A common account of human freedom holds that genuine free will consists in the capacity to choose among alternative possibilities. Yet this notion is insufficient. True freedom is better understood as the ability to always discern the good and to will it without constraint. Freedom, in its highest form, is not arbitrary self-assertion but the unhindered alignment of the will with what is objectively right.
Within Christian theology, this distinction becomes particularly relevant. The claim that creatures must possess the capacity to reject God in order to love God genuinely is not entailed by Trinitarian doctrine. According to orthodox Trinitarian belief, the Son possesses free will and yet is incapable of failing to love the Father. The Son’s love is not coerced; rather, it arises necessarily from perfect knowledge and perfect goodness. Thus, within the divine life, free love exists without the possibility of rejection.
This presents an important implication: if God can create a free agent whose love is both genuine and necessary, then the creaturely ability to reject God cannot be a logical requirement for authentic love. Instead, the human capacity to reject God must serve some other divine purpose. Consequently, those who affirm both divine goodness and human freedom must conclude that God endowed humanity with the capacity to turn away from Him not because such capacity is essential to love, but because it is instrumental to the particular telos God has established for humanity, whatever that telos may ultimately entail.
And only by this primordial assent does humanity in its eternal “multi-hypostatic” reality— as the eternal Adam of the first creation— freely receive its being from its creator: and this even though that assent becomes, on the threshold between the heavenly Aeon and time, a recapitulation of the Fall, an individuating acceptance of entry into the world under the burden of sin, such that every soul is answerable for and somehow always remembers that original transgression. In that moment, the spiritual creature concurs in its own creation, and God hands the creature over to its own free self-determination. Here, naturally, the language of past and future can devolve all too easily into a mythology of individual guilt historically “prior” to any person’s actual life; but, of course, there was no fall “back then” in historical time, either for the race or for the individual. Rather, the Fall “happened” only as belonging to the temporal unfolding of that eternal assent. It “happened”— or, rather, is happening— only as the lingering resistance of nothingness to that final joyous confession, the diminishing residue of the creature’s emergence ex nihilo. For no creature can exist as spirit in God except under the condition of having arisen from nothingness in order to grow into his or her last end. That passage from nothingness into the infinite, which is always a free intentionality toward a final cause, is the very structure of created spiritual beings. They could not be spirit otherwise.
David Bentley Hart, You Are Gods (Kindle Locations 2269-2281). University of Notre Dame Press. Kindle Edition.
The above quote is dense. I had ChatGPT break it down for me…
1. Humanity’s “primordial assent”
All of humanity, seen as one great reality (called here the “eternal Adam”), says “yes” to God in a timeless, original way — that’s what allows us to receive our existence.
This assent is not something we’re forced into; it’s freely given.
2. Entry into the world as a re-enactment of the Fall
When each soul crosses from God’s eternal realm into time, that assent gets played out again.
This entry into earthly life also means accepting a world where sin and brokenness exist — a “burden” every soul bears.
Somehow, each person participates in and “remembers” the original turning away from God (the Fall), even though it’s not a literal memory of a past historical event.
3. Individual freedom at creation
In this moment of entering existence, the soul agrees to be created and is entrusted by God to its own freedom.
God hands each creature over to its own self-determination — we’re not puppets; we live by our own will.
4. The caution against misreading the Fall
It’s easy to turn this idea into a story of “individual guilt” for something that happened before we were born.
But the author says that’s a misunderstanding — the Fall wasn’t a single event in history, for either humanity as a whole or for each person individually.
5. The Fall as an ongoing reality
The Fall “happens” as part of the unfolding of that original assent in time.
It’s the ongoing resistance of nothingness — the fact that we came from nothing — to fully and joyfully uniting with God.
This resistance gradually diminishes as we grow toward God.
6. Why this resistance exists
A creature can only exist as a spiritual being in God if it has come from nothingness.
That means we must grow from nothingness toward our ultimate purpose — union with God — in a free, intentional way.
That journey from nothing to infinite life in God is the very structure of what it means to be a spiritual creature.
In short: We each freely agree to exist, but entering the world means stepping into a condition where sin already burdens us — not as guilt for a past event, but as part of our starting point in nothingness. The Fall is not “back then,” but is the ongoing process of wrestling with the pull of nothingness as we freely move toward God, which is exactly what it means to be a spiritual being.
***
The Climb from the Hollow
In the beginning, there was no beginning. Ermias opened his eyes in a vast, dim hollow. No sun, no stars; only a faint glow far above, like the hint of a dawn. He did not remember falling here; he simply found himself at the bottom, his feet in the dust.
He stood. Something inside him whispered: Up there is your home. Not a command, but an invitation.
The climb was hard. The walls were steep in some places, treacherous in others, and the dust clung to him, weighing him down. It whispered, You come from me. Stay. It pulled at his ankles, reminding him how easy it would be to stop.
Ermias kept climbing. Not because he was told to, not because he feared punishment, but because the faint light above called to him. The higher he climbed, the stronger the light, and the lighter his steps.
Still, the dust never let go. Even when he could see the edge of the hollow, its pull was there, a quiet ache in his legs and longing in his chest. It was part of him, just as much as the light.
He understood: He had not been pushed into the hollow long ago. He had always been here, and his life was the climb — the slow, free, deliberate rising from the nothingness of the dust toward the fullness of the light.
***
If we view the fall in this way, how does the life of Jesus guide us from nothingness to God?
Complete Surrender to God’s Purpose and Freedom from Nothingness:
Jesus embodies complete surrender to God’s purpose, demonstrating the free intentionality required to move from nothingness toward divine union. His prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42), illustrates this active, free choice to embrace his divine end.
Unlike every other human being, Jesus’ freedom was never bent inward toward self-assertion. Every choice He made aligned perfectly with the will of the Father, overcoming the pull of nothingness.
Incarnation as the Bridge from Nothingness to Infinity:
The doctrine of the Incarnation (God becoming human in Jesus – John 1:14) illustrates the journey from nothingness to divine fullness. As fully human, Jesus shares in the creaturely condition of originating ex nihilo, yet as fully divine, he embodies the infinite end toward which all creatures are called.
Jesus entered the same condition we inhabit—born into the finitude and vulnerability of human life, subject to temptation, pain, and mortality. By living our condition without turning inward, He shows that the journey from nothingness to God can be completed within human limits.
Overcoming Temptation as Resistance to Nothingness:
The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13) symbolizes the rejection of the “residue of nothingness.” Satan’s temptations—material gain, power, and self-preservation—represent ways the creature might cling to autonomy or finite desires, resisting divine intentionality. Jesus’ refusal of these temptations demonstrates how to prioritize God’s will over the allure of nothingness.
His temptations in the wilderness are the archetypal moment where the pull of “nothingness” tries to assert itself—through comfort, power, and self-display. Jesus answers each one with trust in the Father, refusing the shortcuts that would anchor Him in self-will.
Teachings as a Guide for Intentionality:
Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), outline a way of life that orients the soul toward God. His emphasis on love, humility, forgiveness, and trust in God offers a roadmap for aligning one’s intentions with divine purpose.
Jesus describes His very sustenance as obedience to God’s purpose—“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34), showcasing the opposite of clinging to self-sufficiency.
Crucifixion as the Ultimate Surrender:
Jesus’ death on the cross (Mark 15:33-39, John 19:30) represents the ultimate act of self-emptying (kenosis), where he freely embraces the finitude and suffering inherent in creaturely existence. By accepting death, Jesus confronts the nothingness at the heart of human mortality and transforms it through his trust in God’s redemptive power.
On the cross, Jesus fully experiences the consequence of our condition: mortality, weakness, and even the feeling of God’s absence. But instead of yielding to despair, He entrusts Himself entirely into the Father’s hands, reversing the “Fall” by freely surrendering to Him in suffering.
Resurrection as the Fulfillment of Divine End:
The resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, John 20:1-18) is the definitive triumph over nothingness, demonstrating that the journey from ex nihilo to God culminates in eternal life. Jesus’ risen life shows that the creature’s free assent to God’s purpose leads to transformation beyond the limits of finitude.
The resurrection is not just a miracle to prove divinity—it’s the completion of the passage from nothingness into the infinite. In Him, human life is lifted fully into God, body and soul, showing the destiny that awaits every spirit that freely assents.
Example for Practical Imitation:
Jesus’ life provides concrete practices for moving toward God: prayer (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:9-13), service to others (John 13:1-17), and sacrificial love (John 15:13). These actions reflect a life oriented toward divine intentionality, showing how everyday choices can resist nothingness and grow toward God.
Jesus’ whole life shows what it looks like when created spirit fully grows into its “last end”—unbroken union with God, serving as the pattern and pioneer of what it means for created spirit to complete the climb from the Hollow to the Summit.
Religions are man-made attempts to know God. God is God, and is not defined by religion. But, we can believe God is the Father who knows and understands all things
The Old Testament is not a document dictated by God to give us a perfect picture of God. The Old Testament is the story of one group of people trying to understand God–not just who God is, but what God is–and they got a lot wrong. God is both beyond our understanding, and our good Father. If that’s true, His plan for humanity is just beginning.
We get most things wrong about God, even now after 2000 years of Christianity. The diversity of Christianity makes this clear.
Religions are man-made attempts to know God, but we are learning.
If we believe in God, and that God is a loving Father, then we must believe in the incarnation. But, we cannot fully understand the incarnation since it ties together two things we’ve never experienced: 1) a pre-fallen state; 2) life after death.
I’ve taught Apologetics before. I didn’t like it. I wouldn’t consider myself a Christian apologist as apologists are expected to come up with black and white answers to difficult issues. I do not believe there are black and white answers. Also, apologists seem less interested in discovering truth than they are defending presupposed dogmas.
However, as unlikely as it seems, there’s a chance I might teach the subject again. Therefore I thought, “What are some legitimate reasons why one would doubt the supernatural nature of Christianity?”
Here is my list…
Unfalsifiability of Christianity
Claims about heaven, hell, or divine judgment rely on post-mortem experiences, which are unverifiable in life, aligning with critiques of supernatural claims lacking empirical testability.
Christians cannot claim that living a faithful Christian life guarantees success or well-being in this life, nor that rejecting the Christian life necessarily leads to hardship or misfortune here and now. We know this from simple observation. Plenty of non-religious people live happy fulfilling lives, and plenty of Christians live difficult unhappy lives. The promise of whether things go good or bad for you can apply only to the after-life, which is unfalsifiable.
The hope found in the New Testament is grounded on the soon return of Christ, the transformation of the world, and the transformation of the individual bodies of believers. This leads to my next reason…
Failed Eschatological Expectations
New Testament passages suggest Jesus’ return was expected within the first century, which didn’t occur, undermining divine foresight.
Modern Christians have no clear explanation for what happens at death since the New Testament doesn’t teach it. The authors of the New Testament did not expect the world to continue on for thousands of years after Pentecost. The New Testament authors expected the Parousia (return of Christ, resurrection/transformation of bodies, judgement) to happen within their own lifetimes or shortly after.
The Parousia did not happen at that time, nor has it happened from that time till now. This calls into question the divine inspiration of the New Testament writings.
I can also include here the issue of the scripture’s focus on national Israel and the covenant promises. The New Covenant was promised only to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13). While it is true that Paul preached the gospel to the gentile world, his primary concern was Israel, which is why he always began his preaching in the synagogues. He clearly was passionate about Israel embracing their New Covenant gospel (Romans 9:1-5). And while I am not a proponent of the Israel Only movement, one can ask, “What if the original Jesus movement, a sect within Judaism, was only a failed Israelite eschatology?”
Persistence of Evil Under Divine Rule/Absence of Physical Manifestation/Decline of Verifiable Miracles
If Jesus reigns as a divine king, the ongoing existence of suffering and injustice suggests a lack of observable supernatural governance or intervention.
Despite theological claims of Jesus’ ongoing divine presence, the lack of any verifiable physical manifestation calls into question the active role or power of a supernatural agent.
Whereas early Christian accounts abound with miracles, such as healings and resurrections, modern times lack consistent, empirically verified equivalents, raising doubts about the reliability of early miracle claims.
I’ve combined three reasons here into one as they all have to do with the tangible presence of Christ in the current world.
Since the Parousia did not happen in the first century, the Church had to adopt a new way of seeing things. For the most part the Church began to teach that the kingdom of Christ is partially manifest in the Church, and that Christ rules in the hearts of believers. There will still be a future Parousia and history as we know it will end.
One can ask then, “What has actually changed in the world post-Pentecost?” If Jesus is king, what exactly is he king over? The world? The Church? Heaven? He doesn’t appear to be ruling the world, at least not in any obvious way. Perhaps he is king over the Church, but the Church is so fragmented (see reason #7) that he could only be king over an invisible Church: the “true believers,” whoever they may be. Only God knows. We might say he reigns over heaven, which we presume to be perfect. Since we cannot see heaven, we cannot verify this.
Spread of Christianity Through Natural Means
Christianity’s global expansion correlates with historical forces such as imperial conquest, colonialism, demographic trends, and migration—factors that suggest a sociopolitical rather than supernatural spread.
Has the spread of Christianity over the last two thousand years been remarkably different than the spread of any other religion?
Syncretism with Pre-Christian Traditions/Parallels with Other Religious Traditions/Shift from Jewish Sect to Gentile Religion
Many Christian customs have clear roots in earlier pagan traditions, indicating a blending of cultural practices rather than the emergence of a wholly distinct revelation.
Christianity shares core motifs (such as virgin births and dying-and-rising gods) with older mythologies, implying that its supernatural claims may stem from universal myth-making rather than unique divine revelation.
Christianity’s shift from a Jewish Messianic sect to a Gentile-dominated religion suggests human-driven evolution rather than divine preservation.
I’ve again combined three points here to highlight the evolution of religion throughout time. Many scholars agree that pre-exilic Israel was shaped by the dominant cultures surrounding it in the formation of its theocratic system. Likewise, post-exilic Second Temple Judaism was significantly influenced by Zoroastrian and Hellenistic thought. Christianity, which began as a Jewish sect, is often seen as a synthesis of Jewish tradition and elements from first-century mystery religions. Over time, it evolved into a predominantly Gentile movement. These developments suggest a gradual, human-driven evolution of religious ideas rather than a singular, divinely revealed system.
Theological Discontinuity Between Testaments/Moral Progress Beyond Scripture
The portrayal of God in the Old Testament (wrathful and nationalistic) differs markedly from the loving and universal God of modern Christianity, suggesting doctrinal evolution shaped by cultural change rather than consistent divine character.
Modern ethical stances (e.g., the condemnation of slavery) often diverge from or contradict biblical teachings, indicating that moral advancement may arise from secular humanism rather than scriptural guidance.
I am not comparing God as portrayed in the Old Testament to God as portrayed in the New Testament here as much as I am comparing God as portrayed in the Old and New Testaments to God as portrayed by modern Christians. Modern Christians tend to read the Old Testament allegorically, and even Fundamentalists struggle to reconcile the differences.
Fragmentation Within Christianity/Subjectivity in Scriptural Interpretation
Theological and cultural divisions across denominations (e.g., Evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) suggest Christianity is not a unified divine revelation but a diverse, evolving human tradition.
The need for personal or ecclesiastical interpretation of scripture underscores the role of human subjectivity in defining doctrine, weakening claims of an objective or universally clear divine message.
Christianity exhibits such a high degree of internal diversity that one expression of the faith may, in practice, function as a distinct religion from another. For example, American Evangelicalism and Syrian Orthodoxy differ so significantly in theology, worship, and worldview that they can be seen as fundamentally separate religious traditions.
Personality often plays a significant role in shaping the style of Christianity a person gravitates toward. For example, someone devoted to John MacArthur’s church is unlikely to transition to a Charismatic congregation. While he may claim his reasons are purely scriptural, it’s more likely that his theological preferences align with his personality (which, of course, includes his politics).
Modern Biblical Scholarship and Archaeology
Scholarship questions the historicity of key biblical events (e.g., Exodus, Canaanite conquests), and textual criticism highlights inconsistencies in manuscripts, undermining claims of divine inspiration.
Did Moses write the Pentateuch? Or was it written by several authors and compiled later? Did the exodus out of Egypt actually happen? Did Daniel write Daniel? Did Daniel exist? Or was the book of Daniel Maccabean propaganda? Who wrote the gospels? Did Paul write all the letters attributed to him?
Modern scholars differ much in their opinions, and I find they often overstate their arguments. However, their work cannot simply be dismissed because it contradicts traditional Christian beliefs.
Psychological and Sociological Explanations for Religious Experience
Neuroscience and psychology offer naturalistic explanations for spiritual experiences (e.g., visions, divine presence) as brain-based phenomena, and sociological factors like community bonding explain Christianity’s appeal.
Worship services with dimmed lighting and emotional music absolutely influence how a person feels about what they perceive to be Jesus. This isn’t just true of modern western services, but it is true of ancient style Orthodox services as well.
It’s easy to see, especially with productions like The Chosen, that Christians will form their religion to fit their specific needs and desires. One would think it would be impossible to turn Jesus into a false idol, but how can modern Christians be sure that’s not exactly what they’re doing?
Pursuit of Percipience 