It's not Christus Victor vs Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but rather PSA and CV together helping to give a fuller picture of the Atonement.

 The Penal Substitutionary Atonement [PSA] and Christus Victor [CV] are not competing theories of the Atonement; they are simply different aspects of it, two sides of the same coin.

PSA focuses, often exclusively, on the Crucifixion and death of Jesus taking the penalty for our sins, being punished as a substitution in place of us being punished.

CV focuses, often exclusively, on the victory that Christ achieved over the devil on our behalf as shown via His Resurrection.

The atheist Euthyphro Dilemma

 The Euthyphro Dilemma is usually formulated against Christians as:

1) Does God choose what is good because it is good,

2) or does God chose what is good?

For the Christian, neither choice is acceptable.

To affirm that God choose what is good because it is good is to establish an autonomous moral principle that has authority over Him

To affirm what is good is whatever God has said it is to render morality arbitrary

The solution for the Christian is a 3rd option: God is Good itself. Since God is simultaneously the source and the measure of all goodness, the dilemma disappears.

But the atheist has an Euthyphro Dilemma of their own concerning the source of their morality:

A common atheist view of morality is that human instinct/society has decided that human well-being [Or harm mitigation] as the root of morality. Both atheistic views of morality often require people to act against their interests.

However:

The Marquis de Sade an atheist philosopher, concluded that Nature teaches us the principle that the strong ought to rule over and therefore exploit the weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche atheist philosopher, said a healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person.

Both philosophers chose instincts such as the desire to dominate and cruelty, which are the antithesis of the "human well-being/harm mitigation" morality. The question therefore arises: why should we choose a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over those of the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche?

To argue that our morality’s source is human instinct/society means that we have no reason to prefer a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche’s, since their moralities are derived from the same human understanding as today's atheists who should be aware of the fact that there are humans who do not have the same instinct for compassion as they do. So why prefer one morality over another?

Why should the human instinct/society be the arbiter of what is good? We look to history to see that it has been wrong in the past: Abolitionists held the minority view during most of human history, yet their anti-slavery philosophy is now almost universally accepted, except for the minority who continue to enslave people today.

If, as atheists assert, human instinct/society is the source of their "well-being or no harm mitigation" morality, a Euthyphro-style Dilemma arises.

The atheist Euthyphro-style Dilemma is this:

1) is a "well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" good because human instinct/society says so, or

2) is it morally good because it is a good?

If they say it is morally good because human instinct/society says so, then they run into the problem of those who feel/operate according to different instincts - aka Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. Why well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" over Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade?

If we say it is morally good because it is good or benevolent, then we admit a morality is external to us.

Whereas theists argue that morality’s external source is God, atheists who wish to adhere to an external morality have the burden of demonstrating this morality’s external source.

I suppose that a 3rd option would be that which best helps humans survive as a species, but why humans? What makes us special? Why not cockroaches or rats or the tardigrade? If it's about well-being or harm mitigation, those 3 probably caused less harm than humans combined...

The "zombies" walking around in Jerusalem after Jesus' death

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matthew 27:52-53

Critics will say this means "zombies" roamed the earth at this time.

However, interpreting this as resurrected people walking around in Jerusalem after Jesus' death makes the most sense when

1) the Jewish historical/cultural milieu,

2) the messianic mission of Jesus,

3) the OT prophetic writings about the Messiah and Matthew' Jewish-oriented literary mission are taken into consideration.

First, in a major section of Jewish thought of the day, the bodily resurrection of OT Jewish saints would occur when the messiah came. They literally expected a bodily resurrection (like that in the passage under discussion) to occur at the revealing of the messiah... Indeed, one rabbi was recorded as saying this:

"R. Jeremiah commanded, 'When you bury me, put shoes on my feet, and give me a staff in my hand, and lay me on one side; that when Messias comes I may be ready."(Lightfoot, _Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica)

Much of such rabbinical lore had an element of truth in it; and this was no exception...the Messiah did produce some resurrections of some of the saints--but only as a first-fruits of His work... So, in keeping with Matthew's Jewish-focused message, it makes sense for him to record this action of the Messiah. This event actually does mesh with the general topics in NT teachings: Jesus teaching about resurrection to Mary in John; the Christ as first fruits in Paul; and Christ leading 'captivity captive' (OT saints in Sheol released at the atonement)...

These types of resurrection people (probably in normal form, like Lazarus was raised) form the basis for one argument of the first apologists of the faith, Quadratus. He was a very early 2nd century apologist (writing sometime during the reign of Hadrian), and we have only one fragment of his: "But our Savior's works were permanent, for they were real. Those who had been cured or rose from the dead not only appeared to be cured or raised but were permanent, not only during our Savior's stay on earth, but also after his departure. They remained for a considerable period, so that some of them even reached our times." (Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, Westminster: 1988)

Now it would be highly unusual for someone raised in 33 ad to live naturally another 90-100 years (to the times of Quadratus' writings) but this is not necessarily the scope of his reference to 'our times'...this latter phrase could often mean plus-or-minus 50-75 years, allowing these saints to die naturally again (as would have the resurrected Lazarus, the widow's son, etc.) after a few decades. The point is that resurrections are not isolated phenomena--they were a bit more widespread than the few individual cases mentioned in the gospels would lead us to believe...Eutychus by Paul, the group at the Crucifixion--indeed, even Ireneaus--a half century later--could write of resurrections in Christian Churches (Against Heresies 2.32.4)...

Indeed, stories of these risen saints circulated over time. They show up in several of the NT apocryphal works (e.g. The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 7.1-2, Gospel of Nicodemus 17ff). For example, in this later work (Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate), there is the story of Simeon and his sons (living in Arimathea), who were raised at that time, whose tombs were still open (for inspection?), and who wrote sworn testimony to their resurrection. While many of these stories are no doubt might be embellishments of the passage in Matthew (apocryphal writings generally "filled in the gaps" left by the biblical writers), there may be some historical core behind such related stories as this one about Simeon.

Paul's argument in Col 2.15:" And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." might find a reference to this 'public' display of the resurrection power of Jesus. Its tight coupling in the narrative with the torn veil, suggests that it too is part of the dramatic display of God's 'change of program' for His people...no longer is access to God 'covered with a veil' and no longer are His saints covered with 'the veil of death'... It is this last point that tips us off to what Matthew is likely demonstrating/pointing out in this passage: that the rising/appearing of the saints is intimately connected with both the literary texture of the passage and with the ministry of the Jewish Messiah...

The connection with the preceding image (i.e. the earthquake and rocks) shows up in the Jewish connection between the two in the thought of the day. So Raymond Brown, in The Death of the Messiah, gives us the archeological background:

The connection of the tomb openings with the preceding rending of the rocks is visible in the Dura Europos synagogue wall-paintings that portray the raising of the dead as part of the enlivening of the dry bones in Ezek 37--a 3d-cent. AD tableau that is very helpful in understanding how Matt and/or his readers might imagine the scene he is narrating. There in the splitting of a mountain covered by trees (almost surely the Mount of Olives rent by an earthquake), rocks are rent, thus opening up tombs burrowed into the sides of the mountain and exposing bodies of the dead and their parts. A figure is depicted who may be the Davidic Messiah (see Ezek 37:24-25) bringing about this raising of the dead. Earlier and contemporary with the writing of Matt there is testimony to the importance that Ezek 37 had for the just who died for their convictions about God. At Masada, where Jewish Zealots made their last stand against the Roman armies in AD 73, in the floor of the synagogue were found fragments of a scroll on which was written Ezekiel's account of his vision of the raising of the dead bones. Consequently, even apart from the Dura Europos picturization, Ezek 37:12-13 may be the key passage behind Matt's description both in this line and in what follows, for it offers the only opening of tombs (as distinct from the simple raising of the dead) described in the OT. The people of God are assured that they will come to know the Lord because: "I will open your tombs [mnema], and I will bring you up out of your tombs, and I will lead you into the land of Israel."

Its connection with the messianic ministry of Jesus (of primary concern to Matthew) is also seen:

The coming of the kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus was understood not as the final manifestation of the kingdom (i.e., the culmination when the Son of Man would gather before him all the nations, assigning those who are to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, as in 25:31-34) but as an inbreaking inaugurating and anticipating it. Similarly, this raising of "many bodies" as Jesus dies is not the universal final resurrection but an inbreaking of God's power signifying that the last times have begun and the judgment has been inaugurated. [The Death of the Messiah, Brown]

And finally, its connection with the presentation motif of Matthew (i.e. relating the events surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus to its OT background) is seen through the explicit Ezekiel imagery:

Matt's second motive in adding v. 53 was the fulfillment of Scripture. Above I pointed out how much Ezek 37 with its creative description of the enlivening of the dry bones influenced Jewish imagination in picturing the resurrection of the dead. The first part of Ezek 37:12-13, "I will open your tombs," probably shaped the third line of the quatrain of Matt 27:51b-52b, "And the tombs were opened." But the Ezek passage continues: "And I will bring you up out of your tombs, and I will lead you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord." Even as elsewhere Matt enhances the scriptural background and flavoring of material taken from Mark, so here scripturally he goes beyond the quatrain by offering in 27:53 the fulfillment of the rest of the Ezek passage: "And having come out from the tombs, . . . they entered into the holy city [of Jerusalem]." Another biblical passage may have shaped Matt's addition, especially the last clause "and they were made visible to many," i.e., Isa 26:19 (LXX): "Those in the tombs shall be raised, and those in the land [or on the earth] shall rejoice." Thus in what he has added to Mark (both the quatrain taken over from popular tradition and his own commentary on it), Matt has developed the theological insight. In apocalyptic language and imagery borrowed from Scripture he teaches that the death of Jesus and his resurrection ("raising") marked the beginning of the last times and of God's judgment...[The Death of the Messiah, Brown]

Thus, the passage finds connection with

1) the Jewish milieu,

2) the messianic mission of Jesus, and

3) the OT prophetic writings about the Messiah.

Far from being simply 'stuck on', it is very much a part of the Jewish context in which Jesus ministered and in which Matthew wrote. Overall, the passage makes the theological connections clear for the reader. Brown summarizes this well, noting that this small passage...

...offered a dramatic way in which ordinary people familiar with OT thought could understand that the death of Jesus on the cross had introduced the day of the Lord with all its aspects, negative (divine wrath, judgment) and positive (conquest of death, resurrection to eternal life).'

Also, it should be quite clear as to why it did not show up in Luke-writing to the Gentiles, and in Mark: It would not have been relevant to their literary purposes.

Thus, this is not some off the wall "zombie" story, as some critics charge; when taking the historical/cultural/theological/literary context of the original author/readers into consideration and not anachronistic interpretations or naturalistic assumptions. The former since this is the standard for all works, and the latter only applies if their ontological view can be proven.

Reason is the basis for knowledge

Reason is the basis for knowledge and therefore the way to determine what is true.

For example, under empiricism [the philosophical view that knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation] they will use reason to formulate a hypothesis, construct an experiment, and evaluate the result. So, an empiricist will, in fact must, appeal to logic/reason to obtain knowledge. And this is true for any other schools of thought – everyone will appeal to reason to defend their view as well as criticize/evaluate other views

Reason or Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. We use Critical thinking for analyzing and/or evaluating information gathered from various sources as a guide to convictions and action in everyday life and in all fields of inquiry. 

A Christian may say that revelation is knowledge, but they must still reason from the Scriptures, as in Acts 17:2,17

Note: if one uses reason to criticize my claim, that's actually validating it - you are using reason to gain knowledge as to the validity of my claim.

Objection 1: Rationalism begs the question - the rationalist will use a rational argument as a premise for the conclusion of his argument.

Reply: To this, I say no, it is testing a hypothesis. Test all epistemic theories, see that all use reason.

Objection 2: I can use reason to gain knowledge about the Lord of the Rings. I can gain knowledge about a fictional universe, but that doesn't make it magically true for our reality

Reply: If one is gaining knowledge about the LOTR, then they should be able to gain the information that it's fictional.

Objection 3: One must use evidence along with reason to conclude they’ve learned something about reality and not about something in their (or someone else’s) imagination. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between knowledge about reality and knowledge about fictional universes.

Reply: First, notice that you did not use evidence in this, so you seem to have refuted your own point. Secondly, you cite "reality"; what is it, and how do you know?

Objection 4: Your appeal to “reasoning” as absolute authority is circular. You assert that “reasoning” is the ultimate authority because that is the only reasonable means for ascertaining truth.

Reply: Circular reasoning is when the proposition is supported by the premises, which are supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

But my argument stems from the fact I investigated other schools of thought until it dawned on me that everyone uses logic or reasoning to make their case, including empiricists, skeptics, intuitionists, etc.

Note: These pushbacks come from previous conversations about this topic.

To sum up,

1) reason alone can be used alone to gain knowledge 

 

2) every other method must employ reason to gain knowledge, otherwise their preferred epistemological model doesn't work

 
3) All criticisms of my view will invariably use reason to validate their analysis.

Other posts you may be interested in:

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

The Inference to the Best Explanation

The New Testament is 99.5% textually accurate, and no doctrine is in question due to the text.

NT Scholars have examined and analyzed manuscripts of the NT, and the variations among the manuscripts have tended to be almost entirely spelling differences and word choice differences (e.g., "we have peace" vs. "let us have peace" in Romans 5:1). They have not found places where earlier manuscripts had phrases or sentences that are missing from the later manuscripts on which the King James Version (KJV) was based. There are no missing verses.

Instead, in a few places, they have discovered that the earlier manuscripts did not contain phrases or sentences that are included in the later manuscripts. For example, the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13b​ ("For thine is the kingdom...") was apparently added by scribes when they copied Matthew. There are about twenty isolated verses in the NT as found in the KJV that most scholars think were later additions:

Matt. 6:13b; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;

Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28;

Luke 17:36; 23:17;

John 5:4;

Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;

Rom. 16:24;

1 John 5:7b-8a

In addition, two passages of 12 verses each are generally regarded as added to the Gospels by copyists:

Mark 16:9-20;

John 7:53-8:11

Thus, roughly 40 verses​ of the KJV NT, out of 7,957 verses, are now regarded by most scholars as​ later additions​—about one-half of one percent - i.e 0.5%

Meanwhile, scholars have not found any sentences in earlier or more complete manuscripts that are missing from the KJV, but that are regarded as belonging to the original NT writings​. This applies to skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman as much as it does to evangelical scholars like Daniel Wallace. There isn't even any argument on this point. This means that the common belief that material was taken out of the NT by scribes or priests and lost is not supportable by the evidence​.

There are variants that affect the meaning of various verses​. In the vast majority of instances, such variants that do affect meaning do so in doctrinally inconsequential ways​. But there are variants that affect whether a particular verse teaches a core doctrine or not, though in the end, the teaching of the NT as a whole is still the same. That is because every core doctrine is taught in multiple places

For example, 1 John 5:7b-8a​ sounds like an affirmation of the Trinity, but it's one of those 40 or so verses that were added later. However, excluding that verse does not remove the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible; it just means that particular statement should be ignored when formulating doctrine. We have plenty of other verses that are relevant and for which there is no doctrinally significant variant.

Another example might be Acts 20:28​, where some manuscripts have "church of the Lord" instead of "church of God," ; saying "church of the Lord" is not as obviously an affirmation of the deity of Christ for most readers. In actuality, both "Lord" and "God" are titles of deity, so in a sense it doesn't matter.

Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Seven Arguments that show that Universalism is a false doctrine

Universalism is the doctrine that all human beings will ultimately be saved and restored to a right relationship with God. No one will be suffering in hell for eternity; It’s a false doctrine

Argument 1 - The aionios Argument

In Matthew 25:41 and 25:46, the same Greek word (aionios) is used to describe both the duration of heaven and the duration of punishment after death. Universalists often argue that aionios as applied to hell or punishment doesn’t mean “eternal” in the strict sense, but merely “age-long.” In other words, hell exists, but it’s temporary. In that case, though, we’d need to conclude heaven too is temporary that heaven comes to an end. Otherwise, how can the same Greek word have two different meanings in the very same verse “age-long” when applied to punishment or hell, but “forever” when applied to heaven?

Argument 2 - the Two Ways argument

The New Testament’s teaching on heaven and hell doesn’t materialize out of nowhere. The theme of “two ways” leading to differing outcomes is woven throughout the Bible. In just the second chapter of Genesis, Adam is given a choice between life with God (don’t eat from the tree) or death in defiance of God (if he does eat). In Psalm 1 there are different outcomes for the righteous and the wicked, and also in Isaiah 1:19-20 “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword”. The universalist idea of only one outcome for everyone—regardless of choices made—doesn’t merely contradict one verse here or there. It runs against the whole thrust of Old and New Testament teachings.

Argument 3 - the no righteous judgment argument

Universalists generally understand God as a loving being who doesn’t exercise judgment toward sin or sinners. Yet Revelation offers a picture of God’s righteous judgment against a sinful world, in overt rebellion against himself, as the bowls of his wrath are poured out in Revelation 16. The Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil are later seized by the Lord and thrown into “the lake of fire” Revelation 19, an outcome set over and against the New Jerusalem, where the Lord dwells with Christ and the saints Revelation 21

Argument 4 - wise and foolish virgins argument

The parable of the wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25:1–13 emphasizes the limited time and opportunity that humans have to respond to God and it implies a time will come when the door to the “wedding feast” will shut, and it’ll be too late to enter in. One key text appears in Luke 13:23–24 “Someone said to him, ‘Lord, will those who are saved be few?’ And he said to them, ‘Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able’”. Jesus’s message is explicit. Some people, or rather “many”, will wish to enter God’s kingdom but will “not be able.” How is this passage consistent with the idea that is common among universalists today, that the Lord will give endless opportunities, even after death, for individuals to turn to Christ and find salvation? He explicitly says that “many will seek to enter and will not be able.”

Argument 5 - the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy

After the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy - meaning death - in 1 Corinthians 15:26, leads to God becoming “all in all” over a redeemed creation, no enemies can still exist as such, including human, who are called “enemies of the cross” in Philippians 3:18, nor can there be any post-defeat defeat of death in their case anyway. Universalism is ruled out because the Bible links the timing and mode of this defeat of death to the immortalizing resurrection of believers.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:42-55, the believer’s resurrection, when “the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality,” is the moment when death itself is defeated, that is, “swallowed up in victory.” This conquest is grounded in the vision of new creation, when there “will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” Revelation 21:4, confer with Isaiah 25:8.

But as 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 makes clear, “The last enemy to be destroyed is death”, verse 26, leaving no more enemies in existence. We are told in this passage that Jesus is then reigning over “all things,” until he has finally “put all his enemies under his feet”, verse 25. Only after “destroying every rule and every authority and every power” verse 24, does the consummation of salvation history occur, when Jesus submits himself and his rule to God the Father, *”that God may be all in all, *” see 1 Corinthians 15:28 and compare with verse 24. This is precipitated, we are told, by the victory over death demonstrated in the immortalization of believers, which makes them fit for eternal life in the new creation, signaling the destruction of the final enemy, death.

The fact that death is utterly defeated at this point means that it is not subsequently defeated gradually, as unbelievers, who were already resurrected but not made immortal in a victory over death, progressively confess Christ. On universalism, they still remain in mortal rebellion and corruption, just as they are now. Moreover, since all enemies are destroyed by the time Jesus hands cosmic rule over “all things” to the Father, to have been among the “enemies of the cross” in Philippians 3:18 is to have already been destroyed. Therefore, the mode and timing of the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26, and the commensurate absence of any enemy in a fully reconciled creation, rules out universalism.

Argument 6 - God delaying the day of judgment argument

Since the rationale given in 2 Peter 3:9 is that God is being patient by delaying the day of judgment, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” this delay expires when judgment day occurs, along with the related opportunity for repentance, thus ruling out universalism.

In 2 Peter 3:12,18, the apostle encourages believers to pursue holiness while “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God,” the dawning of “the day of eternity”. This eternal age will fulfil God’s promises of “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells,” given through the prophets and apostles , see 2 Peter 3:13, also verses 2-4. God is patient rather than slow, and we are to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation” in verse 15.

The purpose of the delay, then, is so that more may repent and not perish. In theory, the delay could have been indefinite, so that all may eventually repent (universalism) and none may perish, but the logic of the passage indicates that in practice God’s will is more particular and conditional. Paul taught that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world” see Acts 17:31.

Jesus taught that the day of the Lord would take many by surprise, and would come like a thief in the night in Matthew 24:36-44. This is reiterated in Revelation 16:15, and 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, where like a thief in the night the day of the Lord will overtake those who are in darkness, and “sudden destruction will come upon them . . . they will not escape.” It is also reiterated right here, immediately after Peter explains the delay: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief . . . ” 2 Peter 3:10.

Therefore, the rationale for a limited postponement of “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly”, 2 Peter 3:7,9 , rules out the opportunity for repentance beyond that same event, and hence rules out universalism as well.

Argument 7 - the removal argument

This argument states that a crisis of judgment between the present age and the coming age results, according to Hebrews 12:27, in the “removal” of everything that does not belong to the eternal “kingdom that cannot be shaken,” “in order that” everything that does belong “may remain.” Among human beings, only believers belong to the unshakable kingdom; hence, all others are excluded from the age to come, and universalism is ruled out.

The better explanation for God's final judgment would be either Eternal Conscious Judgment or Annihilationism.

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.