Why Do Churches Ignore ‘The Christian Apologetics’ Ministry?

            Is there a Christian apologetics ministry in your church? If the answer is a resounding NO, then your church is not an exception. It’s merely a part of a gazillion churches (or maybe more!) that ignores the ministry of Christian apologetics.

            There is a definite need for churches to prepare the young minds to not only resist the assault but to know enough to not allow their faith in Christ to be shaken or destroyed, says Christian Apologist William Lane Craig:¹

In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian worldview coupled with an overwhelming relativism. If parents are not intellectually engaged with their faith and do not have sound arguments for Christian theism and good answers to their children’s questions, then we are in real danger of losing our youth. It’s no longer enough to teach our children simply Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics. It’s hard to understand how people today can risk parenthood without having studied apologetics.

Unfortunately, our churches have also largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war. We dare not send them out to public high school and university armed with rubber swords and plastic armor. The time for playing games is past.

            Interestingly, WLC² spoke those words of wisdom in the year 2012, according to The Poached Egg website. However, by now, the situation would not have changed to a great extent. The harsh reality remains intact; Churches continue to ignore the apologetics ministry.

            Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary, Douglas Groothuis, thus expresses his thoughts on this subject:³

Many Christians are not aware of the tremendous intellectual resources available to defend "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints"; (Jude 3). This is largely because many major churches and parachurch organizations virtually ignore apologetics. One major campus ministry with a fine history and an otherwise splendid program offers no materials to help students deal with the unbelief emanating from their secular professors. Few evangelical sermons ever address the evidence for the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, the justice of hell, the supremacy of Christ, or the logical problems with non-Christian worldviews. Christian bestsellers, with rare exceptions, indulge in groundless apocalyptic speculations, exalt Christian celebrities (whose characters often do not fit their notoriety), and revel in how-to methods. You can tell much about a movement by what it reads, and by what it does not read.

            Why do churches ignore the apologetics ministry?

            Christian apologetics website Carm.org provides an answer to this question:⁴ (Emphasis Mine)

This is a more complex question than it may seem at the outset…Apologetics is not taught in churches because ministers and other church leaders are either untrained in it, or they are philosophically opposed to it.  The question, then, is why apologetics as an intellectual pursuit has been long ignored by Christian higher education and by church leaders.  This requires that we deal with generalities about attitudes within the church and how they have developed through the history of American Christianity.

The church, of course, has been influenced by the overall academic and social environment.  J.P. Moreland has provided an excellent analysis of how intellectual pursuits such as apologetics have been forsaken by the church as a whole.¹ I also recommend Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth.  I will attempt to summarize Moreland’s evaluation here.

The great revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries brought with them an emphasis on quick conversion of individuals to Christianity without sufficient attention to instruction in biblical doctrine.  The Christian life became more about the experience than the intellectual assent to the teachings of Christ and the apostles.  Without intellectual grounding, many Christians fell prey to the rising philosophical views alleging that only empirical evidence can support truth claims.  Higher criticism began to cast doubt on the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  Darwinism challenged Christian teachings on the origins of man.  The evangelical church largely responded to these challenges by abandoning rational inquiry altogether.  Philosophy, as a whole, became rejected by the fundamentalists, who stood by the truth of the Scripture.  Mainstream denominations, on the other hand, accepted modern philosophy and rejected the inerrancy of Scripture, viewing it as a spiritual guidebook only, not propositional truth.  Instead of engaging the secularists, the fundamentalists retreated to the margins of society.  As a result, the church has largely adopted a blind-faith position regarding the knowledge of spiritual truth.  Rather than faith being seen as a response to reasoned evidence of the truth of Christianity’s claims, it has become contrary to reason altogether.  It amounts to believing despite all the evidence.

Ultimately, the absence of apologetics in the church has to do with intellectual laziness, which is sometimes made a virtue in the name of “faith.”  The effects of anti-intellectualism in the church have been disastrous.  However, further discussion of these effects would go beyond the scope of the current question.  Again, I advise that you read Moreland’s work.  The good news is that in recent years, apologetics is on the rise.  Seminaries and other institutions of Christian higher education are beginning to teach apologetics and Christian worldview studies.  Authors like Charles Colson, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel have popularized apologetics.  Nevertheless, great work is yet to be done if the church is to become more of the salt and light it was designed to be (Matthew 5:13), after decades of retreating to the walls of the church buildings in the midst of the intellectual challenges of the secular world.    

            If churches do not have an apologetics ministry in their church because they do not have members who are into or interested in apologetics ministry, then the churches need not take all the blame upon themselves. Even so, there are quite a few parachurch apologetics ministries that these churches can request help from.

            Finally, this is not a tirade against churches. This is an appeal to the church leadership. May they prayerfully think about starting apologetics ministry in their churches, which is also the need of the hour.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2012/01/william-lane-craig-our-churches-have-dropped-the-ball.html

²William Lane Craig

³https://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/six-enemies-of-apologetic-engagement

⁴https://carm.org/apologetics-in-church

Websites last accessed on 31^st July 2019.

Four Blood Moons & 2 Bloody Noses

                  Pastor John Hagee and Pastor Mark Biltz’s noses are bloodied after the recent four blood moons episode.

            They aroused the end times passions of millions via their electric four blood moons prophesies about Christ’s return, significant changes to Israel and probable disasters upon our world.

            Christ has not returned. Israel exists without any historic shifts. The activities of our world are rather routine. The prophecies of Pastors Hagee and Biltz are absurd.

            Pastor Mark Biltz claimed that Christ’s second coming may be in the fall of 2015. The fall season has begun! Should we hope for Christ’s return now?

            No one knows when Christ will return, says the Bible. We should hope for Christ’s return now and even after fall.

            So dump Pastor Biltz’s prophecy!  

            Pastor Hagee authored a bestselling book, “Four Blood Moons – Something Is About To Change.” Now that this tetrad is done with…what changed?

            Was there a momentous change in Israel during this tetrad? No.   

            Pastor Hagee and Pastor Mark Biltz and the other end times prophets will thrive in a winning situation. Prior to their prophecies attaining fruition, they gained instant fame and recognition. Wealth accompanies fame and recognition. If they author a book and if their book is a bestseller - which they were - their wealth multiplies and image magnifies.

            Although their predictions bombed, flopped and busted, wouldn’t they be termed as false prophets? Once fame and wealth are in their domain, would they care if their predictions flop?

            Would fellow Christians consider them as false prophets? Some would and many would not. This is hideous Christianity in its glory!

            Pastor Hagee is a smart man. He had another trick up his sleeve! The trick was to divert people’s attention to that which appeases them.

            How do you get people to forget the sorry prophecy of four blood moons? You feed their hungry end times appetite with equally, if not more, exciting prophesies.

            When four blood moons prophecies amounted to nada (nothing), Pastor Hagee authored another book, “Three Heavens: Angels, Demons and What Lies Ahead.” (I guess ‘four’ didn’t work well for him so he limited his latest subtitle to ‘three.’) This diversionary tactic has been successful, for this book is also a bestseller.

            So let’s now run behind three heavens! What’s new?!

            The bait in his new book is in the sub title, “…what lies ahead.” Don’t we want to know what lies ahead from the man who fooled millions to earn millions with his asinine rambles?

            That’s not it!

            Pastor Hagee now accuses the powers that are in the USA for spearheading the Iran nuclear deal. Pastor Hagee predicts that this deal will result in a destructive war - as if Iran and Israel existed peacefully in all these years.

            Welcome another diversionary tactic! Let the people now focus on the Iran nuclear deal and not the fiasco of blood moons prophecy.  

            Hagee, Biltz and all the other doomsday prophets will keep proclaiming their predictions as long as we bite their baits. We are the culprits!

            Intrinsically, the problem is with us and not them. We nourish their egos and they continue to bloat, swell and puff up. We are ignorant fools.   

            We are ignorant of the Bible. We intentionally remain ignorant. They capitalize on this humongous opportunity and continue to feed us with incorrect and inordinate information.

            There is a real danger in these end-times prophecies. These end-times prophecies deceptively indulge our egos to make us feel like gods.

            God alone knows the future perfectly well. We desire to know our future. If and when we know our future, we feel like God.

            When these (godly) figures prophesy, the god in us is invigorated. Silently yet effectively, they play the same card that Satan played with Eve, “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God…” (Genesis 3:5, NIV, Emphasis Mine). We then fall prey to Satan’s deception,

            We want our eyes to be opened about the future. We want to be like God.

            Who wouldn’t want to get to know the future? Our life and hope is built on our future. It gives us immense pleasure to know what lies ahead. We feel like God when we know our future.

            When people predict the future, they seat us on a presumptuous throne of God. Since we love to be God, we love prophecies. These end times prophecies tickle the god-bone in us.

            If we do not know our future, we will depend on God. But when we know our future, our need for God diminishes.

            It doesn’t matter if their noses are bloodied now. They would not worry. They are not accountable, you see.

            They will continue doing their business. As long as we are gullible, we would keep buying their prophetic antics. Their business is to continue prophesying for they are certain of a dogged audience drooling eagerly to devour their predictions.

            As long as we Christians support their ridiculously asinine end times prophecies, the non-christian world will enjoy and laugh at this farce of a comedy show in Christendom. Yes, we are those farcical and foolish actors.

            When we buy these incredibly insane prophecies, do you really think that the non-Christian world will buy the gospel of Christ? 

Growth of Islam and Freedom of Man

                  My plea to Islam in my previous blog, “Is Islam the World’s FastestGrowing Religion?” was two-fold: (A) to offer Muslims the legitimate option to reject Islam (without any dangerous consequences - expressed or tacit), and (B) to remove all barriers - incarnational or digital - for a Muslim to explore any worldview. This naturally suggests removal of all legal barriers in countries subscribing to Islam to the proponents of conflicting worldviews.

            First, some clarity with respect to my previous blog:

            (1) Growth of any religion is not a matter of salvific or doctrinal significance for a believer unless he desires to indulge in religious trivia.

            (2) Islamic growth was used as a mere premise to propose a two-fold plea to Islam. Examining the veracity of the Islamic growth statistic was not an intent. Moreover, a subjective belief never denigrates an objective fact i.e. if I do not believe in the Islamic growth; the fact of the growth remains unassailed, as long as the statistic is truthful.

            (3) Condemning Islam was not even an implied intent.

            (4) The two-fold plea is predicated on “freedom.” Anyone should have the freedom to choose or reject Islam and all worldviews should be offered the freedom of vocalized presence in all Islamic countries. 

            (5) The intent is not to judge Muslims but it’s a complementary endeavor to desire for human freedom.

            Certain friendly comments objected my essay. For the sake of space restrictions, parts of their exact responses that reflect the entire theme of their response are shown below. My response to the objections received is as follows:

            Objection #1: “…For the mere fact being just as my India has its divisions n restriction in each district whereby a non Mahrashtran is forced to learn Marathi since they have no choice to reside in Mumbai to fit d Norms, and despise it totally. IT doesn't mean the citizen being Christian, hindu, muslim is being forced by their holy books to be hypocrites. my point here is that u have very conviniently pointed out the hypocrisy u saw n experienced but dint go deep in to ask d question Does Islam force you to do what you are doing?...”

            Response #1: Yes, the holy books should not encourage hypocrisy. In highly conservative Islamic societies, women are forced to go out in traditional Arabic attires only with their eyes exposed. Once again, my point is to offer freedom of attire (and religion), in this context. Of course, decency is mandatory – although it’s an individual’s moral responsibility.

            If people love their traditional attire, then they would prefer that attire when they venture out of their country. If they dislike their traditional attire, they would discard it at the earliest. This is a vital aspect of human freedom.

            I admire the Islamic societies where freedom for attire is offered, where those who do not adhere to the traditional attire are not condemned. 

            Islamic societies are ruled by the Sharia law, and the Sharia law receives its counsel from the Quran and Sunna. So it is reasonable to think that the force is indeed from a specific interpretation of Islamic texts.

            Objection #2: “…And one more thing, Islam has no restrictions, it has guidelines to meet salvation. if you follow it, GOOD FOR YOU N IF YOU NOT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE CLEARLY STATED. it for us to decide. its because of these clear guidelines n logic explanations I chose to convert and many more like me are. So dont doubt the statistics on petty observations, if you have it in you to state the falsehood in the holy Quran , GIVE IT A SHOT. For your satisfaction….”

            Response #2: Theological debate on salvation or other doctrines in Quran or Bible is not the intent. There are conversions in all worldviews, so that levels out in the long run. An undeniable fact is the existence of religious restriction in certain Islamic societies.

            So my question is, “Isn’t it religious restriction when Islam prohibits proclamation of another worldview in their country?” Bahrain and UAE are good case in point for the legal presence of other religions. The legal presence of other religions in Islamic societies is admirable.

            But there are documented instances of religious restriction or persecution of people in these countries - jailed or otherwise persecuted for having proclaimed their faith in the open.¹ Restriction of other worldviews implies a lack of freedom.

            What’s wrong if a person offers his religious text, free of cost to those willing to take it? Lack of freedom is when a Muslim cannot explore another worldview or a member of another worldview cannot proclaim their faith in the open in an Islamic society.

            If there is no religious freedom, then there is a restriction. This is an undeniable fact.

            If religious persecution occurs in more progressive Islamic societies, one can only imagine the amount of religious persecution in conservative Islamic societies. Nine out of top ten countries where Christians are persecuted most are Islamic countries.²

            Objection #3: “…My suggestion for anyone who wishes to know what Islam is that you read and understand the Holy Quran rather than judge how the so called Islamic countries conduct their government and their laws or whatever...becuz at the end of the day, NOT a SINGLE person can ever claim to be the ultimate flagbearer of Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any other religion-not even the highest mullah,or reverend or rabbi….”

            Response #3: Couple of quotes from the Quran referring to man’s freewill was quoted by another reader, they are: “Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful” (Quran 76: 3) and “Rather, man, against himself, will be a witness, Even if he presents his excuses” (Quran 75: 14-15).

            If the Quran asserts man’s freewill, then Islam ought to practice it by offering religious freedom for man to exercise his freewill. Religious restriction in any form or size denies human freewill, and contradicts the Quranic assertion of human freewill.  

            Objection #4: “…Islam is the most righteous religion I hav ever seen .I'm in america. The most Christians here have broken all rules of morality. But did I blame your religion ??...”

            Response #4: Blaming Islam was and is not the intent. The only intent is a friendly and a civil discussion.

            Christianity may have the largest following in the USA, but America does not endorse any one particular religion as an official state-endorsed religion. America loves and embraces moral relativism. So any moral aberration in America is to be credited to moral relativism and the depravity of mankind.

            Objection #5: “…Islam from day 1 of its existence encouraged people to question nd seek knowledge...infact from my own personl experienc...d more i questiond d teachings of my religion...d more i learnt...nd dts wt made me respect and love islam more….”

            Response #5: While this may be true to an extent, what would happen to anyone who would step into an Islamic country and explicitly question the Islamic faith in both polite and impolite terms? Would the much acclaimed bulldog of atheism - Richard Dawkins, have the courage to question Islam in his own inimitable and impolite style as he questions the Christian faith? ³

            Would Islam tolerate higher and lower criticism of the Quran as how Christianity tolerates the criticism of the Bible? Is legitimate freedom offered whereby the Quran can be questioned for its credibility?

            When a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie for “Satanic Verses,” did any other Islamic country offer him asylum? Even if they had offered him asylum would he have had the courage to take it up? Why was Islam unable to tolerate Rushdie’s thoughts? All these questions are predicated on basic human freedom that every human is entitled to and its infringement by Islam.

            Objection #6: “…The freedom that Islam grants is based on commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom. Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is the complete breakdown of the moral and social order. The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept higher moral values or self control. For Islam, freedom lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without responsibility; no responsibility without freedom…”

            Response #6: True freedom should be free of all restraints. Permit me to respond through the Christian worldview.

            The God of the Bible allows man to freely choose or reject HIM. The God of the Bible does not restrict a Christian from sinning.

            The Christian voluntarily offers his life to God and subsequently continues to overcome his frailty with God’s help. Thereby he gains his true freedom, which remains subject to God’s sovereignty.

            So we agree that freedom does come with commitment and responsibility. But this is merely one aspect of freedom.

            Every human being should possess true freedom – without any restraints whatsoever and at any point in time. True love is the supreme means by which God demonstrates HIS love for mankind. True love entails acceptance or rejection of that very love. Thus man should be allowed to accept or reject God at any time of his life.

            Yes, man could be irresponsible with his freedom. His freedom may lead to, as you accurately said, nihilism and all other evil-isms. But this is inevitable for it is the logical outworking of true love that grants true freedom, which consequently could lead to rejection of God.

            Conclusion: Most Islamic countries subscribe to the Sharia or the Islamic law. The Quran and the Sunna contribute primarily to the Sharia law.⁴

            Therefore, when Islamic nations force religious restrictions to restrict human freewill, which even the Quran asserts, then a reasonable conclusion is that the Islamic societies are either contradicting or affirming the Quran through an interpretation that logically contributes to the restriction of human freedom.

            The fact remains that religious freedom is largely nonexistent in Islamic countries. And as long as religious freedom is restricted, mankind is subjected to religious slavery - undesirable in any context.

            Whatever the case may be, man’s inherent freedom (heart’s disposition) cannot be eliminated. It may be confined for a period of time, but it can never be purged. The society may incarcerate man’s tangible freedom, but any society can never deny the freedom of his heart.  

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/courts/abu-dhabi-woman-accused-of-proselytising

² http://www.worldwatchlist.us/?utm_source=opendoorsusa.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wwl&utm_content=homepage-banner

³ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

⁴ http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034#p1 and http://sharia-law.info/

Is Islam the World’s Fastest Growing Religion? (My Humble Plea to Islam)

Foreignpolicy.com reports that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and so does Wikipedia.¹ No doubt this indicates a trend. But how is this growth achieved?

Foreign policy.com attributes Islamic growth to its presence in the world’s fastest growing countries and the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe, “The worlds [sic] largest Muslim populations are in fast-growing countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Egypt, and Iran. Islam also happens to be the fastest growing religion in Europe, where an influx of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, Turkey, and South Asia has sent shock waves into a mostly Christian and secular population whose birthrates have stagnated.” ¹

I lived in Bahrain (Arabian Peninsula) for a good number of years. But I do not recollect anyone evangelizing me into Islam. Even when I walked into the office of “Discover Islam” in the Island, I was greeted politely and courteously, but not one word was uttered to convert me.

All I am asserting is that Islam does not seem to me as an actively evangelizing faith from a one-on-one standpoint. I have had people from “Jehovah’s witnesses” knock at my door to convert me, but not once did I encounter anyone trying to convert me into Islam in India as well.

If my limited personal experience is an indicator to the extent of Islamic evangelization, how then does Islam manage to grow at a hectic pace from within the absence of a focused personal one-on-one evangelization?

However, I do not deny the presence of active evangelization in any worldview, let alone Islam. Influx of Muslim immigrants and the subsequent growth of Islam in Europe do seem to indicate an active evangelization on the part of Islam.

This illustration would lead me into the first point I wish to present. During my stay in the Kingdom of Bahrain, I once encountered a young couple from a highly conservative Islamic State. They were dressed in their traditional Arabic attire.

We were travelling to an Island resort in a boat. As soon the couple settled in their seats, the man removed his headgear and the lady uncovered her face.

Upon reaching the Island resort, we went into the lobby of the hotel reserved for our stay. At the lobby, the lady was without her burka (she cannot venture out without her Burka in her country). Burka is generally worn over the most preferred attire of the individual. This lady was now in her jean and a swanky top.

Later, at the restaurant, the couple was in shorts and t-shirt – obviously more preferred than their traditional Arabic attire.

At the swimming pool, the woman was in her bikini. During the entire course of our stay in that tiny island resort, I never once saw them in their traditional Arabic gear. Obviously, when we left this island resort, they returned to their traditional Arabic attire.

This leads me to assert that if the woman was free to choose her attire in her own country, she would not have preferred the traditional Arabic attire that only exposes her eyes.

Bahrain is more tolerant towards attire, religion and even certain vices, such as alcohol. Visitors from neighboring Gulf States are a common sight in Bahrain during weekends and holidays. They arrive to indulge in alcohol and maybe even some multinational womanizing, which is strictly forbidden in much conservative Islamic countries.

This is an interesting practice - where people from authoritarian countries enter the more tolerant and inclusive society to freely and openly indulge in their desires. They may even indulge in certain vices in their own country, but in strict secrecy. They indulge at the cost of imprisonment or severe punishments, if caught.

Had the authorities been tolerant of any decent attire in the couple’s native country, they would have discarded the traditional Arabic attire for a preferred outfit. Had the authorities allowed liquor, Bahrain would not witness tourism to the extent that’s prevalent.

My point is this. People are forced into doing things that they really do not want to do.

My question now is this, how many would voluntarily embrace Islam if the strict yoke of religious enforcement is removed by Islam? Religious conversion of Muslims is forbidden by Islam.

Many countries offer their citizens the much required freedom to pursue what they want to do. This is good. A free society is the most desirable society. By freedom, I am not advocating lawlessness, but I am advocating for the individual’s freedom to choose the attire he wants to wear and the religion he wants to subscribe to.

Progressive mindsets of Islamic states such as Bahrain ought to be praised and encouraged.  

My first humble plea to conservative Islam is this. Please offer freedom to your people to either freely choose or reject Islam.

I love the God of the Bible for this very precise reason. HE has given us the freedom to either freely choose or reject HIM. This is love in its purest form. There is no slavery in this form of love.

Man should freely love God. If man is unable to love God for whatever reason, then it’s upon the Almighty God to do all that’s possible (in love and justice) for man to love HIM. But if God has done everything for man to love HIM and if man still rejects God, the ball is certainly in man’s court. It’s definitely not in God’s court.

In this context, when man rejects God, God cannot be blamed for man’s failure to love HIM, especially when God has done all that it takes for man to love HIM. No one loves being a slave to anything they don’t love. I am not saying that no one loves being a slave to anything they hate. But no one loves being a slave to anything they do not love.

I am not implying that all Muslims hate Islam. I am only asserting a good possibility that Muslims’ adherence to Islam, in many cases and contexts, is forced. They are forced to subscribe to Islam since they are forbidden to reject Islam. They are forbidden to question Islam.

So when I see a statistic proclaiming that Islam is the fastest growing religion, I find it very uncomfortable to believe knowing that the yoke of religious bondage is upon many who profess faith in the Islamic worldview. 

If growth of Islam in Europe is the result of Muslim immigrant influx, then evangelization by Muslims is probably the greatest reason for Islamic growth in Europe. So my second humble plea to Islam is to encourage other worldviews to proclaim their tenets to anyone who may want to explore the other worldviews.  

In other words, just as Europe does not restrict the presence of Islam and its evangelization, Islam should not restrict other worldviews to establish their legal presence in countries under Islamic governance. Moreover, Islam should offer freedom to other worldviews to proclaim their tenets to anyone who may want to explore these worldviews.   

To summarize, my plea to Islam is two-fold:

1. Please offer Muslims the total freedom to choose or reject Islam.

2. Just as Muslims take advantage of the freedom for evangelization offered by other countries, please offer similar freedom to other worldviews to proclaim their faith in your countries.

I will definitely believe in the stupendous growth of Islam, if religious freedom is available to all Muslims and if all worldviews are free to proclaim their faith in all Islamic countries. Until this happens, I am forced by Islam to not take the growth statistic seriously.

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.storypick.com/damaging-truth-indian-entertainment-industry-doesnt-want-know/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

Does God Save Those Who Never Heard About Jesus Christ?

This common question requires a reasonable answer.

First, is there a possibility of the existence of people who have never heard about Christ? Yes, there are tribes, even to this day, who apparently live in isolation from the rest of the modern world.¹ So we can reasonably assume that isolated person(s), those unaware of Christ, have been and are still in existence. This video is about an isolated tribe in Brazil: 

Second, is this isolated person a sinner? Yes! The Bible says no one is righteous (Psalm 14: 3; Romans 3: 10), so this isolated person is also a sinner in need of redemption.

Third, should we be concerned about the salvation of those who may have never heard about Christ? Yes! We are asked to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, so if we are concerned about our salvation, we should also be concerned about the salvation of those around us.

           

Fourth, the three broad and possible theistic answers to this question are:

(1) Yes, God saves those who have never heard about Christ.

(2) No, God does not save those who have never heard about Christ. 

(3) I don’t know (agnosticism).

(Atheists are either clueless about their post-life destination or could assert that there is no existence after death.)

If a Christian submits (1) as a reasonable answer, the answer implies that Christ is unnecessary for man’s salvation!! But historical Christianity affirms the necessity of Christ in man’s salvation.

So is Christ necessary or unnecessary? This tension needs to be resolved when we submit (1) as an answer.

But if we submit (2) as a reasonable answer, we need to justify the fact that these isolated people did not get to choose the place of their birth. If they were born into a Christian home or in the modern world, they would not have been placed in this position.

Then again, when God placed these people in their isolated locations, shouldn’t it be God’s prerogative to ensure that Christ is heard by them? So should not God be blamed for their predicament especially if HE does not save them?

If we resort to agnosticism, we are implying that the Bible does not say anything about this. In contrast, the Bible does have something to say about this situation. If the Bible addresses this situation, agnosticism cannot be reasonably justified.  

The Bible states that God is loving, just, and merciful. If God is truly loving, just, and merciful, HE should save isolated people. If God does not save these people, there ought to be a valid reason as to why HE does not save the isolated.

Now we know that God does not save people unconditionally, for mankind is saved only by faith in Christ through the grace of God. But the isolated people have genuinely not heard of God or Christ, so isn’t the problem in God’s domain?

The problem does not seem to be in God’s domain for the Bible says, “…It is not that they do not know the truth about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known, thus leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does…” (Romans 1: 19-21, Phillips, Emphasis Mine).

This passage states:

1. God has made HIMSELF very clear to man through HIS creation.

2. Since creation points to God, man knows that there is a God from that which are commonly seen and known.

So the problem is not with God. And man is without an excuse.

I need more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist. How can I observe the marvelous creation of God and still maintain that this marvelous creation is nothing but a product of randomness? Attributing randomness to God’s creation is absurd and insane.

Yet it was Marx-Freud’s view that the theist is subject to a sort of cognitive dysfunction.  But Professor Alvin Plantinga, one of the finest Christian philosophical minds of our time, negates Marx-Freud’s contention to state that cognitive dysfunction is innate to an atheist, not a theist. ²

The creation points to God. If I have to choose between the causal options of ‘God’ and ‘chance,’ I would certainly choose God as the Creator.

But does this isolated person acknowledge God as the greatest power in existence? Or does he worship a fellow being or a created object as the greatest being? If the isolated person ascribes greatness to himself or a fellow being or a created object, then he rejects God.

Because God has made HIMSELF abundantly clear to the isolated man, he is to acknowledge God as the greatest being. Therefore, I do not see a possibility of this person’s salvation if he rejects God.

But the general revelation (Creation) does not reveal God’s nature or HIS specific deeds (Trinity, Christ and HIS sacrifice etc). Specifically and to our context, knowledge of Christ is an outcome of a special revelation. Creation does not reveal Christ to the isolated person.

It’s a fact that God placed this isolated person in his isolation. Let us assume that the isolated person acknowledges God, yet is ignorant of Christ. Let us also assume that Christ does not appear to this isolated man in any form or manner – through missionaries, literatures, dreams and visions.

If this be the case, would it be justified to say that God would condemn this isolated person to hell?

Some Christians believe that God would condemn this isolated person to hell if he does not believe in Christ. Popular Christian Q&A website ‘Gotquestions.org’ states this, “If we assume that those who never hear the gospel are granted mercy from God, we will run into a terrible problem. If people who never hear the gospel are saved, it is logical that we should make sure no one ever hears the gospel. The worst thing we could do would be to share the gospel with a person and have him or her reject it. If that were to happen, he or she would be condemned. People who do not hear the gospel must be condemned, or else there is no motivation for evangelism. Why run the risk of people possibly rejecting the gospel and condemning themselves when they were previously saved because they had never heard the gospel?”³

This reasoning is based on two disputable premises:

(P1) A Christian will potentially discontinue evangelism and also prevent evangelism due to the lack of motivation to evangelize.

(P2) The isolated man may reject the gospel to be condemned, so it would be better off not to share the gospel to the isolated man and thus have him saved.

Premise (P1) could be disputed by the fact that man is saved by God through the means of evangelism. Man does not save man, for man simply carries the good news of the gospel, but only God saves man.

Moreover, human evangelism is not the only way to save man. God can appear to a man in dreams or visions to save him. 

Significantly, evangelism should not be performed as an obligation. Evangelism is an act motivated by love for God and fellow men. Therefore, evangelism should not cease at any point in time and for any reason.

Premise (P2) can be disputed as well. Even before the isolated man rejects the gospel, he gets to either:

(P2.1) Accept God (through the general revelation)

Or

(P2.2) Reject God

Or

(P2.3) Remain ignorant of God.

When the missionary reaches the isolated man, he is in any of these three situations.

If the isolated man has accepted God, the missionary’s job would be made easier to preach the gospel. Else if the isolated man has rejected or remains ignorant of God, then he could be potentially drawn to the Lord.

If God wants to use us as HIS channels, why should we disobey God?

           

On the other hand, if there is no evangelization to the isolated man, the man who has already rejected God (P2.2), and the man who is ignorant of God (P2.3), could end up being unsaved. So why lose an opportunity?

Therefore, in order to save the one who has rejected God and to save the one who remains ignorant of God, evangelism to the isolated is necessary.

Shouldn’t the isolated man believe in Christ for his salvation?

When the isolated man recognizes his sinfulness (inadequacy) and accepts God through the general revelation, the benefits of Christ’s one time sacrifice is applied to this man by God.

 As in the case of the salvation of Old Testament saints, this man will be saved on account of his belief in God (cf. Genesis 15: 6). The benefits of Christ’s one time atoning sacrifice will be granted to this man because of his belief in God. Therefore, the necessity of Christ is maintained.

On the contrary, the isolated man who rejects God and does not know of Christ, will not be granted salvation for he has rejected God to begin with. The isolated man who is ignorant also chooses to be ignorant through his rejection of that which has been made plain to him – God. Hence even he would not be granted salvation by God.

I do not intend to replace God or to stand in judgment over others, but given my understanding of the Bible, this is the best possible conclusion I can submit. Amen.   

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/rare-video-footage-shows-completely-isolated-amazonian-tribe

² http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html

³ http://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html

Should We Be Moral Relativists?

Introduction

The position, “We should not be moral relativists” will be defended in this essay. In philosophy, the term ‘objective,’ is defined as the existence of an object independent of human mind (mind-independency); “the object would “be there,” as it is, even if no subject perceived it.”¹ In contrast, the term ‘relative’ refers to the perception of an object by the subject (mind-dependency).

‘Relativism’ espouses true or false moral judgments relative to language, culture or biological makeup.² For instance, relativism need not consider polygamy as crime, for cultures or people can justify polygamy relative to their thought paradigm. Relativism denies objectivity and appeals to man’s mind.

Alternatively, ‘Objectivism’ espouses truth and falsity as independent of mind, so to claim and appeal to the reality of objective moral facts. Therefore, objectivism will rule polygamy to be a crime by appealing to the existence of objective moral laws (which is discovered and not invented by humans). This is similar to objectivism affirming the objective reality that sun is more massive than the earth. 

Thesis

I – A Case for Objective Moral Values:

‘Objectivism’ or ‘we should not be moral relativists’ could be reasonably defended by positing the presence of ‘objective moral values.’ Moral relativism opposes ‘objectivism’ by negating the presence of objective realities.³ But if objective moral values can be reasonably postulated to exist, then moral relativism can be reasonably debunked.  

 (1) Objective Reality is Factual

There are objective realities. The fact that Sun is more massive than earth is an objective reality. This fact does not depend on anyone affirming or negating it.

(2) Objective Moral Values are a Reality

It’s morally wrong to not assist a person in need when we are able to. Similarly genocide is morally wrong; it is morally wrong to deliberately and systematically eliminate a group of people. These are universally affirmed objective moral values and do not depend on people’s mind (whether anyone believes or accepts, it is morally wrong to not assist a person and to commit genocide). Thus there are universally affirmed objective moral values.

(3) An Objective Basis is Necessary for Objective Moral Values to Exist

The “objectivism” proposed by Ayn Rand (1905-1982) posits man’s selfishness or man’s survival as the objective foundation to objective moral values.⁴ But human selfishness cannot be sustained as an objective foundation against an argument that a certain human subjectivity ought to be involved in deciding opposing human selfishness.

Would it be objectively true if the Nazi’s argued that it was morally right for them to eliminate the entire Jewish population because the Jews were an economic burden to Germany? The human selfishness of the Nazis was predicated upon the economic crisis in Germany, but in stark contrast, the human selfishness of the Jews was predicated on protecting their own life. Thus the Randian objectivism would crumble when two opposing cases of human selfishness collide with each other. Thus one ought to subjectively decide between the opposing objective moral values espoused by the two groups.   

But ‘God’ can be reasonably posited as the sole objective source for moral values. God, as the greatest conceivable being, transcends humanity and the space-time coordinates. Hence God is an objective reality and the sole objective basis for objective moral laws.

But proof of God’s existence ought to be reasonably provided, if not, God cannot be posited as the basis of mind-independent objective moral laws. Many arguments for God’s existence have been reasonably and plausibly posited, such as the Teleological Argument,⁵ Cosmological Argument,⁶ Moral Argument⁷ etc.

Since objectivity, objective moral values, and an objective moral value giver (God) can be reasonably and plausibly posited, a reasonable conclusion is that there are objective moral values. Hence, we should not be moral relativists.

II – A Case for an Immoral World:

      Moral relativism would stimulate an immoral world without any restraint whatsoever. When moral values are predicated on human mind then morality would be a slave of the dogma that controls a human mind. If one’s dogma is cannibalism, he would appeal to moral relativism to justify his devouring of his neighbor. Since moral relativism promotes an immoral world, we should not be moral relativists. 

Conclusion:

Two mutually contradicting statements cannot be true within the same context, at the same time and for all people. So objective and relative moral values cannot both be true for they contradict each other. The presence of objective moral values and the case for an immoral world portrays that moral relativism exists by ignoring or suppressing the truth of objective moral values. Therefore, we should not be moral relativists.

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2a

² http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

³http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#H3

⁴ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/

⁵ J.P Moreland, Scaling the Secular City - A Defense of Christianity, (Michigan: Baker Academic, 1987), p43-76.

⁶ Ibid, p15-42.

⁷ http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument#ixzz2mPz3C86b