THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM

Recently, I have been reading a new book by Christian philosopher Greg Ganssle titled Our Deepest Desires: How the Christian Story Fulfills Human Aspirations. In it, Ganssle discusses the concept of cognitive dissonance, saying:

“Cognitive dissonance is tension that arises when our beliefs come into conflict with each other. I often experience this tension when I try to find my keys. I believe I left them on the counter next to my wallet, but they are not there. I have one belief based on my memory and another based on the fact that I don’t see them where I expect to see them. These beliefs conflict with each other. I want to find my keys, but I also want to find an explanation for the dissonance. Why were the keys not where I thought they would be? I keep looking for a resolution. If I figure out the problem, I feel a sense of relief. Finding my keys is a simple case. Cognitive dissonance in other cases can be deep and persistent. Scholars sifting through complex evidence face a deeper kind of cognitive dissonance. It often takes a great deal of time to work out their ideas and find resolution.

When we experience dissonance, we strive for resolution. We want to remove the tension. We cannot remain in a state of conflict for significant periods of time. We achieve resolution by revising either the content of our beliefs and desires or by revising the ordering of our beliefs and desires. We will often change our beliefs to fit our loves. We are less ready to change our loves to fit our beliefs.”

Ganssle goes on to make an important clarification:

“It is important for me to make it clear that I shall not argue that Christianity is true. I believe it is true, but for most people, the question of whether it is true is not the most important question. My suspicion is that there are many people who think something like the following: ‘I am pretty sure that Christianity is not true, and it is a good thing that it is not.’ I want to challenge the second part of this thought. I hope to persuade readers that it would be a good thing if Christianity turned out to be true. For this reason, I will explore elements of our experience that we care deeply about, and I will point out how the Christian picture of reality makes sense of these elements. The assumptions by which we navigate our lives include more than what we believe. They include our desires or our loves. It is not only what I think is true that will affect how I pursue the best life. It is also what I most want.”

In response to these comments, I have often been told that religious people are the ones who struggle with cognitive dissonance, especially when Christians encounter objections from atheists or adherents of other faiths. But the reality is this: all people deal with cognitive dissonance. It is part of being human. Atheists included.

If someone is a skeptic who assumes God does not exist or that miracles are impossible, and they encounter dissonant evidence, they will often seek out information that confirms their hypothesis while dismissing evidence that might challenge it. Likewise, if someone presupposes that God does exist—or comes to that conclusion through investigation—when challenged, they too will often seek evidence that supports their belief. This pattern applies equally to Muslims, Mormons, Christians, atheists, and others.

This does not mean there is no objectivity involved. However, in many cases, the biases and starting points are functionally the same. Both sides look for evidence to support their position, cite books and articles, and appeal to authorities. And both sides are often quick to dismiss opposing authorities when they conflict with their own conclusions.

But Ganssle’s deeper point remains: we often cling more tightly to what we love than to what is true. When we say something is true, we mean that it corresponds to reality. Yet in many cases, people choose what they desire over what they believe best reflects reality. I have seen this happen frequently.

Ganssle also quotes the famous atheist Bertrand Russell, who wrote:

“Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast heat death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
—Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903)

This raises an important question: Do some people actually love and desire the idea that humans are the result of an undirected, naturalistic process? Some will respond by saying, “The evidence supports the conclusion that humans are the product of an undirected natural process.” That debate can continue at length.

However, from a biblical worldview, all human beings possess inherent worth because life itself is a gift from God. Every person has a right to human dignity—the right to be treated with respect regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or social standing. (I intentionally use the word ethnicity rather than race, since the Bible teaches that there is only one race: the human race.) Along with these rights comes the responsibility to protect and uphold the dignity of others.

Theism offers a clear teleology—the belief that reality is ordered toward a purpose or end. By contrast, many atheists hold to a naturalistic worldview that denies teleology altogether. In that view, humans are the result of a blind, purposeless cosmic process with no ultimate meaning, goal, or direction.

Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel expresses concern about this tendency, writing:

“My guess is that the cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.”
—The Last Word (1997)

In this clip, we discuss how to have better conversations about difficult topics.

Thinking Through the Problem of Hell: The Divine Presence Model, R. Zachary Manis. Cascade Books, 312 pp.

Over the years, I have read a number of monographs and debate books addressing the major positions on hell—Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality, and Universalism. Thus, when I came across this book by R. Zachary Manis, I was curious to see whether he was offering a genuinely new contribution to the discussion. “This book should be considered within the context of the Eastern Orthodox perspective. Admittedly, for those outside the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it may not be a primary focus for discussion.

As Manis notes, the same central objection continues to resurface: How can eternal suffering in hell be compatible with a perfectly loving and powerful God? Manis refers to this as the problem of hell, a specific version of the broader problem of evil. He argues that the traditional view of hell as retributive punishment raises serious difficulties for divine justice, love, and human freedom. Embedded within this objection are familiar questions, such as whether eternal punishment can be proportionate to finite sins.

Manis attempts to propose a model in which hell is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. With respect to God’s love and the problem of unending suffering, he argues that God does not will suffering as such. Rather, a person’s own moral and spiritual orientation toward God determines how God’s presence is experienced. Regarding free will, Manis maintains that God offers the grace necessary for repentance to all people, but genuine repentance must be freely chosen, not forced or coerced.

Manis’s central proposal—one I had not encountered before—is what he calls the Divine Presence Model (DPM). In this model, heaven and hell are not distinct locations but different experiences of the same reality. Hell is not “separation” from God in the sense of God withdrawing or punishing from the outside. Instead, the righteous experience God’s presence as unending joy and communion (what we call heaven), while the wicked experience that same divine presence as pain, despair, and suffering (what we call hell).

On this view, there is no possibility of escaping God’s presence. God is omnipresent; there is no place where God is not. Total separation from God is metaphysically impossible if God sustains all existence. Scripture itself points in this direction—for example, passages in the Old Testament indicate that God is present even in Sheol (e.g., Psalm 139:7–12). God is above and within every realm, affirming that His being permeates creation without being limited by it.

So what makes the DPM distinct? Importantly, it retains the traditional commitment to eternal conscious experience (unlike annihilationism) and does not deny the existence of hell (unlike universalism). However, it rejects the idea that hell is a place of inflicted punishment. While many traditionalists are portrayed as thinking hell is a literal torture chamber, Manis presses the point further by arguing that the same divine presence—perfect love and holiness—is experienced differently depending on a person’s moral and spiritual orientation.

Similarly, while traditional models often debate whether the biblical fire imagery should be taken literally or metaphorically, Manis understands such imagery as phenomenological rather than spatial. The imagery describes the lived experience of suffering without committing to a geography of punishment.

One of the strengths of the book is Manis’s willingness to anticipate and engage criticisms of the DPM. Significant challenges remain. If hell is the subjective experience of God’s objective presence by those whose wills are fundamentally opposed to Him, questions of justice persist. If God knows that His presence will cause unbearable suffering, why sustain that presence eternally? Does this not imply that God is knowingly and willingly inflicting harm? Moreover, the DPM does not seem to offer a decisive solution to the proportionality problem. Is eternal suffering a proportionate consequence of finite sin—especially when that suffering arises from God’s very being?

Given that many philosophers and theologians have gravitated toward annihilationism/conditional immortality or universal reconciliation, it is not clear that the DPM provides a more compelling alternative. On conditional immortality, God allows suffering for some period of time and then ceases to sustain those who cannot endure His presence. On universal reconciliation, God’s presence ultimately overcomes and heals all resistance. A final option, of course, is to affirm that hell is real, eternal, and tragic, while acknowledging that it remains deeply mysterious and not fully explicable.

One section I particularly enjoyed was Manis’s discussion of divine hiddenness, a topic that has become increasingly prominent in contemporary philosophy of religion. Manis rejects the claim that divine hiddenness implies God’s absence or indifference. God may withhold overwhelming evidence not because He does not want to be known, but because coerced belief is not the same as loving trust. On this view, divine hiddenness preserves the space for faith, humility, and freely chosen love. Manis also rightly argues that not all hiddenness is due to moral failure or sin; it may result from human resistance or from God’s revealing Himself at the right time and in the right way.

Personally, I think God has disclosed Himself clearly in creation and conscience, and supremely in Jesus Christ. In some cases, God may also reveal Himself through dreams or visions. But for those who believe they are entitled to a special “sign” and do not receive one, it may be that God knows something they do not.

In the end, this is a genuinely interesting and thought-provoking book. Before reading Manis, I—like many traditionalists—had been taught that hell is separation from God. Yet, as Manis convincingly shows, this idea is difficult to make sense of given God’s omnipresence. While I am not convinced that the Divine Presence Model resolves all the philosophical and theological problems surrounding hell, it is a model that deserves serious consideration in contemporary debates.

Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal, Douglas Groothuis, IVP Academic, 224 pp.

I have always found Blaise Pascal to be a fascinating figure. My interest in him began when I first encountered his insights on why people avoid God. Douglas Groothuis explores this and much more in Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal.

Many readers familiar with Pascal’s famous “Wager” might dismiss this book, assuming Groothuis is primarily defending the Wager. While the Wager is discussed, Groothuis does not treat it as Pascal’s defining idea. Instead, he situates it within a broader context, showing how it forms part of Pascal’s larger effort to move earnest seekers toward faith. Groothuis examines key aspects of Pascal’s thought found in his Pensées.

It is important to remember that Pascal’s Pensées (“Thoughts”) is a collection of notes, reflections, and unfinished writings. Pascal (1623–1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who was working on a comprehensive defense of Christianity at the time of his death. His profound conversion to Christianity in 1654, at age 31, often called his “night of fire,” gave him an overwhelming sense of God’s presence and love, along with deep joy and peace. This experience also brought a strong conviction of sin and a desire to devote his life fully to God.

Groothuis devotes chapters to Pascal’s life and character, detailing his early scientific brilliance and deepening Christian commitment. He also highlights Pascal’s scientific and mathematical achievements, showing how Pascal’s faith and intellect were intertwined.

One of Pascal’s most important contributions, in my opinion, is his insight into the human condition and why people avoid the God question. He argued that humans distract themselves through busyness and diversion—what he famously called divertissement—to avoid confronting their own misery, mortality, restlessness, and boredom.

Groothuis takes issue with Pascal’s skepticism regarding natural theology. Pascal doubted that human reason could conclusively prove God’s existence and was critical of classical natural theology, such as the arguments of Aquinas. Groothuis, a strong proponent of natural theology (as argued in his comprehensive Christian Apologetics), contends that Pascal understates reason’s capacity. While natural theology cannot convert anyone—that is the work of the Gospel—it can serve as a valuable first step in challenging a materialistic or naturalistic worldview.

Despite rejecting natural theology, Groothuis emphasizes that Pascal was neither a blind fideist nor a rationalist. He integrated heart, reason, and experience in his approach to Christian apologetics. Pascal also placed great importance on prophecy and the excellence of Jesus. Groothuis notes that Islam lacks a comparable prophetic foundation. Claims that Muhammad is predicted in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 18) rest on faulty exegesis.

Pascal also stressed the significance of the existence and preservation of the Jewish people as evidence for God and as a refutation of Islam. Since Islam contradicts both Christianity and Judaism in several ways, it cannot represent the culmination of either faith tradition.

One of my favorite chapters in the book is “Deposed Royalty,” in which Groothuis examines Pascal’s anthropological argument for the Christian worldview. Pascal accurately diagnosed the paradox of humanity: humans are both great and wretched. We display sin, frustration, futility, and moral failure, yet also possess intelligence, moral awareness, creativity, and spiritual longing. Groothuis shows that Christianity, with its doctrines of creation and the Fall, explains this paradox more effectively than any other worldview.

Groothuis employs an abductive argument—an inference to the best explanation. It does not provide a deductive proof for Christianity but demonstrates that the Christian worldview best accounts for the human condition.

Overall, anyone seeking to articulate and defend their faith in a more thoughtful and intellectually robust way will benefit from Groothuis’s insightful examination of Pascal’s life and thought.

Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, Wayne Grudem, Crossway. 1,328 pp.

Anyone familiar with Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology knows how extensive his work tends to be. At 1,328 pages, Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning follows that same comprehensive approach, offering a systematic guide to Christian moral reasoning.

Grudem’s goal is to help Christians live lives pleasing to God by obeying Scripture and making wise moral choices. His ethical framework is rooted in God’s character and the authority of Scripture, with careful attention to the relationship between Old and New Testament ethics. While many ethical themes are drawn from the Ten Commandments, Grudem argues that the moral law remains applicable today, while the ceremonial and civic laws have passed away with the coming of Christ.

Readers will notice that his chapter on civil government is adapted from his earlier work, Politics—According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture.

Grudem argues that moral right and wrong are grounded in who God is—not in human consensus. God’s attributes (holiness, love, justice, and truthfulness) define what is good. As such, Grudem holds to a form of Divine Command Theory: God’s commands flow from God’s nature. God does not command arbitrarily, because his moral will reflects his unchanging, holy, loving, and just character. God’s nature is the ultimate standard of goodness, and the Good is not external to God (contra Plato). Therefore, Grudem stands within the theological voluntarist tradition associated with Augustine, Calvin, and Reformed orthodoxy.

For Grudem, ethics is ultimately about imitating God (Eph. 5:1), which stands in direct opposition to moral relativism and situation ethics. He devotes chapters to honoring God through avoiding idolatry, truthfulness in speech, and faithfulness in Sabbath observance and devotion.

Grudem also addresses the moral obligation to protect life, engaging debated issues such as abortion, euthanasia, suicide, war and self-defense, racial discrimination, and substance use and health decisions. He presents arguments alongside counterarguments, seeking to ground his conclusions biblically.

Regarding authority, Grudem argues that God exercises authority through parents, societal structures, civil government, and the local church. Christians are called to obey civil authorities, though civil disobedience is justified when the state commands what God forbids. Grudem defends a just war position, arguing that war can be morally justified under certain conditions and that governments are authorized by God to use force to restrain evil. In his view, failing to stop evil can itself become immoral. As a result, he rejects Christian pacifism as an absolute position. Jesus’ commands regarding non-retaliation (e.g., “turn the other cheek”) apply to individual Christians, not to the state’s responsibility to uphold justice.

The book also addresses marriage and related ethical questions, including marriage and divorce, birth control, IVF and reproductive technologies, pornography, and contemporary debates surrounding homosexuality and transgenderism—all discussed within a biblical framework. Grudem affirms that divorce is permitted in limited biblical cases (sexual immorality and abandonment), though never ideal. I would add that abuse should also be considered legitimate grounds for divorce. He rejects divorce based on incompatibility, unhappiness, or a “loss of love.”

Additional topics include private property, work and rest, wealth and poverty, personal stewardship, debt, business ethics, and environmental care. As in his previous writings, Grudem maintains a complementarian view of gender roles, arguing that God designed men and women for distinct but complementary roles, particularly in the home and the church.

Throughout the book, Grudem emphasizes human responsibility, freedom, and moral accountability. Our choices carry real moral weight and real consequences. One of the book’s strengths is its emphasis on the heart in ethical reasoning, serving as a corrective to purely external, rule-based moral frameworks. For Grudem, genuinely Christian ethics begins internally and works outward—a point with which I agree. Drawing from Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), he argues that ethics without heart transformation inevitably becomes legalism.

Overall, readers will likely find Grudem’s positions conservative. While he does not dismiss natural law arguments, he clearly adopts a “Scripture-first” approach. This book is especially well suited for pastors, as congregants regularly wrestle with complex ethical questions and need biblically grounded guidance.

Last year, a discussion between Senator Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson reignited debate over the legitimacy of Israel and whether Christians are still obligated to “bless Israel,” as stated in Genesis 12. Later, in his controversial interview with Nick Fuentes, Carlson went further, calling “Christian Zionists” “heretics” whom he “dislikes more than anybody,” and even describing Zionism as a “brain virus.”

These comments sparked widespread online debate, with YouTubers and commentators weighing in on Israel and Christian Zionism. Sadly, many Christians demonstrate only a superficial understanding of the topic. Any suggestion that Israel—the land or the Jewish people—might still have an ongoing role in God’s plan is quickly dismissed as “Dispensationalism,” a label often treated as synonymous with being anti-intellectual or theologically naïve.

I do not hesitate to say that something like a “Dispensationalism Disorder Syndrome” seems to be at work. The hostility toward anything perceived as dispensationalism is often so aggressive and vitriolic that it raises a serious question: What is really going on here? Ironically, Christian Zionists rightly note that Zionism existed long before dispensationalism.

Jay Richards observes:

“Early Christian thinkers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus imagined a future restoration of the nation of Israel. And much more recently, after the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Pope Benedict XVI described the Jewish return as part of ‘the mystery of God’s faithfulness’ and linked it to Christian hope for reconciliation.”

Entire books have been written expanding on this historical and theological reality.

At the same time, we are witnessing an alarming rise in antisemitism. There have been more than 10,000 antisemitic incidents in the U.S., with 13,339 reported since Hamas’ October 7 attacks (Combat Antisemitism Movement). Given this surge in hostility toward both Jewish people and the State of Israel, it is imperative that Christians think clearly and biblically about these issues.

---

What Is Jewish Zionism?

A Zionist is someone who supports the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their historic homeland and affirms Israel’s right to exist. Some Jewish people support Zionism on biblical grounds, while others do so for political, practical, or security reasons—or a combination of these.

A common misconception is that being Jewish is synonymous with being a Zionist. While many Jewish people are Zionists, not all are. One thing, however, is clear: denying the Jewish people the right to a national home in their ancestral homeland—arguing that the State of Israel should not exist—is a form of antisemitism. So, for any terrorist organization (i.e, Hamas) to not recognize Israel’s right to exist is going to lead to problems.

As Jay Richards aptly puts it:

“Separating anti-Zionism and antisemitism is like claiming that one has no ill will toward the Japanese but simply believes Japan should not exist.”

---

What Is Christian Zionism?

Christian Zionism—sometimes called Biblical Zionism—is the theological view that supports the Jewish people’s return to their homeland on scriptural grounds. The term Zion, originally referring to the Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem captured by David (2 Samuel 5:7), came to signify not only the physical city but also the heart of God’s covenant relationship with His people.

The Abrahamic Covenant

Christian Zionists hold that the Abrahamic Covenant has never been rescinded because it rests on the sworn oath of a God who cannot lie (Gen. 22:16–17; 26:3; Exod. 13:11; Deut. 4:31; Ezek. 36:7–15). The Hebrew phrase min olam v’ad olam (“from everlasting to everlasting”)—the strongest expression of perpetuity in Hebrew—is used of God’s eternal nature and covenant faithfulness (Ps. 90:2; 103:17; 1 Chron. 16:36).

The conclusion is threefold:

1. God gave the land as an everlasting possession.
2. This land promise is integral to the Abrahamic Covenant.
3. The covenant itself is everlasting.

At the same time, Scripture is clear that Israel’s enjoyment of the land was contingent upon obedience. God alone owns the land:

“The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine” (Lev. 25:23).

Joel 3:2 reinforces this reality, where God condemns the nations for dividing “my land.”

The Torah outlines both the blessings of the covenant (Exod. 3:6–8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27) and the consequences of disobedience, including exile. Yet even in dispersion, God promised not to abandon Israel:

“I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them” (Lev. 26:44–45).

Thus, while Israel’s possession of the land was conditional in experience, the promise itself was unconditional. God even foretold Israel’s return to the land in unbelief (Ezek. 36:24–25; 37:1–14).

Critics often argue that the modern State of Israel has no biblical significance because it is secular and not a theocracy. But biblical Israel was frequently sinful, secular in practice, and judged accordingly. Moral failure did not nullify God’s covenant.

Moreover, archaeological evidence—such as findings related to the City of David—attests to the Jewish people’s continuous connection to the land for over three millennia.

Ultimately, this debate is hermeneutical. Christians approach Scripture with differing presuppositions and theological frameworks, and this disagreement is unlikely to disappear. Whether the current war in Gaza is fundamentally about “land” is also widely debated.

Still, Christian Zionists rejoice that God has preserved the Jewish people. Their continued existence testifies to the faithfulness of the God Christians serve.

---

The Prophetic Witness of Jeremiah and Paul

Jeremiah declares that Israel’s national existence is as secure as the fixed order of creation itself (Jer. 31:35–37; 33:23–26). God explicitly rejects the idea that He has cast off His chosen people.

Likewise, Paul explains in Romans 11:29:

“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

The plural gifts refers back to the national privileges listed in Romans 9:4–5, and the calling concerns God’s election of Israel as a people. If Israel is no longer chosen in any sense, then Paul is either mistaken—or misleading.

---

Christians Who Support Israel but Reject Christian Zionism

Some Christians support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while denying any biblical significance to the land. They view Zionism primarily as a response to historical persecution and do not see God’s hand in events like Israel’s rebirth in 1948.

---

Apocalyptic Zionism

Critics rightly point out that some forms of Christian Zionism focus almost exclusively on end-times speculation, sometimes appearing indifferent to Jewish suffering except as a prophetic sign. Jay Richards notes that popular works like The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind series have shaped this perception.

Key features often include:

• Modern events as prophetic fulfillment
• A sharp distinction between Israel and the Church
• A pre-tribulational rapture
• A rebuilt Third Temple
• A literal millennial reign from Jerusalem

---

Dispelling Myths: What It Means to “Bless Israel”

To bless Israel means:

1. Desiring the survival and flourishing of the Jewish people.
2. Opposing antisemitism in all its forms.
3. Affirming Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.
4. Refusing to rejoice in Jewish suffering.

It does not mean:

1. Endorsing every action of the Israeli government.
2. Believing God does not care about other nations.
3. Ignoring the dignity and suffering of Palestinian people.

Blaming Jews for the death of Jesus is especially incoherent for Christians, since salvation rests on Christ’s willing self-sacrifice according to God’s plan.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Israel’s role in God’s purposes will continue. My hope and prayer is that Christians will engage this topic with clarity, humility, and informed biblical reflection—especially in a time of rising hostility toward the Jewish people.

In their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli give a summary of faith.

Kreeft and Tacelli say we must distinguish between the act of faith from the object of faith- believing from what is believed. The object of faith means all things believed. For the Christian, this means everything God has revealed in the Bible. This faith (the object, not the act) is expressed in propositions. Propositions are many, but the ultimate object of faith is one. The ultimate object of faith is not words, but God’s Words (singular), indeed-Himself.

Without a relationship with the living God, propositions are pointless, for their point is to point beyond themselves to God. But without propositions, we cannot know or tell others what God we believe in and what we believe about God. They mention a few aspects of faith here:

1. Emotional faith: is feeling assurance or trust or confidence in a person. This includes hope (which is much stronger than a wish and peace (which is much stronger then mere calm.).

2. Intellectual faith: is belief. It is this aspect of faith that is formulated in propositions and summarized in creeds.

3. Volitional faith: is an act of the will, a commitment to obey God’s will. This faith is faithfulness, or fidelity. It manifests itself in behavior, that is, in good works.

Belief That and Belief In

In many cases, there are times in life where we may say the following:

“I believe that my fiancé is the right one for me and I am going to marry her”

“I believe that this job is the best job for me because I am qualified to do it.”

“I believe that this house is the best investment for us as a family.”

Notice that in each case I say “I believe that.”

Now let’s contrast that with “Belief In”

“Belief in” is when we take a step of trust, or commitment. Note that #3 above where it says, volitional faith is an act of the will, a commitment to obey God’s will. This faith is faithfulness, or fidelity. We exercise our will and move beyond just having propositional evidence for something. For example, in James 2:19, it says that the demons believe that God exists. But just because the demons think that God exists, this doesn’t mean they have “belief in” the one true God.

Now when we go from “belief that” to “belief in,” we are not going to have 100 percent certainty. For example, when we get married, take job, buy a home, we commit and do take a risk. We have gaps of knowledge, some level of uncertainty, or perhaps unanswered questions. Obviously, we assume everything will work out. But we still take a step of faith or trust. And we are required to make a 100 percent commitment. Yes, it can hard to maintain that commitment.

To build on this, here is a biblical definition faith:“ These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

I am well aware that some Christians will say they have 100 percent certainty because disciples of Jesus are blessed to receive the assurance of the truthfulness of our faith through the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8: 16-17; 2 Cor. 2:2). So they may appeal to what they call “supernatural certainty.” However, we cannot confuse feeling certain and being certain. There’s a difference. Being certain involves appealing to argument and evidence. When we appeal to reason and argument, while we can appeal to deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments, we won’t be able to hit 100 percent certainty. Remember, if  we had a 100% doubt free belief system, there wouldn’t be any room for faith/trust in God. Any Christian that thinks they have a perfect, doubt free faith are setting themselves up for disappointment. Also, anyone who assumes apologetics is supposed to answer every single question exhaustively has misunderstood the limitations of apologetics. Thus, we if tell people faith/trust is equivalent to having absolute or almost perfect certainty, people will keep having a crisis of faith.