How to Defend the Faith In a Postmodern World

Norman L. Geisler[1]

Copyright © 2017 Norman L. Geisler – All rights reserved.

In his postmodern critique of Christian apologetics, Myron Penner, a philosopher of religion, opined, “I suggest that modern Christian apologetics subtly undermines the very gospel it seeks to defend, ” “apologetics itself might be the single biggest threat to genuine Christian faith that we face today,” and “Not only can apologetics curse, it actually is a curse.” [2] I would like to suggest that this position is not true, give reasons why we believe that apologetics in the postmodern world is not working, and explain in four points how to defend the Faith in this postmodern world.

What is Postmodernism?

A History of Premodernism, Modernism, and Postmodernism

Premodernism, or the premodern period, ended roughly around 1650. In that period, thinkers stressed reality and metaphysics. Modernism, or the modern world, lasted from about 1650 to 1950. It stressed epistemology—how can we know? Postmodernism is a view that has emerged roughly around 1950 and endures to the present. In this period, the focus has been on interpretation, on hermeneutics.

We can illustrate the difference between the three views of the three periods with an umpire in his judgments over pitches and plays in the game of baseball. In the premodern world, the umpire would say, “I call them like they are!” In the modern world, the empire would say, “I call them like I see them!” In the postmodern world, an umpire would say, “They are not anything till I call them!” You can see that there is a radical difference in the premodern and postmodern worlds. And the radical difference is going to come out in something called relativism.

Forerunners of Postmodernism

There are a number of forerunners of postmodernism. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is credited with being the father of modernism. He was the one that famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” But, actually, he got it in reverse. It should have been: “I am, therefore I think.” (You see, he kind of got de cart before de horse!).  David Hume (1711-1776), the famous Scottish skeptic, was a radical empiricist who held that we can only know what your five senses tell you about our world.  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was the first great agnostic who said you just kant know. His agnosticism set the stage for the postmodern world. Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), the Danish existentialist, also set the stage by teaching the philosophy of existentialism. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), taught atheism.

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), one of the fathers of the postmodern world, taught the view called deconstructionism. He taught there is no fixed objective meaning or truth in a text. Every text can be deconstructed and reconstructed with new meanings as the reader determines. It can mean many things, many times. In fact, every time it is read or said, it changes its meaning. He wrote Of Grammatology (1967), Speech and Phenomena (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), Limited Inc. (1970), Post Card: From Socrates, Freud and Beyond (1972), Spectres of Marx (1994).

Paul-Michel Foucault (1926-1984), another one of the fathers of postmodernism,was influenced by Kant, Nietzsche, and Husserl. He died of AIDS at age 58. He wrote Madness and Civilization (1961), Death and Labyrinth (1963), The Order of Things (1966), Discipline and Punish (1975), Archaeology of Knowledge (1976), History of Sexuality (1976-1984). In The Order of Things, Foucault stressed the death of God in the 20th century and argued it is the precondition for the death of man.

Contrasting Postmodernism with Modernism

How can you tell that you have moved from modernity to postmodernity? Whereas modern thought stressed the unity of the mind and the unity of thought, postmodern thought stresses diversity of thought. In the modern world, the emphasis was on the rational; in the postmodern world, it is on the social and psychological. In the modern world, the stress was on the conceptual; in the postmodern world, it is on the visual and the poetical. In the modern world, truth was absolute; in the postmodern world, truth is relative. In the modern world, they taught exclusivism; in the postmodern world, the emphasis is on pluralism. In the modern, there were two forms of foundationalism on which we based our thinking; the foundation of postmodernism is anti-foundationalism. In the modern world, the emphasis was on epistemology—how we know; in the postmodern, it is on hermeneutics—how we interpret things. In the modern, there was a quest for certainty—how can we know things for sure? In the postmodern, there is a stress on uncertainty. There is no certainty. In the modern, they sought to find the author’s meaning—they wanted to know what the author meant by a term. But in the postmodern, they are looking for the readers’ meanings.

Nature of Postmodernism: The Root is Atheism

Postmodernism is a condition where, since God is dead, as Vaclav Havel said, “anything is possible and nothing is certain.”[3] And that is the world in which you and I live. The influence of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was very seminal.  Nietzsche, an atheist who referred to himself as the Antichrist, wrote, “God is dead. God remains dead. He did not just die, he remains dead. How shall we, the murders of all murders, comfort ourselves?”[4] God being “dead” is kind of the basis for postmodern thought.

But God is dead in different ways—in different spheres. God is dead epistemologically. The epistemological death of God may be attributed to Immanuel Kant. Although he personally believed in a deistic God, he nonetheless believed that you cannot know this God with your mind. God is dead mythologically according to Nietzsche. He means that the myth of God died. And, per Foucault, we died with him. Or God is dead dialectically according to Hegel, a famous philosopher who is credited with starting a dialectic, and Altizer, his disciple who took his thinking to an extreme. Or God can be dead linguistically. A.J. Ayer, author of Language, Truth, and Logic, who said that God is dead linguistically. We cannot know the meaning of terms. Or God can be dead phenomenologically, taught Husserl, the great philosopher of phenomenology. Or God is dead existentially per Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), the famous French existentialist. Or God is dead cognitively, per Wittgenstein, such that there is no cognitive knowledge of God. Or God is dead hermeneutically, according to Heidegger and Derrida. But God is dead one way or the other. Many of these thinkers (Nietzsche, Altizer, Ayer, Sartre, Derrida) also believed that God is dead actually. But all of them believe in the death of God in various other ways—either epistemologically, mythologically, dialectically, linguistically, phenomenologically, existentially, cognitively, or hermeneutically. God is dead is the characteristic of this new postmodernism.

The Result of Postmodernism: The Fruit is Relativism

So what is the result of postmodernism? In a single word: relativism. If you want to understand what is going on in the world today, it is relativism. If there is no Absolute Mind, then there is no absolute truth (epistemological relativism). If God died and the mind died, then absolute truth dies with an absolute mind. Nor can there be absolute meaning (semantical relativism) because minds can mean things. There can be no absolute history (reconstructionism). We have to reconstruct history. If there is no Absolute Author, then there is no absolute writing (textual relativism) and no absolute interpretation (hermeneutical relativism). Every text means something different. And if there is no absolute interpretation, how can you be absolutely sure of the meaning of any text? There is no absolute meaning. If there is no Absolute Thinker, then it follows that there are no absolute thoughts (philosophical relativism) and no absolute laws of thought (anti-foundationalism). If there is no Absolute Purposer, then there is no absolute purpose (teleological relativism). If there is no Absolute Good, then there is no absolute right or wrong (moral relativism). So we live in the postmodern world, which is characterized by relativism. It is relativism on every level—relativism of truth, of meaning, of history, of writing, of interpretation, of thought, of the laws of thought. There is no absolute purpose, no absolute good. Objectivity does not exist. All absolutes died without God and a future life.

In the famous book by Dostoevsky, Ivan Karamazov summed it up well: “Without God, and the future life? How will man be after that? It means that everything is permitted now.”[5] Or, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it, “I knew myself alone, utterly alone, in the midst of this well-meaning little universe of yours. I was like a man who lost his shadow. And there was nothing left in heaven, no right or no wrong, nor anyone to give me orders.”[6] That is it, in a nutshell. A lonely life where there is no right or wrong and no one to give any orders. Aldous Huxley admitted, “The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”[7] So the brave new world of postmodernism is one where there are no absolutes—no absolute right or wrong, and no absolute truth or falsity.

So what is postmodernism? Its root is atheism; its fruit is relativism—relativism in every area.

How to Defend Against Postmodernism?

In order to defend against the loss of truth in the postmodern age, we have to defend foundationalism.

Definition. What is foundationalism? It is the view that there are foundational, fundamental, self-evident first principles which form the basis of all knowledge. Foundational truth is based in these first principles. But in postmodernism, there are no self-evident first principles of knowledge and, therefore, no basis for knowing anything with certainty.

Distinction.  There are two kinds of foundationalism—deductive and reductive. Generally, the former is rejected while the latter is neglected. In reductive foundationalism, all truths are deducible from self-evident first principles. Spinoza and Descartes are proponents of this view.  Deductive foundationalism operates like Euclidean geometry based on self-evident axioms. In some forms of geometry, parallel lines never meet in infinity, for example. It deduces all truth from these type of axioms. The problem with deductive foundationalism is that not all axioms are necessary. There are different axioms that are possible in some forms of geometry. Parallel lines do meet in infinity according to projective geometry, for example. Reimann geometry has still other starting and ending points. Even if there were necessary first principles or axioms, they are empty. They yield no knowledge about reality. For example, “All triangles have three sides.” That does not tell us whether there are any triangles or not. It just says, if there is a triangle, it must have three sides. Or consider, “All husbands are married men.” It does not tell us that there are any husbands. It just says, if there is a husband, he must be a married man. It is empty knowledge.

By contrast, in reductive foundationalism, all truths are reducible to (are based upon) self-evident principles—not deducible from them. A proponent of this view is Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), one of the greatest thinkers of all time. And we think highly of Thomas Aquinas because of his philosophy and because of what it provides or as an answer to postmodernism and an answer for certainty in the modern world. So, we, along with the rest of the modern world, reject deductive foundationalism. But we accept a reductive foundationalism, such as Thomas Aquinas held. Every statement, not evident in itself, must be evident in terms of something else.

You can reduce all knowledge to first principles. But there cannot be an infinite regress of non-evident statements. And since there cannot be an infinite regress of non-evident statements, there must be first, self-evident principles in terms of which non-evident statements are made known to be true. We are going to defend reductive foundationalism as the basis for knowledge and for answering postmodernism. An endless regress of explanations is an attempt to explain away the need for explanation. If you had an endless regress of statements, you would explain away explanation itself.  C.S. Lewis said there is a need for first principles:

You cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. … It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see though’ all things is the same as not to see. [8]

That statement makes clear what you and I believe about knowledge. Knowledge is possible, knowable, and absolute because knowledge can be reduced to self-evident first principles which are undeniable.

What are the First Principles?

In the reductive foundationalism, first principles that lead to certain knowledge are either self-evident statements or statements where the predicate term is reducible to the subject term. Consider this statement: every contingent being has a cause. Now that is not obviously self-evident but it is reducible to the self-evident. Contingent means could not-be. But non-being cannot cause being. Hence, every contingent being has a cause.

Well, what are first principles? The knowledge is possible because of first principles. What are the first principles on which we can base our certain knowledge? First principles defined in a reductive view. Self-evident statement, a statement where the predicate term is reducible to the subject term. Take, for example, “Every contingent being has a cause.” Now that is not obviously self-evident, but it is reduced to the self-evident. The contingent means could not be. Contingent is something that is, but might not be. But non-being cannot cause being. Hence, every contingent being has a cause. The reason that you and I can be certain about the principle, say for example, of causality, is it is reducible to a first principle.

Some First Principles Listed

Once you understand these first principles, we can know things with certainty, prove certain things. The first one we call the Law of Existence: “Being is” (i.e., Something exists. e.g., I do). That is self-evident. Without the obvious certainty that something exists, we cannot know anything. Principle number two, the Law of Identity: “Being is being” (B is B). We cannot deny it without affirming it. Third, the Law of Non-Contradiction: “Being is not non-being” (B is not non-B). The law of non-contradiction is one of the three fundamental laws of thought that are literally undeniable. Fourth, the Law of Excluded Middle: “Either Being or non-being” (Either B or not B). Something either is or it is not—but it cannot be and not be at the same time. Fifth, the Law of Causality: “Non-being cannot cause being” (Non-B –/à being). Nothing cannot cause something. As Julie Andrews famously sang, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could!”[9] Sixth, the Law of Analogy: “An effect is similar to its efficient cause” (B—>b). Seventh, therefore, God exists—that is, a first, uncaused Cause exists that is similar to us (his effects).

First Principles Lead to God

Now notice, just taking the six basic laws themselves, all of which are self-evident, you can arrive at certain knowledge. You can be sure of the conclusion that follows from them. If these laws are true, then God must exist. God exists. The first uncaused cause of all that exists is similar to its effect.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), a famous American theologian and philosopher, also held that first principles lead us to believe in God. He argued: (1) Something undeniably exists. (2) Nothing cannot cause something. (Nothing can only cause nothing.) (3) Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily. (4) A personal, intellectual, and moral being undeniably exists (e.g., me, you). (5) Hence, a personal, intellectual, moral, external, and necessary Being exists (i.e., God.).[10] He used several of the first principles to make one of the most profound proofs for the existence of God. And he wrote this proof around the age of nineteen years of age!

Somebody a little older, a contemporary atheist, Anthony Flew (1923-2010), one of the great atheists of the 20th century, said this in his book, There is a God: “It is simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act. A force field does not plan or think. So… the world of living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind.”[11] And with that, the world’s most famous atheist, Anthony Flew, was converted to believe in God. You cannot deny God without denying that something exists and nothing cannot cause something. And if something exists, then nothing cannot cause something. And the something that exists is a personal, conscious, thinking being. I am a personal conscious thinking being, undeniably, then there must be an eternal, conscious, living being. And with that Anthony Flew was converted to believe in the existence of God.

What is wrong with Postmodernism?

It Cannot be Thought Consistently

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote, “If there were an infinite regress in demonstration, demonstration would be impossible, because the conclusion of any demonstration is made certain by the reducing of it to first principles of demonstration.”[12] The only way we can be sure of something is by knowing that these first principles exist and what we are saying is reducible to—not deducible from, but reducible to—these first principles. It cannot be thought consistently without these first principles.

Every attempt to deny first principles uses them in the very denial. For example, thinking that “nothing exists” implies that something exists—namely the person who is denying it. So, to say nothing exists is a self-defeating statement. You have to exist in order to say something does not exist. To propose that “being is not being” assumes the term “being” is identical to itself. Otherwise, the negation of it would not be of the same thing. Instead, being is not non-being. Saying “nothing exists” is self-defeating. Similarly, arguing that “contradictory statements can both be true” implies that contradictions of that very statement can be true. So, it cannot be thought. You cannot even think rational thoughts without using first principles of knowledge.

Let me put it in simple language. The statement, “I do not exist.” Well then, who said that? If I do not exist, Who was it that said I do not exist? It is a self-defeating statement. Or “opposites can both be true.” It is a self-defeating statement. Is the opposite of that true? Opposites can both be true? Can the opposite of that statement be true? Clearly not. Not only can you not state these principles, you cannot think them consistently. Every attempt to deny first principles of knowledge uses them in the very denial.

Relation of logic and God. Ontologically, in the order of being, the basis for logic follows from God’s rationale nature. If there is a rational being, who therefore has a rational nature, then there must be a rational basis for that being’s existence. Epistemologically, in the order of knowing, logic is the basis for knowing God. God is the basis for logic, but logic is the basis for our knowledge about God. The statement, “logic does not apply to God,” is itself stated as a logical (non-contradictory) statement about God. You cannot possibly escape first principles of thought.

It Cannot Be Spoken Consistently

So, what is wrong with postmodernism? Well, it cannot be thought and spoken consistently. Consider this example of a self-defeating statement: “I cannot speak a word in English.” You will respond, “But did not he say that in English?” One cannot say a word in English without affirming that he is speaking in English. And if you deny it, you are denying the self-evident.

That words cannot express meaning is a common belief in our postmodern world. But to say, “Words cannot express meaning,” leaves us with the question of what these words then mean. If words cannot express meaning, then the very statement words cannot express meaning cannot mean anything. Similarly, when states, “There is no objective truth. Everything is subjective. It is true for you and not for me,” we have to ask whether that truth statement is an objective truth or not. See, the statement there is no objective truth is offered as an objectively true statement. To assert, “There is no objective view of history. You cannot know what happened in the past,” begs the question of whether that view of history is an objectively true view or not. How can you make objective statements about the past, which is history, if you are denying objective statements cannot be made about the past? To those who argue, “There is no objective interpretation of anything, of any biblical text, of any literary text,” we have to ask whether that is itself an objective interpretation of something or not. It is a self-defeating statement. Postmodernism is like a gun with a barrel that bends back towards the shooter. As it aims at something else, it kills itself. To think and speak consistently, we need the first principles of reductive foundationalism. 

The objection is sometimes raised that postmodernism is not making any truth claims. And if is not making any truth claims, then It is not involved in any self-defeating statements. If is is true that they are not making any truth claims, we should ask them why they bother to write books, give talks, and try to convince others that their views are correct. C. S. Lewis says it very clearly:

You can argue with a man who says, “Rice is unwholesome,” but you can never, should never argue with a man who says “rice is unwholesome, but I am not saying this is true.” I feel that this is a surrender of the claim to truth has all the air of an expedient adopted at the last moment. If [they] do not claim to know any truths, ought they not to have warned us rather earlier of the fact? For really from all the books they have written…one would have got the idea that they were claiming to give a true account of things. The fact surely is that they nearly always are claiming to do so. The claim is surrendered only when the question discussed…is pressed; and when the crisis is over the claim is tacitly resumed.[13]

            Now let me explain that a little more clearly because it is a very important point. Can the postmodernists claim not to be making a truth claim? And can he just say he is making no truth statements at all? Well, what are you doing? You certainly made a statement. A statement makes a declaration of some kind. How do you argue with someone like that?

Alan Watts was famous New Age influencer who wrote twenty-five popular books, gave almost 200 recorded talks, and spoke in countless interviews. With his views on Zen and the Tao, he claimed that the Tao goes beyond true and false, beyond right and wrong, and that it transcends the laws of logic. And yet he wrote and spoke prolifically as if it did not. When he was asked to defend this inconsistent position, he claimed he was not actually making any truth claims. When asked why he writes books if he is not making truth claims, and why he speaks if he is not saying something, he answered, “The reason I write is the same reason birds fly. Birds fly and authors write. That is just something they do.”[14] What is that? They claim to not be making meaningful truth claims while they are making meaningful truth claims. They are really making the statement even if they claim they are not making a statement. They are trying to change the readers’ minds while saying they are not trying to argue their position. And so they cannot even speak consistently.

It Cannot be Lived Consistently

Postmodern man cannot live consistently in a postmodern world. Francis Schaeffer said, “All men constantly and consistently act as though Christianity is true… Modern men say there is no love, there is only sex, but they fall in love… Actually—every moment of his life—he is acting as though Christianity is true and it is only the Christian system that tells him why he can, must, and does act the way that he does.”[15] It is impossible to live consistently in a postmodern worldview because all men live as though it is not a postmodern world.

Atheists admit their need for God. Even Jean-Paul Sartre wrote, “I reached out for religion. I longed for it. It was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it by myself… I needed the Creator….”[16] Atheists like Albert Camus. First, anyone who was alone without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful. It is dreadful to try to live without God. It is dreadful to try to subsist in the world without God. Nietzsche, he actually wrote a poem to the unknown God. And he says halfway through “and my heart’s final flame flares up for thee. Oh, come back, My unknown god! My pain! My last-happiness!”[17] He is crying out to God. He could not live his atheism. Bertrand Russell, famous agnostic/atheist, said, “Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God.” And then he catches himself, and adds, “at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God… There must be something more important one feels, though I do not believe there is.”[18] What an honest confession. What an unbeliever. There must be something more than this life. There must be something more. But I do not believe there is. It is a choice. It is a faith that the atheist expresses.

I visited his tomb of Karl Marx near London a number of years ago. On the way back I was reading European issue of Time magazine, which said, “God is dead. Marx is dead. And I am not feeling too well either.”[19] Why? You cannot live without God. Nietzsche said, “I hold up before myself the images of Dante and Spinoza, who were better at accepting the lot of solitude. Of course, their way of thinking, compared to mine, was one which made solitude bearable…My life now consists in the wish that it might be otherwise… and that somebody might make my “truths” appear incredible to me….”[20] Isn’t that an interesting confession? I wish I had a god for company, but I do not. My life now consists that it might be otherwise, and that somebody might make my truths seem incredible to me.

David Hume, the famous skeptic, said, “Most fortunately, it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds [of doubt], nature herself suffices that purpose, and it cures me of the philosophical melancholy and delirium.”[21] It drives me nuts, this atheism. I do not get any consolation from it. It drives me to melancholy and delirium. Maybe the greatest skeptic who ever lived tells where skepticism leads. He said, “So, what do I do? I dine. I play a game of backgammon, I converse . . . and when after three or four hours’ amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”[22] He could not live his skepticism.

Russell could not live his atheism. Will Durant, famous atheist said, “I survive morally because I retain the moral code that was taught me along with the religion, while I discarded the religion…. You and I are living on the shadow…. But what will happen to our children…? They are living on the shadow of a shadow.”[23]

            They could not live their atheism. What is wrong with humanism? What is wrong with atheism? British atheists put it well in their magazine: Humanism is almost “clinically detached from life.” They recommend that they develop a humanist Bible, a humanist hymnal, Ten Commandments for humanists, and even confessional practices. In addition, “the use of hypnotic techniques—music and other psychological devices—during humanist services would give the audience the deep spiritual experience and they would emerge refreshed and inspired with their humanist faith.”[24] In other words, make up a religion. Get yourself a hymnal, get yourself a set of beliefs, some hypnotic practices, and replace all of that.

I decided to write a hymn for their hymnal. It is titled My Hope is Built on Nothing Less than Jean-Paul Sartre and Nothingness. It goes, “Open my eyes and I may see / More of my own subjectivity. Help me, Derrida, ever to be / All absorbed in uncertainty. Then I will know what it is to be / Lost forever in postmodernity.”

Atheists evaluate Atheism. Will Durant says it is a shadow of a shadow. Nietzsche said is not bearable. Albert Camus admits it is dreadful. Sartre deems it cruel. Hume admits it leads to delirium. The main point, postmodernism is not only unthinkable, and unspeakable, but it is unlivable—the three main arguments against postmodernism.

Camus also wrote, “Nothing can discourage the appetite for divinity in the heart of man.”[25] What a confession for an atheist. Nothing can discourage the appetite for divinity in the heart of man. Pascal put it famously from which we get the summary that he believed there is a God-sized vacuum in a human heart. “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him…though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”[26] What a beautiful way it has been put. You cannot fill an infinite vacuum with anything but an infinite. You cannot get eternal happiness with anything but the eternal.

Real Needs Call for Real Fulfillment. Dr. Collins, who is the head of the Human Genome Project, said, “Why would such a universal and uniquely human hunger [for God] exist, if it were not connected with any possibility for fulfillment?… Creatures are not born with desires unless the satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well there is such a thing as water.”[27] There is a desire for God.  

According to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) in his famous book, The Future of Illusion, “What is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes.” They wish it to be true, but they have no reason to believe that it is true. As for “religious doctrines,” “all of them are illusions and insusceptible of proof.” [28] One of the greatest responses to this was written by a Christian who turned Freudianism on Freud and came to the conclusion that Freud was killing the father and at the heart of atheism is the desire to kill God.[29] That’s what Nietzsche said, God is dead and we have killed him. Paul Vitz wrote, “Indeed, there is a coherent psychological origin to intense atheism” and “Therefore, in the Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself.”[30] Now, this is interesting, because the common explanation for why people believe in God by an atheist is, it is an illusion. It’s an illusion, and they want to kill the Father. Well, the truth of the matter is that atheism itself is a desire to kill the father and replace the father.

Sartre dismissed God. He said, “I had all the more difficulty of getting rid of him in that he had installed himself at the back of my head… I collared the Holy Ghost in the cellar and threw him out; atheism is a cruel and long-range affair; I think I’ve carried it through. I have lost my illusion.”[31] Unfortunately, he did not lose. He said in the National Review, before he died, “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here.”[32] He confessed before he died that he believed in God, he believed in a creator.

The Solution to Postmodernism

The solution to postmodernism is reductive foundationalism, which Thomas Aquinas taught in self-evident, undeniable, first principles which lead inevitably back to God. The cure for postmodernism is the vaccine of Thomism, administered by the angelic doctor. Evangelicals need to stop singing “Should old Aquinas be forgot and never brought to mind?” As the New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics puts it, “there is logic and rationality, because we are created in the image and likeness of God….So, even though our [post-modern] opponents might insist that a rational argument cannot operate upon them…we can still have confidence that our rational arguments can affect their minds.”[33] Even the popular wisdom tells us that Christians know that you must speak, you must think, you must write, all of which are contrary to what the postmodernists are saying.

Conclusion

In conclusion, how can we defend faith in the postmodern world? We defend it in the same way we do it in the modern world—by logical arguments based on first principles that come to logical conclusions. You know, it is kind of silly. We go through all these stages, all these ages, and it gets back to the same thing. They are denying man as man. They are denying there is a rational creature, a thinking creature, a speaking creature, made in the image and likeness of God. We fight bad reason with good reason, not with no reason. In fact, I listened to a well-known contemporary Christian recently give a lecture on how to reach people in the postmodern world. And he did the typical thing by saying, well, they do not respond to poetry, they do not respond to art, they do not respond to this, they do not respond to that. So, we have got to ignore all of that and tell them stories. Ironically, there is not a single story in his book. His entire approach to reach postmodernism was itself a modern approach. He used thoughts, arguments, reasons. And you and I, if we are going to reach the modern world, have used thoughts, reason, first principles, and undeniable arguments. We have to fight bad reason with good reason.

What reasons do have we to believe in Penner’s view? None. He does not have any reasons; he is a fideist. He wrote, “Rather than arguing for the superiority of postmodernism, I assume postmodernism as a starting point and try to make this standpoint intelligible.”[34] He assumes his starting point by faith is an anti-modern view, and, not surprisingly, he, concludes postmodernism is the way to go. But if so, then there is no way to adjudicate conflicting views. It has numerous self-defeating claims: We cannot know the objective truth, and yet this is presented as an objective truth. Truth does not correspond to reality, and yet this statement corresponds to reality. The answer to postmodernism: Thomism, the angelic doctrine. Back to the first principles of reason—which the Bible itself uses—which alone will suffice in reaching people.

Recommended Reading

Geisler, Norman L. A History of Western Philosophy, Vol. 2: Modern and Postmodern: From Descartes to Derrida. Arlington, TX: Bastion Books, 2016.

______. Christian Apologetics, Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

______. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

______. Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983.

______. Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, Second Edition. Arlington, TX: Bastion Books, 2025.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1943.

Régis, Louis Marie. Epistemology.  New York: Macmillan, 1959.

Wilhelmsen, F. D. Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology. Brooklyn, NY: Angelico Press, 2021.

---

[1] After fifty years of teaching Christians to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3 ESV), Norman Leo Geisler (1932-2019), gave his last public lecture at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. From “How to Defend the Christian Faith in a Postmodern World,” recorded October 2017, YouTube video, 1:16:58, https://youtu.be/kxhePYpgHjM. Transcribed by Azure AI and edited by Christopher T. Haun. Used with permission of Geisler Enterprises, LLC.

[2] Myron B. Penner, The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 49, 12, 9.

[3] Václav Havel, “The Need for Transcendence in this Post-Modern World,” Liberty Medal Acceptance Speech, Independence Hall, Philadelphia, October 4, 1994. https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/theology-philosophy/the-need-for-transcendence-in-the-postmodern-world/.

[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Madman,” in The Gay Science. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1974. There is room to debate whether Nietzsche was an atheist or a “Dionysian” pantheist. He admired both Spinoza and Heraclitus while championed Dionysianism (chaos, dissolution of self, unity of the whole) over Apollonianism (order, boundaries, individualism). Regardless, he was antagonistic to the idea of a God who was beyond our world that designed, created, and gave order and purpose to our world (theism).  

[5] Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Vintage, 1991), 589.

[6] Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Flies,” in No Exit and Three Other Plays, trans. Stuart Gilbert (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 121-122.

[7] Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (London: Chatto & Windus, 1937), 272.

[8] C.S. Lewis, 2001. The Abolition of Man. Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, No. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 91.

[9] Richard Rodgers, “Something Good,” Concord Music Publishing. 1965. https://rodgersandhammerstein.com/song/the-sound-of-music/something-good.

[10]  Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellanies,” No. 27a, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 13, The “Miscellanies,” Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, ed. Thomas A. Schafer (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 213.

[11] Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 183.

[12] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, trans. John P. Rowan (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1961), 244.

[13] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 24

[14] Alan Watts, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 20. This is likely what is being paraphrased: “The Book I would pass to my children would contain no sermons, no shoulds and oughts. . . . Thus I am not saying that you ought to break out of your shell. If, then, I am not saying that you ought to awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster, why The Book? Why not sit back and let things take their course? Simply that is part of things taking their course; that I write. As a human being it is just my nature to enjoy and share philosophy. I do this in the same way that some birds are eagles and some doves, some flowers lilies and some roses. I realize, too, that the less I preach, the more likely I am to be heard.”

[15]Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1972), 70–71.

[16] Jean-Paul Sartre, Words, trans. Bernard Frechtman (New York: George Braziller, 1964), 102.

[17] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1978), Part 4, “The Magician.”

[18] Bertrand Russell, Letters to Lady Ottoline, ed. Nicholas Griffin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992). Emphasis his.

[19]  Time, “Is God Dead?” April 8, 1966, Vol. 87, No. 14. The line “God is dead, Marx is dead, and I’m not feeling so well myself” is attributed to the absurdist playwright Eugène Ionesco.

[20] Friedrich Nietzsche, letter to Franz Overbeck, July 2, 1865.

[21] David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby‑Bigge, 2nd ed. rev. P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 1.4.7.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Will Durant, interview in Chicago Sun‑Times, August 24, 1975, 1B.

[24] British Humanist Magazine, 1964.

[25] Albert Camus, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt, trans. Anthony Bower (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), 147.

[26] Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (London: Penguin Books, 1995), §425.

[27] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 38.

[28] Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, trans. James Strachey (New York: W. W. Norton, 1961), 49–50.

[29] Paul C. Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 1999), 3, 13.

[30] Ibid

[31] Jean-Paul Sartre, The Words, trans. Bernard Frechtman (New York: George Braziller, 1964), 252–53.

[32] National Review, June 11, 1982, 677.

[33] K. R. Birkett, “Christian Apologetics,” in W.C. Campbell‑Jack and Gavin J. McGrath, eds., New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (Leicester, England: Inter‑Varsity Press; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 31.

[34] Penner, The End of Apologetics, 14.

Christians claim the Bible is God’s Word. That means that they believe the Bible is a verbal revelation from God that makes it unique from every other book. But how can such a claim be verified?

First, we would expect certain things to be true about a book from God. Such characteristics might also be true about humanly-authored books, but we would expect that, at the very least, they would be true about God’s book. Such characteristics would include the following:

• It would claim to be God’s Word.
• It would be historically accurate when it speaks on historical matters.
• Its authors would be trustworthy.
• It would be thematically unified and without contradictions.
• We would have received accurate copies of the original manuscripts.

Second, because God is unique, His book would bear characteristics that could be true of it alone. Such characteristics would distinguish God’s book from all other books in such a way that it could not be counterfeited. These characteristics would include the following:

• It would make statements that would reveal knowledge about the way things work beyond the knowledge of its day.
• It would make predictions about the future that could not be known through natural means.
• The message would be unique.
• The messengers would be confirmed by miracles.
• The words would have a transforming power.

Now let’s look at the characteristics listed to see if they are true about the Bible.

Characteristics That Must Be True of God’s Word, But Could Also Be True of a Human Book                                

1. The Bible Claims to Be God’s Word

1. The Authors Claimed to Speak God’s Words Much of the Bible was written by prophets of God. The prophet was someone who was to say exactly what God told him to say, no more and no less. Jeremiah was commanded:

“This is what the LORD says: Stand in the courtyard of the LORD’s house and speak to all the people…Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word” (Jer. 26:2). The prophet was to speak “everything the LORD had said” (Ex. 4:30).

Throughout the Scriptures, moreover, the authors, whether they were called prophets or not, claimed to be under the direction of the Holy Spirit: “Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21; cf., 2 Sam. 23:2; Matt. 22:43).

• The Bible Claims to Be “Breathed Out” By God Writing about the entire Old Testament, the apostle Paul declared: “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16; emphasis added). Jesus described the Scriptures as the very “word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4; emphasis added).

C.  The New Testament Was Seen As Being Revealed Scripture As Well

When the New Testament authors used the word “Scripture” they usually had the Old Testament in mind, since the New Testament was still in the process of being written. Nevertheless, they were also well aware that Jesus had told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would continue the process of inspiring new Scripture (John 14:26; 16:13). Paul, for example, understood that his writings were “words taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:13; see also Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 3:15-16), and he taught that God was continuing the process of revelation in others as well (Eph. 3:4-5).

1

• What the Bible Says, God Says, and Vice Versa Another way the Bible claims to be the Word of God is expressed in the formula, “What God says, the Bible says.” This is manifested in the fact that often an Old Testament passage will claim God said it, yet when this same text is cited in the New Testament it asserts that “the Scriptures” said it. The reverse is true as well: What the Bible says, God says. The chart below cites only two of many examples.

What God Says…	The Bible Says.
“The LORD said to Abram, ‘…all peoples on earth will be blessed through you’” (Genesis 12:1, 3).	“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Galatians 3:8).
What the Bible Says…	God Says.
“Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?” (Psalms 2:1, written by David).	“You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?’” (Acts 4:25).

• The Biblical Writers Claim “Thus Said the Lord” Phrases like “thus says the Lord” (Isa. 1:11,18; Jer. 2:3,5; etc.), “God said” (Gen. 1:3,6; etc.), “the Word of the Lord came to me” (Jer. 34:1; Eze. 30:1; etc.) and other similar phrases occur hundreds of times in the Old Testament. Their significance is that the writer is claiming to be giving the very Word of God.

The Bible is also spoken of as being “the Word of God.” For example, Jesus told the Jews of His day: “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:6, emphasis added). Paul speaks of the Jews as having “been entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom. 3:2, emphasis added; see also Heb. 4:12).

F.  The Bible Claims to Have Divine Authority in All Its Parts

The Bible claims to be divinely authoritative with respect to all that is written within it (2 Tim. 3:16). That includes its very words (Matt. 22:43; 1 Cor. 2:13; Gal. 3:16), the tenses of the verbs (Matt. 22:32; Jesus draws significance from the present tense of ‘I am’) and even to the smallest parts of the words (Matt. 5:17, 18). Even though the Bible was not verbally dictated by God to the authors, nevertheless, the result is just as perfect as if it had been. For the biblical authors claimed that God is the source of the very words of Scripture, since He supernaturally superintended the process by which they wrote but still used their own vocabulary and style: “but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

G. Christ Testified That the Bible Is from God Jesus had an extremely high view of Scripture. For example,

• He said, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).
• He said that the Bible is imperishable (Matt. 5:17-18).
• He asserted that the Bible cannot be broken, or fail in its purpose (John 10:35).
• He affirmed the ultimate supremacy of the authority of the Bible over human tradition (Matt. 15:3,6).
• He considered the Bible to be without error (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).
• He considered the Bible to be historically reliable (Matt. 12:40; 24:37-38).

2. The Bible Is Historically Accurate

The Bible is not merely a book containing theological teachings that are unrelated to history, but the theological statements of Scripture are closely linked to historical events. For example, Paul maintained that if Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead was not an historical fact, then our faith is futile (1 Cor. 15:17). Scriptural characters, like Paul, were not a group of gullible religious people who were ready to believe anything that came along.

The history given in the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology to a remarkable degree. Noted archaeologist,

Nelson Glueck, states,

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.

Glueck, 31, emphasis added

Archaeologist Millar Burrows notes that “more than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine” (Burrows, 1, emphasis added).

William Ramsay is one such example of an archaeologist who went from believing that the Bible contained fabricated myths to believing that the Bible was not only accurate historically but that it was the Word of God.

Earlier in his life Ramsay had been influenced by a liberal theology, which taught that the writers of the Bible were more interested in promoting a biased theological perspective than in accurately recording history. In the course of his studies, however, Ramsay was surprised to find extensive archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the biblical narratives. One thing that impressed Ramsay about Luke, the writer of Acts, was his accuracy with respect to ostensibly insignificant details. For example, Luke accurately names the rulers of Thessalonica “politrarchs,” Gallio the “Proconsul of Achaea,” the official in Ephesus a “temple warden,” the governor of Cyprus a “proconsul” and the chief official in Malta “the first man of the island.” Such titles have since been confirmed in numerous Greek and Latin inscriptions.

What Ramsay began to realize was that the Bible was not mythical, but that it was a document that recorded history with extreme accuracy. He wrote, “Luke is an historian of the first rank” (Wilson, 114). And if the Bible was accurate in its historical details, then he considered there to be a good chance that the biblical authors could be trusted to accurately relate the spiritual significance of the historical events as well.

3. The Trustworthiness of the Biblical Authors

As we saw in point 1, the biblical authors claimed to be receiving their messages from God. Now, if the biblical writers were known perjurers, there would be no reason to accept their claim. But they were honest men of integrity, which lends support to the credibility of their claim of having been inspired by God. Their honesty and integrity is evident by the following things.

First, they taught the highest standard of ethics, including the obligation to always tell the truth: “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25; see also Ex. 20:16; Ps. 15:2; Rev. 22:15).

Second, the writers of the Bible paid a high price for their truthfulness. For example, Peter and the eleven apostles (Acts 5), as well as Paul (Acts 28), were all imprisoned. Most were eventually martyred for their witness for Christ (2 Timothy 4:6-8; 2 Peter 1:14). Indeed, being “faithful, even to the point of death” was an earmark of early Christian conviction (Revelation 2:10).

People sometimes die for what they believe to be true and isn’t. But few are willing to die for what they know to be false. Yet the biblical witnesses died for the truth they proclaimed, believing that their message had come from God. While not being proof, such evidence is an indication that the Bible is what the biblical writers claimed it to be—the Word of God.

4. The Testimony of the Amazing Unity of the Bible The Bible is amazing in its unity amid vast diversity. Even though the Bible was composed by many persons of diverse backgrounds and different time periods, nevertheless it manifests a unity that would indicate there was one Mind behind its writing.

Consider the diversity of the Bible. The Bible:

• was written over a period of some fifteen hundred years or more (from at least 1400 B.C. to nearly A.D.100), •        is composed of 66 different books,
• was written by some 40 different authors,
• was composed in three languages—Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic,
• contains discussions on hundreds of different topics,
• was written in a variety of different literary styles, including historical, poetic, didactic, parabolic, allegorical, apocalyptic, and epic,
• was composed by authors of many different occupations.

Yet in spite of all this vast diversity, the Bible reveals an amazing unity. First, it is one, continuous unfolding drama of redemption from Genesis to Revelation; from paradise lost to paradise regained; from the creation of all things to the consummation of all things (Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption and The Triumph of the Crucified).

Second, the Bible has one central theme—the Person of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27). In the Old Testament, Christ is seen by way of anticipation; in the New Testament by way of realization. In the Old Testament He is predicted, and in the New Testament He is present (Matt. 5:17-18). The Old Testament expectation of Christ came to a historical realization in the New Testament.

Third, from beginning to end the Bible has one unified message: humanity’s problem is sin (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:23), and the solution is salvation through Christ (Luke 19:10; Mark 10:45).

Such incredible unity amidst such great diversity is best accounted for by a God who stands outside time and history and who was therefore able to direct the writing of the Bible. The very same Mind that the writers of Scripture claimed to have inspired them also appears to have superintended them, weaving each of their pieces into one overall mosaic of truth.

To highlight the incredible unity of the Bible by way of contrast, suppose that a book containing family medical advice was composed by 40 doctors over 1500 years, in different languages, on hundreds of different medical topics, etc. What kind of unity would it have, even if all the succeeding authors knew what the preceding ones had written? One chapter would say all disease is caused by demons that need to be exorcised. Another would claim that disease is in the blood, which needs to be drained out. Still another would claim disease is psychosomatic—mind over matter. Such a book would lack unity, continuity, and no one would seriously consider it a definitive source to answer what is the cause and cure of disease.

Yet the Bible, with even greater diversity in the topics addressed, is the world’s perennial best seller and is sought by multiplied millions as the solution to humanity’s spiritual problems. It alone, of all books known to humankind, needs the Deity to account for its amazing unity in the midst of such diversity.

5. The Documents We Possess Are Accurate Copies of the Originals

In 1948, Bedouin shepherds discovered Old Testament manuscripts in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea. These manuscripts had been hidden for 2,000 years. They serve as a control by which to gauge the accuracy of the manuscripts that had been copied during the time that they were hidden in the caves.

What did the scholars find when they compared the Qumran manuscripts with the present-day copies? Millar Burrows, who wrote a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, said,

It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.

Geisler, 1986, 366-367

Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer wrote concerning the two copies of the book of Isaiah found in the caves,

“[they] proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling” (Geisler, 1986, 367).

Thus, we can say with assurance that those who copied the text of the books of the Old Testament did so with great care.

What about the textual accuracy of the New Testament? The degree of accuracy of the New Testament exceeds 99%, which is greater than that of any other book from the ancient world (see Geisler, 1986, ch. 22). The reasons for this amazing accuracy are that, with respect to the Bible, the number of New Testament manuscripts that we have is greater than for other books from the ancient world, and the biblical manuscripts are much closer in time to the originals than those of other works from ancient times. Consider the chart below.

It must be clarified that Christians claim that God inspired, or “breathed out,” the text of the original manuscripts, not everything in the copies. The copies are without error only in so far as they were copied correctly. It is nevertheless true that the copies were copied with great care and a very high degree of accuracy. Christians believe that God in His providence preserved the copies from all substantial error.

There are, however, some minor copyist variants in the biblical manuscripts. It is important, though, to note of these copyist variants that:

• Such variants are relatively rare in the copied manuscripts;
• In most cases we know which one is wrong from the context or the parallel passages;
• In no case do the variants affect any doctrine of Scripture;
• The variants actually vouch for the accuracy of the copying process, since the scribes who copied them knew there were variants in the manuscripts, still they were duty-bound to copy what the text said;
• The variants don’t affect the message of the Bible.

In fact, one must make a distinction between the text and its message, for one can receive a text with variants and still receive 100% of the message. For example, suppose you receive a message from Western Union as follows:

#ou have won seven million dollars.

No doubt you would gladly pick up your money. And if the telegram read this way, then you would have no doubt at all about its message:

Y#u have won seven million dollars.

Yo# have won seven million dollars.

You #ave won seven million dollars.

Why are we more sure of the message when there are more variants? Because each variant is in a different place, and with each new line we get another confirmation of every other letter in the original message.

Three things are important to note:

1. Even with one line—variant and all—100 percent of the message comes through.
2. The more lines, the more variants. But the more variants, the more sure we are of what the intended message really was.
3. There are hundreds of times more biblical manuscripts than there are lines in the above example. And there is a greater percentage of variants in this telegram than in all the biblical manuscripts combined.

Characteristics That Could Be

True Only of God’s Word                            

1. Scientific Knowledge Before Its Time

One of the amazing things about the Bible is that it makes scientifically accurate statements about the body, the earth, and the heavens that predate their discoveries by usually 2,0003,000 years. Moreover, such scientific statements were made in the midst of cultures that were largely superstitious and not scientific in their approach.

A. The Body

In the 1840s, there was a one in six rate of a pregnant woman dying from “childbirth fever” after entering a particular hospital in Vienna, Austria. Ignaz Semmelweis, one of the doctors, noticed that their deaths were not random, but that the patients had been examined by doctors who had just autopsied victims of “childbirth fever.” So Dr. Semmelweis implemented a policy that all doctors must wash their hands after doing autopsies. As a result, the mortality rate among pregnant women dropped dramatically to one in eighty-four. But instead of Dr. Semmelweis receiving accolades, the other doctors failed to see the connection, and considered the constant washing of hands to be a bother. Dr. Semmelweis was ostracized and eventually left Vienna to practice medicine in Budapest, where the same story repeated itself (Cairney, “Prescience 2,” 137-142).

What is significant about Dr. Semmelweis’s story is that the cleanliness laws set down by God through Moses predated by 3,500 years the principles of washing to prevent the spread of disease. Moses wrote:

“For the unclean person [someone who has touched a dead person or animal], put some ashes from the burned purification offering into a jar and pour fresh water over them…. The person being cleansed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and that evening he will be clean” (Num. 19:17,19).

Such a statement assumes a knowledge about how that which is unseen to the naked eye—germs and bacteria—are responsible for spreading disease. But such knowledge was not discovered until the 1800s! Moreover, washing was not a common practice in the surrounding cultures at the time of Moses (Cairney, “Prescience 2,” 129).

B. The Earth

The following are physical phenomena mentioned in the Bible that not only went against the wisdom of the surrounding cultures at the time but that also predate the earliest scientific discoveries of such phenomena by usually 2,000-3,000 years:

• The ocean floor contains deep valleys (2 Sam. 22:16; Job 38:16; Ps. 18:15) and towering mountains (Jonah 2:6). The ancients thought the ocean floor was “flat, sandy, and bowl-like” (Barfield, 170).
• The ocean contains underwater springs (see Gen. 7:11; Job 38:16; Prov. 8:28). The other civilizations believed the ocean was fed only by rain and rivers (Barfield, 171).
• Moses wrote, “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused” (Ex. 23:10). Allowing the ground to lie fallow every seventh year was not a custom in the nonbiblical cultures. It is a practice, however, that scientists have since discovered was way ahead of its time (Cairney, “Prescience 1,” 134).

C. The Heavens

One of the amazing things about the Bible, when it comes to statements about the heavens, is the errors that the biblical writers did not make, even though such errors were common beliefs in the surrounding cultures. The biblical writers…

• Did not consider the stars to be near us and fixed in their positions. Genesis 1:8, 14-17 speaks of the heavens as an “expanse,” which literally means “spreading out.” Jeremiah implies that the heavens cannot be measured (31:37; Barfield, 102).
• Did not consider the heavens to have existed from eternity, but taught that they had a beginning (Gen. 1:1).

The biblical statements about the heavens are common assumptions today, but they were anything but common in the days when the books of the Bible were penned.

2. The Supernatural Predictions of the Biblical Prophets

Unlike any other book in the world, the Bible is the only one to offer specific predictions hundreds of years in advance that were literally fulfilled. In some cases very different prophecies were made—and then fulfilled—about cities that were relatively close to each other. The following is only one of several possible examples.

A. Memphis and Thebes:

The prophet Ezekiel wrote in the sixth century B.C.:

“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘I will destroy the idols and put an end to the images in Memphis…I will…inflict punishment on Thebes. I will…cut off the hordes of Thebes”

Eze. 30:13-15

Both Memphis and Thebes were destroyed hundreds of years after Ezekiel’s prophecy. What is most significant, though, is that the idols were removed entirely from Memphis but they were not removed from Thebes, just as Ezekiel had predicted. (Bloom, 179-181).

B. The Coming Of Christ

Many of the Bible’s predictions center around the coming of Christ. Consider the following predictions, made centuries in advance, that said the Messiah would:

• be from the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:18; cf., Matt.

1:1; Gal. 3:16),

• be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10; cf., Luke 3:33; Heb.

7:14),

• be of the house of David (2 Sam. 7:12f; cf., Matt. 1:1),
• be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; cf., Matt. 1:21f),
• be born in the city of Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; cf., Matt. 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7),
• be anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2; cf., Matt. 3:16-17),
• perform miracles (Isa. 35:5-6; cf., Matt. 9:35),
• be rejected by the Jews (Ps. 118:22; cf., 1 Peter 2:7),
• die a humiliating death (Ps. 22; Isa. 53:3; cf., Luke 9:22) at about 33 A.D. (Dan. 9:24f),
• be rejected by His own people (Isa. 53:3; cf., John 1:10-11;

7:5, 48),

• be silenced before His accusers (Isa. 53:7; cf., Matt. 27:12-19),
• be mocked (Ps. 22:7-8; cf., Matt. 27:31),
• be pierced in His hands and feet (Ps. 22:16; cf., John 20:25),
• be put to death with thieves (Isa. 53:12; cf., Luke 23:33),
• pray for His persecutors (Isa. 53:12; cf., Luke 23:34),
• be pierced in His side (Zech. 12:10; cf., John 19:34),
• be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isa.53:9; cf., Matt. 27:5760),
• have people casting lots for His garments (Ps. 22:18; cf., John 19:23-24)
• rise from the dead (Ps. 16:10; cf., Acts 2:31; Mark 16:6).

Note several unique features about the biblical prophecies, in contrast to all other examples of attempted predictions today. First, unlike many psychic predictions, many of these prophecies were very specific, giving, for example, the very name of the tribe, city, and time of Christ’s coming.

Second, unlike the forecasting found in the tabloids at the check-out counter, none of these predictions failed.

Third, since these prophecies were written hundreds of years before Christ was born, no one could have been reading the trends of the times or just made intelligent guesses.

Fourth, many of these predictions were beyond human ability to force a fulfillment. For example, as a mere human being, Christ had no control over when, where, or how He would be born, how He would die (considering others were responsible for His death), or rise from the dead.

The best explanation for the fulfillment of such predictions made hundreds of years earlier is the existence of a transcendent God who knows all things, including “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10).

Skeptics sometimes claim equal authority for predictions from psychics. But there is a quantum leap between the fallible human prognosticators and the unerring prophets of Scripture. Indeed, one of the tests of the false prophets was whether their predictions came to pass (Deut. 18:22). Those whose predictions failed were killed by stoning (v. 20)—a practice that no doubt caused serious pause in any who were not absolutely sure their messages were from God! Amid hundreds of prophecies, biblical prophets are not known to have made a single error. By comparison, a study made of top psychics revealed that they were wrong 92% of the time (Kole, 69-70)! Jean Dixon, for example, predicted that Jacqueline Kennedy would not remarry, but she married Aristotle Onassis the next day (Kole, 70).

3. The Uniqueness of the Biblical Message

Romans 6:23 encapsulates the uniqueness of the biblical message: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

A. Spiritual Death

The Christian Gospel begins with the message that the spiritual condition of humanity is hopeless in that humanity is spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). In this, Christianity is unique.

Other religions acknowledge that there is something spiritually wrong with humanity, but they also hold out the hope that we are somehow fixable through some form of human effort. According to the Bible, however, we are not fixable through our own effort. Just as physically dead people can’t give life to themselves, so there is no way we who are spiritually dead can give life to ourselves (Eph. 2:8-9).

Our being spiritually dead, moreover, is related to God being absolutely holy. God will not allow sin in His presence: “with you the wicked cannot dwell” (Ps. 5:4). The problem is that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23).

B. Eternal Life

Even though the news about humanity’s spiritual condition is terribly bad, God has given us tremendously good news. That good news is that we can have the assurance of eternal life. Such eternal life is not merely some continued existence after death on a spiritual plane, but it is fellowship with God Himself (John 17:3). No other religion promises to draw us as close to God as does the Gospel of Christ (Heb. 4:16). Such fellowship with God, moreover, can begin now.

Plus, no other religion can confirm the hope of eternal life like Christianity, because Jesus Christ is the only founder of a religion who has bodily risen from the dead.

C. A Gift

The Christian Gospel is also unique because the gift of eternal life is entirely free. A gift is not a gift if it is earned; it can only be received. The means by which to receive God’s gift is, first, to acknowledge our need for life, since our sin has caused our spiritual death; and, second, to trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty of sin—death—on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21).

The offer of the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ is the core message of the Bible, and it sets the Bible apart from all other books in all of history.

4. The Miraculous Confirmation of the Biblical Witnesses

The biblical prophets claimed to receive their message from

God. Of course, as even the Bible admits, there are false prophets (Matt. 7:15). This is why the Bible exhorts us: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). One of the sure ways a true prophet can be distinguished from a false one is by miracles (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4). A miracle is an act of God, and God would not supernaturally confirm a false prophet to be a true one. When Moses was called of God, for example, he was given miracles to prove that he spoke for God (Ex. 4:1f).

Miracles were an earmark of Jesus’ ministry (Acts 2:22), as they were of other prophets and apostles (Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 12:12). When asked by John the Baptist if he was the Messiah, Jesus cited his miracles, such as making the blind to see, the lame to walk, the lepers to be healed, the deaf to hear, and the dead raised to life (Luke 7:20-22). Nicodemus, one of the Jewish religious leaders, acknowledged such miracles (John 3:2).

Miracles, then, are a divine confirmation of a prophet’s claim to be speaking for God. But of all the world’s religious leaders, only the Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles were supernaturally confirmed by genuine miracles of nature that could not possibly have been psychosomatic or trickery. For example, they turned water into wine (John 2), instantaneously cured organic sickness in people (John 5), multiplied the number of loaves of bread for a huge crowd (John 6), walked on water (John 6), immediately cured one who had been born blind (John 9), and raised the dead (John 11).

Significantly, even though Muhammad acknowledged how the prophets before him were confirmed by miraculous signs (Surahs 3:184; 17:103; 23:45), he refused to perform similar miracles when challenged by unbelievers (Surahs 2:118; 4:153; 6:8, 9, 37).

Only the Bible has been supernaturally confirmed to be the Word of God by special acts of God (see Geisler, 1994, chs. 8-9).

5. The Testimony of the Transforming Power of the Bible

The writer of the book of Hebrews declared,

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

There is indeed something “living and active” and “penetrating” about the Bible that is different from any other book. The Bible rings with the chords of truth, and it speaks to the hearts of men and women. It has changed the lives of millions of people. Of course, whether or not the Bible speaks to one’s heart is a personal matter, but that does not make it any less significant.

Our challenge to you is, if you have not read the Bible, try it. A good place to begin is with the book of John, which is in the New Testament portion of the Bible. The book of John was written “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ …and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

Conclusion                                     

We have seen that the Bible has met the criteria that supports its claim for being the Word of God. With respect to the criteria that could also be said about a humanly-authored book, the Bible claims to be the Word of God, it is historically accurate, its authors were trustworthy, it is unified amidst an amazing diversity, and accurate copies of the original manuscripts have been passed down to us. With respect to the criteria that could be said only of God’s Book, the Bible contains scientific statements that predate their discoveries by 2,000-3,000 years, it made predictions that were fulfilled hundreds of years later, its message is unique, its messengers were confirmed by miracles, and the words have a transforming power.

There is no other book like the Bible!

Bibliography and Resources                                  

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1982).

Barfield, Kenny. Why the Bible Is Number 1. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1988).

Bloom, John. “Truth Via Prophecy.” Evidence for Faith. John W. Montgomery (ed.). (Dallas, Tex: Word, 1991).

Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? (New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941).

Cairney, William. “Biomedical Prescience 1: Hebrew Dietary Laws.” Evidence for Faith. John W. Montgomery (ed.). (Dallas, Tex: Word, 1991).

Cairney, William. “Biomedical Prescience 2: Pride &

Prejudice in Science.” Evidence for Faith. John W. Montgomery (ed.). (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991).

Geisler, Norman L. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994).

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986).

Geisler, Norman L., ed. Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan, 1980).

Glueck, Nelson. Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev. (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Cudahy, 1959).

Kole, Andre. Miracle and Magic. (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1984).

McMillen, S.I. None of These Diseases. (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1961).

Ramsay, W.M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen.

(3rd ed.)  (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1949).

Sauer, Erich. The Dawn of World Redemption. (G.H. Land, trans.)  (London: Paternoster, 1951).

Sauer, Erich. The Triumph of the Crucified. (G.H. Land, trans.) (London: Paternoster, 1951).

Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963).

Warfield, Benjamin B. Limited Inspiration. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1961; originally published in 1864, Baker reprint, n.d.).

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1948).

Wilson, Clifford. Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977).

Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the

Holy Bible, New International Version, © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

Written by Dr. Norman L. Geisler, the author/co-author of A General Introduction to the Bible (Moody, 1978, 1986), From God to Us: How we got our Bible (Moody, 1978, 2012), The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (Baker, 2008), Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Application with Official ICBI Commentary (Bastion Books, 2013), Preserving Orthodoxy: Maintaining Continuity with the Historic Christian Faith on Scripture (Bastion Books, 2017) and dozens of other books.  

This was excerpted from Norman Geisler’s The History of Western Philosophy, Volume II, (Bastion Books, 2017) for normangeisler.com with permission from bastionbooks.com.

Introduction

By the middle of the nineteenth century, the problem of human existence was focused on him being a stranger to himself to the point that he must discover or rediscover who he is and what his meaning in life was going to be. Kierkegaard suggested that he return to Christianity as it was with the first disciples (as compared to the organized Christendom). Nietzsche, however, suggested an even more ancient return—a replication to the archaic past of the Greeks. He will consider the characteristics and livelihood of the god Dionysus in order to bridge his inner warring divide that plagued his being. He thought that if the Dionysus was revived, this savior-god might rescue the whole of mankind which seemed to him to be in fatigue and decline. However, this god was also known as the “the horned one” or “the bull” to the Greeks, and according to mythology, was torn to pieces by the Titans. The fate of Dionysus overwhelmed Nietzsche who himself was also ravaged by the dark forces leaving him at the age of twenty-five in psychosis—perishing with the god, a solutions of his own devices.

It has been said that Kierkegaard painted Christianity is such stringent terms that it drives some people to atheism, and that Nietzsche painted such a sorrowful view of atheism (a person without God) that it drove some people to Christianity.  Yet both came from similar backgrounds, namely, 19^th century European Lutheranism. Both experienced an early loss of their father, and both learned to detest the Lutheran Christianity in which they were reared.

The Life and Works of Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche was born 1844 in a little town of Rocken, in Prussian Saxony. His father was a Lutheran pastor in Saxony and later died of insanity (softening of the brain) when Friedrich was young. He was his mother, sister, two aunts, and grandmother dominating his life. They had moved to Naumburg where he attended the gymnasium. He was given a strict religious training, and he lost his faith in college. These women hoped the boy would grow up to be a brilliant preacher like his father and grandfather before him. From age fourteen until twenty, he attended the famous school of Pforta which provided a firm foundation in German literature and the Greek and Latin classics. He later studied under the famous liberal thinker, Friederich Ritschl and focused on philology. In Leipzig, he became acquainted with Schopenhauer’s philosophy, enjoyed music, and made inquiries about Erwin Rohde’s conception of the psyche. He observed the naïve faith of his mother and grandmother and, after reading Schopenhauer, he became an atheist. He served in Prussian medical corps where he contracted dysentery. He recovered but always had a headache and indigestion. Though he was a mild, kind, and gentle man, yet nervous and irritable at times. He idealized his friends until he became acquainted with their faults. He kept the course of that which he believed was right—the overthrow of modern Christian culture and democratic morality. In its place, he attempted to bring a revival of the ancient Greek aristocratic ideal of life. He increased loneliness and alienation from friends led to final his madness. Living in isolation, he wrote book after book until his mind was gone.

The Works of Nietzsche

Nietzsche wrote The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music (1872) where he spoke of his humanistic ideal as a combination of Dionysus (the Greek god of music) and Apollo (the Greek god of the plastic arts). His obsession against Christianity shows up in several works: The Wagner Case: The Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche contra Wagner, The Ant-Christ, Ecce Homo (“Behold the Man”). His ethical position can be identified in Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and Toward a Genealogy of Morals (1887). His Untimely Considerations (1873—1876) was against the materialism of the post 1870 Germany. His works The Dawn and The Gay Science, appearing between 1878 and 1882, discussed the issues regarding Christian morality as life-denying. Ecce Homo, an autobiography written near the end of his life (1900). It was published 1908. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his greatest work whose message is “the death of God” Vol. I-II (1883); III (1884); IV (1885). Beyond Good and Evil (1886), The Genealogy of Morals (1887), Anti-Christ (1895).

Philosophical Influences on Nietzsche

Like most others in the modern world, Nietzsche was influenced by Immanuel Kant’s agnosticism. He was also affected by Schopenhauer’s atheism, particularly his stress on the will. F. A. Lange’s History of Materialism was also an important factor in forming his thought. From the ancient world, Heraclitus’s philosophy of becoming was important. And from the modern world Voltaire’s anti-Christian, anti-supernatural views contributed to Nietzsche’s thinking.

Nietzsche’s position on morality and modern culture is a variation Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, However, Nietzsche deplored the idea of society determining personal conduct, the ‘rule of the flock’ mentality. This went against his idea that man was still and unfixed animal. He leveled severe criticism against Christianity and states that it is an enemy of life and betrays mankind. His viewpoint is quite atheistic and deterministic where the elite, based upon their physical, intellectual, and social prowess, are the only ones who are able to further man’s existence. All men have the power to develop their own norms based on the exclusion of God and any standards associated with good and evil.

Influence of Nietzsche on Others

Like other great thinkers, Nietzsche had a significant influence on many of his successors. Sigmund Freud’s profound introspective psychology is an example. The existentialist Martin Buber acknowledges being impressed by Thus Spoke Zarathustra as a teen ager. Jean Paul Sartre’s atheistic existentialism was also affected by Nietzsche. Wittgenstein linguistical mysticism owes a debt to him as well: “One should speak only where one may not remain silent, and speak only of that which one has overcome – everything else is chatter” (Nietzsche –Human , All Too Human). Jacque Derrida and Post-modernism find roots in Nietzsche as well.

Nietzsche denied God. The fire for this negation was Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Nietzsche resembles Marx by his refusing to put forward arguments for God’s existence based on rational review, and in its stead, basing it on broad cultural judgments undermining any belief in God.

An Overview of Nietzsche‘s Philosophy

Nietzsche’s view involves a critique of 19th century culture. He said Europe is sick and cannot be healed by prosperity or technology. Culture has no unity of outlook, is too eclectic. Man has lost his dignity since he lost faith in God and now has lost faith in himself. Christianity has lost its authority and is merely humanistic. We have lost our stability, and evolution has proven that all is flux. He criticized anti-culturalism of the State which encourages conformism. He opposed democracy and socialism. His view was used by some Nazis to support Nazism, though Nietzsche did not support it. He praised individual heroes. We can improve human nature to become a superman.  He opposed Hegel’s view of history as a necessary unfolding of the Divine. We must get superhistoric view of man by “Know thyself” and organizing the chaos within. The decline of dogmatic faith at the time it was needed most led to paralysis of culture. So, God is dead, and must be replaced by a voluntaristic metaphysics of becoming.

It is Nietzsche’s pathological path that makes his philosophical meaning of atheism understandable as he tried to live it out. Up to this time in history, man was living under the childhood shelter of God (or the gods). Now that the gods were dead, could mankind likewise meet this challenge and too become godless? Nietzsche thought the answer to this timely question was yes; man, as a courageous animal was able to survive even the death of God. Man is to live with no religious or metaphysical safety nets. If mankind was to become godless, Nietzsche was to be its prophet.

Three Central Themes is Nietzsche

The Will to Power

In Zarathustra it is man’s basic nature and is found in all living things (conatus, elan vital).  This is probably not a metaphysical doctrine of unusual significance (as Heidegger interpreted it).  Nor is it protofascist as Heidegger agreed. It was a psychological theory that involves: 1) the power of self-control in art and philosophy not so much subjugation of others; 2) The power of the slave to live free of resentment of his master. It is rooted found in Greek contest (agon), viz., triumph over others, power over audience, language, and self. In the pinnacle of power one is perfectly self-possessed, self-sufficient man, (Socrates in prison is better than Nero on the roof); but Goethe is better than Socrates– self-mastery. It is a man of intelligence and passion who passionately mastered his passions and employed them creatively. It is the illuminator of most (if not all) behavior but is not the only motive for human action.

Superman (Overman, Ubermeunsch).

Lucian (2nd century) used the word, as did Goethe in Faust. Nietzsche never applied to an individual, except in one ironic self-critical passage (“on poets” in Zarathustra). It is always intended as a this-worldly antithesis of God. “A human being (Mensch) who has organized the chaos of his passions, has given style to his character, and became creative.” Mankind involves mixed types. Nietzsche does not claim to be a superman. One who renounces God and supernatural dignity of man and recognized. There is no meaning in life except the meaning man gives his life…. One who rises above flux of creatures and becomes a creator and ceases being human, all too human. A superman is one who can willingly accept suffering and misery and prove their worth by overcoming them. He is not the one who thinks of himself as superior but who demands more of himself.

Eternal Recurrence

Since there is no God or objective meaning in life, man must will his own meaning. This Nietzsche does in willing the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs. He presupposes absoluteness of time and flux and finite space. Upon destruction, our universe will be reconstructed and repeat previous patterns and events identically (so Nietzsche will be born 1844, etc.). What has been will be innumerable times at immense intervals. This is Greek in origin but struck Nietzsche like a revelation in 1882. He recognized it was a gruesome doctrine unless one can joyfully affirm one’s existence and say: “Abide, moment – but if you cannot abide, at least return eternally!” Eternal Recurrence is set against Christian linear doctrine that history is progressive, ending in an eternal Goal. Nietzsche believed that Eternal Recurrence is the most scientific of all hypotheses because finite power quanta in finite space in infinite time will produce only a finite number of configurations that will repeat over and over. However, George Simmel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (1907, pp. 250) rejected this, claiming that three wheels rotating at different speeds never line up again if one is one-half the speed of the first and another twice the first. Nietzsche did not attempt to prove the doctrine but stressed its ethical and psychological impact, namely a) horror of all-too-human life without it and joy felt by the exceptional person who believes it. Eternal Recurrence is not superior to God, but belief in other world cheapens this world. Eternal Recurrence is the “Religion of religions” (Jaspers, Nietzsche, 363-365).

A Comparison of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard

Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard had Lutheran backgrounds.  Both were trained in post-Hegelian Germany. Each manifested an introspective psychological methodology with literary genius (poetic philosophy). They both demonstrate the meaninglessness and nothingness of human life apart from God. Both stressed death of God and vital Christianity in Western Society. They also accepted Kantian disjunction of appearance and reality and inability of man to know reality by reason. Further, they acknowledged the need to suffer in the overcoming life. They admitted that all absolute and eternal values must be rooted in a transcendent God.  And both men had an implicit Post-Hegelian dialectic in their thinking. They also stressed individual, passionate, and volitional nature of man. They believed truth to be a matter of life not of philosophical thought. Both men held critical view of Christian evidence. Both believed ultimate responsibility goes beyond good and evil. In addition, both stressed the significance of human solitude.

There were, of course, some other important differences. Nietzsche denied God and Kierkegaard affirmed Him. Nietzsche believed that reason is man’s only hope and Kierkegaard held that revelation is. While Nietzsche held that the overcomer wills eternal recurrence, Kierkegaard affirmed the eternal God. Nietzsche held that Man is self-sufficient and must deny God, but Kierkegaard insisted that Man is insufficient and must submit to God. For the former, the movement of history is circular, but for Kierkegaard the movement of history is circular. Nietzsche believed the Bible is full of myths, lies, and errors, but Kierkegaard held that it is a record of truth and revelation from God. For Nietzsche, self-denial is a sign of weakness, but Kierkegaard believed it was a sign of spiritual strength. Nietzsche believed man is only finite and fallible, but Kierkegaard affirmed that he is finite and sinful. Nietzsche was not to bring peace to the world, but instead, carried and used the sword to divide, shock, and perplex his audience. His fate though is one of the many lessons that can be learned in man’s striving to ‘know thyself.’ Man cannot be understood from the zoological perspective, but it is Nietzsche who illustrates that man does indeed have a problem in determining his nature. Hence the contrast between these two influences—Kierkegaard loving his native Copenhagen while Nietzsche was in a state of utter homelessness cut off from his community thus festering in a land of loneliness.

Nietzsche claims that the existence of God and Christianity either stands or falls on the present social order. Nietzsche rejects Christianity because as a total system it must rest on the standards set by Christianity delegating standards of culture and morality to the public—if the culture does not prove it out, then reject it and the existence of God. However, Kierkegaard saw that the problem lay in the confusion between the eternal God and the traditions of men. He also saw a breakdown in the structures that watered-down Christian requirements. Kierkegaard warned that Christianity could not endure unless it detaches itself from “Christendom.”

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard differed in their notions about being and becoming. Nietzsche believes that it is self-evident that the transcendent and immutable being is incompatible with the world of becoming and that any notions of piety associated with this being must be discarded. Kierkegaard on the other hand suggests that man should forget the idea of themselves as gods. Kierkegaard posits that man does not look for a lasting city here on earth because he is a pilgrim to the Absolute. Neitzsche counters by declaring that the entire world is the lasting city thus denying the existence of the transcendent being.

Nietzsche understood God as well as Kierkegaard. For one who rejects the absolutely binding obligation of God on his life understands God as well as the one who accepts it. Ironically, Kierkegaard drove men to atheism; Nietzsche drove them to theism.

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Hegel Compared

HEGEL	NIETZSCHE	KIERKEGAARD
Opaque	Clear	Paradoxical
Objective	Subjective
Optimistic	Pessimistic	Optimistic
Only a Philosopher	Philosopher and Poet	Philosopher and Writer
Said God is Dead	Believed God Dead	Believed God is Alive
Reinterpreted Christianity	Rejected Christianity	Reaffirmed Christianity
Eternal found through time	Eternal recurrence of time	Eternal is in time

An Evaluation of Nietzsche

Nietzsche was misunderstood by many philosophers. Though he was unsystematic in his approach, he did deal with his subject matter, albeit, in a more indirect and dramatic aphoristic prose. He approached his philosophy through the vein of art, never denying the artist within. However, there were those like Heidegger who did think he was a systematic thinker considering him the last metaphysician of the West.

Although he was an atheist, even a theist can agree with some of what he said.  For example, when God dies, all value dies too. He provided a profound analysis of post-Christian European culture. He stressed the meaninglessness of life without God. However, Nietzsche basis for rejecting God was volitional not rational (see Paul Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless). His substitution of the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs for God demonstrates that even atheists cannot avoid the Transcendence (i.e., God). Of course, he provided no evidence for eternal recurrence. Further, the negation of all value (called Nihilism) is self-defeating. For it implicitly affirms the value of negating all values. Nietzsche showed the need for God in his poem to the “unknown God” in which he bemoaned his need for God.

As noted, Nietzsche accepted Schopenhauer’s pessimistic notion of Christianity—a world denying, asceticism promoting emphasis on a narrow and restricted life. The Christianity that appeals to most twentieth century folks is not this kind. Today, it is seen as manly, self-reliant, and world affirming seeking to have each individual experience a richer and fuller life for himself and others as well. However, the Christian church should take into consideration Nietzsche’s severe criticisms and allow it to foster honest self-examination. Even though most would conclude that the church has been mostly right and Nietzsche mostly wrong, the church can learn something even from its most severe critics.

by Doug Potter·Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Originally posted at http://www.facebook.com/notes/doug-potter/twelve-things-from-doctor-g-for-his-students/2301144449921509/

Forgive me, my heart is still heavy, and my eyes still cry. I will tell my Norm stories later, but for now I just lost my teacher, boss, colleague, and friend. All and all, sometimes more and sometimes less, I studied under, worked for and with him for 25 years. I miss him. He meant so much to me, and I know he did to you too. But don’t fret, as you know we will see him again in the flesh, with the Lord, but for now never forget what he left behind, something the world can’t get rid of. I see it in your own words . . .

Ravi is right: “After graduation, he remained a mentor to me and became a very dear friend. I owe more to him than anyone else for teaching me how to do apologetics for the Christian worldview. His death is a loss beyond words.” http://www.facebook.com/ravizacharias/posts/10156123766976813

Joe is right: “Dr. Geisler loved to teach and loved his students! . . . Though his accomplishments are powerfully influential, he is best known for his uncompromising defense of the Christian worldview, love for his family, humility, sacrificial love for all, and tireless work ethic.” http://viu.ves.edu/geisler/

Tom is right: “He is all these things to me; a mentor, an example, an aspiration. But, what is most important to me is, he is my friend. . . . but who could be in such a class, except of course Aquinas and Billy. I do not use the past tense, because he is still all of these things, and much more than we can imagine.” http://www.facebook.com/pat.devrieshowe/posts/10218686786110423

Frank is right: “There is no one from whom I’ve learned more about Christianity and the defense of the faith.” http://www.facebook.com/drfrankturek/posts/1596171613847689

Bill C. is right: “I bear his imprint. He gave me a strong appreciation for the history of philosophy, which has served me well. Most importantly, however, he convinced me of the need for a robust natural theology. This emphasis was and continues to be somewhat out of the “norm” (no pun intended) for Christian philosophers, but those of you who know my work will realize how indelibly Norm Geisler stamped me with his mark.” http://www.facebook.com/drwilliamlanecraig/posts/10219360647837687

Harold is right, “He was much more to me than a teacher. He was more to me than a mentor. He was a friend. . . . He has had more influence on me than anyone else. I will truly miss him.” http://www.facebook.com/gfigurelli/posts/10157240042679780:11

Paul is right “While it is true that we gained a wealth of knowledge sitting inside his classroom, we learned the most by what Dr. Geisler taught us outside the classroom.” http://www.facebook.com/TheistApologist/posts/10214342212568827

Marcie is right: “I can’t think of anyone in academia who matched him in contemporary times for intellect, knowledge, service to the cause of Christ, and dedication to his students.” http://www.facebook.com/dr.normangeisler/posts/2100634760048788

Bill R. is right: “The mark of a great leader is found in their ability to live beyond the grave and pass the baton to the next generation. Dr. Geisler has now joined the great host of witnesses that have gone before us and he has passed the baton onto each of us.

Therefore, it is now our responsibility to say during this time in history: I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” http://williamroach.org/2019/07/01/i-am-put-here-for-the-defense-of-the-gospel-the-legacy-of-dr-norman-l-geisler/

Steve is right: “His teaching, training, and writings have left behind an incredible wake of tens of thousands of Christian leaders across the planet who have taken his beautiful balance of grace and truth and applied it to building up the Kingdom of God. He had an unstoppable drive and passion and work ethic. Retirement was not even in his vocabulary, determined to use his final breath to defend and advance the gospel. Only in eternity will we know the true measure of his influence. To the great man we called “Stormin’ Norman” (behind his back of course!), we will miss you!” http://normangeisler.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Five-Profound-Memories-of-Stormin-Norman-Geisler.pdf

Tim is right, “Now it’s time for you [Norm] to rest. Your students will take it from here.” http://www.facebook.com/tim.barnett.585/posts/10214202491287004

Unlike you, no one will or can personally experience teaching and mentoring from Doctor G. again. So, remember . . .

1) “Put the cookies on the bottom shelf.”

2) “The world view glasses can come off.”

3) “There is no such thing as a relative truth” (No one ever got the $10 in his pocket.)

4) “A bad methodology always makes for bad theology.”

5) “Only one book, the Bible, I read to believe, all other books I only consider.”

6) “Either this book (Bible) will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from this book (Bible).”

7) “Garbage in Garbage out.”

8) “There is Thomism . . . and false” “Don’t throw out the philosophical baby–Aquinas with the Roman Catholic–bath water.”

a) “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”

b) “Be aware of philosophy . . . by knowing it”

c) “Immanuel Kant has influenced your life more than Jesus Christ!”

9) “The body is just as important as the soul, balance your scholarship with manual work or exercise.”

10) “Everyone’s cup in eternity will be overflowing, but not everyone’s cup will be the same size”

11) “Don’t be a saved soul with a wasted life. . . .You’re going to be dead a whole lot longer than you will be alive.”

12) “Go and do likewise . . . ”

Watch out wild world, there is an army of Christian soldiers Doctor G. left behind . . . Never to be heard about in the news or the movies, they don’t wear fatigues or berets and the world rejects them and what they say, but demons shudder, here we come . . .

---

What did Norm most eagerly look forward to in heaven? You can see it in some of these poignant quotes out of Norm’s Systematic Theology (Volume Four) about Heaven!

THE FINAL STATE OF THE SAVED (HEAVEN)

The biblical words for “heaven” (Heb: shamayim; Gk: ouranos) are used in several different ways. There are three heavens: The first is the sky above us (earth’s atmosphere—Matt. 6:26), the second is the stars (the realm of space—24:29), and the third is the very abode of God, called “the third heaven” or “paradise” (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). It is in this third sense that “heaven” is used in this chapter, namely, as God’s dwelling place, the final destiny of the righteous.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF HEAVEN

The Bible is filled with references to heaven. Though many questions are left open, making heaven the subject of a wide range of speculation, there are also many truths we do know about it.

Heaven in the Present: A Place of Bliss for Departed Spirits

Heaven now is a real place of departed spirits, the place of bliss in God’s presence where believers go when they die. Enoch entered heaven when “God took him” to be with Himself (Gen. 5:24). Elijah also “went up to heaven in a whirlwind” (2 Kings 2:11). Jesus went there at death after saying, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”1 A repentant thief did also after Jesus said to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Paul referred to it as being “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8 NKJV).
Heaven is God’s home; Jesus spoke of “Our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9; cf. 5:16) and said it was an actual place, reminding His disciples:

In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:2–3)

Jesus said He came from heaven and would return there: “No one has ever gone into heaven [bodily] except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man” (3:13);2 “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all” (v. 31); “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he wll live forever” (6:51).
Jesus told Mary Magdalene, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ ” (20:17). This He did at His ascension, when the angels said He would return the same way He’d just departed.3
Angels also are said to be “in heaven” (Matt. 18:10), to come “from heaven” (28:2), to dwell “in heaven” (Mark 13:32), and return to heaven (Luke 2:15). In heaven is God’s “throne” (Matt. 5:34), where Christ sits at His “right hand” (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3), where angels surround Him in praise and adoration (Rev. 4–5), and where the seraphim sing the tersanctus: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty” (Isa. 6:3).
That God dwells in heaven does not mean He is localized and not omnipresent.4 Solomon prayed: “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27). God is everywhere, as the psalmist revealed: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there” (139:7–9). The reality of heaven as God’s dwelling simply means that there is a place (like the old covenant tabernacle and temple) where God is manifested in a special way, a center or “throne” from which He rules the universe. Whether heaven is within the physical universe or in another physical dimension, it is an actual place where the righteous will “see his face” (Rev. 22:4).

Heaven in the Future: The New Heaven and the New Earth

According to Revelation, after the resurrection, after all believing human spirits have been reunited with their bodies, heaven will descend to earth5 in the form of the New Jerusalem:

Then I [John] saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. (21:1–3)

Heaven has foundations, gates, and dimensions:

One of the seven angels … came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.… The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man’s measurement, which the angel was using. (vv. 9–12, 14–17)

The Constituents of Heaven

The innumerable occupants of heaven, in addition to the triune God, include angels and the great multitude of the redeemed from all ages.

The Triune God

At the heart of heaven is the throne of God, which John described:

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. (4:1–3)

Not only is God the Father in heaven, but so is God the Son: “The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals” (5:5). Paul spoke of “Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—[and] is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Rom. 8:34). John added, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1). In heaven Jesus lives forever, with a permanent priesthood: “He is able to save completely those who come to God through him because he always lives to intercede for them” (Heb. 7:25).
The blessed Holy Spirit of God is likewise in heaven. John described Him symbolically as “the seven spirits before his [God’s] throne” (Rev. 1:4). This is the “sevenfold Spirit” of Isaiah 11:2: “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.”6
When we get to heaven, we will see Christ in His physical glorified resurrection body with our physical eyes, and we will see the essence of God with our spiritual eyes. This is called the Beatific Vision.7

Good Angels

Further,

Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. (Rev. 4:4–6)

Redeemed Humans

In addition to God and a great multitude of angels, there are incalculable redeemed human beings:

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (7:9)

The writer of Hebrews added,

You [believers] have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect. (12:22–23)

Indeed, John “heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them” (Rev. 5:13) singing in heaven to the Lamb.

The Duration of Heaven

Heaven will endure as long as God does, and God is eternal; heaven is where we will experience eternal life in its fullness.8 Further, heaven is the fulfillment of God’s promised everlasting life to believers, “the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (Titus 1:2). Jesus said, “The righteous [will go] to eternal life” (Matt. 25:46), and John declared, “I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!’ ” (Rev. 5:13).

The Nature of Heaven

The following is some of what is known about heaven from Scripture’s extensive witness.

Heaven Is a Place Far Better Than Earth

Paul wrote, “I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (Phil. 1:23); “we … would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).

Heaven Is a Place of No Sorrow

John foretold, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).
Paul added,

[God] comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. (2 Cor. 1:4–5)

Heaven Is a Place of No Curse

In Genesis, God said that by Adam’s sin the world was cursed:

Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat of it”: Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. (3:17–19)

But in the paradise to come, “No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him” (Rev. 22:3).

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Rom. 8:18–21)

Heaven Is a Place of No Darkness

People of this sinful world love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil (John 3:19). By contrast, John said of heaven, “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.… On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there” (Rev. 21:23, 25).

Heaven Is a Place of No Sickness

“He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more … mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (v. 4). “On each side of the river [of the water of life] stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations” (22:2).

Heaven Is a Place of No Death

“There will be no more death” (Rev. 21:4).

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:53–54).

Heaven Is a Place of Perfect Bodies

Paul declared that by “the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, [God] will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21)—immortal, imperishable, and glorious:

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1 Cor. 15:51–53)

These perfect bodies will never degenerate, decay, or die:

Those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35–36)

Heaven Is a Place of Completed Salvation

As we have seen,9 salvation comes in three stages: justification (salvation from the past penalty of sin), sanctification (salvation from the present power of sin), and glorification (salvation from the future presence of sin). This last stage, glorification, is heaven.
John described it this way:

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!… Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1–2)

Paul said, “Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30), for “when Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory” (Col. 3:4).

Heaven Is a Place of Many Mansions

Listen to these words of Jesus:

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:1–3)

Sing the wondrous love of Jesus,
Sing His mercy and His grace;
In the mansions bright and blessed
He’ll prepare for us a place.10

There will be heavenly homes, magnificent mansions, and palatial palaces—all prepared for those who follow the Lord.

Heaven Is a Place of Perpetual Worship

Eternity is described as a heavenly temple (Rev. 21:3) where the angels worship (Isa. 6:3), where “the living … creatures … do not rest day or night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” and where the elders “fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever” (Rev. 4:8, 10 NKJV; cf. 5:13–14).

Heaven Is a Place of Everlasting Service

John’s vision declares: “The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him” (Rev. 22:3). Believers will not be idle in heaven; like the angels, we will be engaged in ceaseless activity for God.

Heaven Is a Place of Abundant Life

Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10 KJV). Paul told Timothy that “godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8 KJV). Indeed, John says that in the paradise to come there is a tree of life and a river of life:

He shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Rev. 22:1–2 KJV)

Heaven Is a Place of Overflowing Joy

Here on earth we are given a foretaste of what is to come because we serve “God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Tim. 6:17; cf. Ps. 16:11). Jesus said that the angels already rejoice in heaven because of what God is doing for us: “There is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

Heaven Is a Place of Grand Reunion

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words. (1 Thess. 4:13–18)

Christians never say a final good-bye; rather, it’s “So long—I’ll see you there.”

Heaven Is the Place of the Great Heavenly Wedding

People love weddings, as well we should—every earthly wedding is a picture, a temporal reflection, of the great heavenly wedding to come. Paul said of marriage, “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32 NKJV). There will be no earthly marriage in heaven (cf. Matt. 22:30), but there will be something far better—the heavenly marriage of the Lamb.

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. (Rev. 21:2–3)

Heaven Is a Celestial City

“None of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone” (Rom. 14:7). We shall all be together as residents in a heavenly city, in “Mount Zion … the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God.” We will be with “thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, [in] the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven” (Heb. 12:22–23).

Love divine, so great and wondrous,
Deep and mighty, pure, sublime!
Coming from the heart of Jesus,
Just the same through tests of time.

He the pearly gates will open,
So that I may enter in;
For He purchased my redemption
And forgave me all my sin.11

Heaven Is a Place of Incredible Beauty

In regard to what we have here, Paul said, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9). How much greater will heaven be? The Old Testament speaks of “the beauty of holiness” (1 Chron. 16:29 NKJV), of which heaven is the apex. John described heaven as the jewel-studded, golden-paved city of God (Rev. 21:18–21). This veritable cornucopia of aesthetic delight is literally beyond description.

Heaven Is a Place of Moral Perfection

The present world is laden with layers of evil; even the apostle Paul considered himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). In heaven, though, every believer will be made absolutely perfect, for “when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears” (1 Cor. 13:10; cf. 1 John 3:2).
“Nothing impure will ever enter it [heaven], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27). Therefore, we are to “make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Heaven is a place of ultimate and complete sanctification.

Heaven Is a Place of Eternal Rest

Ever since the Fall, life has been filled with toil (Gen. 3:17–19)—even the spiritual life is a struggle (Eph. 6:11–12). Jesus said, “As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work” (John 9:4). On earth, we are the church militant; in heaven, we will be the church at rest. Hebrews says, “There remains … a Sabbath-rest for the people of God” (4:9), and the Spirit said to John, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.… They will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them” (Rev. 14:13).

Heaven Is a Place of Eternal Reward

We are not saved by works, but we are saved for good works:12

By grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8–10)

If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. (1 Cor. 3:12–14)

Jesus promised, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12). Those who have followed will hear Him say, “Well done, my good servant!” (Luke 19:17).

Heaven Is a Place of Perfect Knowledge

[Now] we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Cor. 13:9–12)

Heaven Is a Place of Indescribable Glory

Paul said, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). Trying to describe his vision of heaven’s glory, he wrote:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man … was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. (2 Cor. 12:2–4)

In a passage that narrates the Transfiguration,

[Jesus] took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.… While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matt. 17:1–2, 4–5).

Ezekiel described a dazzling display of the divine: “The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it” (Ezek. 1:13).
When Moses experienced only a passing glimpse of God’s glory, the Israelites had to cover his head because of the blinding brightness of its glow (Ex. 34:29–35); to them “the glory of the Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain” (24:17).

Heaven Is the Place of the Beatific Vision

The Beatific Vision is the blessed vision that Moses sought, God forbade, Jesus promised, and John described—seeing God face-to-face.

Mortal Man Cannot See God

“No one has seen God at any time,” wrote John in his gospel (1:18 NKJV). When Moses pleaded, “Show me your glory,”

The Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.…
Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen” (Ex. 33:18–23).

Immortal Man Will See God

However, immortal human beings will see God face-to-face; John declared that in heaven “they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev. 22:4). Again, Paul explained, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). The psalmist added, “In righteousness I will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness” (17:15). As John said, “When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).
The term Beatific Vision, this face-to-face experience with God, comes from the word for beatitude, meaning “blessed” or “happy.” This vision is the ultimate fulfillment of all divine aspirations—it will be a direct, complete, and final revelation of God in which the believer will see the divine essence. Of the many who have declared this vision of God, Thomas Aquinas spoke repeatedly of the glory of this ultimate experience;13 Benedict XII (r. 1334–1342) said that the divine essence would be seen by direct intuition (face-to-face); and the Council of Vienne (1311–1312) insisted that since it transcended a human’s natural capacity, the Beatific Vision is only possible by a supernatural act of God (see Cross, ODCC, 146).

There are several important characteristics and consequences of the Beatific Vision that we can derive from Scripture and reason.

The Beatific Vision Brings Direct Knowledge of God

Paul said our present knowledge of God is indirect (1 Cor. 13:12); now, God is not known directly but through His creation, “for since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Rom. 1:20). However, in heaven we will see and know fully (1 John 3:2); what is now dim for us will become bright; what we now know indirectly we will know directly.
All we know now about the infinite God is known through finite images, which is why our knowledge is analogous.14 In the Beatific Vision’s unmediated knowledge, the divine essence will inform our finite minds; we will have a full and direct knowledge of God Himself.

The Beatific Vision Brings Perfect Knowledge of God

This ultimate knowledge of God will be perfect (1 Cor. 13:9–10); our partial knowledge will turn into whole knowledge; our incomplete understanding will be transformed into complete understanding. Whatever we can know about God, we will know, and we will know it perfectly.
This does not mean we will know God infinitely. Because we will always be finite, so will our knowledge be finite. Only God has an infinite knowledge of the infinite;15 even in heaven our knowledge will be finite. We will perfectly apprehend God, but will never completely comprehend Him. God will always be ineffable.16

The Beatific Vision Brings Perfect Love of God

Jesus said, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matt. 22:37–38). This kind of love is never fully attained in this life, but it will be in the next:

We are told that our final destiny consists in beholding God immediately, face to face, and as He really is … even as He knows Himself; that it [the Beatific Vision] consists also in loving Him even as He loves Himself. (Garrigou-LaGrange, P, 379)

“God is love” (1 John 4:16), and to know Him is to know His very essence. To know perfect love is to be able to love perfectly, and “we love Him because He first loved us” (v. 19 NKJV).

The Beatific Vision Makes Sin Impossible

Knowledge of God is knowledge of an infinite good;17 once one directly sees infinite good, it will no longer be possible for him to do evil,18 for to be directly informed in one’s mind by absolute good is to become completely conformed to it. Hence, the Beatific Vision makes sin impossible. Just as seeing absolute beauty will spoil one forever from longing for anything ugly, likewise, beholding the absolutely holy will overpower any attraction to or desire for the unholy.

The Beatific Vision Fulfills Our Freedom

Though heaven makes sin impossible, it does not destroy but instead fulfills our freedom. Heaven completes our freedom to completely love God, just as (analogously) marriage here on earth frees us to love the one to whom we belong. True freedom is not the freedom to do evil, but the freedom to do good. The essence of free will is self-determination, and if one’s self chooses to do only the good, then the fulfillment of it in a place where only good can be done is not the destruction of freedom, but the completion of it.19
God is both free and unable to sin; it will be likewise for us when we become most godlike, for the perfection of our freedom is the freedom from sinning, not the freedom of sinning. The best freedom is the freedom to do the best; beholding and loving the absolute best (which makes sin impossible) is the best thing we can ever do.20

The Beatific Vision Is Given Only to Believers

It is important to note that the Beatific Vision is not forced on anyone against his will: Only those who seek God will see God (Heb. 11:6). It is those who choose to fall in love that are overwhelmed by it; no one can be forced to love another. Love, like God’s saving grace, is irresistible, but only on the willing,21 for irresistible force on the unwilling is not grace but assault. Once again, as C.S. Lewis aptly stated:

The Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His [God’s] scheme forbids Him to use.… Merely to override a human will … would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. (SL, 46)

The Beatific Vision Brings a Permanent State of Perfection

Just as God is changeless perfection,22 even so the perfection of beatified saints will be changeless. Salvation from the presence of sin (glorification) will save us from the damage and distortion that sin wreaks in our lives. Our present growth in perfection (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18) is due to our not yet having reached the ultimate state of perfection. One no longer needs to be changed into what he has ultimately achieved; heaven (and the Beatific Vision it brings) will make permanent (by glorification) what is only in process in this life (through sanctification).23 The more we become like God, the more unchangeably we become like His moral attributes.24

The Beatific Vision Brings a Dynamic State of Perfection

Being in an immutable state of perfection (in heaven) is not to be confused with being in a static state. God is immutable but not immobile;25 likewise, in heaven we will be immutably (though finitely) perfect without being immobile (static). God is the Unmoved Mover,26 but He is not an Unmoving Mover. In fact, as Pure Actuality,27 He is the most active being in the universe (He is Pure Actuality, having no potentiality). God is active in sustaining everything in existence,28 in His sovereignty (governance) over the entire world,29 through His providence in the world,30 and by His miraculous intervention in human affairs.31 God also interacts with the prayers of all the saints and saves all sinners who repent.32 Note, though, that while God is interactive, He is not reactive but proactive; as Isaiah said, before we call, God answers (Isa. 65:24).
Likewise, when we reach the most godlike state of absolute perfection possible (via the Beatific Vision), we do not become less active but more active. We will not be God’s frozen chosen—we will be His mobile millions, actively worshiping and serving Him (cf. Rev. 4–5). Nevertheless, our action will not be that of striving but of enjoying, not of seeking but of treasuring what was found. Our minds will be active, not in searching for truth but in rejoicing over the infinite truth discovered (1 Cor. 13:12). Our intellectual and spiritual action in heaven will not be that of desiring God but of delighting in Him.
The hymnist said it eloquently:

Face to face with Christ, my Savior,
Face to face—what will it be
When with rapture I behold Him,
Jesus Christ who died for me?

Face to face—O blissful moment!
Face to face—to see and know;
Face to face with my Redeemer,
Jesus Christ who loves me so.

Face to face I shall behold Him,
Far beyond the starry sky.
Face to face in all His glory,
I shall see Him by and by.33

One day, while meditating on this topic, these words came to me:

In That Great Day …

The mountains shall be lowered
  And the crooked things made straight
When we see the Lord of glory
  And pass through the open gate.
The Lord Himself will tell us:
  “I have saved you by my grace.”
And all we once-lost sinners
  Will see His wondrous face.
The angels up in glory
  Will shout with ecstasy
For ne’er in all the ages
  Ere this sight did see.
We’ll have the glory of Jesus;
  Our bodies will be the same;
In that great Day
  When the Lord of Hosts shall reign.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAVEN

As with other ultimate truths, when it comes to heaven there are more questions than answers. Many queries are not addressed in Scripture and must await the final reality itself; in the meantime, we must be content that “the secret things belong to the Lord our God” (Deut. 29:29). Even so, there is nothing to hinder theological speculation, provided it contradicts neither Scripture nor sound reasoning.

Will Those Who Die in Infancy Remain Babies in Heaven?

Probably not. Heaven is a place of maturity and perfection, and babies stunted in their growth, short of maturity, would not reflect a state of perfection.34 It seems to better befit God’s nature and plan for those who were not granted earthly maturity to attain it in heaven.

Will Everyone Be Equally Blessed in Heaven?

The evidence seems to support a negative answer. Everyone in heaven will be fully blessed, but not everyone will be equally blessed. Every believer’s cup will be full and running over, but not everyone’s cup will be the same size. We determine in time what our capacity for appreciating God will be in eternity.35 Different persons can listen to the same musical performance and have varying degrees of appreciation because they have developed different capacities for enjoying it; similarly, different people can be in the same heaven and yet have different degrees of enjoyment due to developing different abilities for enjoying God here on earth.
By our temporal obedience we determine our reward in eternity (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10), as Paul clearly explains:

No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:11–15).36

How Can Heaven Be a Place of Glory to God and Yet of Reward for Us?

The Bible seems to present contradictory motifs: (1) the worship of God, and (2) rewards for us. How can we be working for rewards and yet doing all things for God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31)?
The answer lies in the nature of the reward: If the reward is the capacity to love and serve God more, then these two elements are not contradictory. This seems to be the case in Jesus’ parable of the stewards (Matt. 25:14–30); those who invested their talents were given more, and their master said, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”
Indeed, the elders mentioned in Revelation do not strut their crowns on the corner of Glory Street and Hallelujah Avenue:

They lay their crowns before the throne and say: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being” (4:10–11).

There is nothing selfish about working for a crown if it is for the privilege of casting it at the feet of Jesus.

Will Believers Have Physical Bodies in Heaven?

Yes.37 Jesus’ resurrection body was the same physical body in which He died, crucifixion scars and all (cf. Luke 24:39–40; John 20:27). The empty tomb, the scars, the physical touching of His body (cf. Matt. 28:9), calling it “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39), and His statement that it was the same body that died (John 2:19–21) all demonstrate that His resurrection body was physical. Our resurrection bodies will be like His (Phil. 3:21), and, like Him, we will leave behind an empty grave (John 5:28–29).

Will We Eat in Heaven?

Yes,38 but for enjoyment, not for sustenance—for pleasure rather than necessity.39 The physical resurrection body is supernaturally rather than naturally sourced (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; 15:44); God will have incomparably rich enjoyment for us in heaven even as He has given us great pleasure here on earth.40 Jesus said to His disciples, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29).

Will We Recognize Loved Ones in Heaven?

Yes. Moses and Elijah were recognized when they appeared from heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3); Peter even acknowledged them by name (v. 4). There seems to be a personal identity by which we will recognize each other in heaven, as is at least implied in Paul’s comfort of the bereaved among the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4:13–18) and in Jesus’ response to the Sadducees’ question about the resurrection (Matt. 22:28–30).

Can We Be Married in Heaven?

No, there will be no marriage ceremony or marriage relationship in heaven. This ends at the time of physical death:

By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (Rom. 7:2–3)

How Many People Will Be in Heaven?

Everyone whom God can bring there without violating the free will that He gave them.41 God desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4), but we cannot know how many will be. Augustine speculated that it would be the same percentage as the angels who fell (one-third; see Rev. 12:9), but the Bible nowhere says this.
Many believe that only a small fraction of all the people who ever lived will be in heaven, based on passages like Matthew 7:13–14:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

However, B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) argued that this is taking such verses out of context (“ATFTBS” in BTS); he maintained that they refer to the immediate and local response to Jesus’ message, not to the ultimate and universal statistics of heaven. Indeed, granting that all who die in infancy go to heaven,42 that life begins at conception,43 and that the mortality rate before the age of accountability44 down through the millennia has been roughly half of those conceived, it would seem to follow that there will be more people saved than lost. This is to say nothing of much of the world’s population since the time of Adam being still alive at this time;45 a great revival before Christ’s return could sweep even more souls into God’s kingdom.
Finally, by analogy with the angels, two-thirds of which did not rebel against God (Rev. 12:4), one could reason that perhaps two-thirds of all humans will be saved. This also is merely speculative, but we do know that “the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9; cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Once again: There will be as many people in heaven as God can get there without violating the free choice that He freely gave His creatures.46

Is Heaven a Place or a State of Mind?

Liberal theologians have long insisted that heaven is a state of mind, not a place; thus, those in the right state of mind are in heaven now—here on earth.
However, while it’s true that unless one enters the right state of mind and heart—a state of belief in God47—he will not go to heaven, it is untrue that everyone in this state of mind is already there. Heaven is much more than a state of mind: It is a real place. Jesus used the word place three times in regard to heaven in John 14:2–4;48 He also taught us to pray to “our Father in heaven,” and that His will would be accomplished “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9–10). Heaven is a different place than earth (cf. Rev. 21:9–27).49

Where Is Heaven Located?

Presently, before the final resurrection, heaven is the abode of righteous human souls and angelic spirits in God’s presence (2 Cor. 5:8; Heb. 12:23), where Christ sits on the right hand of God’s throne (1:3). This may be somewhere in a far corner of the space-time world, shrouded from human view behind a cloud of God’s glory, or in an entirely different physical dimension.
In favor of heaven being in the space-time world, some have cited Job’s reference to God coming from the north (Job 37:22; cf. 26:7). Plus, Jesus ascended bodily into the sky and off into space (Acts 1:10–11), and He will return to the same place (the Mount of Olives), in the same physical body, from which He left (Zech. 14:4).
In favor of heaven being in another dimension, others have noted that Jesus seemed to step in and out of this space-time dimension when in His resurrection body (Luke 24:31; John 20:26). Further, contemporary science presents a multidimensional universe that allows for many dimensions beyond the customary three.
Eventually, after the Second Coming,50 heaven (the Holy City) will descend to be part of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1–2). Peter exhorted believers:

Look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:12–13)

This will be the eventual fulfillment of the prayer that Jesus taught His disciples to pray (Matt. 6:10): In that day there literally will be heaven on earth. For He asks us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Will We Continue to Learn and Morally Improve in Heaven?

Christian theologians have held both views.
Those who hold to eternal human process cite texts like Ephesians 3:10–11:

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Also, 1 Peter 1:12 states:

It was revealed to them [the prophets] that they were not serving themselves but you [later believers], when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

From such passages it is inferred that even heaven is a great university wherein we continue to learn about (and grow in) God.
On the other hand, those who deny heavenly spiritual progress point to several factors.
First, heaven is a place of perfection, not progress (cf. 1 Cor. 13:2). Heaven represents rest and attainment, not striving (cf. John 9:4; Rev. 14:13).
Second, heaven is a place of receiving, not working for, rewards (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11ff.; Rev. 22:12).
Third, the sense of urgency and finality about this life (cf. Heb. 9:27) supports the conclusion that heaven completes and finalizes what is done here and now. As Jesus said to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19; cf. 18:18).
Fourth, and finally, the very nature of the Beatific Vision as the ultimate and final state of perfection and sinlessness suggests that once we have it, we will no longer be learning;51 instead, we will be engaged in the eternal experience of resting in, delighting in, and reveling in the incredible and unsurpassable knowledge provided by God’s infinite nature.
The one thing heaven will not be is a place of boredom, which results from falling short of perfection rather than from attaining it. The following chart illustrates the difference:

Moral Perfection on Earth Moral Perfection in Heaven
Changing Unchanging
Growing Matured
Striving for Resting in
Seeking Enjoying
Desiring of Delighting in
Our goal Our reward
Our aim Our attainment

Paul wrote,

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.… I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:12–14)

Will We Be Able to Explore the Universe in Heaven?

Yes, but in an infinitely higher way than space travelers could. The nature of the Beatific Vision grants this: We will know everything our finite capacity will allow us to know directly through the infinite mind of God. As He knows the entire universe in and through Himself,52 so will we know the universe by virtue of knowing everything directly in and through His Mind (essence). Hence, with effortless ease, we will be able to explore the entire universe, insofar as it is finitely possible. Such exploration will not be that of ceaseless discovering, but of endless delighting in what we have already discovered in God.

Will We Experience Time in Heaven?

Here again, there are two views held by orthodox Christians.
The first position says yes, we will experience time in heaven, a conclusion based on passages that speak about eternity being described as, for instance, “day and night” forever (e.g., Rev. 4:8; 7:15), though these could be figures of speech for an endless eternity.
The second view emphasizes that heaven is the abode of the eternal (nontemporal) God.53 We, the beatified, will have reached a state of changeless perfection in which the timeless God directly informs our minds. Because time is a measurement of change according to a before and an after, we cannot be temporal in heaven; if we were temporal, then we would still be changing; however, we will be perfect, and what is perfect does not need to change.54 If perfection changed, it would have to be either change for the better (we cannot be better than being absolutely perfect) or change for the worse (we cannot get worse in heaven). Since humans in heaven cannot be in time, nor, as finite,55 can we be absolutely changeless like God, the medieval theologians gave another name to this state: aeviternity. Our state of aeviternity will be one like that of the angels, who are not in time by nature but can be related to it by activity.56

THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF HEAVEN

Like every other major biblical doctrine, heaven is rooted in the very nature and will of God. Particularly, heaven is based in God’s omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnisapience, and omnipotence. As the place of ultimate good, heaven was desired by God’s omnibenevolence, was conceived by His omniscience, was planned in accordance with His omnisapience, and will be achieved by His omnipotence.

Heaven Follows From God’s Omnibenevolence

God, by nature, is all-loving.57 He does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) but desires “all men … to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4 NET). “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16 TLB), who is the sufficient sacrifice for the sins of “the whole world” (1 John 2:2).58 The love of Christ is manifest in that “one died for all” (2 Cor. 5:14); that is, “He might taste death for everyone” (Heb. 2:9 NLT). If God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved, then there must be an eternal place for them. This is why Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2). In the Bible, this place is called “heaven” (Matt. 6:9).

Heaven Follows From God’s Omniscience

Of course, it would be useless for God to prepare a heaven unless He knew in advance that someone was going to be there. Only an omniscient being with infallible foreknowledge of human freedom59 could know with certainty that any free creatures would accept His offer of salvation.60 Paul confirms,

Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom. 8:29–30)

Peter wrote to those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood” (1 Peter 1:2). In accordance with God’s foreknowledge of those who would receive Him (cf. John 1:12) and thus be saved, He provided an eternal heaven for their happiness.

Heaven Flows From God’s Omnisapience

God is not only all-knowing, He is also all-wise;61 He not only knows who will be saved, but He also knows how to get them there. This requires omnisapience: Wisdom chooses the best way to obtain the best end.62 Since humans were created free, the infinitely wise God ordained the best means to keep them on the track to heaven. Needless to say, this was no small task, since He willed not to violate our choice and yet also assure our ultimate destiny.63

Heaven Flows From God’s Omnipotence

A plan that transforms sinners and makes them saints cannot be accomplished by natural powers—only the efficacious grace of God can do this.64 As such, it is God’s omnipotence that can guarantee the end from the beginning: “What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do” (Isa. 46:11). It is with this assurance that we can know heaven will have occupants, the exact ones whom God has foreordained will be there.65 Because of God’s omnipotence, Peter was compelled to speak of those “who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5). The surety of heaven is a confident expectation, not only because God is all-loving and wants to achieve it, but also because He is all-powerful and can do it.66

Geisler, N. L. (2005). Systematic theology, volume four: church, last things (pp. 294–318). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.