Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed

Why Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed

Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed for the following reasons:

1) Science assumes naturalism in its methodology - only the physical exists and therefore only natural explanations suffice.  source

Ask yourself a question, how many scientific studies seriously consider a supernatural causes to any phenomenon? Go to JSTOR or Google Scholar and look at 100 random scientific studies and see how many seriously consider anything but natural causes.

Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science writes in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were.

What I think Ruse means here is that a scientist can be a theist at home, but is the course of their work they must employ metaphysical naturalism. I'd ask what is the difference between assuming that metaphysical naturalism is true vs acting as if it were in the context of my essay here? I'd say None. My point above stands, even if I have to reword it to say that "Science assumes act as if naturalism in its methodology"

{As an aside, Philosophical naturalism - a physical only model of the world - is logically self-refuting}

2) Science works because the natural world is consistent; i.e. matter **must** act in accordance with the physical laws.

3) Prayer isn't a natural thing; God does **not** have to act in accordance with the physical laws. God is a person, not something bound by the laws of physics. 

Example: Water heated to 100 degrees Celsius for X amount of time will boil [at sea level] Given the above, water will boil **every** single time since matter **must** act in accordance with the physical laws. 

4) God's actions may take longer

5) God may say no, as God's purpose may not be what one expects.

6) Studies do not take all the Scriptural texts on prayer into account - they usually just consider the ones that say something along the lines of Matthew 7:7 - "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Or cite no Scriptures at all.

The following are usually ignored:

A) Pray to the Heavenly Father (see Matthew 6:9). This condition to prayer might seem obvious, but it’s important. We don’t pray to false gods, to ourselves, to angels, to Buddha, or to the Virgin Mary. We pray to the God of the Bible, who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and whose Spirit indwells us. Coming to Him as our “Father” implies that we are first His children—made so by faith in Christ (see John 1:12). 

B) Pray for good things (see Matthew 7:11). We don’t always understand or recognize what is good, but God knows, and He is eager to give His children what is best for them. Paul prayed three times to be healed of an affliction, and each time God said, “No.” Why would a loving God refuse to heal Paul? Because God had something better for him, namely, a life lived by grace. Paul stopped praying for healing and began to rejoice in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:7–10). Is this accounted for in any of the studies? 

C) Pray for needful things (see Philippians 4:19). Placing a priority on God’s kingdom is one of the conditions to prayer (Matthew 6:33). The promise is that God will supply all our needs, not all our wants. There is a difference.

D) Pray from a righteous heart (see James 5:16). The Bible speaks of having a clean conscience as a condition to answered prayer (Hebrews 10:22). It is important that we keep our sins confessed to the Lord. “*If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear*” (Psalm 66:18, NAS).

E) Pray from a grateful heart (see Philippians 4:6). Part of prayer is an attitude of thanksgiving.

F) Pray according to the will of God (see 1 John 5:14). An important condition to prayer is that it is prayed within the will of God. Jesus prayed this way all the time, even in Gethsemane: “*Not my will, but yours be done*” (Luke 22:42). We can pray all we want, with great sincerity and faith, for XYZ, but, if God’s will is ABC, we pray wrongly.

G) Pray in the authority of Jesus Christ (see John 16:24). Jesus is the reason we are able to approach the throne of grace (Hebrews 10:19–22), and He is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). A condition to prayer is that we pray in His name.

H) Pray persistently (see Luke 18:1). 

I) Pray unselfishly (see James 4:3). Our motives are important.'

J) Pray in faith (see James 1:6). Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), who alone can do the impossible (Luke 1:37). Without faith, why pray?

Even scientists agree that some prayer studies are seriously flawed, but please note that even the ones that they think are good, there is no way to verify that conditions A-J were followed; and if they were not then they are  flawed.

Conclusion: Given the parameters set forth in the Scriptures, and the methodology used, scientific prayer studies are 

1) arbitrarily attempting to apply a certain set of parameters to a Person to whom they do not apply and 

2) incorrectly using verses which seem to imply that God always answers prayers 

3) failing to use all of what God has said concerning prayer. 

This makes scientific prayer studies fatally flawed. The errors are both systematic and theoretical in nature.

Note:

Systematic Error in science - These errors in science are caused by the way in which the experiment is conducted; they are caused by the design of the system. Systematic errors can not be eliminated by averaging. In principle, they can always be eliminated by changing the way in which the experiment was done. In actual fact, though, you may not even know that the error exists.

Theoretical Error in science: When experimental procedures, a model system or equations for instance, create inaccurate results. How does one obtain the accurate equation for God answering prayers? Where is the proof that this equation is correct?

Objection A  - Science does not assume philosophical naturalism.

The response: You misread my argument, I said Science assumes naturalism in its methodology. - i.e. methodological naturalism; or as Michael Ruse puts it, science needs "to act as if  methodological naturalism were true. 

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality

 

If Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, does that mean it’s okay?

First, Jesus didn’t need to say anything about homosexuality. No first century Jew questioned whether homosexual sex was morally permissible. That’s because every Old Testament reference, poem, or metaphor that addresses sex and marriage positively presumes heterosexual relations. Furthermore, every reference to homosexuality in the Old Testament is negative. There was no debate as to what the biblical witness was on that behavior. God-fearing Jews already believed homosexual sex was prohibited.

Second, even if it turns out Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so what? What follows from that? Jesus’ silence on the matter wouldn’t mean He approves of homosexual sex. That would be an argument from silence, a type of faulty reasoning. Besides, Jesus didn’t speak about every immoral behavior. Should we infer that drunkenness, child sacrifice, and neglecting the elderly are morally appropriate since Jesus never said anything about them either? That would be absurd. Jesus addressed moral issues of His day as they arose in conversation.

Third, we know what Jesus would have said about homosexuality if asked. Jesus was an observant Jew living during the Mosaic Law. He had not yet instituted the New Covenant. That’s why He often referenced the Law. For example, Jesus cited the two greatest commandments of the Law (Matthew 22:37-39) and told the rich young ruler to uphold the commandments of the Law (Mark 10:17–22). Therefore, if asked what He thought about homosexuality, Jesus would have cited the Mosaic Law again (Leviticus 18:20 & 20:13), which unequivocally states that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Fourth, Jesus did voice His opinion on matters of sex and marriage. When asked about divorce, Jesus cited the Genesis creation account: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:3–6). 

Jesus believed that God’s design in Genesis, making male and female join together to become one flesh, was the intended blueprint for sexuality even for His day. His view about sex and marriage is one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. Indeed, Jesus emphasized that the one-flesh union described in Genesis is a God-ordained institution (“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”). A male-female union has the Father’s stamp of approval. If that was Jesus’ view on sex and marriage, then every other type of sexual act, including homosexual behavior, is disqualified.

Fifth, Jesus does basically say homosexual behavior is a sin. In Mark 7:21–23, Jesus says, “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery...all these evils come from inside and defile a person.” The Greek word translated “sexual immorality” is porneiai, which is a term that includes many sexual sins, including homosexuality. First century Jews who heard that word would think of the sexual sins listed in the Mosaic Law, which includes homosexual sex.

Sixth, saying “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” mistakenly presumes that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture. But it is the Holy Spirit—God Himself—who inspired all the words of Scripture. That means Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:9–11, where homosexual behavior is specifically condemned, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit and are the authoritative word of God. Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and are in perfect communion through all eternity, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with the Holy Spirit about what He’s inspired to be written in Scripture.

So, yes, the Bible and Jesus did say something about the homosexuality, and He condemned it as sin. 

Baptism Is NOT Necessary for Salvation

E. Calvin Beisner wrote this critical analysis of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in 1995; sorry for the length but I know of no better refutation of Baptismal regeneration:

In the study of Christianity the central doctrine is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul understood the Gospel, the message of the saving work of Christ, to be so important that he said:

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

In the face of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration we must consider precisely what makes a teaching "another gospel... than what we have preached to you." It will be my contention that the Scriptures teach clearly that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Baptismal regenerationists, on the other hand, teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. If the Scriptures deny the necessity of baptism for salvation, then its teaching is "another gospel" than that preached by Paul.

We will examine Scriptures purported to teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, and seek to understand their true meaning. We will also show that the New Testament teaches that salvation is strictly by grace through faith apart from baptism.

There are several religious groups which teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. Among them are several "Church of Christ" groups, some branches of the "Christian Church-Disciples of Christ," and many small groups in the Christian tradition. Of course, the largest and most well-known of the baptismal regenerationist groups is the Roman Catholic church. Such groups teach that water baptism is absolutely essential to the salvation of the soul. Many of them also teach that this baptism must be by immersion, not by pouring or sprinkling. However, we will not herein address the question of the mode of baptism, because baptism's relation to salvation is more important.

It is the purpose of this essay to analyze the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation. In the following pages we will measure the teaching against Scripture, examining the New Testament texts used in support of it, and those which we believe show it to be incorrect. It is not our purpose to question the Christian faith of members of the groups teaching the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; there may well be many sincere Christians who are confused or misled on this issue.

Matthew 28:19-20

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen (Matthew 28:19-20).

We have here a command of Christ that we should make disciples of all nations, and instrumental in that task is the act of baptizing converts. In other words, baptism is part of making disciples. However, it does not say here that baptism is necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ has commanded them. If we are to assume that baptism is essential to salvation, then by consistent interpretation of the context, we should say that absolute obedience to all of Christ's commands is also necessary for salvation.

But this, of course, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Scripture tells us that no one, even the Christian, is without sin (I John 1:7-2:2). If, then, we are to say that believers who do not obey all of Christ's commands may be saved, then we may, unless some other text teaches otherwise, say that believers who are not baptized may also be saved.

Some argue, however, that this verse proves that one gets "into Christ" by being baptized in water. In support, reference is made to a marginal reading in the Revised Version which has "into" as the translation for "in the name of." But this certainly cannot prove the point: the Revised Version simply shows that this is one possible rendering of the phrase, while in fact the more accurate reading is simply "in." This rendering is chosen by the Authorized Version (King James), the Phillips Modern English Translation, the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New International Version, and the Today's English Version. In addition, this is the primary meaning of the phrase (eis to onoma) in the Greek. A.T. Robertson, the greatest English-speaking Greek scholar of our century, makes no allowance for the possibility of translating this passage "into the name." A comparison with Matthew 10:41-42 will show that such a translation of eis to onoma ("in the name") would make many of its uses meaningless. This does not prove that one gets "into Christ" by being baptized in water.

Matthew 28:19-20, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, or for coming "into Christ."

Mark 16:16

He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This verse is often quoted as supporting the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, a more careful analysis of the verse shows that it teaches nothing of the sort.

While the first clause says that all who both believe and are baptized will be saved, it does not say that all who neither believe nor are baptized will not be saved. In other words, the clause does not exclude any group, while it does tell of a group of people who will be saved, namely, those who both believe and are baptized. But the second clause negates one group: those who do not believe will not be saved. There is no negation of the group of those who believe but are not baptized. Thus, while the verse as a whole does teach that belief is essential to salvation, it does not teach that baptism is.

While this does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it does mean that this verse cannot be used to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him (Luke 7:30).

This was in reference to John the Baptist's baptism, not to Christian baptism. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove the necessity of baptism for salvation. Acts 18:24-19:7 shows that John's baptism is invalid now. This fact is even pointed out by "Church of Christ" writer Ernest Clevenger in his Pocket Ready Reference for Personal Workers. It is thus the more surprising that two other "Church of Christ" writers, A.C. Williams and J. Harvey Dykes, make reference to this verse as an argument in favor of the necessity of baptism for salvation in their booklet Ready Answers to Religious Error.

Furthermore, John the Baptist preached baptism. To reject his baptism, therefore, was to reject him. He was sent from God to testify of Christ (John 1:6-7), and therefore whoever rejected him rejected God. It was, then, not specifically the rejection of baptism which caused them to be against God, but the rejection of John which was entailed in the rejection of his baptism. But I will show later that the Christian is not sent to preach baptism, for the Gospel, which he is sent to preach, does not include baptism (I Corinthians 1:17).

Luke 7:30, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

If "born of water" means water baptism, then this verse proves that it is necessary to be baptized in water to be saved. About that we can be sure. But I will give several reasons why "born of water" cannot mean "baptism in water."

First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Also, this must be seen in the context of verse 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and of verse 7: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" This shows that being "born again" (see also verse 3) is being "born of the Spirit." Being "born again" cannot be being "born of the flesh" (verse 6), so it must be being "born of the Spirit."

If "born of water" meant water baptism, then verse 5 would contradict verse 6, which requires for salvation only being "born of the Spirit," while verse 5 would require being baptized in water and being born of the Spirit. But if being "born of water" does not mean water baptism, and instead is a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," then verse 5 does not contradict verse 6.

There is good reason to believe that "born of water" could be simply a figurative way of saying, "born of the Spirit." The word "water" in connection with salvation, the covenant, regeneration, rebirth, is often used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself used water this way when He said:

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water (John 7:37-38).

In the next verse, John added:

But this He spoke concerning the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive.... (verse 39a)

With this interpretation in mind, the reader should note the following verses, and see if they make more sense understanding "water" in each case as a symbol of the Spirit, not as the physical element: Isaiah 12:3, 35:6, 55:1; Ezekiel 36:25; Jeremiah 2:13; Zechariah 14:8, cf. Ezekiel 47:1-5; John 4:10; Revelation 21:6, 22:17. These verses make more sense if we see "water' in them as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. We therefore have good precedent for understanding "water" in connection with salvation as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, and this means that it would be reasonable to do so at John 3:5 as well.

If this is the case, then John 3:5 would be understood as follows: when Jesus said, "You must be born of water and the Spirit," He used water as a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," and then made Himself perfectly clear by reiterating the thought in plain language. Such a form of speaking was common, to the Jews and to Jesus' own teaching. It would readily be understood by Nicodemus, who as a Pharisee would be quite familiar with the Old Testament symbolic usage of "water." Water baptism, on the other hand, in the Christian formula, could not have been understood by Nicodemus, because it did not exist at the time.

John 3:5 does not even refer to water baptism, or to any form of baptism. It therefore does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

John 19:34

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out (John 19:34).

Quite curiously, W.C. Johnson refers to this verse as proof that it is baptism which identifies us with Christ's death where He shed His blood, which saves us. But the objective reader can see no connection between this and baptism. Does Mr. Johnson think that whenever water is mentioned, it must refer to baptism? This would be ridiculous (we have seen that it does not in John 3:5).

Quite simply, this verse shows us part of the physical cause of Christ's death on the cross. Dr. W. Stroud explains in his work The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ that the remmission of water from Christ's chest cavity when He was pierced showed that the sac surrounding the heart, which contains a substance most commonly described on sight as water, burst, so that the water was mixed with the blood which flowed from His ruptured heart. (This means, significantly, that Christ died of a "broken heart.").

Not every historical narrative in the Bible has a symbolic significance. Hence it is not necessary that there be one in John 19:34.

The text itself appears as simple historical narrative, which does not bear symbolic meaning. But if symbolic meaning is sought in it, it would seem most reasonable to take "water" here as referring to the Holy Spirit, as was noted in our discussion of John 3:5. Water is more frequently used symbolically in Scripture of the Spirit and therefore it would seem that this would be the most likely candidate, if we were determined to find some symbolic meaning in it. But the best interpretational procedure here is to leave it as an historical statement.

John 19:34, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

This is one of the favorite verses of those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation. They point out simply that it says that we must be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and since remission of sins is necessary for salvation, baptism is therefore necessary for salvation.

A careful study of the Greek grammar at this point shows that it is repentance, not baptism, which is "for the remission of sins." The Greek text reads (translated):

You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (the) remission of the sins of you.

This makes it clear that "remission of your [plural] sins" is the result of "you [plural] repent[ing]," not of "each one [singular] being baptized." The command to repent is given in the plural number and second person; the command to be baptized is given in the singular number and third person; the sins remitted belong to "you" in the plural number and second person. It is therefore improper to refer "remission of sins" to "baptism" as its cause, for this would mean that each one was baptized for the remission of the sins of all those present.

To take baptism here as causing the remission of sins would be to make the text say, "Let him be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and "Let him (another) be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and "Let him (yet another) be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and so on to each person in the group. Thus, each one would be baptized for the remission of the sins of all the people in the group.

But the grammar instead is quite clear. Remission is the result of repentance, not of baptism. You repent and your sins will be remitted. You all repent and the sins of all you will be remitted. Acts 2:38, therefore, does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Acts 8:35-38

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture [Isaiah 53:7-8], preached Jesus to [the eunuch]. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him (Acts 8:35-38).

There is nothing on the surface of this account which teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, but teachers of baptismal regeneration refer to this as a good example of the manner of salvation. The eunuch had heard the Word, he had been taught, he had repented, he had believed, and finally he was baptized to complete the process. They contend that baptism must be involved in "preaching Jesus," because otherwise the eunuch would not have known about it. If "preaching Jesus" included preaching baptism, they reason, baptism must be part of the Gospel, and since the Gospel is the way of salvation, baptism must be necessary to salvation.

But this neglects the context. Verse 27 tells us that this eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship. He was therefore familiar with the Jewish religion, if not actually a convert to it. If he were a convert, or if he were considering becoming one, he must have known of the Jewish practice of baptizing all converts to Judaism (which had been done for several centuries). The Jews used baptism as an initiation rite for Gentiles who were converted to Judaism, and in other religions as well. Hence the eunuch would have been familiar with this use of baptism even if Philip never mentioned baptism.

What is more, the eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah, and happened at the moment when Philip joined him to be reading Isaiah 53:7-8. But the tense of the verb "read" in verse 28 is imperfect, meaning that he was continuing to read; that is, he had been reading before Philip got there and was still reading when Philip walked up to him. This makes it very probable that he had also just read Isaiah 52:15, which begins, "So shall He sprinkle many nations." The eunuch, familiar with Judaism as he must have been since he had gone to Jerusalem to worship, would almost certainly have known that the Jews referred to this passage in connection with their rite of baptizing converts as initiation.

A further reason to believe that Philip's preaching of Jesus did not include telling the eunuch of baptism is that Paul himself separated the preaching of the Gospel from baptism (I Corinthians 1:17). If Paul had left baptism out of the Gospel and Philip had it in the Gospel, there would be a contradiction in Scripture. But the simple answer is that Philip did not include the teaching of baptism in his preaching of Jesus.

It is perfectly allowable that Philip could have mentioned baptism, however, without making it a part of the preaching of Christ. The passage only mentions that he preached Christ to him, but this does not mean that after preaching Christ to him, he could not also have told him about baptism, and indeed about many other things. He could, therefore, have told the eunuch about baptism without saying that it was actually part of the saving Gospel.

With all of this in mind, it should be perfectly clear that Acts 8:35-38 does not prove that baptism is a part of the preaching of Christ, that is, a part of the Gospel. It certainly gives no clear indication that Philip taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, or that the eunuch believed it was; indeed not only does it give no clear indication, it gives no indication at all.

Acts 8:35-38, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Acts 10:48a

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48a).

This text is often called upon by baptismal regenerationalists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. But certainly there is nothing inherent in it which proves this. We all agree that we are commanded to be baptized, and that neglect or rejection of baptism is sin. But some hold this sin to be unforgivable, since one cannot be saved unless one is baptized. I will contend, on the other hand, that this is not the "unforgivable sin," and that the one who commits it, while yet having faith in Christ, is forgiven of this sin and saved anyway.

First, the mere fact that we are commanded to be baptized, and that is all this verse says, cannot show that baptism is necessary for salvation. We are also commanded not to sin. Does that mean that if we sin, we cannot be saved? But this would be nonsense since in Christ we have forgiveness of our sins. Therefore it is possible to disobey commands of the Lord and yet be saved.

Now what makes this command from the Lord any different from the general command not to sin, or the commands specifically not to lie, covet, etc., so that disobedience to this command cannot be forgiven while those can? There is nothing in the text which makes that difference, and there is nothing anywhere else where baptism is spoken of that makes that difference. The command which we cannot disobey and yet be forgiven is the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16b; John 8:24; Acts 16:31). But the whole point of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is that it is obedience to this very command which brings forgiveness for disobedience to any other command (Colossians 1:14; I John 1:7-2:2). True faith in the true Christ brings immediate justification (Romans 3:1-5, 23-28), and justification is an absolute guarantee of salvation (Romans 8:29-30).

Acts 10:48a, then, does prove that we are commanded to be baptized. It does not prove, however, that baptism is necessary for salvation.

There is another reason for rejecting this verse as a "proof" of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Those who claim that it is such a proof must ignore or seriously misconstrue the context. Peter was speaking to Cornelius and his friends, and then he turned to the other Christians around and said:

Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? (verse 47)

Peter said that this group of people had received the Holy Spirit "just as we have." He acknowledged that these people were already saved. Just as truly as Peter and the Christians with him had received the Holy Spirit, so Cornelius and his friends had received the Holy Spirit. Having received the Holy Spirit was proof that they were already saved, as Romans 8:9-16 shows.

Those who have received the Holy Spirit are the children of God. They are "born of the Spirit." They are "born again." They are guaranteed their inheritance (Romans 8:1 1; II Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:14). They are, in fact, saved. Cornelius and his friends were saved before Peter commanded them to be baptized.

Acts 10:48, therefore, does not prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Acts 22:16

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord(Acts 22:16).

Baptismal regenerationists often refer to this verse as proof that baptism is necessary for "washing away" sin, that is, for regeneration, for remission of sin. There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

First, a careful study of the Greek text shows that "wash away" is coordinated with "calling." That is, it is by "calling on the name of the Lord" that Paul was to "wash away" his sins, not by being baptized.

Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather "be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord.

Second, being baptized was not a part of the Gospel which Paul preached. We know this for two reasons. First, Paul carefully distinguished baptizing from preaching the Gospel in I Corinthians, chapter one. There he wrote:

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel... (verses 14-17a)

Baptism, then, cannot be part of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16). It tells us what is necessary to know in order to be saved. Paul left baptism out of the Gospel. Therefore Paul did not consider baptism necessary to salvation.

Secondly, Acts 22:15 says that Paul was chosen to be Christ's "witness to all men of what [he had] seen and heard." Paul, however, did not preach baptism as part of the Gospel.

Hence we must see Acts 22:16 as telling us simply of an historical fact. Ananias told Paul he should be baptized, and Paul was therefore baptized. But the grammar does not support the idea that his baptism was the washing away of his sin. It shows instead that his calling on the name of the Lord brought forgiveness (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10). Baptism was not incorporated into what Paul considered to be the Gospel. Therefore Acts 22:16 does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

A.T. Robertson admitted the grammatical possibility that this verse could be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, or baptismal remission. But grammatical possibility is far from actuality. There is also the grammatical possibility, and a stronger one in fact, that the washing away of sin is accomplished by calling on the name of the Lord. The grammar alone, therefore, cannot settle it, and discussions such as those above are necessary to clarify the matter. Robertson wrote:

It is possible... to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so in my opinion is a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language. As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial, and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way (verse 10). Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

It is possible, by isolating this verse from its context and from other New Testament teaching on the subject, to take this as teaching baptismal regeneration. But again, this is only one way to understand it. It has already been shown that this would not fit the context, it does not fit the most clear understanding of the grammar, and most importantly, it is contrary to Paul's entire teaching of what the Gospel is (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10; I Corinthians 1:17; Galatians 1:11-12). Possibility must not be confused with either probability or actuality.

Acts 22:16 does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Romans 6:3-4

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).

Some insist that this passage teaches that water baptism is the means of getting into Christ. But does it really teach this? There are several reasons why it does not.

First, the Greek word here translated "into" would be translated better "in" or "unto." Thus Robertson wrote regarding Romans 6:3:

Better, "were baptized unto Christ or in Christ." The translation "into" makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian.... Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See Galatians 3:27 where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. "Into his death"... So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance.

Therefore we see that the Greek grammar itself does not teach that the baptism here spoken of is actually the means of getting "into Christ."

Second, Paul is speaking in figures and symbols throughout the first half of this chapter. Would the proponents of baptismal regeneration take verse 6 ("our old man was crucified with Him") literally, or will they recognize it as symbolic? It is symbolic, and it paints a vivid picture of dying to self and being alive to Christ. But this gives us precedent to interpret "baptism" in this passage as symbolic, too.

Another key to the fact that this passage is to be interpreted symbolically is verse 11, which reads:

Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All along, it is this "reckoning" that is emphasized. The "also" tells us that we reckon ourselves not only dead to sin, but also reckon other things of ourselves. These are expressed in the two symbols of being baptized in Christ and being crucified with Him (verses 3, 4, 6).

Thus Paul is simply using baptism as a symbol to paint a vivid picture of what happens when one is identified with Christ: that is, when one has "put on Christ," and has been "born again." Baptism gives an excellent picture of what it is to become a Christian, for it pictures the burial and resurrection. But the baptism itself is not that burial or resurrection. As Robertson put it, "[A] symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality." Baptism, therefore, symbolized identification with Christ.

Third, that baptism symbolizes identification can be shown by two studies. In I Corinthians 10:2-4, Paul wrote of the Israelites:

All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

This clearly shows that "baptism into Moses" was a symbolic way of speaking of their identification with him: they ate the same meat, and drank the same drink: they were identified with him.

Furthermore, a careful reading of Romans 5:12-6:11 shows clearly that identification with Christ, on the one side, or with Adam, on the other, was Paul's theme. It is by our identification with Adam that death passed upon all men (5:12); it is through his offense that the many are dead (5:15); and by the judgment of him that all stand condemned (5:16); and because of his offense death reigns over all men (5:17) until they are saved (7:25, 8:1); by his offense judgment came on all (5:18); by his disobedience many were made sinners (5:19). But on the other hand, it is by our identification with Christ that we have life: Adam pre-figured Christ in this sense, that identification with him brings on us the things which apply to him, and identification with Christ brings on us the things which apply to Him (5:14). Yet the benefits of identification with Christ far outweigh the tragedies of identification with Adam (5:15); by identification with Him God's grace abounds to those who are identified with Him (5:15); by identification with Him the gift of justification comes to us (5:16); identification with Christ brings abundant righteousness in life (5:17); identification with Him brings justification and righteousness unto life (5:18); identification with Him applies His obedience to us (5:19).

Paul uses baptism often as a symbol of identification. He does it in 1 Corinthians 10:2. He follows the tremendous passage on identification with Christ on the one hand and with Adam on the other with a more in-depth passage on identification with Christ (Romans 6:1-11). As Christ died for our sins, and "became sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21), so He died to sin because He had taken on our sins (Romans 6:10). Thus when we are identified with Him, we too are "dead to sin" (Romans 6:2); we are identified with His death (verse 3), with His burial and resurrection (verse 4), with His newness of life because of this resurrection (verses 4-5), in His crucifixion (verse 6), in living with Him (verse 8), and in dominion over death forevermore (verse 9). Paul concluded this line of thought by writing:

For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all, but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord (verses 10-11).

The entire passage of Romans 5:12-6:11 is concerned with our identification first and naturally with Adam, and second and by spiritual rebirth with Christ (John 3:3-6). It is correct, therefore, especially in the light of Paul's usage of the term in I Corinthians 10:2, to understand "baptism" in Romans 6 as symbolic of identification. Therefore it is not water baptism which actually puts us "Into Christ" or is necessary for our salvation, but identification with Christ: dying with Him to sin, rising with Him to life, living with Him to dominion over death and sin.

Romans 6:3-4, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

I Corinthians 12:13

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13).

Williams and Dykes call on this verse as a proof that baptism is the means by which we get into the Body, or Church, of Christ. There are several reasons to reject this teaching. They teach that this refers to water baptism. But there is nothing in the context to make us think this. The Bible makes reference to baptism in water (Acts 10:48), in fire (Matthew 3:11), in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5), and in Christ (Romans 6:3-4). It is therefore not necessary that we understand I Corinthians 12:13 as referring to water baptism.

Certainly it is by being baptized by the Holy Spirit that we get "into the body of Christ," but there is nothing to identify this baptism by the Holy Spirit with water baptism. Indeed, the language of Paul both in this verse and elsewhere in this epistle to the Corinthians makes it highly improbable that he meant that this was baptism in water.

First, Paul goes on after saying that we are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ to say that we also all drink of one Spirit. If we are going to insist on a literal interpretation of "baptism" in the first half of the verse, we have a right to insist on consistency and interpret the "drinking" of the second half literally. But this would be nonsense. If we take "drinking" in the second half figuratively, we have a right to take "baptism" in the first half figuratively.

Second, when considering Paul's words in I Corinthians 1:12-17, it is highly unlikely that Paul would identify baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ with baptism by any man. Being baptized by Paul caused some Corinthians to say they were "of Paul"; being baptized by Apollos caused some to say they were "of Apollos"; or by Cephas (Peter) caused some to say they were "of Cephas"; and some retorted arrogantly, "Well, I am simply of Christ." Since this was the case with the Corinthians, it is inconceivable that in writing to them Paul would intend for them to understand baptism by the Spirit as water baptism by a man or men.

Thirdly, the context of I Corinthians 12:13 is figurative language. Even the word "body" is used figuratively to describe the unity of the believers in Christ. Verses 7-11 all speak of a spiritual, not a physical, working by the Holy Spirit. Verses 12-31 all speak figuratively of their various topics. Therefore we have good reason to believe that "baptism in verse 13 is used figuratively of a spiritual, not physical, act of the Holy Spirit.

The baptism spoken of in I Corinthians 12:13 is figurative, referring to identification. It is done spiritually by the Holy Spirit, not through any physical means, and involves regeneration, the act of making the believer a "new creation" (II Corinthians 5:17). It does not refer to water baptism.

I Corinthians 12:13, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Galatians 3:27

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

Williams and Dyke argue that this verse proves the necessity of water baptism for salvation, because it is by such that one gets "into Christ." But there are several reasons why this is not the case.

First, we have already seen that Paul often used "baptism" as a symbol for identification. This usage here would fit the meaning of the text. If it is symbolic of "identification," the meaning would be as follows: "For as many of you as have been identified in Christ have put on Christ." We have good reason from Paul's other writing, as shown previously, to take this figuratively, and it fits the context that way. Therefore the figurative is the most likely meaning.

Second, the verb in Greek translated "put on" has the meaning of putting on a badge or uniform of service like that of a soldier. According to A.T. Robertson:

This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here). See further in Paul (Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:9f; Ephesians 4:22-24, 6:11, 14). In I Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks of "putting on the breastplate of righteousness." He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by circumcision or by baptism. But baptism was the public profession and pledge, the soldier's sacramentum, oath of fealty to Christ, taking one's stand with Christ, the symbolic picture of the change wrought by faith already (Romans 6:4-6).

In other words, even if "baptism" is taken as referring to water baptism, the language which Paul uses shows it to be an outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly. The baptizing itself then would be an entirely outward event, with no spiritual effect, but only a spiritual significance. Hebrews 9:13ff reminds us that no outward ceremony has a real effect on the heart.

Third, the word "into" in the King James Version would, again by Robertson's principle quoted earlier, be better translated "in" or "unto," meaning "in reference to" Christ, thus showing that the baptism itself is not the means of getting to be "in Christ."

Fourth, Galatia stood in the middle of an area infested with the mystery religions, and these bodies made much of outward acts. Paul was refuting the teachings of these religions, and so there is the initial probability that he did not want "baptism" in Galatians 3:27 to be taken as the literal, outward act. Baptism in water was a common initiatory rite in the mystery religions, and Paul knew that from his own travels in the area. It would be extremely unlikely that he would speak of it in the same way they did.

Fifth, it is by the receiving of the Holy Spirit that we know we are saved. In fact, those who have received Him are saved (Romans 8:1-16). But Paul in Galatians 3:2-3 points out specifically that it is by faith that the Galatians received the Holy Spirit. To say then that Galatians 3:27 teaches baptism as the means of regeneration would make it contradict verses 2 and 3.

Sixth, in verse 6 Paul quotes the fact that Abraham was justified when he believed God: that is, when he had faith. But Genesis 15:6 shows that this justification came before any physical act, specifically that of circumcision. Now the fact that Abraham was justified by faith without works is proof that he was saved (Romans 8:29-30; cf. Romans 3:1-5, 28). Circumcision is the Old Testament counterpart to baptism in the New Testament (see discussion of Colossians 2:12 later). Therefore we can be saved before and even completely without being baptized in water. (The use of Abraham as an example of the manner of our justification is supported in Galatians 3-28-29, and by Paul's whole argument in Romans 3-4).

Baptism in Galatians 3:27 does not refer to physical baptism in water, but is figurative of our identification with Christ which is achieved by faith (John 1:12-13), as was the case in I Corinthians 12:13 and Romans 6:3-4. It cannot be used as proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. But even if it did refer to water baptism, it would not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, for it specifically speaks of it as an outward sign. We know that outward signs do not affect the heart's relation to God, and we know that there are those who were saved before they were baptized in water (Cornelius and his friends, Acts 10) or were circumcised (Abraham, Genesis 15).

Galatians 3:27, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

The Exodus: Did it Happen?

Okay, right off the bat: There’s no archaeological evidence for the Exodus account. However there is compelling internal evidence for it. 

First, concerning the lack of archaeological evidence, to conclude that the Exodus didn't happen just on that basis would be the logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance. Usually described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Secondly, the Egyptians kept only records of their victories, never their defeats, and the Exodus would surely have been a defeat for them.

The Egyptians kept no record of defeats, only victories not just due to pride but because the Egyptian religious belief that once anything is written down or spoken it may have the ability to be perpetuated and perhaps repeated, something that is part of the nature of Egyptian religious beliefs.

We see examples in the Egyptian’s desire to have their names spoken after death in order to maintain their existence in the afterlife, and so the idea that writing an event down will also make it possible for the event to continue, perhaps recurring at some future point. Surely so catastrophic an event as so many slaves being let go at once would not be something the Egyptians would wish to commemorate.

Thirdly, even if there had been such records, they would never have survived in the damp delta area. We have virtually nothing of this nature, archaeologically speaking, from the Delta. The fact is that the entire area is simply too wet for papyrus to survive. The ancient ground level is now some twenty feet or more below the modern surface, and the water table is so high in the area that most current excavations must employ the constant use of pumps to keep the diggings dry.

So there’s little external evidence for the Exodus. But what of the internal evidence?

1) The straw in the bricks.  Moses and Aaron go to Pharaoh and say, ‘let my people go’ and to celebrate a festival to our God. And Pharaoh replies In Exodus 5:6-8

That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and overseers in charge of the people: 7 “You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. 8 But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don’t reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are crying out, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ 

Bricks in Egypt were made with straw to give it strength. But they were not made that way in Canaan. The fact points to an authentic account of someone who knew Egypt, not a made-up-later tale from a Canaanite outsider.

2) They were said to have worked with bricks, and not the stones that a later writer might suppose from the pyramids and tombs and the storage places for Pharaoh, namely, Pithom and Raamses.” (Exodus 1:11)

3) The way that the Hebrews got into their bondage (Exodus 1:8-10) fits in well with how Egypt pushed back at Libya, taking captives, as the Egyptians always minded when foreigners become too numerous. It was okay to have a few, but when they became a large body to be reckoned with, they didn’t like that. 

4) Pharaoh lays plans to kill off the newborn Hebrew boys in Exodus 1:16, in which Pharaoh lays plans to kill off the newborn Hebrew boys. He instructs the midwives to put the child to death if it is a son.

The Hebrew word for “stool for childbirth” literally means “two stones,” as in ‘a stone under each buttock.’ Egyptians did give birth that way [see pg 116] and it can be seen in their hieroglyphs, and it makes more sense than the modern way of lying prone, for it allows for gravity to assist. 

According to the descriptions in the Bible, women in the process of childbirth either kneeled or sat on someone's knees.(Genesis 30:3). See here as well. 

5) What of the frequent expression that Pharaoh’s “heart was hardened?”  The Egyptians believed that a person thought with his heart. After all, it is the heart that beats faster when someone is excited.

6) The name “Moses,” and says that it’s a purely Egyptian name. It means “birth.” It is incorporated into the names of several pharaohs: Ahmose, (“the moon god is born”) Thutmose. (“Thoth is born”) In Greek, the name with its appended suffix becomes Amosis and Thutmosis. Ramesses is similar in pattern: (Re is the one who bore him)

If this Egyptian etymology is correct, it makes an even greater point for authenticity, because the Bible writer doesn’t appear to know that, and he attributes a Hebrew setting to the name, a play on the verb mashah (to draw out [of water]). We read that the weaned infant was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter, “so that he became a son to her; and she proceeded to call his name Moses and to say: ‘It is because I have drawn him out of the water.’” (Exodus 2:10) The application doesn’t quite fit, say some, for the word construction implies that Moses does the drawing, whereas the text says otherwise, and the only way to solve the difficulty is to ignore it. Moreover, why would Pharaoh’s daughter name the child with Hebrew etymology and not her own? Without intending to, the Bible writer gives added reason to regard the account as genuine.

7) There is a document, known as the Leiden Papyrus, from the time of Ramses the Great. It contains an instruction to "distribute grain rations to the soldier and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great Pylon of Ramses". Some connect Apiru (it means “stateless people”) with the origin of the “Hebrew” that it sounds like. It fits well with Exodus 1:11, “they appointed chiefs of forced labor over [the people of Israel] to oppress them with hard labor, and they built storage cities for Pharaoh, namely, Pithom and Raamses.” Source. Note: I have not had any luck is seeing a transliteration of the original 

Ramses the Great ruled for 67 years, had about 100 children, of which 52 were sons, and outlived many of them, including his firstborn, Amunhirkepshef. It is his 13th son, Merneptal, who succeeds him as pharoah. Of his early military campaigns, Merneptal has recorded in his fifth year that “Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe; Ashkelon has been overcome; Gezar has been captured; Yano’am was made nonexistent; Israel is laid waste, its seed is not.” The Merneptah Stele is the first (and only) mention of “Israel” in ancient Egyptian records.

It is telling how the word “Israel” is written. At the end of every other mention is a hieroglyph of three hills. It means “country.” At the end of “Israel” is the drawing of a man and a woman. It denotes Israel is not yet an established place, not yet a country. It is still a people wandering in the Sinai wilderness. 

If this had been a story that was made up decades later, they would not have known all of these particulars. Thus given the evidence it's likely that the Exodus occurred, even though we do not have all the details

The non-Problem of Divine Hiddenness

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness [PDH] argument is to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to everyone than it is. There are many different “flavors” of PDH, but they are all similar in that they comprise basically the same core: two idea that are supposed to be incompatible with each other: 1) the existence of God and 2) the occurrence of some kind of “nonbelief” phenomenon. I will be examining the PDH put forth by Schellenberg, since his seems to be the most popular at the moment.

Definitions:

God: Given that this is a Christian debate forum I’ll define God as most Christians do, as He is described by the Scriptures: Omniscient, Omnipotent; Perfectly Loving, Holy, and Just. God has other attributes, but for this discussion I think these will suffice.

Non-resistant- non-belief [NRNB] – when someone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of a meaningful conscious relationship with God, and yet (iii) does not believe that God exists.

The PDH argument The core of Schellenberg’s argument is simply that 1) God would ensure that there are no nonresistant nonbelievers, 2) but since there actually are nonresistant nonbelievers, 3) we must conclude that God does not exist.

This is how Schellenberg argues:

1) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God is also (iii) in a position to participate in such relationship (able to do so just by trying). (PREMISE)

2) Necessarily, one is at a time in a position to participate in meaningful conscious relationship with God only if at that time one believes that God exists. (PREMISE)

3) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God also (iii) believes that God exists. (From 1 and 2)

4) There are (and often have been) people who are (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God without also (iii) believing that God exists. (PREMISE)

5) God does not exist source

Thesis: The Problem of Divine Hiddenness [PDH] is not a problem for Christians, as it fatally fails on a number of counts:

A) it is faith/trust/repentance, that is important not mere belief

B) God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people

C) Critics cherry-pick data

D) the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable

Objection A - it is repentance/faith/trust in Jesus – i.e. that He is who He says He is, and will do what He says He will do - that’s what is vitally important, not mere belief in God’s existence. God’s purpose is that we repent and come to trust Him [i.e. have faith] not just merely believe that He exists; that mere belief does nothing for our relationship with God.

Most assume that the word ‘faith’ is more or less synonymous with the word “believe,” but the Bible is careful to communicate that it is not. James says: “Even the demons believe—and shudder!” James 2:19.

Many understand the term repentance to mean “a turning from sin.” Yet in the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” Paul declares, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). The short biblical definition of repentance is “a change of mind that results in a change of action.”

The book of Acts especially focuses on repentance in regard to salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). To repent, concerning salvation, is to change your mind regarding sin and Jesus Christ. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2), he concludes with a call for the people to repent (Acts 2:38).

Peter calls the people who rejected Jesus (Acts 2:36) to change their minds about that sin and to change their minds about Christ Himself, recognizing that He is indeed “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). True repentance is prompted by “godly sorrow,” and it “leads to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Repentance and faith can be understood as two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to place your faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior without first changing your mind about your sin and about who Jesus is and what He has done. Whether it is repentance from willful rejection or repentance from ignorance or disinterest, it is a change of mind. Biblical repentance, in relation to salvation, is changing your mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ.

Thus, merely believing in God's existence sans repentance and trust in Jesus does nothing for one's soul.

Objection B - God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people. The basic idea is that many non-believers, would NOT come to repentance/faith/trust in God even if God's existence were not subject to doubt. And their moral conduct wouldn’t improve, and might even increase. However, immoral conduct in such a state of affairs would be even more immoral since they know that Jesus is God and every sin is now a willful violation, and hence justly subject to greater punishment. Jesus affirms there are different degrees of punishment – see Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 12:47–48; Hebrews 10:28-29; 2 Peter 2:20-22; James 3:1-2; Matt. 10:15 - in the next life. But even more importantly, our level of knowledge and understanding is, in part, the basis for this punishment.

Thus, God mercifully remains ‘hidden’ to limit their moral culpability.

Objection C - Critics cherry-pick data – Critics say, for this argument [and others like the problem of evil] that God is omnibenevolent or Perfectly Loving. Where do they get this idea? From the Scriptures or from Christian via the Scriptures. But there is data that is ignored. For instance, the Bible clearly states that non-believers are in rebellion and are not non-resistant.

To consistently use the Bible would be the death warrant for the PDH, for to be consistent, they would have to use all of Scripture to define God and man rather than just what is convenient for the hiddenness argument. The fact is that the Scriptures present a worldview radically different from that presented by critics, the most significant and obvious distinction between a secular worldview and the biblical worldview is the nature of man.

According to Scripture, man is not a morally-neutral being but is a sinner and in a natural state of rebellion against his Creator (Rom 3:9–19; Eph 2:1–3; Gen 8:21; Col 2:13). Man does not reject God because there is no evidence for God, but because man twists the evidence to justify His own rebellion and hate of God (Rom 1:18–23).

The critic cannot even begin to argue against the existence of God via the PDH unless he can prove God’s omni-benevolence, but the only option for that is to approach the nature of God from the Christian worldview [lest a strawman is built] but, this worldview is not compatible with the moral neutrality of humanity as asserted by the PDH, and thus an appeal to the Christian understanding of God is self-defeating.

Objection D - the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable, since nonresistant non-belief is a thought of the mind. If I were to state, “I was thinking about taking my daughter out for a ride on my motorcycle,” how would I go about proving that I thought about that? I cannot prove that I am thinking such a thought, for the mind cannot be observed in such a way. Thus, those whom I share this information with must simply take me at my word.

If a believer approaches an unbeliever and says, “I know God exists because God speaks to me through my thoughts via His word,” do you suppose that the unbeliever would accept this statement as evidence that God does exist? Hardly. What if, instead of one believer, one million believers approached this unbeliever and made the same argument. Would the unbeliever then accept that as evidence that God exists. Highly unlikely.

Why then should we believe the testimony of a non-believer when they say they are non-resistant?

Furthermore, it seems likely that a non-believer would be biased towards thinking that they are non-resistant since this proves their stance that God doesn’t exist or that they are justified in their non-belief.

Thus, the non-believer cannot prove they are non-resistant, and they have every reason to be biased in their assessment of their non-resistantance.

Given the four objections above, the PDH is not a problem for Christians. Any of these four objections are fatal to the PDH, in and of themselves, independent of any other objection.