June 1 is a special day for me, and it has been for the last 20 years.
One reason is that it's the memorial day of St. Justin Martyr, who is one of the main patron saints of apologists.
As an apologist, that makes it special to me.
But there is another reason as well.
I didn't plan it this way, but my report-to-work day at Catholic Answers happened to be June 1.
It's a significant day to embark on a career of apologetics, and I've always regarded it as a gift of divine providence.
Since I started doing apologetics professionally on June 1, 1993, that makes June 1, 2013 my 20th anniversary in the field. (Professionally speaking, at least; I'd been doing apologetics informally before that or I wouldn't have got the job.)
So this June 1 is my platinum anniversary, and I'm celebrating.
The More Things Change . . .
Things have changed a lot in the field of apologetics in the last twenty years.
One of the biggest changes was the commercial availability of the Internet, which emerged from its shadowy origins as a DARPA research project to facilitate communication during a nuclear war and became the civilization-changing technology that it is today.
When I started in apologetics, it was uncommon for anybody to have an email address, and research was done exclusively though books and journals.
When I wanted to find something out, I think, "What book or journal should I look in to find the answer to this?"
I remember the moment in the mid-1990s when I realized that–via the Internet–I had the World's Greatest Research Library sitting on my desktop. A light went on in my head, and I said, "From now on, this is going to be the thing I turn to first to find research leads on a question." (Of course, that still means verifying the data, since not everything you read on the Internet is true.)
The advent of the Internet opened up new possibilities for apologetics as well. I've tried to be an early-adopter as web-based opportunities have come along, and in the mid-90s, I started a web site, which still exists today as JimmyAkin.com.
I've also done work in other media, including publishing books, booklets, and audio sets, appearing on Catholic radio (which has blossomed in recent years), and reaching out in every practical way I can think of.
My goal has been to reach as many people for Christ as I can, through the best means I have available to me, and to do so in a way that's fair, accurate, kind, and–when appropriate–playful.
BTW, if I've helped you–in person or at a distance–in the last twenty years, I'd love to hear how I've done so. Just let me know in the comments box or by email.
It's been my honor to serve Christ and serve others these last twenty years.
If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)
Jesus died on the Cross so that people could be forgiven their sins.
But if he died in A.D. 33, what about all the people who lived and died before that time? Were their sins forgiven?
And if their sins were forgiven, does that mean Jesus’ sacrifice applies to all of history?
If so, does that mean that we’ve been forgiven for all of our sins—past, present, and future—so that we don’t need to go to confession?
How does this all work?
Here’s the story . . .
The Bottom Line
It may seem unusual to put the bottom line at the top of a post, but I generally find it better to state things in a straightforward, literal manner and only then (if necessary) use analogies to help clarify them.
So here’s are the literal facts:
1) Jesus’ death on the Cross made it possible for all human beings to be forgiven of their sins, regardless of whether they lived before, during, or after his time.
2) In order to appropriate that forgiveness, people have to repent and turn to God. When they do so, God forgives them, regardless of when in history they lived.
3) During this life, people have free will, so if they un-repent (backslide, fall from grace, commit mortal sin) then they have committed new sins that are not (at that moment) forgiven.
4) In order to be forgiven of these new sins, they need to once more repent and turn to God. Then they will be forgiven of the new sins they committed.
Forgiveness B.C.
Suppose there is a person living in 800 B.C. Let’s call him King Bob.
One of the most common topics in discussion between Christians and atheists is the question of what atheism actually is.
For a long time, the word has been defined as the view that there is no God–i.e., the claim “God does not exist.”
More recently, some atheists have begun to define it differently.
According to them, atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there was no God, thought it unlikely that there is a God, or didn’t know if there is a God.
Simply not agreeing with the claim “There is a God” would make you an atheist.
Some atheists have claimed that this is the natural state of humanity. On this view, we all start out as atheists and we have to learn belief in God.
In other words: Babies are atheists.
Are they right?
What’s the Attraction?
I understand why the atheists who make this claim would be attracted to it. At least, I understand why I would find it attractive if I were an atheist:
It can be plausibly claimed that babies do not have a belief in God, which makes one of the premises of the argument seem true.
If every position other than outright assertion of God’s existence falls under my banner, my position would seem larger and more popular.
I could claim atheism as mankind’s natural state, thus creating an implicit argument for it. Being in accord with human nature is good, right?
I could claim atheism as the default human belief, and thus relieve me of the burden of proof in arguing with others. I could then claim that the burden of proof is on those who want to believe in God. Until I’m satisfied by their arguments, I’m entitled to act on the assumption that God does not exist.
“I am close to the families of all who died in the Oklahoma tornado, especially those who lost young children. Join me in praying for them.” @pontifex, 21 May 2013
“To live according to the Gospel is to fight against selfishness. The Gospel is forgiveness and peace; it is love that comes from God.” @pontifex, 22 May 2013
“Do I take the Gospel message of reconciliation and love into the places where I live and work?” @pontifex, 23 May 2013
“On the feast of Mary Help of Christians I join the Catholics in China who trust in the protection of Our Lady of Sheshan and I pray for them” @pontifex, 23 May 2013
“Miracles happen. But prayer is needed! Prayer that is courageous, struggling and persevering, not prayer that is a mere formality.” @pontifex, 24 May 2013
“We all have in our hearts some areas of unbelief. Let us say to the Lord: I believe! Help my unbelief.” @pontifex, 25 May 2013
“Every time we give in to selfishness and say “No” to God, we spoil his loving plan for us.” @pontifex, 26 May 2013
The Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian Faith. Here are 12 things to know and share . . .
The Church teaches that the Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian Faith.
But how much do you know about this mystery?
What is its history?
What does it mean?
And how can it be proved?
Here are 12 things to know and share . . .
1. Where does the word “Trinity” come from?
It comes from the Latin word trinitas, which means “three” or “triad.” The Greek equivalent is triados.
2. When was it first used?
The first surviving use of the term (there may have been earlier uses that are now lost) was around A.D. 170 by Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man [To Autolycus 2:15].
3. What is the Trinity?
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:
The Church expresses her trinitarian faith by professing a belief in the oneness of God in whom there are three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The three divine Persons are only one God because each of them equally possesses the fullness of the one and indivisible divine nature.
They are really distinct from each other by reason of the relations which place them in correspondence to each other.
The Father generates the Son; the Son is generated by the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [CCCC 48].
4. Is the Trinity the central mystery of the Christian Faith?
Yes. The Compendium explains:
The central mystery of Christian faith and life is the mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [CCCC 44].
Did Pope Francis recently say that atheists can get to heaven by "good works"? Or was he talking about something else entirely?
Color me annoyed.
The press has been going nuts about remarks concerning atheists that Pope Francis made at one of his daily homilies.
As usual, the press is hyping the remarks as if they are earthshaking, unprecedented, and in contrast to mean ol’ Pope Emeritus Benedict.
I know this will come as a shock, but . . . they’re getting the story wrong.
Here’s the story . . .
Daily Homilies
Let’s start with the context in which Pope Francis made the remarks: One of his homilies at daily Mass, celebrated in St. Martha’s House (where he lives).
Pope Francis is in the habit of saying daily Mass for the people at St. Martha’s House and invited guests, and when he does so he gives an off-the-cuff homily (rather than reading from a prepared text).
This is actually something new.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not do this. They did not celebrate daily Mass as publicly as Pope Francis, and they did not have daily homilies published in this way. Instead, they occasionally delivered prepared homilies at public Masses on special occasions, and only these were published. As a result, if you look at the Vatican web site, there are surprisingly few homilies listed in their sections!
As a result, the Vatican web people aren’t scaled up for this volume of homilies, and–MADDENINGLY–you can’t find complete texts of Pope Francis’s daily ones on the site.
They, apparently, aren’t running these homilies through “the usual process,” which involves transcribing what the pope says in off-the-cuff remarks, showing him the transcript so that he can revise it if needed, and then translating and publishing them.
As a result, we’re not getting complete transcripts of these homilies, only partial ones, such as those carried by Vatican Radio.
And that, right there, is a problem. It drives me nuts, because these homilies contain interesting information, but I hesitate to comment on anything for which I don’t have a complete text.
As they say, a text without a context is a pretext. Without seeing the full text, we run the risk of misunderstanding.
The Homily in Question
On Wednesday, Pope Francis gave a homily based on the Gospel reading of the day (Mark 9:38-40), in which the disciples have told a man to stop casting out demons in Jesus’ name because he doesn’t follow along with them.
The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.”
“This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation.”
Pope Francis first applies this principle to non-Catholics in general, engaging in dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor:
“‘But, Father, this [person] is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. . . .
“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:
“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!
So far so good: Christ redeemed all of us, making it possible for every human to be saved.
What About Atheists?
Now we get to the subject of atheists, as the imaginary interlocutor asks:
“‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good.”
Here is where “the usual process” might be helpful in clarifying the pope’s thought. Everyone, when speaking off-the-cuff, encounters occasions where things could be further clarified, and this may be one of them.
We can be called children of God in several senses. One of them is merely be being created as rational beings made in God’s image. Another is by becoming Christian. Another sense (used in the Old Testament) is connected with righteous behavior. And there can be other senses as well.
Here Pope Francis may be envisioning a sense in which we can be called children of God because Christ redeemed us, even apart from embracing that redemption by becoming Christian.
This, however, was not what caught the press’s eye.
Pope Francis continued:
“And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.”
Nothing particularly controversial here.
But then comes this, as the imaginary interlocutor says:
“‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Where Is “There”?
The press latched onto this, taking the phrase “we will meet one another there” as a reference to heaven.
They then inferred that the pope was saying that if atheists merely “do good” then they will go to heaven.
This, in turn, alarmed some in the Protestant community, who thought that the pope was saying that atheists can get to heaven by “good works.”
We can deal with the possibility of salvation for atheists in another post, but first we need to ask a question . . .
Was Pope Francis Even Talking About Heaven?
If so, you wouldn’t know it from the transcript of what he said.
Let’s back up a bit. Remember, Pope Francis was just talking about the duty to do good:
“And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace.”
So if everyone does good, we have a path toward peace. That’s the goal.
“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.
Note the parallelism between the phrases. Pope Francis is talking about a path “toward peace” and wants us to “meet there” by doing our part and doing good so that we build “that culture of encounter” and “meet one another doing good.”
He’s not talking about heaven at all.
He’s talking about earth.
It’s in that context that he has the imaginary interlocutor say:
‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’
And he replies:
“But do good: we will meet one another there.”
What he’s saying is that even atheists need to do good on earth to build their part of the culture of encounter that promotes peace and allows people to “meet together” in harmony.
At least that’s what appears from a careful reading of the text.
Another translation, found in The Guardian (of all places), better conveys the idea:
“Even them, everyone,” the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. “We all have the duty to do good,” he said.
“Just do good, and we’ll find a meeting point,” the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment: “But I don’t believe. I’m an atheist.”
Text Without Context
Remember that saying I mentioned earlier, that a text without a context is a pretext for misunderstanding?
This is why.
This is exactly why.
And it is why I am so annoyed that we aren’t getting the full text of Pope Francis’s daily homilies.
Of course, even with the context we had at hand, which clearly suggests that Pope Francis wasn’t talking about meeting atheists in heaven but meeting with them in fraternity and peace here on earth, that didn’t stop the press from getting it wrong.
Wouldn’t it be great if scientists invented a device that would let us look into the past and see it with our own eyes? Guess what! They have!
Wouldn’t it be great if scientists invented a device that enabled us to have a clear window into the past–so that we wouldn’t just have to read about the past in books?
Instead, with the new device–let’s call it a Time Window–we could actually see events occurring in the past in real time, with our own eyes.
That would be wicked awesome, wouldn’t it!?
The exciting news is that scientists have invented this device!
That’s right! The Time Window is real!
What’s more, they invented it just over 400 years ago, so they’ve had the chance to mature the technology to the point that now it’s really, really good.
For comparison, imagine how good an iPhone would be today if Steve Jobs had invented the first one 400 years ago.
The only problem is that they missed a great marketing opportunity.
Instead of calling it the Time Window ™ they gave it a much more boring name . . . the telescope.
How the Time Window Works
The reason that the Time Window–er, telescope–lets us look into the past and see it with our own eyes is that it takes time for light to reach our eyes. The speed of light is not infinite.
Technically, this means that any time you see anything, you are technically witnessing something that happened in the past.
Since light travels so fast, however, if you see someone across the room pick up an iPhone, that happened only the tiniest fraction of a second ago. In fact, you started seeing it while it was still happening. That’s not long enough ago to make it an exciting glimpse into history.
But things get more interesting when you take a telescope and point it at something really distant.
By Jove!
For example, back in 1609, Galileo Galilei pointed his telescope at the planet Jove–er, Jupiter–and discovered that by it there were several moons.
Now the thing is, depending on where Earth and Jupiter are in their orbits, Jupiter is between 33 and 54 light minutes away from Earth.
Let’s just say it’s an average of 44 light minutes away for the sake of simplicity.
That means, it takes 44 minutes for the light from Jupiter to reach an astronomer on Earth.
So when Galileo looked at Jupiter through his telescopes and saw its moons, he was seeing where those moons were 44 minutes ago.
He was viewing actual history that occurred 44 minutes in the past!
Woo-hoo!
Party Like It’s 1879!
The same thing keeps happening when you look further out.
Back in 2008, scientists used one of their spiffy modern telescopes to capture the light in this image . . .
This is an image of the solar system HR 8799.
It’s got a single star in the middle, and we can see that it has at least three planets orbiting it.
What’s more, it’s 129 light years away from Earth.
This is an image of where those planets were in the year that the apparition at Knock, Ireland took place, that the California Constitution was ratified, and that Thomas Edison unveiled incandescent light to the public.
It’s an image of things happening in that year.
Now let’s look really far into the past . . .
An Earth-Shattering Ka-Boom
Also in 2008, astronomers captured an image of a supernova known as SN 2008D.
Here’s a time-lapse image of the supernova happening, both in x-rays and visible light. Take a moment and watch it:
Hoo-eee! It blowed up real good! (Particularly in x-rays.)
Now here’s the thing: SD 2008D is in the galaxy NGC 2770, which is in the constellation Lynx.
It’s also 88,000,000 (88 million) light years away.
That means that when you’re watching the supernova explode in the images above, You Are Watching an Event That Took Place 88 Million Years in the Past.
That’s right. Dinosaurs were roaming the earth when this event took place. It was the middle of the Cretaceous Era.
So What’s This Have to Do with God?
Historically, many people have thought that the universe was only a few thousand years old, based on the most common understanding of Genesis.
Modern science has suggested that it is much, much older.
If the above picture reveals an event that took place 88,000,000 years ago, then the view that the universe is only a few thousand years old can’t be right.
So what alternatives does we have in resolving this situation?
Here are three . . .
Option 1: We’re Really, Really Wrong
One option would be to say that we are really–desperately–wrong in our understanding of science today.
Either light doesn’t travel at the speed we think it does or SN 2008D isn’t as far away as we think it is–or something.
This cannot be ruled out on theoretical grounds. The best scientific thought of the day has turned out to be really, really wrong before.
But how likely is this?
At this point we seem to have very, very good evidence about the age and dimensions of the cosmos, about how fast light travels and how far away things like supernovas are.
Option 2: God Is Showing Us Fictions
Another option would be to say that, when the world began a few thousand years ago, God created light already en route from what appeared to be more distant galaxies.
If that’s the case, then any event we see that appears to be happening more than a few thousand light years away is a fiction.
Beyond a certain point, we’re watching God’s Imaginary Astronomy Show.
Mixed in with God’s Real Astronomy Show that’s taking place closer to home.
Hmmm.
That doesn’t seem consistent with God’s Truthfulness.
At a minimum, an advocate of this view would need to provide an explanation for why God would do this, why it wouldn’t be inconsistent with his Truthfulness.
Some have tried to mount such an explanation by saying that God created the world with an “appearance of age,” the same way that he created Adam and Eve as full-grown adults rather than babies.
That is the way Genesis seems to depict the creation of our first parents, since they are both apparently created on Day 6 of the creation week in Genesis 1, and since they are married as soon as Eve is created in the second creation narrative in Genesis 2.
If you think that God used evolution to make the bodies of the first humans (of course, he made their souls directly and immediately) then this issue doesn’t arise–at least not in the same way.
But what if you think that God literally created an adult Adam out of earth and an adult Eve out of Adam’s side? Does that provide much support for the “appearance of age” explanation of distant astronomical events?
I have never thought so.
It’s always seemed to me that, if God were to directly create the first humans as adults, there would be a very good reason for that–namely: Babies Cannot Take Care of Themselves.
Without the presence of other humans–or near-humans–to take care of our first parents, they would need to be adults (or at least teens). Either that, or God would have to run his own, direct daycare service, and Genesis doesn’t suggest that he did.
So I can see a reason why God would make the first humans as adults. That’s because of the incapacity to care for themselves that human infants have.
But that doesn’t give us any reason why God would need to plant false dinosaur bones in the ground or false astronomical images in the sky, let alone mix them up with real ones.
He could have just let God’s Real Astronomy Show play in the sky each night.
The sky wouldn’t have had quite as much stuff in it each night, but it would all have been true stuff.
Option 3: God’s Word in the Heavens and in the Bible Is True
The best approach would seem to be the classic one of saying that God’s word in nature and God’s word in the Bible are both true.
They have to be understood in harmony with each other.
Thus if we have good evidence from God’s word in nature that the universe is quite old then that helps shed light on the meaning of God’s word in the Scriptures.
This is the approach taken by the Catholic Church.
Concerning the creation narrative in Genesis 1, John Paul II stated:
Above all, this text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn’t contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm or positive contributions of substantial interest [General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986].
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.
These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.
With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.
And:
337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.
On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”
Having said that, I’m looking forward to seeing more events from distant history–with my own eyes–through the amazing Time Window! (Er, telescope.)
Since it was proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, the Big Bang has been common in discussions of the existence of God.
The reasons are obvious. The Big Bang looks like a plausible beginning for the physical universe. Things that begin need causes. The beginning of the physical universe would need a cause, which would seem to lie outside the physical universe. This coheres well with the Christian claim that God is a non-physical being who created the physical universe.
The argument has been elaborated various ways, but that’s the basic idea.
It’s basically a version of the Kalaam cosmological argument that uses evidence from modern cosmology to support the premise that the universe had a beginning.
It even resonates with the “Let there be light” moment in Genesis.
I think that there is a proper role for the Big Bang in discussions of God’s existence, but it has to be used with some caution.
Here’s why . . .
“Let There Be Light”?
One temptation is to identify the Big Bang not just as the moment of creation but specifically as the creation of light in Genesis 1. That’s problematic because Genesis does not portray the creation of light as the moment the world came into existence. Let’s look at the text:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
In the text, the earth already exists in a formless and empty state, with a deep of waters that has a surface, which the Spirit of God hovers over. Then light gets created.
So Genesis depicts the creation of light happening when the heavens and the earth and its waters already exist. At least that is how the text depicts it. You can argue that this isn’t to be taken literally, but that only makes the same point another way: We shouldn’t be too quick to identify the Big Bang with the creation of light in Genesis. We have to be careful about mapping Genesis onto modern cosmology.
In fact, Pope John Paul II warned specifically against trying to draw scientific conclusions from the creation account in Genesis 1:
Above all, this text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn’t contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm or positive contributions of substantial interest [General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986].
The Moment of Creation?
There is another thing we need to be careful about, which is identifying the Big Bang as the moment of the physical universe came into existence.
It may well have been. I would love for us to find a way to prove that scientifically.
But we’re not there at present.
We just don’t understand it. The evidence shows that it happened, but not why it happened. We have very little clue about that scientifically—and there may well be no scientific answer. It may be that God just did it, and did it in a way not susceptible to scientific study.
But that’s not the only option. There are others that cannot presently be ruled out on scientific grounds. For example, the visible universe we see today may have budded off of a larger universe that we cannot see, and the moment it budded off may have been the Big Bang. There are other options, too.
Implications
If we one day get solid evidence of something physical existing before the Big Bang, what would the implications be?
From the viewpoint of the Christian faith, if there was a physical universe before the Big Bang then it would mean that God created the universe—from nothing—even farther back in time than we can currently see.
From the viewpoint of discussions of God’s existence, it would mean that one of the premises in the Kalaam cosmological argument would lose its scientific support–unless, of course, new science pointed to a beginning even further back. (And there are those who have argued on scientific grounds that the universe cannot extend back infinitely far in time.)
Losing scientific support from the Big Bang would not disprove the existence of God. It wouldn’t even disprove the Kalaam cosmological argument. It would just mean that the premise in question would have to be supported some other way.
If it were to turn out that the Big Bang was not the beginning of the physical universe then this argument in apologetics would have to be revised.
That’s nothing to be ashamed of, though. Apologetics, like the physical sciences, is subject to revision based on the evidence available at the time.
Plans are afoot, though, for a new set of scientific projects that may let us discern something about the state of the universe before the Big Bang (if there was one). More info here.
It will be interesting to see what the results of these are.
For now, though, the Big Bang still looks like the beginning of the physical universe, and it has a legitimate place in discussions of God’s existence.
It just should not be presented as if we had absolute proof of creation in time, because we don’t.
That’s something that Pius XII pointed out in his 1951 speech.
While hailing the discovery of the Big Bang, he also cautioned that “the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time, as are the proofs drawn from metaphysics and revelation.”
So, while the idea of the Big Bang is consistent with the idea that the universe was created a finite time ago, and while the Big Bang may be that moment of creation, we should not present this as if it were definitively established.
The divinity of the Holy Spirit was infallibly defined at the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, but not everyone accepts the fact that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person–one of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Holy Spirit is merely God’s “energy” or “active force.”
In this video, Jimmy Akin shows a simple and surprising way that you can use the Bible to show both that the Holy Spirit is a Person and that he is a divine Person, alongside the Father and the Son.
