reformed blogging.

I was able to have a substantial conversation with a fellow student on campus today. He considered himself ’spiritual’ rather than religious. In addition, he made sure that I knew that he was familiar with Christianity, having spent most of his life in a Lutheran Church.  Throughout our conversation I began to wonder more and more whether he even understood the gospel. When I finally posed the question he was indignant. Rather than offer any reply he went off about how it was wrong for me to question his beliefs, that it was wrong for me to judge him and that Jesus’ one command (that he happened to accept) was not to judge others. After I reassured him that I had no ill-intentions but was asking an honest question he finally replied. In a significantly less assertive tone he answered that Christianity was a set of moral teachings given by Jesus. After a few more minutes of talking he went on to deny Christ’s resurrection, and considered the existence of Christ a matter of interpretation. At the end of our conversation he, in essence, denied the ability to have certainty in any matter (except those matters that were convenient to him). The discussion was obviously going nowhere so we decided to stop.

I walked away from that conversation with a lot on my mind. What got me more than anything is the fact that this guy has no clue what the gospel was despite his life spent in Church. Maybe he had bad ears or maybe the gospel wasn’t coming from the pulpit, hopefully it was the former. His ‘gospel’ is no gospel at all, in fact, it sounds more like Gnosticism.

The Gnostic doctrine was set forth as a timeless message in which reference was made not to past events as the basis of salvation but to certain general religious ideas, presented in mythological form.
- Bengt Hägglund, History of Theology (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House), 410.

 

A fellow student on campus was flabbergasted that I would compare America’s indifference to the Holocaust with her indifference to Christ. Up until this point she had understood and agreed with what I had been saying. Namely, that the grounds for her unbelief were not logically warranted and that, as she concurred, objective truth could not be found through the “neutral” presuppositions of atheistic science. It was agreed, and it almost seemed as if something clicked in her head; her face lit up but just as quickly darkened as I explained that science had to work off of theistic presuppositions in order to make any sense.

At this point she shook her head and, though she could not provide any alternative, confidently asserted that sooner or later viable explanations would surface. When I pointed out that she was still working off of unbelieving presuppositions, which would never allow the possibility of Christian theism, she shifted grounds and replied that she was rather comfortable without any certainty, religious or scientific. It was at this point, then, that I told her that her indifference would not make change objective reality, and that it was akin to America’s indifference toward the Holocaust. She was taken aback. After she had thought it through she emphatically denied the claim.

Time was short, however, and she had to go to class. As we parted she asked why it was that I did what I was doing. My response was brief, but it drove the point home. Until now we had been discussing philosophical issues, barely scratching the hard issues of the truth of the Gospel. I told her that I did what I was doing because I believed that man was God’s creation (rather than God being man’s creation); and that God had, at a point in time within history, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for my own sins. She understood everything I had said and even acknowledged most of it, even that Christ was a historical figure, yet belief in Christ Jesus as Savior could not be an option.

The truth of the gospel–that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came, suffered and died at the hands of men according to God’s foreordained plan as my Surety–is a truth that cannot and must not be denied. Men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but this in no way changes the truth of the Gospel nor its absolute necessity.

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
- Acts 4:12

The fact is that the world expects us to be different; and this idea that you can win the world by showing that after all you are very similar to it, with scarcely any difference at all, or but a very slight one, is basically wrong not only theologically but even psychologically.
Our Lord attracted sinners because He was different. They drew near to Him because they felt that there was something different about Him… this idea that you are going to win people to the Christian faith by showing them that after all you are remarkably like them, is theologically and psychologically a profound blunder.
In this realm we are dealing with God, and our knowledge of God, and our relationship to God. So everything here must be ‘under God’ and must be done ‘with reverence and godly fear’. We do not decide this; we are not in charge and in control. it is God. It is His service, and He has to be approached ‘with reverence and with godly fear, because our God is a consuming fire’
….light entertainment, easy familiarity and jocularity are not compatible with a realisation of the seriousness of the condition of the souls of all men by nature, the fact that they are lost and in danger of eternal perdition, and their consequent need of salvation.
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 139-40.

…the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called. If you want something in addition to that I would say without any hesitation that the most urgent need in the Christian Church today is true preaching; and as it is the greatest and the most urgent need in the Church, it is obviously the greatest need of the world also.
…they [who suggest that the Church may be a hindrance to the propagation of the Gospel] argue, if you really want to influence people in the Christian direction you must not only talk politics and deal with social conditions in speech, you must take an active part in them… Not preaching, not the old method, but getting among the people, showing an interest, showing your sympathy, being one of them, sitting down among them, and discussing their affairs and problems… what is our answer to all this? I am going to suggest… that all this at best is secondary, very often not even secondary, often not worthy of a place at all, but at best, secondary, and that the primary task of the Church and of the Christian minister is the preaching of the Word of God.
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 9, 19.

Recently, International Director for Frontiers, Rick Love, responded to John Piper’s video on A Common Word, a document sent from Muslim scholars, which 300 Christian leaders have signed, expressing unity with Muslims on God’s command to love one another as central to both religions. For the full response see here. I do not question motives and I think it’s safe to assume that none who signed the document did so with any intent or motive to dishonor Christ, but were seeking that through open dialogue and discussion to share the gospel of Christ.

In his response, Rick Love mentions dialogue as a means of evangelism rather than replacing evangelism, and I find this very much agreeable. Yet dialogue presupposes common ground and I am hard-pressed to find any genuine points of agreement between the foundational beliefs of Islam and Christianity. According to Rick Love one common basis is God or Allah. Below is a portion of his response to Piper’s video and I while much of it sounds good, I think that to hold to the common ground that the document calls for is to abandon the fundamentals of Christianity.

Here’s Rick Love’s response as well as some commentary:

Q: The Yale Response seems to imply that Allah is the same God that Christians worship. Is this true?

A: I do not hesitate to refer to the God of the Bible as Allah, since Arab Christians before and after the birth of Islam use the term Allah to describe the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think if we’ve learned anything from our dealing with the Emerging Church it’s to define our terms. Over time words change their meanings, sometimes meaning something completely contrary to what it first meant. For instance, words like “bad” sometimes take on a radically different meaning and go from a negative word to a positive one. This can also occur with more important words, such as Allah. Though earlier Christians have used the word in reference to the Christian God, and some may use it even now in other cultures, I do not think it is wise nor completely honest for us, Western Christians, to refer to God as Allah for the sake of “common ground” and I think this becomes mere dishonesty if we use it with Muslims. If we are to use it we must make it absolutely clear (which Rick Love does, but this cannot be said for the general signers of the document) that the Christian “Allah” is the only God, the God of the Bible, and as it says in Scripture, He is the Triune God, one God, three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Christian and Muslim views of God are similar in that we both worship the one true God, creator of the heavens and the earth. We both believe this God will judge all peoples at the end of history. We both believe this God has sent His prophets into the world to guide His people. Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here Rick Love seems to contradict himself. If a Christian Allah is Triune, while the Allah of Islam is not, if Islam does not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the image of the Father, then we cannot properly say that we are both worshiping the same God, much less, the one true God unless we throw out any form of rationality. Until Muslims agree that Allah is the Triune God we cannot say, and ought not dare come close to saying that we worship the same God lest we dishonor the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And if God is to judge all peoples at the end of history, according to what standard will He judge? Based only on works based righteousness? Will God forgive those whom He chose through Jesus Christ His Son whom He reconciled to Himself through the propitiation of Christ? Or will He unjustly allow imperfect sinners who try hard to enter into heaven? We both believe God has sent His prophets, but to what end? And was Jesus Christ merely a prophet? Was Mohammed a prophet? The fact that Christians and Muslims differ on their views of the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity and life, teaching, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ means that they disagree with all of Christianity. What has Christ to do with Belial?

I believe that Muslims worship the true God. But I also believe that their view of God falls short of His perfections and beauty as described in the Bible. Thus, I try to model my approach to Muslims after the apostle Paul who said to the Athenians: “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).

If Muslims deny the Deity of Christ, the exact representation of God’s nature, the image of the invisible God, then we cannot say that we are worshiping the same God. Their view is not a view that merely falls short, their view is completely contrary to the Christian God. When Paul was in Athens he said what he said because he saw an altar with an inscription “to an unknown God.” The Athenians were clearly lost and confused. They were searching for something they did not know. This cannot be said about Muslims. They have already declared that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God. They do not worship in ignorance, they are very clear about their beliefs and so it would require turning our backs to what is plain to say that they are not at this moment worshiping in ignorance. Muslims do not claim to be seeking anything more than what they have, just as Christians do not claim to seek more truth outside of Scripture. Unless we show them that the basis of their entire faith is contrary to Christ, rather than encouraging them to continue in their ways, then we cannot lead them to the truth.

Muslim background believers all over the world testify that they were previously worshiping God in ignorance and now they have come to know him in Jesus Christ.

I know that Rick Love is sincere in wanting to see Muslims come to Christ, and we all should be. Yet the way to win the lost is not to give in to undefined, vague commonalities. If we are to establish dialogue with Muslims it must be on honest and open truth. We must state at the forefront what it is that we believe about the fundamentals, about Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the Triune God, etc. God is the one who changes the heart, He grants repentance. It will not come about through compromises but through the upholding of the message of Christ. Namely, we need to preach repentance to all men that they may turn to Christ. All men are under sin and no matter how religious one is, they still need to realize that they are not just confused people heading in the right direction. No, all have sinned and there is no one who seeks after God. Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, all men everywhere must repent. Why? Because we are all sinful people who have rebelled against a holy God. And the only way to get to a holy God is through His perfect Son who came and died to be punished as a substitute. And it was necessary that He be God, for none but God can pay the penalty of the Father’s wrath which we deserved. It was necessary for Christ to die and be raised again to life to demonstrate His victory over death. The message of Christ is not a message of encouraging rebellious sinners to continue in their obstinate ways but to turn to Christ! We must not peddle the gospel, but must preach the word of God without fear. Yes, people will be offended, yes, there will be those who hate us for it, but Christ has promised that persecution would come to those who followed Him. Because the world hated Him they will hate us as well.

I know that those who signed the document did so with good intentions and to win over the lost. But how will we convince Muslims of the supremacy of Christ when we leave Him out of the main discussion? We must show that there is no one greater than Christ and that He is all in all, and we cannot do this unless we refuse any form or hint of compromise. We will not allow anyone to even begin to think that Christ is not the Son of God, that He did not die, that He was not raised again, that He does not sit at the right hand of God, for to compromise Christ is to compromise the entirety of our hope and faith.

Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

There are two ways to do apologetics. The first is to argue based on the unbelievers presuppositions, which is called traditional or evidential apologetics. In this form of apologetics one tries to convince the unbeliever from a “neutral” point of view that God probably exists, due to evidences, scientific facts, etc. The argument is for a general God, first, then to show that there is a great deal of evidence showing that Christianity might be the true religion. As you might already be able to see through the language, this is an apologetics of probability. The most that anyone can show to an unbeliever is that there is good reason to believe, but not an absolute necessity to believe. In traditional apologetics the Christian is arguing from creation to God, and once he/she has established God the argument goes from historical evidence to Christ. But, again, all of this is based on the presupposition of the unbeliever that either God does not exist, or in unknowable or could be the God of any form of religion. The presupposition that both the unbeliever and Christian are working from is that science and historical evidence holds absolute sway, and thus man holds absolute sway over what is true and what is not, over and above the word of God. Based on these presuppositions, it is impossible to “objectively” show an unbeliever that Christianity is the right religion. The traditional form of apologetics only suggests or, at best, strongly suggests that it is true. Because Christianity is presented as a mere probability it can be dismissed like any other belief. There is no way that the Christian can tell the unbeliever “unless you repent, you will likewise perish.” For such a strong statement must be made on absolutes, namely that Christianity is the only true religion, which, again, cannot be proved upon false, atheistic, God-reducing presuppositions.

The second form of apologetics is what is commonly known as presuppositional apologetics. This differs from traditional in that rather than argue from the unbelievers presuppositions, the Christian digs deeper and argues presuppositions themselves. What does this mean? The Christian challenges the unbelievers underlying beliefs to show that there is really no such thing as neutrality or objectivity on their side. The challenge is this: upon what grounds does the unbeliever dismiss the word of God as untrue and hold science/history as absolute. In evidential apologetics this is often an unchallenged presupposition and to argue from it would be to argue from a bad foundation that can only build a bad house. To lead an unbeliever to Christian Theism one must argue on the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God exists and because He is God and is sovereign and has revealed Himself though creation. Evidence does not serve to merely prove His existence, but affirms it. On top of all this the presuppositionalist recognizes that the unbeliever is in rebellion against God and he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” Thus, to argue traditionally is not only to argue on false presuppositions, but upon presuppositions that are hostile to God. The unbeliever does not want to believe in the Christian God, and will choose anything whether it be atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, anything is acceptable except for the truth. To seek to know anything based on a consistently non-Christian presupposition is impossible, since such a presupposition is based on chance or on false, inconsistent assumptions. Yet atheists do not live by chance, but live according to basic principles and laws such as the law of gravity or the uniformity of nature, they utilize the laws of logic to figure things out, yet upon atheistic presuppositions this is ridiculous. To hold to the uniformity of nature requires that one believe in more than chance, yet the atheist refuses one and holds to the other. It becomes clear then, to argue with an atheist based on atheistic presuppositions inconsistent from his/her life will only result in sheer absurdity. To utilize the laws of logic (which are blindly accepted as true by the atheist) to argue against God is as preposterous as a child slapping her father in the face and denying his existence while sitting on his knee.

The fact is, God did create the universe, Christ is the Son of God who came and died to reconcile sinners to God. Anyone, then, who refuses this in light of creation (which clearly attests to the power of the invisible God) in light of our ability to utilize logic, or our ability to reason (which is unjustifiable on atheistic grounds which give no reason to adhere to the laws of logic) our sense of morality (again unjustifiable on atheistic presuppositions or any other non-Christian presuppositions for that matter), and finally in light of God’s revelation in Scripture sins against God and is continually in sin until he/she repents. Only upon presuppositional grounds can the Christian present Christ and the Kingdom of God with a demand to repentance. And finally, only upon presuppositional grounds can the Christian offer the free, unconditional gospel of Christ to sinful unbelievers who need Christ’s righteousness as absolute truth and thus absolute good news.

“We accept this God upon Scriptural authority. In the Bible alone do we hear of such a God. Such a God, to be known at all, cannot be known otherwise than by virtue of His own voluntary revelation…. The frank acceptance of our position on authority, which at first blush, because of our inveterate tendency to think along non-Christian lines, seems to involve the immediate and total rejection of all philosophy–this frank acceptance of authority is, philosophically, our very salvation.” - Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace, 8.

Here are a few passages that seem to be ignored by many professing Christians. When I say ignored, I do not necessarily mean that no mention is made of these passages or that they are verbally rejected, but that understanding of the doctrines herein expounded are nowhere evident in many lives of those who think themselves Christian. How few there are who truly examine themselves to see if they are of the faith! Many, it seems, are content with a superficial examination, perhaps in fear of finding that they do not truly know Christ.

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The gospel as preached today in many Churches does not at all resemble the above quoted passage. Many shudder at such passages thinking that it is far too negative, yet these must not be ignored for they are in the Bible. Make no mistake, these are the words of Christ. Here He preaches the narrow gate as well as the narrow way that leads to life. It is important to note here, that it is not simply entering through a gate by a single action, repeating a prayer once, or having an experience at a certain point in time (though these are not negated) that one is said to find life, but it is a continual lifestyle, walking the narrow way that leads to life. Many comfort themselves thinking they have entered the narrow gate, and so can now live at ease, yet the narrow way implies difficulty that will continue until we die. If all those who have walked the wide path and are now in hell were to be polled, very many would respond that they never expected to be found in hell, that they thought themselves safe, having entered through that “narrow gate” yet they were wrong. No one thinks that God will punish them. All men seem to wrongly suppose that God will show special favors to them alone. God is faithful to His word. He is not like the threatening parent who does not carry through with punishment. Many have grown used to empty threats and thus wrongly suppose hell to be among them. Yet God will not dishonor His name for the sake of an unrepentant sinner. If you are not walking on that narrow way, taking up your cross daily, it is likely that you are on the broad path to destruction, and are self-deceived.

In the same sermon, Christ goes on to speak of two types of hearers:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against the house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Here is another message likely to make many church-goers uncomfortable, namely, that merely hearing the Word being preached is not adequate. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Here Christ shows that two things are necessary: first, hearing, but secondly acting. The two men contrasted here are both hearers of the Word. This is not about a Christian and an atheist, but rather, two people who sit in Church every Sunday listening to the sermon. Yet there are two responses to the word. One hears and acts, the other hears and does not act. It is very simple and straightforward. Those who do not act or obey what Christ has spoken, will fall, while those who obey will be founded on the rock. It is obvious from this passage then, that mere exposure to biblical preaching/teaching is not sufficient. One needs to act upon it. And those who do not act upon it are those who are now traveling the broad path that leads to destruction. This comes as no surprise, for Jesus Himself taught that there would be many who enter through it, this in no way exempts pastors, elders, deacons, praise leaders, or committed members of any church. If there is no obedience to the word, then there is no reason to believe that regeneration of the heart has taken place.

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. (Luke 9:23)

Here is a rather obvious teaching of Christ. Namely, that those who come after Him must deny themselves and take up their crosses daily. The key word here is daily, it is to be a daily activity. Now this goes against the view that once someone “prays a prayer” they have no need for anything else since they have, once and for all, denied themselves. Yet what Christ is describing is a continual self-denial. And only in this can we properly claim to follow Christ. He also says that “No one, after putting his hand on the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). Serious consideration must be given as to what Christ means when He speaks of taking up one’s cross. No doubt this entails all those very small decisions we make to be kind to others, to crucify our desires, yet it is not limited to those small things only, but applies to every aspect of our life. To die, is to become unresponsive to all those things that once held our hearts captive. And only until we do that can we follow Christ. You who cling to worldly treasures, no matter how “good” a person you may be, cannot follow Christ. Thus it was with the rich young ruler, who could not part with all his possessions. Now I am not saying that we all need to sell everything, but what I am saying is that we should have no problem with such a demand. For anyone who has truly committed to Christ has, in a very real sense, already forsaken everything.

“I was brought up on the Bible as the Word of God. Can I, now that I have been to school, still believe in the God of the Bible? Well, can I still believe in the sun that shone on me when I walked as a boy in wooden shoes in Groningen? I could believe in nothing else if I did not, as back of everything, believe in this God. Can I see the beams underneath the floor on which I walk? I must assume or presuppose that the beams are underneath. Unless the beams were underneath, I could not walk on the floor.” - Cornelius Van Til

“If you cannot believe in God, then you cannot logically believe in anything else.” - Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, p.121

“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” - Luke 16:27-31

Many non-Christians refuse to believe the truth of Christianity or the Bible because according to them, there is simply not enough evidence. Of course, this is understandable, isn’t it? False religions abound, there have been countless men who have come and gone claiming to be Christ or some sort of savior. And now, more than ever, all religions are presented to the non-believer as different perspectives of the same God. How then can he be expected to choose Christianity over the rest? Many are even hostile to the arrogant confidence of Christians claiming to have the “one true way” amongst all these other equal claims. We are bigots for holding what we believe as so certain. How do we know that the events in Scripture actually took place? How do we know whether the manuscripts that make up the Bible weren’t messed around with? How are we certain that the eye-witnesses were being honest and not involved in some sort of conspiracy? Where are miracles? Only if miracles can be shown to exist today, only then will those miracles in Scripture be accepted as true. The unbeliever usually concludes that unless he witnessed such events with his own eyes, he cannot believe it. And even if the original Bible was accurate, he cannot know with certainty that the one we have today is the same as the original.

Upon consideration, however, one wonders whether this really would satisfy the non-Christian’s desire? What sort of evidence do they want? Many want God to show Himself directly through a clear, divine sign.

Has Scripture anything to say about this?
This is nothing new. The crowds who followed Christ were called wicked and adulterous for seeking after signs. And this same attitude is found in the Pharisees as well. They demanded that Christ show them a sign from heaven. After all, He was making a bold claim, it should have been warranted with a bold sign… right? Israel’s history was wrought with false prophets and pagan kings who blasphemed God and incurred God’s wrath. Many false Christ’s came and left misleading the people of God. Thus, it was only right that, unless this Jesus could warrant His claims with signs from heaven, divine signs, He should not be believed. Sound familiar?

Yet once we consider the context, the relationship that the Pharisees and the crowds had with Christ, we must ask ourselves whether their demand for signs was warranted. The Pharisees saw the healings, the crowds saw Christ take some loaves of bread and a couple of fishes and multiply them to feed over ten thousand people. They saw before their eyes people who had been bind, lepers, lame, diseased all healed instantly upon Christ’s command. They were witnesses, yet they were not satisfied.

Is the problem evidence? It does not seem it. After all, the non-Christian has all of creation to testify of God’s power and splendor. We have the Bible which clearly testifies of those things that happened. And as if that is not enough, historically speaking, it is a dependable book. It is not as if it came out of nowhere. More than this, the word of God testifies to itself that it is His word, that it speaks truth. No contradictions in Scripture have been found (only ones that are contradictory on non-Christian presuppositions, which do not say much) and all that Scripture states, especially in relation to the human heart and its deceitfulness are evidently true. There are even eyewitness accounts to the events of Scripture outside of the Bible by non-Christians. All these things and more testify to God’s patience. Yet the non-Christian remains in unbelief. He would believe anything, come up with the most intricate theories of the creation of the world, than to believe that the God of Bible, YHWH, did all these things.

What is the problem if it is not evidence? The problem is the human heart. It is deceitful above all things, who can know it? The disbelieving heart will find every reason not to believe. If a miracle did occur before the eyes of an unbeliever they would come up with a way to explain it through science. If God were to appear to them, they would call it hallucination. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to convince them that the God of the Bible is real while their hearts remain hardened. The problem is not the evidence; there is plenty of evidence if they would but open their eyes. Yet they use unbelieving presuppositions to cover their disbelief, like Christ said, “they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear.” They ask for signs, but any sign given will immediately be dismissed as an exception to their laws, and they will come up with outrageous theories to explain those things. What hope do they have then? None, they must be born again. Their hearts must be changed first through the power of the gospel before they will be saved. Otherwise, no matter of evidence will have any effect.

They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And the ultimate consequence for their unbelief is God’s wrath. They have no excuse because they have before their eyes all the evidence they could ever demand. Their evil and adulterous craving for signs will never be satisfied. Indeed, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.

It seems, then, that the heart of the human problem, is the problem of the human heart.