Additional Articles on Defending The Faith

Also See

There May be More Than One Way to God
Jesus Christ may not be the only way to God. In fact there is proof from the Scriptures that Jesus Himself spoke of a different way.

Am I Going to Hell? (Below)

********************

Christians have to be able to communicate to the rest of the world. We've got to be able to make coherent sense of our message, even before we demonstrate that our message is actually true..

A consistent theme of this show is how critically important it is for us to have a foundational understanding about what Christianity is about. Most of us who have been in the church for a while know a few things: God loves us. Jesus forgives our sins. Unless you believe in Jesus you're going to Hell. We can have a relationship with God. We have these scattered bits of theological facts, but what we don't often have is an understanding of how it all fits together.

I was wondering today what could be more important for the church than what I'm about to talk about? If I could have my way, if I could dream up a certain consequence for the church, if I could have one thing be true, what would that thing be? I would want for the church in this day and age to simply have a clear understanding of what Christianity is about.

A conversation that I had with a gentleman yesterday evening at the retreat was about a frustration that he was confronting with a young lady and a young man who was her boyfriend. The young lady was a Christian, the young man was not a Christian. You can imagine what the first frustration is, right? What's this committed Christian doing with a non-Christian in a relationship? That's forbidden by the Bible, and for very good reason. 2 Corinthians 5 or 6, "Do not be unequally yoked with non-believers." That is, don't be tied together with them in a vital way because when you have two oxen pulling the same plow in different directions one is going to be pulled off the furrow by the other. And Paul's concern is that the Christian will be pulled off by the non-Christian, so he says don't even get in the same plow with a non-believer, and certainly not a personal, intimate relationship. Boyfriend/girlfriend is an example of that. And I don't have to spell out why, I hope.

There's a practical consideration, as well, because you're just gonna drive each other nuts if you take seriously your Christianity, and that person takes seriously their non-Christianity. They are just two different worldviews, two ways of thinking about reality. In fact, in this relationship, there was conflict. The young lady is trying to make sense of Christianity to the young man and she is not able to do it because the substance of her Christianity is a feeling about God. Let's face it, when we talk about relationships, generally we are cashing this out in personal, subjectivistic, emotional terms.

When we read books, or have seminars, or listen to tapes or teachings that talk about improving our relationship with God, it is never about knowing something about God that we don't already know. It's always about some trick that makes us feel differently. Get closer to God, have this deep, personal, warm experience with God.

By the way, I'm not against having an emotional closeness to God. I just think it's the tail and not the dog. And to a great degree, we have the tail wagging the dog. My concern is that sometimes you have the tail wagging so hard that the dog disappears altogether. The dog is the truth of Christianity, the substance of what it is about. The Christian is the tail, not the dog. The feelings are the tail, not the dog. And relationship is the tail, if you're cashing it out in experiential terms, not the dog.

This young lady has a relationship with God in primarily subjective terms. What's the problem? She can't communicate the ineffable attributes of her relationship. And who can? I mean gentlemen, you love your wives, women you love your husbands. How do you explain that to somebody? You could say "I love them" but it is very difficult to communicate the subjective elements of a relationship. Once you feel it, you know it, and sometimes that's how we relate our relationship with God. You want to become a Christian? You've got to have the faith, then you feel it, you know it. When you really connect with God, then you really know what it is.

That was the best she could do, and her frustration is that she couldn't explain this deep feeling that she has for God. And her non-Christian boyfriend wants to make sense of her point of view. She wants him to become a Christian. "What does that mean?" "Well, I want you to believe in Jesus. Then you can have your sins forgiven, and you can go to Heaven. But if you don't believe, you're in big trouble." And he says, "That's Greek to me. That makes no sense. I don't even know how to comprehend the meaning of those words."

When we take little pieces out of the entire system, how can we expect people to understand Christianity? It's like saying, "You want to understand how a car works? Here, look at this carburetor." Even if you understood some things about the carburetor, you have know how the carburetor fits into the whole machine. When you understand the system, then they understand what we're saying. He's trying to get it, but he doesn't have the big picture to fit all the parts. The problem is that the young lady doesn't appear to have the parts, either. She has a part. She doesn't have the system. If she had the system, she could explain it.

We have two problems here. First of all, she is living in disobedience. I can understand if one is cashing out religious truth in experiential terms, it's very easy to move from one experience to another. She experiences a love relationship with God, and now she's experiencing a love relationship with this guy. They're kind of both love relationships and if the experience is what makes it valid. But if it is truth that is driving someone in their relationship with God and not experience, then it becomes pretty evident for somebody who has a marginal understanding of the text that there is a violation of truth in this relationship. There's a difference.

The core issue is a basic understanding of Christianity. The boyfriend has an honest question about Christianity. The gentleman I talked to last evening told me about spending three hours with the young man trying to lay it out for him because he didn't understand it.

Think about this just for a minute. When the non-believer asks "Why is Jesus the only way?" he's asking her to make her view coherent. He's asking her to tell the Christian story such that the idea that Jesus is the only way is a sensible idea. He's not even really asking her to prove that such a thing is actually true. That's a separate question. He's just trying to understand the view.

I am sympathetic to a non-believer who wants to know why Jesus is the only way; I am frustrated when a Christian wants to know why Jesus is the only way. The non-believer does not have the whole picture; the Christian is expected to understand the basic picture.

There's a new book out that is exceptionally well done. It's written by Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcy entitled How Now Shall We Live?, reminiscent of a title of a Schaffer book some 25 years ago. Of course, they revisit a lot of Schaffer's themes. If you are at all confused about what the big picture is, this is the book to get. Colson and Pearcy engage this question intelligently and they employ a very standard motif that consists of four areas: creation, fall, redemption and restoration. In a more popular sense, you can say: Where do we come from, what's wrong with us, how do you solve the problem, and then how do you put everything else right that has been hurt by the problem?

Do you realize that every worldview had to answer those questions? How you start will determine where you move from there. How you understand the nature of the problem will determine how you characterize the solution. If the problem is just ignorance, then the solution is education. If the problem is genetic error, then the solution is genetic manipulation. If the problem is sin, then the solution is forgiveness.

In the Christian worldview, God created a world, He's in charge, and He created human beings to have fellowship, companionship, and involvement with Him. Human beings are special in that regard, they are a higher order of creation. They have a capability that other creatures don't have: moral choice. They use this capacity that was meant for good for something evil and become rebels in God's kingdom. As rebels in God's kingdom, they become guilty of crimes against God and liable for punishment. That's our problem.

Many of you heard me tell the story before about the gentleman I met at Barnes and Noble giving a presentation on the book Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air that I co-authored with Frank Beckwith. I gave a presentation and started signing books and answering questions. A Jewish gentleman came up and said, "I just don't get it. Why do I have to believe in your Jesus? I've got my Judaism, I've got my belief in God. I try to lead a good life." To him that just made sense.

Do you understand that he has a picture of reality here? His picture of reality is that God exists and demands moral conduct. This gentleman is basically a good person so he's in on that view, but he doesn't understand why he's got to add some theological notion about Jesus to the equation. His view seems adequate. What the Christian has to do in answering his question is to go back to the foundation and show what's wrong with the foundation. In fact, I think people already know what's wrong with their foundation, they just haven't thought it through.

I offered him a couple of questions to help him see the difficulty with his foundation. I asked him two questions: Do you believe that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? He said, "Well, since I am a prosecuting attorney, yes, I guess so." "Great so do I." I agreed with him at that point.

Second question: Do you, have you, ever committed any moral crimes? Now it's a personal issue, right? What do you think he said? He said, "Yes, I guess I have." What do you think I said? "So have I. Now, here's where we've come so far. We both believe that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished, and we both believe that we've committed moral crimes. You know what I call that? Bad news."

There's a little wake-up call. Even by his own standards, he is not good enough. And this is where the cross comes in. We identify the problem, and we offer a solution that is adequate to the problem. Jesus is the only way because He is the one who has solved the problem. He is the one who died for sins. Buddha hasn't done that. Mohammed hasn't done that. Krishna hasn't done that. No other religious leader or world leader has done what Jesus has done. He is the medicine that cures the sickness. Even though there are other medicines out there, they are not adequate to the task.

This is the point that Christians have to be able to communicate to the rest of the world. We've got to be able to make coherent sense of our message, even before we demonstrate that our message is actually true.

This is what I wish upon the church, what I pray for the church: that we would have at least a foundational understanding of why Jesus is necessary. That ought to be a basic part of our Christian education. We should have at least an adequate understanding to be able to say clearly what Christianity is and what it's about before we even think about defending it to someone else.

     Am I Going to Hell?
Gregory Koukl

Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?

I talked in the past about the difficulty in clarifying our communication of the need for salvation. Frankly, to a lot of people the message of Christianity is not going to be palatable, but at least we can make it clear. It will not be the kind of thing they will be happy with. Yet, at the same time, there are things we can do that make it clearer and not inappropriately put stumbling blocks in people's way.

This is why I've often said that the Gospel is offensive enough all by itself. Don't add any more offense to it. But we should not take out the offense that is inherent to the Gospel, either. This is why we are not pluralists even though there is pressure to be pluralists or at least inclusivistic with the Gospel. At the same time, we don't want to communicate the exclusivity of Christ in such a way as to confound those people who are listening.

Christians often say, "if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven; if you don't believe in Jesus you go to Hell". Is that true? Well, it is true, but it doesn't communicate a sense of the true circumstance. It's not coherent to most people because it just seems bizarre why what one person thought about some guy who died 2000 years ago has anything to do with their eternal destiny. Whether they believe in him or not seems irrelevant to anything that might happen after we die. So we have often not been careful to communicate the sense of things.

We need to be clear so that someone rejects the real message and not some incoherent mess that some Christian has handed him that they can't make sense of. So, I don't say, "if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven, and if you don't believe you go to Hell," because this is misleading. I'd rather try to explain it more accurately.

Many of you are familiar with the conversation I had with a fellow at Barnes and Noble in which he asked me a question. I was giving a talk there as part of the book on relativism that Dr. Frank Beckwith and I co-authored, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Since I was talking about it in the bookstore, he came up afterwards and started asking questions about Jesus. Instead of unloading this slogan on him, I asked him this question. Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? He said, "Yes." I said, "Good, so do I." Second question, "Have you ever committed any moral crimes?" Pause. Then he said, "Yes, I guess I have." You know what I said to him? "So have I."

This just took 30 seconds, right? Then I reflected back to him, "Look where we've come so far. We both believe that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished. And we both believe we've committed moral crimes. You know what I call that? Bad news." And it is bad news.

Most people are concerned with doing what is right. That was one of the first things he told me. "I'm Jewish. I believe in morality. I believe in God. Why do I have to believe in your Jesus?" Here is a man who has some level of commitment to the moral life. The problem is, he knows that that commitment does not guarantee that he is going to live a fully moral life and he's aware of his own moral crimes. And so am I. Now what? That is the issue? We are guilty. That is the bad news.

This is why it is so important to get the bad news before the good news. The bad news gives meaning to the good news. I was able to talk about the fact that now we both admit we have a problem, but that there is a solution that God has ordained. Since He is the one who is offended, He is the one who can call the shots on how to fix the problem. The answer is through His Son Jesus, who provides mercy because he took the rap for our crimes. We got off. He went to jail. A modern metaphor to put it in perspective.

There at least is the sense of things about Jesus being the only way. I hear it even asked on TV. The question is often asked honestly, but I think most of the time it is asked for an inflammatory effect. The person who is asking the question is wording it very carefully because he knows precisely how the faithful evangelical Christian will respond. He is counting on it so that the Christian says something that sounds to the rest of the people to be bizarre. Therefore, they can discount what the Christian says.

I don't want you to sound bizarre when you answer the question I am about to offer. I want you to sound sensible. Here is the question. Do you think I am going to Hell? Now the only person who asks that is a person who thinks you think they're going to Hell. Ninety per cent of the time they would ask it because they think you are nuts and they want other people to think you are nuts, too. They want to get you to say in public that people who disagree with you are going to Hell so that you will look silly and they will look good. How do you deal with that?

The problem, of course, is, first of all, it's probably true they are going to Hell. Secondly, it doesn't communicate the sense of things and so it is misleading. The people who ask this are generally not criminals. It's going to be some nice guy who is basically good and sincere. You are in a tough spot. You are on the defensive already, you want to answer truthfully, but you know by giving a truthful answer you are going to play into his hands.

Jesus faced this frequently. He always got out of it, and I'm going to give you a way to get out. Answer the question truthfully and don't sound like an idiot. It doesn't mean everyone is going to believe you, fall at your feet, and want to receive Christ, but at least you will be able to give a proper and appropriate answer to those who ask you to make a defense for the hope that is within you (2 Peter 3:15). The answer is simply this.

When somebody says, "Do you think I am going to Hell?" and you think they are, you say something like, "Well, I believe in justice, do you?" "Yes." "What is justice but that people who are guilty get punished in an appropriate way to their guilt? I believe that people who are guilty pay for their crimes unless they have been pardoned."

This is very straightforward language. It fits entirely with our culture. It is terminology that has meaning immediately. It is also terminology that the person you are talking with not only is familiar with but they agree with the concept. We both believe the same thing here: justice. If you have committed any moral crimes, if you have done anything wrong, I think you will be punished for them unless you receive pardon. The punishment for moral crimes is Hell.

You are saying yes, I think you are going to Hell unless you receive Jesus. But you are putting it in terms that are making more sense to that individual. In fact, he has already affirmed the underlying concept, as well he should, because he believes in it.

Most people believe in justice. It is built in. It is part of their moral intuition, the image of God in man that is being expressed. They clamor for justice. There is a place for mercy, and pardon. We both agree. From God's perspective, if you have committed any moral crimes, then you are going to be punished for them. You'll only receive God's punishment if you are guilty of something. Are you guilty of anything? What is so controversial about that? Don't want to be punished? God has a means for a pardon. That is the whole point of our conversation. I don't want to be punished either. I want to experience a pardon.

See how that works? That's part of the tactical elements of communicating the knowledge truthfully.

Also See Christian Exclusivisim Explained and Defended

Defending The Faith

www.inplainsite.org