Welcome to the Articles page. The following articles are short samples of my written work that are available for websites, blogs, journals or newspapers. If you enjoy these articles and would like to get more information please visit the Contact page. Thank you for your interest and please enjoy the following samples.

The Proof

In my argument for God’s existence, I will start from the atheist position in syllogistic form. This will allow for a better understanding of the epistemic problems that plague the philosophy of non belief.

The syllogism in modal logic:

1.) P(1) ~G

2.) ~G = L(~G)

3.) ∃ -> L(~G) ~M~L(G)

4.) P(2) T(ih)

5.) ∃ -> T(ih) L(T)

6.) L(T) = G ~M~L(~G)

7.) ∴ G

The syllogism sans modal:

1.) God does not exist.

2.) It is true that God does not exist.

3.) There is at least one truth (namely, the truth that God does not exist).

4.) If there are truths, then they exist independently of human experience.

5.) There is at least one independent truth.

6.) If there are independent truths, then God exists.

7.) Therefore, God exists.

The explanation:

Atheist claims God doesn’t exist.

Atheist believes this to be true.

Therefore, atheist believes truth exists.

If truth is subjective (opinion) then it is not necessarily truth.

If truth is objective (not opinion) then it exists outside of experience.

How can the atheist prove that objective truth exists? With his sense perception? With his reasoning? With science or mathematics? (relies on all of the above)

This type of logic would be inductive; meaning bottom up or starting from sense perception and experience. However, inductive reasoning does not give certainty, it only gives probability.

So if an objective truth exists independently of sense perception and experience, how could the atheist provide evidence without using sense perception and experience? The answer is he couldn’t. Therefore it is not possible to prove an objective truth.

For example, all mathematical truths must start from an inductive first principle. From this first principle mathematical conclusions follow deductively. Thus mathematical truths are only objective within itself, they cannot be proven independently. The same follows for all scientific claims. This is because they must start from sense perception and experience.

The atheist might claim that objective truth exists because we have subjective evidence. However, subjective views do not give certainty because they operate from inductive reasoning, therefore he still cannot prove with certainty that an objective truth exists.

The atheist might also claim that only subjective truth exists. However, this has many contradictions. The main contradiction being that no view would ever be wrong. Secondly, two opposite views would both be true, such as God exists and does not exist.

If the atheist maintains that he can use his sense perception and reasoning to show that truth exists, then how does he know that his sense perception and reasoning are reliable or trustworthy?

The atheist would have to use his sense perception and reasoning to prove them, which is circular. Therefore he encounters an infinite regress of skepticism and still cannot prove that truth exists.

The philosophy of atheism holds that everything must be proven by the senses before they can be believed. But the problem is that the laws of logic cannot be tested by the senses, and the very assumption that all things must be sensed is assumed without the senses.

But if the atheist concludes that truth doesn’t exist, or that truth cannot be known, then he encounters a contradiction.

Thus if the statement “truth doesn’t exist” is true, then it is also false by its own definition. Similarly, if the statement “truth cannot be known” is true, then it is also false by its own definition.

Now the atheist is stuck because he cannot prove that truth exists and he cannot say it doesn’t exist. So how can the atheist claim anything to be true?

The answer is the atheist must start from the revelation of God in order to deny God.

Can the atheist have faith that a series of accidents led to the existence of his sense perception and reasoning? He could.

But accidents give him no logical reason to accept that they are reliable or trustworthy.

The ability to use sense perception and reasoning does not justify their received values. Why? Because this would be justifying pragmatism with pragmatism which is circular.

So the atheist must accept the revelation of God to account for Logic. Then he must deny the revelation of God in order to claim that accidents produced reliable cognitive faculties that are capable of receiving, categorizing and relating true values. But he is not justified in believing this because accidents give him no grounds to support that claim. How could one accident truthfully explain another? How could accidents be trustworthy? Accidents by nature are not trustworthy because they are without purpose.

Contrarily, the theist only has to start from the revelation of God. He is then justified in believing that his cognitive faculties are giving him true values because revelation is immune to circular reasoning. Revelation cannot be measured by science because by definition it transcends the natural world. The theist can know his cognitive faculties are reliable because they were created with purpose and design.

Consequently, the non believer must borrow the revelation of God in order to justify his own knowledge. In other words, the atheist must use the existence of God in order to deny the existence of God. Hence, God exists.

Since you cannot prove your cognitive faculties without using your cognitive faculties, your first principle of cognition requires the revelation of God. However, accidental cognition doesn’t account for its reliability. Therefore only intended cognition could give an account for its reliability and proper functioning.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2014

Intellectually Dishonest

I have noticed a gross misunderstanding by atheists about presuppositional apologetics and arguments. In most cases they either assume that presuppositions are the same as evidentiality, or they reply with confusion. This is typically a mistake made by a lack of understanding epistemology.

For example, many atheists have assumed that the truth syllogism can be turned over to prove that anything exists, such as unicorns or married bachelors. This completely disregards the presuppositions.

Here is the truth syllogism starting from atheism:

1.) God does not exist.

2.) It is true that God does not exist.

3.) There is at least one truth (namely, the truth that God does not exist).

4.) If there are truths, then they exist independently of human experience.

5.) There is at least one independent truth.

6.) If there are independent truths, then God exists.

7.) Therefore, God exists.

This shows that the only justification for knowledge and truth is God, and therefore the atheist must presuppose the existence of God in order to deny the existence of God. Hence, God exists.

Here is the mocked syllogism assumed by atheists:

1.) Married Bachelors do not exist.

2.) It is true that Married Bachelors do not exist.

3.) There is at least one truth (namely, the truth that Married Bachelors do not exist).

4.) If there are truths, then they exist independently of human experience.

5.) There is at least one independent truth.

6.) If there are independent truths, then Married Bachelors exist.

7.) Therefore, Married Bachelors exist.

Not only is this quite comical, but misses the point entirely. The argument is not about the existence of God or married bachelors, it is an argument about the presupposition of truth claims and their justification (4). Whether you start from married bachelors, unicorns or magic elves, it would logically follow that God exists in order to claim that something is true. Even if you start with “Truth does not exist” it would follow that God exists because that would be a truth claim about the existence of truth. This follows whether the claim is actually true or not. Other objections would include arguments about definitions in which the atheist would claim that a unicorn is the same thing as God, but this would be an equivocation fallacy. Consequently a mocked syllogism only makes the atheist look lazy or dishonest.

Furthermore, simply flipping a syllogism or replacing the premises does nothing to argue the syllogism. In fact, it shows a complete misunderstanding of the syllogism itself. A proper argument against any syllogism would either include a denial of the premises (1) and (4) with logical evidence, or show that the conclusion (7) does not logically follow from the premises. Replacing the premises only produces categorical errors and equivocation fallacies.

So which premise does the atheist deny? Premise (1) God does not exist, or Premise (4) If there are truths then they exist independently of human experience? Since he is an atheist it would be self-defeating to deny P(1). Therefore his only course of action would be to deny P(4). So his objection to P(4) would state that truth is not independent of human experience and therefore relies on human experience. If this is the case then truth is merely subjective and not independent of experience or opinion. This would result in many contradictions, mainly that truth is whatever the individual wants it to be, and therefore two opposite views would both be true, such as God exists and does not exist. So his denial of P(4) fails.

His only other objection to the argument would be to deny that the conclusion follows from the premises. This means that he would agree with both premises but he must provide a more logical conclusion and justification for the premises and show where the original conclusion fails. So what is the atheists justification for truth being independent of experience? His only conclusion would be that his sense perception and experience can justify truth, but this conclusion would deny the premise. So his objection to the conclusion (7) fails. Therefore the only conclusion that follows from the premises is that God exists.

When followed logically, the mocked syllogism would actually look like this:

1.) Married Bachelors do not exist.

2.) It is true that Married Bachelors do not exist.

3.) There is at least one truth (namely, the truth that Married Bachelors do not exist).

4.) If there are truths, then they exist independently of human experience.

5.) There is at least one independent truth.

6.) If there are independent truths, then God exists.

7.) Therefore, God exists.

And it still follows that God exists because the argument is not about the existence of God or Married Bachelors, it’s about the presupposition of truth claims and their justification. If truth and knowledge exist then it logically follows that God must exist. Otherwise there is no justification for the reliability of our cognitive faculties. Without justification for their reliability there can be no truth claims or fact statements.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2014

A flawed question

I want to unpack the age old theological question that people continue to ask today. It’s funny how this question still has people confused, even though it’s been around since before the times of Christ and the apostles.

“How can a loving God send people to hell?”

First of all, the reason people have a hard time with the answer is because the question itself is flawed. There are presuppositions within the question that automatically assume incorrect theology. It assumes that people in general are good and don’t deserve hell, but this is not what the Bible teaches (Rom 3:10). Also, it assumes that sending people to hell is a morally bad thing, as if morality is somehow independent of God, or an authority over God which would be a contradiction. God is the moral law giver, not man or any other entity. Therefore, if God sends people to hell it is for His purposes, which are Holy, Just and Good.

Secondly, Christians have given the wrong answer to this question for the last 200 years, while ignoring the answers from the early church fathers, the reformers and even the gospel itself. The wrong answer being given in most congregations today is that people choose their own eternal destination. Hence if people are in hell it’s because they chose it, but again we see that the bible doesn’t teach this (Eph 1, Rom 9). The reason Christians have given this wrong answer is because they assume that this takes the blame away from God and puts it onto man. That way man is to blame for his own sin, not God. But the Bible clearly teaches that no matter what takes place it is all ordained by God before the foundation of the earth. Thus, God is the ultimate cause of everything. So how is it that God is not to blame?

Let me put it this way… any person who has the authority to judge and blame God, please come forward. Anybody? Anybody? Beuller? Since there is no judge above God, it logically follows that God cannot be judged and is therefore blameless. Paul shows this in Romans 9 when he says “who are you oh man, to talk back to God”. There in Paul’s letter to the Romans he answered this question, and yet modern Christians ignore it. God is not to blame for the simple fact that He is God. He can do as He pleases, and whatever He does is Holy and good.

People will then object and say that God is not the author or creator of sin. This is true! But it’s quite obvious that God ordained and planned all things. He declared the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46). Therefore, God is the ultimate or primary cause of all actions. In the beginning God created everything and called it “good”. Thus, sin was not created but is a secondary cause and not a primary one. Sin entered the world through man, but it was planned by God. Man is the author of sin, meaning the one who is doing the immediate action. Man is responsible for his actions for the simple reason that God calls him into account. There is no law or higher judge to call God into account. So again we see that God is not responsible for sin, nor the author or creator of sin, but He is still the primary cause of all things.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2017

Refuting Iconoclasm

Iconoclasm is the destruction of religious icons and images. It is based on the view that Christians should not create any images because this violates the second commandment. Many Iconoclasts also believe that this includes any images within the mind of the believer, and thus an image of Jesus in the mind is also a sin.

Though iconoclasm was officially condemned by both the western and eastern churches at the second council of Nicaea (787 AD.), it resurfaced heavily during the reformation. Many of the reformers supported iconoclasm while others such as Martin Luther did not. This is why most modern evangelical movements either remain neutral on the topic of iconoclasm or disagree with iconoclastic views. However there still exists a minority group within modern reformed churches that support iconoclasm, which leads me to address this topic.

Iconoclasm is very problematic and demonstrably heretical. I will be confronting this view from the following areas; Language (etymology), Philosophy (logic) and Scripture (hermeneutic and exegesis).

The problem of Language:

There are three different systems of writing, each of which is based on a different unit of speech. Alphabetic systems like English use signs and logograms to represent sounds. Earlier in the history of writing, logograms were more common. The logographic systems were widespread and used symbolic or pictorial signs to represent whole words. Egyptian hieroglyphs, Sumerian cuneiform and Mayan glyphs are among the best-known ancient logographic systems. The third basic system is Syllabaries which use symbols to represent syllables. All writing systems combine two aspects of these three basic approaches.

I want to note that English uses both alphabetic and logographic.

So what about languages that use forms of imagery? Hieroglyphic, logographic, logoconsonantal, pictographic glyphs. Are these languages sinful forms of communication because they use imagery? Let’s not forget that english is among the many languages that use logographic imagery. Is the written language of english sinful? What about Chinese? The written language of Chinese uses pictographic and logographic imagery. Is the written language of Chinese sinful? We could easily make the case that if any form of imagery or icon is sinful then all written languages would fall into that category.

The Dongba symbols continue to be used by the elders of the Naxi people, making it the only hieroglyphic language still used in the world today. Would it be sinful to translate the bible in Dongba simply because the language is pictorial? The bible says the gospel must be preached to all nations (Mark 13:10).

Vision is one of the 5 senses and therefore imagery is a form of communication. Why would one form of communication (imagery) be sinful, while another form (textual) is not? We must use the same visual senses for both imagery and text. Remember, we are talking about types of communication, and all types of communication are used for identifying information.

A big problem for iconoclasm is teaching born deaf children how to read. There are two main forms or methodologies of teaching. This is always dependent on how severe the deafness. Those with absolutely no hearing will learn ASL (american sign language) or SEE (sign exact english) before learning how to read text. This involves the use of imagery for connecting information to the proper hand signs. Those with slight hearing will generally learn phonetically or a combination of both. Since sign language uses imagery to communicate information this would arbitrarily be condemned by the iconoclasts. The question for the iconoclast then is how do we teach deaf children?

In English or other alphabet-based languages, “reading” at a basic level means to decode words and symbols by pronouncing the letters, then creating an image in your mind of the idea or object those letters represent. A pictorial language like Chinese provides an image for you to see, rather than a set of sounds to decode.

A visual language is a system of communication using visual elements. Speech as a means of communication cannot strictly be separated from the whole of human communication which includes the visual. The term “language” in relation to vision is an extension of its use to describe the perception and comprehension of visible signs.

It should be obvious that the second commandment (Ex 20) does not forbid the use of imagery for communicating information, even if that information includes the existence and attributes of God. The iconoclasts eradication and condemnation of imagery is unbiblical, arbitrary and self-refuting. As we can plainly see, scripture itself is both iconic as well as symbolic imagery, and can be susceptible to idolatry (Bibliolatry). Thus if all imagery and icons violate the second commandment this would include the scriptures themselves.

Logical problems:

There are three common logical fallacies that iconoclasts commit when defending their position. The first is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is a coincidental correlation. This is when the iconoclast claims that an image of Jesus causes idolatry, which would be a faulty cause/effect and coincidental correlation. In some instances this maybe the case, however, to claim this is always the case would be fallacious.

The second logical problem would be the is/ought fallacy, which claims that something “ought” to be the case based on what “is” the case. This is when the iconoclast claims that an image of Jesus ought to cause or invoke worship and idolatry because Jesus is God. Again, it is fallacious to conclude that worship and idolatry ought to be the case based on what is the case.

The third most common fallacy is special pleading, which is an exemption without justification. This is when the iconoclast claims that other images or icons forbidden by scripture are allowed within specific circumstances in spite of the second commandment. When other images are forbidden by scripture it is special pleading to claim they are exempt without justification.

If iconoclasts claim that God commanded his people to break the second commandment for a specific purpose (Ex 25, 26) while still under the Laws of the Mosaic covenant (Ex 20), then why didn’t He command them to break other commandments? The answer is obvious. God did not command his people to break the second commandment because the command does not forbid artistic expression or the use of images for communication. It specifically forbids the use of images or icons for worship. To suggest otherwise would be special pleading.

The problems from scripture:

The First Commandment is an expressed statement:

“You shall have no other gods before Me.”

We know from scripture that we should not look to the heavens as gods, nor nature, nor a king, nor our family, nor our imaginations and myths, or even pursue our own sinful pleasures. There is only one true God. All the other commandments instruct us how to obey the First Commandment.

So the context of the Second Commandment is to put no other gods ahead of the true God.

“You shall not make for yourself any graven image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6, NASB)

In the First Commandment God informs the Jews that they must have no other gods but Him. In the Second Commandment, he demands that they create no artificial representations of any gods, including the true God for the purpose of worship.

Moses interprets the meaning of the First and Second Commandments for us:

“Then the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form–only a voice. So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. (Deuteronomy 4:12-19)

As Moses clearly points out in Deuteronomy 4:12-19, we are not to be drawn away to worship and serve images or creation. Again the distinction and confirmation of the command is given in verse 19. All previous verses are descriptions of possible errors while the final verse is identifying what has been forbidden. If the iconoclast insists that this verse forbids any physical images of God for communication, then there would not be any descriptions of God’s attributes in the bible that use physical concepts. And yet we find physical concepts that can easily be visually communicated:

God is a shepherd (Gen 49:24)

God is a consuming fire (Deut 9:3, Heb 12:29)

The Holy spirit is like a dove (Luke 3:22)

Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15)

Why does the bible present the attributes of God using physical forms if understanding them from a visual and mental concept is a sin?

God is without form, He is a spirit, so no image or representation can reflect Him. Therefore, the worship of any image as if it were God, even the worship of the moon or stars, things man does not create, is forbidden.

The clear distinction:

Some iconoclasts will insist that the second commandment forbids any images of God, whether one worships this image or not. But this is not the clear distinction made by the commandment itself.

If you separate verse 4 from verse 5 you will have an incomplete understanding of the commandment:

4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

If we only look at the second commandment from verse 4, then the command clearly forbids ANY images that are in heaven, the earth, or in the ocean. Notice that this would include images of ANYTHING. If verse 4 is a separate command and distinct from verse 5 then all images are forbidden, including pictures of your family members, animals, plants, the stars, the moon, or even images of yourself. But it is obvious from other scriptures that God has allowed artistic expression and images for communicating information. Therefore we can see that the whole interpretation of the commandment requires the distinction from verse 5 which states the following:

5 “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”

The Jews never interpreted artwork (even artwork used in religious services and covered with angelic beings and carved images of plants) to be in any way a violation of the Second Commandment. Such works of hammered gold were not idols because they were not worshipped. Hence the distinction of the sin being that of bowing down and worshipping the image, not the image itself.

Iconoclasts seem to divide the second commandment into two distinct and separate commands, which the bible clearly does not support. Images or icons used for the purpose of artistic expression or communicating information are not forbidden by the second commandment. Suggesting otherwise is adding to the text.

Men Are Made in the Image of God:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26,27)

Man is an “image” of God. Since God is spirit, man is merely a physical representation of certain attributes of God. So every time one person sees another, they must be reminded that man has been made in the image of God.

Men are not idols, even though they are all made in the image of God. This is why it is not improper to paint portraits of men or make a likenesses of palm trees, oxen or even cherubim.

Jesus is both fully God and fully Man:

Jesus came to earth as a man. Men are made in the image of God, but it is not a sin to take photographs of them. If someone had painted a portrait of Jesus, of His human form, it would not have been a sin. For man to look upon the face of God would have resulted in the man’s death (Exodus 33:20). And yet men looked upon the face of Jesus without dying. This is because Jesus was also a man.

Is it wrong for a church to put on a play with the role of Jesus? Jesus was a man. He did come in the form of human flesh. He was also God, but He did not come to earth as spirit. What men saw was a flesh and blood man, truly human and truly God. They talked with Him, ate with Him, accepted His touch for healing, and even injured Him.

When men today paint or represent Jesus, they represent His humanity, not His deity. Just as any photograph of a family member represents the person’s body and not their spirit. A representation of Jesus no matter how imperfect, such as a mental image invoked by reading the Gospels, or a church play explaining the meaning of Easter does nothing to separate Him from His deity because that is not possible.

Men interacted with Jesus, as if He were another man. He reflected the attributes of God, not in His physical appearance as many suppose, but in His character and behavior. And though we have not seen the Father, Jesus has explained Him in word and in deed. Imperfect images of His physical appearance do not detract from what Jesus said and did.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not a sin to portray Jesus in plays, film, or artwork. Because in this we represent His humanity, such as would have been visible to any visitor to His carpentry shop. Jesus would have been remembered by His disciples for as long as they lived on the earth. Yet, to worship such an image, to bow down and serve it, to burn incense to it, that would be the sin of idolatry.

Imperfect Images

Since we do not have a genuine portrait of Jesus from 2000 years ago, and we have no detailed description of His appearance, are all attempts to portray Him in error and therefore improper?

The bible itself is filled with descriptions of Christ that give us images:

“He is the light of world” (John 1:5), “the bread of life” (John 6:32-33), “the living water that quenches the thirst of our souls” (John 4:14), “the good shepherd” (John 10:11), “the spotless Lamb of God” (Rev 13:8) “the very image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).

If we were to refrain from any images both inward and outward then there would not be any descriptions of Christ in the bible.

What did Jesus look like? He looked like the typical Israelite of His day, same hair color, same eye color. He had a typical appearance.

“For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.” (Isaiah 53:2)

Lets look at how arbitrary iconoclasm is with a simple example:

An artist paints a picture of a man on a cross, yet claims it isn’t Jesus but could be any man punished and killed by the Romans during the first century. What if I’m reminded of what Jesus did from this painting? Is this reminder itself a sin, simply because the artistic expression captures my knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice? Or is the painting itself a sin even though its not a picture of Christ? The iconoclast has only two options, they will either suggest that being reminded of Christ’s sacrifice is a sin, or a picture that’s not of Christ is a sin. Notice that this unveils their true colors of arbitrary discrimination and rejection of basic tenants of the gospel. Iconoclastic views are merely the Pharisaic legalism of modern Christianity.

Just as the symbol of the empty cross which we hang in almost every sanctuary in almost every church in the world is not meant to be an exact duplicate of the original, paintings and dramas of Jesus are not meant to be exact duplicates of Him. Worship of the cross and worship of the paintings and films is not the objective or the purpose. They are reminders of what happened and what He did.

Artistic expression in the bible:

“You shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet material and fine twisted linen; it shall be made with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman.” (Exodus 26:31)

Moreover, he made the veil of blue and purple and scarlet material, and fine twisted linen; he made it with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman. Exodus 26:35

Cherubim are real living beings created by God to serve Him in heaven and on earth (Genesis 3:24, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chronicles 13:6, Psalms 80:1, Ezekiel 10:17). Yet God ordered that these be woven into the veil for the tabernacle by a skillful workman.

Now Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood; its length was two and a half cubits, and its width one and a half cubits, and its height one and a half cubits; and he overlaid it with pure gold inside and out, and made a gold molding for it all around. He cast four rings of gold for it on its four feet; even two rings on one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. He made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry it. He made a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide.

He made two cherubim of gold; he made them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat; one cherub at the one end and one cherub at the other end; he made the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at the two ends. The cherubim had their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward each other; the faces of the cherubim were toward the mercy seat. (Exodus 37:1-9)

God ordered that the mercy seat be covered with hammered gold images of cherubim, their wings covering the seat (Exodus 25:1,18). These carved and hammered wood and golden images of heavenly creatures were to reside on the mercy seat of the perhaps the most sacred of artifacts used in genuine worship of the true God, and these were not considered idols. Nor was this religious art considered to be a violation of the Second Commandment.

Then he made the lampstand of pure gold. He made the lampstand of hammered work, its base and its shaft; its cups, its bulbs and its flowers were of one piece with it. There were six branches going out of its sides; three branches of the lampstand from the one side of it and three branches of the lampstand from the other side of it; three cups shaped like almond blossoms, a bulb and a flower in one branch, and three cups shaped like almond blossoms, a bulb and a flower in the other branch–so for the six branches going out of the lampstand. In the lampstand there were four cups shaped like almond blossoms, its bulbs and its flowers; and a bulb was under the first pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the second pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the third pair of branches coming out of it, for the six branches coming out of the lampstand. Their bulbs and their branches were of one piece with it; the whole of it was a single hammered work of pure gold. (Ex 25)

The lampstand was decorated with gold flowers, bulbs, and almond blossoms. Representations of objects found on earth. From this we know that God had not prohibited men from using artwork to decorate sacred furniture or dwellings with images of heavenly beings and earthly objects. In short, religious artwork was required to be used in the first tabernacle.

More examples of artistic expression allowed:

Solomon Builds the First Temple, the House of the Lord

The house, that is, the nave in front of the inner sanctuary, was forty cubits long. There was cedar on the house within, carved in the shape of gourds and open flowers; all was cedar, there was no stone seen.

Then he prepared an inner sanctuary within the house in order to place there the ark of the covenant of the LORD. The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height, and he overlaid it with pure gold. He also overlaid the altar with cedar.

So Solomon overlaid the inside of the house with pure gold. And he drew chains of gold across the front of the inner sanctuary, and he overlaid it with gold. He overlaid the whole house with gold, until all the house was finished. Also the whole altar which was by the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold.

Also in the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. Five cubits was the one wing of the cherub and five cubits the other wing of the cherub; from the end of one wing to the end of the other wing were ten cubits. The other cherub was ten cubits; both the cherubim were of the same measure and the same form. The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was the other cherub. He placed the cherubim in the midst of the inner house, and the wings of the cherubim were spread out, so that the wing of the one was touching the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub was touching the other wall. So their wings were touching each other in the center of the house. He also overlaid the cherubim with gold.

Then he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, inner and outer sanctuaries. He overlaid the floor of the house with gold, inner and outer sanctuaries. For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood, the lintel and five-sided doorposts. So he made two doors of olive wood, and he carved on them carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread the gold on the cherubim and on the palm trees. So also he made for the entrance of the nave four-sided doorposts of olive wood and two doors of cypress wood; the two leaves of the one door turned on pivots, and the two leaves of the other door turned on pivots. He carved on it cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; and he overlaid them with gold evenly applied on the engraved work. (1 Kings 6:17-35)

Then he made two sculptured cherubim in the room of the holy of holies and overlaid them with gold. The wingspan of the cherubim was twenty cubits; the wing of one, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and its other wing, of five cubits, touched the wing of the other cherub. (2 Chronicles 3:10-11)

Within the room called the Holy of Holies were placed two massive cherubim statues, carved from olive wood and covered with gold. These angels were so large that their wings touched one wall to the other and met in the center. Gourds, flowers in bloom, and palm trees also decorated other rooms and even the temple doors. None of these graven (carved) images were idols since they were there not to be worshipped, but to point the worshippers to remember the power of the God who created all that these things represented.

Solomon commissioned Hiram, “a worker in bronze; and he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill for doing any work in bronze”, to make the utensils and many of the furnishings of the temple. Decorating these utensils and furniture were animal carvings, plant carvings, and of course cherubim, things which are in heaven and on the earth. This is to say little about the twelve oxen statuettes that held the massive “sea” basin. Nor will we take time to dwell on the twelve lion statues that surrounded Solomon’s throne of which the Bible says, “nothing like it was made for any other kingdom.” All these animals, plants, and angels represented things in heaven and on the earth.

This was the design of the stands: they had borders, even borders between the frames, and on the borders which were between the frames were lions, oxen and cherubim; and on the frames there was a pedestal above, and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work. Now each stand had four bronze wheels with bronze axles, and its four feet had supports; beneath the basin were cast supports with wreaths at each side. Its opening inside the crown at the top was a cubit, and its opening was round like the design of a pedestal, a cubit and a half; and also on its opening {there were} engravings, and their borders were square, not round. The four wheels were underneath the borders, and the axles of the wheels were on the stand. And the height of a wheel was a cubit and a half.

The workmanship of the wheels was like the workmanship of a chariot wheel. Their axles, their rims, their spokes, and their hubs were all cast. Now there were four supports at the four corners of each stand; its supports were part of the stand itself. On the top of the stand there was a circular form half a cubit high, and on the top of the stand its stays and its borders were part of it. Heengraved on the plates of its stays and on its borders, cherubim, lions and palm trees, according to the clear space on each, with wreaths all around. He made the ten stands like this: all of them had one casting, one measure and one form. (1 Kings 7:28-37)

Even Moses was commanded to make religious artwork in the form of earthly animals.

The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.” And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (Numbers 21:6-9)

This bronze snake was not an idol because it was not worshipped. Of course, later in history the Jews moved the bronze serpent into their place of worship and began burning incense to it, making it an object of worship instead of just an object of art. King Hezekiah was forced to destroy it as he did many of the places of idol worship (the high places). This is a dramatic example of how something God commended (artwork in the form of a bronze snake) became a hated idol which God forbade.

Hezekiah Reigns over Judah

Now it came about in the third year of Hoshea, the son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah became king. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. He did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done. Heremoved the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.

He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him. For he clung to the LORD; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the LORD had commanded Moses. (2 Kings 18:1-6)

From this we can see that God did not forbid the making of artwork (images of things in heaven or on earth) so long as the images were never worshipped. This is why Christians may take photographs of their family and friends, video tape family vacations, and paint portraits of one another. For these images are not objects of worship, but rather simple representations or likenesses of those objects and persons who are on the earth.

Historic positions:

Tertullian (160-240 AD)

“The brazen serpent and the golden cherubim were not violations of the Second Commandment. Their meaning. Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents? I say nothing of what was figured by this cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given.”

Augustine (354-430 AD)

“What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.”

Martin Luther (1525)

“And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden.”

“When I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have an image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes?”

Conclusion

The problem with refraining from any images of Christ, both inward and outward, becomes a double edged sword. Descriptions of Christ abound in the bible, and thus provide an idea in the mind of the believer. Obviously these ideas and images are not truly Christ himself, but are they sinful? If they are sinful then how does one learn about Christ without communicating the very description of Him given in the bible? Is it sinful to understand who Christ is and what He has accomplished? This becomes completely counter productive to the purpose of the gospel itself.

Historically the Jews used images of heavenly creatures and earthly objects in their places of worship to remind them of the power of God. These reminders were not worshipped and therefore were not idols which would violate the Second Commandment. Today, we see images of the cross and even scenes depicting the life of Jesus and the apostles reminding us of the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus. These reminders are not worshipped, but they do call us to remember the teachings of the Word which tell us of His attributes, His grace, His glory, and His words.

I would suggest to my fellow brothers in Christ not to put a yolk upon the necks of fellow believers that neither we nor our ancestors could bear (Acts 15). To diminish the very idea and understanding of Christ through the eradication of inward and outward images will only diminish the understanding and purpose of the gospel. The bible specifically condemns the worship of graven images and not the images themselves. Furthermore, do not forget that we are released from the law through the death and resurrection of Christ. We are now bound to Christ and dead to the letter of the law (Rom 7). We have a new priest and therefore a change in the law has come (Heb 7).

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2015

Doubting God’s existence

I’ve had many Christians tell me that sometimes they doubt God’s existence. Most of them will continue that this is a normal condition and is the underlying reason for faith. However, I must bring to their attention the implication of this conclusion. By doubting God’s existence you unintentionally defend autonomous reasoning. This indicates that you consider God’s existence to be less certain than your own. To be frank, your existence is the personal revelation of God’s existence. Let me explain the epistemological foundation for doubting something. This will help you understand the certainty of God’s existence.

Let’s start with the simplest question first. What is doubt?

Doubt = To be uncertain or lack conviction.

Now lets move backwards from this answer to find our justification. What is the precondition for doubt? In other words, what do we require before we can doubt something?

In order to doubt something we must have a reason to doubt, otherwise without a reason to doubt there would be no uncertainty.

Precondition of Doubt = Reason.

What is the precondition for Reason? Or how do we know we have a Reason to doubt?

In order to have a reason to doubt something we must have logic and reasoning skills, otherwise without logic and reasoning skills we would not have the ability to reason in the first place.

Precondition of Reason = Logic and Reasoning skills.

Again we continue backwards to find our justification. What is the precondition for Logic and Reasoning skills? In other words, what do we require before we can have logic and reasoning skills?

In order to have logic and reasoning skills we must have reliable cognitive faculties, i.e. sense perception, experience, knowledge, memory etc. Without reliable cognitive faculties we could not have logic and reasoning skills.

Precondition of Logic and Reasoning skills = Reliable cognitive faculties.

How do we know we have reliable cognitive faculties? What is the requirement for reliability?

Reliability first requires an intended function, otherwise you could not verify if something was reliable in its performance. The preconditions for the intelligibility of the human experience is intention. Without the precondition of intention, reliable performance would not be comprehensible.

Here is an example of this problem from C.S. Lewis

“If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind.”

Precondition of Reliable cognitive faculties = Intended Reliability

What is the precondition of intended reliability?

In order to have Intended Reliability our cognitive faculties must be designed. Hence the requirement of Intention.

Precondition of Intended Reliability = Creator

Without a creator we cannot have the intended reliability of our cognitive faculties that give us the logic and reasoning skills we need to doubt something.

The precondition for doubting God’s existence is the existence of God. This is because knowledge is not possible without God.

In the simplest terms, God must exist in order for you to doubt His existence.

Doubt —> Reason —> Logic —> Reliability —> Intention —> Creation —> God.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2015

Atheistic Presuppositions

In any factual or evidential inquiry we must understand the difference between our presuppositions (prior assumptions) and the ideas or conclusions that follow within the discourse of our investigation. No one can begin an evidential inquiry with an empty mind, otherwise nothing would motivate us to seek further information. Therefore all investigations start with prior assumptions and personal bias.

Since the atheist presupposes the non-existence of God, I cannot convince him that God exists. His presuppositions will not allow his views to change no matter the evidence. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw God, the atheist would conclude it was mass hysteria. If I showed that Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the New Testament he would say they are not real prophecies. If I showed him archeological, chronological and geographical evidence that supports Biblical claims he would dismiss them as forgery. Even if God stood before the atheist himself, the atheist would profess his own insanity before accepting the existence of God. The truth is that even with incontrovertible evidence his presuppositions would force him to interpret the facts consistently with his prior assumptions.

Now, to those atheists who claim they are open to evidence for God’s existence, please explain what you would consider as evidence?

First, if you presuppose the laws of logic and non-contradiction, then you cannot require natural evidence of something that is beyond nature. That would be a contradiction and violate your own philosophical views.

Second, if you require logical evidence of God’s existence then you must provide a justification for your presupposition of logic before you can require logical evidence. Otherwise you have no standard of which to be held accountable. For example, if you presuppose the inductive first principle of mathematics then you must accept deductive conclusions (2 + 2 = 4). Similarly, if you presuppose the laws of logic then you must accept their justification.

Can the atheist justify logic without the revelation of God? If the atheist assumes that all things must be proved by the senses, then he cannot require logical evidence because the laws of logic cannot be proved by the senses. Furthermore, the very assumption that all things must be proved by the senses is assumed without the senses.

Since the philosophy of atheism states that all things exist by accident, then it follows that even logic itself is a byproduct of accidents. If logic is an accident then the atheist has no standards of which to interpret evidence other than his own subjective interpretations. Therefore he has no justification for his presuppositions of logic.

Do logic and evidence have a value attached to them? If so, then this value must be subjective. It would be impossible to provide indisputable evidence for objective value because this would require evidence outside of experience. Therefore the value of any evidence will always be subjective and interpreted through presuppositions.

If logic and evidence don’t have value then why pursue them? Why require them? There would be no reason to provide logical evidence of God if your belief system does not value the logical evidence. Furthermore, if you do not value logic then you are not required to accept the evidence or its justification, and therefore are capable of dismissing them for any reason.

Since evidence does not interpret itself, the atheist must interpret the evidence according to his presuppositions. But the atheist cannot require logical evidence of God without first justifying the reliability of his own logic. Thus atheism cannot justify its interpretation of logical evidence because without the revelation of God it must submit to subjectivism. If logic is subjective then it cannot be justified.

Consequently, I cannot convince the atheist that God exists unless he admits that he cannot justify his own logic.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2014

Eric the Penguin

Have you met my good friend Eric the Penguin? Perhaps you recognize his name from parties or social media? Well if not then you’re missing out on an interesting conversation. Eric is a very popular character and has many great qualities. His iconic tuxedo and amazing swimming skills are always worth mentioning, but he also possesses a property that is very different from other penguins. Eric has the magical property of God-eating. Yes, thats right. Eric is the God-eating penguin.

It may seem odd that Eric has this magical property, but like many properties it is unique. To be clear, Eric has no choice but to eat God and nothing else. Does eating God make Eric full? What does God taste like? Is God crunchy? How many bites does it take to get to the center of God? Does God need salt and pepper? There are many questions that follow, but these of course, are not the right questions.

We can easily see that if God exists he would automatically cease to exist as a result of Eric’s God-eating powers. Furthermore, those who could prove that Eric doesn’t exist would have to apply the same evidence to God. So if Eric doesn’t exist then God can’t exist either. But if Eric does exist then God would cease to exist because Eric ate Him. Consequently in both cases it would follow that God doesn’t exist.

Now, there is something about Eric’s magical property that seems to be overlooked. As simple as it may seem, we haven’t talked about the ability to eat God. First we must establish the definition of “God” before we can consider whether or not God can be eaten. Doesn’t the definition of God require properties of power and knowledge? Perhaps as a neutral proposition we could agree that our definition would include omnipotence and omniscience. Thus God would be the Supreme Being.

So in order to eat God, our friend Eric would need to be more powerful than God. But the proposition that Eric has more power than the most powerful being would be an incoherent statement. How could Eric be more powerful than the most powerful being? This would seem unlikely. Eric’s magical God-eating powers would require him to possess omnipotence. But if Eric has the omnipotent property then Eric would be God.

The comical conclusion would show that if Eric is God and also God-eating then he would have no choice but to eat himself. However, if Eric possesses omnipotence then he cannot be destroyed even by his own God-eating powers. Consequently Eric cannot logically have the magical property of God-eating because this would result in a contradiction, namely that Eric must also be God. Unresolved inconsistencies with the God-eating power would imply that this property is false. It would seem that our popular friend is just an average penguin after all.

Though we haven’t proven whether God or Eric exist, nor have we touched on the metaphysical nuances of immaterial digestion, we have shown that Eric’s magical property of God-eating is not possible. However, this brings up another question. If God is omnipotent could He destroy Himself? The obvious answer is no, because the properties of omnipotence would include eternal existence and show that God cannot go against His own essence. I hope you’ve enjoyed this philosophical musing and thank you for reading.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2014

Reality

Recently an acquaintance of mine asked a question that is often discussed within philosophical circles. He asked if it was possible to prove the existence of reality. Finding proof of reality is quite the daunting task. As we discussed this further it seemed even more contrived when considering what type of evidence would be proof of reality. At first glance our thoughts concerning the validity of our subjective experience begin to tumble into an abyss of uncharted territory. But the complexity and depth of this question became illusions that sprouted from a common misunderstanding. Many intelligent people often cling to the scientific fundamentalism that gave birth to the so called “enlightened” generation. This movement continues to paw at the powers of the scientific process for answers. Unfortunately it has become a safe haven for intellectual retreat and keeps devout followers from recognizing simple contradictions.

Now instead of retreating into science as a first principle, we should always embrace the basics of philosophy as a preceding principle. Notice I didn’t suggest that philosophy is a first principle, merely a preceding one.

Given that our subjective experience uses inductive reasoning, it should be obvious that we cannot use subjective experience for proof of reality. Why? Because inductive reasoning is a bottom up logic that only deals in probabilities. At best you could say that reality probably exists, but you couldn’t say that it objectively exists. You might even conclude that the probability of reality is high compared to its negation, but you couldn’t prove reality to be objective. This is most evident when you put this problem into simple terms. Can you use subjective experience to prove objective reality? Of course not because these are opposing systems. So now we have established that we cannot prove reality through our subjective experiences. But what about using science to confirm the validity of our cognitive faculties?

Science, like everything else, must start with a first principle. But since that first principle relies heavily on inductive reasoning we are plagued with the same problem as previously mentioned. A pragmatic or empiric approach are forms of inductive logic and are not immune to circular reasoning. We can see that the scientific process based on observation and repeatable evidence is from inductive reasoning. One could say that pragmatism and sense perception are useful, but how could you prove that your cognitive faculties are giving you true values of the external world? You would have to use your cognitive faculties to prove your cognitive faculties. Thus circular reasoning and the problem of skepticism is not solved by science. So what is the answer for proof of reality? What is immune to contradiction and circular reasoning?

If science cannot give evidence for reality then we are only left with metaphysical possibilities. Consequently our proof for objective reality can only be found within a first principle of revelation. Why? Because revelation is immune to circular reasoning and contradiction. Revelation cannot be measured by science because by definition it transcends the natural world. Requiring natural evidence of something beyond nature would be a contradiction. Therefore faith in revelation must precede any other principle in order to logically conclude that objective reality exists.

by Nicholas G. Merlino ©2014