In this bulletin series we’ve been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This last week I want to look at the objection that Christianity cannot be true because there are so many people who have never heard of the Christian God. And surely they cannot go to hell, that would be unjust!
This objection fails to understand that all people everywhere know the truth about God. Creation itself speaks about the existence of God: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (Psalm 19:1-4)’. Creation speaks about God’s existence in a way that defies all language and geographical boundaries.
So because everyone knows about God, no one is without excuse for refusing to worship him. Paul tells us this quite clearly: ‘For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:20-21)’. So it is right and just of God to send all people everywhere to hell for not worshipping him. They know he exists, but they suppress the truth about him and refuse to worship him.
So why do Christians tell people about God if all creation speaks about him. Because the general revelation about God in creation is not sufficient to save anyone. People will consistently reject God if only exposed to knowledge about him from creation. But if they hear about God and salvation from sin through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross, then they can be saved. This is what Paul means when he says: ‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?’ (Romans 10:14). If anyone is to be saved from being justly sent to hell, they need someone to tell them the good news contained in the Bible, which is God’s special revelation.
Have you believed in God because you have heard God’s voice in creation but also in the Bible?
Joel Radford.
Showing posts with label objections to Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objections to Christianity. Show all posts
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Objection: The church is full of hypocrites
In this bulletin series we’ve been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christians are hypocrites and so Christianity should be rejected.
Hypocrisy is universally condemned. We naturally scorn those who claim to believe one thing, yet act in another way. And when we see a hypocrite’s hypocrisy we usually reject them and their beliefs. Jesus himself does this with the religious leaders of his day: ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to’ (Matthew 23:13).
Thus Christianity is often rejected because of the hypocrisy of its followers. One of the most common examples is sexual immorality. Christians teach against adultery, sex before marriage, homosexuality and paedophilia. Yet all these sins are often committed by people claiming to be Christians and therefore reveal hypocrisy.
However to reject Christianity because its people demonstrate hypocrisy is a failure to understand some core teachings of Christianity. Firstly, Christianity does not teach that all its followers are perfect and never make a single mistake. Rather Christians readily acknowledge that they are sinners, including hypocrites.
Secondly Christianity is not about putting your trust in sinful people. It is about putting your trust in the sinless one, Jesus Christ. To become a Christian you trust in Jesus’ death at the cross as the payment for your sins (including hypocrisy). If you think Christianity is about trusting in Christians, you will always be disappointed because they will invariably fail you. But Christ will never fail you if you trust him. Jesus is not a hypocrite, so you have no grounds to reject his religion.
Finally, a word of caution. If you are going to reject Christianity because of hypocrisy, you will have to reject every worldview. No religion is without its hypocrites and atheists are hypocritical as well. So you shouldn’t hold up a standard to Christianity that you don’t hold up to the rest of the world.
Do you reject Christianity because its followers are hypocrites, or do you recognise that you are a hypocrite too and flee to Christ?
Joel Radford.
Hypocrisy is universally condemned. We naturally scorn those who claim to believe one thing, yet act in another way. And when we see a hypocrite’s hypocrisy we usually reject them and their beliefs. Jesus himself does this with the religious leaders of his day: ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to’ (Matthew 23:13).
Thus Christianity is often rejected because of the hypocrisy of its followers. One of the most common examples is sexual immorality. Christians teach against adultery, sex before marriage, homosexuality and paedophilia. Yet all these sins are often committed by people claiming to be Christians and therefore reveal hypocrisy.
However to reject Christianity because its people demonstrate hypocrisy is a failure to understand some core teachings of Christianity. Firstly, Christianity does not teach that all its followers are perfect and never make a single mistake. Rather Christians readily acknowledge that they are sinners, including hypocrites.
Secondly Christianity is not about putting your trust in sinful people. It is about putting your trust in the sinless one, Jesus Christ. To become a Christian you trust in Jesus’ death at the cross as the payment for your sins (including hypocrisy). If you think Christianity is about trusting in Christians, you will always be disappointed because they will invariably fail you. But Christ will never fail you if you trust him. Jesus is not a hypocrite, so you have no grounds to reject his religion.
Finally, a word of caution. If you are going to reject Christianity because of hypocrisy, you will have to reject every worldview. No religion is without its hypocrites and atheists are hypocritical as well. So you shouldn’t hold up a standard to Christianity that you don’t hold up to the rest of the world.
Do you reject Christianity because its followers are hypocrites, or do you recognise that you are a hypocrite too and flee to Christ?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Objection: I can’t believe in God when I see so much suffering in the world
In this bulletin series we've been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that there is no God because there is horrible suffering in this world.
Many people object to God's existence because of the presence of evil and suffering. The objection suggests that if there was indeed an all-powerful god, like the God of Christianity, he would not let evil people cause suffering. This claim is often made in light of the atrocities that humans have been subjected to in the last century in World War II and under communist rulers. Or it may even be made because of personal suffering that the individual has known and has led them to reject God.
But such an argument is nonsensical. To make the claim that there is horrible suffering in the world is to make a moral claim. In other words, you are claiming that suffering is bad and not suffering is good. But upon what basis can you make that judgement if there is no God? If we are simply evolutionary products of chemicals mixed with other chemicals, then suffering is nothing more than a chemical reaction and is neither good or evil. Without God, if you murder somebody it is no different from turning a computer off. Both mixtures of atoms suddenly cease working the way they were previously working.
So in actual fact, when you condemn suffering in the world as a bad thing, you are actually providing proof that there is a God, not that there isn't a God. If there is no God, you cannot go around complaining about evil and suffering. If you do, you are not making any sense.
So instead of rejecting God and committing yet another evil, you should be embracing God. He is the one who will one day hold all evildoers to account for their actions: 'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad' (2 Corinthians 5:10). This is scary because you know that you have caused suffering in the lives of others. But thankfully in Jesus Christ there is forgiveness: 'everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins' (Acts 10:43).
Do you illogically reject God because of suffering? Or do you recognise your own sin and cry out for forgiveness?
Joel Radford.
Many people object to God's existence because of the presence of evil and suffering. The objection suggests that if there was indeed an all-powerful god, like the God of Christianity, he would not let evil people cause suffering. This claim is often made in light of the atrocities that humans have been subjected to in the last century in World War II and under communist rulers. Or it may even be made because of personal suffering that the individual has known and has led them to reject God.
But such an argument is nonsensical. To make the claim that there is horrible suffering in the world is to make a moral claim. In other words, you are claiming that suffering is bad and not suffering is good. But upon what basis can you make that judgement if there is no God? If we are simply evolutionary products of chemicals mixed with other chemicals, then suffering is nothing more than a chemical reaction and is neither good or evil. Without God, if you murder somebody it is no different from turning a computer off. Both mixtures of atoms suddenly cease working the way they were previously working.
So in actual fact, when you condemn suffering in the world as a bad thing, you are actually providing proof that there is a God, not that there isn't a God. If there is no God, you cannot go around complaining about evil and suffering. If you do, you are not making any sense.
So instead of rejecting God and committing yet another evil, you should be embracing God. He is the one who will one day hold all evildoers to account for their actions: 'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad' (2 Corinthians 5:10). This is scary because you know that you have caused suffering in the lives of others. But thankfully in Jesus Christ there is forgiveness: 'everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins' (Acts 10:43).
Do you illogically reject God because of suffering? Or do you recognise your own sin and cry out for forgiveness?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Objection: Everything is relative, there are no absolutes
In this bulletin series we’ve been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christianity is not true because everything is relative.
Christianity is built on absolutes. Christians believe in absolute truth. For example we believe ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve’ (1 Corinthians 15:3-5). Christians also believe in absolute morality. Some behaviours are always wrong and some behaviours are always right.
So it is not surprising that someone who claims that everything is relative rejects Christianity. Instead they claim that truths of the Bible were only true for certain people – thus Jesus resurrection is only true for Jews who had been socially conditioned to expect a Messiah who would be raised from the dead. And when it comes to absolute morality, they claim that no behaviour is immoral or moral in an objective sense. Rather behaviour is only immoral if an individual or culture considers it immoral.
But rejection of absolute truth by claiming that everything is relative is an illogical statement. It is in itself an absolute truth claim and so is self-defeating. In other words when someone claims that there are no absolute truths, they are holding an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.
And the rejection of absolute morality is also self-defeating. Because to make such a statement requires you to morally condemn anyone who does not consider all behaviour to be relative. The foolishness of rejecting absolute morality is also seen by the almost universal condemnation of certain behaviours. Pretty much everyone considers paedophilia to be morally wrong.
Thus to reject Christianity for making absolute truth claims is groundless. Everybody makes absolute truth claims, not just Christianity. The trouble is that relativists don’t want to investigate Christianity’s truth claims or anybody else’s – they’d rather be the god of their world.
Do you illogically claim that everything is relative and there are no absolutes?
Joel Radford.
Christianity is built on absolutes. Christians believe in absolute truth. For example we believe ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve’ (1 Corinthians 15:3-5). Christians also believe in absolute morality. Some behaviours are always wrong and some behaviours are always right.
So it is not surprising that someone who claims that everything is relative rejects Christianity. Instead they claim that truths of the Bible were only true for certain people – thus Jesus resurrection is only true for Jews who had been socially conditioned to expect a Messiah who would be raised from the dead. And when it comes to absolute morality, they claim that no behaviour is immoral or moral in an objective sense. Rather behaviour is only immoral if an individual or culture considers it immoral.
But rejection of absolute truth by claiming that everything is relative is an illogical statement. It is in itself an absolute truth claim and so is self-defeating. In other words when someone claims that there are no absolute truths, they are holding an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.
And the rejection of absolute morality is also self-defeating. Because to make such a statement requires you to morally condemn anyone who does not consider all behaviour to be relative. The foolishness of rejecting absolute morality is also seen by the almost universal condemnation of certain behaviours. Pretty much everyone considers paedophilia to be morally wrong.
Thus to reject Christianity for making absolute truth claims is groundless. Everybody makes absolute truth claims, not just Christianity. The trouble is that relativists don’t want to investigate Christianity’s truth claims or anybody else’s – they’d rather be the god of their world.
Do you illogically claim that everything is relative and there are no absolutes?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Objection: Jesus couldn’t have been raised from the dead
In this bulletin series we've been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Jesus couldn't possible have risen from the dead.
If someone denies that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, they certainly cannot be a Christian. Paul writes 'And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins' (1 Corinthians 15:17). If you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, there is no point being a Christian because how do you know that you will be raised to eternal life if Jesus wasn't raised.
But the resurrection is not easy to accept. Resurrections are not common events and people are often very sceptical about anything that they haven't witnessed themselves. But just because something happens just once and you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. As everyone cannot witness everything, our society depends upon the testimonies of only a few to function properly. Many murderers have been either executed or imprisoned for the rest of their lives on the basis of only a small number of testimonies. So all it takes is a couple of eyewitnesses to a single event to change someone's life.
And it's the same with Christianity. True, Christianity does make some incredible claims that we are expected to stake our lives on – not just for this life, but for the rest of eternity! But Christianity doesn't make these claims without evidence. Jesus' resurrection is backed up with solid historical eyewitness accounts contained in the New Testament. These accounts are internally reliable (they don't contradict themselves) and externally reliable (they don't contradict evidence outside the Bible, e.g. archaeological evidence). They are reasonably written and do not come across as propaganda pieces. Thus the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not as unbelievable as some would like to make out. The trouble is, people who complain about the resurrection being unbelievable are usually those who are not willing to examine the evidence. This indicates that their problem is not so much with the resurrection, but with surrendering their lives to Christ.
Do you reject Jesus' resurrection simply because it is such an unusual event, or are you willing to examine the evidence for unusual events regardless of your own agenda?
Joel Radford.
If someone denies that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, they certainly cannot be a Christian. Paul writes 'And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins' (1 Corinthians 15:17). If you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, there is no point being a Christian because how do you know that you will be raised to eternal life if Jesus wasn't raised.
But the resurrection is not easy to accept. Resurrections are not common events and people are often very sceptical about anything that they haven't witnessed themselves. But just because something happens just once and you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. As everyone cannot witness everything, our society depends upon the testimonies of only a few to function properly. Many murderers have been either executed or imprisoned for the rest of their lives on the basis of only a small number of testimonies. So all it takes is a couple of eyewitnesses to a single event to change someone's life.
And it's the same with Christianity. True, Christianity does make some incredible claims that we are expected to stake our lives on – not just for this life, but for the rest of eternity! But Christianity doesn't make these claims without evidence. Jesus' resurrection is backed up with solid historical eyewitness accounts contained in the New Testament. These accounts are internally reliable (they don't contradict themselves) and externally reliable (they don't contradict evidence outside the Bible, e.g. archaeological evidence). They are reasonably written and do not come across as propaganda pieces. Thus the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not as unbelievable as some would like to make out. The trouble is, people who complain about the resurrection being unbelievable are usually those who are not willing to examine the evidence. This indicates that their problem is not so much with the resurrection, but with surrendering their lives to Christ.
Do you reject Jesus' resurrection simply because it is such an unusual event, or are you willing to examine the evidence for unusual events regardless of your own agenda?
Joel Radford.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Objection: I’m too sinful
In this bulletin series we've been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that some people are too evil to be a Christian.
When you share the good news about Jesus Christ with non-Christians, some of them may object that Christianity is not for them because they are not sinners. That is the objection we dealt with in our last article. But then some people swing to the opposite end of the spectrum and claim that they cannot be a Christian because they are terrible sinners.
There are a couple of reasons why people think they are too sinful to be a Christian. Firstly they may have had a little to do with Christians and, in their experience, have noticed that Christians are nicer than others. Hence they believe that they cannot be a Christian because they aren't nice.
Another reason some people think they are too sinful to be a Christian is because they have misunderstood the teachings of Christianity. They have been influenced by one of the many religions which teach that if you are good, you are one of them. Whereas if you are bad, you are not part of their religion. And so the non-Christian thinks that this teaching is included in the teachings of Christianity.
Now Christianity does indeed teach that bad people do not go to heaven. But Christianity is unique in comparison to other religions in that it points out that no one goes to heaven because of their own good works. This is because everyone is a sinner and does not deserve heaven. But then Christianity tells you that there is a way to heaven for sinners and that is through the work of Jesus Christ at the cross: 'Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation' (Colossians 1:21-22).
Thus the person who recognises their sin is a perfect candidate to be a Christian. Jesus himself says he came for such people: 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners' (Mark 2:17).
Do you think you are too sinful to be a Christian, or do you recognise that Jesus welcomes you no matter how sinful you are?
Joel Radford.
When you share the good news about Jesus Christ with non-Christians, some of them may object that Christianity is not for them because they are not sinners. That is the objection we dealt with in our last article. But then some people swing to the opposite end of the spectrum and claim that they cannot be a Christian because they are terrible sinners.
There are a couple of reasons why people think they are too sinful to be a Christian. Firstly they may have had a little to do with Christians and, in their experience, have noticed that Christians are nicer than others. Hence they believe that they cannot be a Christian because they aren't nice.
Another reason some people think they are too sinful to be a Christian is because they have misunderstood the teachings of Christianity. They have been influenced by one of the many religions which teach that if you are good, you are one of them. Whereas if you are bad, you are not part of their religion. And so the non-Christian thinks that this teaching is included in the teachings of Christianity.
Now Christianity does indeed teach that bad people do not go to heaven. But Christianity is unique in comparison to other religions in that it points out that no one goes to heaven because of their own good works. This is because everyone is a sinner and does not deserve heaven. But then Christianity tells you that there is a way to heaven for sinners and that is through the work of Jesus Christ at the cross: 'Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation' (Colossians 1:21-22).
Thus the person who recognises their sin is a perfect candidate to be a Christian. Jesus himself says he came for such people: 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners' (Mark 2:17).
Do you think you are too sinful to be a Christian, or do you recognise that Jesus welcomes you no matter how sinful you are?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Objection: I am not a sinner
In this bulletin series we’ve been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that not everyone is a sinner.
When you speak to a non-Christian about Christianity, it shouldn’t take too long for them to cotton on that sin is an important doctrine in Christianity. For if there is no sin, then there is no need for a saviour, which means Jesus Christ died for nothing.
And sometimes people object to Christianity by claiming that they are not a sinner and so have no need for Jesus. In their minds, a sinner is usually a social outcast, a drunkard in the gutter, a prostitute or a criminal in gaol. Whereas they personally have never committed such public shameful sins and so they are not a sinner.
Firstly it is important to note that there are indeed degrees of sinfulness. Certain sins are more serious than others. Jesus himself affirms this: ‘Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).’ Some commandments are less harmful than others.
But just because you haven’t committed serious sins like murder, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a sinner. Sin is breaking God’s law, and God’s law expects a standard of behaviour that we all fail to achieve. Paul speaks of some sins that are more socially acceptable but are nevertheless sin and make you a sinner: ‘People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:2-5).’ If you take a hard look at that list, anyone honest person will admit that they have broken the majority of them. So to claim that you’re not a sinner is at best naivety, at worst a blatant lie (yet another sin!). Truth is, everyone is a sinner. And that means that everyone is in need of the saviour Jesus to die for their sins.
Are you honest enough to recognise that you are a sinner and so have trusted in Jesus as your saviour?
Joel Radford.
When you speak to a non-Christian about Christianity, it shouldn’t take too long for them to cotton on that sin is an important doctrine in Christianity. For if there is no sin, then there is no need for a saviour, which means Jesus Christ died for nothing.
And sometimes people object to Christianity by claiming that they are not a sinner and so have no need for Jesus. In their minds, a sinner is usually a social outcast, a drunkard in the gutter, a prostitute or a criminal in gaol. Whereas they personally have never committed such public shameful sins and so they are not a sinner.
Firstly it is important to note that there are indeed degrees of sinfulness. Certain sins are more serious than others. Jesus himself affirms this: ‘Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).’ Some commandments are less harmful than others.
But just because you haven’t committed serious sins like murder, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a sinner. Sin is breaking God’s law, and God’s law expects a standard of behaviour that we all fail to achieve. Paul speaks of some sins that are more socially acceptable but are nevertheless sin and make you a sinner: ‘People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:2-5).’ If you take a hard look at that list, anyone honest person will admit that they have broken the majority of them. So to claim that you’re not a sinner is at best naivety, at worst a blatant lie (yet another sin!). Truth is, everyone is a sinner. And that means that everyone is in need of the saviour Jesus to die for their sins.
Are you honest enough to recognise that you are a sinner and so have trusted in Jesus as your saviour?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Objection: Christianity didn’t work for me
In this bulletin series we've been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christianity didn't work for the person in the past so they're not interested in it now.
Sometimes when you're speaking to someone about Christianity, they will object to what you're saying by claiming that they tried to be a Christian once, but it didn't work for them and so they stopped being a Christian. Thus they reject your encouragements to them to become a Christian because their experience has proven the Christian religion to be false.
But using your own experience is not an appropriate way to judge whether something is true or false. Particularly when it is possible that the experience that you had, may not have been a normal experience. For example, imagine that you flew in a plane and were terribly unwell. You might conclude that you tried flying once but it didn't work for you. Thus you will never fly again. But the vast majority of people who fly on planes have no problem with air sickness. Might it not have been that your experience was not a true experience of what it is to fly on a plane? May it not have been that you simply experienced unusual flying conditions?
It is the same with people who claim to have 'experienced' Christianity. The Bible speaks very clearly about false conversions to Christianity. For example, in the parable of the sower Jesus says of some people: 'Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away' (Mark 4:16-19). These people receive the word but fall away indicating they never fully made Christ their Lord. Their experience of Christ was not a genuine experience. They were never a Christian.
So the question for those who claim Christianity didn't work for them is 'Are you sure you really were a Christian?' Did they truly repent of their sins, or did they hang onto some of them? Did they truly believe that Jesus died for them? Usually it is quickly apparent that they never truly understood the gospel and never gave any true evidence of Christian belief.
Do you object to Christianity because your past experience of it 'didn't work' for you? Or do you recognise that experience is not always a good judge of truth?
Joel Radford.
Sometimes when you're speaking to someone about Christianity, they will object to what you're saying by claiming that they tried to be a Christian once, but it didn't work for them and so they stopped being a Christian. Thus they reject your encouragements to them to become a Christian because their experience has proven the Christian religion to be false.
But using your own experience is not an appropriate way to judge whether something is true or false. Particularly when it is possible that the experience that you had, may not have been a normal experience. For example, imagine that you flew in a plane and were terribly unwell. You might conclude that you tried flying once but it didn't work for you. Thus you will never fly again. But the vast majority of people who fly on planes have no problem with air sickness. Might it not have been that your experience was not a true experience of what it is to fly on a plane? May it not have been that you simply experienced unusual flying conditions?
It is the same with people who claim to have 'experienced' Christianity. The Bible speaks very clearly about false conversions to Christianity. For example, in the parable of the sower Jesus says of some people: 'Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away' (Mark 4:16-19). These people receive the word but fall away indicating they never fully made Christ their Lord. Their experience of Christ was not a genuine experience. They were never a Christian.
So the question for those who claim Christianity didn't work for them is 'Are you sure you really were a Christian?' Did they truly repent of their sins, or did they hang onto some of them? Did they truly believe that Jesus died for them? Usually it is quickly apparent that they never truly understood the gospel and never gave any true evidence of Christian belief.
Do you object to Christianity because your past experience of it 'didn't work' for you? Or do you recognise that experience is not always a good judge of truth?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Objection: Christians are against sex and so Christians are against what is natural
In this bulletin series we’ve been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christians are against sex and so Christians are against what is only natural.
Christianity is definitely known to condemn certain sexual activities. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7 we read: ‘Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God’.
And most people would admit that sexual immorality is not confined to a small sector of the population. In fact, the majority of the population admits struggling with some form of sexual immorality: from pornography, to sex before marriage, to adulterous relationships. Only a handful of people would claim not to have fallen into these temptations. Thus, people object to Christianity because it is against what is natural for most humans.
But such an objection is working on the false assumption that what is right and wrong is determined by the majority of the population. If this were the case then lying and theft would be morally right, as no one claims to have not lied or stolen anything in their lifetime. But no one jumps to the defense of these sins. In fact, our courts take them very seriously.
So if right and wrong is not defined by a majority vote, who defines it? God. And God is not against sex, after all he created it. But what he is against is a misuse of sex. Since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, all humans are sinful and unable to do what is right. Instead they use what is good to serve their own selfish ends. This includes the good gift of sex. So it is not Christians that are going against what is natural, it is the non-Christians that are going against what is natural. God created sex to be used in the loving confines of marriage. But because of sin, unnatural sex has become a problem for most of the population.
But thankfully there is a way to overcome our strong desire to engage in unnatural sexual activity like the rest of the population. That way is through Jesus Christ. If we confess our sexual sins and trust in his forgiveness for them, God gives us the strength to overcome such unnatural behaviour.
Have you repented of your unnatural sexual sins and trusted in Jesus so that you are not against sex, but for it?
Joel Radford.
Christianity is definitely known to condemn certain sexual activities. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7 we read: ‘Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God’.
And most people would admit that sexual immorality is not confined to a small sector of the population. In fact, the majority of the population admits struggling with some form of sexual immorality: from pornography, to sex before marriage, to adulterous relationships. Only a handful of people would claim not to have fallen into these temptations. Thus, people object to Christianity because it is against what is natural for most humans.
But such an objection is working on the false assumption that what is right and wrong is determined by the majority of the population. If this were the case then lying and theft would be morally right, as no one claims to have not lied or stolen anything in their lifetime. But no one jumps to the defense of these sins. In fact, our courts take them very seriously.
So if right and wrong is not defined by a majority vote, who defines it? God. And God is not against sex, after all he created it. But what he is against is a misuse of sex. Since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, all humans are sinful and unable to do what is right. Instead they use what is good to serve their own selfish ends. This includes the good gift of sex. So it is not Christians that are going against what is natural, it is the non-Christians that are going against what is natural. God created sex to be used in the loving confines of marriage. But because of sin, unnatural sex has become a problem for most of the population.
But thankfully there is a way to overcome our strong desire to engage in unnatural sexual activity like the rest of the population. That way is through Jesus Christ. If we confess our sexual sins and trust in his forgiveness for them, God gives us the strength to overcome such unnatural behaviour.
Have you repented of your unnatural sexual sins and trusted in Jesus so that you are not against sex, but for it?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Objection: Keeping the ‘Golden rule’ as much as I can is what counts
In this bulletin series we've been looking at the common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that all you need to do to be ok with God is keep the 'Golden rule' as much as you can.
The 'Golden rule' is generally a reference to the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount: '…do to others what you would have them do to you' (Matthew 7:12). Or put another way: 'Love your neighbor as yourself' (Matthew 22:39).
Most people like this command of Jesus. And rightly so. It tells you what is the right thing to do in pretty much every situation. You wouldn't like someone to sleep with your spouse, so you don't sleep with other people's spouses. You wouldn't like to have someone steal your things, so you don't steal other people's things.
Now while most people recognise that they don't keep the 'Golden rule' perfectly, they often believe that if you keep it more often than you break it, you will go to heaven. But such a teaching is never found in the Bible. God does not weigh your works on a set of scales and if you come up with 51% good works and 49% bad works you're in. If you want to go to heaven using the 'Golden rule', the standard God sets is that you need 100% good works. If you break the 'Golden rule' in one situation, you're destined for hell because it means you've broken it in every situation: 'For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it' (James 2:10). This makes sense. We expect such justice from our own government – if someone commits murder they must be punished, no matter how good they have been in the rest of their life.
So how do you get to heaven? By Jesus keeping God's law perfectly for you. The Bible teaches that if you repent of your sins and believe that Jesus pays the penalty for all your violations of the 'Golden rule' with his death, then you will go to heaven. In effect, Jesus passes the grade for you. The 'Golden rule' no longer applies to you in terms of you going to heaven: 'Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes' (Romans 10:4).
Do you believe that keeping the 'Golden rule' most of the time saves you? Or do you trust in Jesus' death for your repeated breaking of the 'Golden rule'?
Joel Radford.
The 'Golden rule' is generally a reference to the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount: '…do to others what you would have them do to you' (Matthew 7:12). Or put another way: 'Love your neighbor as yourself' (Matthew 22:39).
Most people like this command of Jesus. And rightly so. It tells you what is the right thing to do in pretty much every situation. You wouldn't like someone to sleep with your spouse, so you don't sleep with other people's spouses. You wouldn't like to have someone steal your things, so you don't steal other people's things.
Now while most people recognise that they don't keep the 'Golden rule' perfectly, they often believe that if you keep it more often than you break it, you will go to heaven. But such a teaching is never found in the Bible. God does not weigh your works on a set of scales and if you come up with 51% good works and 49% bad works you're in. If you want to go to heaven using the 'Golden rule', the standard God sets is that you need 100% good works. If you break the 'Golden rule' in one situation, you're destined for hell because it means you've broken it in every situation: 'For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it' (James 2:10). This makes sense. We expect such justice from our own government – if someone commits murder they must be punished, no matter how good they have been in the rest of their life.
So how do you get to heaven? By Jesus keeping God's law perfectly for you. The Bible teaches that if you repent of your sins and believe that Jesus pays the penalty for all your violations of the 'Golden rule' with his death, then you will go to heaven. In effect, Jesus passes the grade for you. The 'Golden rule' no longer applies to you in terms of you going to heaven: 'Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes' (Romans 10:4).
Do you believe that keeping the 'Golden rule' most of the time saves you? Or do you trust in Jesus' death for your repeated breaking of the 'Golden rule'?
Joel Radford.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Objection: We are all part of God and so we are ok
In previous bulletin articles we’ve been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that we are all part of God and so we are safe.
Some religions teach that everything is God. The rocks are god, the sun is god, the animals are god and humans are part of god too. Therefore humans do not have to worry about the wrath of God against them because of their sin. When we die we will simply go to be another part of God in a different way. The technical name for this teaching is pantheism coming from the Greek word for ‘all’ and the Greek word for ‘god’.
But such teaching leads to a loss of identity. If everyone is God, then what makes you distinct from anyone else? And what makes you more important than a cat, a tree or a pebble? If everything is God then there is no difference in value.
Thus pantheism ultimately leads to depression. Nobody wants their identity obliterated by simply being part of one great cosmic deity. To lose your identity is a horrible experience – ask someone with amnesia.
Whereas the Scriptures clearly teach that God is distinct from everything else. God is the creator, you are created: ‘Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand’ (Isaiah 64:8). And God treats you differently from the way he treats his other creatures. The Bible teaches that animals and plants are below humans in the created order. So when God relates to you, he is not relating to another part of himself, but to you as a personal human being.
So when Jesus Christ died on the cross for you, he died for you as an individual who God loves greatly. The cross was not simply one part of God relating to another part of God. Such a thought empties the cross of true love – an act of selflessness for another personal being. Thus the way God relates to you as an individual is a wonderful source of joy, not depression. He loves you – you!
Do you recognise that God is distinct from you? Do you recognise that Jesus died for you as an individual? Is this your source of joy?
Joel Radford.
Some religions teach that everything is God. The rocks are god, the sun is god, the animals are god and humans are part of god too. Therefore humans do not have to worry about the wrath of God against them because of their sin. When we die we will simply go to be another part of God in a different way. The technical name for this teaching is pantheism coming from the Greek word for ‘all’ and the Greek word for ‘god’.
But such teaching leads to a loss of identity. If everyone is God, then what makes you distinct from anyone else? And what makes you more important than a cat, a tree or a pebble? If everything is God then there is no difference in value.
Thus pantheism ultimately leads to depression. Nobody wants their identity obliterated by simply being part of one great cosmic deity. To lose your identity is a horrible experience – ask someone with amnesia.
Whereas the Scriptures clearly teach that God is distinct from everything else. God is the creator, you are created: ‘Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand’ (Isaiah 64:8). And God treats you differently from the way he treats his other creatures. The Bible teaches that animals and plants are below humans in the created order. So when God relates to you, he is not relating to another part of himself, but to you as a personal human being.
So when Jesus Christ died on the cross for you, he died for you as an individual who God loves greatly. The cross was not simply one part of God relating to another part of God. Such a thought empties the cross of true love – an act of selflessness for another personal being. Thus the way God relates to you as an individual is a wonderful source of joy, not depression. He loves you – you!
Do you recognise that God is distinct from you? Do you recognise that Jesus died for you as an individual? Is this your source of joy?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Objection: Christianity is not relevant
In previous bulletin articles we’ve been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christianity is no longer relevant.
When told about Christianity, people may agree that it was helpful for those in the past, but they claim that it is no longer relevant for them. They believe that times have changed and the Bible is an old book that doesn’t speak to people today.
To answer this objection it must firstly be understood that times have not changed. Ecclesiastes reminds us: ‘What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10). And if you read some history and then look around you, it is quickly clear that humans have not changed. We still inhabit the same bodies that are still susceptible to sickness and death. We still crave the same things that people before us craved and sin in the same ways that people in the past have sinned. Humanity has not changed.
Therefore the Bible still has relevance for us today. Just as man is still stuck in his sinful habits and destined for hell, so God is still graciously offering salvation to all those who will accept it. Thus the person who repents of his sin and believes that Jesus died for him is destined for heaven just as much as someone who repented and believed in times past.
And it is not only concerning salvation that Christianity is relevant today, it is relevant in teaching us how to live. If someone becomes a Christian they are changed into a better person. They begin to behave differently. They are more loving toward those around them. They have a joy that no one can stifle. So if someone carefully examines the life of a Christian, they should quickly realise that Christianity is still relevant as they witness the impact that Christianity has made on a sinful life.
So do you consider Christianity to be old news that is no longer relevant? Or do you recognise that humanity hasn’t changed and nor have God’s timeless truths? If yes, do you live out those truths so that people can see in your life that Christianity is still relevant?
Joel Radford.
When told about Christianity, people may agree that it was helpful for those in the past, but they claim that it is no longer relevant for them. They believe that times have changed and the Bible is an old book that doesn’t speak to people today.
To answer this objection it must firstly be understood that times have not changed. Ecclesiastes reminds us: ‘What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10). And if you read some history and then look around you, it is quickly clear that humans have not changed. We still inhabit the same bodies that are still susceptible to sickness and death. We still crave the same things that people before us craved and sin in the same ways that people in the past have sinned. Humanity has not changed.
Therefore the Bible still has relevance for us today. Just as man is still stuck in his sinful habits and destined for hell, so God is still graciously offering salvation to all those who will accept it. Thus the person who repents of his sin and believes that Jesus died for him is destined for heaven just as much as someone who repented and believed in times past.
And it is not only concerning salvation that Christianity is relevant today, it is relevant in teaching us how to live. If someone becomes a Christian they are changed into a better person. They begin to behave differently. They are more loving toward those around them. They have a joy that no one can stifle. So if someone carefully examines the life of a Christian, they should quickly realise that Christianity is still relevant as they witness the impact that Christianity has made on a sinful life.
So do you consider Christianity to be old news that is no longer relevant? Or do you recognise that humanity hasn’t changed and nor have God’s timeless truths? If yes, do you live out those truths so that people can see in your life that Christianity is still relevant?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Objection: Religion is a private matter – keep your Christianity to yourself!
In previous bulletin articles we've been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that religion is a private matter and therefore Christians should keep it to themselves.
Many non-Christians are happy enough for you to be a Christian – what they don't like hearing about is anything to do with Christianity.
However it must be understood that this objection is logically impossible. What you believe is never a private matter – it spills over into the lives of those around you all the time. Sometimes this is quite obvious. An extreme example would be a religion that encourages human sacrifice – most people would not suggest that such a religion should be conducted at all, privately or publicly. Murdering others is simply not permitted. But you don't even have to go to such extremes to realise that worldviews influence others. If you believe there is no God you will often be in favour of laws that Christians do not favour, and vote accordingly thus influencing the rest of the population.
Also, the influence of your 'private' worldview can be very subtle. Every time you enter into the public gaze you begin to share your worldview with others. What you wear, what you drive, the kind of house you live in - they all make statements to others about what it is you believe is important and are an encouragement to others to also share the same view. As you talk at the lunchtime table at work, you are sharing your worldview. Even if all you talk about are the tv shows that you enjoy – you are encouraging others to make time for such shows. And what you choose not to talk about encourages others to consider that such topics are of little importance too.
So for a non-Christian to suggest that a Christian should keep their religion to themselves is hypocritical. They are asking the Christian to do what they don't do themselves because what they're asking is impossible.
So when a non-Christian asks you to shut up about Christianity, you might want to tell them that you will happily do so – once they return the favour by shutting up about everything that they think is important too.
Do you think that religion is simply a private matter? Or do you recognise that as you interact with others your worldview is never private?
Joel Radford.
Many non-Christians are happy enough for you to be a Christian – what they don't like hearing about is anything to do with Christianity.
However it must be understood that this objection is logically impossible. What you believe is never a private matter – it spills over into the lives of those around you all the time. Sometimes this is quite obvious. An extreme example would be a religion that encourages human sacrifice – most people would not suggest that such a religion should be conducted at all, privately or publicly. Murdering others is simply not permitted. But you don't even have to go to such extremes to realise that worldviews influence others. If you believe there is no God you will often be in favour of laws that Christians do not favour, and vote accordingly thus influencing the rest of the population.
Also, the influence of your 'private' worldview can be very subtle. Every time you enter into the public gaze you begin to share your worldview with others. What you wear, what you drive, the kind of house you live in - they all make statements to others about what it is you believe is important and are an encouragement to others to also share the same view. As you talk at the lunchtime table at work, you are sharing your worldview. Even if all you talk about are the tv shows that you enjoy – you are encouraging others to make time for such shows. And what you choose not to talk about encourages others to consider that such topics are of little importance too.
So for a non-Christian to suggest that a Christian should keep their religion to themselves is hypocritical. They are asking the Christian to do what they don't do themselves because what they're asking is impossible.
So when a non-Christian asks you to shut up about Christianity, you might want to tell them that you will happily do so – once they return the favour by shutting up about everything that they think is important too.
Do you think that religion is simply a private matter? Or do you recognise that as you interact with others your worldview is never private?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Objection: There is definitely no God
For the last few weeks we’ve been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that there is definitely no God, thus Christianity is false.
Some people will claim to be atheists and assert that there is definitely no God. This objection to Christianity is gaining ascendancy. People who call themselves atheists were once rather rare. And while they still do not make up the majority of the population, atheists are certainly more common and more vocal than they used to be.
But definite atheism is logically impossible. No one can say with absolute confidence that there is no God. To be able to clearly determine that there is no God would require omniscience (absolute knowledge) – you would have to know all things and know that there is no God. To be able to clearly determine that there is no God would also require omnipresence (being everywhere at once) – you would have had to be in every part of the universe at the same time so that you could conclusively say God is not there. To be able to clearly determine that there is no God would also require omnipotence (absolute power) – you need to be able to say that there is nothing stronger than you that may have blinded you to their presence. Clearly no one can make any of these claims. Thus no one can be a complete atheist without looking like a fool. And this is backed up by the Bible: ‘The fool says in his heart, "There is no God”’ (Psalm 14:1).
The best that an atheist can say is that they believe there is no God. With the finite knowledge that they have, they have come to the conclusion that there is probably no God. They cannot be 100% certain but the evidence tips them toward no God. In the end, an atheist has to trust their evidence that there is no God, like a theist trusts their evidence that there is a God.
But the evidence for the truth of Christianity is abundant, particularly the historical evidence contained in the Bible. In my experience, the problem with atheists is that they simply do not want to examine the evidence. Probably because they know that if they do, it means they have to submit to a higher being and stop living their lives their way. And this scares them.
Are you an atheist? Do you admit that there is a possibility that there is a God? And are you willing to examine the evidence for Christianity?
Joel Radford.
Some people will claim to be atheists and assert that there is definitely no God. This objection to Christianity is gaining ascendancy. People who call themselves atheists were once rather rare. And while they still do not make up the majority of the population, atheists are certainly more common and more vocal than they used to be.
But definite atheism is logically impossible. No one can say with absolute confidence that there is no God. To be able to clearly determine that there is no God would require omniscience (absolute knowledge) – you would have to know all things and know that there is no God. To be able to clearly determine that there is no God would also require omnipresence (being everywhere at once) – you would have had to be in every part of the universe at the same time so that you could conclusively say God is not there. To be able to clearly determine that there is no God would also require omnipotence (absolute power) – you need to be able to say that there is nothing stronger than you that may have blinded you to their presence. Clearly no one can make any of these claims. Thus no one can be a complete atheist without looking like a fool. And this is backed up by the Bible: ‘The fool says in his heart, "There is no God”’ (Psalm 14:1).
The best that an atheist can say is that they believe there is no God. With the finite knowledge that they have, they have come to the conclusion that there is probably no God. They cannot be 100% certain but the evidence tips them toward no God. In the end, an atheist has to trust their evidence that there is no God, like a theist trusts their evidence that there is a God.
But the evidence for the truth of Christianity is abundant, particularly the historical evidence contained in the Bible. In my experience, the problem with atheists is that they simply do not want to examine the evidence. Probably because they know that if they do, it means they have to submit to a higher being and stop living their lives their way. And this scares them.
Are you an atheist? Do you admit that there is a possibility that there is a God? And are you willing to examine the evidence for Christianity?
Joel Radford.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Objection: Christianity is a psychological crutch
For the last few weeks we’ve been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christianity is simply a psychological crutch.
Some people think that Christianity is only for those who are weak, and that certainly is not them. They don’t see a need for Christianity in their own life and so they conclude that people only need Jesus if they have psychological problems.
Surprisingly, there is truth to this objection. Firstly Christians are indeed people that admit they have psychological needs. To obtain freedom from psychological problems, logically you must be first enslaved to them. And so the Christian is one who is honest about their problems and finds the solution in Christianity. We say with Paul: ‘Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God’ (2 Corinthians 3:5).
Secondly Christianity does satisfy psychological needs. Christianity offers freedom from all psychological problems. For example freedom from worry, freedom from depression, freedom from fear of other people, freedom from addictions, freedom from guilt.
So is this objection a valid objection against Christianity? No. Because what the objection implies is that some people, including the objector, have no need for Christianity. But the truth is that everyone needs Christianity as their psychological crutch. All humans have at least one psychological problem: guilt. Everyone deep down knows that they are a sinner and that one day a righteous God will hold them to account. They may try and suppress this truth, but it is still there: ‘For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
Thus everyone needs Christianity. The objection that Christianity is a psychological crutch is not an objection – it is a statement of truth that the objector should listen to as it proceeds from their own mouth.
Do you recognise that Jesus is a psychological crutch that you desperately need? Or are you still kidding yourself that you’re ok?
Joel Radford.
Some people think that Christianity is only for those who are weak, and that certainly is not them. They don’t see a need for Christianity in their own life and so they conclude that people only need Jesus if they have psychological problems.
Surprisingly, there is truth to this objection. Firstly Christians are indeed people that admit they have psychological needs. To obtain freedom from psychological problems, logically you must be first enslaved to them. And so the Christian is one who is honest about their problems and finds the solution in Christianity. We say with Paul: ‘Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God’ (2 Corinthians 3:5).
Secondly Christianity does satisfy psychological needs. Christianity offers freedom from all psychological problems. For example freedom from worry, freedom from depression, freedom from fear of other people, freedom from addictions, freedom from guilt.
So is this objection a valid objection against Christianity? No. Because what the objection implies is that some people, including the objector, have no need for Christianity. But the truth is that everyone needs Christianity as their psychological crutch. All humans have at least one psychological problem: guilt. Everyone deep down knows that they are a sinner and that one day a righteous God will hold them to account. They may try and suppress this truth, but it is still there: ‘For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
Thus everyone needs Christianity. The objection that Christianity is a psychological crutch is not an objection – it is a statement of truth that the objector should listen to as it proceeds from their own mouth.
Do you recognise that Jesus is a psychological crutch that you desperately need? Or are you still kidding yourself that you’re ok?
Joel Radford.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Objection: Man is not evil
For the last few weeks we’ve been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that man is not evil.
Christianity is built upon a number of foundational doctrines and one of them is the sinfulness of man. The Bible teaches us again and again that humans are utterly sinful and thus need the saviour Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins.
But some people will object to the teaching that humans are evil, and will instead claim that humans are basically good. It is just circumstances that cause humans to do bad things. But this is a naïve statement. The evil present in humanity is obvious.
It doesn’t matter how old you are, you still sin. Small children do not need to be taught to lie, steal and be cruel to others. They do it naturally.
It doesn’t matter how wealthy you are, you still sin. Rich people are just as capable of murder and theft as poor people.
It doesn’t matter how well educated you are, you still sin. University educated individuals are just as capable of drunkenness and drug abuse as people who never went to school.
And it doesn’t matter what country you are born in or to which family you are born into, you still sin. Every person from every nationality lies, every person from a royal family gets angry when they shouldn’t.
The collective data on the world is that it is sinful. You only have to read the newspaper to quickly understand the human race is messed up.
Which fits with the Bible’s message: ‘The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?’ (Jeremiah 17:9). But thankfully there is a way to be cured of our sinfulness – get a new heart through Jesus Christ. If you repent of your sin and believe in Jesus’ death for you, you are given a new heart that is able to not sin. And in fact one day when you go to heaven will stop sinning altogether.
Do you recognise that as a human you are evil and in need of a saviour? Do you recognise that your saviour is Jesus Christ? Have you repented and put your trust in him?
Joel Radford.
Christianity is built upon a number of foundational doctrines and one of them is the sinfulness of man. The Bible teaches us again and again that humans are utterly sinful and thus need the saviour Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins.
But some people will object to the teaching that humans are evil, and will instead claim that humans are basically good. It is just circumstances that cause humans to do bad things. But this is a naïve statement. The evil present in humanity is obvious.
It doesn’t matter how old you are, you still sin. Small children do not need to be taught to lie, steal and be cruel to others. They do it naturally.
It doesn’t matter how wealthy you are, you still sin. Rich people are just as capable of murder and theft as poor people.
It doesn’t matter how well educated you are, you still sin. University educated individuals are just as capable of drunkenness and drug abuse as people who never went to school.
And it doesn’t matter what country you are born in or to which family you are born into, you still sin. Every person from every nationality lies, every person from a royal family gets angry when they shouldn’t.
The collective data on the world is that it is sinful. You only have to read the newspaper to quickly understand the human race is messed up.
Which fits with the Bible’s message: ‘The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?’ (Jeremiah 17:9). But thankfully there is a way to be cured of our sinfulness – get a new heart through Jesus Christ. If you repent of your sin and believe in Jesus’ death for you, you are given a new heart that is able to not sin. And in fact one day when you go to heaven will stop sinning altogether.
Do you recognise that as a human you are evil and in need of a saviour? Do you recognise that your saviour is Jesus Christ? Have you repented and put your trust in him?
Joel Radford.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Objection: Jesus was a good teacher but that’s all
For the last few weeks we've been looking at common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Jesus was simply a good teacher, but that's all.
Some people who are not Christians are happy to say positive things about Jesus, such as, 'Jesus was a good man' or 'Jesus was a great teacher'. They simply think that Christians go too far in claiming that Jesus was something more than that.
But this objection is logically wrong. If Jesus was a good teacher then we need to pay careful attention to what he taught. And one thing Jesus clearly taught was that he was God. Jesus said: 'I and the Father are one.' (John 10:30). We quickly see that the people who heard him at the time understood what he was claiming: 'Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:32-33).
Jesus also taught that he was the promised Christ who saves people from their sin. Jesus said: 'I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life' (John 5:24).
Now if Jesus was not God and not the Christ, then he is clearly not a good teacher. For if Jesus knew he was not God yet taught that he was, then Jesus was a liar. And good teachers don't lie to their students. Or if Jesus really believed he was God when he was not, Jesus was a lunatic. And good teachers are not crazy.
So you can't have your cake and eat it. If you're going to affirm Jesus was a good teacher, then you must actually consider what he taught. And if you cannot accept his teachings, then be honest and don't call him a great teacher.
Do you consider Jesus was a great teacher because you have carefully examined his teachings? Including that he was God and the one who takes away sin?
Joel Radford.
Some people who are not Christians are happy to say positive things about Jesus, such as, 'Jesus was a good man' or 'Jesus was a great teacher'. They simply think that Christians go too far in claiming that Jesus was something more than that.
But this objection is logically wrong. If Jesus was a good teacher then we need to pay careful attention to what he taught. And one thing Jesus clearly taught was that he was God. Jesus said: 'I and the Father are one.' (John 10:30). We quickly see that the people who heard him at the time understood what he was claiming: 'Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:32-33).
Jesus also taught that he was the promised Christ who saves people from their sin. Jesus said: 'I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life' (John 5:24).
Now if Jesus was not God and not the Christ, then he is clearly not a good teacher. For if Jesus knew he was not God yet taught that he was, then Jesus was a liar. And good teachers don't lie to their students. Or if Jesus really believed he was God when he was not, Jesus was a lunatic. And good teachers are not crazy.
So you can't have your cake and eat it. If you're going to affirm Jesus was a good teacher, then you must actually consider what he taught. And if you cannot accept his teachings, then be honest and don't call him a great teacher.
Do you consider Jesus was a great teacher because you have carefully examined his teachings? Including that he was God and the one who takes away sin?
Joel Radford.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Objection: It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere
For the last few weeks we've been looking at the answers for common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere in your belief.
When you tell people that Christianity is the only way to heaven, they sometimes react by claiming that other religions save simply because their adherents 'sincerely' believe in their religion. This means that if you completely trust in your religion, it doesn't matter whether it is objectively true or not. All that matters is whether it is true for you. And in our post-modern culture this idea is heard more and more often.
But the problem with this objection is that it says sincerity is more important than truth. But that is not logical. If someone believes that they can fly and jumps off a multi-storey building, it doesn't matter how sincerely they believe they can fly – they will end up with a nasty surprise. It is the same with belief in how you are saved from your sin. If Allah doesn't exist, it doesn't matter how much you believe Allah will show you mercy for being a good Muslim.
And the Bible also makes clear that people are misguided if they sincerely believe a false god will save them. Isaiah says: 'But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame' (Isaiah 42:17).
So all religions must be carefully evaluated for objective truth. If you find an inconsistency or flat contradiction in a religion's teaching, then you should be suspicious. You should not simply cover it up with 'sincere' faith. This goes for Christianity too. Christians should be using their minds and grounding their faith on a solid foundation of reasonable evidence. If a Biblical claim could be shown to be false, then you should abandon the entire religion. But thankfully good evidence for Christianity is found in the Scriptures. In the Bible we see solid historical evidence that we should trust Jesus with our souls. Namely, because Jesus was raised from the dead, we can trust in him for our resurrection too.
So do you think that sincerity is all that matters in a religion? Or do you recognise that you can be sincerely mistaken and eternally damned? Have you grounded your faith in the truthfulness of the Christian Scriptures?
Joel Radford.
When you tell people that Christianity is the only way to heaven, they sometimes react by claiming that other religions save simply because their adherents 'sincerely' believe in their religion. This means that if you completely trust in your religion, it doesn't matter whether it is objectively true or not. All that matters is whether it is true for you. And in our post-modern culture this idea is heard more and more often.
But the problem with this objection is that it says sincerity is more important than truth. But that is not logical. If someone believes that they can fly and jumps off a multi-storey building, it doesn't matter how sincerely they believe they can fly – they will end up with a nasty surprise. It is the same with belief in how you are saved from your sin. If Allah doesn't exist, it doesn't matter how much you believe Allah will show you mercy for being a good Muslim.
And the Bible also makes clear that people are misguided if they sincerely believe a false god will save them. Isaiah says: 'But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame' (Isaiah 42:17).
So all religions must be carefully evaluated for objective truth. If you find an inconsistency or flat contradiction in a religion's teaching, then you should be suspicious. You should not simply cover it up with 'sincere' faith. This goes for Christianity too. Christians should be using their minds and grounding their faith on a solid foundation of reasonable evidence. If a Biblical claim could be shown to be false, then you should abandon the entire religion. But thankfully good evidence for Christianity is found in the Scriptures. In the Bible we see solid historical evidence that we should trust Jesus with our souls. Namely, because Jesus was raised from the dead, we can trust in him for our resurrection too.
So do you think that sincerity is all that matters in a religion? Or do you recognise that you can be sincerely mistaken and eternally damned? Have you grounded your faith in the truthfulness of the Christian Scriptures?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Objection: A loving God wouldn’t send people to hell
For the last few weeks we've been looking at the answers for common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that a loving God wouldn't send people to hell.
When people say that God shouldn't send people to hell, it reflects a presupposition that humans are too good for God to send them to a place of eternal punishment. But if we're honest, we know humans are bad people. The evil acts of last century from men like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot clearly demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind. And each of us struggles with our own evil tendency of wanting to selfishly take advantage of others.
Also, our sin is serious because it is not just against our fellow humans, but against the loving all powerful God himself. We all recognise that some offences are much more serious than others. If you punch the prime minister you will be in much deeper trouble than if you punch your neighbour. So it is not hard to understand that if you try to kill God by taking him out of your life it means deep trouble – eternal pain to be exact.
Thus, when someone asks why a loving God would send humans to hell, we need to understand that they want an unjust God who allows them to sin without punishment. They don't want justice, they want anarchy. They want God's love without God's justice. But if God is not just, then how can he show love to people when he is powerless to deal with injustice?
So why doesn't the just God send everyone to hell because every human is a sinner? The only way God can be just and allow sinners into heaven is if someone takes the punishment of hell for them. And thankfully that is what Jesus Christ did at the cross: 'God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus' (Romans 3:25-26). If you believe that Jesus died for you, God's justice is met and you go free. God is both just in seeing sin punished, and loving in taking the punishment for you.
Do you recognise how evil your sin is and how much you deserve to be punished? And then have you trusted in Jesus death for your sin?
Joel Radford.
When people say that God shouldn't send people to hell, it reflects a presupposition that humans are too good for God to send them to a place of eternal punishment. But if we're honest, we know humans are bad people. The evil acts of last century from men like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot clearly demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind. And each of us struggles with our own evil tendency of wanting to selfishly take advantage of others.
Also, our sin is serious because it is not just against our fellow humans, but against the loving all powerful God himself. We all recognise that some offences are much more serious than others. If you punch the prime minister you will be in much deeper trouble than if you punch your neighbour. So it is not hard to understand that if you try to kill God by taking him out of your life it means deep trouble – eternal pain to be exact.
Thus, when someone asks why a loving God would send humans to hell, we need to understand that they want an unjust God who allows them to sin without punishment. They don't want justice, they want anarchy. They want God's love without God's justice. But if God is not just, then how can he show love to people when he is powerless to deal with injustice?
So why doesn't the just God send everyone to hell because every human is a sinner? The only way God can be just and allow sinners into heaven is if someone takes the punishment of hell for them. And thankfully that is what Jesus Christ did at the cross: 'God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus' (Romans 3:25-26). If you believe that Jesus died for you, God's justice is met and you go free. God is both just in seeing sin punished, and loving in taking the punishment for you.
Do you recognise how evil your sin is and how much you deserve to be punished? And then have you trusted in Jesus death for your sin?
Joel Radford.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Objection: Christianity is too narrow
Last week I started a new series of articles on answers to common objections to Christianity. This week I want to look at the objection that Christianity is too narrow.
Christianity is often accused of being too exclusive. People claim Christianity is offensive when it claims that it is the only true religion. Instead they suggest that all religions lead to the same God, they just follow different paths to him.
But it is quickly apparent that this claim is usually made by people who know very little about the teachings of religions. All the major religions (those that have large numbers of adherents through the world) claim to be exclusive, not just Protestant Christianity. For example Islam teaches in the Quran that only Muslims prosper: ‘Those that obey God and His apostle [Muhammed], those that revere God and fear Him, will surely triumph’ (Surah 24:52). Whereas non-Muslims are condemned: ‘The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell’ (Surah 98:6). Meanwhile Judaism clearly rejects Jesus as their promised Messiah, God and King. Buddhism and Hinduism both teach that the way to deal with sin is with good works. And even Roman Catholicism has clearly condemned Protestant Christianity at the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent: ‘If any one says, that by faith alone the impious is justified…let him be condemned’.
So those who criticise religions that claim only one way of salvation are actually rather exclusive themselves. The majority of the world’s population understands that there is only one true religion: the religion that they follow (be it Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc). So if you claim that all religions lead to the same God you are very much in the minority of the world population and excluding the rest of the world.
So Christians should not be ashamed of the exclusivity of their religion. Rather they should affirm Jesus’ words: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6). And ‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36).’
Do you affirm that belief in Jesus is the only way to God?
Joel Radford.
Christianity is often accused of being too exclusive. People claim Christianity is offensive when it claims that it is the only true religion. Instead they suggest that all religions lead to the same God, they just follow different paths to him.
But it is quickly apparent that this claim is usually made by people who know very little about the teachings of religions. All the major religions (those that have large numbers of adherents through the world) claim to be exclusive, not just Protestant Christianity. For example Islam teaches in the Quran that only Muslims prosper: ‘Those that obey God and His apostle [Muhammed], those that revere God and fear Him, will surely triumph’ (Surah 24:52). Whereas non-Muslims are condemned: ‘The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell’ (Surah 98:6). Meanwhile Judaism clearly rejects Jesus as their promised Messiah, God and King. Buddhism and Hinduism both teach that the way to deal with sin is with good works. And even Roman Catholicism has clearly condemned Protestant Christianity at the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent: ‘If any one says, that by faith alone the impious is justified…let him be condemned’.
So those who criticise religions that claim only one way of salvation are actually rather exclusive themselves. The majority of the world’s population understands that there is only one true religion: the religion that they follow (be it Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc). So if you claim that all religions lead to the same God you are very much in the minority of the world population and excluding the rest of the world.
So Christians should not be ashamed of the exclusivity of their religion. Rather they should affirm Jesus’ words: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6). And ‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36).’
Do you affirm that belief in Jesus is the only way to God?
Joel Radford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
