparaître chez lui sans l'avoir retrouvée. Ils ne revinrent jamais. Le mythe est, au sens essentiel, un déplacement, une métaphore, une traduction, une « parole » (Barthes) qui signifie : « emporté d'un lieu à un autre ». Les mythes sont transformés, altérés, renouvelés pour correspondre aux besoins d'un temps et d'un lieu. Mais ils restent eux-mêmes pour l'essentiel, car ils ne sont pas créés en tant que fabrications de l'imagination humaine, mais (sans vouloir tomber dans un universalisme facile) comme des manifestations concrètes de certaines intuitions primordiales. Au Moyen Âge, Lactantius proposa de banaliser le mythe grec en prétendant que le taureau était simplement le nom d'un bateau. Mais le mythe perdura et en fit lever d'autres dérivés de l'histoire initiale : mythes de souveraineté (Europa, une princesse), de féminité (la bien-aimée de Zeus), de prééminence culturelle (ses frères envoyés à sa recherche) et aussi, plus mystérieusement, d'immigration et d'établissement (Europa, une résidente étrangère). Le contenu de ces mythes constitue peut-être la pierre de touche qui prête aux peuples de l'Europe une identité commune intuitive. Toute définition (celle du mythe, par exemple) nécessite tant une limitation qu'une invention. Une limitation de ce que nous croyons que l'objet de la définition n'est pas, et une invention de ce que nous imaginons susceptible de constituer quelque chose que nous connaissons déjà, puisque nous ne pouvons définir ce que nous n'avons pas encore imaginé. Le mythe d'Europa reflète cette double nécessité. - La chaire annuelle L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures, créée en partenariat avec le ministère de la Culture (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), porte sur les enjeux contemporains de la création intellectuelle et artistique en Europe

Alberto Manguel Collège de France L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures (chaire annuelle 2021-2022) Année 2021-2022 Leçon inaugurale : Au commencement, il y a le mythe. Zeus s'éprit d'Europa, la fille du roi africain Agénor, et, métamorphosé en taureau, l'emporta en Crète où elle lui donna deux fils. Agénor envoya les deux frères d'Europa à sa poursuite, leur interdisant de réapparaître chez lui sans l'avoir retrouvée. Ils ne revinrent jamais. Le mythe est, au sens essentiel, un déplacement, une métaphore, une traduction, une « parole » (Barthes) qui signifie : « emporté d'un lieu à un autre ». Les mythes sont transformés, altérés, renouvelés pour correspondre aux besoins d'un temps et d'un lieu. Mais ils restent eux-mêmes pour l'essentiel, car ils ne sont pas créés en tant que fabrications de l'imagination humaine, mais (sans vouloir tomber dans un universalisme facile) comme des manifestations concrètes de certaines intuitions primordiales. Au Moyen Âge, Lactantius proposa de banaliser le mythe grec en prétendant que le taureau était simplement le nom d'un bateau. Mais le mythe perdura et en fit lever d'autres dérivés de l'histoire initiale : mythes de souveraineté (Europa, une princesse), de féminité (la bien-aimée de Zeus), de prééminence culturelle (ses frères envoyés à sa recherche) et aussi, plus mystérieusement, d'immigration et d'établissement (Europa, une résidente étrangère). Le contenu de ces mythes constitue peut-être la pierre de touche qui prête aux peuples de l'Europe une identité commune intuitive. Toute définition (celle du mythe, par exemple) nécessite tant une limitation qu'une invention. Une limitation de ce que nous croyons que l'objet de la définition n'est pas, et une invention de ce que nous imaginons susceptible de constituer quelque chose que nous connaissons déjà, puisque nous ne pouvons définir ce que nous n'avons pas encore imaginé. Le mythe d'Europa reflète cette double nécessité. - La chaire annuelle L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures, créée en partenariat avec le ministère de la Culture (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), porte sur les enjeux contemporains de la création intellectuelle et artistique en Europe

Alberto Manguel Collège de France L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures (chaire annuelle 2021-2022) Année 2021-2022 Leçon inaugurale : Au commencement, il y a le mythe. Zeus s'éprit d'Europa, la fille du roi africain Agénor, et, métamorphosé en taureau, l'emporta en Crète où elle lui donna deux fils. Agénor envoya les deux frères d'Europa à sa poursuite, leur interdisant de réapparaître chez lui sans l'avoir retrouvée. Ils ne revinrent jamais. Le mythe est, au sens essentiel, un déplacement, une métaphore, une traduction, une « parole » (Barthes) qui signifie : « emporté d'un lieu à un autre ». Les mythes sont transformés, altérés, renouvelés pour correspondre aux besoins d'un temps et d'un lieu. Mais ils restent eux-mêmes pour l'essentiel, car ils ne sont pas créés en tant que fabrications de l'imagination humaine, mais (sans vouloir tomber dans un universalisme facile) comme des manifestations concrètes de certaines intuitions primordiales. Au Moyen Âge, Lactantius proposa de banaliser le mythe grec en prétendant que le taureau était simplement le nom d'un bateau. Mais le mythe perdura et en fit lever d'autres dérivés de l'histoire initiale : mythes de souveraineté (Europa, une princesse), de féminité (la bien-aimée de Zeus), de prééminence culturelle (ses frères envoyés à sa recherche) et aussi, plus mystérieusement, d'immigration et d'établissement (Europa, une résidente étrangère). Le contenu de ces mythes constitue peut-être la pierre de touche qui prête aux peuples de l'Europe une identité commune intuitive. Toute définition (celle du mythe, par exemple) nécessite tant une limitation qu'une invention. Une limitation de ce que nous croyons que l'objet de la définition n'est pas, et une invention de ce que nous imaginons susceptible de constituer quelque chose que nous connaissons déjà, puisque nous ne pouvons définir ce que nous n'avons pas encore imaginé. Le mythe d'Europa reflète cette double nécessité. - La chaire annuelle L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures, créée en partenariat avec le ministère de la Culture (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), porte sur les enjeux contemporains de la création intellectuelle et artistique en Europe

Alberto Manguel Collège de France L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures (chaire annuelle 2021-2022) Année 2021-2022 Leçon inaugurale : Au commencement, il y a le mythe. Zeus s'éprit d'Europa, la fille du roi africain Agénor, et, métamorphosé en taureau, l'emporta en Crète où elle lui donna deux fils. Agénor envoya les deux frères d'Europa à sa poursuite, leur interdisant de réapparaître chez lui sans l'avoir retrouvée. Ils ne revinrent jamais. Le mythe est, au sens essentiel, un déplacement, une métaphore, une traduction, une « parole » (Barthes) qui signifie : « emporté d'un lieu à un autre ». Les mythes sont transformés, altérés, renouvelés pour correspondre aux besoins d'un temps et d'un lieu. Mais ils restent eux-mêmes pour l'essentiel, car ils ne sont pas créés en tant que fabrications de l'imagination humaine, mais (sans vouloir tomber dans un universalisme facile) comme des manifestations concrètes de certaines intuitions primordiales. Au Moyen Âge, Lactantius proposa de banaliser le mythe grec en prétendant que le taureau était simplement le nom d'un bateau. Mais le mythe perdura et en fit lever d'autres dérivés de l'histoire initiale : mythes de souveraineté (Europa, une princesse), de féminité (la bien-aimée de Zeus), de prééminence culturelle (ses frères envoyés à sa recherche) et aussi, plus mystérieusement, d'immigration et d'établissement (Europa, une résidente étrangère). Le contenu de ces mythes constitue peut-être la pierre de touche qui prête aux peuples de l'Europe une identité commune intuitive. Toute définition (celle du mythe, par exemple) nécessite tant une limitation qu'une invention. Une limitation de ce que nous croyons que l'objet de la définition n'est pas, et une invention de ce que nous imaginons susceptible de constituer quelque chose que nous connaissons déjà, puisque nous ne pouvons définir ce que nous n'avons pas encore imaginé. Le mythe d'Europa reflète cette double nécessité. - La chaire annuelle L'invention de l'Europe par les langues et les cultures, créée en partenariat avec le ministère de la Culture (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), porte sur les enjeux contemporains de la création intellectuelle et artistique en Europe

The ancient Greeks well before Christ had realized that the earth is a globe by observing lunar eclipses. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures in the third century named Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes in the 6th century. The flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. This episode article was written by Dr Jonathan Sarfati and podcast produced by Joseph Darnell out of the CMI-USA office. Become a monthly contributor at our site. You can also help out by telling your family and friends to check out the podcasts. Related Resources The Genesis Account The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Christianity for Skeptics Links and Show Notes Original article: The flat earth myth A flat earth, and other nonsense Is the ’erets (earth) flat? Isaiah 40:22 and the shape of the earth Galileo Quadricentennial The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Flat earth leader is an evolutionist! The flat-earth myth and creationism Why would God bother with a tiny planet like Earth? Is the earth a flat disc or globe? Find thousands of other interesting articles at Creation.com. ► Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and get the eNewsletter. Check out our other show Creation Talk. Featured in This Episode Cinematic Beautiful Lush Real Estate Love by Jeff Hanley The King Has Arrived Today by Nick Battle Fairytale Female Vocal by Velimir Andreev Mangrove Swallow by Lance Conrad Nineteen in March by Ruslan Takhaveev Grand Rising of the King by Nick Battle Intimate Reveries by Christina Nemo Photo by Alyssia Wilson on Unsplash

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.Text: John 8:2-11 Comments Today's study is on a well-known passage, even though it is not in the original manuscripts of John's gospel.Still, it rings true, is of early origin, and is therefore is found in most Bibles.Few scholars doubt its authenticity, even if it was not originally in its present location in John.Sometimes it follows Luke 21:38. Or is found after John 7:36, or John 7:44. Sometimes it's even located after John 21:25.Although scholars nearly unanimously reject the story as original in the fourth gospel, they are also of one mind in accepting its veracity.It is perfectly in character with what we know of Jesus and his attitude towards sin/sinners.It is unlikely to be an invention of the later church, since in the second century sin was dealt with much more harshly than it is in this passage.Some early Christian preserved the story, and some early copyist of John placed it between chapters 7 and 8, probably because it seemed a good fit (verses about judgment, tensions between Jesus and the Pharisees).For more on this--and to find out exactly which early manuscripts contain the passage--please visit the chapter notes on John 8 at this website. (Many of the notes from this study are reproduced below.)The settingAs was Jesus' custom during the feasts, he taught in the day and stayed evenings somewhere on the Mount of Olives (v.1). He probably enjoyed the hospitality of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. (Search your concordance under Bethany.)The venue for his teaching was the temple complex. (And by forgiving the adulteress, he was challenging, "usurping," the authority of the priests.)The time was early morning, before the heat of the day.He taught in the seated position (v.2), which was the normal posture of a rabbi with his disciples. Then comes the shocking interruption (v.3). The question, and the arrest of the woman, seem staged.Since adultery takes place in secret, it is likely that the accusers had been waiting (and hoping) for the transgression to take place. Their posturing--and possibly the adultery itself?--was premeditated.Only the woman has been brought in, despite the implicit charge that the man had been present (v.4).The accusers have little concern for the woman. Their aim is only to trap Jesus. Here is the trap (vv.5-6).Jesus advocated compassion. He forbade us even to hate our enemies. He had intimated that the new covenant was in the process of being inaugurated -- that the old law might not apply anymore. And yet the Torah required the death penalty for both parties (Leviticus 20:10).Would Jesus then contradict himself, or the Mosaic law?Masterfully, Jesus extricates both himself and the woman from the dilemma.His reply is perfectly suited to the occasion. Jesus was always an excellent thinker on his feet.Acknowledging the demand of the law for adulterers ("Let anyone without sin cast the first stone...") while confronting all present with their own sin (and potential hypocrisy in judging her), he extricates both himself and the woman from the dilemma (v.7ff).The older in the crowd, realizing that Jesus occupies the moral high ground and will not be trapped, walk away.The younger in the crowd, less savvy and more moralistic, linger longer, but they too in the end leave the scene.The accusers apparently depart as well.In the end, only two persons remain.While offering her divine forgiveness, Jesus hardly condones her immorality."Sin no more" (v.11).The heart-warming vignette demonstrates the church's attitude towards erring members. Sin will not be taken lightly, but forgiveness is always available if there is repentance.This passage is one of several understood by early Christians to forbid capital punishment. The early position on execution is found in such writers as Lactantius (c.290-300 AD): When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is injustice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature.The WomanShe is a nobody, a cipher, an object -- dehumanized, just like the blind man (John 9:2), only of interest for theological reasons.She is a victim. She has been set up, so it seems.She is guilty. It takes two to tango, and two to commit adultery. She may not be responsible for the system, but she is responsible for her own actions.She is all of us! For outside of Christ, the world views us as nobodies; we--or well-meaning "experts"--may insist we have been victimized; yet in our heart of hearts, and in the presence of the holy God, we are guilty. We all stand as much in need of Christ's grace as this poor woman--and so we ought to learn from her.Yet anyone in Christ is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)!Thought questions:What differences, if any, do I detect between the "old law" and the new?Do I have a fixed opinion on capital punishment? What position do I suppose that Jesus and the early church held to? Does it surprise me to learn that the early church opposed capital punishment? (All of this changed in the 300s, with the beginning of the Catholic Church.) For more on this, listen to the podcast on Capital Punishment.Had I been present, which of the characters in this story would I have been: the older persons, the younger persons, the woman, or the accusers?

The Emperor Constantine I, better known as Constantine the Great, is one of the most significant emperors in Roman history. His later Christian biographers lauded him as an icon, the man who set in motion Rome's dramatic transformation into a primarily Christian empire. And yet Constantine's own beliefs were deliberately ambiguous, as Professor David Potter explained. He learned from Diocletian, he witnessed the mistakes and the successes. He figured out how to heal divisions in the empire, but at the same time restore it to one man rule through blood and battle. Constantine's military and administrative successes are often-overlooked, but these in themselves were extraordinary. In this podcast David and I chatted through Constantine's remarkable life, his legacy and why you wouldn't rate your chances of survival if you were part of his family.David is the author of 'Constantine the Emperor'.Some notes from the pod:Galerius - A Roman emperor between 305 and 311(Valerius) Severus - Galerius' preferred candidate to become the new Augustus in the west in 306, following the death of Constantius (Constantine's father). He was opposed by Constantine.The Wall - Hadrian's WallThe Chi Rho - a Christian symbol, but also a symbol of good fortune. Constantine painted the symbol on his soldiers' shields at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.Lactantius - an early Christian author who talked about the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.Maximinus Daia - ruled alongside Licinius in the east. Formed an alliance with Maxentius against Licinius and Constantine. Defeated by Licinius.Licinius - ruler of the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Co-ruled the Empire with Constantine for a while (doesn't end well!). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode we continue our discussion with Kegan Chandler, author of the recently published book Constantine and the Divine Mind, the Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism. - We left off our last episode with Mr. Chandler describing how Constantine was associated with events that led to the important Church Council of Nicea in AD 325. Now we re-join the conversation with Mr. Chandler about to describe the significance of the Greek word homousias, which means something like “same substance” or “same essence”. Christians theologians to this very day describe Jesus as being the “same essence” with God the Father. - However, the idea does not come from the Bible. So where does it come from? - Was Constantine an agent of God, or a representative of Jesus the Messiah? Or, was Constantine and his ideas about homousias, that the Father God and Jesus were the same substance, a proclamation of different Christ, a replacement Christ, an anti-Christ? - Resource links for this episode: Constantine and the Divine Mind, the Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism https://wipfandstock.com/constantine-and-the-divine-mind.html - “Revisiting Homoousios: Origins, Intentions, and Aftermath” (Kegan Chandler Presentation) https://burieddeepblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/presentation-revisiting-homoousios-origins-intentions-and-aftermath/ - The Corpus Hermeticum, Poemandres, the Shepherd of Men http://gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html - Hermeticsim https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hermeticism - Lanctantius (advisor to Constantine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius

He was the greatest rhetorician in the Latin-speaking world. Born in North Africa, Lactantius was summoned to serve at the imperial court. He converted to Christianity and, with the persecution of Diocletian, lost his job and lived in poverty. He continued writing to strengthen the faithful. With the rise of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity, he was restored to glory. In his writings we have a unique eyewitness account of one of history’s most important transitional moments. Links Lactantius, Of the Manner in which the Persecutors Died https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1885 Lactantius, On the Workmanship of God https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1884 Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1882 Lactantius, The Phoenix https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1856 More works by the Fathers https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/ Mike Aquilina's website https://fathersofthechurch.com Theme music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed http://www.ccwatershed.org.  

Listen in as Anthony and Jon wrap up our series God is ___ and see the wrath and justice of God unfold through the story of scripture. Notes/Quotes:Screens: Ex. 34:6-7“One sign that your theology has become problematic is that you bible has become inconvenient.” Matt Smethurst “This whole question of divine anger (ira dei) has been the subject of some sharp debate in the history of the church. It became known as the question of divine possibility (the quality or aptness in God to feel, suffer, or be angry) or impassibility (the denial of those qualities). Under the strong advocacy of Gnosticism (a philosophy that combined Greek and Oriental ideas with Christian teaching and professed access to truth that was a mystery to outsiders) a doctrine of God emerged that took the strongest exception to any claim that God could feel or suffer anything or that He could be angry.”“believed that the God of the Old Testament was a ‘Demiurge’ (a god subordinate to the supreme God and responsible for the creation of evil) whose involvement in war, suffering, and judgments disqualified Him from being the God of grace and goodness whom Marcion found in most of Paul’s epistles in the New Testament.”“Lactantius, wrote his De Ira Dei, ‘The Anger of God.’ For him passions or emotions were not in themselves evil, but avenues of virtue and goodness when kept under control. Furthermore, God must be moved to anger when He sees sin and wickedness in men and women just as He is moved to love them when they please Him.” “He who loves the good, by this very fact hates the evil; and he who does not hate the evil, does not love the good; because the love of goodness issues directly out of the hatred of evil, and the hatred of evil issues directly out of the love of goodness. No one can love life without abhorring death; and no one can have an appetency for light, without an antipathy to darkness.” “our problem with anger is that we define it as Aristotle did, ‘the desire for retaliation’ or a desire to get even and get revenge for a slight or real harm done to us. With anger goes the idea of a ‘brief madness’ and ‘an uneasiness or discomposure of the mind, upon the receipt of an injury, with a present purpose of revenge.’ But Lactantius defined anger as ‘a motion of the soul rousing itself to curb sin.’ - Walter Kaiser“Therefore knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men.”     (2 Cor. 5:11 KJV)“Yahweh is forgiving, but sin is not. Sin is unforgiving—merciless, petty, and cruel. Our sin has consequences. We can miss out on blessing irretrievably. We can end up like Israel—forgiven, yes, but lost in the trackless desert waste.” - John Mark ComerMy thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance…My thesis will be unpopular with man in the West…But imagine speaking to people (as I have) whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned, and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit…Your point to them–we should not retaliate? Why not? I say–the only means of prohibiting violence by us is to insist that violence is only legitimate when it comes from God…Violence thrives today, secretly nourished by the belief that God refuses to take the sword…It takes the quiet of a suburb for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence is a result of a God who refuses to judge. In a scorched land–soaked in the blood of the innocent, the idea will invariably die, like other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind…if God were NOT angry at injustice and deception and did NOT make a final end of violence, that God would not be worthy of our worship. - Miroslav Volf

In this episode we look back at the past decade of history we've covered. I offer some of my reflections on writing the podcast as well as the martyrs, the Tetrarchy, the rise of Constantine, and the legacy of the Great Persecution. Music “Sons of Constantinople” by Tyler Cunningham, licensed under Pond5. HistoryoftheEarlyChurch.wordpress.com HistoryoftheEarlyChurch@gmail.com Facebook.com/EarlyChurchPodcast

The party never stops at the Queen of the Sciences podcast! Coasting on the generally optimistic, cheerful, and devil-may-care attitude of a world gripped by pandemic and the various cultural and political responses to it, we break out our kazoos and streamers for the wrath of God. In this episode we talk about what it is, why it matters still to talk about it, and why (gasp) it may even be a good thing.   Support us on Patreon!   Notes: 1. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America 2. The hymn I mentioned is “He Is Arisen, Glorious Word” 3. Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God 4. If you haven’t already listened to them, you'll find our episodes on Anselm and Kazoh Kitamori deal with some of these same issues.  5. Lactantius, De Ira Dei 6. See in Dad’s Divine Complexity the subsection entitled, “Theology of Redemption,” chapter 6, pp. 212–222, and in Beloved Community the subsection entitled “God is the Eschaton of Judgment” in the Conclusion pp. 865–878, which take up these topics further 7. See also my final sermon on the Sermon on the Mount and essay “Peace, Peace, Where There Is No Peace”  8. Oswald Bayer talks about God’s Umsturz in Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, p. 215 More about us at sarahhinlickywilson.com and paulhinlicky.com!

During the lull in persecution following the Conference of Carnuntum, the Meletian Schism breaks out in Egypt, while in Palestine controversy erupts over the theology of Origen of Alexandria. Nevertheless the Great Persecution is soon resumed as the Fifth Edict is issued in order to revitalize paganism and marginalize Christians from society. However, just as Galerius prepares to celebrate his Vicennalia, he is struck by a horrific disease, eventually leading him to reconsider his persecution of Christians. Music “Sons of Constantinople” by Tyler Cunningham, licensed under Pond5. HistoryoftheEarlyChurch.wordpress.com HistoryoftheEarlyChurch@gmail.com Facebook.com/EarlyChurchPodcast

Hello friends, and happy weekend to you. Yes, if you're like me - the weekend doesn't mean as much as it used to, because all the days bleed together. Sundays are still special, however, because our church gathers together online, we worship and pray together live - online - and we listen to the Word together live. It's not the same, but it's not bad either. I find myself looking forward to it, and to the small group meetings with leaders and other people that also happen on Sunday. When you are starved for contact with other people, I guess you take it how you can get it! Tonight's Bible readings include: Numbers 2, Ecclesiastes 12, Psalms 36 and Philemon 1. Philemon is our focus passage tonight, and it brings up an important, but very controversial topic. Does the Bible condone slavery? The answer is a bit, shall we say, complicated. I had an interesting conversation by text this week with friend and pod listener Lamar who was commenting that some of the slavery spoken of in the Leviticus passages did indeed sound a like lot chattal slavery, as practiced by the U.S. and England, and other countries in the 1800s and prior. Lamar's speculation was that perhaps God allowed such things - as He allowed husbands to write their wives a certificate of divorce in Old Testament times - because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts. I believe that is a good and sound explanation of what was going on. I will say that much of the American/England system of slavery was built on kidnapping, and was race-based - white people oppressing and kidnapping and enslaving black people. This was not at all what servitude in New Testament times was like, and it wasn't even what the kind of slavery/bond-servanthood spoken of in the Old Testament was like either. In 2017 I wrote a book called "The Bible and Racism," that addresses how the Bible handles issues of race. Only a fool uses the Bible to justify racism, and yes, I'm aware that there were many foolish preachers that attempted to do just that in prior centuries. Today's question will be answered, in part, by chapter 6 of The Bible and Racism. If you'd want to buy that book, it is available on Amazon, and when you buy a copy, I get enough money to buy a small box of Raisin Bran, which is important at my age. ;) Well, let's read Philemon and then come back and discuss whether or not the Bible condones slavery: Does the Bible Condone Slavery From: The Bible and Racism, by Chase A. Thompson "And the same law commands “not to muzzle the ox which treadeth out the corn: for the labourer must be reckoned worthy of his food.” And it prohibits an ox and ass to be yoked in the plow together pointing perhaps to the want of agreement in the case of the animals; and at the same time teaching not to wrong any one belonging to another race, and bring him under the yoke, when there is no other cause to allege than difference of race, which is no cause at all, being neither wickedness nor the effect of wickedness." Clement of Alexandria, Christian theologian who lived from 150 AD - 215 AD The AnteNicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 368. "God, who produces and gives breath to men, willed that all should be equal, that is, equally matched. He has imposed the same condition of living on all. He has opened wisdom to all. He has promised immortality to all. No one is cut off from His heavenly benefits.… In His sight, no one is a slave; no one is a master. For if all have the same Father, by an equal right we are all children. No one is poor in the sight of God but he who is without justice. No one is rich, but he who is full of virtues.… For this reason, neither the Romans nor the Greeks could possess justice. For they had men differing from one another by many degrees: the poor and the rich, the humble and the powerful, private persons and the highest authorities of kings. However, where all persons are not equally matched, there is no justice. And, by its nature, inequality excludes justice.… However, someone will say, “Are there not among you some who are poor and others who are rich? Are not some servants and others masters? Is there not some difference between individuals?” There is none. Nor is there any other cause why we mutually bestow upon each other the name of brothers, except that we believe ourselves to be equal. We measure all human things by the spirit, not by the body. Although the condition of our bodies is different, yet we have no servants. For we both regard and speak of them as brothers in spirit and as fellow-servants in religion.… Therefore, in lowliness of mind, we are on an equality: the free with the slaves and the rich with the poor. Nevertheless, in the sight of God we are distinguished only by virtue.… The person who has conducted himself not only as an equal, but even as an inferior, he will plainly obtain a much higher rank of dignity in the judgment of God. Lactantius, circa 305 AD, quoted in: A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 236. The above passages, and dozens of others like them, demonstrate the views that the early church had about slavery and race. While there were indeed bond-servants in the early church, both slaves and rich, laborers and merchants, foreigners and natives, were all accorded the title, "brother." Although the church in latter years would too often give in to opulence and worldliness, the church in the first few centuries carefully sought to heed Paul and James' biblical warnings against showing favoritism and partiality towards anyone. To read Lactantius' words, written around 300 AD, is to read refreshing words of equality and unity, the likes of which the modern world has yet to fully grasp, even 1700 years later. In October of 2014, Boston Globe columnist and spirituality writer Margery Eagan related the following experience from her Catholic church, and left dangling a provocative question: Since the Bible condones slavery (and the modern church does not), should not the modern church "discount and dismiss" what Paul said about homosexuality? I do want to address, and perhaps challenge, the first part of Margery's question, since most people assume it to be true. Does the Bible, the New Testament in particular, actually condone slavery? The answer to that question is, as one would imagine, quite complex. The Bible has been tragically used and abused for centuries in the name of propping up one false ideology or the other. This dynamic happens when humans seek to read INTO the Bible their own beliefs and search out phrases, words and stories to justify themselves, rather than reading OUT of the Bible truths for life. I teach survey-level New Testament and Old Testament courses at a local liberal arts college. At the beginning of each of those classes, I take a Bible and physically demonstrate two different approaches to Scripture. Holding it over my head, I explain that we can view the Word of God as authoritative - that we must follow it and submit to it - we can't read into the Bible our worldview, biases and feelings, but we must read out of it the foundation for our worldview, biases and feelings. The view that the Bible is above us represents a high view of Scripture - that it is God's Word (not the word of man) and that we must seek to understand what is written and follow it. When we understand the grammar, vocabulary and context of a passage, in other words, we will know the meaning of that passage. The second major way we can approach Scripture, I demonstrate by putting the Bible on the floor, and explain to the students that in this approach, the Bible is beneath us, and rather than read out of Scripture authoritative direction, we read into Scripture our own views, picking and choosing which Scriptures to follow and which to reject, and interpreting what the Bible has to say in light of our own views and opinions. With this approach, some Bible passages are ignored, or completely reinterpreted by us to mean something entirely different than what the grammar, vocabulary and context of the verse says. There are technical terms for both of these different approaches to Scripture, with eisegesis denoting the approach that seeks to read meanings into the Bible text, and exegesis indicating the approach that seeks to bring out of the text its intentions and meaning. Dr. James White offers an excellent definition of eisegesis below, and shows how it differs from an exegetical approach: Eisegesis is the reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel.  (Dr. James White - Pulpit Crimes, 2006) Almost all Christians have engaged in eisegesis at some point, but it is a very dangerous practice. Unfortunately, my use of the word "dangerous" here is quite literal. Eisegetical methods of interpretation have led to much bloodshed and acrimony between people who call themselves Christians. There have been wars and killings and thousands of denominational splits, all because we humans have a tendency to look to Scripture for divine approval of our thoughts, actions and opinions, rather than seeking to base our thoughts, actions and opinions on a right understanding of Scripture. Supporters of race based slavery have engaged in significant and aberrant eisegesis in reading into Scripture Divine commendation for their abominable practices. While it is true that the Bible does not completely ban the practice of bond-servitude, a careful examination of Scripture will demonstrate that the bond-servitude of the Bible and the race-based slavery of Europe and the Americas are vastly different. I'd like to share a very interesting, and extremely important piece of history as a way to close out this chapter, and bridge into the discussion of the next chapter. The passage below is one of the earliest descriptions of Jesus and His followers by somebody not in the Bible. It was written by the Roman governor of Bithynia, a man named Pliny the younger, and was addressed to the Roman emperor Trajan. The date of writing was approximately 112 AD, and Pliny is writing to inform the emperor of a new movement of people who worship Christ as a God, and bind themselves to pledges to not steal, commit adultery, lie, or be untrustworthy. Pliny was very concerned about these strange people, because they appeared to him to be members of a secret society, which he had forbidden in his district. Therefore, he captured two young girls and interrogated them to find out the truth about these Jesus-followers. Note below how the two young girls are ministers (deaconesses) in the church AND they are slaves/bond-servants. This is steady proof, from an outside source, that the early church viewed slaves as worthy and qualified for some of the most crucial positions that the church had to offer! They declared that all the wrong they had committed, wittingly or unwittingly, was this, that they had been accustomed on a fixed day to meet before dawn and sing antiphonally a hymn to Christ as a god, and bind themselves by a solemn pledge (sacramento) not to commit any enormity, but to abstain from theft, brigandage, and adultery, to keep their word, and not to refuse to restore what had been entrusted to their charge if demanded. After these ceremonies they used to disperse and assemble again to share a common meal of innocent food, and even this they had given up after I had issued the edict by which, according to your instructions, I prohibited secret societies. I therefore considered it the more necessary, in order to ascertain what truth there was in this account, to examine two slave-girls, who were called deaconesses (ministrae), and even to use torture. I found nothing except a perverted and unbounded superstition. I therefore have adjourned the investigation and hastened to consult you, for I thought the matter was worth consulting you about, especially on account of the numbers who are involved. For many of every age and rank, and of both sexes, are already and will be summoned to stand their trial. For this superstition has infected not only the towns, but also the villages and country; yet it apparently can be checked and corrected.  (Source: F. H. Blackburne Daniell, “Trajanus (1), M. Ulpius (Nerva),” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887), 1040.)

Hello friends, and happy weekend to you. Yes, if you're like me - the weekend doesn't mean as much as it used to, because all the days bleed together. Sundays are still special, however, because our church gathers together online, we worship and pray together live - online - and we listen to the Word together live. It's not the same, but it's not bad either. I find myself looking forward to it, and to the small group meetings with leaders and other people that also happen on Sunday. When you are starved for contact with other people, I guess you take it how you can get it! Tonight's Bible readings include: Numbers 2, Ecclesiastes 12, Psalms 36 and Philemon 1. Philemon is our focus passage tonight, and it brings up an important, but very controversial topic. Does the Bible condone slavery? The answer is a bit, shall we say, complicated. I had an interesting conversation by text this week with friend and pod listener Lamar who was commenting that some of the slavery spoken of in the Leviticus passages did indeed sound a like lot chattal slavery, as practiced by the U.S. and England, and other countries in the 1800s and prior. Lamar's speculation was that perhaps God allowed such things - as He allowed husbands to write their wives a certificate of divorce in Old Testament times - because of the hardness of the Israelites' hearts. I believe that is a good and sound explanation of what was going on. I will say that much of the American/England system of slavery was built on kidnapping, and was race-based - white people oppressing and kidnapping and enslaving black people. This was not at all what servitude in New Testament times was like, and it wasn't even what the kind of slavery/bond-servanthood spoken of in the Old Testament was like either. In 2017 I wrote a book called "The Bible and Racism," that addresses how the Bible handles issues of race. Only a fool uses the Bible to justify racism, and yes, I'm aware that there were many foolish preachers that attempted to do just that in prior centuries. Today's question will be answered, in part, by chapter 6 of The Bible and Racism. If you'd want to buy that book, it is available on Amazon, and when you buy a copy, I get enough money to buy a small box of Raisin Bran, which is important at my age. ;) Well, let's read Philemon and then come back and discuss whether or not the Bible condones slavery: Does the Bible Condone Slavery From: The Bible and Racism, by Chase A. Thompson "And the same law commands “not to muzzle the ox which treadeth out the corn: for the labourer must be reckoned worthy of his food.” And it prohibits an ox and ass to be yoked in the plow together pointing perhaps to the want of agreement in the case of the animals; and at the same time teaching not to wrong any one belonging to another race, and bring him under the yoke, when there is no other cause to allege than difference of race, which is no cause at all, being neither wickedness nor the effect of wickedness." Clement of Alexandria, Christian theologian who lived from 150 AD - 215 AD The AnteNicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 368. "God, who produces and gives breath to men, willed that all should be equal, that is, equally matched. He has imposed the same condition of living on all. He has opened wisdom to all. He has promised immortality to all. No one is cut off from His heavenly benefits.… In His sight, no one is a slave; no one is a master. For if all have the same Father, by an equal right we are all children. No one is poor in the sight of God but he who is without justice. No one is rich, but he who is full of virtues.… For this reason, neither the Romans nor the Greeks could possess justice. For they had men differing from one another by many degrees: the poor and the rich, the humble and the powerful, private persons and the highest authorities of kings. However, where all persons are not equally matched, there is no justice. And, by its nature, inequality excludes justice.… However, someone will say, “Are there not among you some who are poor and others who are rich? Are not some servants and others masters? Is there not some difference between individuals?” There is none. Nor is there any other cause why we mutually bestow upon each other the name of brothers, except that we believe ourselves to be equal. We measure all human things by the spirit, not by the body. Although the condition of our bodies is different, yet we have no servants. For we both regard and speak of them as brothers in spirit and as fellow-servants in religion.… Therefore, in lowliness of mind, we are on an equality: the free with the slaves and the rich with the poor. Nevertheless, in the sight of God we are distinguished only by virtue.… The person who has conducted himself not only as an equal, but even as an inferior, he will plainly obtain a much higher rank of dignity in the judgment of God. Lactantius, circa 305 AD, quoted in: A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 236. The above passages, and dozens of others like them, demonstrate the views that the early church had about slavery and race. While there were indeed bond-servants in the early church, both slaves and rich, laborers and merchants, foreigners and natives, were all accorded the title, "brother." Although the church in latter years would too often give in to opulence and worldliness, the church in the first few centuries carefully sought to heed Paul and James' biblical warnings against showing favoritism and partiality towards anyone. To read Lactantius' words, written around 300 AD, is to read refreshing words of equality and unity, the likes of which the modern world has yet to fully grasp, even 1700 years later. In October of 2014, Boston Globe columnist and spirituality writer Margery Eagan related the following experience from her Catholic church, and left dangling a provocative question: Since the Bible condones slavery (and the modern church does not), should not the modern church "discount and dismiss" what Paul said about homosexuality? I do want to address, and perhaps challenge, the first part of Margery's question, since most people assume it to be true. Does the Bible, the New Testament in particular, actually condone slavery? The answer to that question is, as one would imagine, quite complex. The Bible has been tragically used and abused for centuries in the name of propping up one false ideology or the other. This dynamic happens when humans seek to read INTO the Bible their own beliefs and search out phrases, words and stories to justify themselves, rather than reading OUT of the Bible truths for life. I teach survey-level New Testament and Old Testament courses at a local liberal arts college. At the beginning of each of those classes, I take a Bible and physically demonstrate two different approaches to Scripture. Holding it over my head, I explain that we can view the Word of God as authoritative - that we must follow it and submit to it - we can't read into the Bible our worldview, biases and feelings, but we must read out of it the foundation for our worldview, biases and feelings. The view that the Bible is above us represents a high view of Scripture - that it is God's Word (not the word of man) and that we must seek to understand what is written and follow it. When we understand the grammar, vocabulary and context of a passage, in other words, we will know the meaning of that passage. The second major way we can approach Scripture, I demonstrate by putting the Bible on the floor, and explain to the students that in this approach, the Bible is beneath us, and rather than read out of Scripture authoritative direction, we read into Scripture our own views, picking and choosing which Scriptures to follow and which to reject, and interpreting what the Bible has to say in light of our own views and opinions. With this approach, some Bible passages are ignored, or completely reinterpreted by us to mean something entirely different than what the grammar, vocabulary and context of the verse says. There are technical terms for both of these different approaches to Scripture, with eisegesis denoting the approach that seeks to read meanings into the Bible text, and exegesis indicating the approach that seeks to bring out of the text its intentions and meaning. Dr. James White offers an excellent definition of eisegesis below, and shows how it differs from an exegetical approach: Eisegesis is the reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel.  (Dr. James White - Pulpit Crimes, 2006) Almost all Christians have engaged in eisegesis at some point, but it is a very dangerous practice. Unfortunately, my use of the word "dangerous" here is quite literal. Eisegetical methods of interpretation have led to much bloodshed and acrimony between people who call themselves Christians. There have been wars and killings and thousands of denominational splits, all because we humans have a tendency to look to Scripture for divine approval of our thoughts, actions and opinions, rather than seeking to base our thoughts, actions and opinions on a right understanding of Scripture. Supporters of race based slavery have engaged in significant and aberrant eisegesis in reading into Scripture Divine commendation for their abominable practices. While it is true that the Bible does not completely ban the practice of bond-servitude, a careful examination of Scripture will demonstrate that the bond-servitude of the Bible and the race-based slavery of Europe and the Americas are vastly different. I'd like to share a very interesting, and extremely important piece of history as a way to close out this chapter, and bridge into the discussion of the next chapter. The passage below is one of the earliest descriptions of Jesus and His followers by somebody not in the Bible. It was written by the Roman governor of Bithynia, a man named Pliny the younger, and was addressed to the Roman emperor Trajan. The date of writing was approximately 112 AD, and Pliny is writing to inform the emperor of a new movement of people who worship Christ as a God, and bind themselves to pledges to not steal, commit adultery, lie, or be untrustworthy. Pliny was very concerned about these strange people, because they appeared to him to be members of a secret society, which he had forbidden in his district. Therefore, he captured two young girls and interrogated them to find out the truth about these Jesus-followers. Note below how the two young girls are ministers (deaconesses) in the church AND they are slaves/bond-servants. This is steady proof, from an outside source, that the early church viewed slaves as worthy and qualified for some of the most crucial positions that the church had to offer! They declared that all the wrong they had committed, wittingly or unwittingly, was this, that they had been accustomed on a fixed day to meet before dawn and sing antiphonally a hymn to Christ as a god, and bind themselves by a solemn pledge (sacramento) not to commit any enormity, but to abstain from theft, brigandage, and adultery, to keep their word, and not to refuse to restore what had been entrusted to their charge if demanded. After these ceremonies they used to disperse and assemble again to share a common meal of innocent food, and even this they had given up after I had issued the edict by which, according to your instructions, I prohibited secret societies. I therefore considered it the more necessary, in order to ascertain what truth there was in this account, to examine two slave-girls, who were called deaconesses (ministrae), and even to use torture. I found nothing except a perverted and unbounded superstition. I therefore have adjourned the investigation and hastened to consult you, for I thought the matter was worth consulting you about, especially on account of the numbers who are involved. For many of every age and rank, and of both sexes, are already and will be summoned to stand their trial. For this superstition has infected not only the towns, but also the villages and country; yet it apparently can be checked and corrected.  (Source: F. H. Blackburne Daniell, “Trajanus (1), M. Ulpius (Nerva),” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887), 1040.)

The Great Persecution begins with Diocletian’s series of anti-Christians edicts, culminating in the command for all his subjects to offer sacrifice. Music “Sons of Constantinople” by Tyler Cunningham, licensed under Pond5. HistoryoftheEarlyChurch.wordpress.com HistoryoftheEarlyChurch@gmail.com Facebook.com/EarlyChurchPodcast

As the third century gave way to the fourth, tensions between the early Church and traditional paganism culminated in the emperor Diocletian’s decision to launch the Great Persecution against Christianity... Music “Sons of Constantinople” by Tyler Cunningham, licensed under Pond5. HistoryoftheEarlyChurch.wordpress.com HistoryoftheEarlyChurch@gmail.com Facebook.com/EarlyChurchPodcast

Note: The Shownotes and Transcript below are a bit of a trainwork editing wise. I'll polish them up soon! C.S. Lewis from His essay The Seeing Eye, found in Christian Reflections: 1963, 6 years before the Moon Landing.  (Discussing Space travel) a more practical issue will arise when, if ever, we discover rational creatures on other planets. I think myself, this is a very remote contingency. The balance of probability is against life on any other planet of the solar system. We shall hardly find it nearer than the stars. And even if we reach the Moon we shall be no nearer to stellar travel than the first man who paddled across a river was to crossing the Pacific.This thought is welcome to me because, to be frank, I have no pleasure in looking forward to a meeting between humanity and any alien rational species. I observe how the white man has hitherto treated the black, and how, even among civilized men, the stronger have treated the weaker. If we encounter in the depth of space a race, however innocent and amiable, which is technologically weaker than ourselves, I do not doubt that the same revolting story will be repeated. We shall enslave, deceive, exploit or exterminate; at the very least we shall corrupt it with our vices and infect it with our diseases. We are not fit yet to visit other worlds. We have filled our own with massacre, torture, syphilis, famine, dust bowls and with all that is hideous to ear or eye. Must we go on to infect new realms?  It was in part these reflections that first moved me to make my own small contributions to science fiction. In those days writers in that genre almost automatically represented the inhabitants of other worlds as monsters and the terrestrial invaders as good. Since then the opposite set-up has become fairly common. If I could believe that I had in any degree contributed to this change, I should be a proud man.1 The same problem, by the way, is beginning to threaten us as regards the dolphins. I don't think it has yet been proved that they are rational. But if they are, we have no more right to enslave them than to enslave our fellow-men. And some of us will continue to say this, but we shall be mocked. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 173–174. This science (astronomy) ought to be the special delight of ministers of the gospel, for surely it brings us into closer connection with God than almost any other science does. It has been said that an undevout astronomer is mad. I should say that an undevout man of any sort is mad,—with the worst form of madness; but, certainly, he who has become acquainted with the stars in the heavens, and who yet has not found out the great Father of lights, the Lord who made them all, must be stricken with a dire madness. Kepler, the great mathematical astronomer, who has so well explained many of the laws which govern the universe, closes one of his books, his Harmonics, with this reverent and devout expression of his feelings:—“I give thee thanks, Lord and Creator, that thou hast given me joy through thy creation; for I have been ravished with the work of thy hands. I have revealed unto mankind the glory of thy works, as far as my limited spirit could conceive their infinitude. Should I have brought forward anything that is unworthy of thee, or should I have sought my own fame, be graciously pleased to forgive me.” And you know how the mighty Newton, a very prince among the sons of men, was continually driven to his knees as he looked upwards to the skies, and discovered fresh wonders in the starry heavens. Therefore, the science which tends to bring men to bow in humility before the Lord should always be a favourite study with us whose business it is to inculcate reverence for God in all who come under our influence. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 145. Today's Question: At the very beginning of this podcast, I promised you that we would sometimes delve into wild and wacky areas of the Bible, and today is the day we begin that journey! Most of the time, we will play it straight, but the fact is that there are many interesting/mysterious and downright strange parts of the Bible, and I don't think we should ignore them, nor explain them away with a handwave. Let's embrace the weird!  And, by the way, if this topic is interesting to you at all, then please check out my book Monsters in the Bible. It's my bestselling book of this year, which is funny, and from time to time, it ranks in Amazon's top ten for Occult Satanism...which is strange, to say the least, for a southern Baptist pastor. (I did NOT choose that category!)  Vanderbilt astronomer David Weintraub reports that 55 percent of atheists believe in alien life, but only 32 percent of Christians. Weintraub wrote, "Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christian leaders argue quite forcefully that the Bible makes clear that extraterrestrial life does not exist. From this perspective, the only living, God-worshipping beings in the entire universe are humans, created by God, who live on Earth."  DOES THE BIBLE REALLY, REALLY MAKE THAT CLEAR??! Calvary Chapel Church in Roswell, New Mexico (80 miles away from the Mac Brazel ranch, Roswell 1947 incident), would half-way agree. for instance, “Biblically IF there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible and He did not.  The Bible never speaks of Aliens from another planet. Further, there is no way they would crash and die here on planet earth. Death entered our world through Adam and effected everything on this planet.  If there are Aliens, they would not be exposed to this curse.”  LOTS OF SUPPOSITIONS HERE THAT AREN'T BACKED UP BY SCRIPTURE.  “She smiled at me, therefore she likes me.” maybe, maybe not. It's a supposition, but is it supported by fact??  Let's take that first sentence and see how it logically holds up. “If there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.”  How about this: “IF Man were to travel to the moon, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.” “If the United States of America would be the dominant superpower of the world in the 21st century, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.”   “If atoms were the building blocks of all matter, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.”   Such statements suppose that God is OBLIGATED to tell us about everything in the Bible. He is under no such obligation, so we can't assume things that we are left in the dark about. All the love in the world to Calvary Chapel, Roswell, though. I'm a fan. So, I'm also a fan of podcasts...a podcast connoisseur. I am subscribed to over one 100 podcasts of all shapes and sizes. Many of them are Christian podcasts, but many are not. In case you're curious, here's my current top ten podcasts. I'd love to hear yours too - tweet them to me at @bibleqpodcast. In no particular order:  Ask Pastor John - John Piper, excellent biblical counsel.  The Omnibus with Ken Jennings and John Roderick. Hilarious and informative.  Ryen Russillo podcast - ESPN sports. My favorite sports commentator.  SYSK with Josh and Chuck, have been a listener for over ten years.  Astonishing Legends with Scott Philbrook and Forrest Burgess.  Rainer on Leadership - Thom Rainer The Bible Project with Tim Mackie and Jon Collins Fantasy Focus Football - Matthew Berry (Avengers Endgame) True Crime Garage (warning: swearing)  Payne Lindsey Podcasts - Monster, + Up and Vanished. Anyway...I was listening to one of the above, the Astonishing Legends podcast a few weeks ago. They were talking about a fairly fascinating object called the Betz Sphere that a family in Florida found in the woods in the 70s. The Betz Sphere demonstrated all sorts of unusual properties, and drew the interest of some news organizations and government people, including the former head of Project Blue book, Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Project Blue Book:(wikipedia): Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force. It started in 1952, the third study of its kind, following projects Sign (1947) and Grudge (1949). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices officially ceased in January 1970. Project Blue Book had two goals: To determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and To scientifically analyze UFO-related data. J.Allen Hynek was the science advisor to Grudge, Sign and Blue Book.  Wikipedia: Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was an American astronomer, professor, and ufologist.[1]  In later years he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the "Close Encounter" classification system. He was among the first people to conduct scientific analysis of reports and especially of trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.[ Anyway, during his time researching the Betz sphere, Dr. J. Allen Hynek became good friends with the Betz family, getting to know them pretty well over the course of several visits.  According to the Betz family, Dr. Hynek told them that the U.S. government was aware of several alien encounters/visitations, including Roswell, and had covered up most of them, so that the general public wouldn't freak out. Why would the public freak out? Well, apparently Dr. Hynek believe that, at least in part, that major religions, including Christianity, would have a large negative reaction to the existence of aliens, because that would seemingly contradict the teachings of the church, and the teachings of the Bible. Hynek believed that society might fall apart, if people knew that aliens actually existed.  Now, let me pause for a moment. As much as I'm interested in this sort of thing, today's episode is NOT fundamentally about whether aliens exist and have made contact with us or not. I do actually know the answer to that question, but I can't give it to you now, its classified.  ;) In truth, actually, I have no idea. BUT, because I can't help myself, I will say this one thing about the possibility of aliens.  A Washington Post article at the end of April really got my attention:  Recently, unidentified aircraft have entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month, Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for office of the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told The Washington Post on Wednesday. He said, “We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who's doing it, where it's coming from and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again.” Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer, told The Post that the new Navy guidelines formalized the reporting process, facilitating data-driven analysis while removing the stigma from talking about UFOs, calling it “the single greatest decision the Navy has made in decades.” Elizondo, who ran the AATIP, (This is the multi-million dollar Pentagon program that investigates UFOs and was on the government budget books until 2012, when it was delisted on those budget books)  said the newly drafted guidelines were a culmination of many things, most notably that the Navy had enough credible evidence — including eyewitness accounts and corroborating radar information — to “know this is occurring.” “If I came to you and said, ‘There are these things that can fly over our country with impunity, defying the laws of physics, and within moments could deploy a nuclear device at will,' that would be a matter of national security,” Elizondo said. With the number of U.S. military personnel in the Air Force and Navy who described the same observations, the noise level could not be ignored. “This type of activity is very alarming,” Elizondo said, “and people are recognizing there are things in our aerospace that lie beyond our understanding.” Before you get excited that this new initiative might finally clue in the public, I need to tell you that the WaPost ran an article the next week that basically said that the Navy was NOT going to be released to the public. Mr. Gradisher said, ““Furthermore, any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. He added, “Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected.””” So yeah, expect to be in the dark a few more years, at least. But today's question is not whether or not the U.S. Government will finally disclose Alien interactions, but whether or not the Bible rules out the existence of aliens at all! Is Dr. Hynek correct - if the Government suddenly announced alien contact of some kind - would that somehow invalidate the Bible?  And the answer is…. I don't think so. Not at all.   But, I could be wrong, and many theologians disagree with me. Let's look at the  anti-alien case:  GotQuestions https://www.gotquestions.org/aliens-Christian.html, “We do not believe that aliens exist. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe; in fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. Those who contemplate the existence of aliens and the impact their existence would have on the Christian faith commonly discuss the identity and work of Jesus. God sent His only begotten Son, God incarnate, to save mankind and redeem creation. Does that redemption include life on other planets? Or would God have manifested Himself on those other planets, as well (in the manner of Aslan in Narnia)? Does “only begotten” mean “only physical representation”? Or is it more limited, referring only to the human species?   WE DON'T KNOW!!  Another topic of discussion concerning the existence of aliens and Christianity is what it means to be made in the “image of God.” Since God has no physical body, we take this to mean a reflection of God's non-physical aspects—rationality, morality, and sociability. Would aliens, if they exist, embody the same characteristics?  WHY NOT?  Considering what we know about space and life and the world as the Bible portrays it, we already have an explanation for so-called alien activity on Earth. Reports of “close encounters” describe the ethereal, transient, deceptive, and malevolent. Accounts also record that encounters with supposed aliens can be stopped by a real, authentic call to Jesus. Everything points to the activity of demons, not extraterrestrials. In fact, it is plausible that the “powerful delusion” spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 will involve an alien-abduction theory to explain away the rapture.  I actually don't think most UFO reports - reported by seasoned Navy and Air-Force pilots, for instance, really has much in common with demonic episodes we see in Scripture.  The “discovery” of alien life would have no effect on genuine Christianity. COMPLETELY AGREE The Bible stands as written, no matter what secular theories are advanced or discoveries are claimed. The Bible says the earth and mankind are unique in God's creation. God created the earth even before He created the sun, moon, or stars (Genesis 1).  Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and He called the darkness “night.” Evening came and then morning: the first day. (It actually seems to say that God created the Heavens first...then the earth.) Matt Slick/CARM: The Bible does not mention extraterrestrial or alien life. However, it does mention angels and demonic forces which are, in a sense, not of this world. This is not the kind of alien, extraterrestrial life that most people are talking about when the subject comes up. Nevertheless, the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of aliens from other planets who might be visiting us. Now, Slick goes on from here to argue against alien life being likely, because he believes that the Bible declares all creation on all worlds fallen by what Adam did. That is certainly one way of reading the text, but I don't think that is the necessary way of reading the text. Paul could be speaking of all of creation on the earth.  For instance, in Colossians 1:23, Paul writes: This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a servant of it.What does this mean- that the Gospel has been proclaimed on Pluto? I don't think so. I believe Paul meant that the Gospel had been proclaimed in all of KNOWN creation. Michael Houdmann: Above all, let me say, I do not believe aliens exist. Let's also differentiate between sentient aliens and non-sentient aliens. While I would not necessarily have a theological problem with the concept of non-sentient beings (fish, birds, dogs, etc.) existing on other planets, I do have a huge theological problem with the concept of other sentient beings existing elsewhere. It just does not mesh with the teachings of the Bible. The Bible presents humanity as uniquely created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Angels are not created in the image of God. Animals are not created in the image of God. According to the Bible, we are unique, specifically created to have a personal relationship and connection with God the Creator. Intelligent/sentient life in other parts of the universe destroys, or at least weakens, this uniqueness. And it raises all kinds of questions. When did God create the aliens? Do the sentient aliens have an eternal soul? Did they fall into sin? Did God reveal Himself to them? Does their understanding of God match what the Bible says? Did God provide them with an alien Bible? Did God provide for and offer them redemption and salvation? If so, how? Did Jesus die for them too?Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”  Notice how it doesn't say Let us make man - and man alone in all of the universe - in our Image. Houdmann goes on to say: All joking aside, if God intended for humankind to meet alien life, He would have outlined these encounters in the Bible, along with an answer to what He has done for them regarding sin.I just don't agree with that speculation. I like Houdmann and Got questions a ton, and find them very faithful to the Bible, but this is speculation that I find unbacked by biblical truth. HOW do we know that God would do this? How can we prove such a thing? I just don't think we can. I feel like such speculations are very similar to Lactantius' (an early church father in the 200s) scoffing at the possibility that the earth was round. He could NOT cite a Scripture to prove the earth was flat - as he thought - but he assumed that Scripture taught such a thing, WHEN IT DOES NOT. Similarly, Augustine poo-pood the existence of Antipodes on the other side of the world, thinking that Scripture backed that belief up, but it doesn't, and Augustine was wrong. GIVE ME CLEAR SCRIPTURE THAT SHOWS LIFE ON EARTH IS UNIQUE and I will believe it against all charges...but such a Scripture does NOT exist. TBR Baptist Facebook Group:  Jim I thought this was a serious group  Well - He's new. Also, I genuinely think this is a serious topic!  Wes Apparently, some were aliens at one point Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God  Similarly Doug Hibbard 1 Peter suggests that *you* are the aliens  Jim Spiritual Wickedness in heavenly places, Rulers and authorities. Demons dressed up like them. Jacob I think the possibility of aliens falls apart when discussing the fall. As best as we can tell the whole universe is subject to the natural effects of the curse. If that is true, then another rational species, which did not fall, is out there subjected to the consequences of it. Do these aliens have their own Salvation history? Did they, somehow, simultaneously fall alongside Adam, and have their own Jesus? If, in keeping with Scripture, the crucifixion of Christ is a one time event, then another race would be subject to a punishment that they do not deserve with no possible hope for salvation. Pro Brandon Ambrosino on BBC.Com http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react : But how could a believer reconcile this with their faith that humans are the crowning achievement of God's creation?. How could humans believe they were the apple of their creator's eye if their planet was just one of billions? The discovery of intelligent aliens could have a similar Copernican effect on human's self-understanding. Would the discovery make believers feel insignificant, and as a consequence, cause people to question their faith? According to the Talmud, God spends his night flying throughout 18,000 worlds I would argue that this concern is misguided. The claim that God is involved with and moved by humans has never required an Earth-centric theology. The Psalms, sacred to both Jews and Christians, claim that God has given names to all the stars. Billy Graham as a notable exception, as he was vocal about his beliefs that "there are intelligent beings like us far away in space who worship God." J. Warner Wallace: What impact does this question (and even more importantly, the answer to this question) have on the claims of Christianity and the truth of the Christian worldview? Jeff Zweerink, astrophysicist and Christian: Many people seem to think that discovering life on another planet would mean that naturalism is correct and Christianity is wrong. One thing I found fascinating is that for centuries Christians have thought about the implications of intelligent life in the universe. As I investigated the truth claims of Christianity, I realized that the existence of life of any sort beyond the confines of Earth is a great theological question—without a definitive answer. At this time, I am convinced that any hypothetical discovery of life in the universe will still point to God's creative work and ultimately help us understand God's revelation better. I'm with Jeff here. Some people do indeed seem to think that finding life on other planets would prove the Bible - or Christianity wrong somehow.  To that, I saw - How and Why would such a thing disprove God or the Bible? If God made life on planet Earth - and He did - then why couldn't He make it elsewhere?    To those Christians who seem to think that God would only make life on earth - I say, again, why would He do that? Why would He create billions of planets - most outside of our ability to see or observe...and leave them devoid of any inhabitants?   In absence of Scripture, or absolute proof of alien life, conjecture proves nothing, but that cuts both ways. Merely speculating that God would not create life on other planets does not prove that it is so. The question we are grappling with today is this one: Does the Bible rule out alien life, and the answer - the CLEAR answer...is NO! It does not. William Lane Craig, 2008 episode of Reasonable Faith: Dr. Craig: Yeah. Well, I think that it's possible. [that there is alien life]  One would argue that if there is life on other planets it would have had to be created by God because on a naturalistic basis I think we'd say that the evidence against there being intelligent extraterrestrial life anywhere in the observable universe is extremely great. The probabilities on naturalism that there is extraterrestrial intelligent life is virtually nil. So actually being a theist would be the best grounds for thinking that it could be possible because as a theist you think God created life here on this planet so then you could say, well, maybe God created life as well on some other planet somewhere in the universe. It is really the theist who is, I think, a lot more open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life than the non-theist…. Kevin Harris: This brings up the issue of UFOs and aliens invading earth and all the things that are in pop culture to this day – flying saucer phenomena and things like that. Well, the Vatican astronomer has just said it could be. You can make up your own mind about that. It seems, Dr. Craig, that the Bible is largely silent about this issue. Dr. Craig: I think it is silent, Kevin. The Scriptures are given to human beings as God's revelation to people on this planet. Therefore, there is no reason to think that there could not be persons that God has created in some unknown galaxy that we have no idea about, and he has provided a revelation of himself to them as well. I think it would be presumptuous to say that we know that he hasn't done that. Kevin Harris: He says that the possibility of extraterrestrial life does not contradict our faith. In other words, if a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn today, nobody could stand up and say Christianity is false.  Dr. Craig: That is right. That seems to me to be correct. I am puzzled by folks who seem to think that if intelligent life were discovered somewhere else or that if it were to come here that somehow this would be a disproof of Christianity. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow because Christianity simply doesn't speak to the question of whether or not God has created life elsewhere in the universe. If somebody tells you that there could be no aliens from a Bible/Christian perspective, ask them to show you clear backing for such a thing from Scripture. If you believe that, then please, please, please send me your Scriptural reasons for such a belief. Just Be sure you aren't making VAST leaps in logic. For example, the Bible clearly says Jesus died for our sins, if there are aliens, then how would God redeem them?  That's a great question, and I don't know the answer, but it certainly doesn't prove that there are no aliens. Perhaps our hypothetical aliens did not fall, like Adam and Eve did. Perhaps they are indeed redeemed by Christ's sacrifice in a way that we don't understand. Who Knows?! But I do know that I can find no Scripture that clearly denies the possibility of alien life, or that clearly affirms the existence of alien life. I can also find no Scripture, the implications of which would logically rule out either outcome.  Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created. (Ps. 148:1–5) Are there aliens? I've no idea. I think the wisest and best and most biblical answer is either “Maybe” or “I don't know.” To assert otherwise is borderline irresponsible. BUT - if there ARE aliens, does this pose a threat to Scripture? Absolutely not. You can't contradict what isn't there. In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin, the first true antibiotic. Did this MASSIVELY IMPORTANT DISCOVERY contradict the Bible? Of course not - because the Bible never discussed nor addressed such a thing.  Similarly, the discovery of alien life - if it happens at all - will not at all shake any Scriptural truth in the Bible - NOT A ONE. Will it shake our lives? Maybe so. But, you can't find aliens in the Scripture. Not clearly. Likewise, you can't find the United States in Scripture either, and that ‘omission' seems to rightly bother no one. It is not incumbent upon God to reveal to man all important future events in His Word. Ultimately, I stand with Spurgeon, and actually stood with Spurgeon before I knew his position on this question. It took a lot of research to find this quote, but here you go:  What God has done in the eternity which we call the past (but which to him is as the present), we do not fully know. We have no reason to believe that we know much of what God has done. There may be as many other worlds and sorts of beings existent as there are sands upon the sea shore, for aught we know; and the Lord may have been occupied in ages past with ten thousand glorious plans, and economies, as yet unrevealed to man. We cannot tell what he doeth, or what he hath done. We are creatures of a day, and know nothing; we are like insects that are born on a leaf, and die amid our fellows at the setting of the sun, but he lives on for ever. We talk of the “eternal hills,” but they are babes that were born yesterday, as far as he is concerned. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” We say, “Roll on, thou ancient ocean!” but the ocean is not ancient; it is a drop that fell yesterday from the tip of the Creator's finger. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Eternal Truth of God,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 21 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1875), 651. Spurgeon: To us, to-day, the coming of Christ to seek and to save the lost is an accomplished fact, a matter of history, most sure and certain. And what a fact it is! You have often thought of it, but have you ever worked your mind into the very heart of it,—that God has actually visited this world in human form,—that he before whom angels bow has actually been here, in fashion like ourselves, feeding the hungry crowds of Palestine, healing their sick, and raising their dead? I know not what may be the peculiar boast of other planets, but this poor star cannot be excelled, for on this world the Creator has stood. This earth has been trodden by the feet of God, and yet it was not crushed beneath the mighty burden, because he deigned to link his Deity with our humanity. The incarnation is a wonder of wonders, but it does not belong to the realm of imagination, or even of expectation, for it has actually been beheld by mortal eyes. C. H. Spurgeon, “Christ the Seeker and Saviour of the Lost,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 58 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1912), 314. SKIP. INCLUDE IN BOOK. There are also triple stars, or systems, and quadruple systems, and there are, in some cases, hundreds or thousands all spinning round one another, and around their central luminaries. Wonderful combinations of glory and beauty may be seen in the stellar sky; and some of these stars are red, some blue, some yellow, all the colours of the rainbow are represented in them. It would be very wonderful to live in one of them, and to look across the sky, and see all the glories of the heavens that God has made. On the whole, however, for the present, I am quite content to abide upon this little planet, especially as I am not able to change it for another home, until God so wills it. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 177. CLOSE WITH EXTENDED READING OF LEWIS' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION:  From Christian Reflections: an essay Called, “The Seeing Eye”  Some people are troubled, and others are delighted, at the idea of finding not one, but perhaps innumerable rational species scattered about the universe. In both cases the emotion arises from a belief that such discoveries would be fatal to Christian theology. For it will be said that theology connects the Incarnation of God with the Fall and Redemption of man. And this would seem to attribute to our species and to our little planet a central position in cosmic history which is not credible if rationally inhabited planets are to be had by the million. Older readers will, with me, notice the vast change in astronomical speculation which this view involves. When we were boys all astronomers, so far as I know, impressed upon us the antecedent improbabilities of life in any part of the universe whatever. It was not thought unlikely that this earth was the solitary exception to a universal reign of the inorganic. Now Professor Hoyle, and many with him, say that in so vast a universe life must have occurred in times and places without number. The interesting thing is that I have heard both these estimates used as arguments against Christianity. Now it seems to me that we must find out more than we can at present know—which is nothing—about hypothetical rational species before we can say what theological corollaries or difficulties their discovery would raise. We might, for example, find a race which was, like us, rational but, unlike us, innocent—no wars nor any other wickedness among them; all peace and good fellowship. I don't think any Christian would be puzzled to find that they knew no story of an Incarnation or Redemption, and might even find our story hard to understand or accept if we told it to them. There would have been no Redemption in such a world because it would not have needed redeeming. ‘They that are whole need not the physician.' The sheep that has never strayed need not be sought for. We should have much to learn from such people and nothing to teach them. If we were wise, we should fall at their feet. But probably we should be unable to ‘take it'. We'd find some reason for exterminating them. Again, we might find a race which, like ours, contained both good and bad. And we might find that for them, as for us, something had been done: that at some point in their history some great interference for the better, believed by some of them to be supernatural, had been recorded, and that its effects, though often impeded and perverted, were still alive among them. It need not, as far as I can see, have conformed to the pattern of Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection. God may have other ways—how should I be able to imagine them?—of redeeming a lost world. And Redemption in that alien mode might not be easily recognizable by our missionaries, let alone by our atheists. We might meet a species which, like us, needed Redemption but had not been given it. But would this fundamentally be more of a difficulty than any Christian's first meeting with a new tribe of savages? It would be our duty to preach the Gospel to them. For if they are rational, capable both of sin and repentance, they are our brethren, whatever they look like. Would this spreading of the Gospel from earth, through man, imply a pre-eminence for earth and man? Not in any real sense. If a thing is to begin at all, it must begin at some particular time and place; and any time and place raises the question: ‘Why just then and just there?' One can conceive an extraterrestrial development of Christianity so brilliant that earth's place in the story might sink to that of a prologue. Finally, we might find a race which was strictly diabolical—no tiniest spark felt in them from which any goodness could ever be coaxed into the feeblest glow; all of them incurably perverted through and through. What then? We Christians had always been told that there were creatures like that in existence. True, we thought they were all incorporeal spirits. A minor readjustment thus becomes necessary. But all this is in the realm of fantastic speculation. We are trying to cross a bridge, not only before we come to it, but even before we know there is a river that needs bridging. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 174–176. Religion and Rocketry - 1958 RELIGION AND ROCKETRY In my time I have heard two quite different arguments against my religion put forward in the name of science. When I was a youngster, people used to say that the universe was not only not friendly to life but positively hostile to it. Life had appeared on this planet by a millionth chance, as if at one point there had been a breakdown of the elaborate defences generally enforced against it. We should be rash to assume that such a leak had occurred more than once. Probably life was a purely terrestrial abnormality. We were alone in an infinite desert. Which just showed the absurdity of the Christian idea that there was a Creator who was interested in living creatures. But then came Professor F. B. Hoyle, the Cambridge cosmologist, and in a fortnight or so everyone I met seemed to have decided that the universe was probably quite well provided with inhabitable globes and with livestock to inhabit them. Which just showed (equally well) the absurdity of Christianity with its parochial idea that Man could be important to God. This is a warning of what we may expect if we ever do discover animal life (vegetable does not matter) on another planet. Each new discovery, even every new theory, is held at first to have the most wide-reaching theological and philosophical consequences. It is seized by unbelievers as the basis for a new attack on Christianity; it is often, and more embarrassingly, seized by injudicious believers as the basis for a new defence. But usually, when the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists, and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before. So it was with Copernican astronomy, with Darwinism, with Biblical Criticism, with the new psychology. So, I cannot help expecting, it will be with the discovery of ‘life on other planets'—if that discovery is ever made. The supposed threat is clearly directed against the doctrine of the Incarnation, the belief that God born of God ‘for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was . . . made man'. Why for us men more than for others? If we find ourselves to be but one among a million races, scattered through a million spheres, how can we, without absurd arrogance, believe ourselves to have been uniquely favoured? I admit that the question could become formidable. In fact, it will become formidable when, if ever, we know the answer to five other questions. 1. Are there animals anywhere except on earth? We do not know. We do not know whether we ever shall know. 2. Supposing there were, have any of these animals what we call ‘rational souls'? By this I include not merely the faculty to abstract and calculate, but the apprehension of values, the power to mean by ‘good 'something more than ‘good for me' or even ‘good for my species'. If instead of asking, ‘Have they rational souls?' you prefer to ask, ‘Are they spiritual animals?' I think we shall both mean pretty much the same. If the answer to either question should be No, then of course it would not be at all strange that our species should be treated differently from theirs. There would be no sense in offering to a creature, however clever or amiable, a gift which that creature was by its nature incapable either of desiring or of receiving. We teach our sons to read but not our dogs. The dogs prefer bones. And of course, since we do not yet know whether there are extra-terrestrial animals at all, we are a long way from knowing that they are rational (or ‘spiritual'). Even if we met them we might not find it so easy to decide. It seems to me possible to suppose creatures so clever that they could talk, though they were, from the theological point of view, really only animals, capable of pursuing or enjoying only natural ends. One meets humans—the machine-minded and materialistic urban type—who look as if they were just that. As Christians we must believe the appearance to be false; somewhere under that glib surface there lurks, however atrophied, a human soul. But in other worlds there might be things that really are what these seem to be. Conversely, there might be creatures genuinely spiritual, whose powers of manufacture and abstract thought were so humble that we should mistake them for mere animals. God shield them from us! 3. If there are species, and rational species, other than man, are any or all of them, like us, fallen? This is the point non-Christians always seem to forget. They seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician.Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it. Notice what waves of utterly unwarranted hypothesis these critics of Christianity want us to swim through. We are now supposing the fall of hypothetically rational creatures whose mere existence is hypothetical! 4. If all of them (and surely all is a long shot) or any of them have fallen have they been denied Redemption by the Incarnation and Passion of Christ? For of course it is no very new idea that the eternal Son may, for all we know, have been incarnate in other worlds than earth and so saved other races than ours. As Alice Meynell wrote in ‘Christ in the Universe': I wouldn't go as far as ‘doubtless' myself. Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek. Or perhaps—but this brings us to the next wave of assumption. It is the biggest yet and will knock us head over heels, but I am fond of a tumble in the surf. 5. If we knew (which we don't) the answers to 1, 2, and 3—and, further, if we knew that Redemption by an Incarnation and Passion had been denied to creatures in need of it—is it certain that this is the only mode of Redemption that is possible? Here of course we ask for what is not merely unknown but, unless God should reveal it, wholly unknowable. It may be that the further we were permitted to see into His councils, the more clearly we should understand that thus and not otherwise—by the birth at Bethlehem, the cross on Calvary and the empty tomb—a fallen race could be rescued. There may be a necessity for this, insurmountable, rooted in the very nature of God and the very nature of sin. But we don't know. At any rate, I don't know. Spiritual as well as physical conditions might differ widely in different worlds. There might be different sorts and different degrees of fallenness. We must surely believe that the divine charity is as fertile in resource as it is measureless in condescension. To different diseases, or even to different patients sick with the same disease, the great Physician may have applied different remedies; remedies which we should probably not recognise as such even if we ever heard of them. It might turn out that the redemption of other species differed from ours by working through ours. There is a hint of something like this in St Paul (Romans 8:19–23) when he says that the whole creation is longing and waiting to be delivered from some kind of slavery, and that the deliverance will occur only when we, we Christians, fully enter upon our sonship to God and exercise our ‘glorious liberty'. On the conscious level I believe that he was thinking only of our own Earth: of animal, and probably vegetable, life on Earth being ‘renewed' or glorified at the glorification of man in Christ. But it is perhaps possible—it is not necessary—to give his words a cosmic meaning. It may be that Redemption, starting with us, is to work from us and through us. This would no doubt give man a pivotal position. But such a position need not imply any superiority in us or any favouritism in God. The general, deciding where to begin his attack, does not select the prettiest landscape or the most fertile field or the most attractive village. Christ was not born in a stable because a stable is, in itself, the most convenient or distinguished place for a maternity. Only if we had some such function would a contact between us and such unknown races be other than a calamity. If indeed we were unfallen, it would be another matter. It sets one dreaming—to interchange thoughts with beings whose thinking had an organic background wholly different from ours (other senses, other appetites), to be unenviously humbled by intellects possibly superior to our own yet able for that very reason to descend to our level, to descend lovingly ourselves if we met innocent and childlike creatures who could never be as strong or as clever as we, to exchange with the inhabitants of other worlds that especially keen and rich affection which exists between unlikes; it is a glorious dream. But make no mistake. It is a dream. We are fallen. We know what our race does to strangers. Man destroys or enslaves every species he can. Civilised man murders, enslaves, cheats, and corrupts savage man. Even inanimate nature he turns into dust bowls and slag-heaps. There are individuals who don't. But they are not the sort who are likely to be our pioneers in space. Our ambassador to new worlds will be the needy and greedy adventurer or the ruthless technical expert. They will do as their kind has always done. What that will be if they meet things weaker than themselves, the black man and the red man can tell. If they meet things stronger, they will be, very properly, destroyed. It is interesting to wonder how things would go if they met an unfallen race. At first, to be sure, they'd have a grand time jeering at, duping, and exploiting its innocence; but I doubt if our half-animal cunning would long be a match for godlike wisdom, selfless valour, and perfect unanimity. I therefore fear the practical, not the theoretical, problems which will arise if ever we meet rational creatures which are not human. Against them we shall, if we can, commit all the crimes we have already committed against creatures certainly human but differing from us in features and pigmentation; and the starry heavens will become an object to which good men can look up only with feelings of intolerable guilt, agonized pity, and burning shame. Of course after the first debauch of exploitation we shall make some belated attempt to do better. We shall perhaps send missionaries. But can even missionaries be trusted? ‘Gun and gospel' have been horribly combined in the past. The missionary's holy desire to save souls has not always been kept quite distinct from the arrogant desire, the busybody's itch, to (as he calls it) ‘civilise' the (as he calls them) ‘natives'. Would all our missionaries recognise an unfallen race if they met it? Could they? Would they continue to press upon creatures that did not need to be saved that plan of Salvation which God has appointed for Man? Would they denounce as sins mere differences of behaviour which the spiritual and biological history of these strange creatures fully justified and which God Himself had blessed? Would they try to teach those from whom they had better learn? I do not know. What I do know is that here and now, as our only possible practical preparation for such a meeting, you and I should resolve to stand firm against all exploitation and all theological imperialism. It will not be fun. We shall be called traitors to our own species. We shall be hated of almost all men; even of some religious men. And we must not give back one single inch. We shall probably fail, but let us go down fighting for the right side. Our loyalty is due not to our species but to God. Those who are, or can become, His sons, are our real brothers even if they have shells or tusks. It is spiritual, not biological, kinship that counts. But let us thank God that we are still very far from travel to other worlds. I have wondered before now whether the vast astronomical distances may not be God's quarantine precautions. They prevent the spiritual infection of a fallen species from spreading. And of course we are also very far from the supposed theological problem which contact with other rational species might raise. Such species may not exist. There is not at present a shred of empirical evidence that they do. There is nothing but what thelogicians would call arguments from ‘a priori probability'—arguments that begin ‘It is only natural to suppose', or ‘All analogy suggests', or ‘Is it not the height of arrogance to rule out—?' They make very good reading. But who except a born gambler ever risks five dollars on such grounds in ordinary life? And, as we have seen, the mere existence of these creatures would not raise a problem. After that, we still need to know that they are fallen; then, that they have not been, or will not be, redeemed in the mode we know; and then, that no other mode is possible. I think a Christian is sitting pretty if his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms. If I remember rightly, St Augustine raised a question about the theological position of satyrs, monopods, and other semi-human creatures. He decided it could wait till we knew there were any. So can this. ‘But supposing,' you say. ‘Supposing all these embarrassing suppositions turned out to be true?' I can only record a conviction that they won't; a conviction which has for me become in the course of years irresistible.Christians and their opponents again and again expect that some new discovery will either turn matters of faith into matters of knowledge or else reduce them to patent absurdities. But it has never happened. What we believe always remains intellectually possible; it never becomes intellectually compulsive. I have an idea that when this ceases to be so, the world will be ending. We have been warned that all but conclusive evidence against Christianity, evidence that would deceive (if it were possible) the very elect, will appear with Antichrist. And after that there will be wholly conclusive evidence on the other side. But not, I fancy, till then on either side. SPURGEON: I suppose you are all aware that among the old systems of astronomy was one which placed the earth in the centre, and made the sun, and the moon, and the stars revolve around it. “Its three fundamental principles were the immobility of the earth, its central position, and the daily revolution of all the heavenly bodies around it in circular orbits.” Now, in a similar fashion, there is a way of making a system of theology of which man is the centre, by which it is implied that Christ and his atoning sacrifice are only made for man's sake, and that the Holy Spirit is merely a great Worker on man's behalf, and that even the great and glorious Father is to be viewed simply as existing for the sake of making man happy. Well, that may be the system of theology adopted by some; but, brethren, we must not fall into that error, for, just as the earth is not the centre of the universe, so man is not the grandest of all beings. God has been pleased highly to exalt man; but we must remember how the psalmist speaks of him: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” In another place, David says, “Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.” Man cannot be the centre of the theological universe, he is altogether too insignificant a being to occupy such a position, and the scheme of redemption must exist for some other end than that of merely making man happy, or even of making him holy. The salvation of man must surely be first of all for the glory of God; and you have discovered the right form of Christian doctrine when you have found the system that has God in the centre, ruling and controlling according to the good pleasure of his will. Do not dwarf man so as to make it appear that God has no care for him; for if you do that, you slander God. Give to man the position that God has assigned to him; by doing so, you will have a system of theology in which all the truths of revelation and experience will move in glorious order and harmony around the great central orb, the Divine Sovereign Ruler of the universe, God over all, blessed for ever. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 149.

Note: The Shownotes and Transcript below are a bit of a trainwork editing wise. I'll polish them up soon! C.S. Lewis from His essay The Seeing Eye, found in Christian Reflections: 1963, 6 years before the Moon Landing.  (Discussing Space travel) a more practical issue will arise when, if ever, we discover rational creatures on other planets. I think myself, this is a very remote contingency. The balance of probability is against life on any other planet of the solar system. We shall hardly find it nearer than the stars. And even if we reach the Moon we shall be no nearer to stellar travel than the first man who paddled across a river was to crossing the Pacific.This thought is welcome to me because, to be frank, I have no pleasure in looking forward to a meeting between humanity and any alien rational species. I observe how the white man has hitherto treated the black, and how, even among civilized men, the stronger have treated the weaker. If we encounter in the depth of space a race, however innocent and amiable, which is technologically weaker than ourselves, I do not doubt that the same revolting story will be repeated. We shall enslave, deceive, exploit or exterminate; at the very least we shall corrupt it with our vices and infect it with our diseases. We are not fit yet to visit other worlds. We have filled our own with massacre, torture, syphilis, famine, dust bowls and with all that is hideous to ear or eye. Must we go on to infect new realms?  It was in part these reflections that first moved me to make my own small contributions to science fiction. In those days writers in that genre almost automatically represented the inhabitants of other worlds as monsters and the terrestrial invaders as good. Since then the opposite set-up has become fairly common. If I could believe that I had in any degree contributed to this change, I should be a proud man.1 The same problem, by the way, is beginning to threaten us as regards the dolphins. I don't think it has yet been proved that they are rational. But if they are, we have no more right to enslave them than to enslave our fellow-men. And some of us will continue to say this, but we shall be mocked. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 173–174. This science (astronomy) ought to be the special delight of ministers of the gospel, for surely it brings us into closer connection with God than almost any other science does. It has been said that an undevout astronomer is mad. I should say that an undevout man of any sort is mad,—with the worst form of madness; but, certainly, he who has become acquainted with the stars in the heavens, and who yet has not found out the great Father of lights, the Lord who made them all, must be stricken with a dire madness. Kepler, the great mathematical astronomer, who has so well explained many of the laws which govern the universe, closes one of his books, his Harmonics, with this reverent and devout expression of his feelings:—“I give thee thanks, Lord and Creator, that thou hast given me joy through thy creation; for I have been ravished with the work of thy hands. I have revealed unto mankind the glory of thy works, as far as my limited spirit could conceive their infinitude. Should I have brought forward anything that is unworthy of thee, or should I have sought my own fame, be graciously pleased to forgive me.” And you know how the mighty Newton, a very prince among the sons of men, was continually driven to his knees as he looked upwards to the skies, and discovered fresh wonders in the starry heavens. Therefore, the science which tends to bring men to bow in humility before the Lord should always be a favourite study with us whose business it is to inculcate reverence for God in all who come under our influence. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 145. Today's Question: At the very beginning of this podcast, I promised you that we would sometimes delve into wild and wacky areas of the Bible, and today is the day we begin that journey! Most of the time, we will play it straight, but the fact is that there are many interesting/mysterious and downright strange parts of the Bible, and I don't think we should ignore them, nor explain them away with a handwave. Let's embrace the weird!  And, by the way, if this topic is interesting to you at all, then please check out my book Monsters in the Bible. It's my bestselling book of this year, which is funny, and from time to time, it ranks in Amazon's top ten for Occult Satanism...which is strange, to say the least, for a southern Baptist pastor. (I did NOT choose that category!)  Vanderbilt astronomer David Weintraub reports that 55 percent of atheists believe in alien life, but only 32 percent of Christians. Weintraub wrote, "Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christian leaders argue quite forcefully that the Bible makes clear that extraterrestrial life does not exist. From this perspective, the only living, God-worshipping beings in the entire universe are humans, created by God, who live on Earth."  DOES THE BIBLE REALLY, REALLY MAKE THAT CLEAR??! Calvary Chapel Church in Roswell, New Mexico (80 miles away from the Mac Brazel ranch, Roswell 1947 incident), would half-way agree. for instance, “Biblically IF there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible and He did not.  The Bible never speaks of Aliens from another planet. Further, there is no way they would crash and die here on planet earth. Death entered our world through Adam and effected everything on this planet.  If there are Aliens, they would not be exposed to this curse.”  LOTS OF SUPPOSITIONS HERE THAT AREN'T BACKED UP BY SCRIPTURE.  “She smiled at me, therefore she likes me.” maybe, maybe not. It's a supposition, but is it supported by fact??  Let's take that first sentence and see how it logically holds up. “If there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.”  How about this: “IF Man were to travel to the moon, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.” “If the United States of America would be the dominant superpower of the world in the 21st century, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.”   “If atoms were the building blocks of all matter, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not.”   Such statements suppose that God is OBLIGATED to tell us about everything in the Bible. He is under no such obligation, so we can't assume things that we are left in the dark about. All the love in the world to Calvary Chapel, Roswell, though. I'm a fan. So, I'm also a fan of podcasts...a podcast connoisseur. I am subscribed to over one 100 podcasts of all shapes and sizes. Many of them are Christian podcasts, but many are not. In case you're curious, here's my current top ten podcasts. I'd love to hear yours too - tweet them to me at @bibleqpodcast. In no particular order:  Ask Pastor John - John Piper, excellent biblical counsel.  The Omnibus with Ken Jennings and John Roderick. Hilarious and informative.  Ryen Russillo podcast - ESPN sports. My favorite sports commentator.  SYSK with Josh and Chuck, have been a listener for over ten years.  Astonishing Legends with Scott Philbrook and Forrest Burgess.  Rainer on Leadership - Thom Rainer The Bible Project with Tim Mackie and Jon Collins Fantasy Focus Football - Matthew Berry (Avengers Endgame) True Crime Garage (warning: swearing)  Payne Lindsey Podcasts - Monster, + Up and Vanished. Anyway...I was listening to one of the above, the Astonishing Legends podcast a few weeks ago. They were talking about a fairly fascinating object called the Betz Sphere that a family in Florida found in the woods in the 70s. The Betz Sphere demonstrated all sorts of unusual properties, and drew the interest of some news organizations and government people, including the former head of Project Blue book, Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Project Blue Book:(wikipedia): Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force. It started in 1952, the third study of its kind, following projects Sign (1947) and Grudge (1949). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices officially ceased in January 1970. Project Blue Book had two goals: To determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and To scientifically analyze UFO-related data. J.Allen Hynek was the science advisor to Grudge, Sign and Blue Book.  Wikipedia: Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was an American astronomer, professor, and ufologist.[1]  In later years he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the "Close Encounter" classification system. He was among the first people to conduct scientific analysis of reports and especially of trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.[ Anyway, during his time researching the Betz sphere, Dr. J. Allen Hynek became good friends with the Betz family, getting to know them pretty well over the course of several visits.  According to the Betz family, Dr. Hynek told them that the U.S. government was aware of several alien encounters/visitations, including Roswell, and had covered up most of them, so that the general public wouldn't freak out. Why would the public freak out? Well, apparently Dr. Hynek believe that, at least in part, that major religions, including Christianity, would have a large negative reaction to the existence of aliens, because that would seemingly contradict the teachings of the church, and the teachings of the Bible. Hynek believed that society might fall apart, if people knew that aliens actually existed.  Now, let me pause for a moment. As much as I'm interested in this sort of thing, today's episode is NOT fundamentally about whether aliens exist and have made contact with us or not. I do actually know the answer to that question, but I can't give it to you now, its classified.  ;) In truth, actually, I have no idea. BUT, because I can't help myself, I will say this one thing about the possibility of aliens.  A Washington Post article at the end of April really got my attention:  Recently, unidentified aircraft have entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month, Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for office of the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told The Washington Post on Wednesday. He said, “We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who's doing it, where it's coming from and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again.” Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer, told The Post that the new Navy guidelines formalized the reporting process, facilitating data-driven analysis while removing the stigma from talking about UFOs, calling it “the single greatest decision the Navy has made in decades.” Elizondo, who ran the AATIP, (This is the multi-million dollar Pentagon program that investigates UFOs and was on the government budget books until 2012, when it was delisted on those budget books)  said the newly drafted guidelines were a culmination of many things, most notably that the Navy had enough credible evidence — including eyewitness accounts and corroborating radar information — to “know this is occurring.” “If I came to you and said, ‘There are these things that can fly over our country with impunity, defying the laws of physics, and within moments could deploy a nuclear device at will,' that would be a matter of national security,” Elizondo said. With the number of U.S. military personnel in the Air Force and Navy who described the same observations, the noise level could not be ignored. “This type of activity is very alarming,” Elizondo said, “and people are recognizing there are things in our aerospace that lie beyond our understanding.” Before you get excited that this new initiative might finally clue in the public, I need to tell you that the WaPost ran an article the next week that basically said that the Navy was NOT going to be released to the public. Mr. Gradisher said, ““Furthermore, any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. He added, “Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected.””” So yeah, expect to be in the dark a few more years, at least. But today's question is not whether or not the U.S. Government will finally disclose Alien interactions, but whether or not the Bible rules out the existence of aliens at all! Is Dr. Hynek correct - if the Government suddenly announced alien contact of some kind - would that somehow invalidate the Bible?  And the answer is…. I don't think so. Not at all.   But, I could be wrong, and many theologians disagree with me. Let's look at the  anti-alien case:  GotQuestions https://www.gotquestions.org/aliens-Christian.html, “We do not believe that aliens exist. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe; in fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. Those who contemplate the existence of aliens and the impact their existence would have on the Christian faith commonly discuss the identity and work of Jesus. God sent His only begotten Son, God incarnate, to save mankind and redeem creation. Does that redemption include life on other planets? Or would God have manifested Himself on those other planets, as well (in the manner of Aslan in Narnia)? Does “only begotten” mean “only physical representation”? Or is it more limited, referring only to the human species?   WE DON'T KNOW!!  Another topic of discussion concerning the existence of aliens and Christianity is what it means to be made in the “image of God.” Since God has no physical body, we take this to mean a reflection of God's non-physical aspects—rationality, morality, and sociability. Would aliens, if they exist, embody the same characteristics?  WHY NOT?  Considering what we know about space and life and the world as the Bible portrays it, we already have an explanation for so-called alien activity on Earth. Reports of “close encounters” describe the ethereal, transient, deceptive, and malevolent. Accounts also record that encounters with supposed aliens can be stopped by a real, authentic call to Jesus. Everything points to the activity of demons, not extraterrestrials. In fact, it is plausible that the “powerful delusion” spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 will involve an alien-abduction theory to explain away the rapture.  I actually don't think most UFO reports - reported by seasoned Navy and Air-Force pilots, for instance, really has much in common with demonic episodes we see in Scripture.  The “discovery” of alien life would have no effect on genuine Christianity. COMPLETELY AGREE The Bible stands as written, no matter what secular theories are advanced or discoveries are claimed. The Bible says the earth and mankind are unique in God's creation. God created the earth even before He created the sun, moon, or stars (Genesis 1).  Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and He called the darkness “night.” Evening came and then morning: the first day. (It actually seems to say that God created the Heavens first...then the earth.) Matt Slick/CARM: The Bible does not mention extraterrestrial or alien life. However, it does mention angels and demonic forces which are, in a sense, not of this world. This is not the kind of alien, extraterrestrial life that most people are talking about when the subject comes up. Nevertheless, the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of aliens from other planets who might be visiting us. Now, Slick goes on from here to argue against alien life being likely, because he believes that the Bible declares all creation on all worlds fallen by what Adam did. That is certainly one way of reading the text, but I don't think that is the necessary way of reading the text. Paul could be speaking of all of creation on the earth.  For instance, in Colossians 1:23, Paul writes: This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a servant of it.What does this mean- that the Gospel has been proclaimed on Pluto? I don't think so. I believe Paul meant that the Gospel had been proclaimed in all of KNOWN creation. Michael Houdmann: Above all, let me say, I do not believe aliens exist. Let's also differentiate between sentient aliens and non-sentient aliens. While I would not necessarily have a theological problem with the concept of non-sentient beings (fish, birds, dogs, etc.) existing on other planets, I do have a huge theological problem with the concept of other sentient beings existing elsewhere. It just does not mesh with the teachings of the Bible. The Bible presents humanity as uniquely created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Angels are not created in the image of God. Animals are not created in the image of God. According to the Bible, we are unique, specifically created to have a personal relationship and connection with God the Creator. Intelligent/sentient life in other parts of the universe destroys, or at least weakens, this uniqueness. And it raises all kinds of questions. When did God create the aliens? Do the sentient aliens have an eternal soul? Did they fall into sin? Did God reveal Himself to them? Does their understanding of God match what the Bible says? Did God provide them with an alien Bible? Did God provide for and offer them redemption and salvation? If so, how? Did Jesus die for them too?Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”  Notice how it doesn't say Let us make man - and man alone in all of the universe - in our Image. Houdmann goes on to say: All joking aside, if God intended for humankind to meet alien life, He would have outlined these encounters in the Bible, along with an answer to what He has done for them regarding sin.I just don't agree with that speculation. I like Houdmann and Got questions a ton, and find them very faithful to the Bible, but this is speculation that I find unbacked by biblical truth. HOW do we know that God would do this? How can we prove such a thing? I just don't think we can. I feel like such speculations are very similar to Lactantius' (an early church father in the 200s) scoffing at the possibility that the earth was round. He could NOT cite a Scripture to prove the earth was flat - as he thought - but he assumed that Scripture taught such a thing, WHEN IT DOES NOT. Similarly, Augustine poo-pood the existence of Antipodes on the other side of the world, thinking that Scripture backed that belief up, but it doesn't, and Augustine was wrong. GIVE ME CLEAR SCRIPTURE THAT SHOWS LIFE ON EARTH IS UNIQUE and I will believe it against all charges...but such a Scripture does NOT exist. TBR Baptist Facebook Group:  Jim I thought this was a serious group  Well - He's new. Also, I genuinely think this is a serious topic!  Wes Apparently, some were aliens at one point Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God  Similarly Doug Hibbard 1 Peter suggests that *you* are the aliens  Jim Spiritual Wickedness in heavenly places, Rulers and authorities. Demons dressed up like them. Jacob I think the possibility of aliens falls apart when discussing the fall. As best as we can tell the whole universe is subject to the natural effects of the curse. If that is true, then another rational species, which did not fall, is out there subjected to the consequences of it. Do these aliens have their own Salvation history? Did they, somehow, simultaneously fall alongside Adam, and have their own Jesus? If, in keeping with Scripture, the crucifixion of Christ is a one time event, then another race would be subject to a punishment that they do not deserve with no possible hope for salvation. Pro Brandon Ambrosino on BBC.Com http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react : But how could a believer reconcile this with their faith that humans are the crowning achievement of God's creation?. How could humans believe they were the apple of their creator's eye if their planet was just one of billions? The discovery of intelligent aliens could have a similar Copernican effect on human's self-understanding. Would the discovery make believers feel insignificant, and as a consequence, cause people to question their faith? According to the Talmud, God spends his night flying throughout 18,000 worlds I would argue that this concern is misguided. The claim that God is involved with and moved by humans has never required an Earth-centric theology. The Psalms, sacred to both Jews and Christians, claim that God has given names to all the stars. Billy Graham as a notable exception, as he was vocal about his beliefs that "there are intelligent beings like us far away in space who worship God." J. Warner Wallace: What impact does this question (and even more importantly, the answer to this question) have on the claims of Christianity and the truth of the Christian worldview? Jeff Zweerink, astrophysicist and Christian: Many people seem to think that discovering life on another planet would mean that naturalism is correct and Christianity is wrong. One thing I found fascinating is that for centuries Christians have thought about the implications of intelligent life in the universe. As I investigated the truth claims of Christianity, I realized that the existence of life of any sort beyond the confines of Earth is a great theological question—without a definitive answer. At this time, I am convinced that any hypothetical discovery of life in the universe will still point to God's creative work and ultimately help us understand God's revelation better. I'm with Jeff here. Some people do indeed seem to think that finding life on other planets would prove the Bible - or Christianity wrong somehow.  To that, I saw - How and Why would such a thing disprove God or the Bible? If God made life on planet Earth - and He did - then why couldn't He make it elsewhere?    To those Christians who seem to think that God would only make life on earth - I say, again, why would He do that? Why would He create billions of planets - most outside of our ability to see or observe...and leave them devoid of any inhabitants?   In absence of Scripture, or absolute proof of alien life, conjecture proves nothing, but that cuts both ways. Merely speculating that God would not create life on other planets does not prove that it is so. The question we are grappling with today is this one: Does the Bible rule out alien life, and the answer - the CLEAR answer...is NO! It does not. William Lane Craig, 2008 episode of Reasonable Faith: Dr. Craig: Yeah. Well, I think that it's possible. [that there is alien life]  One would argue that if there is life on other planets it would have had to be created by God because on a naturalistic basis I think we'd say that the evidence against there being intelligent extraterrestrial life anywhere in the observable universe is extremely great. The probabilities on naturalism that there is extraterrestrial intelligent life is virtually nil. So actually being a theist would be the best grounds for thinking that it could be possible because as a theist you think God created life here on this planet so then you could say, well, maybe God created life as well on some other planet somewhere in the universe. It is really the theist who is, I think, a lot more open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life than the non-theist…. Kevin Harris: This brings up the issue of UFOs and aliens invading earth and all the things that are in pop culture to this day – flying saucer phenomena and things like that. Well, the Vatican astronomer has just said it could be. You can make up your own mind about that. It seems, Dr. Craig, that the Bible is largely silent about this issue. Dr. Craig: I think it is silent, Kevin. The Scriptures are given to human beings as God's revelation to people on this planet. Therefore, there is no reason to think that there could not be persons that God has created in some unknown galaxy that we have no idea about, and he has provided a revelation of himself to them as well. I think it would be presumptuous to say that we know that he hasn't done that. Kevin Harris: He says that the possibility of extraterrestrial life does not contradict our faith. In other words, if a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn today, nobody could stand up and say Christianity is false.  Dr. Craig: That is right. That seems to me to be correct. I am puzzled by folks who seem to think that if intelligent life were discovered somewhere else or that if it were to come here that somehow this would be a disproof of Christianity. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow because Christianity simply doesn't speak to the question of whether or not God has created life elsewhere in the universe. If somebody tells you that there could be no aliens from a Bible/Christian perspective, ask them to show you clear backing for such a thing from Scripture. If you believe that, then please, please, please send me your Scriptural reasons for such a belief. Just Be sure you aren't making VAST leaps in logic. For example, the Bible clearly says Jesus died for our sins, if there are aliens, then how would God redeem them?  That's a great question, and I don't know the answer, but it certainly doesn't prove that there are no aliens. Perhaps our hypothetical aliens did not fall, like Adam and Eve did. Perhaps they are indeed redeemed by Christ's sacrifice in a way that we don't understand. Who Knows?! But I do know that I can find no Scripture that clearly denies the possibility of alien life, or that clearly affirms the existence of alien life. I can also find no Scripture, the implications of which would logically rule out either outcome.  Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created. (Ps. 148:1–5) Are there aliens? I've no idea. I think the wisest and best and most biblical answer is either “Maybe” or “I don't know.” To assert otherwise is borderline irresponsible. BUT - if there ARE aliens, does this pose a threat to Scripture? Absolutely not. You can't contradict what isn't there. In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin, the first true antibiotic. Did this MASSIVELY IMPORTANT DISCOVERY contradict the Bible? Of course not - because the Bible never discussed nor addressed such a thing.  Similarly, the discovery of alien life - if it happens at all - will not at all shake any Scriptural truth in the Bible - NOT A ONE. Will it shake our lives? Maybe so. But, you can't find aliens in the Scripture. Not clearly. Likewise, you can't find the United States in Scripture either, and that ‘omission' seems to rightly bother no one. It is not incumbent upon God to reveal to man all important future events in His Word. Ultimately, I stand with Spurgeon, and actually stood with Spurgeon before I knew his position on this question. It took a lot of research to find this quote, but here you go:  What God has done in the eternity which we call the past (but which to him is as the present), we do not fully know. We have no reason to believe that we know much of what God has done. There may be as many other worlds and sorts of beings existent as there are sands upon the sea shore, for aught we know; and the Lord may have been occupied in ages past with ten thousand glorious plans, and economies, as yet unrevealed to man. We cannot tell what he doeth, or what he hath done. We are creatures of a day, and know nothing; we are like insects that are born on a leaf, and die amid our fellows at the setting of the sun, but he lives on for ever. We talk of the “eternal hills,” but they are babes that were born yesterday, as far as he is concerned. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” We say, “Roll on, thou ancient ocean!” but the ocean is not ancient; it is a drop that fell yesterday from the tip of the Creator's finger. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Eternal Truth of God,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 21 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1875), 651. Spurgeon: To us, to-day, the coming of Christ to seek and to save the lost is an accomplished fact, a matter of history, most sure and certain. And what a fact it is! You have often thought of it, but have you ever worked your mind into the very heart of it,—that God has actually visited this world in human form,—that he before whom angels bow has actually been here, in fashion like ourselves, feeding the hungry crowds of Palestine, healing their sick, and raising their dead? I know not what may be the peculiar boast of other planets, but this poor star cannot be excelled, for on this world the Creator has stood. This earth has been trodden by the feet of God, and yet it was not crushed beneath the mighty burden, because he deigned to link his Deity with our humanity. The incarnation is a wonder of wonders, but it does not belong to the realm of imagination, or even of expectation, for it has actually been beheld by mortal eyes. C. H. Spurgeon, “Christ the Seeker and Saviour of the Lost,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 58 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1912), 314. SKIP. INCLUDE IN BOOK. There are also triple stars, or systems, and quadruple systems, and there are, in some cases, hundreds or thousands all spinning round one another, and around their central luminaries. Wonderful combinations of glory and beauty may be seen in the stellar sky; and some of these stars are red, some blue, some yellow, all the colours of the rainbow are represented in them. It would be very wonderful to live in one of them, and to look across the sky, and see all the glories of the heavens that God has made. On the whole, however, for the present, I am quite content to abide upon this little planet, especially as I am not able to change it for another home, until God so wills it. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 177. CLOSE WITH EXTENDED READING OF LEWIS' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION:  From Christian Reflections: an essay Called, “The Seeing Eye”  Some people are troubled, and others are delighted, at the idea of finding not one, but perhaps innumerable rational species scattered about the universe. In both cases the emotion arises from a belief that such discoveries would be fatal to Christian theology. For it will be said that theology connects the Incarnation of God with the Fall and Redemption of man. And this would seem to attribute to our species and to our little planet a central position in cosmic history which is not credible if rationally inhabited planets are to be had by the million. Older readers will, with me, notice the vast change in astronomical speculation which this view involves. When we were boys all astronomers, so far as I know, impressed upon us the antecedent improbabilities of life in any part of the universe whatever. It was not thought unlikely that this earth was the solitary exception to a universal reign of the inorganic. Now Professor Hoyle, and many with him, say that in so vast a universe life must have occurred in times and places without number. The interesting thing is that I have heard both these estimates used as arguments against Christianity. Now it seems to me that we must find out more than we can at present know—which is nothing—about hypothetical rational species before we can say what theological corollaries or difficulties their discovery would raise. We might, for example, find a race which was, like us, rational but, unlike us, innocent—no wars nor any other wickedness among them; all peace and good fellowship. I don't think any Christian would be puzzled to find that they knew no story of an Incarnation or Redemption, and might even find our story hard to understand or accept if we told it to them. There would have been no Redemption in such a world because it would not have needed redeeming. ‘They that are whole need not the physician.' The sheep that has never strayed need not be sought for. We should have much to learn from such people and nothing to teach them. If we were wise, we should fall at their feet. But probably we should be unable to ‘take it'. We'd find some reason for exterminating them. Again, we might find a race which, like ours, contained both good and bad. And we might find that for them, as for us, something had been done: that at some point in their history some great interference for the better, believed by some of them to be supernatural, had been recorded, and that its effects, though often impeded and perverted, were still alive among them. It need not, as far as I can see, have conformed to the pattern of Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection. God may have other ways—how should I be able to imagine them?—of redeeming a lost world. And Redemption in that alien mode might not be easily recognizable by our missionaries, let alone by our atheists. We might meet a species which, like us, needed Redemption but had not been given it. But would this fundamentally be more of a difficulty than any Christian's first meeting with a new tribe of savages? It would be our duty to preach the Gospel to them. For if they are rational, capable both of sin and repentance, they are our brethren, whatever they look like. Would this spreading of the Gospel from earth, through man, imply a pre-eminence for earth and man? Not in any real sense. If a thing is to begin at all, it must begin at some particular time and place; and any time and place raises the question: ‘Why just then and just there?' One can conceive an extraterrestrial development of Christianity so brilliant that earth's place in the story might sink to that of a prologue. Finally, we might find a race which was strictly diabolical—no tiniest spark felt in them from which any goodness could ever be coaxed into the feeblest glow; all of them incurably perverted through and through. What then? We Christians had always been told that there were creatures like that in existence. True, we thought they were all incorporeal spirits. A minor readjustment thus becomes necessary. But all this is in the realm of fantastic speculation. We are trying to cross a bridge, not only before we come to it, but even before we know there is a river that needs bridging. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 174–176. Religion and Rocketry - 1958 RELIGION AND ROCKETRY In my time I have heard two quite different arguments against my religion put forward in the name of science. When I was a youngster, people used to say that the universe was not only not friendly to life but positively hostile to it. Life had appeared on this planet by a millionth chance, as if at one point there had been a breakdown of the elaborate defences generally enforced against it. We should be rash to assume that such a leak had occurred more than once. Probably life was a purely terrestrial abnormality. We were alone in an infinite desert. Which just showed the absurdity of the Christian idea that there was a Creator who was interested in living creatures. But then came Professor F. B. Hoyle, the Cambridge cosmologist, and in a fortnight or so everyone I met seemed to have decided that the universe was probably quite well provided with inhabitable globes and with livestock to inhabit them. Which just showed (equally well) the absurdity of Christianity with its parochial idea that Man could be important to God. This is a warning of what we may expect if we ever do discover animal life (vegetable does not matter) on another planet. Each new discovery, even every new theory, is held at first to have the most wide-reaching theological and philosophical consequences. It is seized by unbelievers as the basis for a new attack on Christianity; it is often, and more embarrassingly, seized by injudicious believers as the basis for a new defence. But usually, when the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists, and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before. So it was with Copernican astronomy, with Darwinism, with Biblical Criticism, with the new psychology. So, I cannot help expecting, it will be with the discovery of ‘life on other planets'—if that discovery is ever made. The supposed threat is clearly directed against the doctrine of the Incarnation, the belief that God born of God ‘for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was . . . made man'. Why for us men more than for others? If we find ourselves to be but one among a million races, scattered through a million spheres, how can we, without absurd arrogance, believe ourselves to have been uniquely favoured? I admit that the question could become formidable. In fact, it will become formidable when, if ever, we know the answer to five other questions. 1. Are there animals anywhere except on earth? We do not know. We do not know whether we ever shall know. 2. Supposing there were, have any of these animals what we call ‘rational souls'? By this I include not merely the faculty to abstract and calculate, but the apprehension of values, the power to mean by ‘good 'something more than ‘good for me' or even ‘good for my species'. If instead of asking, ‘Have they rational souls?' you prefer to ask, ‘Are they spiritual animals?' I think we shall both mean pretty much the same. If the answer to either question should be No, then of course it would not be at all strange that our species should be treated differently from theirs. There would be no sense in offering to a creature, however clever or amiable, a gift which that creature was by its nature incapable either of desiring or of receiving. We teach our sons to read but not our dogs. The dogs prefer bones. And of course, since we do not yet know whether there are extra-terrestrial animals at all, we are a long way from knowing that they are rational (or ‘spiritual'). Even if we met them we might not find it so easy to decide. It seems to me possible to suppose creatures so clever that they could talk, though they were, from the theological point of view, really only animals, capable of pursuing or enjoying only natural ends. One meets humans—the machine-minded and materialistic urban type—who look as if they were just that. As Christians we must believe the appearance to be false; somewhere under that glib surface there lurks, however atrophied, a human soul. But in other worlds there might be things that really are what these seem to be. Conversely, there might be creatures genuinely spiritual, whose powers of manufacture and abstract thought were so humble that we should mistake them for mere animals. God shield them from us! 3. If there are species, and rational species, other than man, are any or all of them, like us, fallen? This is the point non-Christians always seem to forget. They seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician.Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it. Notice what waves of utterly unwarranted hypothesis these critics of Christianity want us to swim through. We are now supposing the fall of hypothetically rational creatures whose mere existence is hypothetical! 4. If all of them (and surely all is a long shot) or any of them have fallen have they been denied Redemption by the Incarnation and Passion of Christ? For of course it is no very new idea that the eternal Son may, for all we know, have been incarnate in other worlds than earth and so saved other races than ours. As Alice Meynell wrote in ‘Christ in the Universe': I wouldn't go as far as ‘doubtless' myself. Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek. Or perhaps—but this brings us to the next wave of assumption. It is the biggest yet and will knock us head over heels, but I am fond of a tumble in the surf. 5. If we knew (which we don't) the answers to 1, 2, and 3—and, further, if we knew that Redemption by an Incarnation and Passion had been denied to creatures in need of it—is it certain that this is the only mode of Redemption that is possible? Here of course we ask for what is not merely unknown but, unless God should reveal it, wholly unknowable. It may be that the further we were permitted to see into His councils, the more clearly we should understand that thus and not otherwise—by the birth at Bethlehem, the cross on Calvary and the empty tomb—a fallen race could be rescued. There may be a necessity for this, insurmountable, rooted in the very nature of God and the very nature of sin. But we don't know. At any rate, I don't know. Spiritual as well as physical conditions might differ widely in different worlds. There might be different sorts and different degrees of fallenness. We must surely believe that the divine charity is as fertile in resource as it is measureless in condescension. To different diseases, or even to different patients sick with the same disease, the great Physician may have applied different remedies; remedies which we should probably not recognise as such even if we ever heard of them. It might turn out that the redemption of other species differed from ours by working through ours. There is a hint of something like this in St Paul (Romans 8:19–23) when he says that the whole creation is longing and waiting to be delivered from some kind of slavery, and that the deliverance will occur only when we, we Christians, fully enter upon our sonship to God and exercise our ‘glorious liberty'. On the conscious level I believe that he was thinking only of our own Earth: of animal, and probably vegetable, life on Earth being ‘renewed' or glorified at the glorification of man in Christ. But it is perhaps possible—it is not necessary—to give his words a cosmic meaning. It may be that Redemption, starting with us, is to work from us and through us. This would no doubt give man a pivotal position. But such a position need not imply any superiority in us or any favouritism in God. The general, deciding where to begin his attack, does not select the prettiest landscape or the most fertile field or the most attractive village. Christ was not born in a stable because a stable is, in itself, the most convenient or distinguished place for a maternity. Only if we had some such function would a contact between us and such unknown races be other than a calamity. If indeed we were unfallen, it would be another matter. It sets one dreaming—to interchange thoughts with beings whose thinking had an organic background wholly different from ours (other senses, other appetites), to be unenviously humbled by intellects possibly superior to our own yet able for that very reason to descend to our level, to descend lovingly ourselves if we met innocent and childlike creatures who could never be as strong or as clever as we, to exchange with the inhabitants of other worlds that especially keen and rich affection which exists between unlikes; it is a glorious dream. But make no mistake. It is a dream. We are fallen. We know what our race does to strangers. Man destroys or enslaves every species he can. Civilised man murders, enslaves, cheats, and corrupts savage man. Even inanimate nature he turns into dust bowls and slag-heaps. There are individuals who don't. But they are not the sort who are likely to be our pioneers in space. Our ambassador to new worlds will be the needy and greedy adventurer or the ruthless technical expert. They will do as their kind has always done. What that will be if they meet things weaker than themselves, the black man and the red man can tell. If they meet things stronger, they will be, very properly, destroyed. It is interesting to wonder how things would go if they met an unfallen race. At first, to be sure, they'd have a grand time jeering at, duping, and exploiting its innocence; but I doubt if our half-animal cunning would long be a match for godlike wisdom, selfless valour, and perfect unanimity. I therefore fear the practical, not the theoretical, problems which will arise if ever we meet rational creatures which are not human. Against them we shall, if we can, commit all the crimes we have already committed against creatures certainly human but differing from us in features and pigmentation; and the starry heavens will become an object to which good men can look up only with feelings of intolerable guilt, agonized pity, and burning shame. Of course after the first debauch of exploitation we shall make some belated attempt to do better. We shall perhaps send missionaries. But can even missionaries be trusted? ‘Gun and gospel' have been horribly combined in the past. The missionary's holy desire to save souls has not always been kept quite distinct from the arrogant desire, the busybody's itch, to (as he calls it) ‘civilise' the (as he calls them) ‘natives'. Would all our missionaries recognise an unfallen race if they met it? Could they? Would they continue to press upon creatures that did not need to be saved that plan of Salvation which God has appointed for Man? Would they denounce as sins mere differences of behaviour which the spiritual and biological history of these strange creatures fully justified and which God Himself had blessed? Would they try to teach those from whom they had better learn? I do not know. What I do know is that here and now, as our only possible practical preparation for such a meeting, you and I should resolve to stand firm against all exploitation and all theological imperialism. It will not be fun. We shall be called traitors to our own species. We shall be hated of almost all men; even of some religious men. And we must not give back one single inch. We shall probably fail, but let us go down fighting for the right side. Our loyalty is due not to our species but to God. Those who are, or can become, His sons, are our real brothers even if they have shells or tusks. It is spiritual, not biological, kinship that counts. But let us thank God that we are still very far from travel to other worlds. I have wondered before now whether the vast astronomical distances may not be God's quarantine precautions. They prevent the spiritual infection of a fallen species from spreading. And of course we are also very far from the supposed theological problem which contact with other rational species might raise. Such species may not exist. There is not at present a shred of empirical evidence that they do. There is nothing but what thelogicians would call arguments from ‘a priori probability'—arguments that begin ‘It is only natural to suppose', or ‘All analogy suggests', or ‘Is it not the height of arrogance to rule out—?' They make very good reading. But who except a born gambler ever risks five dollars on such grounds in ordinary life? And, as we have seen, the mere existence of these creatures would not raise a problem. After that, we still need to know that they are fallen; then, that they have not been, or will not be, redeemed in the mode we know; and then, that no other mode is possible. I think a Christian is sitting pretty if his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms. If I remember rightly, St Augustine raised a question about the theological position of satyrs, monopods, and other semi-human creatures. He decided it could wait till we knew there were any. So can this. ‘But supposing,' you say. ‘Supposing all these embarrassing suppositions turned out to be true?' I can only record a conviction that they won't; a conviction which has for me become in the course of years irresistible.Christians and their opponents again and again expect that some new discovery will either turn matters of faith into matters of knowledge or else reduce them to patent absurdities. But it has never happened. What we believe always remains intellectually possible; it never becomes intellectually compulsive. I have an idea that when this ceases to be so, the world will be ending. We have been warned that all but conclusive evidence against Christianity, evidence that would deceive (if it were possible) the very elect, will appear with Antichrist. And after that there will be wholly conclusive evidence on the other side. But not, I fancy, till then on either side. SPURGEON: I suppose you are all aware that among the old systems of astronomy was one which placed the earth in the centre, and made the sun, and the moon, and the stars revolve around it. “Its three fundamental principles were the immobility of the earth, its central position, and the daily revolution of all the heavenly bodies around it in circular orbits.” Now, in a similar fashion, there is a way of making a system of theology of which man is the centre, by which it is implied that Christ and his atoning sacrifice are only made for man's sake, and that the Holy Spirit is merely a great Worker on man's behalf, and that even the great and glorious Father is to be viewed simply as existing for the sake of making man happy. Well, that may be the system of theology adopted by some; but, brethren, we must not fall into that error, for, just as the earth is not the centre of the universe, so man is not the grandest of all beings. God has been pleased highly to exalt man; but we must remember how the psalmist speaks of him: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” In another place, David says, “Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.” Man cannot be the centre of the theological universe, he is altogether too insignificant a being to occupy such a position, and the scheme of redemption must exist for some other end than that of merely making man happy, or even of making him holy. The salvation of man must surely be first of all for the glory of God; and you have discovered the right form of Christian doctrine when you have found the system that has God in the centre, ruling and controlling according to the good pleasure of his will. Do not dwarf man so as to make it appear that God has no care for him; for if you do that, you slander God. Give to man the position that God has assigned to him; by doing so, you will have a system of theology in which all the truths of revelation and experience will move in glorious order and harmony around the great central orb, the Divine Sovereign Ruler of the universe, God over all, blessed for ever. C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 149.

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert Louis Wilken, the William R. Kenan Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, has written an intellectual history of the ideas surrounding freedom of religion. Liberty in the Things of God: The Christian Origins of Religious Freedom (Yale University Press, 2019) offers a revisionist history of how the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion originated in the writings of the Christian fathers of the early Church, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, during the period when Christians were a persecuted sect of the Roman Empire. Wilken argues that it was not the political theorists of the Enlightenment who invented religious freedom in response to the wars of the Reformation, but rather the participants of the Reformation itself, including both Protestant and Catholic thinkers, who recovered ideas from the Roman-era Church fathers and used them to develop arguments about religious liberty for both individuals and faith communities. Wilken demonstrates that the concerns about whether faith could ever be enforced by the sword were present from the beginnings of Christianity. Wilken's book helps inform our understanding of the origins of religious liberty, which is a concept of great import in contemporary debates about the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices