Frequently Asked Questions
Q: "How do we know there really is a God?"
Q. Is the Bible truly reliable?
Q: "Doesn't the hypocrisy of professing Christians tarnish the truth?"
Q: "Isn't it too narrow-minded to say Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven?"
Q: "Are miracles really possible?"
Q: "If God is so loving, why is there so much suffering… and what about Hell?"
Q: "Isn't Religion just a psychological crutch?"
Q: "Isn't it unfair to condemn people who have never heard about Jesus?"
Q: "How do we know there really is a God?"
A: The answer to this question starts not in a person's head, but in their heart. "Do I really want to know…. or am I asking this just to avoid meeting God?" If a person is really seeking the truth, then there are some very valid reasons for believing in the reality of God. If not, there will probably never be enough proof to satisfy them. For the sincere seeker, here are some ideas. (Note: The Bible never argues for the existence of God, it simply assumes it.) We know there is a God for several reasons….
Nothing in this world is able to explain its own existence; thus, there must be a Supreme Being in order to explain the world in which we find ourselves. (If there is a creation, there must be a Creator. Romans 1:20). (Theologians call this the "Cosmological Argument".)
The characteristics of the universe and life on our planet are so intricate that the idea of chance or coincidence being the means by which such intricacy developed is laughable. If you would never assume all the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle could assemble themselves by just shaking the box, why would you assume that such amazing order and organization in the physical world occurred by means of random events. (If there is a design, there must be a Designer. Romans 2:4). (Theologians call this the "Teleological Argument".)
People's own hearts tells them that there is a God….. otherwise they would not have asked the question in the first place. There is a basic inborn "guidance system" within every person of every culture and time period that enables them to sense right/wrong, fair/unfair, good/bad. This is far beyond a physical mechanism. It is the implanting of an inner sense of "law" that must have been given by a greater mind. (If there is a law, there must be a Lawgiver. Romans 2:14-16). (Theologians call this the "Moral Argument".)
You can't explain Jesus Christ unless God exists. The life, words, and works of Jesus are well documented in history for the honest researcher to see. If He was a real person, then it is crucial to determine the truthfulness of His claim (that He was the divine Son of God… indicating the reality of God, Himself). Jesus even said (in John 14:7-11) that His own reality was inseparable from that of God's. Jesus Christ (using the logic of C. S. Lewis) was either a legend, a liar, a lunatic… or the Lord that He claimed to be. And if His claims stand up, then there must be a God, existing as the ultimate Reality.
-BACK TO TOP-
Q. Is the Bible truly reliable?
A: Other forms of this question sound like this: "Human beings wrote the Bible, so there must be errors in it." & "Aren't there some pretty far-fetched stories and ideas in the Bible… like resurrections, a man being swallowed by a fish, future revelations, etc.?" The introduction to the answer is to say that while almost everybody has an opinion about the Bible, almost nobody has read it (let alone studied it carefully). So much of the criticism of the Scriptures voiced in society today comes from people who are repeating 2nd or 3rd hand comments or opinions. A critic of any book should never reject that book unless….he's personally looked into the book and come to understand the book's purpose. (It would never be fair or reasonable to criticize a cook book because it didn't say anything about fixing an automobile. That was never the book's intent.) In the case of the Bible… it has a two-fold purpose… to reveal God to the person who is reading it…. and ….to assist that reader in beginning and building a personal relationship with God. (John 20:30-31). There are, indeed, some very powerful reasons for trusting in the reliability of the Bible. Besides the Bible's own claims about itself, which are certainly worth investigating, (II Timothy 3:16-17, Hebrews 4:12, John 17:17, Mark 13:31, Psalm 19, Psalm 119) here are 4 of those reasons:
Archaeology (the study of ancient peoples, places and societies) supports the truth of the Bible. The more that is discovered about the geographical locations mentioned in the Scriptures, as well as particular events recorded by Bible writers, the more the Bible is shown to be accurate and reliable. The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947) provided an incontrovertible testimony to the accuracy of the copies of the Old Testament people had been using for hundreds of years. Likewise, the examination of the ruins of Jericho verify the Biblical account of that city's destruction in the book of Joshua. Also, the long standing skepticism about a people called Hittites in the Old Testament, has been put to rest by many discoveries about their literature, culture and laws.
The consistency within the Bible itself testifies to its reliability. The collection of writings, known today as The Bible, took over 1500 years to write. It was composed by 40 different human writers, from 3 different continents, using 3 languages. There is a diversity of subject matter and contexts within the Bible that would equal a set of encyclopedias. There have been a myriad of copies made (originally by hand) and there have been numerous attempts to erase the impact and existence of the Bible within various nations and cultures. All of this would speak against the possibility of human collaboration and collusion. Yet, in spite of all the factors just mentioned, throughout the entire Bible, the same character of God is seen, the same plan for redemption and relationship with God, the same accounts of the future, the same doctrine of mankind, sin, forgiveness, grace, etc. is consistent from cover to cover. This can be no accident.
Fulfilled prophecy is a potent witness to the Bible's truthfulness. At the time of it's completion, approximately 25% of the Bible was unfulfilled prophecy (some of which has come to pass since then…. like the formation of Israel as a nation in 1948). There is an abundance of fulfilled fore-tellings that stand as powerful supports to the Bible's veracity. Remember, there is a 400 year gap between the conclusion of the Old Testament and Matthew's gospel of Jesus Christ. Just looking into the Old Testament prophecies we find many statements about the coming Messiah…. God's chosen redeemer. To have them all come true in the life of one person could never be coincidental. (Consider these odds: If you take a coin and flip it twice, the possibilities would be as follows – heads/heads, heads/tails, tails/heads, and tails/tails. The chance of turning up heads/heads would obviously be 1 out of 4 flips…. or if 4 people stood side-by-side and each flipped twice, the chances are that 1 of them would flip heads/heads. This is the probability according to well-defined mathematical laws.
The chance of getting heads 3 times in a row without any other combination intervening is 1 out of 8… or if 8 people were flipping, you could expect one of them to get heads/heads/heads. Four heads in a row would require 16 people flipping. If you jump to 10 in a row, you would need slightly more than 1,000 people flipping and only one of them would be likely to produce the 10. To achieve 20 would take more than 1,000,000 and to flip 30 in a row would take more than 1,000,000,000. A run of 40 would require over a trillion people {more than the population of 3 planet Earths}. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to conclude that even 40 prophecies could be fulfilled in one person merely by chance. However, there were not 40 prophecies about Jesus given more than 400 years before His birth…. there were over 300! And each one took place just as prophesied.)
The best support of the Bible's truthfulness, however, is simply that it works! In a real sense, the Bible doesn't need to be defended. It just needs to be read and put into practice. That alone will prove the accuracy of what it says. ( Psalm 1).
Lastly, consider that if a person is unwilling to accept the Bible's claim that it was authored by God (through human agents), and is therefore true and reliable, the remaining alternatives as to the Bible's origins are very unsatisfactory. Look at the logic: What are the possible sources for the Bible's origin?
Animals could have produced it.
Human beings could have produced it.
Spirit beings (angels or aliens) could have produced it.
God could have produced it… as the Bible claims.
What about animals?. Do we see any animals creating any literature today? Hardly. This is a no-brainer.
What about beings other than God? They can be grouped into 2 or 3 categories. Good people/spirits - Evil people/spirits - Crazy people.
Good people/spirits wouldn't have produced the Bible, because they lied to us. They wrote that the book was really not from anyone other than God, Himself. Therefore, they deceived us and could not really be considered good at all.
Evil people/spirits wouldn't have produced the Bible, because they would have had to write a book that condemns themselves. They exposed their own wickedness and pronounced judgment upon their own lives.
Crazy people couldn't have produced the Bible, because no insane or deluded persons could produce such organization and consistency. Nor could they have provided generations of human history with the beauty of the Psalms, the wisdom of the Proverbs, or the stability of the Law.
Well, if you rule out animals, humans and non-humans… WHO do you have left? Answer: God, Himself, is the author of the wonderful book, The Bible. And if He is indeed the author… it goes without saying, the Book is reliable!
-BACK TO TOP-
Q: "Doesn't the hypocrisy of professing Christians tarnish the truth?"
Q: "Doesn't the hypocrisy of professing Christians tarnish the truth?"
A: Other forms of this comment sound like, "If Christianity is true, why are there so many hypocrites in it?" or "I know someone who's a Christian, and he/she is no more moral/ethical than anybody else." Sadly, this kind of statement is often made by someone who has been hurt or disappointed by a professing Christian. Let's make some important observations that can lead to a reasonable answer.
In criticizing hypocrisy among Christians, the critic has to make sure he's talking about the real thing and not a non-Christian. Is the person or group being examined genuinely Christian? There is a big difference, for instance, between "lightning" and "lightning bug." One is hardly the same as the other…. so it is with people who may call themselves or present themselves as Christians. What is the observation of the supposed hypocrite based on? Remember, everything genuine also has counterfeits (jewels, money, etc.). We don't discard the genuine just because fakes exist.
True Christians don't claim to live perfect lives…. only to be perfectly forgiven by God! There is a huge difference. Actually, that's how a Christian became one in the first place, by admitting that he/she sins and needs a forgiving Savior. Critics should try to recognize that just because there are hypocrites within the group called "Christians" (just like there are hypocrites in every other group you could name) that doesn't mean that EVERY one of them is a hypocrite. (Just because one traffic light malfunctions, doesn't mean that the next one down the street will too.) It would be foolish to reach such a universal conclusion.
Comparisons need to be reasonable and fair. Since when is it appropriate to measure any human being against the standard of perfection? The correct measurement or comparison is with the former life of the Christian. In other words, the point is not what the Christian's life is like compared to a perfect life, but rather compared to the pre-Christian life of that same person. (Don't ridicule the guy with yellow teeth because they aren't white… it just may be that his teeth used to be black!)
It's also important to remember that if a true Christian is indeed acting hypocritically, then it's God's business…not mine. Nobody is ever going to care more than God does about the consistency level of the people who believe in Him and chose to follow His ways. He takes responsibility for correcting, convicting and even lovingly chastising Christians when they need it. (Hebrews 12:5-11).
If someone is really upset and disappointed with the religious hypocrisy in society, then they are in excellent company. Jesus, Himself was very outspoken about the issue all throughout the Gospel record. So… since there is agreement with Jesus about this concern, it shouldn't be something that separates the critic from investigating or getting to know Jesus personally. (In fact, if a hypocrite keeps you from God, then a hypocrite is closer to Him than you are!)
Finally, regarding the complaint about hypocrites in the Christian faith, it needs to be said again that the most common reason people voice these complaints is because they have been hurt or let down by someone or some group professing Christianity. However, even though the past hurt or mistreatment is important, the more crucial issue is the personal relationship the critic can/should develop with God. So, since there are lots of situations in life where we find hypocrisy (yet don't let it keep us from meaningful living), we ought to also be willing to look beyond the imperfect representatives of God when we see them. If we do, we can find that the message of the Bible and the reality of Jesus Christ stand as true and are certainly worth believing.
-BACK TO TOP-
Q: "Isn't it too narrow-minded to say Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven?"
A: In other words…"How can 2/3 of the world's population be wrong? They don't believe in Jesus. It's much too exclusive and bigoted to say that all those other religions are wrong. After all, aren't all world religions really aiming at the same goal (eternal life)? It's like we're all climbing up the same mountain, just using different paths…. or like a wheel with the spokes of all the different faiths connected to the same hub!" Let's analyze this objection to Christianity a little more in detail. Here are some well-meaning, but misguided ideas about this subject:
"Those other religions are all so sincere! Therefore, we shouldn't say they are wrong."
Well… remember that SINCERITY does not equal TRUTH. Just like well meaning half-backs can, and have carried the ball over the wrong goal line with all the gusto in the world, so can well meaning followers of a particular religious system sincerely commit themselves to something that is not true. It is certainly possible to be "sincerely wrong".
"It is very narrow-minded to claim Jesus is the only means to get to heaven."
Being NARROW does not equal being FALSE. We assent to very narrow minded things all day long. Cars run on gasoline ONLY! Airplanes out in the ocean land on aircraft carriers ONLY! Light bulbs glow because of electricity ONLY! The issue, therefore, isn't narrowness, but truth.
"Jesus is OK for me, but that doesn't mean He's right for the entire world!"
TRUTH is not the result of MAJORITY OPINION. Are there not some rules/laws/truths that are universal? Gravity is the same world-wide. Historical facts are true for everyone regardless of culture or time. No vote will ever change if something is true or false. It either is or it isn't!
"It's unloving to say there's only one way to God. It is so intolerant to impose a set of beliefs on others."
SHARING TRUTH does not equal UNKINDNESS. What would the consensus be if the United States discovered the truth about small pox vaccine, yet felt it shouldn't be shared with other peoples or nations? Do we really believe that medical science is best for the US but witch doctors are more effective for people in New Guinea? Tolerance is certainly an admirable quality…. yet it is only a virtue when it comes to matters of relationship. Tolerance with actual facts is a travesty!
Here are some very important factors in completing the answer to this question.
Jesus Christ claimed to be the ONLY WAY to God. (John 14:6). The notion that all religions are valid is logically impossible. If all are valid ways to God, then Christianity is also valid and Jesus is simply one of many ways to heaven. But we find that Jesus says He is the ONLY path, thus, if Christ is one of the ways to God, then He is also the only way. Or else this Jesus, who is one of the ways, is dead wrong in claiming to be the only way, in which case it would be foolish to think that He is even one of the many ways!
If Jesus isn't truthful about Himself, then the other options are lousy! CS Lewis concluded that He'd have to be one of the following… Either Jesus is a LEGEND and didn't really exist. (But, there is more historical evidence for the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Bible than there is for Napoleon.) or Jesus is a LUNATIC who just "thought" He was God (But, it's impossible to imagine a crazy person coming up with the words found in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, teaching the temple elders at the age of 12 in Luke 2, or being able to answer the questions meant to trap Him as in Matthew 22:21.) or Jesus is a LIAR and intentionally deceived listeners/readers into thinking He was something He was not. (But, this would run completely contrary to all He stood for… namely the Truth of God.)
Jesus backed up His claims about Himself. His validation included not only His personality (compassion, love, intellect), His sinlessness, His miracles (demonstrations of His power over nature itself), but also His resurrection (which had been predicted and was testified about by eye-witnesses).
Lastly… regarding this idea of exclusivity… NOTE the principle of logic known as "the law of non-contradiction." The law states…"If 2 things are contradictory, either both are wrong or ONLY one of them is right. They cannot BOTH be right." Example: If I claim that all pens write with blue ink, but you say that some pens write with red ink, then either we are both wrong or one of us is right. In this case, you are right. Therefore… If Christ says "I am the ONLY way." and Mohammed (or anyone else) says "There are some other ways to God." then either Christ is wrong and Mohammed is right, or Christ is right and Mohammed is wrong, or they are both wrong. But they cannot BOTH be right. This is why the comments about the mountain paths or the wheel and hub given above are sheer nonsense from a logical standpoint.
Face it… When people say that all religious systems are basically the same, they are saying that they know little or nothing about world religions. The real conclusion to this matter is this. The reason so many people have problems with the God who is revealed in Scripture is that mankind is terribly wicked and sinful, and we don't understand what a holy God is like. Until we begin to grasp how righteous and holy He is, we will never begin to understand how gracious and merciful He has been in putting up with us. The question we should be asking if we are really concerned about God's ways is not "Why is there only one way to God." but rather, "Why is there any way at all? How is that God would be so merciful as to grant us repentance after we have repeatedly rebelled against Him and His principles?" That's the real question!
-BACK TO TOP-
Q: "Are miracles really possible?"
A: Or… "How can a reasonable, scientific mind accept the miraculous?" Well, let's start with a simple definition of a miracle. It has to be something more than just the spectacular, startling or rare…. the event in question has to fall into the category of an "extraordinary event of supernatural power exerted in the natural world." How great does something have to be to be classified as a miracle? Great enough that natural human influence is insufficient to bring it to pass! We could state at least 3 important characteristics of miracles:
Miracles are not necessarily believed. Jesus said (in a story found in Luke 16:31) that some people will resist believing even if they saw someone come back from the dead. Many people reject the possibility of the miraculous, not because of the evidence that may be present, but because of a naturalistic world-view that does not allow for the existence of a "miracle worker". Therefore, all observable events must (in their reasoning) have a natural explanation. Miracles only convince people if they are already "open-hearted" toward the One doing the miracle.
Miracles don't go AGAINST the laws of nature. Rather, they go OVER/BEYOND them. This ought to be good news to the skeptic or undecided observer of the miraculous. A belief in the reality of miracles does not require the intelligent person to abandon understanding of the laws of nature. It is just the recognition that there are some laws that supersede others. (Like the laws of aerodynamics taking precedence over the law of gravity…. or the laws of scuba diving stepping beyond the laws of living/breathing underwater.) If God is the author of the natural laws that govern our human existence, it then stands to reason that He exists and functions beyond those natural laws and can superimpose other, higher laws upon them whenever He wishes.
Miracles are the natural activity of a supernatural being. If that is so, then that which is miraculous is evidence of the supernatural beings existence. Let's go past the idea of "supernatural being" to "SUPREME being". If there is a supreme being who would be above and beyond our dimension of reality, then we would expect Him to do supernatural things. Miracles are only supernatural to humans. To God they are quite natural, normal, and expected. If there were no such things as miracles, we should have good cause to question whether God really exists. See also the section in this material re: the existence of God.
-BACK TO TOP-
Q: "If God is so loving, why is there so much suffering… and what about Hell?"
A: "Why did God create so much suffering? Why do innocent people suffer? Why doesn't God stop the suffering that exists? Why would a God of love send people to a place of everlasting suffering, like Hell?" These are all variations on the same question. Let's break the answer down into 2 sections… "What about suffering?" & "What about Hell?"
"What about suffering?" - Are there any good reasons for the existence of suffering in our world? Here are few ideas:
God doesn't DESIRE anyone to suffer. When you take a look at the original condition of the world God created (Genesis 1 & 2) as well as the description of the place He is preparing for those who know Him (Heaven) you can see His wishes are for the good of people. He even provides direct statements about this in the Bible (check out Psalm 9:9-10, John 10:10, John 3:17, Romans 2:4, Revelation 21:4).
God gave human beings FREE CHOICE. It is true that He did create a universe that began suffering-free, but He could not violate His love nature and give people no choice. You can't have genuine love between people without the CHOICE to love. This reality (humans having free will/choice) automatically puts the "comfort level" of the world God created at risk!
Man (Adam and Eve in Genesis 3) chose to reject God's plan and therefore experienced the results of the choice, both spiritually and physically. When sinful behavior entered the world, creation was put into an "unnatural" condition…. which then made suffering "natural". It is very unfair to blame God for the results that humans bring upon themselves. That's true in the Garden of Eden, as well as today…. (Note: Thousands of people die each year of emphysema, 99% of them are smokers. A criminal high on drugs rapes and/or murders an innocent child….is God responsible for the acts of the wrongdoer?)
Had God created humans with no choice the result would have been a "robot-like" life for us. It was indeed out of love that He provided life with the choice to do both wrong and right. People may complain that it is unfair to decree that suffering/discomfort/loss is the result of wrong choices, but the real injustice would be to remove the choice at all. And every choice, if it is a genuine choice, carries with it consequences.
A possible question might then arise, "Why not stop it now? Why doesn't God just remove the suffering that humans have brought upon themselves… even though He, Himself is not directly responsible for it?" Well, consider the 2 alternatives to this request: God could remove the system of consequences, that is, insulate us from the results of choices. But then no true love could be shown. (example. Suppose you were offered 2 pens each of different color and asked to select the one you wanted. If it didn't make any difference which one you took, you might say, "It doesn't matter, just hand me one."
Since the results of the choice don't matter, then there can be no true choice. No results = No preference = No choice.) As we already said, if there is no real choice… then there is no real love! The other alternative is that God could remove the source of sin and evil itself. As the late Christian author, Paul Little once asked, "Suppose God were to say that at Midnight tonight all evil will be wiped out of the universe. How many of us would be here at 12:01?" God cannot remove the source of evil without removing those who suffer the consequences of it.
Lastly… many people assume that suffering is an enormous obstacle to knowing God. They often conclude that as long as their life has unreasonable/inexplicable pain or discomfort then they cannot believe or accept the message of God or the Bible. In reality, it may be that suffering offers a tremendous opportunity to seek God. He has proven to countless people down through history, that He is always ready to draw near to those who seek to draw near to Him. (James 4:8).
"What about Hell?" In an attempt to grasp the Biblical truth about Hell (rather than the mythical stories, intellectual/scientific reasoning, or new-age falsehoods) consider the following statements:
Hell is not a threat… it is a reality. God does not threaten people with the possibility of going to Hell, He warns them about it. If the bridge is out or the building is on fire, then a warning about it is an act of love… not a threat that is oppressive or manipulative.
God desires that NOBODY goes to Hell. (Consider these passages…. I Timothy 2:4, II Peter 3:9, Matthew 25:41…. note that the original design of Hell was not for people… but for Satan and his angels!).
Not everyone will escape the punishment of Hell. The belief that "we're ALL God's children" is a fallacy. We are all God's creatures… but all of us are not related to Him by personal faith. Sadly, there will be those of us within the human race who will not share in the blessings of Heaven. Just as a gardener has to remove weeds, lest He have no garden, so God must deal with those who reject Him and refuse the free gift of His salvation. Hell will not disappear for anyone just by wishing or believing that it is not there.
Hell is a place where evil is contained. Is it more loving to let a murderer roam the streets or to contain him? The answer is obvious…. likewise God, out of love and absolute righteousness, will ultimately contain and confine all evil. The severity of Hell is not merely to underscore the wickedness of people who sin… but to underscore the holiness of God.
The most powerful reason to believe in and accept the reality of Hell is because Jesus Christ said so: Read Mark 9:42-48.
Author Dorothy Sayers in 'Creed or Chaos' put the problem of evil in this perspective: "For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is- limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death - [God] had the honesty and the courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard word and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worth while."
-BACK TO TOP-
Q: "Isn't Religion just a psychological crutch?"
A: In other words…."It's a sign of weakness to create a deity that you have to believe in. Only a neurotic person looks for supernatural supports to life. Religion is only necessary because some people are too insecure to face reality. Religion is so emotional. It doesn't really matter what you believe, it's the activity of faith that counts." Well, we do have to agree with the critics of Christianity on one thing… there have certainly been some particular Christians and Christian organizations that have given the world good cause to question their emotional stability, ethical integrity, or grasp on reality. It is sad that there have been such behaviors in the name of Christianity, because it does reflect poorly on those who sincerely and conscientiously follow Jesus. But let's try to answer this question.
Start with getting a clear definition of what is meant by "religion". If the skeptic is defining religion as the process of man attempting to reach God (by some creed or code of actions), then we are not really talking about the same thing. Genuine Christianity is not a religion… it is a relationship. (See the material above in the section on "What is a Christian?") Christianity is not the process of man attempting to reach God… but rather God successfully reaching out to man. (Romans 5:6-8).
Next, decide what is meant by "crutch". Are we referring to some kind of support or help that we "think" we need…?.. or something that we "actually do" need? It's foolish (maybe even dangerous, unhealthy and limiting) to walk around with crutches, braces or a wheelchair when you don't really require them. But if you do have particular needs and limits that such devices were designed for, then they it is not foolish to use them. If mankind is morally and spiritually healthy, then no "crutch" is needed. But if mankind is spiritually "crippled" then it is the height of arrogance to ignore or deny the means God provides to make men whole again. Well, it would seem pretty obvious, in examining the daily headlines, that mankind is far from being spiritually healthy. The term used by theologians is "depravity". That means that when people are born into the world, they already have a proclivity/inclination towards sin. (I John 1:8-10, Ephesians 2:1-3). In many ways, this question all boils down to what you believe about God and His relating to the world of people we all live in. Let's highlight a couple of important points:
The "SINCERE" Theory. Many people have concluded that it doesn't much matter what you believe…. as long as you are sincere in that belief. However, logical people know that just believing something doesn't make it true. Suppose someone you knew had a terminal disease and was given morphine to control the pain. That person could begin to believe that the morphine is a cure for the illness. But it's not! No amount of belief is going to make it so.
The "CRUTCH" Theory. It is just as logical to see that believing something doesn't make it false either! Suppose you are a soldier in a platoon of men who have just accomplished a night-time mission behind enemy lines but the sun has now come up and you are trapped by the daylight and are hiding in the bushes. You, and your fellow soldiers, are believing and hoping and longing for the night to fall, because you know it will bring you the chance to escape in the darkness. Does such a belief mean that you and the other soldiers are stupid or irrational? Certainly not. The limitations and needs of the soldiers have intensified their hope and belief in the coming night. It is reasonable and natural for them to have such a belief.
In both these cases… it is not the amount of the person's belief that matters most…. but the object of that belief! The hinge or focal point becomes, "What is the object of faith?" If it is an unworthy object (something/someone who will not support the belief you have entrusted) then it is indeed a "psychological crutch" and isn't worth much. But if the object of your faith is worthy (something/someone who will provide the solution and remedy for your problem) then it is fitting and right to "lean" upon it.
The "crutch" criticism in no way proves or disproves the reality of God and/or His character. The bottom line... if He is real, then He had better be depended upon. The real question worth considering is "Is there really a God…. and what is He like?"
Also note: The God of the Bible doesn't really look like the kind of deity that would have been invented by emotionally crippled people. The God of the Bible is very "un-tame" and would not readily match the kind of profile the skeptics assume when they use the "crutch" criticism.
-BACK TO TOP-
Q: "Isn't it unfair to condemn people who have never heard about Jesus?"
A: What may actually rest behind this question is an inquiry about what God is really like. People who sincerely ask this question (as well as any of the others in this section) should never be "put down" for their wanting to know more about the character of God. Other versions of this question may sound like, "What happens to babies, little children, or mentally handicapped people when they die….do they go to hell if they never accepted Jesus? or What about very religious people from other lands/cultures who may call their god something other than what Christians call Him?" We'll try to examine some of the specifics of this question later… but first, consider some basic Biblical truths.
The Bible states emphatically, that God is totally fair and just. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with His divine nature to do something to or for a person that would be unfair or unjust. (Deut. 10:17-18, 32:4). God would never judge someone against a standard that was contrary to either His great compassion or His great justice. This is the overriding, "umbrella-like" principle that must guide our understanding of everything else in the search for this question's answer.
The Bible also informs us that everyone in the world is provided with the same basic, general information about God. (Romans 1:18-20). Regardless of a person's culture or civilization, God has generously revealed Himself to men… via the creation around us, the circumstances of our lives, and a built-in guidance system called a conscience. Because of this basic, general revelation of God to all men, the Bible says everyone is ultimately without excuse when it comes to responding to Him.
The bad news, however, is that the Bible also teaches that this basic information about God is not adequate to bring a person to complete salvation. (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). For genuine salvation there must be genuine faith in Jesus. So, how do people who do not live in an environment where Jesus is taught or preached get to hear of Him?
It appears as though God takes some special initiative to respond to a genuine seeker, even when that seeker lives outside the circle of specific knowledge of God's salvation plan. It is as if God has obligated Himself to share the message of the truth with someone who responds appropriately to what limited information he/she may have about God. (Proverbs 8:17, II Chron. 16:9, Matthew 7:7-8, Psalm 14:2). Since God has required a man to know the specifics of salvation, He has taken it upon Himself to get those specifics to a man who is not born in an environment where that knowledge is readily at hand. There are many illustrations of this both in the Bible and in more contemporary history. Let's sight just a few. In Acts 8:26ff we find the account of an Ethiopian man who had already begun to respond to limited information about God and Philip was sent to explain the plan and offer of salvation to him. Further on in Acts 10, a man named Cornelius, was likewise a sincere seeker. He may have been devout, but he was still doomed until God sent Peter to offer him the gift of eternal life. God took the initiative to provide the specific gospel message to people who were responding in child-like faith to the basic light of revelation and who had a longing to submit themselves to the "supreme being" they knew must be there. In more modern times, missionaries tell countless stories of people like Samuel Morris (his Americanized name) who in a very primitive part of Africa was longing to know the God of heaven. God used amazing means to connect this young man with a missionary who could tell him the true story of the true God. (This man's biography is called "Samuel Morris: The March of Faith" written by Lindley Baldwin.) Other accounts of this kind of spiritual intervention by God can be found in the missionary literature of almost every established mission society or agency that works among unreached people groups. The fact is, God is faithful to bring the light of salvation to those who seek the light found in the world around them.
But, what about little children, babies and the mentally handicapped? If they die before they are able to understand and decide to accept Jesus, does God send them to hell? No, we know that God has an everlasting love and compassion for people like this. God isn't in the business of sending people to hell…. people make the choice, themselves, to reserve space there by rejecting Jesus Christ as their Savior. So, if a person is incapable of rejecting or accepting we will have to fall back upon what we know and believe about the character of God, Himself. That He is merciful, generous, and loving…. especially toward children, is indisputable. (Matthew 18:1-6, Mark 9:36-37, 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17). In fact there is quite clear scriptural indication that those who die in infancy go to be with the Lord. (Read David's words after the death of his baby in II Sam. 12:23.) While we don't know everything that happens in the circumstances of these kinds of deaths, we do know that God is totally fair!
Now, what about the people in the Old Testament?…. they could never hear about (let alone believe in) Jesus, because He hadn't even been born yet. Good point! But we should realize that, even before Christ was born, the standard for salvation from God was still the same. It requires the recognition of sinfulness on the part of the seeker, a genuine turning to God as the forgiver of sins, and a trust in an innocent sacrifice as a substitute payment for personal sins. (The big difference in the Old Testament was that the substitute payment had to be repeated over and over, in the form of lambs, etc. Jesus, the absolute "Lamb of God" would eventually provide a "once-and-for-all" sacrifice that would never have to be repeated.) (See also some material in this FAQ re: suffering and eternal punishment)
The final word on this searching question… as well as any of the others we have covered in this FAQ is this…. If you are the seeker, please be honest in your search! Don't ever let this (or any other) question keep you from asking yourself the most important one of all. "What will I chose to believe about Jesus?" Taking honest steps to answer this one will provide the strongest foundation for discovering the answers for all the others.
-BACK TO TOP-
