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
13. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
- First Amendment, US Constitution Bill of Rights
6
20. Variations of the Same Question
“Isn’t Christianity too narrow?”
“Since all religions are basically the same, does it matter what
you believe?”
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?”
9
22. 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
23. 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
32. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way
is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through
it.” Matthew 7:13
14
33. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way
is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through
it.” Matthew 7:13
I said therefore to you, that
you shall die in your sins: for unless
you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins”
John 8:24
14
34. Christianity Is Narrow - Jesus
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way
is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through
it.” Matthew 7:13
I said therefore to you, that
you shall die in your sins: for unless
you 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 comes
to the Father, but by Me” John 14:6
14
36. Christianity Is Narrow - Apostles
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men by which we
must be saved.” Acts 4:12
15
37. Christianity Is Narrow - Apostles
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men by which we
must be saved.” Acts 4:12
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life
in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
15
39. Jesus’ Claims of Exclusivity
Other world religion founders
promote their teachings as the
only way to God
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
16
41. 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
42. 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
44. Jesus’ Claims to Be God
“If you knew Me, you would
know My Father also”
John 8:19
17
45. 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
46. 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
52. Three Assumptions for Rejection
Millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside Christianity
20
53. Three Assumptions for Rejection
Millions of sincere worshippers whose religions lay outside Christianity
“Christ may be right for you, but not for everyone”
20
54. 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
61. Sincere, but Sincerely Wrong
Sincerity never changes reality
It is possible to be sincerely wrong
22
62. 2. “It may be true for you, but
not for me”
23
63. 2. “It may be true for you, but
not for me”
Assumption: truth is determined by
one’s beliefs or lack of beliefs
23
64. 2. “It may be true for you, but
not for me”
Assumption: truth is determined by
one’s beliefs or lack of beliefs
Subjective decisions based upon
personal preferences and tastes
23
65. 2. “It may be true for you, but
not for me”
Assumption: truth is determined by
one’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
66. 2. “It may be true for you, but
not for me”
Assumption: truth is determined by
one’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
67. 2. “It may be true for you, but
not for me”
Assumption: truth is determined by
one’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
69. Society Does Not Determine Truth
Truth is not subject to
society’s whims or wishes
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
24
71. 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
72. 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
85. Truth Is Always Narrow
By definition, truth must be intolerant of error
30
86. Truth Is Always Narrow
By definition, truth must be intolerant of error
Mathematics is 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
30
88. 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
89. 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
91. Narrowness Does Not Make
Something Wrong
Life is full of things which are
narrow and true
31
92. Narrowness Does Not Make
Something Wrong
Life is full of things which are
narrow and true
Intolerant of split-second errors in
judgment
31
93. Narrowness Does Not Make
Something Wrong
Life is full of things which are
narrow and true
Intolerant of split-second errors in
judgment
Pilots
31
94. Narrowness Does Not Make
Something Wrong
Life is full of things which are
narrow and true
Intolerant of split-second errors in
judgment
Pilots
Pediatricians
31
95. Narrowness Does Not Make
Something Wrong
Life is full of things which are
narrow and true
Intolerant of split-second errors in
judgment
Pilots
Pediatricians
Police
31
97. Christianity Is Not Unique in Its
Narrowness
Virtually all world religions
claim to be exclusively right
32
98. Christianity Is Not Unique in Its
Narrowness
Virtually all world religions
claim to be exclusively right
Mohammed, Buddha, and
Krishna all claimed to hold
THE WAY to paradise/
enlightenment
32
103. Means of
Views of God Human Destiny
Salvation
Christ’s
Christianity Trinitarian Heaven
Propitiation
Nothingness or Human
Judaism Unitarian
Heaven Morality
5 Pillars
Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven
5 Doctrines
Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma and
Hinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation
Pantheistic or
Annihilation/ 4 Noble Truths
Buddhism Polytheistic or
Nirvana Eight-fold Path
Atheistic
34
104. Means of
Views of God Human Destiny
Salvation
Christ’s
Christianity Trinitarian Heaven
Propitiation
Nothingness or Human
Judaism Unitarian
Heaven Morality
5 Pillars
Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven
5 Doctrines
Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma and
Hinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation
Pantheistic or
Annihilation/ 4 Noble Truths
Buddhism Polytheistic or
Nirvana Eight-fold Path
Atheistic
34
105. Means of
Views of God Human Destiny
Salvation
Christ’s
Christianity Trinitarian Heaven
Propitiation
Nothingness or Human
Judaism Unitarian
Heaven Morality
5 Pillars
Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven
5 Doctrines
Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma and
Hinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation
Pantheistic or
Annihilation/ 4 Noble Truths
Buddhism Polytheistic or
Nirvana Eight-fold Path
Atheistic
34
106. Means of
Views of God Human Destiny
Salvation
Christ’s
Christianity Trinitarian Heaven
Propitiation
Nothingness or Human
Judaism Unitarian
Heaven Morality
5 Pillars
Islam Unitarian Sensual Heaven
5 Doctrines
Pantheistic or Absorption/ Karma and
Hinduism Polytheistic Nirvana Reincarnation
Pantheistic or
Annihilation/ 4 Noble Truths
Buddhism Polytheistic or
Nirvana Eight-fold Path
Atheistic
34
108. The Law of Non-contradiction
If 2 statements about one particular issue contradict each
other, then
35
109. The Law of Non-contradiction
If 2 statements about one particular issue contradict each
other, then
Only one of them is true
35
110. 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
111. 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
117. “Christ says He is the only way to God”
“Mohammed says there is another way to God”
37
118. “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
119. “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
121. “Christianity is the only way to God”
“Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism are ways to God”
38
122. “Christianity is the only way to God”
Either both are wrong,
or one is right
“Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism are ways to God”
38
123. “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
126. NT reports that
Jesus claimed to be God
Reports are true
40
127. NT reports that
Jesus claimed to be God
Reports are true Reports are false
(legend)
40
128. NT reports that
Jesus claimed to be God
Reports are true Reports are false
(legend)
Jesus meant it mystically
(lama)
40
129. 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
130. The Trilemma
Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be?
41
131. The Trilemma
Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be?
Liar
41
132. The Trilemma
Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be?
Liar Lunatic
41
133. The Trilemma
Is Christ Who He Claimed to Be?
Liar Lunatic Lord
41
149. Unique Claims of Christ Credentials of Christ
Power to forgive sins Sinless life
Sinless Miracles
Fulfillment of OT Prophecies Unique character and teaching
Rise from the dead; Fulfillment of hundreds of
raise all people messianic prophecies
Return and judge the world Power to change lives
Exclusive way to salvation Resurrection from the dead
45
150. Unique Claims of Christ Credentials of Christ
Power to forgive sins Sinless life
Sinless Miracles
Fulfillment of OT Prophecies Unique character and teaching
Rise from the dead; Fulfillment of hundreds of
raise all people messianic prophecies
Return and judge the world Power to change lives
Exclusive way to salvation Resurrection from the dead
45
151. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
46
152. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
God is holy and righteous
46
153. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
God is holy and righteous
God gives the creatures the gift of life
46
154. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
God is holy and righteous
God gives the creatures the gift of life
God gives the creatures an idyllic, perfect setting
46
155. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
156. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
157. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
158. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
47
159. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
The creatures breed, despise God, and each “do what is right
in his own eyes”
47
160. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
161. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
162. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
163. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
48
164. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
The creatures consistently violate God’s laws
48
165. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
166. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
167. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
168. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
169. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
49
170. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
In an ultimate act of redemption, God says, “This time, I’m
going to these people Myself.”
49
171. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
172. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
173. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
174. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
50
175. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of Redemption?
God offers to His Son’s murderers total amnesty, forgiveness,
peace, victory over death, and eternal life
50
176. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
177. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
178. Why Is God So Narrow-Minded
that He Only Provides One Way
of 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
179. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescending
and Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is the
Only Way to God?
51
180. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescending
and Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is the
Only Way to God?
Christ Himself said He was the only way (John 14:6)
51
181. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescending
and Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is the
Only 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
182. Isn’t it Unloving, Intolerant, Condescending
and Arrogant to Preach that Christ Is the
Only 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
185. Summary:
Isn’t Christianity too Narrow?
Option 1: Christianity is not narrow
Contradicts Jesus, the apostles, and historic Christianity
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
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
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
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
52
190. 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
191. 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
197. What About Those Who Never
Heard About Christ?
In Every Age and Place
The Basis of Salvation: The Death of Christ
The 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 Never
Heard About Christ?
In Every Age and Place
The Basis of Salvation: The Death of Christ
The 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 Never
Heard About Christ?
In Every Age and Place
The Basis of Salvation: The Death of Christ
The Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith
The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God
The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time
54
200. What About Those Who Never
Heard About Christ?
In Every Age and Place
The Basis of Salvation: The Death of Christ
The Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith
The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God
The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time
54
201. What About Those Who Never
Heard About Christ?
In Every Age and Place
The Basis of Salvation: The Death of Christ
The Means of Salvation: By Grace through Faith
The Object of Faith: The Revelation of God
The Content of Faith: Progresses Over Time
54
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.
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
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
55
206. 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
207. 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
209. Response to the Light
God will not hold us accountable for light we have not received
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
56
211. 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
212. 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
222. Reflections Ministries Resources
Reflections - A free monthly teaching letter
KenBoa.org website - Daily Growth email and
free text and audio resources
59
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
