Kenneth Richard Samples's Blog

Here’s a question for you to consider: How important is reading for achieving success in life?

Leading educational reformer E. D. Hirsch Jr. offers his perspective:

“We all know that reading is the most important academic skill, and that there is a big reading gap between haves and have-nots in our schools. We know that reading is a key not just to a child’s success in school but also, in the information age, to his or her chances in life.”1

But let me now ask a deeper question: How important is reading in living a good life?

The profound statement, “Reading is a basic tool in the living of a good life” is often attributed to educator and philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, a renowned twentieth-century public intellectual. I don’t know if Adler said it but I do think he would agree with it.2

For context, I think a good life involves living a life of truth, goodness, and beauty.3 From a Christian perspective, those three transcendentals reflect the very nature of God. Thus, a good life ultimately involves knowing, loving, and serving the triune God. Does reading help us attain the three transcendentals?

I placed this quote about reading and the good life on my Facebook page and received an intriguing comment. Here’s that comment paraphrased along with my response: 

Respondent: 
I love to read and I’m glad I’m capable of doing so. But how did the early Christians grow in their faith since 95% of them were illiterate? As I see it, they could only listen as the Scriptures were read to them. Thus, it appears that reading was not required for spiritual growth. I wonder from a certain vantage point: Is the ability to read a liability?

My reply:
You’ve raised some thoughtful questions about the “reading and the good life” quote. Here’s my response:

Being made in the image of God means that human beings are exceptional creatures endowed with profound intellectual abilities. In fact, an important part of loving God is loving the Lord with the gift of our mind. The Bible speaks not only about moral virtues but also intellectual virtues, including checking sources, mental renewal, discerning, reflection, and testing (see Acts 17:11; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 14:29; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Judaism and Christianity are “religions of the book.” That distinction makes them different from the pagan religions, which were not tied to a revealed text. Christianity’s bookish emphasis led to an extraordinary growth of texts within the first couple of centuries of the faith. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic monasteries preserved learning and by the High Middle Ages the great universities of Europe were born (Bologna, Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Padua, Naples, Florence, St. Andrews, etc.). It was these Christian universities that gave rise to the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. The Protestant Reformation also contributed to an ever-growing rate of literacy among the populace.Concerning the apostolic church and reading, since slaves made up a significant number of early converts to the Christian faith, illiteracy was initially very high. But because the early church had a large portion of people who couldn’t read doesn’t mean the church should stay that way or that there’s something spiritual about not having the capacity to read. Learning was still very important in a predominantly oral tradition culture and those who could read served those who couldn’t. For example, even people who were illiterate learned communally through memorizing God’s Word. In fact, memorization at the time of Jesus was high. Some scholars say that rabbis were expected to have largely memorized the content of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) along with knowing the 613 laws (Mitzvot in Hebrew) of Judaism.Intellectuals may suffer from snobbishness and pride, which can be a real stumbling block spiritually. But there are also people who are spiritually proud in other ways not involving the life of the mind. Rather than reading being a spiritual liability, anti-intellectualism in the evangelical church can be a big concern. Anti-intellectualism hurts evangelism, discipleship, apologetics, and even reflective worship. If I understand your concern correctly, it’s the attitude about what we’ve learned through reading, not reading itself, that we need to watch out for. In terms of the general value of reading, one extensive 20-year study indicated that the number of books in the home that children are exposed to is more important to a child’s success in life than any social program promoted by the government.4 Reading is the fundamental discipline to all studies. Thus books and reading really matter.The quote doesn’t say reading or the intellectual life is the be-all and end-all of life. It says reading is a basic tool to living a good life, which for Christians means loving God with all our faculties. Adler was one of the most learned persons of the twentieth century and yet he was also a humble servant of Jesus Christ.5 We can learn from his example in our humble pursuit of the good life.

Thank you for your comment. Peace be with you.

Takeaway

Reading is an important tool in the pursuit of the good life, which includes truth, goodness, and beauty. Moreover, I think Christians need to carefully consider how they can go about loving God with their mind.

Reflections: Your Turn

What do you think the role of reading is in pursuing a good life?

Resource

I write about the question of faith, reason, and learning along with the growth of primitive Christianity in my book  Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good?

Endnotes

E. D. Hirsch Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil,  The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know , revised and updated, 3rd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002), vii-viii.Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren,  How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading  (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972).Kenneth Samples, “The 3 Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, & Beauty,” Reflections (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 2, 2021. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/the-3-transcendentals-truth-goodness-beauty.Kenneth Samples, “Home Libraries Can Set a Child’s Mind on Fire,” Reflections (blog), Reasons to Believe, May 18, 2021, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/home-libraries-can-set-a-childs-mind-on-fire.Kenneth R. Samples, “Wednesday Wisdom from Thinker Mortimer J. Adler,” Reflections (blog), Reasons to Believe, April 16, 2019. 

I’ve never met a perfect human being. Even extraordinary Christian people I’ve known who are uncommonly humble, gracious, and loving admit that they have moral and spiritual flaws like envy, selfishness, and pride. 

It seems all human beings have a congenital moral condition that stands beyond complete cure in this life. Personally, I sincerely desire to fulfill what Jesus called the two great commandments: To love God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength and my neighbor as myself (Mark 12:29–31). But while I’ve seen what I think is genuine spiritual growth in my life in terms of love and devotion to God and striving to be altruistic toward others, my attempts at doing so over my entire adult Christian life have been, at best, limited and painfully inconsistent. So the truth is I haven’t fulfilled God’s commandments and thus need a Savior from my sin.

So what explains this universal flaw within human beings?

The Bible’s depiction of the defective human condition explains the moral failure by revealing that all human beings are captive to the debilitating force of original sin. Theologian John Jefferson Davis in Handbook of Basic Bible Texts defines “original sin” as “the sinfulness, guilt, and susceptibility to death inherited by all human beings [Christ excepted] from Adam.”1

I’ve explained the doctrine here: Does Original Sin Explain the Human Condition? and defended it here: Responding to Objections to Original Sin. Yet some people continue to question it for various reasons. Let’s look at a reader’s recent thoughtful objections that I received recently on social media (paraphrased) and my response to them.

Objection from an Evangelical Christian
Please allow me to play devil’s advocate here and say that in regard to the doctrine of original sin, it is, in effect, a moot point:

Consider two respectful challenges:

First, children become morally culpable through committing their own sin as soon as they are able to do so! Although often adduced as an argument for the logical plausibility of original sin, this fact also seems to be an argument against the practical value of such a doctrine, because at the instant of their first “atomic” acts of sin, children become sinners by volition, regardless of whether they were sinners by nature before then. Do toddlers sin because they are sinners, or do they become sinners because they sin? If Adam himself proved anything, it’s that one does not have to be a sinner by nature in order to disobey the first time one faces a real test.

Second, even among those (Western) Christian teachers who claim to believe in original sin, most will posit the idea of an age of accountability. Realizing that the thought of any baby ending up in hell offends the sensibilities of most reasonable people, they thus make a de facto nullification of original sin by suggesting an exception to the usual necessary means of salvation (direct, consciously exercised faith in Christ) for those who die as infants or small children. I don’t know. But shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right?

My Response
Greetings in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful comments. Let me offer a few points in response:

First, the devil doesn’t need an advocate. 

Second, as my article Responding to Objections to Original Sin indicates, not all of theologically conservative Christendom affirms original sin. Eastern Orthodoxy affirms a universal proclivity to sin but rejects a universal guilt in Adam.2 Also, some of the modern-day representatives of the radical reformation (Anabaptists) reject the teaching that all people are guilty in Adam.

Third, the most important question for evangelical Protestants is does the Bible teach original sin? See my article where I reference Scripture that children are conceived in sin and people are sinners by nature, not just by choice(Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Proverbs 20:9; Romans 5:10–12).

Fourth, the gospel message itself seems to trade on the idea of original sin. That is, the apostle Paul seems to say that people inherit Adam’s sin similarly to how believers inherit Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5). So human beings can be judged fairly for Adam’s sin similarly to how Christ is judged for the collective sin of humanity.

Fifth, your description of sin seems too restrained (Augustinians may call it Pelagian-like) compared to Scripture. A mere volitional choice or proclivity to sin doesn’t seem to square with Scripture’s definition of sin as “disobedience,” “evil,” “inequity,” “lawlessness,” “transgression,” “trespass,” “ungodliness,” “unholiness,” “unrighteousness,” and “wickedness.”3

Sixth, Adam did sin without a sinful nature but if all children have free choice, then why is sin universal among humanity? Why haven’t some freely chosen not to sin? It seems most of Western Christendom thinks original sin is a better explanation for the human condition (the universality of sin).

Seventh, affirming an age of accountability doesn’t biblically invalidate original sin. Saying something is “moot” doesn’t exegetically explain the clear teaching of Scripture. An age of accountability can simply mean that a person has reached an age where they are more cognizant of their sin, but that doesn’t remove one’s possible corporate sin as part of the human species.

Eighth, Western Christendom (both Catholic and Protestant) by and large does affirm original sin and this is especially true of magisterial Protestants. The practice of infant baptism is usually connected to the perceived state of sin in the child.

As I said in Responding to Objections to Original Sin: “I think original sin is a clear biblical doctrine and a coherent idea that carries great explanatory power and scope when it comes to the human condition.”

Peace be with you, brother.

Takeaway
The doctrine of original sin is, in some respects, a perplexing teaching. But it has a biblical basis and it is confirmed universally among human beings.

Reflections: Your Turn
Do you see original sin manifested in your life? 

Resources

For more about original sin and God’s cure in the gospel of Jesus Christ, see my book, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), chapters 9 and 10.See my article “Blaise Pascal on the Human Condition.”

Endnotes

John Jefferson Davis,  Handbook of Basic Bible Text: Every Key Passage for the Study of Doctrine and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 56.Fr. John S. Romanides, “Original Sin According to St. Paul,” Orthodox Christian Information Center, accessed September 19, 2022, http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx.Kenneth Richard Samples,  7 Truths That Changed the World : Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), chapters 9 and 10.

How often do you use analogies when trying to explain things? I’ll bet you do it more often than you realize.

An analogy involves a comparison between two things, usually for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Analogies are an important part of human thinking. In fact, logician Patrick Hurley says “Analogical reasoning may be the most fundamental and most common of all rational processes.”1

When it comes to the Trinity, some theologians see the pursuit of an analogy as highly problematic, but I think it’s natural that Christians would seek an appropriate analogy to help explain or clarify this vital doctrine. Yet some analogies are stronger than others.

Some time ago a person approached me on social media and asked about analogies for the Trinity. I present the question here along with my reply. I hope you’ll find the topic stimulating.

Respondent (paraphrased):
I know most analogies for the Trinity reflect a heresy, accidentally or otherwise. This is one I thought of and I’m wondering if it’s fallacious.

Humans are often thought of in a dualist nature, but I see a trinitarian nature in us: our soul (mind, will, emotions) = the Father; our physical bodies = the Son; and our spirit = Holy Spirit. One Being, three distinct aspects/persons. Given that we are created in his image and using the principle that God puts most/all spiritual truth in a parable form in creation, it seems that this would be an obvious idea.

A related question I’ve always had is, What is the difference between soul and spirit? Scripture seems to distinguish between them, but that difference is not obvious to me after much meditation.

My Reply:
Greetings. Many Christian theologians today are wary of using any analogies for the Trinity. The reason for caution is that God’s triune nature is unique. So, as you said, some of the analogies seem to have more in common with heretical views (tritheism, modalism, etc.).

However, human beings are made in God’s image—as you note—thus it seems that we can find ways to understand God’s nature by judiciously using analogical reasoning. Analogies by nature contain both similarities and dissimilarities (like and unlike) so virtually all analogies have weaknesses.2

St. Augustine (354-430), who is known for using psychological analogies, postulated a trinitarian analogy of the human mind consisting of intellect, memory, and will. Unfortunately, I’m not sure anyone today thinks of the mind in exactly that three-component way.

Some Christians propose—like you have—that a single human being is composed of body, soul, and spirit (called trichotomy). However, I think you can make a strong case that the Bible uses soul and spirit interchangeably and that everything the soul does the spirit does, and everything the spirit does the soul does. Compare Jesus being troubled in soul (John 12:27) and in spirit (John 13:21).3

Analogies I use with caution include the Augustinian reflection concerning love: the Trinity is analogous to a loving human family (the Father the Lover, the Son the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit the love that flows from them4). I also think threeness and oneness are evidenced in a triangle and unity and diversity are seen in the universe. A trinitarian analogy I’m working on is comparing the three persons in the Godhead to the three transcendentals: the true, the good, and the beautiful. It’s a work in progress.

I hope I’ve helped you think through the issue. Thanks for raising a stimulating topic.

Takeaway
Some Christian thinkers are wary of trinitarian analogies—and with good reason—because many are closer to heretical views. I personally agree with St. Augustine on the matter but attempt to proceed cautiously. Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says this about analogies: “Analogies are extremely useful, even essential to human thinking.”5

Reflections: Your Turn 
Are there analogies of the Trinity that you find helpful? Visit Reflections to comment.

Endnotes

Patrick J.Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 12th ed. (Samford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015), 524.In logical terms, analogies are best thought of as being strong or weak rather than being good or bad.For a helpful biblical discussion of the positions of trichotomy and dichotomy, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1984), chapter 23, 472–86.See Gerald Bray, “8 Things We Can Learn from Augustine,” Crossway (website), posted November 16, 2015.Peter Kreeft,  Socratic Logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles , 2nd ed., ed. Trent Dougherty (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press), 102.

One of the hotly debated topics within Christian theology is the question of how God can be sovereign and yet allow evil in the world. Two people asked me about this issue on social media recently and I offered a brief response. See what you think of the questions and objections raised as well as my replies. Please consider also my recommendations for further reading about this important topic.

Respondent 1 (paraphrased):
If God is sovereign in a traditional sense and is thus in control of how all things ultimately unfold, then isn’t God responsible for such evil things like rape? God not only knew about it, but his sovereignty brought it to be.

My reply:
Greetings, brother. Your question is a challenging one. I’ll offer a brief response and then recommend some sources that address the topic further.1

Three different but related theological traditions within Western Christendom have more robust views of divine sovereignty, including the Augustinian, Thomistic, and Reformed traditions. All three of these traditions have high views of divine sovereignty and they see it as fairly representing Scripture. For example: “According to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). But contrary to their critics these theological traditions don’t view God’s sovereignty as a type of theological fatalism. 

Instead, they affirm a compatibility between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility just as God decreed Christ’s crucifixion and yet also held those who carried it out personally responsible (Acts 2:22–23): 

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”

Here we see a divine sovereign decree and human responsibility in the very same verse. So God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are somehow compatible.

Concerning your question, all of these theological traditions—while allowing for mystery with regard to God’s exact relationship to evil—could nevertheless say that God’s decree includes the willful actions of human beings. So the rapist actively commits evil and God’s providential decree either allows and/or ensures that it transpires. However, these compatibilist views would also say that God not only allows evil but also uses evil for his good purposes (Romans 8:28). But in doing so God doesn’t actually commit evil and is not ultimately morally responsible for it. The compatibilist view says that God will punish evil and set all things right in the age to come (Revelation 21:4). 

It is certainly your prerogative to differ with the biblical interpretations and theological explanations of compatibilism. But this is the basic view of many of Christianity’s classical theologians (including, with some important differences of course, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Edwards, and Warfield). 

My book Classic Christian Thinkers may be of some help as it introduces such thinkers as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Pascal, and Lewis.2

Respondent 2 (paraphrased): 
Respectfully, much of your “more robust” theology seems to be merely restating the problem in your own terms and then punting to “mystery” at the very point where the circularity is most evident to non-Reformed scholars.

My reply:
Thank you for your comments. Here are some thoughts in response: 

1. My use of the words “more robust” describe not the strength of the compatibilist view per se but the significance that providence plays in the various theologies I mentioned. 

2. My very brief response above is an attempt to answer the question asked from multiple theological perspectives (Augustinian, Thomistic, Reformed), which requires explanation or restating. 

3. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were not Protestants scholars, so it is not just the Reformed who affirm a form of compatibilism. Again, while there are real differences among these theological traditions, I think it’s fair to say compatibilism is the consensus view among the more classical theologians (whether Catholic or Protestant). 

4. Since God is infinite and eternal and humans finite and temporal then everything about God from the human perspective involves mystery. With all due respect to my learned colleagues and friends who don’t affirm compatibilism (such as Molinists3), in my view the middle knowledge perspective functions as a model of theological explanation, not as an ultimate solution to the mystery.

5. I don’t think circularity is the central objection that Molinists bring forth against the compatibilist view. I think it’s usually the challenge of determinism. 

6. It may seem that I didn’t resolve the mystery in this brief response. Please see my latest book where I have a chapter entitled “Aren’t Theological Mysteries Just Logical Contradictions?” There I address challenging topics like God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.4

7. In addition to my books, I think you’d get more from reading some of classical Christianity’s greatest scholars who affirmed compatibilism (such as Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards).

Best regards in Christ.

Takeaway
Christians and Christian theological traditions differ over how to best explain God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and the problem of evil. My strong recommendation is to read the best books on all sides of the issue before making up one’s mind.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Other than Scripture, what do you consider to be the best books on God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and evil?

Endnotes

Along with recommending Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. firsthand, two contemporary Reformed sources include these two books: J. I. Packer,  Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God  (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008) and Anthony A. Hoekema,  Saved by Grace  (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994).See my book  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019).Molinism, named after sixteenth-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is the theological view that attempts to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human free will. Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what his creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance. Thus God could place someone in a circumstance where they would freely choose God’s sovereign will. For an explanation and defense of Molinism, see Kenneth Keathley,  Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2010). See my book  Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good?  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chap. 5.

Many people claim to have had religious experiences with God—a phenomenon that has been true since time immemorial. How can a person think through this numinous topic? What are the right questions to ask? 

In this brief article I’ll answer some basic questions about religious experiences from a historic Christian perspective. I hope my thoughts will be helpful to both Christians and non-Christians as they seek answers to this challenging topic.

Addressing Six Questions about Religious Experiences

How can one possibly define a religious experience? 

This is a good question because the field of discovery is wide and deep. Yet the study of the philosophy of religion can be helpful. Part of the purpose of the philosophy of religion is to define key terms relative to the field of religion. Veteran philosopher and theologian Ed L. Miller, who has studied many religions of the world, offers this definition:

A religious experience is “an immediate, direct, and personal confrontation with the divine.”1

Don’t the world’s religions recognize different types of encounters with the divine?

I have taught college-level courses on the world’s religions for over thirty years. I think there are three general types of religious experiences within the various religions of the world: 

(A) Experiences rooted in revealed religions such as personal encounters with God, as reflected in the religious or the revelatory writings of especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Bible, Qur’an).

(B) Mystic religious experiences such as becoming ontologically one with God, as reflected in Hinduism and other Eastern religions. However, Hinduism has various views of the divine as well as various accompanying types of religious experiences.2

(C) The universal sense of a supernatural presence of God reported by people everywhere. Protestant theologian John Calvin described this type as the sensus divinitatis3 (“sense of the divine”), as discussed in the biblical book of Romans (see chapters 1 and 2).

In terms of conflicting religious experiences, the Bible recognizes that not all religious-like experiences are authentically divine. Counterfeit spiritual encounters are also a reality (2 Corinthians 11:13–15; Ephesians 6:10–13; 1 Peter 5:8–9).

Are there ways to test whether a religious experience is spiritually authentic?

From a historic Christian perspective, religious experiences would be expected to correspond to the biblical revelation about God (theistic, monotheistic, trinitarian), Christ (Lord, God-man, only Savior), and salvation (grace-oriented).

During the First Great Awakening (1740s) when many thousands of people in the American colonies claimed to have had religious experiences within the context of Christian revivalist preaching, philosophical theologian Jonathan Edwards identified several authentic characteristics, including: transformation in holiness, sincerity in seeking God, deep-seated conviction, humility, willingness to forgive, and true faith works.4

Are there ways to test whether a religious experience is genuinely and objectively true?

Religious experiences are challenging to validate on the basis of reasoning alone (though they can’t be illogical). These alleged encounters are usually, though not exclusively, private, personal, and subjective in nature. Nevertheless, they may fit well within the context of the Christian worldview.5

Some philosophical theologians would describe religious experiences as being analogous to sense experience.6 However, secular scholars look for natural explanations to such experiences—especially in the form of psychological theories.7

Who are some of the famous biblical and Christian leaders who have claimed profound religious experiences?

The biblical figures would include, among others: Abraham, Moses, and the apostle Paul. Within church history St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Blaise Pascal—to name a few—claimed to have had religious experiences.8

Can you tell us about your apparent religious experience?

I write about a religious experience I had as a young man that changed my life. See my blog post Are Religious Experiences Evidence for God? and tell me what you think.

Takeaway
Scripture tells us as Christians to test all things because there is much false doctrine that’s often connected to alleged or counterfeit religious experiences (1 Thessalonians 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–3). In the Western world, spiritual warfare typically comes in the form of false teaching.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Have you had a religious experience? If so, how would you describe it?

Endnotes

Ed L. Miller,  God and Reason: An Invitation to Philosophical Theology , 2nd. ed (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995), 107. For more on the topic of religious experience, read Miller’s entire chapter 6.Hinduism may be defined as a collection of religions where religious experience reflects henotheism, monolatrism, polytheism, and pantheism. For a discussion of the religious diversity within Hinduism, see my book  God among Sages , chapter 5.See my discussion of Calvin’s sense of the divine in  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction , chapter 7.See Edwards specialist Gerald McDermott’s lectures on Edwards’s attempt to define authentic religious experiences at the time of the Great Awakening: “Jonathan Edwards Lecture 1 of 4,” YouTube, April 16, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWYyMswT8wM.See Richard Swinburne,  The Existence of God , 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004), chapter 13.Mark Webb, “Religious Experience,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition), Edward N. Zalta ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/.Webb, “Religious Experience.”For the lives and divine encounters of some of these Christian leaders, I invite you to read my book  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction .

“Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13-14, NIV 1984)

Is there mystery involved in encountering the exalted God of the Bible? If so, does that mean God is ultimately unknowable? Does mystery involve actual logical contradiction?

Mystery and Comprehension
According to historic Christianity, a theological mystery is something that is believed to be true based on biblical revelation but can’t be fully comprehended by the limited human mind. A mystery is a meaningful idea that carries a rational basis, so it is genuinely understandable to some degree. However, it remains ultimately incomprehensible or unfathomable.

St. Augustine once said, “Si comprehendis, non est Deus” (Latin), which translates, “If you understand, it is not God.”1 

To place his quote in proper context, God is infinite, eternal, and totally independent; human beings are finite, temporal, and dependent creatures. So if a person is reflecting on the mysteries of the Trinity or the incarnation or God’s attributes and they think they fully comprehend these truths, then Augustine says it’s not the God of historic Christianity. The reason is patently clear: If you or I can fully understand God, then he is not much of a God.

For Augustine, people can truly know God, understand real truths about him, and by his grace even have a relationship with the redeeming Lord, but we cannot comprehend God as the persons in the Godhead comprehend one another. Since God’s nature is so beyond that of the creature, this difference calls for human beings to exercise humility and deference. God’s glorious being should lead us to worship, thank, and trust him.

As Christian apologists who seek to explain and defend Christianity, we can overstate our ability to comprehend truths that are deeply mysterious. But that doesn’t mean God is logically contradictory, for such truths as the Trinity and the incarnation can be articulated in ways that avoid logical contradiction.2 It also doesn’t mean that Christian thinkers can’t vigorously press the logical categories in offering potential rational ways of understanding these divine truths. But even with the rational enterprise of Christian apologetics, mystery remains and it should be recognized and acknowledged.

Mystery Is Part of Life
The discovery that truth and reality involve robust mystery is present in other academic disciplines as well. For example, in science mystery is found in Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and in Richard Feynman’s approach to quantum mechanics. Heisenberg and Feynman offered rigorous reasons for accepting these truths but also recognized the human mind’s limited capacity for full comprehension. These two brilliant and intuitive scientists acknowledged that humility is warranted in light of mystery. There are, therefore, mysteries in both science and theology.3 They remind us of our limitations and the need to keep seeking understanding.

Consider the apostle Paul’s statement about the true but mysterious God in Acts 17:24–28:

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.'” 

Reflections: Your Turn 
How does the triune God’s infinite nature and being impact your life as a believer?

Resources

• For an explanation and defense of historic Christian truth claims, see my book Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions.

• For a study of God’s being and attributes, see my book A World of Difference.

Endnotes

St. Augustine, Sermo 117.3.5 (PL 38.663).For a discussion of mystery and reason relating to the Trinity and the incarnation, see my book  Christianity Cross-Examined  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chap. 5.For a discussion of the mystery of life from a scientific and theological perspective, see Alister McGrath’s book  The Great Mystery: Science, God and the Human Quest for Meaning  (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2018).

Having been an author, professor, Sunday school teacher, and radio talk show host over my thirty-five-year professional career, I’ve been asked thousands of questions about all things relating to Christian apologetics and worldview.

I recently sat down with my friend and RTB colleague Joe Aguirre for an interview. We decided to cover some of the questions we often ask scholars who appear on our Straight Thinking podcast. I hope you benefit from my responses.

Our One-on-One
Joe: As a deeply bookish person, outside of the Bible, what are the two most important books that shaped your Christian theological and apologetics perspective?

Ken: I’ve read thousands of books on Christian theology, philosophy, history, worldview, and apologetics. But two books clearly stand out in my thinking about historic Christianity. Those two are Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) and Confessions by St. Augustine (354–430). 

Mere Christianity was the first Christian book I ever read and its content and author deeply influenced me. Lewis’s book shaped my thinking about both doctrine and apologetics. Doctrinally, I’ve embraced Lewis’s idea of mere Christianity; namely, that there is a robust part of historic Christian theology that all major branches and denominations of Christendom affirm. Apologetically, I have, in large measure, adopted his abductive apologetics reasoning; namely, that Christianity provides the best explanation of life’s most meaningful realities.

St. Augustine’s Confessions is, outside of Scripture, the greatest book I’ve ever read. It chronicles Augustine’s intellectual, moral, and spiritual pilgrimage from paganism to Christianity. The title Confessions can be understood in three ways: (1) Augustine’s candid and contrite confession of sin; (2) his sincere confession of newfound faith; and (3) his thankful confession of the greatness of God. When I read Confessions I often think he’s writing about my own disordered life.

Joe: Who is your favorite Christian thinker from the past and why? 

Ken: That’s a difficult question to answer because many of historic Christianity’s thinkers and writers speak to me in powerful ways. But my big three, so to speak, include Augustine, Pascal, and Lewis, with Athanasius not far behind. If I had to pick one it would be Augustine. He is arguably the most influential Christian thinker outside the New Testament authors, especially in Western Christendom. History knows him as a theologian, philosopher, church bishop, and gifted and tenacious defender of orthodox Christianity. To read about nine of my favorites from Christian history, see my book Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction.

Joe: Did you have a critical mentor in the developmental period of your faith? If so, who?

Ken: I did indeed have an important mentor in my early days as a Christian. It was the original Bible Answer Man, Walter Martin (1928–1989). Martin was a theologian, philosopher, and the father of the countercult apologetics movement within evangelicalism that first arose in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I attended Martin’s popular Bible class in Southern California for a number of years and later worked with him at the Christian Research Institute (CRI). I wrote about my inspirational mentor and former boss in the article Christian Thinkers 101: A Crash Course on Walter Martin.

Joe: What do you consider to be your life’s verse from Scripture and why?

Ken: There are two Scripture passages that stand out as something like life verses for me. The first is Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

My wife Joan and I had this passage placed on our wedding invitations some 40 years ago. It’s deeply comforting to know that God in his providential power and wisdom is working behind the scenes of our lives to work all things for good. This is especially important to me when it comes to the big challenges of life, which inevitably involve suffering. This verse tells me I can count on the Lord even when I experience the storms of life.

The second passage is Matthew 11:28: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”

In my youth, I searched restlessly for something that would give my life enduring meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. I initially thought that maybe becoming a rich and famous professional athlete or meeting the right woman would satisfy my existential longings. Yet I later discovered that I was created to know and love God and that true rest and peace for my soul could only be found in communing with the Lord. The struggles of life and disordered choices can make life difficult to navigate. But the Savior Jesus Christ offers broken, weary, and burdened sinners like me the rest and peace we so desperately need and seek. This is a verse that continues to speak to me daily.

Joe: What argument, fact, or piece of evidence do you view as being the most probative in support of the truth of Christianity?

Ken: There are many different arguments and evidences that I think are cogent in supporting the truth of God’s existence and of historic Christianity. However, I like the following approach because I think it’s both reasonable and understandable to others. 

My fundamental reason for accepting historic Christianity as true rests on Christian theism’s worldview explanatory power and scope. The historic Christian worldview accounts for an array of realities in nature and in human experience, including the universe; abstract entities; ethics; human beings; and religious phenomena, especially the unique character, claims, and credentials of Jesus Christ.

Joe: What is the greatest challenge to your faith as a Christian?

Ken: I view the many-splintered problem of evil as a challenge to all the major worldviews and that includes my own. Yet while I think the Christian world-and-life view has viable answers to the challenges of both moral evil (malevolent things done by a personal agent; for example, murder, rape, robbery) and natural evil (pain, suffering, and destruction that result from natural disasters), there are still times where I’m emotionally bothered by suffering. The suffering of small children especially troubles me.

Joe: In your role as a Christian apologist, what’s the greatest temptation you face?

Ken: I wrestle with a lot of sins. Thus I’m truly grateful for my Savior Jesus Christ. But in the role of a Christian scholar, I would say the sins that plague me most are envy and pride. When I was a young man I envied my friends who signed professional baseball contracts because it never happened for me. Now I tend to envy my Christian apologist friends whose books sell a lot better than mine. 

Pride is a great sin. Some have even referred to it as spiritual cancer because it’s an anti-God state of mind. Sometimes I struggle with a “humble” pride, meaning I’m actually insecure and need other people’s approval. At other times it seems that diabolical pride is lurking at the door. Conversely, humility is a great virtue but hard to hold on to. Having regular times where I read Scripture, pray, resist sin, and confess my sins to God is how I try to respond to these spiritually oriented temptations. Discussing them with my pastor and spiritual advisor also helps keep me accountable.

Joe: If you could do it over again, what would you do differently specifically in preparing to be a Christian scholar and apologist?

Ken: In terms of scholarship preparation, I would focus on developing the four language arts: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. I would also commit myself to the study of logic and critical thinking. Lastly, I would especially dedicate myself to the study of Scripture and to the great classics of historic Christianity.

Joe: What role does aesthetics play in your life?

Ken: I’m passionate about the arts. I especially appreciate paintings and the art forms found in historic Christendom. I also enjoy reading classical literature. My favorite popular musical artist is English musician and songwriter Steve Winwood, whose genre of music includes blue-eyed soul, rhythm and blues, blues rock, pop rock, and jazz.

Joe: Do you have a favorite sport or sports team?

Ken: Baseball is my favorite sport followed closely by basketball. I love how baseball is closely connected with American history. It dates to the Civil War and its golden age was during the Great Depression and World War II. I’ve been an avid Dodgers and Lakers fan for over 50 years. My two favorite sports stars are baseball player Ted Williams and basketball player Jerry West.

Joe: Thanks for the interview, Ken.

Ken: You’re welcome. Peace be with you, Joe.

Reflections: Your Turn
What part of the interview did you find most interesting?

Resources

I write about aspects of my life in my books  A World of Difference  and  Christianity Cross-Examined .

Ancient Christian church father St. Augustine (354–430) articulated the provocative idea that the Trinity makes God perfect in a love that is found within God’s nature. Contemporary Anglican theologian Gerald Bray provides a helpful summary of Augustine’s basic reasoning:

“God cannot be love unless there is something for him to love. But if that something were not part of himself, he would not be perfect. The Bible does not teach us that God needed the creation in order to have something to love, because if that were true, he could not be fully himself without it. So Augustine reasoned that God must be love inside himself. To his mind, the Father is the one who loves, the Son is the one who is loved (the ‘beloved Son’ revealed in the baptism of Jesus), and the Holy Spirit is the love that flows between them and binds them together.”1

I have written a number of articles over the last couple of years explaining why I think Augustine has touched upon something incredibly important. Discussing this topic has led to a number of dialogues and debates with people who affirm nontrinitarian views of God. 

Recently, a reader visited my blog page and left the following challenge concerning Augustine’s reasoning about the Trinity and love. I have paraphrased the comment and then provided my response, which I hope you’ll find helpful for your own understanding.

Respondent: Why in heaven’s name would a tripartite deity who doesn’t need to love something else outside of itself nevertheless decide to create other beings just to “share the love”? In doing this unusual thing, doesn’t this deity risk showing its limitations and fallibility?

My Response: Greetings. In classical Christian theology, God is thought to be a maximally perfect being. That is, God is unsurpassable in power, presence, knowledge, wisdom, justice, holiness, goodness, and love. This means that God is not limited in his being, for God does not need anything outside himself to fulfill himself.

With regard to love, the triune God of historic Christianity enjoys unity and diversity (one God in three persons). The Trinity (tri-unity) is loving because God is analogous to a human family where parents and children share their love. In the case of the Trinity, it’s three persons exchanging (giving and receiving) love for all eternity. So with the triune God, love is grounded in God’s being and personhood and thus God does not need to create in order to fulfill himself.

With unitarian Gods (one being and one person) like Islam’s Allah or the Watchtower’s Jehovah, such a God cannot be maximally perfect because he can’t ground love within himself and must create to find fulfillment. A God who must create to find fulfillment is by definition limited and imperfect.

I think it makes perfect sense that a God who is perfect in love like the Trinitarian God of Christianity would share that love with others. A God who is loving by nature is generous and is always reaching out. Loving human families act similarly. Loving parents share their love with children who are products of the parents’ love. 

Moreover, I don’t see how God creating others to share in his divine love is, in any way, limited or fallible. Concerning risk, God apparently thought that sharing his love—even with humans who might be resistant—was a price well worth paying.

Historic Christianity says God is love because he is a Trinity (having both unity and diversity). And we love because he first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Takeaway
Scripture declares that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) and reason indicates that for God to be perfect, then that profoundly virtuous attribute has to be grounded in God’s being and personhood. Unitarian views of God struggle to explain where a single, solitary God gets and gives love without expressing limitation.

Reflections: Your Turn
What does reflecting on God’s love do for you? Visit Reflections to comment.

Resources
• To study the attributes of God, see my book A World of Difference, chapter 8.

• For a respectful and fruitful dialogue I had with a Muslim imam concerning the question of God being love, see Is Allah a Loving God?

• For a similar discussion I had with a Jehovah’s Witness, see “How the Trinity Shows God’s Love.”

• For my explanation and defense of the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, see Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions, chapter 5.

Endnotes

1. Gerald Bray, “8 Things We Can Learn from Augustine,” Crossway (website), posted November 16, 2015.

   

As a Christian thinker and apologist, I have talked with many non-Christians about my Christian faith over almost the past four decades. Some of these apologetics discussions have taken place in formal debates, others on television and radio, still others on social media, and many in personal face-to-face discussions. Sometimes I reflect back on these discussions and wonder how successful they were.  

In my opinion, defending the faith (Greek: apologia: to offer a reasoned defense) is never easy, and one must trust in God’s grace for the results. Ultimately, I believe that only God by his extraordinary grace can instill a desire for himself in a human being, but the Lord may choose to use your witness or mine in doing so.

Here are three goals I have in mind when engaging in the apologetics enterprise:

First, I try to present clear, cogent, and compelling arguments for my faith. Whether presenting arguments for God’s existence, a defense of the Christian worldview, or an explanation of Christian truth claims like the Trinity or Jesus’s incarnation, atonement, or resurrection, I try to convey what I believe as a historic Christian and why I think Christianity is true and good. 

Second, I attempt to demonstrate an intellectual code of conduct by striving to treat other people and their beliefs the way I want mine treated. That means I try to engage with other people’s beliefs and arguments with respect and fair-mindedness. I call this the golden rule of apologetics.

Third, I look to build bridges with others when I can do so without compromising my beliefs and values. Because all people are made in God’s image and everyone benefits from general revelation and common grace, I think there will be important places where I can find common ground with others who don’t share my faith.

A Winsome Approach
Of course, I’m not always able to accomplish these three lofty goals. At times, my apologetics efforts have been weak, argumentative, and excessively confrontational. 

Nevertheless, I try to be winsome in all of my apologetics encounters. By winsome, I mean considerate, gracious, and personable. Winsomeness doesn’t guarantee that the person you are engaging with will be open to the gospel message. But I think the complete absence of winsomeness will very likely turn people off to the gospel.

However, some people have told me that a winsome approach to apologetics is just weak or soft. Some time ago on social media, I had two people challenge whether being winsome is always the right way to do apologetics.

As readers of my blog, I think you might appreciate reading the challenges and how I responded. Here they are, paraphrased.

Respondent #1: The apostle Paul wasn’t winsome in Galatians 1:8–9 when he spoke of purveyors of false gospels being accursed. Nor in Acts 13:10 when he said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit . . .”

My Response: Greetings in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thanks for your thoughts.

I’ll try to explain how the passages you’ve cited relate to the critical Christian virtues mentioned in Romans 12 and other places in the apostle Paul’s epistles.

Your biblical references relate to the very serious and somewhat extreme circumstances of false teaching (Galatians 1) and sorcery (Acts 13). Yet according to Scripture the preaching of the gospel and the apologetics enterprise is to be done with gentleness, respect, and a clear conscience (1 Peter 3:15–17). I have frequently shared with Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Watch Tower’s gospel is unbiblical and thus false, yet I treated the individual persons who stood at my front door with respect and kindness. Even people preaching another gospel or engaged in spiritual deceit are persons made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–28) and are therefore still worthy of dignified treatment.

Paul’s confrontation with the sorcerer was unique in two respects. Paul was an apostle and was given unique discernment from the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:9). There are things that Jesus and the apostles did that were unique to them and their special supernatural ministry. You and I cannot read the hearts and minds of people as they could, and thus we must strive to be gracious and humble in our discernment and treatment of others. 

Anything done without love, including doctrinal and moral correction, is empty (1 Corinthians 13:1–3). Facing false teaching and even occult activity doesn’t give the Christian the right to dishonor people and treat them disrespectfully. Christian love is a powerful apologetics force in its own right, and it is not inconsistent with the need to be strong and firm in opposing error and evil.

Respondent #2: Isn’t winsomeness defined culturally? For example, in Middle Eastern cultures, a certain amount of disparaging your opponent, “in-your-face” confrontational talk, using sarcasm, almost sounding insulting, is necessary to be viewed as making any serious point and being worth listening to. A soft-spoken person is viewed as weak and not a serious interlocutor who is passionate enough to appear adversarial. 

I am not endorsing this style, but merely pointing out that “winsome” may be a Western construct. Western standards of politeness or respectfulness or gentleness may be defined differently in other cultures. Of course, Scripture is our ultimate arbiter and source for faith and practice.

My Response: Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I think being winsome as I have defined it (considerate, gracious, and personable) in apologetics encounters is the general equivalent of the Scriptural imperative (1 Peter 3:15–17) of exhibiting “gentleness,” “respect,” and a “clear conscience.” While I know you are not personally condoning it, “in-your-face” smack talk, using sarcasm (which metaphorically means to “cut the flesh”), and intimidation is insulting, unbiblical, and apologetically unpersuasive. 

All people are made in the image of God and are deserving of respect and dignified treatment. Scripture warns against insulting people who bear God’s image (James 3:9). Winsomeness is not soft or weak. It takes much more strength and character to treat people with whom you disagree with genuine respect. Anything in the Christian life not done in love is empty (1 Corinthians 13).

The specifics of winsomeness may indeed be informed by one’s culture, but the apostles Peter and Paul were both Middle Eastern, and they advocated that apologetics be accompanied by respect, gentleness, and a clear conscience.

Consider Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:4–8:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

There are differences in cultural practices, but Scripture, which we both affirm as our authoritative standard, has a universal application. Today’s multiculturalism has to be evaluated carefully in light of logic and Scripture lest it collapse into cultural and ethical relativism. An honor-shame culture—like any culture, including Western—may need to be reformed in light of true scriptural values.

Peace be with you.

Takeaway
Winsomeness is not tantamount to softness or weakness. It takes real strength to retain virtue when the discussion becomes highly polemical and even adversarial. None of our apologetics endeavors are perfect, but we can have confidence that God, by his grace, can use his broken vessels (us) to reach the world for Christ.

Reflections: Your Turn
What questions or comments came to your mind when you read my article?

Resources
To read about apologetics issues and accompanying virtue, see my book Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions.

Conspiracy theories never seem to go away. Especially the ones that are said to involve clandestine plots of the United States government. It seems that many Americans believe high-level members of the federal government have been involved in such things as assassinations, cover-ups, and secret societies.

Conspiracy theories, like all theories, need to be thought through critically and dispassionately. As Christians, we have a duty to pursue truth. However, in a fallen world truth is not always easy to discern. Nevertheless, as creatures made in God’s image, we possess the ability to reason through explanations carefully and discover truth. I hope to illustrate this idea in consideration of conspiracy theories.

I have written on conspiracy theories before and some of the introductory principles I share here have been derived from an earlier article that can be accessed here: “Thinking through Big Government Conspiracy Theories.” In this article we will look at what is known as the granddaddy of all conspiracy theories.

JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory: Widely considered the greatest conspiracy theory of all time, a Gallup poll taken in 2001 reported that 81 percent of Americans believed there was a conspiracy behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. Though by 2018, the number had dropped to 60 percent. As the decades pass without verification of an actual conspiracy, I expect the numbers to continue to drop. Some of the most common highly speculative scenarios propose that top officials of the American government were engaged in a coup d’état to kill President Kennedy (see, for example, Oliver Stone’s 1991 conspiracy classic film JFK).

Why do these alternative explanations remain popular? Here are a few reasons:

(1) Sometimes conspiracy theories prove, in fact, to be true. History indicates that people have plotted to carry out illegal, subversive, or secret plans. For example, it was proven in a court of law that a small group of individuals conspired to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln.

Also, members of the US government are not immune from the possibility of engaging in conspiracy. Former President Richard Nixon later acknowledged that he knew much more about the Watergate break-in than he initially expressed. So conspiracy theories, even those involving the American government, should not be rejected a priori(prior to reasonable analysis).

(2) I also think conspiracies are popular because, as human beings, our knowledge is limited. There are things we don’t know and at times it irritates us.

(3) Additionally, conspiracies can serve to “even things out.” It is hard to balance how a person as inconsequential as Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, could murder someone as consequential as President John F. Kennedy. But a clandestine conspiracy involving powerful figures would help even the odds in an otherwise implausible scenario.

Yet most conspiracy theories—particularly the big ones like the JFK assassination—haven’t received the critical analysis they deserve by the American populace. Let’s look next at some online engagements I have had in discussing the JFK assassination.

Debating JFK Assassination Theories Online
I asked the following question on social media recently:

Do you agree with the Warren Commission finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy? Yes/No/Unsure?

To clarify the question, the Warren Commission (1963–1964) found that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy and they found no evidence of a conspiracy, either foreign or domestic. See the Warren Commission Report(WCR) online.

Here are three (paraphrased) responses to my question followed by my replies:

Respondent #1: The answer is No! Former President Lyndon B. Johnson told newsman Walter Cronkite in a 1969 interview that he always suspected an international conspiracy was involved and he didn’t believe the WCR. LBJ said, “They did the best they could.” The FBI and police never investigated the case properly and they did not do their job to protect JFK or Lee Harvey Oswald, who was shot by Jack Ruby two days later. It was the most pathetic and laughable example of law enforcement. They had hot leads they never followed up on and lots of evidence and witnesses were ignored and excluded, planted, and altered. 

Me: Thanks for your answer and comments. Just a few points for your consideration: 

(1) The one-volume, 888-page WCR summarizes the findings of the 10-month investigation. It is accompanied by 26 additional volumes of evidence. Trial attorney Vincent Bugliosi called the Warren Commission the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in all of history.1 I don’t think anyone can have an informed opinion about the commission’s findings without having read the report. Have you read it?

(2) Lyndon Johnson was merely expressing his personal opinion on the event and, according to his biographers, LBJ had a tendency to be rather paranoid. He personally appointed the individual members of the Warren Commission and said he had confidence in their judgment.

(3) Oswald was in custody about 90 minutes after the shootings of Kennedy and of officer J. D. Tippit. It was actually pretty efficient police work by the Dallas Police Department. 

(4) It wasn’t the FBI’s job to directly protect Kennedy; that’s what the Secret Service does. But the Warren Report critiqued the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Dallas Police Department and made strong recommendations for improvement. 

(5) Virtually all the objections to the lone gunman theory are addressed in the WCR and those that are not have been addressed in books by Gerald Posner2 and Vincent Bugliosi. I think the WCR is an impressive piece of law enforcement and legal investigative work.

Respondent #2: The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 concluded that there was a conspiracy. Yet the term “conspiracy theorist” is still a derogatory term today. It would seem like those who said so were vindicated, right?

As far as the assassination itself, I think there were two totally different bullets involved. The headshot fragmented—doing huge and visible damage we are all familiar with from the Zapruder film. The neck shot “magic bullet” was a totally different sort of ballistic—a fragmenting bullet couldn’t have survived several reentries.

Me: I appreciate your answer and comments. Here are a few points for you to think about: 
⁠
(1) Actually, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA: 1976–1979) did not vindicate the conspiracy view of President Kennedy’s assassination. Near the end of the committee’s investigation, they were about to announce that they were in full agreement with the Warren Commission’s findings when they were presented with apparent audio evidence of the assassination. The claim was that a motorcycle tailing the president’s limousine had its radio on and had recorded four shots at the time of the assassination. Trusting this evidence, the HSCA concluded by a narrow margin that there probably was a conspiracy behind Kennedy’s assassination. However, that’s not the end of the story. Later, the audio evidence was presented to the National Academy of Sciences and was thoroughly refuted. It was determined based on the motorcycle’s position during the assassination that the recording of noises came several minutes after Kennedy’s limousine had left Dealey Plaza. The noises on the tape were not gunshots. 
⁠
(2) The chief counsel for the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey,3 is probably the most qualified specialist who affirms a conspiracy (see The Plot to Kill the President). He was also a personal friend of Robert Kennedy. Blakey believes that the mob had a hand in killing the president. And yet his own specialist on mob activities rejected his view, saying that no reasonable person would pick the unstable Oswald and the equally unstable Ruby to carry out a hit on President Kennedy and then eliminate the assassin. I would add that Oswald was such an idiosyncratic character that he wouldn’t work with anyone on anything, and his $20 rifle was reliable but not a weapon a professional hit man would use. I’ve read a couple of Blakey’s books and have heard him speak and, while I respect him, I just don’t find his theory convincing. 
⁠
(3) The Warren Report’s ballistic analysis showed that bullet fragments from President Kennedy’s head and the intact bullet that was recovered and caused the wounds to both Kennedy and Governor Connally (single-bullet theory) came from Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles (see WCR). Moreover, the single-bullet theory has been duplicated by using lasers and reenacted with riflemen shooting into dummies with bodies that were made to resemble human flesh and body parts.4 So we may now refer to the single-bullet theory as a fact that has been supported by careful reenactment.
⁠
(4) I don’t rule out conspiracies a priori. There was a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln and a conspiracy behind Watergate. But conspiracy claims must be analyzed very carefully to see if they have true explanatory power and scope (see my article: Logic 101: Five Ways to Think through Conspiracy Theories, Part 2 (of 12)). 
⁠
Finally, the Warren Report findings are available online. If you haven’t read the single volume I encourage you to do so (Warren Commission Report).

Respondent #3: I most definitely do not believe Oswald acted alone. But I have not read the WCR. However, I think you’ve made some unreasonable assumptions.

(1) You’ve determined that no one can possibly have a valid objection to the WCR unless they have first read it in its entirety. I think you know that this is unreasonable. I am well familiar with their conclusions and do not find that they entirely satisfy all of the discrepancies involved. For example, I didn’t need to read every written work by Joseph Smith to conclude that he was a heretic and to ably mount an apologetic against Mormonism.

(2) You proceed (rightly or wrongly) from the premise that the WCR represents the entirety of all that may be known—i. e., evidence, testimonies, FBI and CIA files, etc.—when it simply does not. One of the late Senator and Warren Commission member Richard Russell’s chief complaints regarding the conduct of the Warren Commission was the selective exclusion of leads, evidence, and testimony that might jeopardize their pre-conclusions that there was no conspiracy. They sought no other gunman and Oswald was their man. Russell contested the findings then, all of which attorney Mark Lane also criticized in his book Rush to Judgment. Further, in the 1970s, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations called into question many of the WCR’s conclusions based on the fact that they did not possess all relevant information available at the time. Needless to say, the WCR is not the infallible “canon” regarding this most tragic event in our nation’s history. It’s only a part of the body of evidence, much of which is still sealed away under the pretense of “national security.”

Me: Thanks for your answer and your comments. Here’s my response for you to ponder:

It is of course your prerogative to disagree with the findings of the Warren Commission. But logically, for your case to have validity, it needs to interact with the official report. Why? Because you’re rejecting the conclusions of the report itself and the report contains the official legal record (evidence, eyewitness testimony, arguments, etc.). Also, the House Select Committee on Assassinations relied heavily on the Warren Commission. Mark Lane’s major conspiracy theory book Rush to Judgment interacts with the WRC. Thus, I think to give it due diligence, you need to review the official record. All of the additional studies and information you note above rely on the record you admit you have not read. Even most of the objections you raise have been addressed in the single-volume report that you haven’t reviewed. Thus, with all due respect, your research flaw is that you have read various critics of the WCR but not the actual report itself. That is a common mistake some conspiracy-oriented people make. 
⁠
So it’s possible you are unconvinced because you need to do more study. 

Takeaway
Big government conspiracy theories run rampant and have only increased in circulation in light of the pandemic. Some conspiracies have been shown to be true so we ought not reject them a priori. But alternative explanations need to be submitted to rigorous rational analysis. Part of that analysis—and our duty as Christians—involves investigating original sources. I hope you found this article stimulating.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Have you read any books or seen any programs on the JFK assassination? If so, how would you answer my question above?

Resources

• See my article The JFK Assassination Plus 50: The Five Most Interesting Books on President Kennedy’s Death and the conspiracy-oriented books highlighted in the article above.

Endnotes

Vincent Bugliosi,  Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy  (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007).Gerald Posner,  Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK  (New York: Doubleday, 1993).Bill Rockwood, “Interview: G. Robert Blakey,” Frontline (PBS), November 19, 2013.Eric Bland, “Tech Puts JFK Conspiracy Theories to Rest,” NBC News, November 13, 2008.