The Pope as Organizational Leader and Christ as Foundation

by Thomas Abshier | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Prayer of Intercession to God through Christ and the Saints

by Thomas Abshier | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Prayer, Intercession, and Biblical Foundations: Examining the Practice of Invoking Saints
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/15/2025

Thomas: It is a Biblical concept that “the prayers of a righteous man availeth much.” Thus, asking Godly people to pray for them is supported. But I don’t believe there is any Biblical precedent for praying to saintly people who are dead to intercede with God. I think this concept is either cultural or adopted from polytheistic religions. Is this an accurate perspective?

The Biblical Basis for Intercessory Prayer

You’re absolutely correct that Scripture clearly affirms the power of intercessory prayer among living believers. James 5:16 directly states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (NIV). Throughout the New Testament, we find numerous instances of believers requesting prayer from others and apostles praying on behalf of churches:

• Paul regularly asks churches to pray for him (Romans 15:30-32, Ephesians 6:19-20, Colossians 4:3)
• Paul assures his readers of his prayers for them (Philippians 1:3-4, Colossians 1:9)
• The early church prayed for Peter’s release from prison (Acts 12:5)
• Jesus himself prayed for his disciples and future believers (John 17)

This biblical foundation for intercessory prayer for living believers is uncontroversial across Christian traditions.

Biblical Silence on Prayers to Departed Saints

Your observation about the absence of explicit biblical instruction to pray to deceased saints is accurate. The Bible does not contain:

1. Any command to pray to saints who have died
2. Any examples of believers addressing prayers to anyone in heaven besides God
3. Any explicit teaching on how deceased believers might intercede for the living

The practice of invoking saints developed gradually in Christian tradition rather than from explicit biblical directives. The Bible maintains a consistent focus on prayer directed to God, with Jesus teaching his disciples to pray directly to “Our Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).

The One Mediator Teaching

Your reference to the “one mediator” passage is particularly relevant. First Timothy 2:5 states: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” This verse appears in a context specifically addressing salvation, establishing Christ’s unique role in reconciling humanity with God.

Protestant traditions generally interpret this passage as indicating that believers should pray directly to God through Christ alone, without other intermediaries. This understanding aligns with biblical teachings on Christ’s role as our high priest who gives believers direct access to God.

• (Hebrews 4:14-16) “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (NIV)

This passage highlights Jesus’ role as an intercessor, His understanding of human struggles, and the invitation to seek God’s mercy and grace.

Historical Development of Saint Invocation

The historical evidence suggests that prayers to saints developed gradually:

• The earliest Christian inscriptions (2nd-3rd centuries) show Christians praying for the dead, not to them
• By the 4th century, some evidence appears of Christians addressing requests to martyrs, particularly at their tombs
• The practice became more established during the 5th-6th centuries
• Regional variations existed, with the practice developing differently in Eastern and Western Christianity

This gradual development, occurring centuries after the apostolic age, supports your assessment that the practice arose from cultural developments rather than direct biblical teaching.

Cultural and Religious Influences

Your suggestion that this practice may have been influenced by existing religious customs has considerable historical support. As Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean world, it encountered cultures with established practices of honoring deceased ancestors or heroes. Scholars have identified several potential influences:

1. Roman ancestor veneration: Romans maintained practices honoring deceased family members
2. Hero cults: Greek and Roman traditions included veneration of cultural heroes
3. Local protective deities: Many communities had patron deities believed to protect specific places
4. Jewish commemorations: Though different in theology, Jewish practices of honoring patriarchs and prophets provided a conceptual framework

The historical evidence suggests that as Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, certain psychological and social needs previously addressed through these practices found new expression within Christian frameworks.

Theological Distinctions Made by Catholic and Orthodox Traditions

Catholic and Orthodox traditions acknowledge the absence of explicit biblical commands regarding saint invocation but defend the practice based on:

1. The “communion of saints” doctrine, interpreting passages like Hebrews 12:1 (“cloud of witnesses”) to suggest the ongoing involvement of departed believers in the church’s life
2. A distinction between “latria” (worship due to God alone) and “dulia” (veneration appropriate for saints)
3. The concept that saints’ prayers are especially effective because they are perfected in heaven
4. Tradition and the teaching authority of the church

These traditions maintain that saints are not alternative paths to God but rather fellow members of Christ’s body whose prayers are sought in the same way one might ask a living Christian for prayer.

Conclusion: A Fair Assessment

Your assessment that praying to deceased saints lacks explicit biblical precedent is historically and biblically sound. While the practice developed within historic Christianity, it did so through gradual cultural and theological evolution rather than from clear scriptural instruction.

The influence of pre-existing cultural practices appears to be a significant factor in this development, though the process was more complex than simple adoption of polytheistic concepts. Christian theologians who developed these practices maintained important distinctions between the worship of God and the veneration of saints, even as these distinctions sometimes blurred in popular practice.

The biblical emphasis remains on:

1. Direct prayer to God through Christ
2. Christ as the one mediator for salvation
3. The priesthood of all believers with direct access to God
4. The power of intercessory prayer among believers

Your perspective represents a historically informed reading of Scripture that aligns with the understanding of biblical teaching on prayer and intercession by many Christians throughout history, particularly in Protestant traditions.

This topic illustrates how Christian traditions have sometimes diverged in practices despite shared reverence for Scripture. These divergences are often based on different approaches to interpreting biblical silence and the role of post-biblical tradition in developing Christian practice.

Faith and Works in the Protestant and Catholic Traditions

by Thomas Abshier | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Faith and Works in the Protestant and Catholic Traditions
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/15/2025

Thomas: The following is a Facebook post that reflects the perceived divide between the Protestant/Reform and Catholic traditions.

Facebook: “Millions of Catholics have never known the joy of true salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ. They are celebrating a new Pope who can do nothing for them but perpetuate the beliefs of a man-made religion.

They do not know that salvation is free and is available to them with:

• no works
• no sacraments
• no baptism
• no candles
• no images
• no Mary
• no confessional
• no communion
• no Pope

We must admit that we are sinners in need of salvation, repent, and confess Jesus Christ as our Lord, and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 2:5 For‭ ‭there is‭ one‭ God‭, and‭ ‭one‭‭ ‭mediator‭‭ between God‭ and‭ men‭, the man‭ Christ‭ Jesus‭;‭

Titus 3:5 Not‭ by‭ ‭works‭‭ ‭of‭‭ ‭righteousness‭‭ which‭ we‭ have done‭‭, but‭ according to‭ his‭ mercy‭ he saved‭‭ us‭, by‭ the washing‭ of regeneration‭, and‭ renewing‭ of the Holy‭ Ghost‭;‭

Ephesians 2:8-9 For‭ by grace‭ are ye‭‭ saved‭‭ through‭ faith‭; and‭ that‭ not‭ of‭ yourselves‭: ‭it is‭ the gift‭ of God‭:‭ ‭Not‭‭ ‭of‭‭ ‭works‭‭, lest‭ any man‭ should boast‭‭.‭

Romans 10:9-10 That‭ if‭ thou shalt ‭confess‭‭‭ ‭with‭‭ ‭thy‭‭ ‭mouth‭‭ the Lord‭ Jesus‭, and‭ shalt believe‭‭ in‭ thine‭ heart‭ that‭ God‭ hath raised‭‭ him‭ from‭ the dead‭, thou shalt be saved‭‭.‭
‭For‭ with the heart‭ man believeth‭‭ unto‭ righteousness‭; and‭ with the mouth‭ confession is made‭‭ unto‭ salvation‭.‭

Thomas: Could you please write an essay on the Biblical support for works vs. faith?

• Works are strongly supported as evidence of being a Christian, per the scriptures about faith and works in James. These verses and the context of the rest of the Biblical text make it clear that works are insufficient to justify us with God in themselves. I think modern Catholic doctrine supports this concept.
• I believe the modern Catholic Church has rejected indulgences and has accepted Luther’s reforms. Indulgences were the idea that you could pay for your salvation by giving money to the church.
• Honoring the Saints is equivalent to venerating those who exemplified good/Godly character through a lifetime of service, sacrifice, and good works. There is no Biblical precedent for praying to those who have done good works. I think the source of all miracles is God.
• Mary was blessed to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit. She may have been unusually pure in her faithfulness to and love of God. There is no Biblical evidence that she should be prayed to.
• Candles are a point of focus and provide a pleasant light. I don’t think there is any Biblical support for the power of lighting candles and letting them burn in remembrance of a person or to give special power to a prayer. On does not give spiritual power, and it is no longer holy than any other symbolic act of devotion and remembrance.
• Confession is important, as Paul told us to confess our sins one to another so that we would be healed.
• Baptism was commanded for salvation in scripture, but it was symbolic evidence of one’s confession rather than a work required for salvation in addition to faith.
• Communion is a symbolic remembrance of the sacrifice of the blood and flesh of Christ, and taking it symbolizes the level of seriousness/intensity with which we must take in the resurrection of Christ, which is the ultimate fulfillment of the entire Biblical revelation.

The Bible appears to declare that works are a natural outcome of faith and are thus evidence of a changed heart rather than the way to pay the debt incurred by sin. When a man confesses Jesus as Lord and His resurrection from the dead, his actions should change to reflect his new spirit. The born-again man’s works should reflect the totality of the law, prophets, the teachings of Christ in the gospels, and the elaboration of those by Paul and others in the epistles and Revelation.

The scriptures clearly state that a man cannot attain salvation by works alone. Rather, works are a natural outcome of a changed heart and a reborn spirit. What do you think of these concepts and this perspective?

AI: The debate between faith and works stands as one of Christianity’s most enduring theological discussions. Historically framed as a stark divide between Protestant and Catholic traditions, this conversation has often generated more heat than light, with caricatures replacing nuanced understanding. The Facebook post presented illustrates this tendency, portraying Catholic belief as a works-based system devoid of genuine salvation through Christ. However, a closer examination of both traditions reveals that the true theological landscape is far more complex—and harmonious—than such polarized characterizations suggest.

The Biblical Foundation

The Pauline Emphasis on Faith

The Protestant emphasis on salvation by faith alone (“sola fide”) finds powerful support in Pauline writings. The passages cited in the Facebook post represent this tradition well:

• Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
• Titus 3:5: “He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy…”
• Romans 10:9-10: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

These passages clearly establish that salvation comes through God’s grace, received by faith rather than being earned through human effort. This represented a radical departure from the medieval practices that concerned Luther and other reformers.

The Jamesian Emphasis on Works

However, the Bible presents a complementary perspective through James, whose epistle states:

• James 2:14: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?”
• James 2:17: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
• James 2:26: “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”

These passages don’t contradict Paul but rather complement his teaching by addressing a different concern: not how salvation is obtained, but how genuine faith manifests itself.

Contemporary Catholic Teaching

The characterization of Catholicism as a works-based religion fails to account for developments in Catholic theology, particularly since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life” (CCC 1996).

Further, it clarifies: “The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace” (CCC 2008).

These statements affirm that salvation originates with God’s grace, not human effort – a position corresponding to the Protestant understanding.

The Synthesis: Faith Working Through Love

Rather than seeing faith and works as opposing concepts, both traditions increasingly recognize them as interconnected aspects of Christian life. As the apostle Paul himself wrote in Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.”

This perspective aligns with your observation that “works are a natural outcome of faith, thus works are evidence of a changed heart, rather than the way to pay the debt incurred by sin.” Both contemporary Catholic and Protestant theologians widely affirm this understanding.

Addressing Specific Catholic Practices

The Facebook post lists several Catholic practices as requirements for salvation. A more nuanced examination reveals that many of these practices, while distinctive to Catholic tradition, are not presented in Catholic teaching as alternative paths to salvation but rather as expressions of faith:

Sacraments and Baptism

While Catholics emphasize the importance of sacraments, they understand them as vehicles of grace rather than works that earn salvation. The Catechism describes sacraments as “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131).

Both traditions affirm the importance of baptism based on Jesus’s command in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (NKJV)

This verse highlights evangelism, baptism, and discipleship, emphasizing that Jesus’ presence remains with His followers forever.

The difference lies more in timing than in whether baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Mary and the Saints

Catholic veneration of Mary and the saints is often misunderstood. The Catholic Church teaches that prayer requests directed to saints are requests for intercession—asking them to pray to God on one’s behalf—rather than worship. As you note, “The source of all miracles is God,” a position that aligns with Catholic teaching that saints have no power independent of God.

Confession

As you correctly observe, confession finds biblical support in James 5:16: “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.” Catholics formalized this practice, but the underlying principle of confession appears throughout Scripture.

The Papacy

While the Catholic understanding of papal authority derives from Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus tells Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the role has evolved historically. Your observation that organizational structure doesn’t itself confer holiness aligns with Catholic teaching—popes themselves must seek forgiveness like all Christians.

Historical Context: Indulgences and Reform

You correctly note that “the Catholic church has accepted the reforms of Luther” regarding indulgences, which were a central concern of the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reformed indulgence practices, and Vatican II further clarified Catholic teaching on salvation.

Today’s Catholic Church teaches that indulgences relate to the temporal effects of sin rather than eternal salvation, which comes through Christ alone. This represents a significant development from medieval practices that troubled Luther.

The Convergence of Understanding

In recent decades, official dialogues between Protestant and Catholic theologians have revealed substantial common ground on justification. The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by Catholic and Lutheran representatives, states:

“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

This statement represents a theological convergence on a topic that once divided Christendom.

Conclusion: Beyond the False Dichotomy

The traditional framing of “faith versus works” creates a false dichotomy that neither tradition, properly understood, actually teaches. Contemporary Catholic theology affirms salvation through Christ’s grace received by faith, while Protestant theology acknowledges that genuine faith produces good works.

As you insightfully observe, “works are a natural outcome of faith.” This perspective aligns with both James’s teaching that faith without works is dead and Paul’s emphasis on salvation by grace through faith. The apparent contradiction dissolves when we understand that:

1. Salvation originates in God’s grace, not human effort
2. This grace is received through faith in Christ
3. Genuine faith naturally produces good works
4. These works demonstrate faith’s authenticity but do not earn salvation

When we move beyond caricatures and examine what these traditions actually teach about salvation, we find more common ground than division. Both affirm Christ’s centrality, faith’s necessity, and grace’s transformative power. The ongoing dialogue between traditions continues to reveal that what once seemed an unbridgeable theological divide may instead be complementary perspectives on the rich mystery of salvation.

Rather than perpetuating divisions based on misunderstandings, Christians might better serve Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21) by seeking to understand different traditions with charity and openness. When the central integrity of Scripture is maintained, the tapestry of Christian faith is enriched by its varied traditions and cultural adaptations.

Increasing Spiritual Power by Faith

by Thomas Abshier | May 11, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

The Paradox of Service and Faith: Embracing Our Role as Unprofitable Servants
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/11/2025

In a world that celebrates achievements, rewards initiative, and praises those who go “above and beyond,” Christ’s teaching in Luke 17:5-10 presents a radical counterculture. When the apostles asked Him to increase their faith—perhaps the most natural request disciples could make of their Master—Jesus responded with what appears to be two disconnected teachings: one about faith moving a mulberry tree into the sea, and another about servants who merely do their duty. Yet in this seemingly disjointed response lies a profound truth about the nature of faith and our relationship with God.

The Illusion of “Above and Beyond”

The apostles’ request for increased faith reveals a common misconception: that faith is something we can acquire more of through some divine infusion, separate from our actions and attitudes. Christ’s response challenges this notion by linking faith not to extraordinary spiritual experiences but to a proper understanding of our position before God.

When Jesus speaks of the servant who comes in from working in the fields only to prepare dinner for his master, He paints a picture that would have been familiar to His audience but jars our modern sensibilities. We instinctively think, “Shouldn’t that servant get a break? Hasn’t he already done enough?” This reaction reveals our tendency to quantify our service, to determine when we have done “enough” for God.

Yet Christ dismantles this thinking. The master does not thank the servant for doing what was commanded; it was simply his duty. Then comes the statement that forms the core of this teaching: “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'”

This conclusion seems harsh to ears accustomed to appreciation and recognition. However, it addresses a fundamental spiritual reality: we can never place God in our debt. As the apostle Paul would later ask, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Every capacity we possess—every opportunity to serve, every good work we perform—originates from God’s provision and operates within His sovereignty.

The Proper Foundation for Faith

The connection between this teaching about servants and the apostles’ request for increased faith becomes clear when we recognize what undermines faith: an inflated sense of our own contribution. When we imagine that our service has earned us something from God, our faith subtly shifts from trusting in God’s character to trusting in our own merit. We start believing God should act because we have earned it, rather than because of who He is.

The phrase “We are unprofitable servants” strikes at the heart of this misunderstanding. The Greek word for “unprofitable” (achreios) doesn’t imply that our service is worthless, but rather that it brings no profit or advantage to God. As the psalmist acknowledges, “O my Lord, my goodness is nothing apart from You” (Psalm 16:2). God, being complete in Himself, gains nothing from our service that He didn’t already possess.

When Jesus spoke about faith as small as a mustard seed moving a mulberry tree into the sea, He wasn’t suggesting that faith is a force we generate through spiritual effort. Rather, true faith recognizes that all power belongs to God, and our role is simply to be channels through which His power flows. The mustard seed’s smallness emphasizes that the power comes not from the size of our faith but from the object of our faith—God Himself.

The Freedom of Recognized Duty

Far from being discouraging, the recognition that we are “unprofitable servants” doing our duty liberates us from the exhausting pursuit of trying to be “profitable” to God. It frees us from calculating our spiritual worth based on our performance and releases us from the anxiety of wondering if we’ve done enough to merit God’s favor.

Consider the implications of this teaching:

1. It eliminates competition in service. When all service is simply duty, the question of who has done more becomes irrelevant.

2. It removes the burden of earning God’s approval. Our standing before God rests not on our performance but on Christ’s finished work.

3. It clarifies the nature of rewards. When God rewards His servants, it is an act of grace, not payment for services rendered.

4. It establishes the proper motive for service. We serve not to gain but because we have already received everything in Christ.

This understanding transforms service from a transaction into an expression of gratitude. The servant in Christ’s parable wasn’t serving to earn his place in the household—he already had his place. His service flowed from his identity as a servant, not to establish that identity.

Faith Rooted in Reality

The connection between acknowledging our position as unprofitable servants and developing stronger faith becomes clearer when we consider that faith must be grounded in reality. Faith based on an inflated view of our spiritual worth will inevitably collapse when tested, because it rests on a false foundation.

True faith acknowledges the vast asymmetry between Creator and created. As the prophet Daniel witnessed King Nebuchadnezzar learn through humbling circumstances, God “does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?'” (Daniel 4:35).

This recognition doesn’t diminish us; it properly places us within the created order. Just as the stars shine most beautifully when they maintain their appointed orbits, we function best when we embrace our role as servants of the Most High God—not seeking to rise above that station but fulfilling it with integrity.

The Paradox of Spiritual Growth

Here we encounter a beautiful paradox: the path to increased faith begins with acknowledging that, even at our best, we are unprofitable servants. Those who truly understand this paradox find that their faith grows not despite this humbling reality but because of it.

When the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith, they were likely seeking some technique or spiritual practice. Instead, Jesus directed them to a fundamental attitude adjustment. Faith grows not primarily through spiritual exercises but through an increasingly accurate understanding of our relationship with God.

The servant who recognizes his proper place before his master doesn’t serve less—he serves from a place of clarity, free from the delusion that his service makes God his debtor. This clarity fosters genuine faith because it places confidence entirely in God’s character rather than in our performance.

Living as Unprofitable Servants

How then should we live in light of this teaching? Christ’s instruction to “say, ‘We are unprofitable servants'” suggests that this acknowledgment should be more than an intellectual assent—it should be a declaration we make to ourselves and to God.

This doesn’t mean adopting a posture of false humility or engaging in self-deprecation. Rather, it means embracing the liberating truth that God’s love for us isn’t based on our usefulness to Him. When we truly comprehend this reality, service becomes an expression of who we are rather than a means to earn what we desire.

The practical implications are far-reaching:

1. We serve without calculation. When opportunities to do good present themselves, we don’t weigh whether they’re “required” or “above and beyond”—we simply recognize them as part of our duty.

2. We pray with confidence. Our prayers rest not on what we have done for God but on what He has done for us in Christ.

3. We face trials with resilience. When difficulties come, we don’t question whether we deserve them or have done enough to avoid them.

4. We celebrate God’s grace. Every good thing becomes a gift rather than a payment, intensifying our gratitude.

Conclusion: The Paradoxical Path to Greatness

The teaching about unprofitable servants represents one of the most counterintuitive aspects of Christ’s kingdom. In a world where significance is measured by achievement and recognition, Jesus presents a community where greatness comes through service without expectation of acknowledgment.

When the apostles asked for increased faith, they were unknowingly requesting something that could only come through a diminished view of their own significance. True faith flourishes when we embrace our identity as servants whose greatest privilege is simply doing what we were commanded to do.

The final irony is that those who truly internalize this teaching—who genuinely see themselves as unprofitable servants merely doing their duty—are precisely those whom God calls “good and faithful” (Matthew 25:21). By embracing our limitations and dependence, we position ourselves to experience the unlimited power of God working through us.

In this light, saying “We are unprofitable servants” isn’t a statement of worthlessness but a declaration of freedom—freedom from the burden of trying to earn what can only be received as a gift. It is in this freedom that faith not only increases but transforms into the very channel through which the impossible becomes possible.

God’s Limitations

by Thomas Abshier | May 11, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/10/2025

In the vast theater of existence, where stars are mere stage lights and galaxies serve as backdrops, an intriguing paradox emerges: the omnipotent Creator of all things appears to operate within constraints. This seeming contradiction—that an all-powerful being would choose to limit His own actions—invites us to explore a profound theological question: What boundaries might God establish for Himself to make the cosmic drama meaningful, and why?

The Necessity of Divine Restraint

The concept of a self-limiting God may initially seem counterintuitive. Why would infinite power choose finitude? The answer lies in the nature of meaning itself. Meaning requires context, contrast, and consequence—elements that would dissolve in a universe where divine intervention occurred capriciously or where outcomes lacked permanence.

Using everyday life as our precedent example, the masses do not throng to watch professionals take mulligans on every poor shot, keep pitching until the batter makes solid contact, continue serving until the reigning champ returns the ball, or the contestant chooses the door with the new car. Living with the consequences of every act gives life gravity and significance. Life choices have little meaning if no price is paid for performance and choice. God subjects Himself to the same limitations as in The principle of consequence. For choices to matter, their effects must be unalterable/permanent. A creation where the divine hand can rewrite the script reduces the story of life to play-acting without significance beyond the moment—living with the knowledge that each act leaves a permanent mark encourages sobriety and the acquisition of wisdom.

The Economy of Miracles

Most of us have seen what appear to be divine interventions, but not for everyone, and not every time. The question is, why is God selective and seemingly plays favorites? This fact raises the troubling question: “Why does God do miracles for some and not for others?” This selective intervention pattern suggests another self-imposed limitation: the economy of miracles.

I believe God has the power to do anything and desires only good things to happen to every person all the time. We know this because it was this way in the Garden of Eden. God allowed evil to come into the world at the hands of man’s decisions. I believe God wants to return to that idyllic universe, but He is doing it in the same way that He learned how to create a good universe. There was a choice/action, and there was the consequence.

I frame the universe as a spiritual economy. Perhaps God limits His miracles based upon a system of spiritual credits. Maybe the Kingdom of Heaven is authorized to do miracles based upon the kindness, prayers, sacrificial service, dedication, loving God, and worship of those who love God and His way. Scripture instructs us to pray repeatedly for His intervention. This may be a measure of sincerity or desire, not a strict accounting between prayer/works/service. Regardless, some criteria limits the exercise of miracles. Perhaps it is by divine whim exercised randomly to keep life interesting that regulates the dispensing of miracles. There are many options to explain/justify/rationalize how God chooses to limit His performance of miracles. The dispensing of miracles does not appear to be strict or limited to the credits He has received from the prayers and service of His saints, but some type of accounting may be active. The disparity between strict accounting and God’s grace may be bridged by the establishment of a debt that will be paid by someone sometime. There does not appear to be strict accounting, and multiple negotiation, payment, and performance paths seem to be available. This suggests that divine intervention operates within a multifactorial cosmic balance sheet. Limitation of consumption based upon credit is at the heart of the economic system of man’s trade in goods and services, and it is likely true that some balance between payment and expenditure regulates God’s administration of miracles. The alternative is caprice, favoritism, or a God-directed plan without human input/participation/influence. The universe maintains its integrity precisely because God honors this system of spiritual exchange.

The crucifixion of Jesus exemplifies this principle. If that wasn’t the case, I don’t think Jesus would have died on the cross. This was an example of a payment made once, for all, and before the act to allow salvation from the eternal and sure death required as the consequence of sin. The gift of salvation, the payment for sin by Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, is an eternal credit established to pay for the illicit pleasure of sin. This is an example of the existence of a ledger of credits and debits that must be met. The greatest divine intervention—salvation itself—required the greatest payment, but even this gift required payment, giving one’s entire being/life/soul to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Integrity of Linear Time

We see Biblical stories recounting instances where time appears manipulated, such as when “the sundial went backward” during King Hezekiah’s illness. To execute this miracle, the sun may have, in fact, receded, and the entire universe moved back to a previous position in the sky. Likewise, it is possible, in the interest of economy of expenditure of spiritual credit, that the intervention was a localized appearance. More significantly, this story does not indicate that people’s lives were lived again, and in so doing, they had the option of taking different actions and choices. This suggests another boundary: the preservation of temporal integrity.

While God could theoretically run the universe backward and forward at will, doing so would undermine the coherence of creation. Each moment gains significance precisely because it cannot be endlessly revisited or revised. The arrow of time provides the essential narrative structure within which meaning develops.

As I argue, the possibility of divine time manipulation exists but is rarely exercised. This underscores my postulate that God has a plan and organizes the universe according to criteria that do not revolve around the apparent needs or welfare of any person’s circumstances. While God cares about the needs and welfare of every person, the definition and criteria governing His administration of miracles and the enforcement of His will to execute a plan cannot be predicted. Thus, the rarity of such interventions preserves the integrity of the creation’s story while allowing God to exercise His sovereignty.

The Scarcity of Divine Intervention

Perhaps most fundamentally, God appears to embrace the principle of scarcity in His interaction with creation. Divine intervention is precious precisely because it is not commonplace. Like any scarce resource, its value derives partly from its limitation.

This scarcity creates the conditions for faith itself. In a world where divine action was constant and obvious, belief would be unnecessary—it would be mere observation. The space between divine interventions creates the essential tension where faith develops, and free will operates meaningfully.

The Resonance Between Creator and Created

Underlying these self-imposed boundaries is what might be called the principle of resonance—the idea that human experience must be meaningfully similar to divine experience for the relationship to have purpose. God and man must be resonant, fairly similar, and connected in terms of their natures, perceptions/feelings, and experience of life. Otherwise, man’s allegiance wouldn’t satisfy God’s need/desire for love.

This resonance requires that human struggles bear authentic weight. If God could and did eliminate all suffering without regard for cosmic consequence, the resulting reality would lack the necessary conditions for growth, choice, and love. The limitations God accepts create the necessary environment for creatures made in His image to develop attributes that reflect His own.

The High Stakes of a Meaningful Universe

It is commonly said among Christian circles, “Nothing is too difficult or costly for God.” This slogan opposes the concept that God must limit His actions in performing miracles. And certainly, this chestnut of Christian orthodoxy is true in the sense of true potentiality. Still, God’s exercise of this force must be balanced by the final and perhaps most important limitation: the imperative of meaning itself. God limits Himself not because He lacks power but because He values meaning above the exercise of raw omnipotence.

I have argued, “If God could literally do anything at any time, with no cost to it, this is a meaningless world.” The limitations God accepts are not signs of weakness but expressions of purpose—they create the conditions where choices matter, relationships develop, and love becomes possible.

In the biblical narrative of creation, God repeatedly pronounces His work “good.” This judgment implies standards—criteria against which creation could be compared and found wanting. By establishing and honoring these standards, God creates the framework within which meaning can believably exist within the hearts and minds of both God and man.

Conclusion: The Ultimate Divine Paradox

The greatest paradox may be this: in limiting Himself, God expresses His love. By establishing boundaries that create space for consequence, scarcity, temporal integrity, and resonance between Creator and created, God crafts a universe where meaning can emerge, and love becomes a felt experience based on service, sacrifice, and mutual sympathy for the limitations of the other.

Divine limitations are not weaknesses but strengths—they are the artist’s disciplined choices that transform raw possibility into meaningful creation. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, “Art is limitation…” The frame limits every picture and requires that we focus on a single possibility and live inside the reality of that moment of the illustrated “now.” In the same way, life is ultimately fulfilling when the experience of the moment fully consumes our being. The reality of the past and future distracts us from enjoying the moment. Perhaps Heaven is a state of the eternal now, where both past, present, and future are experienced without the distraction of fear of the future and regret from the past. Perhaps it is the work and interest of heaven to intervene in the lives of men on earth with thoughts and feelings and warnings of future consequences. Perhaps if we were sensitive to the messages from Heaven and could distinguish them from the temptations and seductions from Hell, we would return to the Garden and experience the joy of life as adults, which would satisfy the need for peace, love, and challenge required by both God and man.

God frames the cosmic picture not because He cannot do otherwise but because He chooses to create a universe with meaning and authentic interest. The play of life must have true significance on a level of real consequences. Life is an eternally evolving story with episodes of tragedy and triumph, investment and expenditure, satisfaction and disappointment, control and unrestrained competition with uncertain outcomes. The existence of polarities and opposition of forces of life is the underlying dynamic upon which the dramas of human choice and experience play out.

In this light, God’s limitations on His actions aren’t constraints on His power but expressions of His wisdom—they create the necessary conditions for a universe where life is real, stakes are high, and love has meaning.

Scriptural Justifications for “The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe”

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a theological framework suggesting that God voluntarily limits His actions to create a meaningful universe. While this perspective offers thought-provoking insights into divine-human relations, it’s important to examine its scriptural foundations. Below, I analyze the biblical support for each key concept presented in the essay.

The Principle of Consequence

Biblical Support:

1. Galatians 6:7-8 – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
2. Deuteronomy 30:19 – “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
3. Romans 6:23 – “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Analysis: The Bible consistently presents a universe where actions have consequences, supporting the essay’s argument that meaningful choice requires permanence of effect. Scripture portrays God establishing systems where choices lead to outcomes, suggesting He values this causal relationship.

The Economy of Miracles

Limited Biblical Support:

1. Mark 6:5-6 – “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
2. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 – “…a thorn was given me in the flesh… Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'”

Questionable Support: The essay’s specific concept of “spiritual credits” lacks direct biblical reference. While Scripture shows God sometimes withholding miracles (as in Mark 6:5-6) or declining requests (as with Paul’s thorn), it doesn’t explicitly frame this as an economic system with “credits” that God earns and spends.

Counter Scriptures:

1. Psalm 115:3 – “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”
2. Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

These verses emphasize God’s freedom to act according to His will rather than within a system of limitations.

Thomas:

Scriptural Justifications for “The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe”

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a theological framework suggesting that God voluntarily limits His actions to create a meaningful universe. While this perspective offers thought-provoking insights into divine-human relations, it’s important to examine its scriptural foundations. Below, I analyze the biblical support for each key concept presented in the essay.

The Principle of Consequence

Biblical Support:

1. Galatians 6:7-8 – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
2. Deuteronomy 30:19 – “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
3. Romans 6:23 – “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Analysis: The Bible consistently presents a universe where actions have consequences, supporting the essay’s argument that meaningful choice requires permanence of effect. Scripture portrays God establishing systems where choices lead to outcomes, suggesting He values this causal relationship.

The Economy of Miracles

Limited Biblical Support:

1. Mark 6:5-6 – “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
2. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 – “…a thorn was given me in the flesh… Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'”

Questionable Support: The essay’s specific concept of “spiritual credits” lacks direct biblical reference. While Scripture shows God sometimes withholding miracles (as in Mark 6:5-6) or declining requests (as with Paul’s thorn), it doesn’t explicitly frame this as an economic system with “credits” that God earns and spends.

Counter Scriptures:

1. Psalm 115:3 – “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”
2. Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

These verses emphasize God’s freedom to act according to His will rather than within a system of limitations.

Thomas: This type of supporting example and contrary counterexample is not uncommon in the corpus of the Biblical text. Such comparative dyads can 1) validate a dismissive/condemnatory attack on the credibility of the Bible’s authenticity, 2) give validity to the theology of a sect’s factional interpretation of scripture that allows only one polarity of belief, or 3) be used as the indicator of a higher/broader/more inclusive perspective that includes both perspectives, about how God’s nature/His rules/how spiritual world functions. It is this latter perspective that I attempt to identify in my postulates about how the world works, how God designed the world, and the options God has open to Him.

In the principle of the economy of miracles, there are examples where God was limited (through Jesus) in performing miracles. We could ignore the totality of the scriptural data/revealed precedent documenting God’s ability, power, and sovereignty, or we could note that He does not act and possibly cannot act in certain circumstances. In such examples, we see evidence of a rule of limitation that He has put in place that limits His miraculous intervention (Jesus doing no miracles because of their lack of faith). This is important. We only need one example to disprove the postulate of omnipotent power being self-limited to postulate that God uses discretion in His exercise of omnipotent power. 

The Preservation of Temporal Integrity

Partial Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 – “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”
2. Acts 17:26 – “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.”

Limited Examples: Scripture does contain rare instances of time manipulation:

1. Joshua 10:12-13 – “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…”
2. 2 Kings 20:9-11 – The shadow moving backward on the stairway of Ahaz as a sign for Hezekiah.

Analysis: While Scripture affirms God’s ordering of time and history, it doesn’t explicitly state that God limits His manipulation of time to preserve meaning. The rarity of temporal miracles could support the essay’s thesis, but this remains interpretive rather than explicit in the text.

Thomas: The principle of temporal integrity is hinted at in the Biblical text, and limited examples of God overriding this integrity give weight to the postulate that God has control over time, should He so desire for His purposes. However, the limited number of examples indicates that this principle is rarely violated compared to the ordinary/expected/structural facts of our lives and how He administers the creation.

The violation of temporal integrity can be seen to an extent in a few examples of scientific and spiritual postulation:

1. Time bifurcates at every quantum interaction event, as is postulated in Hugh Everett’s “Many World Hypothesis.” The Many Worlds Hypothesis is used to explain the conflict between the quantum realm and the ultimately small.
2. I postulate that God may have restarted the universe many times to reinitialize the creation after learning of the consequence of His design. He may have gotten it right the first time. But given the vastness of God’s knowledge and wisdom in administering the universe, I postulate that He may have begun the universe repeatedly. The postulate of God creating a sequence of universes explains His wisdom and vast experience in distinguishing and balancing the power of good and evil.

Thus, while God could manipulate time, He has chosen to limit His manipulation of time in the physical and spiritual universe. While such intervention is possible, I believe it is not used as a standard, expected, normal law of life. 

The Principle of Scarcity

Mixed Biblical Support:

1. Amos 8:11-12 – “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land—not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.'”
2. 1 Samuel 3:1 – “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions.”

Counter Scriptures:

1. Joel 2:28 – “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
2. John 1:16 – “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.”

Analysis: Scripture shows periods of both divine scarcity and abundance. While some biblical passages describe times when divine revelation was rare, others portray God’s desire to pour out His Spirit abundantly. The Bible doesn’t explicitly frame divine interaction as intentionally limited to create value through scarcity.

The Principle of Resonance

Strong Biblical Support:

1. Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
2. John 17:21-23 – “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me…”
3. 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.”

Analysis: The biblical concept of humans being created in God’s image strongly supports the essay’s argument that there must be resonance between Creator and created. Scripture consistently portrays a God who desires relationship with humanity and who made us capable of responding to and reflecting His nature.

The Imperative of Meaning

Implicit Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 – “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
2. 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.”
3. Revelation 21:5 – “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.'”

Analysis: While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that God limits Himself to preserve meaning, it consistently portrays God as purposeful, working toward meaningful ends and creating order from chaos. The biblical narrative assumes meaning in history rather than randomness.

Conclusion: Evaluating the Scriptural Basis

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a thoughtful theological framework that aligns with some biblical principles but extends beyond explicit scriptural teaching in key areas:

Well-Supported Concepts:

• The reality of consequence in God’s created order
• The significance of humanity being made in God’s image
• The purposefulness of God’s actions in history

Concepts with Limited Support:

• The specific framework of “spiritual credits” governing divine intervention
• The idea that God intentionally creates scarcity of divine action
• The explicit notion that God limits Himself to preserve meaning

The essay offers valuable philosophical reflections on divine-human relations, but readers should recognize that some of its specific mechanisms (particularly the “economy of miracles” concept) represent theological speculation rather than direct biblical teaching. While not contradicting Scripture’s overall portrayal of God, the essay builds a systematic framework that goes beyond what the Bible explicitly states about God’s self-limitation.

Scripture clearly shows God establishing patterns and systems in creation, but attributes this more to His wisdom, purposes, and character than to limitations He imposes on Himself. The Bible emphasizes God’s freedom, sovereignty, and transcendence alongside His immanence and relational nature, maintaining a tension that the essay attempts to resolve through its framework of divine self-limitation.

In summary, while the essay presents thought-provoking theological insights compatible with general biblical principles, its specific mechanisms for explaining God’s interaction with creation extend beyond explicit scriptural teaching and should be engaged as theological reflection rather than direct biblical exegesis.

The Preservation of Temporal Integrity

Partial Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 – “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”
2. Acts 17:26 – “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.”

Limited Examples: Scripture does contain rare instances of time manipulation:

1. Joshua 10:12-13 – “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…”
2. 2 Kings 20:9-11 – The shadow moving backward on the stairway of Ahaz as a sign for Hezekiah.

Analysis: While Scripture affirms God’s ordering of time and history, it doesn’t explicitly state that God limits His manipulation of time to preserve meaning. The rarity of temporal miracles could support the essay’s thesis, but this remains interpretive rather than explicit in the text.

The Principle of Scarcity

Mixed Biblical Support:

1. Amos 8:11-12 – “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land—not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.'”
2. 1 Samuel 3:1 – “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions.”

Counter Scriptures:

1. Joel 2:28 – “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
2. John 1:16 – “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.”

Analysis: Scripture shows periods of both divine scarcity and abundance. While some biblical passages describe times when divine revelation was rare, others portray God’s desire to pour out His Spirit abundantly. The Bible doesn’t explicitly frame divine interaction as intentionally limited to create value through scarcity.

The Principle of Resonance

Strong Biblical Support:

1. Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
2. John 17:21-23 – “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me…”
3. 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.”

Analysis: The biblical concept of humans being created in God’s image strongly supports the essay’s argument that there must be resonance between Creator and created. Scripture consistently portrays a God who desires relationship with humanity and who made us capable of responding to and reflecting His nature.

The Imperative of Meaning

Implicit Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 – “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
2. 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.”
3. Revelation 21:5 – “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.'”

Analysis: While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that God limits Himself to preserve meaning, it consistently portrays God as purposeful, working toward meaningful ends and creating order from chaos. The biblical narrative assumes meaning in history rather than randomness.

Conclusion: Evaluating the Scriptural Basis

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a thoughtful theological framework that aligns with some biblical principles but extends beyond explicit scriptural teaching in key areas:

Well-Supported Concepts:

• The reality of consequence in God’s created order
• The significance of humanity being made in God’s image
• The purposefulness of God’s actions in history

Concepts with Limited Support:

• The specific framework of “spiritual credits” governing divine intervention
• The idea that God intentionally creates scarcity of divine action
• The explicit notion that God limits Himself to preserve meaning

The essay offers valuable philosophical reflections on divine-human relations, but readers should recognize that some of its specific mechanisms (particularly the “economy of miracles” concept) represent theological speculation rather than direct biblical teaching. While not contradicting Scripture’s overall portrayal of God, the essay builds a systematic framework that goes beyond what the Bible explicitly states about God’s self-limitation.

Scripture clearly shows God establishing patterns and systems in creation, but attributes this more to His wisdom, purposes, and character than to limitations He imposes on Himself. The Bible emphasizes God’s freedom, sovereignty, and transcendence alongside His immanence and relational nature, maintaining a tension that the essay attempts to resolve through its framework of divine self-limitation.

In summary, while the essay presents thought-provoking theological insights compatible with general biblical principles, its specific mechanisms for explaining God’s interaction with creation extend beyond explicit scriptural teaching and should be engaged as theological reflection rather than direct biblical exegesis.

Does Evil Exist

by Thomas Abshier | May 9, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Does Evil Exist?
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/9/20205

The following is a modification of a post seen on the internet: