Question of the Week

Is Beauty Proof of God’s Existence?

Question of the Week: Is Beauty Evidence for God’s Existence?

When it comes to arguments for the existence of God, the ones you hear most often are things like the beginning of the Universe or the fine tuning of it to support life. However, research has been done and continues to be done into another aspect of Creation that requires there to be a Creator. If it can be established that beauty isn’t a subjective opinion, but as Plato described a foundational concept like Truth and Goodness, then it too can be used to give a reason for the hope that is in us regarding the reality of God. While it’s often easy to dismiss this with the slogan “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” the reality may be the opposite. In order to properly understand this argument, it is first important to give credit where it is due. The work of Alexander R. Pruss and Dr. Phillip Tallon have popularized and are working to perfect this argument. However, where it stands now is gaining more and more traction among the philosophically minded.

Claim #1: In order to make something beautiful; Skill, Talent, Effort, and Intent are required.
-No artist stumbles on a masterpiece. Function in of itself isn’t beautiful by definition. These characteristics (Skill, Talent, and Intent) are things that only exist in a conscious mind. If the Universe is beautiful, then that requires there to be a being with the Skill, Talent, and Effort required to make it so pleasing to the eye.

Claim #2: Man can see, appreciate, and create beautiful things.
-Man’s artistic endeavors have no evolutionary or survival-based benefit. It is something that is a part of our nature regardless of the fact that it can lead to significant personal risk or loss. That begs the question why something like appreciation for beauty became a part of our nature if it can’t be naturally explained.

Claim #3: Beauty is objective.
-Having an immature or under-developed perspective doesn’t make something less beautiful. You can have a majority of people with the opinion that 2+2=5 and the objective reality wouldn’t change. We may be able to perceive and appreciate certain aspects of beauty more than others, but it remains an objective part of something by definition.

Conclusion: Beauty, when properly understood and defined, demonstrates the existence of a personal, conscious, and creative Creator.

For more explanations on how this argument works, please listen to the explanations below:

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Does Communion Heal?

Question of the Week: Does Taking Communion Miraculously Heal People?

It’s not uncommon among Word of Faith ministries and Pentecostal Circles to hear testimonies of people who have experienced miraculous healings while they were taking Communion. The question is bringing attention to the object associated with the healing. Is Communion what is healing people or is God healing people? Most people would clarify that God is obviously the One doing the healing, but through the act of Communion. That is where we get to the claim that needs to be tested. Does Scripture ever define Communion as a means through which God accomplishes a healing? The answer is no. The act of Communion is defined and explained several times in the Bible, and never sets it up as something where we should expect a healing to take place. God is allowed to heal when and how He chooses. Ministries that would claim that the act of Communion will result in a healing are doing so based on their experiences rather than scripture. And that’s under the assumption their claims are true.

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (NKJV)

The Purpose:

This is the plainest example of Communion being defined and clarified by the Apostle Paul. It is important to note that he begins in verse 23 by stating that this isn’t “his version” of Communion. He is communicating what he received from the Lord, and cites Matthew 26:26-27 in order to verify his claim by quoting Jesus directly from the eyewitness accounts. There is not a single mention of a healing to be expected from the practice. And there is only a point about its purpose being for remembrance. We “proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” There are a lot of ways to take that statement. Coercing God into a specific kind of physically beneficial miracle is not one of them.

The Context:

1 Corinthians 11:17-32 is the whole conversation in context. Paul discusses with Corinth how it was being abused, how it ought to be used, and clarifying its significance and purpose in contrast with what they were doing. In fact, the only miraculous intervention is incredibly ironic given how certain ministries are advertising it. Instead of a miraculous healing, Christians were being struck dead or cursed with sicknesses as a result of their mishandling of Communion as a means of getting drunk. The irony isn’t lost on anyone that the only thing from God that we are told in scripture came from communion was the opposite of a healing.

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 (NKJV)

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Is Annihilationism Biblical?

Question of the Week: Is Annihilationism Biblical?

The short answer is no. The long answer requires a clarification on the Biblical definitions of Hell, Justice, and Mercy. The reason why these terms need to be clarified is because of what Annihilationism claims. The problem isn’t in what it claims, but how it misunderstands the terms it is trying to reconcile with the nature of God. Under normal circumstances, this would be an entirely reasonable thing to do. If a conclusion we make from scripture conflicts with other plain truths about God, I test my conclusion in light of other Biblical truth claims. The Annihilationist claims that the doctrine of eternal Hell is unbiblical because it makes God out to be a sadistic and cruel torturer of sinners rather than a loving redeemer of the lost. In order to rationalize God’s merciful and forgiving nature with the concept of eternal Hell, they throw out the latter entirely. Instead, they would interpret the texts that mention Hell as synonymous with annihilation. Those who die apart from salvation merely cease to exist according to the Annihilationist view. The problem with this claim is three-fold. It fails to understand what Hell is. It misrepresents the concept of justice. And it ends up eliminating the concept of both justice and mercy entirely. We don’t diminish the wrath of God in order to glorify the mercy of God. Both have to be in place for either to mean anything.

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’
Mark 9:41-48 (NKJV)

“And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
Isaiah 66:34 (NKJV)

Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Revelation 14:9-11 (NKJV)

Problem #1: The Definition of Hell

Hell is often depicted as a place that is the equal and opposite of scope and influence as Heaven. Popular media and art portray it as a place where the Devil rules as the Anti-God and supervises a wide span of bizarre and ironic punishments taken out of the Theogony. Those who are more biblically literate would understand that the Devil isn’t in Hell presently and will be just as much a recipient of God’s wrath there as anyone else. However, a little knowledge ends up being a dangerous thing because it paints an equally incomplete picture. The Annihilationist view portrays Hell as contrary to God’s nature because it is such a cruel place of torture and evil. If God were to make such a place, it would reflect poorly on His character. The way He’s often portrayed by Atheists and Muslims is a sadistic and cruel God for sending people to a place of unimaginable suffering for even the smallest of infractions. However, even a cursory reading of a single passage that discusses what Hell is wouldn’t come to any of these conclusions. Not once in the entire Bible is the word “torture” used to describe the experience of Hell. Likewise, the definition of Hell is separation from God. Because God is the source of everything good and perfect, (James 1:17), then separation from that source would be one of deprivation and torment. What is the difference between torture and torment? Torture is external. Torment is internal. The reality of Hell is that it is everything people who reject God have always wanted. An existence apart from Him. God isn’t going to force anyone into Heaven, which means being with Him forever. (Revelation 21:22) He has given every possible means of making clear how to avoid separation from Him, but allowing the existence of an alternative to Him isn’t cruelty. It is respectful. The Annihilationist view has to subscribe to a false view of Hell where God is the cause of all suffering in Hell. When the opposite is the case biblically. Heaven is a paradise because of one reality. God is there. Hell is a place of torment because of one factor as well. God has separated Himself from those who have consciously chosen to be so forever.

Problem #2: The Definition of Justice

A philosopher from the Baltic States in Eastern Europe once observed that the idea that of eternal punishment being unjust could only have come from a cole de sack in Western Europe. His point is telling. As a man who lived in a region of the world that knew war and the cruelty of man like most would know the weather, the kind of people who diminish the necessity of punishment are those who have never really seen evil before. The kind of person who has seen the worst of mankind in the form of being cut off in traffic or lied to about a bill may entertain the thought that God could wave those things aside if that’s the worst He has to deal with. People who work in police departments and the military are of a far more conservative opinion about the matter. Why? It isn’t because their perspective is cruel. It is informed. All over the world, there are people who live without any deterrent towards their behavior. When the word “lawless society” is spoken, we don’t think of a paradise. We imagine crime, evil, and injustice left unanswered at every corner. The reason for this is because there is a real need for justice. Our ignorance of its necessity is a mark against us.

In the system of biblical Justice, wrath of God is met out on those who violate God’s perfect nature in any way. This is often caricatured to be a situation where God punishes a jay-walker the same way He would a mass murderer. Like prior annihilationist misunderstandings, the term “consequence” is conflated with justice and these errors in language end up producing a faulty picture of what is actually happening. The consequence of sin is death. (Romans 6:23) The consequence of jay-walking is getting hit by a car. The judge doesn’t punish the jay-walker the same way as the mass murderer. They are both identified as law-breakers because they both involve behavior that can cost the life of a human being. This is why the Bible identifies sin categorically as deserving of death (Romans 1:32), but punishes specific sins in different ways when the law of Moses was given to Israel. Exodus 20-23 doesn’t judge a murderer the same way as a liar. Not because God is inconsistent, but because of the system of Punitive Justice. If we aren’t aware of there being serious consequences for certain behaviors, those who want to perform them will do so with impunity. In a horizontal sense, the Bible acknowledges there being a valid approach in deterring criminal behavior this way. A perfect example is the account of Ananias and Saffira. (Acts 5:1-6) Their willful lying to God and stealing money from the church was severely punished. This was not only because they had seen the miracles that verified the Apostles really were speaking for God, but also knew in the text itself what they were doing before God. They were held accountable for what they knew, and the church as a whole learned that they ought to avoid committing the same crime they did. (Acts 5:11-16) We can give a variety of examples in modern society, but the point has been made. The fact that there are deterrents legally for the crimes we commit against one another only exist because they are drawing attention to the severity of their consequences. If God provides a serious deterrent against separation from Him, it only demonstrates that the consequence of sin is just that severe. It’s not unjust for God to take sin more seriously than we do. Whether we see our sin as jay-walking or mass murder, He’s just trying to keep someone from getting killed.

Problem #3: The Consequence of Annihilationism

The greatest casualty of Annihilationism is that it ultimately ends up throwing out what they’re trying to preserve. The goal most are trying to achieve by adopting this doctrine is to avoid diminishing God’s mercy. The ultimate consequence of those who reject a relationship with God merely cease to exist according to this view. Apart from the passages that directly contradict this conclusion, understand what that ends up doing to the character of God. While most may put themselves above mass murderers like Stalin or the Columbine Shooters, these men believed the same thing the Annihilationist view supposes. When they die, there is no answer for their crimes. They simply cease. There is no conscious answer for the lives they destroyed. There is no retribution for the actions they’ve committed. In the end, they won. They got away with literal murder and the God of the Annihilationist set up a system where that would always be the case. The hope of the victim is not only for comfort from how they’ve been hurt, but for the cause of their hurt to answer for it. When Jesus experienced the Wrath of God, He wasn’t unconscious. When the Annihilationist describes the reward of Heaven, it isn’t unconscious. When scripture describes for us the severity of sin, we were shown the price that was paid to free us from that consequence. If the reality of punishment is to merely give the sinner freedom from consequence, then the price that was paid on the cross to redeem us from it was equally inconsequential. Any teaching that diminishes the severity of the Cross of Christ is not glorifying God’s mercy. They are merely misrepresenting it. In Annihilationism, there is nothing to forgive because there is nothing that would have been punished. In the Cross, the Severity of Sin is judged in its entirety so we don’t have to experience the very real consequences that await those who reject a relationship with God.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Are Aborted Children Better Off From A Christian Perspective?

Question of the Week: Are Aborted Children Better Off In Heaven From A Christian Perspective?

Those who argue in favor of abortion do so because of a fundamental disagreement about what life is. Due to the fact that the Christian worldview does not allow their perspective regarding human identity after birth, many have attempted to reach over from our perspective in order to justify the act of purposely ending a baby’s life. The argument is usually phrased in a way similar to this; If God isn’t going to judge people to be separated from Him forever when they never had an opportunity to receive or reject Him, (or something along the lines of the Age of Accountability providing salvation to those too young to come to a decision on the matter), then aren’t those who abort their children simply sending those kids to Heaven? If Heaven is better than this life, then isn’t the act of aborting children better from a Christian perspective? They never had to suffer, experience pain, and only ever knew life present with Jesus. This is the argument point by point;

Premise 1: Children who die young go to Heaven. (Genesis 18:25)

Premise 2: Heaven is better than this World. (Philippians 1:23)

Conclusion: Causing the deaths of children is good because it sends them to Heaven. (Psalm 116:15)

Hopefully hearing these things out loud reveals to most just how horrific a claim it actually is. While modern culture has prided itself on indifference to most issues, the only reason most subscribe to this kind of thinking is hopefully because they haven’t fully thought the issue through. In the face of unfiltered and unapologetic evil, it’s best to not meet irrationality with more irrationality. Like any other claim about anything, they should be tested according to their own standards as well as the worldview they claim to be challenging. Is this a rational conclusion from a Biblical perspective, or is it just as Satanic as it sounds?

Problem #1: The Ends Justify the Means?

The first part of this argument that needs to be challenged is the fact that it’s based on a fallacy. The claim that “The Ends Justify the Means” is rejected in the realm of rational thought because of just how far it can be abused. People who justify their actions by claiming they meant well or are doing it in the name of a greater good are making the assumption that their reprehensible actions will, in fact, produce their intended outcome. People assumed at a certain point in history that the elimination of rights for certain groups of people were justified because it would produce a perfect society. They were not only wrong, but caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the process of a misguided goal. When applying this to abortion, there’s too many false assumptions that conflict with both parties interests in this conversation. Those who support abortion are in conflict with the Bible’s claims about this life and the afterlife. To justify your position with an outcome you fundamentally deny is insincere at best, and deceptive at worst. It’s not an end they acknowledge. People who argue this way demonstrate that they are simply indifferent about the death of a child. This is why the majority of those who argue in favor of abortion have to focus on the definition of life and the identity of the unborn as worthy of less rights than those who are born. Anything apart from the dehumanization of others puts them in a dilemma. Either they’re acknowledging the fact they are supporting the deaths of the innocent, or are proving they could care less about the outcome of their actions.

Problem #2: Why stop at Children?

The second problem this argument fails to take into consideration isn’t just the indifference it reveals about its speaker, but exactly why its conclusion is limited to children. If the conclusion is that causing the deaths of children are a good thing because it sends them to Heaven, why would that not apply to humanity in any other age group? Causing the deaths of young children would be a good thing as well because it spares them the pain and suffering that come with puberty, bills, and the stresses of later life. The deaths of teenagers would be seen as a good thing because it spares them the heartache of failed relationships and the anxiety that comes with the future. The deaths of adults would be seen as a good thing because it spares them the suffering that comes with old age. The deaths of the elderly would be seen as a good thing because it spares them a difficult transition into Heaven. If your system can be used to justify the extermination of the human race in any scenario, you either need to rethink your position or have yourself admitted for serious psychiatric evaluation. The potential for suffering is no excuse to end a human life.

Problem #3: What is the Christian Perspective?

The third problem with this argument is that it fundamentally misrepresents the worldview it’s claiming to meet halfway. Normally it’s a reasonable approach to argue your conclusion from the perspective that’s contrary to it. If you can demonstrate that we both agree on the fundamentals, then there ends up being no disagreement with what both people are saying. The only problem is when one or both views aren’t actually what’s being explained, you end up creating a whole new disagreement in addition to what the first argument was about in the first place. If the person you’re talking to won’t even let you explain what you believe, then they have demonstrated they’re not there to argue. They’re merely dictating and enforcing their own ideas onto you. Then when you refuse to fit yourself into their box, they shame you for not being what you weren’t to begin with. That’s not how reasonable conversations happen.

The Christian perspective in regard to life is as follows;

Jesus of Nazareth is the example Christians consider following as the standard for right and wrong.

Imitate me as I imitate Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:1 (NKJV)

Jesus of Nazareth lived the perfect life according to God’s standard.

For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
1 Peter 2:20-22 (NKJV)

Jesus of Nazareth didn’t distance Himself from our suffering, but voluntarily became a part of it.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
1 Peter 3:18 (NKJV)

Jesus of Nazareth never justified the death/murder of anyone by claiming it would prevent them from suffering. In fact, just the opposite. He predicted the suffering of His followers and prayed they would be preserved through it.

I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
John 17:15 (NKJV)

The Christian perspective is not indifferent towards the intentional ending of someone’s life, regardless of age. The Christian perspective does not justify murder in order to prevent potential suffering. The Christian perspective is based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, not the summations of people who don’t believe His claims about life before and after birth.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

What Happened to Jephthah’s Daughter?

Question of the Week: What happened in the account of Jephthah’s Daughter?

When asking what happened in any section of scripture, it’s important to read it first. Anyone can summarize a passage and tell you what it means. It takes someone with a conscious desire to know the truth to examine what the passage actually says for themselves before coming to conclusions. Like any other event recorded in history, we need to come to conclusions from what is said before we start making new conclusions with what wasn’t said. And even then, good historians don’t make assumptions unless they find evidence for those assumptions elsewhere. Jephthah’s account during the time of Israel’s Judges tell us very gristly details about his life. However, those who jump the gun and make it out to be worse than it says aren’t doing history any favors.

What do we know about Jepthah?

Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, but he was the son of a harlot; and Gilead begot Jephthah.
Judges 11:1 (NKJV)

Then Jephthah fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tob; and worthless men banded together with Jephthah and went out raiding with him.
Judges 11:3 (NKJV)

Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them; and Jephthah spoke all his words before the Lord in Mizpah.
Judges 11:11 (NKJV)

Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
Judges 11:29-31 (NKJV)

And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Hebrews 11:32-34 (NKJV)

From the Old and New Testament, Jephthah is made out to be a man who trusted and was used by God. The accounts of embarrassment make the history out to be more reliable by mentioning that Jephthah was an illegitimate child and exiled by his own family. He sent his early days using his skills as a warrior among bandits (worthless men). And the most significant, he promised to make a burnt offering to the Lord if He gave him victory over the Ammonites oppressing Israel. And of all the things that the New Testament takes away from his life, it was his faith that enables him to turn to flight the armies of aliens (foreign invaders). There is no mention of his daughter as something he did right or that should be modeled. That is the first key in this conversation.

What do we know about Jephthah’s Daughter?

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.
Judges 11:34 (NKJV)

So she said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.” Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.” So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
Judges 11:36-39 (NKJV)

This is the beginning and end of it. She was Jephthah’s only child. She went through the door her father swore he would offer to the Lord as a burnt offering. She spent two months mourning her virginity. And she never was married. There is no mention of her being thrown on a pyre or even dying. And given the fact that details about her father’s history with criminals or being the child of a prostitute are mentioned, the absence of this information is telling.

What do we know about the time Jephthah was living in?

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:25 (NKJV)

If there was ever a time in Israel’s history where we told up front that what took place during this time was wrong until we’re told otherwise, it was the time of the Judges. Those who would argue that Jephthah actually committed human sacrifice would not be able to conclude that it was a good thing biblically. The only thing commended about Jephthah’s life was him delivering Israel from the Ammonites. And we aren’t given a single positive example of human sacrifice being something God is honored by. This goes all the way back to Genesis 22 where Abraham is stopped from offering Isaac and from that establishes a prohibition on that form of sacrifice in Israel.

What happened to Jephthah’s Daughter?

And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
Judges 11:39 (NKJV)

This is the only thing we’re told at the end of the matter. She never had a child. That was the form the “sacrifice” took. Those who would argue that this involved more than abstinence and a commitment to singleness need to focus entirely on Judges 11:31. In any context, it is inappropriate to form conclusions on how something happened before you finish reading what happened. Because the account itself says nothing more, we shouldn’t read into the matter anything more than what we’re told. Those that argue that this was an example of human sacrifice do have their reasons, but not in a way that would set a godly example for anyone going forward due to the setting and later mentions of the passage itself.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Follow us on our social media platforms!

Is Beauty Proof of God’s Existence?

Does Communion Heal?

Is Annihilationism Biblical?

Are Aborted Children Better Off From A Christian Perspective?

What Happened to Jephthah’s Daughter?

What are you looking for?

Online Morning Devotional – Weekdays at 9 A.M. with Beau

Need Counseling?

Our Church Location

Service Times

Office Hours of Operation

Meet our Pastor

What We Believe

watch & Listen Live!