Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Is Christ the Only Way to God?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Is Christ the Only Way to God?

283
views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
283
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. \nSource: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot&x=0&y=0\n\nTolerant: Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing. See Synonyms at broad-minded.\ntolerant. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 01, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerant&x=0&y=0\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Why does this question spark so much tension, controversy, and even bristling among many people? The claim that Christ is the only way to God may be the single most “offensive” statement a Christian can make. But why is this so?\n
  • “America is a melting pot. People from every conceivable ethnic and religious background come together to form one nation- e pluribus unum, from the many, one.” This motto is engraved into our money, as shown with this penny.\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.35\n
  • “America is a melting pot. People from every conceivable ethnic and religious background come together to form one nation- e pluribus unum, from the many, one.” This motto is engraved into our money, as shown with this penny.\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.35\n
  • “At the heart of our national sense of unity stands the principle of religious toleration, all religious systems are guaranteed freedom of expression and equal treatment under the law.” Source: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.35\n
  • “No one religion has exclusive claim to legal rights and government establishment. The government of the USA expresses the will of the founding fathers that there be no “established national religion.” Thus, we have no state church that enjoys exclusive privilege under the law.” Source: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.35 \n\nUnited States Constitution Bill of Rights\nAmendment I\n\n“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”\n\n\n
  • “With the principle of equal toleration has come the idea that no religion has exclusive claims to truth. Though the concept of legal religious toleration says nothing at all about the validity of true claims, many have drawn the implication that equal toleration means equal validity.” Source: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.35-36\n
  • “With the principle of equal toleration has come the idea that no religion has exclusive claims to truth. Though the concept of legal religious toleration says nothing at all about the validity of true claims, many have drawn the implication that equal toleration means equal validity.” Source: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.35-36\n
  • “Thus, when Christians make claims of exclusivity, their claims are often met with shock or anger at such a narrow-minded posture. To make exclusive religious claims is to fly in the face of national sentiment. It is like attacking baseball, hot dogs, motherhood, and apple pie (not to mention Chevrolet). Source: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, 1978, p.36\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • The first option portrays Christianity as a very broad and accepting religion that would eliminate no one who sincerely seeks God. Christianity, according to some people, is just one of an assortment of religions. They believe that within the matrix of religions there are some technical distinctions, but all the religions are, in essence, the same. It doesn’t matter how you get to God as long as you get there. p. 150 IGYA\n\n
  • This concept has been portrayed in a number of ways. Some people see God sitting on top of a mountain, and the paths that lead to the peak are the different religions available to man. But such a broad and accepting view of Christianity does not account for the claims of Christ and His disciples, which are very exclusive. p. 150 IGYA\nSource: Ruidoso, New Mexico Ski Apache Ski Slope Map http://www.goruidoso.com/imagesskiing/slopemap3.jpg\n
  • According to the Bible, the concept that everyone is lost without Christ originates with Christ Himself. Consider these verses, for example, in which Christ eliminates alternative ways to God.\n\n\n
  • According to the Bible, the concept that everyone is lost without Christ originates with Christ Himself. Consider these verses, for example, in which Christ eliminates alternative ways to God.\n\n\n
  • According to the Bible, the concept that everyone is lost without Christ originates with Christ Himself. Consider these verses, for example, in which Christ eliminates alternative ways to God.\n\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Christ was unique among the founders of the world religions. Some promoted their teachings as the only way to God, but Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God. Christ claimed not only exclusivity, but deity. p. 151 IGYA\n
  • Christ was unique among the founders of the world religions. Some promoted their teachings as the only way to God, but Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God. Christ claimed not only exclusivity, but deity. p. 151 IGYA\n
  • Christ was unique among the founders of the world religions. Some promoted their teachings as the only way to God, but Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God. Christ claimed not only exclusivity, but deity. p. 151 IGYA\n
  • Christ was unique among the founders of the world religions. Some promoted their teachings as the only way to God, but Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God. Christ claimed not only exclusivity, but deity. p. 151 IGYA\n
  • ...both His friends and His enemies recognized that He was claiming to be God and the sole means to God.\n
  • ...both His friends and His enemies recognized that He was claiming to be God and the sole means to God.\n
  • ...both His friends and His enemies recognized that He was claiming to be God and the sole means to God.\n
  • If the Bible makes it so clear that Christ claimed to be God, and the only way to God, and His disciples affirmed His claims, how do people deny this? They do so because (1) they are ignorant of the Bible, or (2) they assume the Bible is in error. If their denial is due to ignorance, all we have to do is expose them to the teachings of Scripture. If it is due to a jaundiced view of the Bible, then we have to go back to the problem of the trustworthiness of the Bible. p. 153 IGYA\n\nIt is essential that we understand Christianity’s position through the ages. Christ insisted that He was man’s only solution for the problem of sin. That is a very narrow and restrictive assertion. The question is no longer whether or not Christianity is narrow, but whether it is right. p. 154\n
  • If the Bible makes it so clear that Christ claimed to be God, and the only way to God, and His disciples affirmed His claims, how do people deny this? They do so because (1) they are ignorant of the Bible, or (2) they assume the Bible is in error. If their denial is due to ignorance, all we have to do is expose them to the teachings of Scripture. If it is due to a jaundiced view of the Bible, then we have to go back to the problem of the trustworthiness of the Bible. p. 153 IGYA\n\nIt is essential that we understand Christianity’s position through the ages. Christ insisted that He was man’s only solution for the problem of sin. That is a very narrow and restrictive assertion. The question is no longer whether or not Christianity is narrow, but whether it is right. p. 154\n
  • The second option recognizes that Christianity claims to be the only way to God but denies the validity of such a claim.\n
  • The reason for this rejection can be summarized in a series of assumptions. First, there are millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside the confines given by Christianity. Second, truth is determined by one’s beliefs or lack of belief, so even if Christ were right for us, it doesn’t mean He is right for everyone. Third, Christianity is wrong because its exclusiveness makes it intolerant of other viewpoints. These assumptions must be dealt with if we hope to show that Christianity is both narrow and right.\n
  • The reason for this rejection can be summarized in a series of assumptions. First, there are millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside the confines given by Christianity. Second, truth is determined by one’s beliefs or lack of belief, so even if Christ were right for us, it doesn’t mean He is right for everyone. Third, Christianity is wrong because its exclusiveness makes it intolerant of other viewpoints. These assumptions must be dealt with if we hope to show that Christianity is both narrow and right.\n
  • The reason for this rejection can be summarized in a series of assumptions. First, there are millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside the confines given by Christianity. Second, truth is determined by one’s beliefs or lack of belief, so even if Christ were right for us, it doesn’t mean He is right for everyone. Third, Christianity is wrong because its exclusiveness makes it intolerant of other viewpoints. These assumptions must be dealt with if we hope to show that Christianity is both narrow and right.\n
  • The first major objection to Christianity’s exclusiveness is that it eliminates many sincere people who are seeking God through other means. The assumption is that because these people are sincere, they can’t be wrong. Sincerity, or the lack of it, however, has nothing to do with determining truth. We can be sincere and right or we can be sincere and wrong.\n\nIf there was ever a clear example of the fallacy of notion of "sincere faith," it must be Linus and the Great Pumpkin. Linus is convinced that the Great Pumpkin will rise out of his pumpkin patch, because it is sincere, and the Great Pumpkin "respects sincerity." He continues his reasoning like this: "I don't see how a pumpkin patch could be more sincere than this one. You can look all around and there's not a sign of hypocrisy. Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see." There's no reason to doubt his veracity. \nNevertheless, he has a problem. Sincerity of belief doesn't make something true, and poor Linus is left in the pumpkin patch again, finally succumbing to fatigue, and must be rescued by his sister who, because she has been through this before, sets the alarm for the middle of the night and comes to get him. Source: http://stillreforming.blogspot.com/2005/10/its-object-lesson-charlie-brown.html\n
  • The first major objection to Christianity’s exclusiveness is that it eliminates many sincere people who are seeking God through other means. The assumption is that because these people are sincere, they can’t be wrong. Sincerity, or the lack of it, however, has nothing to do with determining truth. We can be sincere and right or we can be sincere and wrong.\n\nIf there was ever a clear example of the fallacy of notion of "sincere faith," it must be Linus and the Great Pumpkin. Linus is convinced that the Great Pumpkin will rise out of his pumpkin patch, because it is sincere, and the Great Pumpkin "respects sincerity." He continues his reasoning like this: "I don't see how a pumpkin patch could be more sincere than this one. You can look all around and there's not a sign of hypocrisy. Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see." There's no reason to doubt his veracity. \nNevertheless, he has a problem. Sincerity of belief doesn't make something true, and poor Linus is left in the pumpkin patch again, finally succumbing to fatigue, and must be rescued by his sister who, because she has been through this before, sets the alarm for the middle of the night and comes to get him. Source: http://stillreforming.blogspot.com/2005/10/its-object-lesson-charlie-brown.html\n
  • The first major objection to Christianity’s exclusiveness is that it eliminates many sincere people who are seeking God through other means. The assumption is that because these people are sincere, they can’t be wrong. Sincerity, or the lack of it, however, has nothing to do with determining truth. We can be sincere and right or we can be sincere and wrong.\n\nIf there was ever a clear example of the fallacy of notion of "sincere faith," it must be Linus and the Great Pumpkin. Linus is convinced that the Great Pumpkin will rise out of his pumpkin patch, because it is sincere, and the Great Pumpkin "respects sincerity." He continues his reasoning like this: "I don't see how a pumpkin patch could be more sincere than this one. You can look all around and there's not a sign of hypocrisy. Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see." There's no reason to doubt his veracity. \nNevertheless, he has a problem. Sincerity of belief doesn't make something true, and poor Linus is left in the pumpkin patch again, finally succumbing to fatigue, and must be rescued by his sister who, because she has been through this before, sets the alarm for the middle of the night and comes to get him. Source: http://stillreforming.blogspot.com/2005/10/its-object-lesson-charlie-brown.html\n
  • We’ve heard the tragedies again and again by very sincere, well-meaning people:\n“I sincerely believed.... I was Batman; I could drive that fast and pass that guy without hitting the wall; the gun wasn’t loaded; I could handle another drink; etc...”\n
  • We’ve heard the tragedies again and again by very sincere, well-meaning people:\n“I sincerely believed.... I was Batman; I could drive that fast and pass that guy without hitting the wall; the gun wasn’t loaded; I could handle another drink; etc...”\n
  • A second major objection to Christianity is that, even though it can be right for us, it may not be right for everyone. This assumes that truth is determined by one's beliefs of lack of beliefs. People who raise this objection may tell you, for example, that some people enjoy raw oysters while others find them repulsive. Or they may say that the Ivy League look is sought after by some and rejected by others. The illustrations are always subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes. But the assumption that all truth is determined this way is false. Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it. p. 156 IGYA\n\nJust because I don’t believe that Yellowstone’s rainbow-colored, boiling hot thermal pools exist since I’ve never seen them, has nothing to do with whether or not they actually exist.\n
  • A second major objection to Christianity is that, even though it can be right for us, it may not be right for everyone. This assumes that truth is determined by one's beliefs of lack of beliefs. People who raise this objection may tell you, for example, that some people enjoy raw oysters while others find them repulsive. Or they may say that the Ivy League look is sought after by some and rejected by others. The illustrations are always subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes. But the assumption that all truth is determined this way is false. Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it. p. 156 IGYA\n\nJust because I don’t believe that Yellowstone’s rainbow-colored, boiling hot thermal pools exist since I’ve never seen them, has nothing to do with whether or not they actually exist.\n
  • A second major objection to Christianity is that, even though it can be right for us, it may not be right for everyone. This assumes that truth is determined by one's beliefs of lack of beliefs. People who raise this objection may tell you, for example, that some people enjoy raw oysters while others find them repulsive. Or they may say that the Ivy League look is sought after by some and rejected by others. The illustrations are always subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes. But the assumption that all truth is determined this way is false. Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it. p. 156 IGYA\n\nJust because I don’t believe that Yellowstone’s rainbow-colored, boiling hot thermal pools exist since I’ve never seen them, has nothing to do with whether or not they actually exist.\n
  • A second major objection to Christianity is that, even though it can be right for us, it may not be right for everyone. This assumes that truth is determined by one's beliefs of lack of beliefs. People who raise this objection may tell you, for example, that some people enjoy raw oysters while others find them repulsive. Or they may say that the Ivy League look is sought after by some and rejected by others. The illustrations are always subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes. But the assumption that all truth is determined this way is false. Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it. p. 156 IGYA\n\nJust because I don’t believe that Yellowstone’s rainbow-colored, boiling hot thermal pools exist since I’ve never seen them, has nothing to do with whether or not they actually exist.\n
  • A second major objection to Christianity is that, even though it can be right for us, it may not be right for everyone. This assumes that truth is determined by one's beliefs of lack of beliefs. People who raise this objection may tell you, for example, that some people enjoy raw oysters while others find them repulsive. Or they may say that the Ivy League look is sought after by some and rejected by others. The illustrations are always subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes. But the assumption that all truth is determined this way is false. Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it. p. 156 IGYA\n\nJust because I don’t believe that Yellowstone’s rainbow-colored, boiling hot thermal pools exist since I’ve never seen them, has nothing to do with whether or not they actually exist.\n
  • For centuries, popular opinion stated that the earth was flat. Today, the scientific consensus is that the earth is spherical. Our understanding of the shape of the earth was arrived at by objective criteria, not by popular opinion. It is not spherical, and our belief or lack of belief in that fact will not change it one bit. Similarly, the truth of Christianity cannot be determined on the basis of belief or lack of belief, but on the basis of objective criteria.\n
  • For centuries, popular opinion stated that the earth was flat. Today, the scientific consensus is that the earth is spherical. Our understanding of the shape of the earth was arrived at by objective criteria, not by popular opinion. It is not spherical, and our belief or lack of belief in that fact will not change it one bit. Similarly, the truth of Christianity cannot be determined on the basis of belief or lack of belief, but on the basis of objective criteria.\n
  • For centuries, popular opinion stated that the earth was flat. Today, the scientific consensus is that the earth is spherical. Our understanding of the shape of the earth was arrived at by objective criteria, not by popular opinion. It is not spherical, and our belief or lack of belief in that fact will not change it one bit. Similarly, the truth of Christianity cannot be determined on the basis of belief or lack of belief, but on the basis of objective criteria.\n
  • For centuries, popular opinion stated that the earth was flat. Today, the scientific consensus is that the earth is spherical. Our understanding of the shape of the earth was arrived at by objective criteria, not by popular opinion. It is not spherical, and our belief or lack of belief in that fact will not change it one bit. Similarly, the truth of Christianity cannot be determined on the basis of belief or lack of belief, but on the basis of objective criteria.\n
  • A third objection is that Christianity is narrow and exclusive. The assumption here is that anything this narrow has to be wrong.\n\nLike the super-narrow specifications for speed, altitude, timing, plane attitude, and pilot nerve, the truth of how to fly two USAF Thunderbird jets together with one inverted is extremely narrow. Narrowness is neither right nor wrong; its just an expression of what is.\n
  • The need for open-minded tolerance of everything and everyone has been strongly emphasized throughout much of your education. You have been taught that you must not only accept differences in other, but you must embrace them as well- especially when it comes to religious beliefs. If you don’t, you are considered narrow-minded- and to be labeled narrow-minded in our society is socially unacceptable.” Source: Gwendolyn Mitchell Diaz, Sticking Up for What I Beleive, Navpress, p. 69\n\n\nBoth history and modern day events reveal religiously motivated conflicts, mass crimes against humanity and genocide. These negative events are in part what drives the push towards tolerance.\n
  • The need for open-minded tolerance of everything and everyone has been strongly emphasized throughout much of your education. You have been taught that you must not only accept differences in other, but you must embrace them as well- especially when it comes to religious beliefs. If you don’t, you are considered narrow-minded- and to be labeled narrow-minded in our society is socially unacceptable.” Source: Gwendolyn Mitchell Diaz, Sticking Up for What I Beleive, Navpress, p. 69\n\n\nBoth history and modern day events reveal religiously motivated conflicts, mass crimes against humanity and genocide. These negative events are in part what drives the push towards tolerance.\n
  • Imagine if the DOT was not narrow-minded and intolerant about the use of on-and off-ramps? Why not just let everyone get on any way they choose, whatever way seems best to them at the time?\n\nFor our own protection and safety, to preserve life and limb, the DOT must be narrow-minded and intolerant of any deviance from their plans. Diaz, p. 70-71\n
  • America understands the need for zero tolerance by promoting public school policies regarding drinking, drugs, weapons. Others extend this to areas of violence (especially women/children), and corruption.\n
  • America understands the need for zero tolerance by promoting public school policies regarding drinking, drugs, weapons. Others extend this to areas of violence (especially women/children), and corruption.\n
  • \n
  • If you don’t believe math is narrow, unfortunately you probably won’t be able to pass even a first grade math exam. The fact that one plus one will always equal two is very narrow, but it is also right. p. 157 IGYA\n\nScientific laws are narrow. like the law of gravity. If it the law of gravity isn’t narrow, then why use a cord in a bungee jump?\n
  • If you don’t believe math is narrow, unfortunately you probably won’t be able to pass even a first grade math exam. The fact that one plus one will always equal two is very narrow, but it is also right. p. 157 IGYA\n\nScientific laws are narrow. like the law of gravity. If it the law of gravity isn’t narrow, then why use a cord in a bungee jump?\n
  • If you don’t believe math is narrow, unfortunately you probably won’t be able to pass even a first grade math exam. The fact that one plus one will always equal two is very narrow, but it is also right. p. 157 IGYA\n\nScientific laws are narrow. like the law of gravity. If it the law of gravity isn’t narrow, then why use a cord in a bungee jump?\n
  • If you don’t believe math is narrow, unfortunately you probably won’t be able to pass even a first grade math exam. The fact that one plus one will always equal two is very narrow, but it is also right. p. 157 IGYA\n\nScientific laws are narrow. like the law of gravity. If it the law of gravity isn’t narrow, then why use a cord in a bungee jump?\n
  • If you don’t believe math is narrow, unfortunately you probably won’t be able to pass even a first grade math exam. The fact that one plus one will always equal two is very narrow, but it is also right. p. 157 IGYA\n\nScientific laws are narrow. like the law of gravity. If it the law of gravity isn’t narrow, then why use a cord in a bungee jump?\n
  • We want narrow-minded people around us, such as intolerant pilots, pediatricians, and police officers that maintain our health, well-being, and safety. Split-second errors in judgment in these professions can cause untold human suffering and cost many human lives. They MUST strictly follow very narrow laws and rigid procedures.\n\nPediatrician may specify you take 3 pills daily for two weeks; you may think his specifications narrow, but nevertheless they are valid.\n
  • We want narrow-minded people around us, such as intolerant pilots, pediatricians, and police officers that maintain our health, well-being, and safety. Split-second errors in judgment in these professions can cause untold human suffering and cost many human lives. They MUST strictly follow very narrow laws and rigid procedures.\n\nPediatrician may specify you take 3 pills daily for two weeks; you may think his specifications narrow, but nevertheless they are valid.\n
  • We want narrow-minded people around us, such as intolerant pilots, pediatricians, and police officers that maintain our health, well-being, and safety. Split-second errors in judgment in these professions can cause untold human suffering and cost many human lives. They MUST strictly follow very narrow laws and rigid procedures.\n\nPediatrician may specify you take 3 pills daily for two weeks; you may think his specifications narrow, but nevertheless they are valid.\n
  • We want narrow-minded people around us, such as intolerant pilots, pediatricians, and police officers that maintain our health, well-being, and safety. Split-second errors in judgment in these professions can cause untold human suffering and cost many human lives. They MUST strictly follow very narrow laws and rigid procedures.\n\nPediatrician may specify you take 3 pills daily for two weeks; you may think his specifications narrow, but nevertheless they are valid.\n
  • We want narrow-minded people around us, such as intolerant pilots, pediatricians, and police officers that maintain our health, well-being, and safety. Split-second errors in judgment in these professions can cause untold human suffering and cost many human lives. They MUST strictly follow very narrow laws and rigid procedures.\n\nPediatrician may specify you take 3 pills daily for two weeks; you may think his specifications narrow, but nevertheless they are valid.\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Whenever we hear someone say “all religions are basically the same,” we immediately know that the person has little in-depth knowledge of the various religions. We also know that the person is probably not intimately involved in any one religion, otherwise he would at least know the distinctive of his own. p. 157 IGYA\n
  • Whenever we hear someone say “all religions are basically the same,” we immediately know that the person has little in-depth knowledge of the various religions. We also know that the person is probably not intimately involved in any one religion, otherwise he would at least know the distinctive of his own. p. 157 IGYA\n
  • The major religions differ in their perception of who God is, in their view of ultimate human destiny, and in their means of attaining salvation. To see this, consider five great world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The Jew believes he gains salvation by turning back to God and living a moral life. There is no assurance of salvation since it will be determined by man's own efforts. The Muslim tries to earn his own salvation by believing in the five doctrines of Islam and by performing the duties of the Five Pillars of faith. But it all depends on his behavior, so he cannot be sure.\nThe Hindu believes he achieves his desired state of oneness with Brahman through a series of reincarnations. The law of karma says a Hindu reaps in the next life the rewards or punishments of the present life. The Buddhist believes he earns his own release from the endless chain of reincarnations by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.\nFour of these five religions seek salvation through human effort, but the effort is different for each. Christianity recognizes the frustration and futility of man's own efforts and declares that man's salvation rests in the provision and grace of God.\nThe major religions differ in their perspectives of God, man's destiny, and the means of salvation, and they are all narrow as well. They all claim to be right. Christianity is not the only religion with exclusive claims. Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all believe they have found the only true way to God. Hindus are the only ones who might equivocate on an exclusivity clause. Ramakrishna stated that "many faiths are but different paths leading to one reality, God." On the surface, it appears that Hindus allow for different ways to get to nirvana.\nA closer look at Hinduism reveals that the Hindu allows for an openness to other faiths but stresses the superiority of his own. If all faiths are but different paths, we might wonder if the Hindu would allow his children to be brought up as Christians. There is really only one path by which an outsider can enter the fold. He must live a pious life and then, after many transmigrations, his soul may be at last reborn into a Hindu family.\nThe Hindu also assumes that all religions are different paths on a mountain, heading upward in the same direction, all worshiping the same God. If we have learned anything in our quick survey of these five major religions, we have learned that they aren't even on the same mountain.\n\nEach of these religions seeks to answer man's questions regarding his origin, destiny, and current role in the universe. Their answers, though similar at first glance, are dramatically different when scrutinized closely. How can all of these religions be right at the same time? They disagree with each other in the three major issues of who God is, where man is going, and how he is going to get there. How can we square Hinduism's teaching that God is impersonal with Christianity's teaching that God is personal? How can there be three Persons in the Godhead and yet only one Person in the Godhead? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg of contradictions among the major religions.\nThe law of noncontradiction will help us at this point. \n
  • The major religions differ in their perception of who God is, in their view of ultimate human destiny, and in their means of attaining salvation. To see this, consider five great world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The Jew believes he gains salvation by turning back to God and living a moral life. There is no assurance of salvation since it will be determined by man's own efforts. The Muslim tries to earn his own salvation by believing in the five doctrines of Islam and by performing the duties of the Five Pillars of faith. But it all depends on his behavior, so he cannot be sure.\nThe Hindu believes he achieves his desired state of oneness with Brahman through a series of reincarnations. The law of karma says a Hindu reaps in the next life the rewards or punishments of the present life. The Buddhist believes he earns his own release from the endless chain of reincarnations by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.\nFour of these five religions seek salvation through human effort, but the effort is different for each. Christianity recognizes the frustration and futility of man's own efforts and declares that man's salvation rests in the provision and grace of God.\nThe major religions differ in their perspectives of God, man's destiny, and the means of salvation, and they are all narrow as well. They all claim to be right. Christianity is not the only religion with exclusive claims. Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all believe they have found the only true way to God. Hindus are the only ones who might equivocate on an exclusivity clause. Ramakrishna stated that "many faiths are but different paths leading to one reality, God." On the surface, it appears that Hindus allow for different ways to get to nirvana.\nA closer look at Hinduism reveals that the Hindu allows for an openness to other faiths but stresses the superiority of his own. If all faiths are but different paths, we might wonder if the Hindu would allow his children to be brought up as Christians. There is really only one path by which an outsider can enter the fold. He must live a pious life and then, after many transmigrations, his soul may be at last reborn into a Hindu family.\nThe Hindu also assumes that all religions are different paths on a mountain, heading upward in the same direction, all worshiping the same God. If we have learned anything in our quick survey of these five major religions, we have learned that they aren't even on the same mountain.\n\nEach of these religions seeks to answer man's questions regarding his origin, destiny, and current role in the universe. Their answers, though similar at first glance, are dramatically different when scrutinized closely. How can all of these religions be right at the same time? They disagree with each other in the three major issues of who God is, where man is going, and how he is going to get there. How can we square Hinduism's teaching that God is impersonal with Christianity's teaching that God is personal? How can there be three Persons in the Godhead and yet only one Person in the Godhead? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg of contradictions among the major religions.\nThe law of noncontradiction will help us at this point. \n
  • The major religions differ in their perception of who God is, in their view of ultimate human destiny, and in their means of attaining salvation. To see this, consider five great world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The Jew believes he gains salvation by turning back to God and living a moral life. There is no assurance of salvation since it will be determined by man's own efforts. The Muslim tries to earn his own salvation by believing in the five doctrines of Islam and by performing the duties of the Five Pillars of faith. But it all depends on his behavior, so he cannot be sure.\nThe Hindu believes he achieves his desired state of oneness with Brahman through a series of reincarnations. The law of karma says a Hindu reaps in the next life the rewards or punishments of the present life. The Buddhist believes he earns his own release from the endless chain of reincarnations by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.\nFour of these five religions seek salvation through human effort, but the effort is different for each. Christianity recognizes the frustration and futility of man's own efforts and declares that man's salvation rests in the provision and grace of God.\nThe major religions differ in their perspectives of God, man's destiny, and the means of salvation, and they are all narrow as well. They all claim to be right. Christianity is not the only religion with exclusive claims. Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all believe they have found the only true way to God. Hindus are the only ones who might equivocate on an exclusivity clause. Ramakrishna stated that "many faiths are but different paths leading to one reality, God." On the surface, it appears that Hindus allow for different ways to get to nirvana.\nA closer look at Hinduism reveals that the Hindu allows for an openness to other faiths but stresses the superiority of his own. If all faiths are but different paths, we might wonder if the Hindu would allow his children to be brought up as Christians. There is really only one path by which an outsider can enter the fold. He must live a pious life and then, after many transmigrations, his soul may be at last reborn into a Hindu family.\nThe Hindu also assumes that all religions are different paths on a mountain, heading upward in the same direction, all worshiping the same God. If we have learned anything in our quick survey of these five major religions, we have learned that they aren't even on the same mountain.\n\nEach of these religions seeks to answer man's questions regarding his origin, destiny, and current role in the universe. Their answers, though similar at first glance, are dramatically different when scrutinized closely. How can all of these religions be right at the same time? They disagree with each other in the three major issues of who God is, where man is going, and how he is going to get there. How can we square Hinduism's teaching that God is impersonal with Christianity's teaching that God is personal? How can there be three Persons in the Godhead and yet only one Person in the Godhead? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg of contradictions among the major religions.\nThe law of noncontradiction will help us at this point. \n
  • The major religions differ in their perception of who God is, in their view of ultimate human destiny, and in their means of attaining salvation. To see this, consider five great world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The Jew believes he gains salvation by turning back to God and living a moral life. There is no assurance of salvation since it will be determined by man's own efforts. The Muslim tries to earn his own salvation by believing in the five doctrines of Islam and by performing the duties of the Five Pillars of faith. But it all depends on his behavior, so he cannot be sure.\nThe Hindu believes he achieves his desired state of oneness with Brahman through a series of reincarnations. The law of karma says a Hindu reaps in the next life the rewards or punishments of the present life. The Buddhist believes he earns his own release from the endless chain of reincarnations by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.\nFour of these five religions seek salvation through human effort, but the effort is different for each. Christianity recognizes the frustration and futility of man's own efforts and declares that man's salvation rests in the provision and grace of God.\nThe major religions differ in their perspectives of God, man's destiny, and the means of salvation, and they are all narrow as well. They all claim to be right. Christianity is not the only religion with exclusive claims. Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all believe they have found the only true way to God. Hindus are the only ones who might equivocate on an exclusivity clause. Ramakrishna stated that "many faiths are but different paths leading to one reality, God." On the surface, it appears that Hindus allow for different ways to get to nirvana.\nA closer look at Hinduism reveals that the Hindu allows for an openness to other faiths but stresses the superiority of his own. If all faiths are but different paths, we might wonder if the Hindu would allow his children to be brought up as Christians. There is really only one path by which an outsider can enter the fold. He must live a pious life and then, after many transmigrations, his soul may be at last reborn into a Hindu family.\nThe Hindu also assumes that all religions are different paths on a mountain, heading upward in the same direction, all worshiping the same God. If we have learned anything in our quick survey of these five major religions, we have learned that they aren't even on the same mountain.\n\nEach of these religions seeks to answer man's questions regarding his origin, destiny, and current role in the universe. Their answers, though similar at first glance, are dramatically different when scrutinized closely. How can all of these religions be right at the same time? They disagree with each other in the three major issues of who God is, where man is going, and how he is going to get there. How can we square Hinduism's teaching that God is impersonal with Christianity's teaching that God is personal? How can there be three Persons in the Godhead and yet only one Person in the Godhead? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg of contradictions among the major religions.\nThe law of noncontradiction will help us at this point. \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • If Christ claims to be the only way to God and Mohammed says there is another way to God, then either Christ is right and Mohammed is wrong, or Christ is wrong and Mohammed is right, or they are both wrong. They cannot both be right.\n\nSince the major religions contradict one another, we can apply the law of noncontradiction. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong\n
  • If Christ claims to be the only way to God and Mohammed says there is another way to God, then either Christ is right and Mohammed is wrong, or Christ is wrong and Mohammed is right, or they are both wrong. They cannot both be right.\n\nSince the major religions contradict one another, we can apply the law of noncontradiction. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong\n
  • If Christ claims to be the only way to God and Mohammed says there is another way to God, then either Christ is right and Mohammed is wrong, or Christ is wrong and Mohammed is right, or they are both wrong. They cannot both be right.\n\nSince the major religions contradict one another, we can apply the law of noncontradiction. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong\n
  • Since the major religions contradict one another, we can apply the law of noncontradiction. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong; they cannot all be right.\n\nWe stated earlier that the hard question facing Christianity was not whether it was narrow, but whether it is true. The exclusiveness of Christ’s claims is no reason to declare Him wrong. We must proceed to our third option where we will analyze whether or not Christianity is true.\n
  • Since the major religions contradict one another, we can apply the law of noncontradiction. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong; they cannot all be right.\n\nWe stated earlier that the hard question facing Christianity was not whether it was narrow, but whether it is true. The exclusiveness of Christ’s claims is no reason to declare Him wrong. We must proceed to our third option where we will analyze whether or not Christianity is true.\n
  • Since the major religions contradict one another, we can apply the law of noncontradiction. Either one of them is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong; they cannot all be right.\n\nWe stated earlier that the hard question facing Christianity was not whether it was narrow, but whether it is true. The exclusiveness of Christ’s claims is no reason to declare Him wrong. We must proceed to our third option where we will analyze whether or not Christianity is true.\n
  • \n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • We know from Christ’s own claims that Christianity is narrow. What we must determine now is whether or not Christianity is true. If Christ was not who He claimed to be, then we are left with some very uncomfortable alternatives. If Christ was not the only way to God, He was either a liar or a lunatic. Neither of these choices is very palatable, but they are our only options if Christ was not Lord of all. Christ was not merely a good man or a great teacher. p. 162 IGYA\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • The consistent life and testimony of Christ make it clear as well that He was not a lunatic. A lunatic displays abnormalities and imbalance as a part of his lifestyle. When we analyze the life of Christ we do not find inconsistencies and imbalance. To the contrary, we discover a man who is mentally sound and balanced. p. 162\n
  • The consistent life and testimony of Christ make it clear as well that He was not a lunatic. A lunatic displays abnormalities and imbalance as a part of his lifestyle. When we analyze the life of Christ we do not find inconsistencies and imbalance. To the contrary, we discover a man who is mentally sound and balanced. p. 162\n
  • The consistent life and testimony of Christ make it clear as well that He was not a lunatic. A lunatic displays abnormalities and imbalance as a part of his lifestyle. When we analyze the life of Christ we do not find inconsistencies and imbalance. To the contrary, we discover a man who is mentally sound and balanced. p. 162\n
  • The consistent life and testimony of Christ make it clear as well that He was not a lunatic. A lunatic displays abnormalities and imbalance as a part of his lifestyle. When we analyze the life of Christ we do not find inconsistencies and imbalance. To the contrary, we discover a man who is mentally sound and balanced. p. 162\n
  • If Christ is not a liar nor a lunatic, then He is who He claimed to be - Lord of all, the only way by which man can be saved. The objective data for the truth of Christianity comes from two sources - the Bible and the legal historical evidence for the Resurrection - and we have already supported the truth of both these sources (In Chapters 4 & 6).\n
  • If Christ is not a liar nor a lunatic, then He is who He claimed to be - Lord of all, the only way by which man can be saved. The objective data for the truth of Christianity comes from two sources - the Bible and the legal historical evidence for the Resurrection - and we have already supported the truth of both these sources (In Chapters 4 & 6).\n
  • If Christ is not a liar nor a lunatic, then He is who He claimed to be - Lord of all, the only way by which man can be saved. The objective data for the truth of Christianity comes from two sources - the Bible and the legal historical evidence for the Resurrection - and we have already supported the truth of both these sources (In Chapters 4 & 6).\n
  • The left column lists some of the unique claims He made, and the right lists some of His credentials that back up His claims.\n\nHis works (credentials) authenticate His words (claims), and the nature of His claims leads us to the liar, lunatic, Lord trilemma, because these are the only real options about Jesus. (A fourth option that He was a legend was refuted in the appendix to chap. 5 and in chap. 6)\n
  • The left column lists some of the unique claims He made, and the right lists some of His credentials that back up His claims.\n\nHis works (credentials) authenticate His words (claims), and the nature of His claims leads us to the liar, lunatic, Lord trilemma, because these are the only real options about Jesus. (A fourth option that He was a legend was refuted in the appendix to chap. 5 and in chap. 6)\n
  • “Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. \n* Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous.\n* Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life.\n* Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the created order with freedom.\n*Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of the forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?\n* Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned.\n* Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing them, He redeemed them.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 43.\n\n
  • “Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. \n* Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous.\n* Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life.\n* Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the created order with freedom.\n*Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of the forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?\n* Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned.\n* Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing them, He redeemed them.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 43.\n\n
  • “Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. \n* Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous.\n* Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life.\n* Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the created order with freedom.\n*Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of the forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?\n* Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned.\n* Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing them, He redeemed them.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 43.\n\n
  • “Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. \n* Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous.\n* Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life.\n* Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the created order with freedom.\n*Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of the forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?\n* Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned.\n* Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing them, He redeemed them.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 43.\n\n
  • “Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. \n* Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous.\n* Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life.\n* Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the created order with freedom.\n*Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of the forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?\n* Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned.\n* Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing them, He redeemed them.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 43.\n\n
  • “Let us examine the accusation from a hypothetical perspective. \n* Let us suppose that there is a God who is altogether holy and righteous.\n* Suppose that God freely creates mankind and gives to mankind the gift of life.\n* Suppose He sets His creatures in an ideal setting and gives them the freedom to participate in all of the glories of the created order with freedom.\n*Suppose, however, that God imposes one small restriction upon them, warning them that if they violate that restriction, they will die. Would such a God have the right to impose such a restriction with the penalty of the forfeiture of the gift of life if His authority is violated?\n* Suppose that for no just cause the ungrateful creatures disobeyed the restriction the moment God’s back was turned.\n* Suppose when He discovered their violation instead of killing them, He redeemed them.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 43.\n\n
  • “* Suppose the descendants of the first transgressors broadly and widely increased their disobedience and hostility toward their Creator to the point that the whole world became rebellious to God, and each person in it “did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).\n* Suppose God still determined to redeem these people and freely gave special gifts to one nation of people in order that, through them, the whole world would be blessed.”\n* Suppose God delivered this people from poverty and enslavement to a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh.\n* Suppose this privileged nation, as soon as it was liberated, rose up in further rebellion against their God and their liberator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose the descendants of the first transgressors broadly and widely increased their disobedience and hostility toward their Creator to the point that the whole world became rebellious to God, and each person in it “did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).\n* Suppose God still determined to redeem these people and freely gave special gifts to one nation of people in order that, through them, the whole world would be blessed.”\n* Suppose God delivered this people from poverty and enslavement to a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh.\n* Suppose this privileged nation, as soon as it was liberated, rose up in further rebellion against their God and their liberator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose the descendants of the first transgressors broadly and widely increased their disobedience and hostility toward their Creator to the point that the whole world became rebellious to God, and each person in it “did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).\n* Suppose God still determined to redeem these people and freely gave special gifts to one nation of people in order that, through them, the whole world would be blessed.”\n* Suppose God delivered this people from poverty and enslavement to a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh.\n* Suppose this privileged nation, as soon as it was liberated, rose up in further rebellion against their God and their liberator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose the descendants of the first transgressors broadly and widely increased their disobedience and hostility toward their Creator to the point that the whole world became rebellious to God, and each person in it “did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).\n* Suppose God still determined to redeem these people and freely gave special gifts to one nation of people in order that, through them, the whole world would be blessed.”\n* Suppose God delivered this people from poverty and enslavement to a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh.\n* Suppose this privileged nation, as soon as it was liberated, rose up in further rebellion against their God and their liberator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose they took His law and violated it consistently.\n* Suppose that God, still intent upon redemption, sent specially endowed messengers or prophets to plead with His people to return to Him.\n* Suppose the people killed the divine messengers and mocked their message.\n* Suppose the people then began to worship idols of stone and \n* Suppose the people invented religions that were contrary to the truth of the real God and worshipped creatures rather than the Creator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose they took His law and violated it consistently.\n* Suppose that God, still intent upon redemption, sent specially endowed messengers or prophets to plead with His people to return to Him.\n* Suppose the people killed the divine messengers and mocked their message.\n* Suppose the people then began to worship idols of stone and \n* Suppose the people invented religions that were contrary to the truth of the real God and worshipped creatures rather than the Creator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose they took His law and violated it consistently.\n* Suppose that God, still intent upon redemption, sent specially endowed messengers or prophets to plead with His people to return to Him.\n* Suppose the people killed the divine messengers and mocked their message.\n* Suppose the people then began to worship idols of stone and \n* Suppose the people invented religions that were contrary to the truth of the real God and worshipped creatures rather than the Creator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose they took His law and violated it consistently.\n* Suppose that God, still intent upon redemption, sent specially endowed messengers or prophets to plead with His people to return to Him.\n* Suppose the people killed the divine messengers and mocked their message.\n* Suppose the people then began to worship idols of stone and \n* Suppose the people invented religions that were contrary to the truth of the real God and worshipped creatures rather than the Creator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose they took His law and violated it consistently.\n* Suppose that God, still intent upon redemption, sent specially endowed messengers or prophets to plead with His people to return to Him.\n* Suppose the people killed the divine messengers and mocked their message.\n* Suppose the people then began to worship idols of stone and \n* Suppose the people invented religions that were contrary to the truth of the real God and worshipped creatures rather than the Creator.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose in an ultimate act of redemption God Himself became incarnate in the person of His Son, saying “This time I’m going to these people Myself.”\n* Suppose this Son came into the world not to condemn the world, but to redeem the world.\n* But suppose this Son of God were rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered.\n* Yet, suppose that God accepted the murder of His own Son as punishment for the sins of the very persons who murdered Him.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose in an ultimate act of redemption God Himself became incarnate in the person of His Son, saying “This time I’m going to these people Myself.”\n* Suppose this Son came into the world not to condemn the world, but to redeem the world.\n* But suppose this Son of God were rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered.\n* Yet, suppose that God accepted the murder of His own Son as punishment for the sins of the very persons who murdered Him.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose in an ultimate act of redemption God Himself became incarnate in the person of His Son, saying “This time I’m going to these people Myself.”\n* Suppose this Son came into the world not to condemn the world, but to redeem the world.\n* But suppose this Son of God were rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered.\n* Yet, suppose that God accepted the murder of His own Son as punishment for the sins of the very persons who murdered Him.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • “* Suppose in an ultimate act of redemption God Himself became incarnate in the person of His Son, saying “This time I’m going to these people Myself.”\n* Suppose this Son came into the world not to condemn the world, but to redeem the world.\n* But suppose this Son of God were rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered.\n* Yet, suppose that God accepted the murder of His own Son as punishment for the sins of the very persons who murdered Him.”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42.\n
  • * “Suppose this God offered to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, complete forgiveness, transcendent peace that comes with the cleansing of all guilt, victory over death and an eternal life of complete felicity.\n* Suppose God gave these people as a free gift the promise of a future life that would be without pain, without sickness, without death, and without tears. \n* Suppose that God said to these people “There is only one thing that I demand. I demand that you worship and serve my only-begotten Son and that you worship and serve Him alone.”\n* Suppose God did all of that, would you be willing to say to Him, “God, that’s not fair, You haven’t done enough”?\n\nIf man has in fact committed cosmic treason against God, what reason could we possibly have that God should provide any way of redemption? In light of the universal rebellion against God, the issue is not why is there only one way, but why is there any way at all?”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42-43.\n
  • * “Suppose this God offered to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, complete forgiveness, transcendent peace that comes with the cleansing of all guilt, victory over death and an eternal life of complete felicity.\n* Suppose God gave these people as a free gift the promise of a future life that would be without pain, without sickness, without death, and without tears. \n* Suppose that God said to these people “There is only one thing that I demand. I demand that you worship and serve my only-begotten Son and that you worship and serve Him alone.”\n* Suppose God did all of that, would you be willing to say to Him, “God, that’s not fair, You haven’t done enough”?\n\nIf man has in fact committed cosmic treason against God, what reason could we possibly have that God should provide any way of redemption? In light of the universal rebellion against God, the issue is not why is there only one way, but why is there any way at all?”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42-43.\n
  • * “Suppose this God offered to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, complete forgiveness, transcendent peace that comes with the cleansing of all guilt, victory over death and an eternal life of complete felicity.\n* Suppose God gave these people as a free gift the promise of a future life that would be without pain, without sickness, without death, and without tears. \n* Suppose that God said to these people “There is only one thing that I demand. I demand that you worship and serve my only-begotten Son and that you worship and serve Him alone.”\n* Suppose God did all of that, would you be willing to say to Him, “God, that’s not fair, You haven’t done enough”?\n\nIf man has in fact committed cosmic treason against God, what reason could we possibly have that God should provide any way of redemption? In light of the universal rebellion against God, the issue is not why is there only one way, but why is there any way at all?”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42-43.\n
  • * “Suppose this God offered to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, complete forgiveness, transcendent peace that comes with the cleansing of all guilt, victory over death and an eternal life of complete felicity.\n* Suppose God gave these people as a free gift the promise of a future life that would be without pain, without sickness, without death, and without tears. \n* Suppose that God said to these people “There is only one thing that I demand. I demand that you worship and serve my only-begotten Son and that you worship and serve Him alone.”\n* Suppose God did all of that, would you be willing to say to Him, “God, that’s not fair, You haven’t done enough”?\n\nIf man has in fact committed cosmic treason against God, what reason could we possibly have that God should provide any way of redemption? In light of the universal rebellion against God, the issue is not why is there only one way, but why is there any way at all?”\n\nSource: R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, p. 42-43.\n
  • To some people Christianity appears harsh and unloving. We must balance this negative reaction with two crucial points:\n(1) It was the same Christ who said He was the only way (John 14:6), and who gave the Great Commission to take this message to everyone (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).\n(2) Since Christianity is true, even though it is narrow, it would be unloving if we didn't share Christ's solution with others.\n\nWe can illustrate this by imagining a scientist who has just discovered a complete cure for cancer. He now faces the dilemma of whether he should share his discovery. If he shares it, he risks offending some who are seeking other techniques to cure the problem. The scientist will challenge the theories of other researchers when he shares his discovery and thus risk their scorn. But since his only alternative is to let people die in their ignorance, the loving thing would be to share the cure, even though some might misunderstand the offer. Likewise, the world has need of Christ and we must lovingly share Him with people.\n\n\n
  • To some people Christianity appears harsh and unloving. We must balance this negative reaction with two crucial points:\n(1) It was the same Christ who said He was the only way (John 14:6), and who gave the Great Commission to take this message to everyone (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).\n(2) Since Christianity is true, even though it is narrow, it would be unloving if we didn't share Christ's solution with others.\n\nWe can illustrate this by imagining a scientist who has just discovered a complete cure for cancer. He now faces the dilemma of whether he should share his discovery. If he shares it, he risks offending some who are seeking other techniques to cure the problem. The scientist will challenge the theories of other researchers when he shares his discovery and thus risk their scorn. But since his only alternative is to let people die in their ignorance, the loving thing would be to share the cure, even though some might misunderstand the offer. Likewise, the world has need of Christ and we must lovingly share Him with people.\n\n\n
  • To some people Christianity appears harsh and unloving. We must balance this negative reaction with two crucial points:\n(1) It was the same Christ who said He was the only way (John 14:6), and who gave the Great Commission to take this message to everyone (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8).\n(2) Since Christianity is true, even though it is narrow, it would be unloving if we didn't share Christ's solution with others.\n\nWe can illustrate this by imagining a scientist who has just discovered a complete cure for cancer. He now faces the dilemma of whether he should share his discovery. If he shares it, he risks offending some who are seeking other techniques to cure the problem. The scientist will challenge the theories of other researchers when he shares his discovery and thus risk their scorn. But since his only alternative is to let people die in their ignorance, the loving thing would be to share the cure, even though some might misunderstand the offer. Likewise, the world has need of Christ and we must lovingly share Him with people.\n\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Transcript

    • 1. Is Christ the Only Way to God? © Dr. Ken Boa and Bill Ibsen 2006. All Rights Reserved. 1
    • 2. Is Christ the Only Way to God? 2
    • 3. Is Christ the Only Way to God? A Bristling Question 2
    • 4. Is Christ the Only Way to God? A Bristling Question Option I: Christianity Is Not Narrow 2
    • 5. Is Christ the Only Way to God? A Bristling Question Option I: Christianity Is Not Narrow Option II: Christianity Is Narrow and Wrong 2
    • 6. Is Christ the Only Way to God? A Bristling Question Option I: Christianity Is Not Narrow Option II: Christianity Is Narrow and Wrong Option III: Christianity Is Narrow and True 2
    • 7. A Bristling Question 3
    • 8. “From the Many, One”
    • 9. Religious TolerationGuaranteed by Our Constitution 5
    • 10. Religious TolerationGuaranteed by Our Constitution 5
    • 11. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” - First Amendment, US Constitution Bill of Rights 6
    • 12. Equal Toleration of Religions 7
    • 13. Equal Toleration of Religions has come to meanNo Religion Has Exclusive Claims to Truth 7
    • 14. Equal Toleration of Religions has come to mean No Religion Has Exclusive Claims to Truth and thereforeEqual Toleration = Equal Validity 7
    • 15. Claims of exclusivity are often viewed by Americans as narrow-minded, intolerant, and bigoted 8
    • 16. Variations of the Same Question 9
    • 17. Variations of the Same Question “Isn’t Christianity too narrow?” 9
    • 18. Variations of the Same Question “Isn’t Christianity too narrow?” “Since all religions are basically the same, does it matter what you believe?” 9
    • 19. Variations of the Same Question “Isn’t Christianity too narrow?” “Since all religions are basically the same, does it matter what you believe?” “Isn’t the choice of which religion you take just a matter of personal preference?” 9
    • 20. Variations of the Same Question “Isn’t Christianity too narrow?” “Since all religions are basically the same, does it matter what you believe?” “Isn’t the choice of which religion you take just a matter of personal preference?” “An estimated 75% of the world is not Christian - can they all be wrong?” 9
    • 21. Variations of the Same Question “Isn’t Christianity too narrow?” “Since all religions are basically the same, does it matter what you believe?” “Isn’t the choice of which religion you take just a matter of personal preference?” “An estimated 75% of the world is not Christian - can they all be wrong?” “Christ can be the only way to God for you, but how can you claim that He is the only way for everybody?” 9
    • 22. Three Options Isn’t Christianity Too Narrow? 10
    • 23. Three Options Isn’t Christianity Too Narrow?Christianity Is Not Narrow 10
    • 24. Three Options Isn’t Christianity Too Narrow?Christianity Is Not Christianity Is Narrow Narrow and Wrong 10
    • 25. Three Options Isn’t Christianity Too Narrow?Christianity Is Not Christianity Is Christianity Is Narrow Narrow and Wrong Narrow and True 10
    • 26. Option I:Christianity Is Not Narrow 11
    • 27. “Religion is likea box ofchocolates...take your pick” 12
    • 28. “God” 13
    • 29. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus 14
    • 30. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the wayis broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter throughit.” Matthew 7:13 14
    • 31. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the wayis broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter throughit.” Matthew 7:13I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for unlessyou believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins”John 8:24 14
    • 32. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the wayis broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter throughit.” Matthew 7:13I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for unlessyou believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins”John 8:24“I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comesto the Father, but by Me” John 14:6 14
    • 33. Christianity Is Narrow - Apostles 15
    • 34. Christianity Is Narrow - Apostles“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other nameunder heaven that has been given among men by which wemust be saved.” Acts 4:12 15
    • 35. Christianity Is Narrow - Apostles“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other nameunder heaven that has been given among men by which wemust be saved.” Acts 4:12“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal lifein Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 15
    • 36. Jesus’ Claims of Exclusivity 16
    • 37. Jesus’ Claims of Exclusivity Other world religion founders promote their teachings as the only way to God 16
    • 38. Jesus’ Claims of Exclusivity Other world religion founders promote their teachings as the only way to God Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God 16
    • 39. Jesus’ Claims of Exclusivity Other world religion founders promote their teachings as the only way to God Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God Exclusivity 16
    • 40. Jesus’ Claims of Exclusivity Other world religion founders promote their teachings as the only way to God Christ promoted Himself as the only way to God Exclusivity Deity 16
    • 41. Jesus’ Claims to Be God 17
    • 42. Jesus’ Claims to Be God “If you knew Me, you would know My Father also” John 8:19 17
    • 43. Jesus’ Claims to Be God “If you knew Me, you would know My Father also” John 8:19 “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” John 14:9 17
    • 44. Jesus’ Claims to Be God “If you knew Me, you would know My Father also” John 8:19 “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” John 14:9 “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM” John 8:58 17
    • 45. How Could Someone Assertthat Christianity Is Not Narrow? 18
    • 46. How Could Someone Assertthat Christianity Is Not Narrow?1. Ignorance of the Bible 18
    • 47. How Could Someone Assertthat Christianity Is Not Narrow?1. Ignorance of the Bible2. Assumption that the Bible is in error 18
    • 48. Option II:Christianity Is Narrow and Wrong 19
    • 49. Three Assumptions for Rejection 20
    • 50. Three Assumptions for Rejection Millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside Christianity 20
    • 51. Three Assumptions for Rejection Millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside Christianity “Christ may be right for you, but not for everyone” 20
    • 52. Three Assumptions for Rejection Millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside Christianity “Christ may be right for you, but not for everyone” Christianity’s exclusiveness makes it intolerant of other viewpoints 20
    • 53. 1. “Sincerity Makes Something True” 21
    • 54. 1. “Sincerity Makes Something True” 21
    • 55. 1. “Sincerity Makes Something True” “Sincerity makes it so” 21
    • 56. 1. “Sincerity Makes Something True” “Sincerity makes it so” “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere!” - Linus 21
    • 57. Sincere, but Sincerely Wrong 22
    • 58. Sincere, but Sincerely WrongSincerity never changes reality 22
    • 59. Sincere, but Sincerely WrongSincerity never changes realityIt is possible to be sincerely wrong 22
    • 60. 2. “It may be true for you, butnot for me” 23
    • 61. 2. “It may be true for you, butnot for me”Assumption: truth is determined byone’s beliefs or lack of beliefs 23
    • 62. 2. “It may be true for you, butnot for me”Assumption: truth is determined byone’s beliefs or lack of beliefs Subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes 23
    • 63. 2. “It may be true for you, butnot for me”Assumption: truth is determined byone’s beliefs or lack of beliefs Subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it 23
    • 64. 2. “It may be true for you, butnot for me”Assumption: truth is determined byone’s beliefs or lack of beliefs Subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it 23
    • 65. 2. “It may be true for you, butnot for me”Assumption: truth is determined byone’s beliefs or lack of beliefs Subjective decisions based upon personal preferences and tastes Something is not objectively true just because someone does or doesn’t believe in it Yellowstone Thermal Pool 23
    • 66. Society Does Not Determine Truth 24
    • 67. Society Does Not Determine Truth Truth is not subject to society’s whims or wishes 24
    • 68. Society Does Not Determine Truth Truth is not subject to society’s whims or wishes Truth is not subject to majority or minority opinion 24
    • 69. Society Does Not Determine Truth Truth is not subject to society’s whims or wishes Truth is not subject to majority or minority opinion Truth is not subject to subjective belief 24
    • 70. Society Does Not Determine Truth Truth is not subject to society’s whims or wishes Truth is not subject to majority or minority opinion Truth is not subject to subjective belief The truth of Christianity cannot be determined by subjective opinion 24
    • 71. 3. “Exclusiveness MakesSomething Wrong” 25
    • 72. 3. “Exclusiveness MakesSomething Wrong”Assumption: anything this narrowmust be wrong 25
    • 73. Tolerance:Our Highest Virtue 26
    • 74. Tolerance:Our Highest Virtue 26
    • 75. Tolerance:Our Highest Virtue 26
    • 76. IntoleranceCan Be Good- and Vital 27
    • 77. 28
    • 78. 28
    • 79. 28
    • 80. “Tolerance in personal relationships is a virtue, 29
    • 81. “Tolerance in personal relationships is a virtue, but tolerance in truth is a travesty” 29
    • 82. Truth Is Always Narrow 30
    • 83. Truth Is Always Narrow By definition, truth must be intolerant of error 30
    • 84. Truth Is Always Narrow By definition, truth must be intolerant of error Mathematics is narrow 30
    • 85. Truth Is Always Narrow By definition, truth must be intolerant of error Mathematics is narrow You are likely intolerant of error in your bank account balance 30
    • 86. Truth Is Always Narrow By definition, truth must be intolerant of error Mathematics is narrow You are likely intolerant of error in your bank account balance Scientific laws (truths) are narrow 30
    • 87. Truth Is Always Narrow By definition, truth must be intolerant of error Mathematics is narrow You are likely intolerant of error in your bank account balance Scientific laws (truths) are narrow If the law of gravity isn’t narrow, why use a cord when bungee jumping? 30
    • 88. Narrowness Does Not MakeSomething Wrong 31
    • 89. Narrowness Does Not MakeSomething Wrong Life is full of things which are narrow and true 31
    • 90. Narrowness Does Not MakeSomething Wrong Life is full of things which are narrow and true Intolerant of split-second errors in judgment 31
    • 91. Narrowness Does Not MakeSomething Wrong Life is full of things which are narrow and true Intolerant of split-second errors in judgment Pilots 31
    • 92. Narrowness Does Not MakeSomething Wrong Life is full of things which are narrow and true Intolerant of split-second errors in judgment Pilots Pediatricians 31
    • 93. Narrowness Does Not MakeSomething Wrong Life is full of things which are narrow and true Intolerant of split-second errors in judgment Pilots Pediatricians Police 31
    • 94. Christianity Is Not Unique in ItsNarrowness 32
    • 95. Christianity Is Not Unique in ItsNarrowness Virtually all world religions claim to be exclusively right 32
    • 96. Christianity Is Not Unique in ItsNarrowness Virtually all world religions claim to be exclusively right Mohammed, Buddha, and Krishna all claimed to hold THE WAY to paradise/ enlightenment 32
    • 97. “All religions are basically the SAME” 33
    • 98. “All religions are basically the SAME” Reveals little knowledge of the world religions 33
    • 99. “All religions are basically the SAME” Reveals little knowledge of the world religions Reveals a paltry knowledge of any one religion 33
    • 100. 34
    • 101. Means of Views of God Human Destiny Salvation Christ’sChristianity Trinitarian Heaven Propitiation Nothingness or Human Judaism Unitarian Heaven Morality 5 Pillars Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven 5 Doctrines Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma andHinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation Pantheistic or Annihilation/ 4 Noble TruthsBuddhism Polytheistic or Nirvana Eight-fold Path Atheistic 34
    • 102. Means of Views of God Human Destiny Salvation Christ’sChristianity Trinitarian Heaven Propitiation Nothingness or Human Judaism Unitarian Heaven Morality 5 Pillars Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven 5 Doctrines Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma andHinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation Pantheistic or Annihilation/ 4 Noble TruthsBuddhism Polytheistic or Nirvana Eight-fold Path Atheistic 34
    • 103. Means of Views of God Human Destiny Salvation Christ’sChristianity Trinitarian Heaven Propitiation Nothingness or Human Judaism Unitarian Heaven Morality 5 Pillars Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven 5 Doctrines Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma andHinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation Pantheistic or Annihilation/ 4 Noble TruthsBuddhism Polytheistic or Nirvana Eight-fold Path Atheistic 34
    • 104. Means of Views of God Human Destiny Salvation Christ’sChristianity Trinitarian Heaven Propitiation Nothingness or Human Judaism Unitarian Heaven Morality 5 Pillars Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven 5 Doctrines Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma andHinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation Pantheistic or Annihilation/ 4 Noble TruthsBuddhism Polytheistic or Nirvana Eight-fold Path Atheistic 34
    • 105. The Law of Non-contradiction 35
    • 106. The Law of Non-contradiction If 2 statements about one particular issue contradict each other, then 35
    • 107. The Law of Non-contradiction If 2 statements about one particular issue contradict each other, then Only one of them is true 35
    • 108. The Law of Non-contradiction If 2 statements about one particular issue contradict each other, then Only one of them is true Both are false 35
    • 109. The Law of Non-contradiction If 2 statements about one particular issue contradict each other, then Only one of them is true Both are false They cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense 35
    • 110. “All dogs shed hair” 36
    • 111. “All dogs shed hair”“Poodles don’t shed hair” 36
    • 112. “All dogs shed hair” Either both are wrong, or one is right“Poodles don’t shed hair” 36
    • 113. “All dogs shed hair” Either both are wrong, or one is right“Poodles don’t shed hair” They both cannot be right 36
    • 114. “Christ says He is the only way to God” 37
    • 115. “Christ says He is the only way to God”“Mohammed says there is another way to God” 37
    • 116. “Christ says He is the only way to God” Either both are wrong, or one is right“Mohammed says there is another way to God” 37
    • 117. “Christ says He is the only way to God” Either both are wrong, or one is right“Mohammed says there is another way to God” They both cannot be right 37
    • 118. “Christianity is the only way to God” 38
    • 119. “Christianity is the only way to God”“Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism are ways to God” 38
    • 120. “Christianity is the only way to God” Either both are wrong, or one is right“Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism are ways to God” 38
    • 121. “Christianity is the only way to God” Either both are wrong, or one is right“Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism are ways to God” They both cannot be right 38
    • 122. Option III:Christianity Is Narrow and True 39
    • 123. NT reports thatJesus claimed to be God 40
    • 124. NT reports that Jesus claimed to be GodReports are true 40
    • 125. NT reports that Jesus claimed to be GodReports are true Reports are false (legend) 40
    • 126. NT reports that Jesus claimed to be God Reports are true Reports are false (legend)Jesus meant it mystically (lama) 40
    • 127. NT reports that Jesus claimed to be God Reports are true Reports are false (legend)Jesus meant it mystically Jesus meant it literally (lama) (Lord, Liar, Lunatic) 40
    • 128. The Trilemma Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be? 41
    • 129. The Trilemma Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be? Liar 41
    • 130. The Trilemma Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be? Liar Lunatic 41
    • 131. The Trilemma Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be? Liar Lunatic Lord 41
    • 132. Jesus: Just a Liar? 42
    • 133. Jesus: Just a Liar? Christ’s character 42
    • 134. Jesus: Just a Liar? Christ’s character Christ’s words 42
    • 135. Jesus: Just a Liar? Christ’s character Christ’s words Christ’s life 42
    • 136. Jesus: Just a Liar? Christ’s character Christ’s words Christ’s life The evidence is weighted heavily against Christ being a liar 42
    • 137. Jesus: Just a Lunatic? 43
    • 138. Jesus: Just a Lunatic? Christ’s consistent life 43
    • 139. Jesus: Just a Lunatic? Christ’s consistent life Christ’s consistent testimony 43
    • 140. Jesus: Just a Lunatic? Christ’s consistent life Christ’s consistent testimony No inconsistencies or imbalance 43
    • 141. Jesus: Just a Lunatic? Christ’s consistent life Christ’s consistent testimony No inconsistencies or imbalance Mental soundness and balance 43
    • 142. Jesus: Lord of All 44
    • 143. Jesus: Lord of All Objective data: 44
    • 144. Jesus: Lord of All Objective data: Bible 44
    • 145. Jesus: Lord of All Objective data: Bible Legal historical evidence for the Resurrection 44
    • 146. 45
    • 147. Unique Claims of Christ Credentials of Christ Power to forgive sins Sinless life Sinless MiraclesFulfillment of OT Prophecies Unique character and teaching Rise from the dead; Fulfillment of hundreds of raise all people messianic propheciesReturn and judge the world Power to change lives Exclusive way to salvation Resurrection from the dead 45
    • 148. Unique Claims of Christ Credentials of Christ Power to forgive sins Sinless life Sinless MiraclesFulfillment of OT Prophecies Unique character and teaching Rise from the dead; Fulfillment of hundreds of raise all people messianic propheciesReturn and judge the world Power to change lives Exclusive way to salvation Resurrection from the dead 45
    • 149. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? 46
    • 150. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God is holy and righteous 46
    • 151. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God is holy and righteous God gives the creatures the gift of life 46
    • 152. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God is holy and righteous God gives the creatures the gift of life God gives the creatures an idyllic, perfect setting 46
    • 153. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God is holy and righteous God gives the creatures the gift of life God gives the creatures an idyllic, perfect setting God imposes a single restriction, warning of the penalty 46
    • 154. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God is holy and righteous God gives the creatures the gift of life God gives the creatures an idyllic, perfect setting God imposes a single restriction, warning of the penalty The creatures rebel, for no just cause 46
    • 155. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God is holy and righteous God gives the creatures the gift of life God gives the creatures an idyllic, perfect setting God imposes a single restriction, warning of the penalty The creatures rebel, for no just cause God redeems the creatures, instead of killing them 46
    • 156. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? 47
    • 157. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures breed, despise God, and each “do what is right in his own eyes” 47
    • 158. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures breed, despise God, and each “do what is right in his own eyes” God determines to redeem them, and gives special gifts to one nation, to bless all other nations 47
    • 159. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures breed, despise God, and each “do what is right in his own eyes” God determines to redeem them, and gives special gifts to one nation, to bless all other nations God delivers these creatures from poverty and enslavement under a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh 47
    • 160. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures breed, despise God, and each “do what is right in his own eyes” God determines to redeem them, and gives special gifts to one nation, to bless all other nations God delivers these creatures from poverty and enslavement under a ruthless Egyptian Pharaoh The freed creatures soon rebel against God and His liberator 47
    • 161. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? 48
    • 162. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures consistently violate God’s laws 48
    • 163. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures consistently violate God’s laws God, intent on redemption, sends special messengers to plead with His creatures to return to Him 48
    • 164. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures consistently violate God’s laws God, intent on redemption, sends special messengers to plead with His creatures to return to Him The people kill these messengers and mock their message 48
    • 165. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures consistently violate God’s laws God, intent on redemption, sends special messengers to plead with His creatures to return to Him The people kill these messengers and mock their message The people begin to worship idols of wood and stone 48
    • 166. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? The creatures consistently violate God’s laws God, intent on redemption, sends special messengers to plead with His creatures to return to Him The people kill these messengers and mock their message The people begin to worship idols of wood and stone The people invent new religions contrary to God’s truth and worship other creatures rather than the Creator 48
    • 167. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? 49
    • 168. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? In an ultimate act of redemption, God says, “This time, I’m going to these people Myself.” 49
    • 169. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? In an ultimate act of redemption, God says, “This time, I’m going to these people Myself.” God sends His Son not to condemn them, but to redeem them 49
    • 170. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? In an ultimate act of redemption, God says, “This time, I’m going to these people Myself.” God sends His Son not to condemn them, but to redeem them The Son of God is rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered 49
    • 171. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? In an ultimate act of redemption, God says, “This time, I’m going to these people Myself.” God sends His Son not to condemn them, but to redeem them The Son of God is rejected, slandered, mocked, tortured, and murdered God accepts the murder of His own Son as punishment for the sins of the murderers 49
    • 172. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? 50
    • 173. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God offers to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, forgiveness, peace, victory over death, and eternal life 50
    • 174. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God offers to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, forgiveness, peace, victory over death, and eternal life God offers these people as a free gift the promise of a future life free of pain, sickness, death, and tears 50
    • 175. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God offers to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, forgiveness, peace, victory over death, and eternal life God offers these people as a free gift the promise of a future life free of pain, sickness, death, and tears But God demands one thing: they honor His only-begotten Son, and worship Him alone 50
    • 176. Why Is God So Narrow-Mindedthat He Only Provides One Wayof Redemption? God offers to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, forgiveness, peace, victory over death, and eternal life God offers these people as a free gift the promise of a future life free of pain, sickness, death, and tears But God demands one thing: they honor His only-begotten Son, and worship Him alone After all this, would you be willing to say to Him: “God, that’s not fair, You haven’t done enough?” 50
    • 177. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescendingand Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is theOnly Way to God? 51
    • 178. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescendingand Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is theOnly Way to God? Christ Himself said He was the only way (John 14:6) 51
    • 179. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescendingand Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is theOnly Way to God? Christ Himself said He was the only way (John 14:6) Christ Himself commissioned His followers to take this message to everyone (Matt. 28:19-20) 51
    • 180. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescendingand Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is theOnly Way to God? Christ Himself said He was the only way (John 14:6) Christ Himself commissioned His followers to take this message to everyone (Matt. 28:19-20) It would be unloving if we didn’t share Christ’s solution with others 51
    • 181. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? 52
    • 182. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow 52
    • 183. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity 52
    • 184. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity Option 2: Christianity is narrow and wrong 52
    • 185. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity Option 2: Christianity is narrow and wrong Exclusiveness/narrowness doesn’t make something wrong 52
    • 186. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity Option 2: Christianity is narrow and wrong Exclusiveness/narrowness doesn’t make something wrong The major religions are narrow and contradictory 52
    • 187. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity Option 2: Christianity is narrow and wrong Exclusiveness/narrowness doesn’t make something wrong The major religions are narrow and contradictory Option 3: Christianity is narrow and true 52
    • 188. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity Option 2: Christianity is narrow and wrong Exclusiveness/narrowness doesn’t make something wrong The major religions are narrow and contradictory Option 3: Christianity is narrow and true Jesus must either be Lord, Liar, or Lunatic 52
    • 189. Summary:Isn’t Christianity too Narrow? Option 1: Christianity is not narrow Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity Option 2: Christianity is narrow and wrong Exclusiveness/narrowness doesn’t make something wrong The major religions are narrow and contradictory Option 3: Christianity is narrow and true Jesus must either be Lord, Liar, or Lunatic God has gone to great lengths to save us 52
    • 190. Applications 2. Expose Christianity to others 53
    • 191. Applications 1. Share the CURE 2. Expose Christianity to others 53
    • 192. Applications 1. Share the CURE - though some might misunderstand the OFFER 2. Expose Christianity to others 53
    • 193. Applications 1. Share the CURE - though some might misunderstand the OFFER 2. Expose Christianity to others - not impose it 53
    • 194. What About Those Who NeverHeard About Christ? 54
    • 195. What About Those Who NeverHeard About Christ? In Every Age and PlaceThe Basis of Salvation: The Death of ChristThe Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time 54
    • 196. What About Those Who NeverHeard About Christ? In Every Age and PlaceThe Basis of Salvation: The Death of ChristThe Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time 54
    • 197. What About Those Who NeverHeard About Christ? In Every Age and PlaceThe Basis of Salvation: The Death of ChristThe Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time 54
    • 198. What About Those Who NeverHeard About Christ? In Every Age and PlaceThe Basis of Salvation: The Death of ChristThe Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time 54
    • 199. What About Those Who NeverHeard About Christ? In Every Age and PlaceThe Basis of Salvation: The Death of ChristThe Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time 54
    • 200. Ask, Seek, Knock 55
    • 201. Ask, Seek, Knock“Ask, and it will be given to you;seek, and you will find;knock, and it will be opened to you. 55
    • 202. Ask, Seek, Knock“Ask, and it will be given to you;seek, and you will find;knock, and it will be opened to you.For everyone who asks receives,and he who seeks finds,and to him who knocks, it will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8 55
    • 203. Ask, Seek, Knock“Ask, and it will be given to you;seek, and you will find;knock, and it will be opened to you.For everyone who asks receives,and he who seeks finds,and to him who knocks, it will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8 Everyone who asks will receive 55
    • 204. Ask, Seek, Knock“Ask, and it will be given to you;seek, and you will find;knock, and it will be opened to you.For everyone who asks receives,and he who seeks finds,and to him who knocks, it will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8 Everyone who asks will receive Everyone who seeks will find 55
    • 205. Ask, Seek, Knock“Ask, and it will be given to you;seek, and you will find;knock, and it will be opened to you.For everyone who asks receives,and he who seeks finds,and to him who knocks, it will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8 Everyone who asks will receive Everyone who seeks will find Everyone who knocks, the door will be opened 55
    • 206. Response to the Light 56
    • 207. Response to the Light God will not hold us accountable for light we have not received 56
    • 208. Response to the Light God will not hold us accountable for light we have not received God will hold us accountable for light we have received 56
    • 209. Response to the Light God will not hold us accountable for light we have not received God will hold us accountable for light we have received No one is ignorant of God (Romans 1) 56
    • 210. Response to the Light God will not hold us accountable for light we have not received God will hold us accountable for light we have received No one is ignorant of God (Romans 1) No one is ignorant of sin (Romans 1-2) 56
    • 211. There Are Two Kinds of Peoplein the World ... 57
    • 212. There Are Two Kinds of Peoplein the World ... Those who seek God 57
    • 213. There Are Two Kinds of Peoplein the World ... Those who seek God Those who seek to avoid God 57
    • 214. There Are Two Kinds of Peoplein the World ... Those who seek God Those who seek to avoid God Both will succeed in the end 57
    • 215. The End 58
    • 216. Reflections Ministries Resources 59
    • 217. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter 59
    • 218. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter 59
    • 219. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter 59
    • 220. Reflections Ministries Resources Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter KenBoa.org website - Daily Growth email and free text and audio resources 59
    • 221. DVD Series 60
    • 222. DVD Series - Audio/visual presentations of crucial topics 60
    • 223. DVD Series - Audio/visual presentations of crucial topics - $20 each 60
    • 224. DVD Series - Audio/visual presentations of crucial topics - $20 each - Call 800-DRAW NEAR (800-372-9632) 60
    • 225. KENBOA.ORG KenBoa.org ken_boa Kenneth Boa