Have you ever asked questions like:
“How can there be only one true religion?” or
“If God is good, why is there so much evil and suffering?”
On September 14, Elim EFC will begin a journey of wrestling through these and other significant “God questions” which both Christians and skeptics alike share.
These are important questions that deserve direct and honest answers and dialogue. I want to invite you to join us on this journey. Please see the schedule below to see the questions I will address and the dates they will be discussed.
I also invite you to post your thoughts and any additional “God questions” you might have to this blog. I will do my best to respond to each question in a timely manner.
May God guide us as we journey together.
Martin Schlomer
Pastor, ElimEFC
Sept. 14 – How can there be only one true religion?
Sept. 21 – How can the Bible be historically reliable?
Sept. 28 – If God is good, why is there so much evil & suffering?
Oct. 12 – Don’t we have to find truth for ourselves?
Oct. 19 – Isn’t the God of Christianity an angry judge?
Oct. 26 – If Christianity is true, why are there so many hypocrites?
Nov. 2 – Hasn’t Christianity been an instrument for oppression?
Nov. 16 – What should I do with my doubts?
Note: In an effort to be responsive to the needs of the listeners and their input, dates and subjects are subject to change.
September 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Two questions:
1) Where are you getting your “God questions” from? Who is thinking up the questions?
2) What is your basis or source for providing answers to these questions?
September 14, 2008 at 1:34 pm
In your sermon today you spoke of truth being “narrow” and pointed to math and the law as other examples of truth that may seem narrow but are also accepted. How do you respond to someone who would counter that math and the law are accepted as fact because they can be proven to be so. However, the existance of God/Jesus Christ (aside from the historical Jesus) can only be accepted by an act of faith not fact, and since their existance cannot be proven, how can we assert that Christianity is the one true religion?
September 14, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Great question!
Ultimately, Christianity can be validated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for which there is significant historical evidence (ie, “proof”). No other religion can claim such a validation as their premise. This was an intentional validation by God that Christ spoke the truth, since only God could raise him from the dead.
Christ validated his identity as the Son of God (and therefore the truth of his claims) by raising from the dead.
I would add that anything that can be “proven” also requires faith or belief. You can scientifically “prove” that the chair you are about to sit on will hold your weight. It nonetheless requires a certain amount of faith to actually put it to the test and sit on it.
What I am advocating here is not blind faith, but an intelligent faith … a belief that is rooted in the historical fact of Christ’s resurrection.
September 14, 2008 at 8:02 pm
My questions are being formed by the voice of culture. Each question is a common idea that has been around for some time.
My source for answering the questions is Scripture. My goal is to integrate and understanding of the Bible with the questions from culture in a coherent way.
An essential understanding of this journey is that it is a dialogue that is ongoing, respectful, thoughtful and intelligent. Welcome to the journey!
September 18, 2008 at 9:22 pm
This topic has prompted me to think a lot on the idea of truth. I am too young to know when it was that people started using the phrase “true for you”, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me. Our culture has developed this idea that religion is not based on truth. Religion is viewed as a hobby rather than something that is true. If I tell somebody I enjoy photography, they say, “Oh, well good for you. That’s just wonderful. I am so glad you enjoy that.” But our culture carries this same attitude into religion. The problem is that religion is not something like underwater basket weaving, or fungus collecting. It shapes the way you live your life. It forms who you are as an individual. As Christians we believe religion is not just some game that we choose to partake in on weekends. It is life, it is the world around us, it is all of creation, it is the way things are. Religion to us is as unyielding as the law of gravity. We can’t make it what we want it to be, it just is. To think that our likes or dislikes or opinions have any influence on truth is just pure arrogance. The Jehovah’s Witnesses faith was formed because of a single person’s dislike of the doctrine of hell. This is an example of this arrogance. The idea that my hatred of the doctrine of hell has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not it exists is simply ridiculous. Truth cannot be decided by my emotions, it must be based on logic and reasoning.
That is the wonderful thing about Christianity. There is so much evidence backing it up that I can’t help but have good emotions about it. In my 18 years as a Christian, I have never come across anything that even gives me the slightest doubt that what I believe is true. And believe me I have looked. I absolute confidence in that if I searched for 18 more years for information proving Christianity to be a farce that I would find none. On the flip side. I have studied in detail many world religions only to find that they fall apart at every turn and must be taken completely on faith. I have conversed with many people from other faiths and many of them react defensively and refuse to even examine the thought that they could be believing in a lie. I can show them over and over again different things that they cannot refute, but still they cling to their emotions. Many of them refuse to talk on the basis of fear. But me, I have the truth. I have never been afraid to examine my beliefs because I have the truth. And it has been confirmed over and over again, as it should be. If you have the truth you would expect there to be evidence to back it up.
September 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Great thoughts! Many people say that Christians accept what they believe on faith. While this is partially true, our faith (content of what we believe) is based on historical reality that is verified through archeology (in terms of persons or places) and textual criticism (in terms of determining the historical veracity of Scripture).
Understanding the foundations of our “faith” takes effort. I would encourage everyone to do the analysis before they accept the “blind faith belief” that truth is relative. That very belief (truth is relative relative) is an absolute statement and is self contradictory.
October 15, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Hi Martin! I’ve got a God question… if we as Christians are taught that God is evidenced by our ‘morality’ or ‘conscience’, and that we can see proof of God in the fact that we know right from wrong [i.e. murder is wrong], how do we explain cultures where child sacrifice and pagan rituals are not only accepted but considered good? How does that affect the view of God and how can it support the belief of ‘absolute truth’?
October 16, 2008 at 9:04 am
Excellent question Amanda. I will address this in more depth next next week but for now…Morality and conscience is evidence of an inborn sense of justice and right and wrong. Naturalism has no adequate way of explaining this. Christianity explains it as evidence of a creator. That being said, what about cultures who do hideous things like child sacrifice and they’re okay with it? Ultimately, the answer is not found in what they do or don’t do. It is found in why they do what they do. The fact that they have any standards is evidence of conscience and morality which is evidence of an ultimate good which we call God.
Why do some cultures do such hideous things and call them good? This has to do with the searing of the conscience which leads to the degeneration of culture. Most cultures look at things like child sacrifice as hideous and rightly so. But why do some cultures commit such atrocities? It has to do with the degeneration of culture through the degeneration of character. This is fed by corrupted world view which leads to greater and greater corruption of individuals and culture. This is the story of Romans 1:18ff. As man and ultimately culture move farther and farther away from God, things become more and more corrupt.
If you go to many of those cultures you mentioned, you will find that they haven’t always been this way. You see examples of these kinds of cultures in Scripture–Baal worship etc. Look at what God says to Israel about those practices. He explains it. You can trace those cultures back to see where they jumped off the deepend.
October 16, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Thanks Martin! That makes a lot of sense… I have had that question posed to me many times and never knew how to respond to it. Thank you for the insight!
October 26, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Hey Martin, nice job today tackling the tough topic of “hell.”
I have a couple of questions that you can cut your teeth on …
1) We talked about the character in C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce” who took the bus ride from hell to heaven, and ended up deciding to stay in heaven. Do you think (in real life) that’s possible? That God would reject someone who truly repented (even after death) and say, “Sorry, too late, you had your chance!” Or (if it’s really possible to repent after death) do you think it’s a possibility that some may be saved then?
I realize Hebrews 9:27 says that men are destined “to die once, then after this face judgment.” Though I’m not sure that means they won’t (then) be given opportunity to repent.
2) And could the reverse also be true? Could someone who is a child of God who died and went to heaven then (later) reject God and end up leaving Heaven? Do you think such a thing might be possible? (It did happen to Satan and 1/3 of the angels, after all.)
Although I can’t conceive of why anyone who loved God and got into heaven might want to ever leave … just wondering.
3) Along the lines of these questions, I’m curious about 1 Peter 3:18-22, which says that after He was crucified, through the Spirit Jesus “went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.” I’ve always been curious about this unusual passage. What do you think He was preaching to lost souls from Noah’s day … and why? Do you think He was offering them the chance to repent?
4) Do you think Christ’s story of Lazarus and the rich man (in Hades), from Luke 16:19-31, is parable/metaphor or reality? (By the way, very interesting comment about what’s missing, on the rich man’s part, in this exchange … namely, any contrition, repentance, or asking to be saved. Never thought of that before.)
October 28, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Larry, thanks for the questions. You never make it easy on me…do you?
In response to your first question: I do not believe there is the opportunity to repent after death. Scripture never presents that as an option even though CS Lewis had a different perspective which he presented in The Great Divorce. No where is this opportunity given in Scripture. Luke 16:19-31 (I lean towards believing this is literal and historical and not a paragle) gives the opposite perspective. Never did the rich man ask for forgiveness or seek repentence. All he did was complain about his circumstances and ask Abraham to send Lazarus to come help relieve his pain. Interesting…he treated Lazarus as a slave in death as he did in life. What does this tell us about our state of mind in hell. If we’re not repentent in life, why would we be in death. Surely we will complain about our circumstances as the rich man did but that doesn’t mean we want things to change even though the circumstances we are in are “hellish.”
Second question: Scripture doesn’t present that as an option. Why? If Lewis is correct, our character is formed (transformed) in life by following Christ so that when we’re with Christ, we’re where we want to be. In fact we couldn’t imagine any other place where we would want to be. I am not sure why the angels rebelled other than because of their pride and desire to be their own gods but I can’t imagine any senerio where this would be desirable for the true and authentic believer.
Regarding I Peter 3:18ff, I’m going to make you work for the answer. This is a difficult passage. I will quote at length from Dr. Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology regarding this issue:
(d) 1 Peter 3:18–20. For many people this is the most puzzling passage on this entire subject. Peter tells us that Christ was “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark” (RSV).
Does this refer to Christ preaching in hell?
Some have taken “he went and preached to the spirits in prison” to mean that Christ went into hell and preached to the spirits who were there—either proclaiming the gospel and offering a second chance to repent, or just proclaiming that he had triumphed over them and that they were eternally condemned.
But these interpretations fail to explain adequately either the passage itself or its setting in this context. Peter does not say that Christ preached to spirits generally, but only to those “who formerly did not obey…during the building of the ark.” Such a limited audience—those who disobeyed during the building of the ark—would be a strange group for Christ to travel to hell and preach to. If Christ proclaimed his triumph, why only to these sinners and not to all? And if he offered a second chance for salvation, why only to these sinners and not to all? Even more difficult for this view is the fact that Scripture elsewhere indicates that there is no opportunity for repentance after death (Luke 16:26; Heb. 10:26–27).
Moreover, the context of 1 Peter 3 makes “preaching in hell” unlikely. Peter is encouraging his readers to witness boldly to hostile unbelievers around them. He just told them to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you” (1 Peter 3:15 NIV). This evangelistic motif would lose its urgency if Peter were teaching a second chance for salvation after death. And it would not fit at all with a “preaching” of condemnation.
Does it refer to Christ preaching to fallen angels?
To give a better explanation for these difficulties, several commentators have proposed taking “spirits in prison” to mean demonic spirits, the spirits of fallen angels, and have said that Christ proclaimed condemnation to these demons. This (it is claimed) would comfort Peter’s readers by showing them that the demonic forces oppressing them would also be defeated by Christ.
However, Peter’s readers would have to go through an incredibly complicated reasoning process to draw this conclusion when Peter does not explicitly teach it. They would have to reason from (1) some demons who sinned long ago were condemned, to (2) other demons are now inciting your human persecutors, to (3) those demons will likewise be condemned someday, to (4) therefore your persecutors will finally be judged as well. Finally Peter’s readers would get to Peter’s point: (5) Therefore don’t fear your persecutors.
Those who hold this “preaching to fallen angels” view must assume that Peter’s readers would “read between the lines” and conclude all this (points 2–5) from the simple statement that Christ “preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey” (1 Peter 3:19–20). But does it not seem too farfetched to say that Peter knew his readers would read all this into the text?
Moreover, Peter emphasizes hostile persons not demons, in the context (1 Peter 3:14, 16). And where would Peter’s readers get the idea that angels sinned “during the building of the ark”? There is nothing of that in the Genesis story about the building of the ark. And (in spite of what some have claimed), if we look at all the traditions of Jewish interpretation of the flood story, we find no mention of angels sinning specifically “during the building of the ark.”28 Therefore the view that Peter is speaking of Christ’s proclamation of judgment to fallen angels is really not persuasive either.
Does it refer to Christ’s Proclaiming release to Old Testament saints?
Another explanation is that Christ, after his death, went and proclaimed release to Old Testament believers who had been unable to enter heaven until the completion of Christ’s redemptive work.
But again we may question whether this view adequately accounts for what the text actually says. It does not say that Christ preached to those who were believers or faithful to God, but to those “who formerly did not obey—the emphasis is on their disobedience. Moreover, Peter does not specify Old Testament believers generally, but only those who were disobedient “in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark” (1 Peter 3:20).
Finally, Scripture gives us no clear evidence to make us think that full access to the blessings of being in God’s presence in heaven were withheld from Old Testament believers when they died—indeed, several passages suggest that believers who died before Christ’s death did enter into the presence of God at once because their sins were forgiven by trusting in the Messiah who was to come (Gen. 5:24; 2 Sam. 12:23; Pss. 16:11; 17:15; 23:6; Eccl. 12:7; Matt. 22:31–32; Luke 16:22; Rom. 4:1–8; Heb. 11:5).
A more satisfying explanation.
The most satisfactory explanation of 1 Peter 3:19–20 seems rather to be one proposed (but not really defended) long ago by Augustine: the passage refers not to something Christ did between his death and resurrection, but to what he did “in the spiritual realm of existence” (or “through the Spirit”) at the time of Noah. When Noah was building the ark, Christ “in spirit” was preaching through Noah to the hostile unbelievers around him.29
This view gains support from two other statements of Peter. In 1 Peter 1:11, he says that the “Spirit of Christ” was speaking in the Old Testament prophets. This suggests that Peter could readily have thought that the “Spirit of Christ” was speaking through Noah as well. Then in 2 Peter 2:5, he calls Noah a “preacher of righteousness” (NIV), using the noun (κῆρυξ, G3061) that comes from the same root as the verb “preached” (ἐκήρυξεν, from κηρύσσω, G3062) in 1 Peter 3:19. So it seems likely that when Christ “preached to the spirits in prison” he did so through Noah in the days before the flood.
The people to whom Christ preached through Noah were unbelievers on the earth at the time of Noah, but Peter calls them “spirits in prison” because they are now in the prison of hell—even though they were not just “spirits” but persons on earth when the preaching was done. (The NASB says Christ preached “to the spirits now in prison.”) We can speak the same way in English: “I knew President Clinton when he was a college student” is an appropriate statement, even though he was not president when he was in college. The sentence means, “I knew the man who is now President Clinton when he was still a student in college.” So “Christ preached to the spirits in prison” means “Christ preached to people who are now spirits in prison when they were still persons on earth.”30
This interpretation is very appropriate to the larger context of 1 Peter 3:13–22. The parallel between the situation of Noah and the situation of Peter’s readers is clear at several points:
Noah
Peter’s readers
Righteous minority
Righteous minority
Surrounded by hostile unbelievers
Surrounded by hostile unbelievers
God’s judgment was near
God’s judgment may come soon (1 Peter 4:5, 7; 2 Peter 3:10)
Noah witnessed boldly (by Christ’s power)
They should witness boldly by Christ’s power (1 Peter 3:14, 16–17; 3:15; 4:11)
Noah was finally saved
They will finally be saved (1 Peter 3:13–14; 4:13; 5:10)
Such an understanding of the text seems to be by far the most likely solution to a puzzling passage. Yet this means that our fourth possible support for a descent of Christ into hell also turns up negative—the text speaks rather of something Christ did on earth at the time of Noah.
Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (589). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.
November 2, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Awesome series. What happens to people who have never heard the gospel? Some years ago in Olympia I sat in the living room of a young couple. Christy was a Christian who had been praying for her unbelieving husband, Joel, for years. Joel asked me that very question in his own words. Sometimes I hear it as nothing but a smokescreen: “What about the Pigmies in Africa?” However, in Joel’s case, this was an honest question that was a stumbling block to him receiving salvation. It seemed unlikely to him that God is fair and just, and so he needed answers.
Basically, my answer followed these lines… First of all, God never condemns anyone for not hearing the gospel. What He condemns them for is their sin, and all have sinned. God is completely and totally just in this judgment. Romans 2 says that those who have the law will be judged by the law; and those who do not have the law will be judged anyway, because God has placed His law in every heart–yet they still fail to live up to it.
Yes, there is a message of good news, because Jesus earned the right to extend mercy and grace by paying the penalty for sin upon the cross. But, by definition, grace is not required, nor deserved, nor owed to anyone. He explained in scripture, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” Because of God’s omniscience, I believe that God will get the gospel message to every person that he knows will be receptive to it, but He is absolutely under no obligation to do so. Otherwise it would be debt, not grace.
Besides, it is wrong for us, as limited and finite human beings, to presume to judge the infinitely knowledgable and infinitely good God about His fairness.
Now, as to the Pigmies in Africa–they are actually a people group who have heard the gospel. Missionaries have been there. (Including some from Congo!) So don’t worry about unfairness to the Pigmies.
Having said all that, there is still a question. I said, “Joel, you HAVE heard the good news about the forgiveness of sins. The real question is, how are YOU going to respond to this wonderful news? Having heard, will you receive it?”
You can probably guess that Joel prayed to receive Christ as Savior that evening. Christy’s persistent prayers for him were answered. Last I heard, Joel was still faithfully serving the Lord along with his wife at Grace Covenant Church in Olympia.
November 3, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Wow, Martin, you are going to make me work for it! My brain is still trying to untie hermeneutical knots from reading that commentary passage.
(Of course, you’re the one who had to type all that out! So maybe my part’s not so hard.)
Anyway, if I can summarize Dr. Grudem’s argument, it’s:
1) We know that 1 Peter 3:18ff cannot mean what it seems to mean plainly and on its face (that after Christ was crucified he preached to disobedient souls from Noah’s day who had gone to Hell, or Sheol, or whatever) because other Scriptures contend there is no opportunity for repentance after death; and
2) Therefore, it must mean something else … it must be metaphorical (i.e., Christ was “preaching” through Noah’s life to those souls who were alive at the time, but are now dead and in hell having not repented while on earth). I.e., the Augustinian interpretation.
Frankly that seems a bit of a stretch to me, especially after reading the passages he cites as proof that there is no opportunity for repentance after death — Luke 16:26 and Heb. 10:26–27. I read both of these carefully and I think it could be argued just as effectively that that is not the main point of these passages.
But it is one possible explanation.
And I also agree that the practice and purpose of life here on earth seems to be to confirm us in our choices. I always find it interesting that God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” against releasing the children of Israel, after Pharaoh made the initial decisions not to do so. Each plague (which should have brought repentance) only brought further hardening.
I think life in general has the tendency to “harden” us — either in the right direction (toward faith) or in the wrong direction (against it), depending on the choices and patterns we initially make early on.
Another reason why the work Mark is doing (child evangelism) is so utterly important.