Deconstructing the Unbeliever’s Objections to the Gospel
I. Answering objections lodged against the goodness of God.
“Hell is unjust.” When Jesus judges the world (Acts 17:30-31; Jn 5:21-23); the truth of the Gospel’s urgency will become completely evident—that truth being that the One who will judge is the same One who died—that His death for sinners is offered to sinners now. Therefore, those sinners who reject Christ cannot complain of unfairness when God does not apply the benefit of that death to them (in forgiveness). “Please understand that those who reject God’s offer of life and forgiveness in Christ don’t want God’s offer to make sense” ( Persuasions, Douglas Wilson, pp. 33-34). “The angry God” (is hell just?). Christianity seems to be built around the concept of a condemning, judgmental deity. For example, there's the cross — the teaching that the murder of one man (Jesus) leads to the forgiveness of others. But why can't God just forgive us? The God of Christianity seems a left-over from primitive religions where peevish gods demanded blood in order to assuage their wrath.
A brief response: On the cross God does not demand our blood but offers his own. All forgiveness of any deep wrong and injustice entails suffering on the forgiver's part. If someone truly wrongs you, because of our deep sense of justice, we can't just shrug it off. We sense there's a 'debt.' We can then either, a) make the perpetrator pay down the debt you feel (as you take it out of his hide in vengeance!) in which case evil spreads into us and hardens us, or, b) you can forgive – but that is enormously difficult. But that is the only way to stop the evil from hardening us as well.
If we can't forgive without suffering (because of our sense of justice) it’s not surprising to learn that God couldn't forgive us without suffering — coming in the person of Christ and dying on the cross.
“What about those in Africa who have never heard?” (Justice of God)
People are not condemned because they have never heard. They are condemned already—people are not condemned for what they don’t know—but for what they do know (Rom 1:18-23; 2:12-16). Sin is to people what water is to a fish, their familiar medium, a terminal disease. The death and resurrection of Christ is the only solution.
“If God is good; then why is there suffering?
“You seem to say that man is basically good even when he rebels against God’s law.” “Your objection suggests that God has a moral problem because He doesn’t wave a wand over the consequences of man’s ongoing disobedience.” “That certainly presents a contradiction—to think that man is basically good though he is the direct cause of these sorts of problems related to suffering.”
“Christianity teaches the existence of an all-powerful, all-good and loving God. But how can that belief be reconciled with the horrors that occur daily? If there is a God, he must be either all-powerful but not good enough to want an end to evil and suffering, or he's all-good but not powerful enough to bring an end to evil and suffering. Either way the God of the Bible couldn't exist.” For many people, this is not only an intellectual conundrum but also an intensely personal problem. Their own personal lives are marred by tragedy, abuse, and injustice. If God himself has suffered our suffering isn't senseless. First, if you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn't stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have to (at the same moment) have a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue temporarily, that you can't know. (You can't have it both ways.) Second, though we don't know the reasons why he allows it to continue, he can't be indifferent or un-caring, because the Christian God (unlike the gods of all the other religions) takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he is willing to get involved with it himself. On the cross, Jesus suffered with us.
II. Answering objections which arise from the nature of reality (from G. Koukl).
Q. 1 -- Why is there an absolute moral law in the first place? Today’s audience does not know who God is, or what went wrong. God’s plotline is told through verifiable events in history (1500 years). Every question of ‘why’ means there are reasons for the way things are. The ethical nature of all of life argues for a moral Lawgiver, which is why there is accountability (‘ought’), and moral consequences. God is the Author of life. Sin is defined by who God is in relation to sin (p. 14). Every question of ‘why’ means there are reasons for the way things are.
Q. 2 -- If chance and the impersonal are ultimate; you won’t be able to get reasons for the way things are (you will ‘normalize’ everything—holocausts, leprosy, victims). Contrast to Hinduism (monism, maya, an undifferentiated illusory reality). Theism is the opposite of the impersonal and chance, how can the two be an adequate cause of personality and order? (pp. 16-17).
Q. 3 -- Can the unbeliever give an account for the existence of good and evil? Are they normal? Note ‘eternity in our hearts’—we can’t be satisfied with a finite material integration point (Eccl 3:11). Why do you press for the relief of suffering and inequality if these two are the great engines of evolution? (p. 21).
Q. 4 -- Why is only a religious person branded a ‘bigot’ and not an atheist—both think their beliefs are true? Q. Do you believe that your beliefs about reality are
accurate? What ‘scales’ would weigh your worldview? Every religion and every
philosophy tells a story of reality (attempts to explain everything: why evil, death,
suffering, etc.). The five beats of Christian worldview are: creation, fall, law,
redemption, and restoration. (Why Communism and Socialism have never worked.)
Cruelty nobility = image of God, yet terribly fallen (pp. 24-25).
Q. 5 -- How did the world get broken, what went wrong? 1) Christianity is the story of how the world began, 2) why it is the way it is, 3) what role we play in the drama, and 4) how the plotlines of the story are resolved in the end. Q. Why can’t the atheist answer “what is wrong with the world?” Christianity addresses why things are so messed up. And addresses evil as a huge biblical theme. ‘Broken’ implies a non-broken standard. The atheist has no basis for a standard of ‘not wrong’ (pp. 34-35). Relativism’s quandary: “True,” is not true to me, but true to reality. One’s answer quickly reveals whether one sees the world as ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’. There is a hunger to return to civility, but Christianity was the source of civility. If a perfect society is gained by utopian engineering, then you have a faulty anthropology (see Mt 15:19)—you don’t understand man’s fallen condition (see origins of constitutionalism). The absence of knowing God’s plot will always yield a fragmented worldview (ask the unbeliever the 4 questions above) (pp. 28-30).
Q. 6 – Why must we examine why a belief is not necessarily truth. Q. Why can’t self be the fixed point of reference? If self is the fixed point of reference, one sentences oneself to relativism (all is relative to you, the individual). So, if you are but a particle of dust in a massive chance universe, then you are immersed in a sea of brute facts (therefore you can’t predicate—no basis of foundation for predicating an absolute statement). One cannot truly make an absolute statement without an Absolute Person (without God, all you have are supposed ‘experts’—99.999999% of phenomena are beyond your observation). Creator God is the only absolute, infallible, non-relativistic, authoritative reference point—all the facts are in for God. Highest we can go is think God’s thoughts after Him (Newton, Boyle, Kepler, et al). One cannot have a sense of ‘oughtness’ without an absolute reference point that is both absolute and personal and authoritative (secular alternative, ‘government is God’—statism.) (pp. 32-33).
Q. 7 -- How significant is the fact that God owns all things? Q. Why is this Q. joined
to all other questions? Your life exists for God’s plan. God placed DNA upon dust,
breathed life into it—this has to be our starting place for knowledge. Our longings for
an immutable family can only be answered when we are home with God. Created to
be social beings. God as our Father of an immutable family (new covenant Name) is
joined to the meaning of God as refuge (places believers in a ‘forever family’) The
Kingdom will be glorious and beautiful (‘come home forever’ to God will answer
perfectly all of our family hunger). We are created for God’s Kingdom, that is what we
are actually hungering for. The love, joy, security, order, glory, and structure of an
immutable family. No wonder then, people are surprised by unhappiness,
disillusionment, depression, discouragement—these are symptoms of believing that
the story is about us, instead of about God. (pp. 44-47).
Q. 8 -- Do non-physical things have real existence? Q. Why can’t empiricism give us transcendentals and their source (note the elements in the ‘sacred canopy’—Peter Berger—truth, beauty, morality, justice, love, order, logic, etc.)? Unbeliever lives as if the transcendentals are real (schizophrenic to grab both.) Our hunger for immutable family is hunger for His Kingdom: God for us; God with us, unchanging. (EX. Amazon tribe and marriage and penalty for adultery (Ibid.).
Q. 9 -- Why is it absurd to say that the cosmos made itself? God is the great uncaused first cause. Only God was there at creation. God is defined by His separateness and transcendence, whereas philosophic naturalism affirms that something in the cosmos, made the cosmos. How absurd, for in reality the Maker controls matter, matter doesn’t make the Maker—He must be greater than the creation. Absurdity: cosmos made itself; made man; made God (the height of arrogance) (pp. 50-52).
Q. 10 -- What is missing in a world of only matter? See list: 1) no moral culpability, 2) no moral free agency or free will.) If one believes that there is only matter, he must conclude that he is pushed around by natural laws, and that he is totally determined by nature. (See reductionism/determinism as the result if chance and impersonalism are ultimate.) If all is only matter, how do you get meaning? Philosophic naturalism yields selfism, and nihilism (for by PN reasoning, you are consubstantial with anything divine in the cosmos). Ideas have consequences (crime, holocausts). Q. Why do ideas have consequences such as holocausts if they are only social constructs? (pp. 53-55).
Q. 11 -- What has gone wrong with the world? We all have a deep concern that the
world is not right—not the way it is supposed to be. But, this argues strongly for a
proper goal (telos)—that there has been a vast deviation from the goal (telos)—which
is why the world is not right. The world’s great problems cannot be addressed by
mind-ism, or by matter-ism, for neither deal with goal (telos). What a platform of
talking points! Materialism = yields no ideas (pp. 63-64).
Q. 12 -- Why is Darwinism a kind of theology? ‘Matter-ism’ is a kind of theology with
an anthropology of man as a cog—stuck in, or locked in determinism. But no man lives
consistent with this theology. Man’s innate value as the image of God is inseparable
from the concept of inalienable rights. If man is a biological robot, or coincidence of
nature has no inalienable rights, no basis for culpability (to be consistent, one’s
individual behavior is tied to his predisposition found in his cell chemistry).
Q. 13 -- If man is but a biological machine, then where is ‘ought’ or moral obligation?
Q. If nothing outside of man defines him why not pattern social behavior after
natural selection (‘might makes right’ was the philosophy of the Roman Empire)?
Vishal Mangalwadi notes that once Christianity spread in Europe, the ideal of strength
changed from a Roman Centurion to a serving Savior). Only Christian worldview shows
that man’s dignity is innate. Erroneous worldviews cannot explain or give an account
of innate human dignity. Materialists only have a qualitative, quantitative, capacity-oriented, utilitarian view of human dignity (pp. 68-72).
Q. 14 -- Is morality a ruse (or survival trick/strategy) of our selfish genes? If so, one cannot fault nature—there is no objective good or evil. Show them the implications! Q. What would consistency be in keeping with these ideas? ANS. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. If morality is only pragmatics you will get holocausts. Q. Are humans just victims of determinism? Eliminate the transcendent, then everything is relative. Thus, the hunger for a transcendent reference point causes man to absolutize something that is non-transcendent, always resulting in a catastrophe (why?). It produces an idol, a false idea and/or something in the creation, invests it with divine attributes. When speaking; get them involved—speak it to one another in their own words (pp. 76-79).
Q. 15 -- Is the real world the kind of world described by your story (of origins, etc.)? Our built-in creational worth and dignity is the basis for rights and moral obligation toward one another. Q. Why was the world’s entrance into brokenness caused by the rebellion in choosing the philosophy of the ‘sovereign self’—the offer of autonomy—everything is about ‘me’? (when we thought the plot was about us instead of God). Note: in this moral universe, sin has built into its rebellion countless consequences which are the product of sin (blindness, increasing self-deception, self-worship, rebellion, hardness/callousness, slavery, addiction, shame, denial, defiance, degradation, dissolution, fragmentation, madness, condemnation, etc.) (pp. 81-84).
Q. 16 -- Is God obligated to prevent evil? He is not. Getting rid of God does not solve
the problem of the brokenness of the world (it does nothing to explain it or repair it).
Note that evil is the radical misuse of freedom and liberty—the freedom and liberty
granted by God. Q. Why do unbelievers think He is obligated? God’s desire to share
Himself shapes so much of our theology. It is why He made in His image; that tells us
so much about why we exist and who we are. We were created with real moral
freedom and liberty. We don’t really know who we are until we know who we are
created to reflect. (Seriousness of a flawed starting point.) (pp. 87-94).
Q. 17 -- Why do skeptics insist that Jesus was a mythical figure? Jesus is a man of history not of folklore. There is no prima facia evidence that Jesus was a myth. Will Durant, author of The Story of Civilization, notes that Jesus was a true man of history. Christ’s life is recorded by eyewitnesses and witnesses of eyewitnesses (pp. 101-103). See Christ’s claims of deity from the book of John (Mt 26:63-66; Jn 5:18; 10:33; 16:28; 19:7). Jesus was crucified for who He said He was. The Jesus of the Bible is not the Jesus of the cults, of Islam, of the New Age, or the social justice movement. He raised the value of women and children, but did not come to accomplish social justice. Jesus crossed all class boundaries. Jesus was popular, but divisive. He exposed sin. Following Jesus brings hardship, not prosperity. There is no knowledge of God without the fear of God and without forgiveness from God (pp. 107-127).
Q. 18 -- Why was a guilt exchange necessary for our rescue? The necessity of the guilt exchange Christ accomplished explains why there is only one way to God (exclusivism). Broken people with guilt, condemned, living in a broken world need a Rescuer. Luke’s prologue shows Christ’s identity in association with historic evidence (context for trust in Luke’s gospel). Trusting Christ involves moral trust—fiducia. There is an immense difference between rational and irrational trust. Christ promised liberty to those who trust Him. Faith in a placebo fails. Faith in Christ is inseparable from obeying Christ (pp. 133-139). There is no evidence of bias by biblical authors. Scripture gives us the accessibility of the facts surrounding the resurrection. There is no dispute about the record of the empty tomb. The theories of hallucination, or hoax completely conflict with the fact that the disciples knew that their testimony of the resurrection would result in their persecution (pp. 146-152).
Q. 19 -- Why would inconceivably sophisticated design be a ‘miracle’ in a chance universe? In a chance universe, incredible design would actually be an inexplicable ‘miracle’. Atheists and skeptics assert that there is nothing miraculous about DNA, but they reject that Christ could raise the dead. Q. Were Christ’s miracles fact or fiction? Theologies are defined by a set of historical facts (pp. 143-145).
Q. 20 -- Why is the question of evil is dealt with so frequently in Scripture? The intrusion of evil is part of the story, history’s plotline. We started with a right world that is now wrong. God has told us His will (all agree that if everyone obeyed the Ten Commandments, we would have a harmonious world). Only the God-man can fix the problem of evil—He is uniquely qualified to do so—only the God-man can make the repair. Why? See substitution, guilt exchange and transfer. Human rebellion broke into this world—this is why we have tribulation in this world. Since all of us are rebels under divine condemnation, the plotline of God will end with the dispensing of perfect justice or perfect mercy—nothing in between (pp. 153-156).
Q. 21 -- What is the biblical solution to evil? Note the great historic question, “How
shall evil be restrained?” Human sin demands that a certificate of death be issued to
all and that our deeds be recorded and read from God’s book. God’s plotline: God’s
judgment is coming and Christ’s mercy is coming. Sin against God Himself can only be
answered by a Rescuer. God is the source of all light, life, good, love and purpose.
Reprobates will be cast out forever because they have rejected their created purpose
of connection with God who is light, love, truth. The horror of endless hell is
inseparable from the truth that the image of God cut off from God will always exist
(the loss of God is the loss of all light, life, love, joy, and meaning). Q. How can
Christians assert that hell is not vindictive, or not punitive petulance? Hell is the
consequence of rejecting our created purpose. Separation and alienation from God is
ethical in its cause—only biblical theism teaches this. All other religions see the
problem of separation as metaphysical, and not moral, that is why false religions
create their own means of mediation with the divine (pp. 157-164) (EX. mummies).
Q. 22 – Why should we be concerned with the ‘why’? Your worldview/theology is your answer to the ‘why’—the ‘why’ of the way things are. There are reasons for the way things are—your ‘reasons’ comprise your picture of reality. Unlike other stories, God’s story requires His self-revelation—because His infallible perspective is foreign to us. Yet, because we are made in His image and have departed from our created purpose, His self-revelation touches the things we know deeply in our hearts. We know something is terribly wrong. Our rebellion broke friendship with God—we now misuse our freedom and liberty. Q. How do we find our story in God’s story? The brokenness of the world, and the uniqueness of Jesus are connected in the story. The story reveals how humans went bad—caused the world to go bad, and how both are only fixed by God (why Christ came to earth). God’s mark upon us as humans (His image) is the key to our purpose and worth. Christ came not for social justice, but to make the trade (the exchange). His work in the guilt exchange purchased our pardon—the basis of our repenting of our rebellion. We find our story in God’s story— reconciliation is restored friendship with God—restoration to purpose. We bow the knee to Him and are adopted by Him (pp. 173-177). In our broken realm, our hunger for an immutable family is really a hunger for the Kingdom. Because of being immersed in a broken world, it is easier to envision aspects of hell than it is heaven. The absolute purity of the eternal state is a great part of its bliss—perfect conformity to Christ, perfect goodness, tears dried by God Himself. It is hard for us to picture a burden-free existence. Reunion is part of the joy to come in heaven. Our hunger for a perfect family (immutable), for another world is actually a foretaste of what is to come. We cry at weddings because a family is forming; at funerals because a family has come apart. These tears are evidence of our hunger for an immutable family (pp. 165-171).
III. Answering objections concerning hypocrisy in religion.
“Christianity cannot be true if there are so many ‘Christian’ hypocrites.” “Every religion will have its hypocrites of course. But it seems that the most fervent Christians are the most condemning, exclusive, and intolerant. The church has a history of supporting injustices, of destroying culture, of oppression. And there are so many people who are not Christian (or not religious at all) who appear to be much more kind, caring, and indeed moral than so many Christians. If Christianity is the true religion — then why can this be? Why would so much oppression have been carried out over the centuries in the name of Christ and with the support of the church?”
A brief response: The solution to injustices is not less, but deeper Christianity. There have been terrible abuses. But in the prophets and the gospels we are given tools for a devastating critique of moralistic religion. Scholars have shown that Marx and Nietzsche's critique of religion relied on the ideas of the prophets. So despite its abuses, Christianity provides perhaps greater tools than the other religions do for its own critique. When Martin Luther King, Jr. confronted terrible abuses by the white church he did not call them to loosen their Christian commitments. He used the Bible's provision for church self-critique and called them to truer, firmer, deeper Christianity.
“What do hypocrites have to do with biblical Christianity?” “Does the mere existence of counterfeit 20 dollar bills eliminate the existence of genuine 20 dollar bills? Hypocrites are like counterfeit 20 dollar bills—their existence testifies that the genuine does exist.
We could compare this to two teams—one in submission to God and one not in submission. This provides insight into what God thinks of hypocrisy. Hypocrites have refused to join the team that is in submission to God. “Therefore is it rational to say that you will have nothing to do with God because of hypocrites?” “Is that fair?” Christians are in a ‘no win’ situation in regard to the world. If they permit hypocrisy in the church—they are phonies. If they discipline hypocrites—they are self-righteous fundamentalists. The Church is not a ‘rest home’ for saints; it is a ‘hospital’ for sinners. “I don’t trust any organized religion; I prefer to run my own life.” “Do you know where morality comes from?” “Your personal concern for ethics it not a result of the properties of physical matter; your morality is evidence that you are made in the image of God.” “A person’s belief system inescapably reflects that they are created in God’s image.” “Their belief system will either manifest submission to God’s plan; or revolt against God’s plan.” “Do you have a reason for rebelling against God?” “What are your reasons for saying the God of the Bible does not exist?” “All you really have is unsupported presuppositions—you really have no reason to speak of God’s existence in one way or another.” I want people to say out loud that they have no reason to defy God; and that they defy Him anyway. I want people to ponder their sins. If people have no reason to defy God; then their rebellion must be elsewhere. As soon as a person brings up the subject of morality, suffering, evil, and injustice—they are presupposing that a just God exists (Wilson, pp. 45-48).
IV. Answering objections to the exclusivity of the gospel. What about the other religions? “Christians seem to greatly over-play the differences between their faith and all the other ones. Though millions of people in other religions say they have encountered God, have built marvelous civilizations and cultures, and have had their lives and characters changed by their experience of faith, Christians insist that only they go to heaven — that their religion is the only one that is 'right' and true. The exclusivity of this is breath taking. It also appears to many to be a threat to international peace.”
A brief response: Inclusivism is really covert exclusivism. It is common to hear people say: "No one should insist their view of God better is than all the rest. Every religion is equally valid." But what you just said could only be true if: First, there is no God at all, or second, God is an impersonal force that doesn't care what your doctrinal beliefs about him are. So as you speak you are assuming (by faith!) a very particular view of God and you are pushing that is better than the rest! That is at best inconsistent, and at worst hypocritical, since you are doing the very thing you are forbidding. To say "all religions are equally valid" is itself a very white, Western view based in the European enlightenment's idea of knowledge and values. Why should that view be privileged over anyone else's?
“The unreliable Bible; hasn’t it been proven merely manmade?” “It seems impossible any longer to take the Bible as completely authoritative in the light of modern science, history, and culture. Also we can't be sure what in the Bible's accounts of events is legendary and what really happened. Finally, much of the Bible's social teaching (for example, about women) is socially regressive. So how can we trust it scientifically, historically, and socially?”
A brief response: The four Gospels' form precludes their being legends. The Biblical gospels are not legends but historically reliable accounts about Jesus' life. Why? Their timing is far too early for them to be legends. The gospels, however, were written 30-60 years after Jesus' death – and Paul's letters, which support all the accounts, came just 20 years after the events. Their content is far too counter-productive to be legends. The accounts of Jesus crying out that God had abandoned him, or the resurrection where all the witnesses were women, did not help Christianity in the eyes of first century readers. The only historically plausible reason that these incidents are recorded is that they happened.
The 'offensiveness' of the Bible is culturally relative. Texts you find difficult and offensive are 'common sense' to people in other cultures. And many of the things you find offensive because of your beliefs and convictions, many will seem silly to your grandchildren just as many of your grandparents' beliefs offend you. Therefore, to simply reject any Scripture is to assume your culture (and worse yet, your time in history) is superior to all others. It is narrow-minded in the extreme.
“The Bible is fallible because it was written by men.” “You speak as if the passage of time had the power to dispel truth.” “The Word of God does not cease to be true because people fall into skepticism and unbelief over time.” “Do you automatically distrust people who wrote within the framework of their culture?” “Why don’t you mistrust modern scholars for the same reason? Do you really think that modern scholars have transcended their culture?” Eyewitnesses, and eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses (see Luke the physician’s prologue). Biblical writers had the courage to challenge the culture they grew up in with the Word of God when they saw that rebuke was needed. Jesus asked a question of the scholars of His day, “How can you believe when you receive praise from one another?” (Jn 5:44). The scholars of Jesus’ day loved to quote each other; but they didn’t know God. “Was Jesus opposing scholarship?” “No, He was opposing ignorance disguised as knowledge.”
Likewise, the Bible believing Christian is not rejecting scholarship; he is rejecting everything that rebels against God. By means of God’s revelation in Christ and the Word, God has laid the wisdom of the world in the grave. According to 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, the destruction of the world’s wisdom is God’s ‘public’ purpose.
“Do you believe that Christians (as described in the Bible) exist—that there are people set apart by God for Himself who are living in the world today?” “If you say, ‘No’—then you can’t complain that unbelievers are excluded from being ‘heavenbound’—because they deny the Lord who died for sinners.” “Having rejected God’s only source of life and forgiveness; they set their face to travel the road of life toward the Abyss having refused the way back to God.” “Jesus said that God has the power to make ‘pastors out of rocks!’ (Luke 19:40)—but, in order to make Christians, He sent His Son to die.” (Wilson, pp. 38-40).
“You may trust the Bible; but I trust human reason.” “If you reject ‘fairy tales,’ then why do you borrow from them?” “Your reply is, ‘No,’ my philosophy is built on human reason—but, how can chaos, time, and chance produce reason?” “When you see a chemical reaction, you don’t think whether it is true or false—it just is.” “According to you, my Christian beliefs are just a chemical reaction inside my head—and your beliefs likewise are just a different chemical reaction in your head.” “Therefore, why do you think that they are true?” “You’re borrowing reason from theism to argue your case.” “I believe in God that I may maintain my reason—for apart from His rationality there is only absurdity and irrationality (Eph 4:17-19).” “God doesn’t depend on reason; reason depends upon Him.” “If reason flows from nature (matter and motion); then you’re going to get nihilism (human meaninglessness)—a philosophy in which anything goes—so why try to be consistent?” (Wilson, pp.43-44).
“The Bible is capable of being interpreted hundreds of ways; its message is unclear.” Would 100 people come up with 100 interpretations? Is the variable with the Bible, or with the men? So, should we say that men are not to be trusted because they come up with so many interpretations? What puzzles me is that those who are so vocal about so many interpretations continue to trust those who are the source of the problem—they trust in men, not in God. “Your alleged objection of ‘too many interpretations’ is not a real problem.” “Stay close to the Bible is the solution—the Bible’s internal promise of clarity is made to those who study its contents with diligence” (2 Tim 2:15).
“Isn’t the Bible merely a book of moral advice?” Christianity is not ‘good advice’—it is a relationship with the Creator of the universe. Christ came to earth to reconcile rebels back to God (2 Cor 5:18-21). Our earthly relationships demonstrate that we are self-centered instead of being focused on God and others. There must be a new creation produced by God’s Spirit (2 Cor 5:17). (Wilson, pp. 51-64). “It is closed-minded to preach absolutes. My relativism proves I’m still open-minded.” Zen-Buddhism seeks to break out of rational categories by meditating on one hand clapping. “But, why be enlightened if nothing matters?” “Why seek ‘enlightenment’ if ought and ought not are part of the illusion?” “Am I trapped by Western rationalism and logic because I put everything into categories?” “When you say one thing is not another, you are making distinctions” “There is no escaping from the way God has made the world.” “The world is governed by the inescapable principle of non-contradiction (logic).”
V. Answering objections against the source and authority of absolute morality. “Christianity is an ethical straitjacket (moral absolutism).” “In Christianity the Bible and the church dictate everything that a Christian must believe, feel, and do. Christians are not encouraged to make their own moral decisions, or to think out their beliefs or patterns of life for themselves. In a fiercely pluralistic society there are too many options, too many cultures, too many personality differences for this approach. We must be free to choose for ourselves how to live — this is the only truly authentic life. We should only feel guilty if we are not being true to ourselves — to our own chosen beliefs and practices and values and vision for life.”
A brief response: Individual creation of truth removes the right to moral outrage. Aren't there any people in the world who are doing things you believe are wrong that they should stop doing no matter what they believe inside about right and wrong? Then you do believe that there is some kind of moral obligation that people should abide by and which stands in judgment over their internal choices and convictions. So what is wrong with Christians doing that?
No one is really free anyway. We all have to live for something, and whatever our ultimate meaning in life is (whether approval, achievement, love relationship, or work) is basically our lord and master. Everyone is ultimately in a spiritual straitjacket. Even the most independent people are dependent on their independence and so can't commit. Christianity gives you a lord and master who forgives and dies for you.
VI. Answering objections from LGBT which are accusatory toward believers.
See separate document.
CONCLUSION: 1 Peter 3:15-16 and the evangelistic mission of Christ’s church. Our evangelistic efforts joined with solid Christian apologetics ought to be governed by what is enjoined in this passage: “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet 3:15-16).
Our task as Christian evangelists is not to refute every objection raised by those engaged in futile thinking; for we will not be able to answer to their satisfaction. Rebellious sinners who oppose the knowledge of God will continue to scoff, right up until the Day of Judgment (2 Pet 3). Our calling as believers is to bear witness to the truth with meekness and with the reverential fear of Christ in our hearts.
We ought to be encouraged that the gospel is a small enough mesh ‘fishing net’ that it will, by God’s power, catch every elect person (Jn 6:37-39). Those who are among Christ’s sheep will hear His voice in the Word, the gospel. And, apart from the regenerating work of God’s Spirit, you will not be able to make unbelievers understand. There is no knowledge of God, or wisdom concerning God apart from the fear of God (Prov 1:7).
Our Creator is also a just Judge who enforces moral cause and effect and will not leave the wicked unpunished. “The integrity of the upright will guide them, but the crookedness of the treacherous will destroy them. Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death. The righteousness of the blameless will smooth his way, but the wicked will fall by his own wickedness. The righteousness of the upright will deliver them, but the treacherous will be caught by their own greed. When a wicked man dies, his expectation will perish, and the hope of strong men perishes” (Prov 11:3-7).
The evangelical thrust of this story (finding your story in God’s story):
- We agree with the unbeliever; the world is a mess.
- We state that to assert it is a mess, there must be a standard for order and harmony (where does that standard come from?).
- We share that any possible proposed solution to this problem-filled world will not come by getting rid of God. Mankind has proven that he cannot fix it.
- We share the message of a Rescuer—the God-man, the only One qualified to fix the problem.
- Christ preached a message of exclusivism—that He alone is the truth incarnate. As such, He is the divider of all men. To reject Him who is the truth is to remain excluded from the life of God.
- We defend an exclusive gospel (exclusivism) by proclaiming how Christ, the God-man fixes evil. He does so by an exchange. He as the Law-giver, takes on the sin of the law-breaker. Only this guilt-transfer can bring about the solution. He came to destroy the works of the devil.
- Christ’s mission to accomplish this guilt exchange reveals the God whom we do not know due to our sin and rebellion. Christ’s work of substitution and guilt-transfer reveals that God is just and merciful—both loving and wrathful (both compassionate and holy).
- By responding to Christ in total trust and repentance, a person is reconciled to God and receives a new heart capable of understanding how human longings are met in God, by His love and Fatherhood, and His Kingdom.