“78 Questions for Christians” Response 8

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(46.) “Why is God playing hide and seek with all of humanity?”

For one, if God revealed himself directly to all people then we would be consumed by his glory. Since we are sinful creatures, we would react similar to this if God directly revealed his glory to everyone:

Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off and said to Moses, ‘You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.'” (Exodus 20:18-19)

And the people of Israel said to Moses, ‘Behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone. Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of the Lord, shall die. Are we all to perish?’” (Numbers 17:12-13)

“And Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, for we have seen God.'” (Judges 13:22)

“And I said: ‘Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!'” (Isaiah 6:5)

If God revealed his glory to us we would be in constant terror. We would grow weak to the point of death.

Also, God desires to hide himself to specific individuals: Matthew 11:25-27, “At that time Jesus declared, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.'” God does not desire to reveal himself to every person. He purposely conceals himself to those whom he does not want to save.

However, I must qualify that last statement. Although God conceals himself from the majority of mankind, not giving a saving knowledge of himself to every person, all of creation is revelation from God. Through creation God reveals himself. Here are some common verses articulating this:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:1-2)

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

Also, since humanity is created in God’s image, God specifically reveals himself through us as well. All of creation is a revelation of God, causing us to be left without an excuse on the day of judgement for our sin.

(47.) “Do you believe Jesus is coming back during your lifetime?”

He might. I do not know the Day.

(48.) “If you do [then this doesn’t really apply to me…] then what do you say to all those people who have been saying the same thing for centuries and who are no longer with us?”

Does not apply to me.

(49.) “Why is the story of Jesus’ birth and life so similar to that of mythological beings who lived before his time? And if you want to hear about those stories we’ll leave a link below.”

Like who? Horus?? Ha! I checked the link! They actually list Horus as one of them! Here’s a silly video satiring this nonsense. All parallels are a stretch and this stuff has been refuted so many times that it gets tiring responding to this nonsense, ESPECIALLY coming from arrogant jackasses who have not studied any of the relevant evidence. Here are some videos to wet your appetite:

Given that Zeitgeist was appealed to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbvfqa_mzLw

Etc. If you actually want to make an argument Mr. Atheist, make it yourself.

(50.) “How do you decide which sections of the Bible are literally true, and which ones are just metaphor?”

By the genre of the literature of each book. Genesis through Esther is presented as historical narrative, so it’s history. Matthew through Acts is historical narrative, so it’s history. There are other books which are prophetic, etc. The only problem people have on this issue is not believing all of scripture, a problem which people who actually believe the Bible do not have.

(51.) “What are the minimum requirements for being a Christian?”

It says in Romans 10:9, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” To be a Christian one must place their faith in Christ and believe the Gospel for the forgiveness of their sin. These two things encompass many doctrines and concepts. When the Holy Spirit causes a person to become born again, he will lead them into good doctrine, which includes belief of the scripture as the Word of God, Christ’s divinity, perfect life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, knowledge of soteriology which includes regeneration, justification, adoption and glorification, belief in the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and many other things. The Biblical worldview is comprehensive. The minimum, however, is faith in Christ. Afterwards, God causes those whom he saves to grow in knowledge of scripture and of him.

(52.) “And who falls under that definition? (53.) Fred Phelps? (54.) Pat Robertson? (55.) James Dobson? (56.) President Obama?”

The mistake that is made is to constrain our examination of these people to the bare minimum requirements of Christianity. If a person does not have true faith, then it does not matter how much someone outwardly confess faith in Jesus. What is commonly quoted in this context is Matthew 7:21-23,

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

These are all people who pretended to be followers of Christ, but they had no actual faith in him nor in the Gospel. Instead of believing that God’s salvation is purely by grace (unmerited favor), they sought God’s favor through their own actions. Not everyone who makes a profession of faith is actual born again by the Spirit of God. That being said, I don’t care what names he lists. False teachers, whether any of them are or not I will not get into, but all false teachers of Christianity profess faith, when really they are headed for Hell.

(57.) “Do you really believe Mary was impregnated without ever having sex?”

Of course. It also happened in the case of Sarah, Rebekah, the woman in 2 Kings 4:17, and Elizabeth.

(58.) “If someone came up to you and said she was pregnant but she was totally a virgin, would you believe her?”

Given that I am a cessationist and do not believe that God frivolously hands out miracles nowadays, since miracles in the early church were for the purpose of establishing the church and proclaiming the Gospel, I would not believe her immediately. However, its possible for women to get pregnant through other means than sex, so it’s obviously possible.

Also, from an atheist worldview, what justification do you have for believing the world is intelligible? Your materialist worldview provides no justification for orderliness and intelligibility. Induction is a fallacy, and believing that our world is rational and understandable does not stem from a materialist worldview; in fact it is inconsistent with materialism.

(59.) “Why did God have to rape a teenage girl in order to become human?”

This contradicts the previous question. In question 58 he shows knowledge that Christians believe Mary was a virgin, and here he shows ignorance by saying Mary actually had sex with God evidenced by the word “rape.” Which is it? He refutes himself.

This question fails even on a rhetorical level. If Mary was “raped” by God then she was not a virgin, and if she was a virgin then she was not raped. Even if one says, “Well obviously she was not raped in the physical sense, but God still raped her,” then the word “rape” would lose all of its meaning. Since God does not have a penis obviously what happened was a miracle that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, causing her to conceive without ever having sexual intercourse. Also, not only is this “rape” question meaningless on a common knowledge level (since Mary was a virgin), as well as meaningless on a physical level (since God does not have a penis and did not have sex with her you moron), but “rape” is also meaningless in the context because Mary was willing. God promised that she would be the mother of the incarnate Christ, and Mary willingly obeyed: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). Rape can only occur when another does not consent.

Anyone with a brain can see that this objection is vacuous and asinine. But also, from an atheist worldview, why is rape even a bad thing? Even if people did claim that a god a god exists who has raped people in the past, why would atheists object to this on a moral level? Who cares about rape? Doesn’t it provide a way for dominate males to propagate the most offspring? Wouldn’t that be seen as a good thing by Darwinist?…even if they cannot justify their notions of “good” or “bad” in the first place.

(60.) “If you could go back in time to when Jesus was being crucified, would you try to save him? Or would you stand back and do nothing since your entire faith depends on him being crucified?”

This seems to be another meaningless moral appeal by an atheist who cannot justify the significance of ethical questions from his worldview…

God predestined the crucifixion (Acts 4:27-28) so it could not not happen. If I would try to save him I would be killed by the Romans, but also Christ would not want me to save him from the cross since he went to the cross willingly, even rebuking Peter when Peter wished to prevent Jesus from going to Jerusalem for this purpose:

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter,’Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.'” (Matthew 16:21-23)

Jesus would have rebuked me like Peter if I had tried to stop him from being crucified.

(61.) “What would it take to change your mind about God’s existence?”

I have been predestined for glory in Jesus Christ by the eternal purpose of the Father, so nothing could convince me. However, if any non theistic world views could begin with a non fallacious epistemology that would not hurt.

(62.) “Do you think it is a little strange when someone says they’re going to believe in something no matter what even when all the evidence seems to point in the other direction?”

Yes, I am amazed at the atheists who do this. They have to appeal to unverified nonsense like Horus being a parallel to Christ’s story. It proves total depravity when people have no ability to listen to reason.

(63.) “What is something your pastor has said in church that you totally disagree with?”

Sometimes one of the elders gets to typology crazy and I wish he would tone it down. He also mentioned the existence of free will in a compatibilist sense, and I would prefer to eliminate free will from discussion and belief altogether and in every way. I also disagree with the charismatic leanings of my church.

(64.) “When that happened, did you confront your pastor about it, or did you just let it slide?”

I confront the elders at my church all the time. All day every day. I am not even being sarcastic, I do it a lot.

(65.) “Why are there so many Christian denominations?”

There are only about 21 mainline traditions within protestantism, which include Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, etc. The 33,000 denomination myth that floats around on the internet was refuted here. In reality there are not as many divisions as people think. However the cause for the splits that have happened in history happen for many reasons. Anglicanism started because a king wanted to divorce his wife. Methodism began with Jonathan Wesley’s denial of the Calvinistic theology of the Protestant Reformation in support of Arminius’ doctrine. The root of the problem lies in the fact that humans are weak and often stupid, but also because many people do not believe all of what scripture teaches. But I could also turn around and ask why there are so many forms of atheism. There are a huge amount of atheistic divisions, in fact there are a huge amount of divisions in every belief system. These divisions themselves do not nullify the beliefs.

(66.) “Are the people who are in those different denominations bad Christians? Are they wrong”

Those who are Roman Catholic, for instance, are pagans. Roman Catholics are apostate idol worshippers that deny the Gospel and worship pagan deities which they call the saints and Mary. They also worship bread. This is why Protestants are called PROTESTants because originally we protested against the Roman Church, its superstitions, and abominations.

Many people no longer hold to what their denomination once professed since many people who call themselves Christians are apostates who have left the faith. My personal view of people who claim to be Christians is related to what they tell me they believe, not what they tell me their denomination is, since people can no longer be identified by their denomination anymore.

(67.) “Which denomination is right?”

Reformed Baptist.

(68.) “Or, which group of denominations is right?”

Those who adhere to Calvinism, the Gospel.

(69.) “Who or what do you think is responsible for natural disasters like earthquakes or tsunamis?”

God. If by “responsible” he means culpable, then no, God is not deserving of blame since he is righteous and just by definition for creating these disasters. If what is meant by “responsible” means the cause then yes it is God who causes them:

I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).

“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lamentations 3:38).

“When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” (Amos 3:6).

God by his providence causes all of these things.

(70.) “Can you pause the video right now and tell me what the ten commandments are?”

1. Honor father and mother

2. No images/ idols or gods except God

3. Do not take the name of God in vain

4. Sabbath

5. Do not murder

6. No adultery

7. No coveting

8. No lying

9. No stealing

I promised I haven’t looked… Hmmmm. Maybe I joined two commandments into the second one I listed… I can always list nine right off the bat and then I lose track. I’ll look it up.

BOOM! Yupp, the one that I have listed for number 2 are two separate commands, so I did list all of them. Also it is actually “do not bear false witness,” but that is the same as lying, I just worded it differently.

Anyway, I did not look Exodus 20 up until I listed all of those so yeah, I can do. Woop dee doo.

(71.) “And if you know them, why do so many Christians believe that the first four of them belong on government property and in the classrooms?”

I do not really care about the issue of government property so I do not know why. As far as the classrooms go, the question is too general for me to even answer since he gives no examples.

(72.) “Would you feel comfortable saying the pledge of allegiance in class every day if the words were ‘One nation under no god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?'”

No, but then again I do not like the pledge of allegiance either. I do not like pledging allegiance to the State. The pledge was made up by some socialist and then the words “under God” were added in the 1950’s as a cultural tool to combat the Soviet Union. The pledge makes people hypocrites and I think the whole exercise is vain.

(73.) “Do you think it is just a coincidence that different religions are popular in different parts of the world?”

No of course not. If a country has never been introduced to Christian or Islamic or Buddhist or whatever belief, then that country is not going to have any adherents to that belief. Obviously it does not invalidate the worldview. If this did invalid the worldview, then no worldview would be correct. But furthermore, atheism is more popular in some regions of the world than others, does that on its face invalidate atheism? Clearly not. Everyone is in the same boat genius.

(74.) “Do you think that if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Muslim rather than a Christian?”

I would be forced to be a Muslim outwardly being born there since belief in other world views are banned there under law. However, this applies to all atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and Catholics, or whoever. Just because people who are born under a tyrannical religious State often conform to what is expected of them, once again, this does not mean that all world views are therefore invalid. But there are people who secretly possess all types of beliefs in Saudi Arabia who just cannot show it. This question is truly useless.

(75.) “Is it possible that religion has less to do with what’s true and more to do with the circumstances of where and when you were born?”

This is the case for the majority of people. But once again, this applies to atheism too so, so what?

(76.) “Do you believe child birth is an example of a miracle?”


(77.) “Does that mean Hitler was once a miracle baby?”


(78.) “And if child birth is a miracle, how come that miracle happens thousands and thousands of times every week?”

I said it is not a miracle so this does not apply to me.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 7: Islam, Sin, Reprobation

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(34.) “What do you say to Muslims who believe the Quran is the holy book?”

I tell them that the Quran says that the Bible is the word of God. Surah 5:47 in the Quran says, “And let the people of the Gospel [Christian] judge by what Allah has revealed therein [the Torah and Gospel]. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

Muslims are in a catch-22 because Allah says to examine the Quran in light of the Bible (Torah and Gospel):

1. If I examine the Bible, then I see that the Quran cannot be true because the Biblical stories conflict with the Quranic ones, and many doctrines that are affirmed in the Bible (like Jesus being the Son of God) are denied in the Quran.

2. If Muslims say that the Torah and Gospel that Allah is referring to here are either corrupted or were no longer in existence, then Allah would be exhorting Christians to study something that we cannot study which is irrational.

So there you go. This is one of the responses I can give. The Quran says that the Bible is the word of God so it would actually give support to the scriptures I hold to.

(35.) “Are they wrong?”

Of course. I just demonstrated one of the ways that they are wrong in the last answer.

(36.) “Have you read the Quran?”

Not in its entirety but I have read parts of it yes.

(37.) “And why do you so easily dismiss their holy book?”

Refer to answer to question 34. That’s one of the many reasons.

(38.) “And then why do you get upset at atheists who dismiss yours?”

That assumes that I “easily dismiss” there claims which I have demonstrated in answer to question 34 is not the case. Therefore this polemic does not apply to me. I am endeavoring to study the Quran, so if atheists want to follow my lead and do the same with the Bible then please do.

(39.) “Is acting on one’s homosexuality a sin?”

Yes. It’s also a “sin” in a Darwinian worldview because it is an aberrant behavior that does not propagate our species but brings harm to our species.

(40.) “Is homosexuality itself a sin?”

Yes. It is for Darwinists too.

(41.) “Do you believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to become legally married?”

No because it’s not a marriage. Christ defined marriage in Matthew 19:5 and the apostle Paul followed suit in Ephesians 5.

(42.) “Would your church ever marry a gay or lesbian couple?”

No. We are Christian.

(43.) “If not, and you believe that they should have the right to marry…”

Not applicable to me.

(44.) “Why would God create people who are gay and then punish them for being gay?”

No one is born gay because we do not develop our sexuality until later on. Romans 1:18-32 explains God’s giving over idolatrous individuals to the futility of their minds and to dishonorable passions.

However, this goes back to my explanation in answer to question 1 and 2. We have inherited corruption from our first father Adam and are therefore conceived in sin. We are all under a state of condemnation because Adam is our representative. Because Adam is humanity’s representative, and since he sinned, we are credited with his guilt. Now, human nature is naturally at enmity with God and predisposed to all forms of sin and wickedness, including homosexuality. Homosexuality is merely one perversion among many.

However, it is not merely about gay people. Straight people give into their wicked lusts and fornications all the time. I have a sexuality, but since I am not married, I have no context to satisfy my lust, and therefore I sin. Just because I am born a fallen son of Adam and am naturally predisposed to sin does not mean that I am somehow not held accountable.

Furthermore, the Bible gives accounts of individuals who fulfill God’s purposes in this way. What I mean is that God creates certain individuals in order to make known his wrath. It says in Romans 9:22-23 “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…” God creates some individuals for the purpose of displaying the full range of his attributes, namely his mercy, grace and love, but also his wrath and holiness. God prepares vessels of wrath (individuals created to be devoted for destruction) while also preparing vessels of mercy (believers in Christ who will dwell with God for all eternity).

An example of a vessel of wrath was Pharaoh. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 14 so that Pharaoh and his army would go after the Israelites into the Red Sea. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to kill him and his army so that God would be glorified in their deaths.

One may respond to this and ask, “why would God harden someone’s heart and then punish them for something that they could not help doing?” Hence, the response of the apostle, “You will say to me then,’Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (Romans 9:19-21). God has predestined some individuals for honorable use and others for dishonorable use. These doctrines are called election and reprobation.

Therefore, if God “makes people gay,” or perhaps we can say that God hardens people’s hearts so that they persist in sin (Romans 9:18), and then punishes them for their sin, the people who sinned are no less responsible.

However, I want to remind people that anyone who is in any type of sin still has the opportunity to repent. Anyone who struggles with the sin of homosexuality can still repent and trust in Jesus. Paul also says to sinners who have repented, including the sexually immoral, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is still hope of repentance and salvation.

In conclusion, God directs one’s repentance, and hardens and softens hearts according to his will, but this is no excuse for sin, and all who object to God’s purposes in this regard do so in vain; they do so in rebellion against God.

(45.) “If God is already sending gay people who act on their homosexuality to Hell, why do so many Christians feel the need to persecute them here on Earth?”

There’s nothing unique about gay fornication that is distinguished from any other type sexual immorality. I do not understand the man’s fixation on homosexuality. All of the unrepentant sexually immoral will suffer God’s judgment as Revelation 21:4 says.

He must define “persecution” though he does not. If persecution is defined as “disagreement,” then he should not “persecute” Christians for disagreeing with him. However this is probably not what he defines it as. I would say that most militant gays persecute Christians, not vice-versa. Here is news where a man who donated a mere $1,000 in support of Proposition 8 in California was fired from his CEO position. Examples could be multiplied.

Here is just one more example. Gays and leftists pressured the Boy Scouts of America to include openly practicing homosexuals as scout leaders, until the BSA finally succumbed to these demands. The BSA used to ban openly practicing homosexuals from being scout leaders, not merely people who had internal inclinations. Their ban was based on personal conduct, upon the content of one’s character as MLK once articulated. The BSA is an organization based upon a certain set of principles, or at least once was. What right do others have in dictating the rules and conduct of an organization that holds to values contrary to your own? Should I have the right to join an organization that advocates for sexual perversity in order to undermine their principles and goals? Of course not. I have no business participating in such organizations. However, this is exactly how gays and their fellow leftist supporters persecute organizations that do not support their perspective. The BSA did not exclude gays. They excluded individuals that engage in a specific behavior from being LEADERS within Boy Scout Troops. Oh the horror! -_-

The vast majority of Christians want to live quiet lives, working, going to church, and telling people about Jesus. However, leftists who support the gay agenda do not merely want us to tolerate this behavior, they want to utilize government authority in order to force Christians to support their perversity. I live in a leftist area of the country that vehemently rejects my worldview. It has gotten to the point where people think that I am persecuting gay people, or anyone else for that matter, for having a different opinion. However, the same people that demand that I ought not make moral judgments on the issue of homosexuality are the same ones who execute judgments against my worldview.

If you want to talk about real gay persecution then talk about Islam. Redirect your focus to Iran and Saudi Arabia, and you will see that Christian persecution of homosexuals is virtually non existent, especially in the United States. The man’s question is careless and facile and ignores the fact that gays and leftists (especially in my experience) are the real persecutors, demeaning ANYONE that does not fully bow down to worship their ideals.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 6

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(21.) “Is it possible that your prayer have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?”

Another misunderstanding of prayer… This seems to happen quite a lot… See answer to question 11. My prayers have supernatural power? That reminds my of those that teach that we speak things into existence through our words and thoughts. That idea is taught by false teachers like Joel Osteen. It’s not prayer. As I have already said, prayers do not have power in themselves as if we were little gods or something.

(22.) “And if that

were true, would you ever admit it?”

Misunderstanding of prayer. Erroneous questions. This does not apply to me.

(23.) “Is there anything in your life right now that makes you doubt God’s existence?”

No not really. Nothing would be meaningful or intelligible if God did not exist. This idea is an impossible option. It would be like suggesting that truth might not exist.

(24.) “If you did doubt God’s existence, how would your life change?”

If I doubted or if I ended up disbelieving? If doubts creep in here and there it is due to my carnal stupidity and weakness. However, if I stopped believing in God altogether, I would become a nihilist. Hence my other post here.

(25.) “Was Jesus white.”


(26.) “Why does it seems like God is more likely to help someone whose a talented athlete over a starving child overseas.”

The starving child is a petty emotional tactic. The man’s worldview does not provide a basis for why it matters whether or not children starve, or why anything matters for that matter. As for God “helping,” in what way? Being a star athlete does not help someone find forgiveness of sin. This is a really arbitrary definition of “help.”

He implies that there is a type of injustice, or unfairness with God in this respect. However, what would take the form of justice is God punishing all of us for are sin, pouring out his holy wrath upon us. The rich and poor alike are under a state of condemnation for sin. Therefore anything less than God’s punishment is grace. Since all that we experience, even the worst of circumstances in this world is still a reflection of God’s grace and mercy, we cannot demand anything from God. The moment we demand justice is the moment we advocate for our punishment.

Once again, anyone notice that the atheist has a concept of fairness? Or at least a concept of how things ought to be? If the atheist sees the starving child and knows that this should not be taking place, then he is acknowledging the Fall. Man fell from its original state of communion with God into sin and misery, leading to toil, hardship, and death. By acknowledging a starving child in contrast to a star athlete, the man is acknowledging the corruption that has taken place in the world. He also acknowledges justice and fairness which ultimately do not exist in a materialist worldview. If he argues that something is or is not fair, his standard is arbitrary and can be ignored. By acknowledging a sense of ultimate fairness and justice, the atheist’s perspective is more consistent with my worldview than his own.

(27.) “Why does God seem to hate Africa?”

Oh dang, thuch a thuper good quethtion that no one will ever be able to anthwer. But this once again brings up the point: disease, violence, malnutrition are things that generally people agree are bad. How are these considered bad in an atheist worldview? They merely exist. If the hypothetical atheist insists that these are bad, then their definition is arbitrary and can be disregarded, and/or they acknowledge the reality of the Fall and the need for the redemption that is given in Christ Jesus. The atheist has no concept of corruption, evil, or bad in their worldview, but borrow from the Christian worldview to make their rash proclamations of injustice which their worldview does not provide.

(28.) “If a group of people from, say Africa, came to your community with the intent to convert you to their tribal faith, would you listen to them and take them seriously? Or would you just dismiss them because they don’t believe what you already believe?”

I would take them very seriously because it would be an opportunity to learn about them so that I could eventually tell them the Gospel. Same thing if a Sikh, or an agnostic, or a Roman Catholic told me what they believe. I am not converting, but I would listen so that there would be a dialogue so I could tell them the Gospel that they need to believe. I actually did this recently with two Jehovah’s Witnesses my age.

(29.) “Does God speak to you personally?”

God speaks through the Scriptures. The Bible is the standard of revelation. I distrust everyone who says they hear God audibly or other nonsense like that, it’s an attack on the faith and Sola Scriptura.

(30.) “If God spoke to you and told you to kill your child would you do it?”

Assuming that the question means that it was actually God and not something else that spoke then yes. Not to do so would be sin. We see this scenario happen in Genesis 22 with Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was applauded in Hebrews 11:17-19,

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.”

Abraham acknowledged God’s power to bring Isaac back from the dead if God so wished. Also, Abraham must have acknowledge God’s greater purpose for the command. Abraham knew the qualities and attributes of God, his faithfulness, holiness, wisdom etc. Abraham through rational faith (not a blind stupidity) obeyed, which gave reverence to God’s character and obeyed God’s command. Who would I be to answer back to God? I am merely dust and ashes.

Assuming it was truly God that commanded it, God willing I would do so because I would know God is trustworthy, but this hypothetical is ultimately useless because God does not audibly speak to individuals today.

(31.) “If God told you to kill me would you do it?”

Assuming it was truly God, yes. However, this question and the last question may present difficulty because God does not command sin. God has commanded troops and kings to be devoted to destruction in war and so on, but God arbitrarily telling someone to kill a person seems like God would be commanding murder in this context which God does not do.

Any number of questions can be asked in this worthless hypothetical like, “If God told you to jump off a bridge would you do it??” The hypothetical presupposes things that will not happen, so when I answer within the context of the hypothetical, do not be horrified when I say God ought to be obeyed; I won’t kill anyone.

(32.) “Is God always watching over you?”

God is omniscient. “Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:24).

(33.) “How about when you’re on the toilet?”

Of course. It was God that created every aspect of my body, so to be embarrassed that God knows every detail concerning my bowel movements would be stupid. God also knows what my penis looks like. In fact (shocker) he designed it and gave it its function. There is nothing embarrassing about this, it’s just obvious.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 5

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(14.) “If you’ve heard stories of an amputated limb ever growing back how come there is never a camera around when anything like that happens?”

Because none of those stories are true. I do not have to be impressed by the moronic drivel that vomits forth from the metaphorical mouth of the modern charismatic movement. I do not believe these miracles happen today. They had a purpose in the first century for establishing the church (Hebrews 2:2-4), but now, God does not promiscuously heal people in these types of ways irrespective of authenticating the Gospel. Many who pant after divine miracles and healings do not know or believe the Gospel, and therefore do not believe Christianity when they give such weight to hearsay, gossip, and unconfirmable nonsense. I suppose there are many who are oblivious enough to believe that other Christians that scrutinize these miraculous claims possess a lack of “faith” if that’s what it can be called. The man in the video assumes that uncritically believing miraculous gossip is in some way connected to Christianity. It is unfortunate that the charismatic movement and those such as Bill Johnson in Redding have made this connection, for by making this connection the name of Jesus is dishonored.

(15.) “How come there are no cameras around when any miracles happen?”

Careless repetition of question 14. See my previous response.

(16.) “If you had an exam coming up what do you think would help you earn a higher score: prayer or studying for the test?”

This question is so asinine it hardly deserves a response. I do not know what his impression of Christianity is, but those that have taught it to him have clearly instilled irrational, unbiblical concepts. If he was not taught by others, the man is simply ignorant of Christianity and is coming up with this garbage himself. Once again, a careless repetition of question 9. He repeats these questions to make it seem like he is asking so many questions (Oh my goodness 78 questions against Christianity! He’th thoe thmart). See answer to question 9, it applies here too.

(17.) “If you prayed for me over YouTube right now, do you think I would know it somehow.”

No. I do not see how this is relevant.

(18.) “What matters to God more? The quantity of prayers or the quality of the prayers?”

Quality obviously. Jesus said the pagans heap up empty words and phrases to be heard (Matthew 6:7).

(19.) “If it’s the quantity that matters how come the most popular team doesn’t always win the superbowl?”

I said quality so this does not apply to me.

(20.) “And if it’s the quality that matters how come people we really love, people who are close to us, how come they die no matter what we say to God?”

Because merely asking for stuff is not the proper definition of prayer. See answer to question 11. And also, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment…” (Hebrews 9:27). God has appointed all to die, with the exception of Enoch, Elijah, and those that remain alive until the coming of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17). So asking God for something that he has expressly said will not happen until the resurrection unto eternal life is not only silly but rebellious. This all goes without saying that it does not matter how amazing a prayer is, God is going to do what he wills.

The reason death exists is because of the Fall of Adam. An account of that and its effects can be read about in Romans 5:12-19 and in my first post of this series.

God once said “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people” (Jeremiah 15:1). This means that even if these past prophets of God interceded for the nation of Judah at this point in history, making the best quality prayers in the world, God would still proclaim judgment over Judah, sending the people into exile. Likewise, even if Moses, Daniel, Abraham and every other righteous person made intercession for us with prayers, pleading to God that we may not die, it would have no effect. We die because of sin. The effects are reversed only in Christ’s perfect work of redemption.

The man in the video asks questions based upon misunderstandings. I suppose it is good that he asks these questions because maybe I can clear them up.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 4

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(10.) “Whose prayers does God answer?”

I have heard some appeal to John 9:31, “We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.” However, I am not sure we can trust this sentiment because it was said by the man that Jesus healed of blindness, not by the apostles or Christ. The healed blind man may have merely been repeating the common notion of that day. After all, the disciples asked in verse 2, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” It was probably common in that day to regard someone’s shortcomings as a direct indication of sin in that person’s life or their parent’s. Jesus contradicted the disciple’s question, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” Likewise, this may be applied to the case of the blind man in John 9. I am not convinced that we can take the words of the blind man as doctrine in itself because he might have merely stated an incorrect opinion. The Gospel of John gives a historical account of the blind man’s words, though the blind man may have been misguided.

However, scripture does give some criteria of when prayers are “heard” and answered, the most illuminating of which is arguably 1 John 5:14-15, “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.” One of the ways to have prayers answered is to desire the will of God. We ought also to abide in Jesus Christ, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). If we ask for things according to our passions (James 4:3) then God will not have regard for us because it was not truly prayer, but if one asks according to God’s will, then he will surely hear and answer the prayer.

We have examples in scripture of God not granted a person’s request even if they ask in faith (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). It is all according to God’s prerogative. However, even in this situation we see that God did “answer” Paul, though in a different sense.

In short, God has regard for the prayers of his people, answering the prayer of his children. God does not have regard for those outside of the faith because they are not praying to the true God. Also, prayer is intricately related to submitting to God’s will “if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.”

(11.) “And if it’s ultimately God’s will what happens why even bother praying?”

Because prayer is ultimately bowing to the will of God, giving him glory, honor, reverence, respect, and worship. Prayer is not primarily concerned with convincing God to give you stuff, which is unfortunately the popular misconception. Jesus Christ, when giving us the model for what prayer ought to look like, commanded we pray like this, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done…” (Matthew 6:9-10). There are the two main components of prayer as I have already said. (1) Bowing to the will of God, (2) giving God the glory due to his name. The rest of it acknowledges God’s purpose and gives thanks to him. Only by his grace do we receive our daily bread, we acknowledge our sin and God’s mercy when someone wrongs us, and only God (most certainly not ourselves) has the power to deliver us from evil, from sin and misery.

Also, if it’s not ultimately God’s will that is the deciding factor of what happens, then God would not be in control of the situation, and then people would be praying to a powerless god that does not even have the ability to do what people ask of him. This option is clearly untenable and unscriptural. Here we see that the difficulty of the man’s 11th question is non existent.

(12.) “If you have cancer right now what’s going to help you more? Drugs or prayer?”

This is a perfect example of the severing of God’s sovereignty over all things, including God’s sovereignty over the effectiveness of drugs to cure an individual of their disease. There is no distinction between the effectiveness of drugs and the effectiveness of God’s power over a situation. I discussed this in my last post at the very last paragraph. As I have stated in previous posts, drugs used to cure a disease are secondary means that God commonly uses to fulfill his purposes. 

This is simply a careless repetition of question 9 so I can refer you to my answer there. Once again, prayer has no innate power. If one is cured of cancer it is according to God’s will and God can utilize the secondary means of the doctors (or drugs) in accomplishing it. The severing of God’s purpose and the outcome of events that this man posits is non existent and its strange how he merely repeats himself.

(13.) “Let’s say you had an amputated limb, would prayer ever bring it back?”

These questions go in circles.

1. Prayer has no innate power to affect the outcome of events

2. Prayer is not a childish request asking God to do weird miraculous things like turn a television orange or grow a limb, but has the primary purpose of bowing to God’s will and giving glory to his name

3. If God so willed he could certainly bring a limb back (reminiscent of Matthew 12:13 and Luke 22:51)

4. The purpose of miraculous signs is to bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The giving of the Law of Moses and the establishment of the New Testament church were united with signs and wonders in order to authenticate the events that took place (Hebrews 2:4).

5. God does not inspire some miraculous event for no purpose, and the vast majority of the time all we see is what appears to us as the normal course of life as scripture itself states.

For instance, concerning the apparent normal course of events in the world, Paul, although given the gift of miraculous healing for a time, says, “I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20). Paul also mentions that Timothy had “frequent ailments” (1 Timothy 5:23). Just because God has the ability to miraculously heal, even raise people from the dead, does not give credence to this concept that Christians should pray that God grow someone’s limb back, or should perform some miracle upon request as if God is a genie. God did not heal Trophimus or Timothy at that time because it was his purpose. In fact, Paul says “I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:9). God uses the weaknesses of his people in order to make them more reliant upon him, including the weakness of a severed limb. Therefore, this business of bringing limbs back into existence upon pious request misrepresents the purpose of prayer (again) and also misrepresents God’s character.

Prayer does accomplish anything, but God’s power does, and God does not arbitrarily perform signs and wonders according to our will. So no, prayer will never bring back an arm. The question itself is flawed.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 3

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(6.) “What about any non Christian – good person – should they be burning in Hell?”

“‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.'” (Romans 3:10-12).

“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

Surely he knows that all real Christians will respond by saying there are no good people right? Evidently not. Christians are not even good people within a strict meaning of the word “good.” We are all sinners saved by grace. As I have expounded upon before, all are conceived under the sentence of condemnation and we have all incurred the wrath of God for our sin. Outside of Christ, God does not view anyone as good, but as a lawbreaker.

When we turn to God, placing our faith in Christ and his work, God looks upon us no longer as lawbreakers, but instead sees his own righteousness. “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust [Adam], we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [Jesus]” (1 Corinthians 15:49). We are being renewed to reflect Christ’s perfect image and righteousness (Colossians 3:10, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 8:29), rather than reflect the image of sin and corruption. Through Jesus Christ is the only way we may be no longer be viewed as lawbreakers.

Furthermore – assuming the man in the video is atheist – what is your standard of good? It must be arbitrary is it not? You do not believe in an ultimate being or an ultimate, objective concept of moral “goodness” do you? That would contradict your worldview. The moral argument is always beaten over the head of the atheist, but my objection still stands. The man appeals to some concept of good and asserts it against the Biblical perspective, but what right does he have to do this? None.

This “goodness,” since it is not derived from the character and being of God, is relative by necessity. If goodness is therefore relative, which is the only consistent materialist position, then the man has no right to push his standard of goodness over my standard of goodness which is derived from scripture. So when he may inevitably object to the Christian perspective that none are good, he does so only by contradicting his own worldview.

Once more, by merit of possessing an idea of moral goodness and righteousness, he presupposes the Christian worldview. The atheist ought not say that people should not be sent to Hell because they are “good” people because “good” does not exist in his world. Furthermore, if he says that people should not be sent to Hell, that itself is a moral claim which presupposes a true morality which the atheist does not possess. By professing some type of “good,” and “should,” “ought,” and morality, the man presupposes the existence of the God he hates in order to oppose him. Oh the irony.

(7.) “Would you be happy in Heaven if someone you loved were in Hell?”

The basic answer to the question is yes, because scripture explicitly says so: “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

However, since this answer will be immediately received with detestation, let me explain a little bit further. Christ once stated, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Jesus was certainly not commanding individuals to hate their loved ones (as the parallel account in Matthew 10:37 indicates), but taught that the love we have for anyone else in our life should look like hatred in comparison to our love for God. If we love someone else more than God (Matthew 10:37) then we are engaging in idolatry. If we resent God for executing his righteous judgments against the condemned

We will all recognize at the judgment, saints and the unsaved alike, the full majesty and righteousness of God. God’s judgments are just and true, and all the saints will submit to God in absolute reverence for all eternity. They will be in the presence of him from whom all goodness and contentment flow.

Here is something else to think about. The man in the video asks this in order to give a partially moral appeal. He seems to imply that people ought to grieve over their loved ones in Heaven. No doubt the man will object to the answer that the saints in Heaven will not be miserable for all of eternity. He most likely thinks that it is awful for God’s people to be able to be happy in Heaven while others receive the just punishment for their sin, but why? Why should people feel one way or another? Why would this be a terrible thought? Does he think it is evil to believe this? It seems that this is another moral appeal. Once again, if the atheist (as I am assuming him to be) appeals to some semblance of morality, he is either being arbitrary which means I can disregard it, or it means that he is presupposing the objective, true God that defines concepts like good and evil. Once again, if he is appealing to his audience’s sense of what they ought to think concerning a moral question, then he is presupposing the God he hates in order to argue against him.

(8.) “If your son or daughter were dying – and I hope that never happens – would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?”

Also a doctor obviously.

(9.) “And say you do both, which one would you say had more of an impact?”

Well if the doctor heals the child it was according to God’s will, and God utilized secondary means in order to make them well again. Pray never changes the eternal and immutable purpose of God. My prayers change nothing. Prayer is a method by which we submit to God’s will. Prayer is not an act of merely wishing for stuff, but acknowledging God in the midst of every situation. God has predestined and purposed all things (Ephesians 1:11, Lamentations 3:37); his will cannot be thwarted (Numbers 23:19, Job 42:2). My prayers have no effectual quality to them. God never changes, nor does he change his mind, so it’s not as if I would be trying to convince God to do something that he did not already will to do from eternity.

My prayers have no innate power, so the effectual impact was the doctors’ treatment, which was successful according to the eternal purpose of God. If one then asks whether God or the doctors had a larger impact (which may be what is actually being asked), then I would say that this is a flawed distinction. God, through the secondary means of the doctors’ treatment, cured the child.

Similarly, this would be like asking whether or not God or his brothers had the bigger impact in selling Joseph into slavery and shipping him off to Egypt (Genesis 37). Both God and Joseph’s brothers did this, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). God through secondary means, caused Joseph to end up in Egypt. There is no division between God having more of an impact in accomplishing this, or Joseph’s brothers. The same goes for the crucifixion (John 11:50-51, Acts 4:27-28). Likewise, if God wills the child to recover, God uses the secondary (non miraculous) means of doctors and medical treatment to heal. There is no distinction of which has the bigger impact in this sense. God accomplished the child’s healing according to his eternal will.

Atheists love to confuse this issue and to take advantage of professing Christians who are ignorant. The goal of this question is also to drive a wedge between “science” and “faith,” both terms of which are virtually never defined in the midst of the mindlessness found on YouTube and elsewhere on the internet. The question and implied conclusion may be phrased, “Did science cure your child? Or did your pleas sent to your imaginary god heal your child?” Obviously when the issues are represented as such, the atheist convinces themselves and those who agree with them that Christians are thus being “unscientific” by believing in prayer and praying. However, obviously they deceive themselves by doing this, for this is not true prayer (mere wishing is not prayer, nor are human words effectual in themselves to modify the outcomes of situations); God’s providence cannot be severed from the creation over which his providence resides. “Was it God or science??” Clearly one who severs the link between the events of the world and God’s purpose are not talking about the Christian God.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 2

Below is a continuation of my answer to a Youtube user’s “78 Questions for Christians” video.

(3.) “Is Fred Phelps in Heaven? Because he believed in the divinity of Jesus.”

Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians in the New Testament to individuals who also believed in Christ’s divinity. Paul writes in Galatians demonstrating his belief and also the belief of the Galatians that Jesus is divine (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul says he did not receive the Gospel from a mere man, but through revelation of Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ was considered by Paul and those whom he was writing to as not a mere man, but God himself. Paul elsewhere expresses the fact that Jesus is the eternal God in no uncertain terms (Colossians 1:16, Romans 9:5). Paul did not write to the Galatians because they were rejecting this doctrine.

Paul gave a heavy charge to the Galatians, “ Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).

What the Galatians had begun doing was not trusting wholly upon the grace of God and the work of Christ, but also themselves. There were people who were saying that it was necessary for men to get circumcised in order to be saved from the wrath of God. They wanted to “be justified by the law” instead of being justified through faith in Jesus.

My point is, even though they all believed in Christ’s divinity (the Galatians undoubtedly believed many true things), yet their faith that Jesus is divine does not save them. Likewise, just because Fred Phelps believed Jesus is God, as well as other true doctrines, this does not demonstrate whether he was saved or not.

There was an extreme vindictiveness in Fred that appeared late in his life. One’s actions can be an indicator if one has been born again by the Holy Spirit or not, though I certainly cannot say definitively say so one way or another. He lead a cultic church and used their resources to not preach the Gospel, but to only preach God’s wrath against sin, which, although true, is not the Gospel. If Fred was saved, it was by the grace of God. If Fred was not saved, then the fruits of his unregenerate state were clearly evident later on in his life.

I have the sneaking suspicion that these question are only asked for mindless emotional appeal and not for the purpose of genuine education.

(4.) “Should a killer, who genuinely repents, be able to go to Heaven?”

Obviously yes. The Apostle Paul was once a killer and persecutor of the church of God (Acts 9:1-2, Galatians 1:13, 23), yet God saved him (1 Timothy 1:13). The man asking the questions is truly ignorant of Christianity if he did not already know the answer to this.

Paul, who was previously a murderer, stated this, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” (1 Timothy 1:15). God can save anyone from any sin through the atonement of Jesus and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Besides, Jesus asserted that all people murder in their heart, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment” (Matthew 5:21-22). Hence, every person is a murderer and a killer at heart. If one has hatred or malice in their heart for another, it is as if they actually killed them. If God did not forgive this sin then no one at all would be saved.

(5.) “Should a kind-hearted atheist be forced to go burn in Hell for all of eternity?”

Kind-hearted in what respect? Kind-hearted in the sense that they are morally righteous? As I already explained, all of humanity is abomination in God’s sight as a result of sin and corruption. One can do kind outward acts, but all of humanity is under a state of guilt and condemnation. The man’s question is merely a matter of a different standard, a different definition. None are good. None are truly “kind-hearted.” It may appear that way to us, but in God’s sight there are none who have these type of hearts.

Let me quote one of the most quoted verses I know, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds” (Jeremiah 17:9-10). God justly gives to all according to the condition of their heart. The problem is, the heart of every person is wicked and falls short of God’s glory.

The hearts of the unsaved are like a hardened stoned (Ezekiel 36:26, Romans 2:5, Ephesians 4:18), lustful, impure and idolatrous (Romans 1:24-25), foolish, evil, wicked (Mark 7:21-22), and on the list goes beyond the top of my head. There is simply a different standard in judging the nature of the heart between Christianity and Atheism. So, assuming that there is anyone that is ultimately kind-hearted is against Christian doctrine. All are wicked, and all deserve the wrath of God. It is by God’s grace that he saves anyone.

Furthermore, if one is an atheist who positively denies God, asserting that they have a “kind” heart is a contradiction. Rebelling against the God whose nature defines morality itself cannot be righteous, pure, or “kind” in any way, but hateful. An atheist may arbitrarily assert that they are “kind-hearted” in their own opinion, but within the Christian worldview this is certainly not the case.

“78 Questions for Christians” Response 1

I decided that it would be a good discussion-starter to respond to this video that I saw in my Facebook feed. It has 78 questions for Christians. I will respond to these questions. The majority are facile and silly.

(1.) Is Anne Frank (2.) or Mahatma Gandhi in Hell?

It would be good to start with the explanation of the holiness of God and human depravity before engaging with this question. The popular conception of an individual’s inherent goodness or righteousness is not the standard Scripture adheres to. In order to not fall under the condemnation and wrath of God, one must perfectly obey God’s law. The problem is, no one has the ability to perfectly obey God. The problem that all humanity finds itself in is that we are under God’s just condemnation due to our corruption and sin, and therefore deserve to suffer the punishment of his wrath ultimately resulting in Hell.

God placed Adam and Eve in the garden and commanded them not to eat of the fruit of the tree. When Adam ate of it, he broke God’s law and became the representative of all of humanity. We are instilled with that original corruption since conception, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Romans 5:19), and likewise are all naturally under God’s just condemnation, “Therefore…one trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Romans 5:18).

It is not only through the original corruption that we inherited from our father Adam that leads to our just condemnation, but also our actual sins that we commit. The apostle Paul’s courtroom indictment of all of humanity can be found in Romans 3:9-20 which I will not post here. Paul elsewhere pictures humanity as dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1).

Jesus himself also describes the evil state of the human heart and how contrary it is to God: “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (Mark 7:21-23). 

This is the reality of one who is destitute of Christ. Even the good that people appear to perform is abomination in God’s sight, for “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Hebrews 11:6). Those who are not born of God (those in the flesh) cannot please God as it says elsewhere: “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8). All those who try to merit God’s favor through their personal righteousness try to please God with their sin.

Much more can be discussed, but suffice it to say that God’s standard of morality is perfect obedience to him. No one can perfectly obey, and therefore all without exception are under his just condemnation. The only thing God owes us is his just and holy punishment, for we are corrupted, wicked, and have broken his law. Every good thing that we receive is all of God’s grace. The only reason he does not immediately punish us is his mere good pleasure. He could wipe us all out right this minute. However, God has not left us to sin and misery, but has opened up a way of salvation in Christ Jesus through his sacrifice (Hebrews 10:20).

What Jesus accomplished on the cross was the salvation of his people. Jesus (who is the eternal Son of God) bore the Father’s wrath on behalf of all his people, so that all who turn in faith and repentance to God and place their trust wholly upon the Lord Jesus will be saved from the wrath of God. Jesus Christ, the eternal God, became incarnate (John 1:14), humbled himself to death on the cross (Philippians 2:6-11) ultimately for the glory of God, and for the salvation of an innumerable number of people. God accomplished this wholly by his grace (unmerited favor) and we owe all things to him. We did not deserve God’s favor, in fact we demerited God’s favor through our sin.

How we are justified (declared righteous in God’s sight) is only through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said that he is the door (John 10:9), so all who enter by him will be saved. As is often quoted in this situation, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

All those who are not in Christ will suffer the just wrath of God, whomever it may be. It does not matter how good individuals appear to the rest of the world if they are not right in God’s sight. The only way we are justified is through trusting in Christ, his righteousness, his work, his sacrifice. All who reject Jesus reject the only way of salvation. All, including Gandhi and Anne Frank, if they were found to be outside Christ, will experience the wrath of God against their sin. The scripture presents no other means nor loopholes; Christ is the way. He is the only way.