Greetings Keia,
This is Ryan Moody. Jay and I attend the same church and he forwarded to me your e-mail of questions. I would be happy to try and answer them the best I can. I am really excited that you are genuinely searching for answers and I appreciate your pleasant demeanor that comes across in your writing.
First of all, let me tell you just a little about myself. I used to be an atheist and believed in evolution up until the age of 20 when I came to faith in Christ. I am 40 now. I am not in ministry and have never been to seminary. But for the last 20 years I have spent quite a lot of time studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics, as well as other religious beliefs.
Admittedly you have asked many of the hardest questions for Christians to answer. I certainly do not claim to have all the answers and I am also open to being corrected as well because I recognize I can be wrong about some things. The apostle Peter read Paul’s letters and said that some things were hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:15, 16). I sure feel relieved to know that even Peter who walked with Christ for over three years and was taught by Him personally still had some trouble understanding.
I also really appreciate what you said at the end of your e-mail: “I would think that any individual who believes faith has any value would want to make sure they have placed their faith in the right religion. Faith without any critical thought is blindness, and belief without skepticism is gullibility.” Those are my thoughts exactly. One thing about Christianity is that it welcomes investigation and criticism. This cannot always be said about other religions. Muslims, for example, are threatened with death for even questioning the authority of the Koran and Jehovah’s Witnesses are strictly limited to reading only literature printed by the Watchtower Society. But if a religion really is true then there should be no worries about scrutiny.
This is Keia, the guy you spoke with in your truck yesterday. I had a couple more questions for you, and was wondering if you could provide answers. If you feel that I am in any way attacking your belief system, know that these are very real questions that I have always had, but have never been answered with any satisfaction.
1. The whole issue of the perfect god wasn't really addressed in the car. To reiterate, my question is as follows:
- You believe that God is perfectly good, omnipotent, and omniscient, but evil exists in the world. Therefore, one of the following statements must be true:
- God is both omnipotent and all knowing, and the fact that he does not prevent extreme evil like purposeless suffering (like the rape and torture of women and children in Darfur) makes him incredibly cruel.
- God is benevolent and all-knowing, he cannot prevent evil from occurring, making him not omnipotent.
- God is benevolent and omnipotent, but does not know when evil will occur, making him not omniscient.
My point is that the traditional Christian view of God seems to be at odds with reality. If it is not, please explain why. If you are unable to provide a logical non-faith based -answer, that is fine, however it makes having a logical conversation regarding the very nature of God impossible.
The statement, I believe, that is closest to correct is the first one. But the conclusion is not necessarily true; that it “makes him incredibly cruel.” First let’s remember that God Himself came into this evil world through the virgin birth and became a man. He never sinned yet arguably suffered as much or more than any man ever has. Therefore, nobody can say that God does not identify with our sufferings but in fact even literally shared in them. And if anyone should have been exempt from suffering it would be Him.
Now if people have free wills—as you bring up in your next question—why should God be blamed for the sinful acts people freely choose to do? Well, as you said above, since He knew they would do it and could have stopped them then it makes Him cruel. But if He prevented every crime and sinful act then where is our free will? If He controlled us to the point of not ever being able to do wrong then we have no free will. And if we cannot sin by our own free wills then how will God hold us accountable and judge us? It is not Him who is incredibly cruel it is those in Darfur who are committing heinous acts. But their day will come when they are judged by Him.
Also, if we believe God is ultimately responsible for all the horrible crimes committed in the world then why do we punish the criminals who committed them? Some criminals go as far as trying to blame their crimes on God by claiming that He told them to do it. Even then we do not really believe God is responsible because we still punish the criminal and we feel no remorse for doing it. We know we are responsible for our own actions, not God. But if God really is to blame then we should unlock all the prisons and let the criminals free to do as they please. This reasoning does not make sense to me.
2. The idea of omniscience and free-will wasn't completely addressed either. If God knows the future - which omniscience requires - that would mean there is only one future to know. This means that the path we walk is well worn, and the destination effectively determined at the beginning of time. This means that accepting Christ as our savior is not a choice, but an act that God knew would occur prior to us even being created. This would mean that God would also know who will not accept him, and is - by your own admission - destined to spend eternity in hell. If you believe humans to have free will, then God cannot be omniscient. If He is, then all we have is the illusion of free will. If there is a way to preserve God's omniscience and free-will, please tell me how.
3. The issue of an eternal hell seems to be at odds with the nature of God. If we accept the above ideas, that God knows who is going to end up in heaven, and who ends up in hell at the time of their creation, then God would have created a conscious being for the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity - an act that seems to be incredibly cruel. If God is benevolent, why would he do this?
Many Christians hold to a theological belief system called Calvinism (I am not one of them). They believe, much as you described above, that before God created the world, He chose exactly which individuals would be saved and passed over everyone else. But it has become my conclusion that this causes logical problems that just cannot be sufficiently overcome when trying to reconcile the Sovereignty of God with the free will of man. Ultimately Calvinists end up with, just like you said, “the illusion of free will.”
Knowing our individual destinies at the time He created us does not make God the determiner of our destinies. Why not? Because He not only created us with free wills but also provided salvation for all and gave all the opportunity to repent and believe. Yes, He knew ahead of time exactly who would perish but He also knew they would of their own free will reject the salvation He provided for them. Their destiny is the result of their own choice, not anything God forced upon them even though He knew ahead of time what they would choose. Does God knowing ahead of time what someone would choose make Him guilty of their choice just because He is the One who created them with the free will to choose?
Now if the doctrine of Calvinism were true then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. God choosing exactly which individuals would be saved and providing salvation only for them, all the while knowing that everyone else was created to spend eternity in hell with no possibility of escape would make Him incredibly cruel.
An individual spending eternity being tortured does not make the rest of us better people, because we cannot see their punishment. You talked in the truck about a parent disciplining a child, or putting someone in prison, but those situations are different in a few ways.
I. Discipline exists to make that child behave better. In other words, you don't punish them for the mere sake of punishment, rather, you punish them so what they do in the future changes. Eternal punishment does not provide this opportunity.
II. Prison is similar, except for those who end up with life sentences or the death penalty. Their behavior doesn't have the opportunity to change after their punishment; however, their punishment provides deterrence for the rest of society. Because some individuals are executed for their crimes, the rest of society is discouraged from committing them. This is probably why you believe in an eternal hell - some people have to go to hell so a far greater number are motivated to turn to Christ. The primary difference is that we can see an individual be executed, or a person sentenced to life. We can observe how miserable they are with our five senses. This cannot be said for the punishment of hell. While you certainly can have faith that hell exists, there is no way to "prove" it, and so the result is that no real deterrence is created.
I agree that criminal punishment is a deterrent for the rest of society because we can see the results. But maybe you do not realize that the government and the criminal justice system were ordained by God (Rom. 13:1-5). So then they are serving the purpose He intended. If the fear of hell is sufficient deterrent for a peaceful society then why did God establish government? Before the great flood, there was no government and evil was rampant, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). The fact is, many people do not believe in hell or ultimate accountability before God which is why government is needed for civilization. The apostle Paul quoted from Psalm 36:1, “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:18). People who do not believe in God do not fear Him or any punishment beyond this life.
But hell is still necessary for a few reasons. First of all, God is just and must ultimately judge sin. Punishment in this life alone is not adequate. Was hanging Saddam Hussein sufficient punishment for all the atrocities he committed? Secondly, many criminals are never caught or brought to justice in this life. Hitler committed suicide. Is it not incredibly unfair for his victims to never be vindicated? And lastly, hell really is a great deterrent not just for those who believe it exists but also for those who fear it might. We all know we will die some day and we do not know what is on the other side until we cross over. People fear death because it is unknown so people invent religions to try and answer that question thus relieving their fears. But there are only two ways we can truly know what is on the other side of death: either to die and experience it ourselves or for God to reveal it to us before we die. Christ, who is God, did just that. He spoke more about hell than about heaven. But, as you are probably objecting, this does not prove hell exists just because Christ taught it. Well, it does if it can be proven that Christ really is God (which I will address later). If He is God then everything He taught is the truth. And it would also follow that Christianity is not just another invented religion by mankind but the very revelation of God Himself to mankind.
Due to the above statements, it would seem that using eternal hell as punishment for worldly sins is, at the very least, quite harsh. It also would seem that the Christian God, if we believe in an eternal hell, is unbelievable sadistic. Why create not only life, but a life that is conscious of its own being, only to torture it for eternity? If the angry, vindictive, and capricious God of the old testament changed into a loving God after the life of Christ, why would he continue to issue punishments to his own creations that do nothing but inflict intense pain?
What seems even harsher is how sinful people today treat with contempt the Holy Son of God even though He suffered horrible shame and pain for them. God demonstrated His tremendous love for us even while we were His enemies. After being beaten, spat upon, flogged, ridiculed, humiliated, and nailed to a cross, He still showed His love by praying for His executioners while He hung there dying for their sins. And today, it is only by God’s grace that any of us draw our next breath. We are living on common grace He has given us to come to repentance. It seems that for any of us to spurn the love He showed and is still showing deserve eternity in hell. Christ said, “He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). We take for granted all of the natural blessings around us that keep us alive every day—the food this earth produces and the good things we enjoy. We feel like God owes us beautiful days and fun times. We enjoy sinning in the comforts He provides yet we rarely give Him a second thought. And we keep thinking of Him only as “the angry, vindictive, and capricious God.” Yes, He will judge our sin and He will be “the angry, vindictive, and capricious God” if we are among those who stand before His judgment seat having “trampled the Son of God underfoot” (Heb. 10:29). But today is the day of salvation for all who will receive His mercy and grace. The day will come when there will be no more grace or second chance.
Let me draw an analogy to the Christian idea of God's judgment to a more tangible situation; suppose you lived in a society in which everyone, at the age of retirement, is whisked away in the night and never seen again. There is no evidence of where they have gone, or what has occurred. This is a normal scenario that occurs thousands of times each night in this society. Then, a "prophet" of sorts proclaims that someone from the government came to him and explained the whole process of what happens. He states that you are taken before a judge who, after reviewing your life's work, decides you will either spend the rest of your days in a paradise, or the rest of your days being tortured by sadists. He then provides the list of rules that the judge uses in deciding which place you go to. He has absolutely no proof that this is correct, and additionally, he is neither the first, nor the last person to provide a theory on what happens when you are taken. Tell me: what would make you follow his rules over the rules others have proposed? Has he given you any reason to believe him over any others? Would you have any reason to believe him, or would you consider him delusional?
Most would say a society like this is cruel, or scary, or inherently unfair. The fact of the matter is, this situation is far more more just, and more forgiving, of those who do not believe this "prophet's "story than Christians believe their God is. One can, by chance or internal moral compass, end up following the rules and precepts laid out by this "prophet" - but one cannot come to hold the belief that Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind by any humanist moralistic principle, or through random chance - aside from the random chance one will be birthed to a particular set of parents in a particular region. Once again, this makes God seem to be quite a bit less than perfectly good.
Are there any differences in the analogy outlined above other than the ones I have pointed out, and if so, what are they?
No, I would not believe this “prophet” because he has not given any proof. You mention several times in your e-mail about needing proof and I am so glad you are asking for it. Because I will demonstrate in my closing remarks that Christianity is the only religion that truly has it. You asked: “Has he given you any reason to believe him over any others?” Yes, Christ has.
You said that this “prophet” then “provides the list of rules that the judge uses in deciding which place you go to.” This statement indicates to me that you might not fully understand Christianity because you imply it is a religion of works. All other religions are; they give a list of rules for people to work for and try to earn their way to heaven. A man once asked Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” His reply was, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30, 31). Salvation does not come by keeping a list of rules but by having our sins forgiven. But God’s forgiveness is not Him simply sweeping our sins under the rug so to speak. The penalty for sin had to be paid in order for us to be forgiven. This, of course, was accomplished on the Cross. Therefore, salvation can only come through Christ because His death is the only sacrifice whereby our sins can be forgiven, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). As you asked further, “Tell me: what would make you follow his rules over the rules others have proposed?” Christians do not follow a set of rules for salvation, we follow Christ: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Taking Christ out of Christianity thereby dwindling it down to a set of rules makes it indistinguishable from all other religions and powerless to save.
Lastly it sounds like you object that some people can never come to the knowledge of Christ because they are limited by the circumstances in which they were born: “aside from the random chance one will be birthed to a particular set of parents in a particular region.” But Scripture declares that God has revealed Himself to everyone through creation (Rom. 1:19, 20) and their own consciences (Rom. 2:15). Therefore none of us is without excuse because we can seek after God and find Him (Acts 17:27). Every man has been given light (John 1:9). Even those who have never heard the gospel will still perish (Rom. 2:12), and those who have heard the gospel but do not believe will be judged by God even more severely (Matt. 11:20-24).
4. Here is the story of Jesus in the Quran - just to back up what I told you in the truck - including his return at Armageddon. This is pulled directly from the Quranic, so you can simply look it if you don't believe me. Muslims believe that Christ was a prophet of Allah - same diety you call "God" and the Jews call Yahweh - (just like they believe that Moses, Abraham, etc were prophets), but believe that Mohamed was the most recent prophet. From a historical perspective, the rejection of Mohamed by Christians shares a lot of similarity to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. Any religion will be unlikely to accept major changes to their scripture - especially from individuals who hold no power in that religion - even if those changes actually come from God. This is not for spiritual reasons, rather, it is because changes to the religion would substantially alter the power structure that exists. Spiritual men with power are men first and spiritual second, and some men crave power more than they crave food.
The laity rejects the prophet for the same reason that they reject other gods and other religions: the fact that there is no unambiguous visible proof. An individual's faith blinds them to the flaws in their own belief system, but the flaws in the beliefs of others remain plain as day. This is due to confirmation bias, a cognitive phenomenon in humans; individuals, when faced with information, have a tendency to ignore information that contradicts views they hold (especially views by which they define themselves in large part), and religion is no exception. Anyway, here is the passage.
Surah Ali Imran, Yusufali Translation, Ayat 45-59
--------------
[45] Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
[46] He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.
[47] She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
[48] "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
[49] "And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
[50] "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
[51] "'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"
[52] When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
[53] "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
[54] And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
[55] Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
[56] "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
[57] "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong."
[58] "This is what we rehearse unto thee of the Signs and the Message of Wisdom."
[59] The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
You said: “the rejection of Mohamed by Christians shares a lot of similarity to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. Any religion will be unlikely to accept major changes to their scripture” Christ was progressively revealed from the time of Moses writing Genesis to the culmination of John writing Revelation. The earliest prophecy about Christ was at the very beginning, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” (Gen. 3:15). And the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament or make any changes to its message; rather, it is the fulfillment of it. Christ said, “all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). Christ is the theme of the entire Old and New Testaments.
Christians believe the Old Testament is the word of God because Christ endorsed it and also that the New Testament is the word of God because it was written by those commissioned by Christ. Up to this point we can be confident that the Scriptures, the 66 books of the Bible, are the word of God. The Koran, on the other hand, contains conflicting information about the central theme of the Bible; Christ Himself. So, how can Christians accept any additional “authority” that contradicts what we already know to be God’s word? The simple fact that the Koran contradicts the known word of God exposes that it is not the word of God. Any additional “revelation” should compliment what we already have, not contradict it. If the Bible and the Koran contradict on essential doctrines then they cannot both be true which leaves us with only three options: 1) the Bible is true and the Koran is false; 2) the Koran is true and the Bible is false; 3) they are both false.
Let’s examine two major doctrines of the Koran about Christ. And remember, we are not examining a peripheral issue here. We are talking about Christ who is the very heart of Scripture. The last verse you quoted above claims that Christ is just a created being like Adam but the Bible declares He is the very Creator God Himself (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-2). How can He be the Creator and yet also be created? This is a clear contradiction. The Koran also says that Jesus Christ was not crucified (Sura 4:157), while the Bible is replete with testimony that He was. Based on these two irreconcilable contradictions, the Bible and the Koran cannot both be the word of God. Either only one is or neither is. And these are only two of many blatant contradictions.
Muslims claim the reason for the contradictions is because the Bible has been corrupted. Now Christians do not claim that the Bible we use today is perfect. We recognize that minor copying mistakes have been made throughout the centuries and only the originals are truly without error. But at last count that I am aware of, there are 5,664 Greek, 8,000-10,000 Latin Vulgate, plus another 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian manuscripts in existence showing only minor variations. More importantly, any differences between them do not affect any essential doctrines. In other words, all of the thousands of manuscripts we have today agree on the fundamentals about Christ that He is God and that He did die on the Cross. So then, how did every one of these thousands of Greek and various translated manuscripts from all over the ancient world get corrupted so thoroughly yet uniformly on essential doctrines?
5. Something you said in the truck has stuck with me, and that was that the laws of man ought to be dictated by the laws of God. Even if we throw out the rules set out by the Old Testament, we face a few problems.
I. This idea is the same one propagated by Muslims who want to make others adhere to the rule of Sharia, a system most Christians find abhorrent. How can you justify Christian religious law, but condemn Muslim religious law? Even if your belief is "correct", there is no way to demonstrate that in the physical world. All you are left with is your faith that it is the correct belief system, and the faith of one man in religion is worth no more than that of another man.
The reason I personally would not want to live under Muslim law is because it forces people to convert to their religion and threatens death for apostasy from it. It is not that I necessarily want to live under Christian religious law but that I want to live under a government where I am free to worship as I choose. For example, I lived comfortably for two years in communist Vietnam and was never pressured to convert to Buddhism. Other than an obviously lower standard of living, I found day to day living in Vietnam to be not much different than here in America. The Koran, on the other hand, teaches Muslims to fight against those who do not believe in Allah, even against Christians “the People of the Book” (Surah 9:29). Why would I want to live under a political religious system that is entirely violent against my own faith?
II. From a particularly American perspective, theocratic rule would be especially disgusting to the founding fathers of our country. John Adams once said, "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself" in 1756, while Jefferson stated "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law," (1814) and "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" (1814). The reason why there is a separation of church and state is because something like, for example, prayer in school, creates an implied approval of one religion while ignoring others, and this is effectively an establishment of religion - a violation of the first amendment. Certainly some of the laws of man coincide with the rules in the Bible, but the ones that do exist for reasons other than "because God decreed it". This will be brought up a little later, and will be gone into more in-depth.
But there is no separation of church and state under Muslim law. Is it not the very type of system you are arguing against? Personally, I believe it is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children to pray, not the schools’. Children are there to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. Only so long as children have the freedom to pray at school of their own initiative and are not forbidden then I am content. On the other hand, I think schools should not be teaching evolution because it is not science but a belief. Evolution is a theory that can never be proven by scientific methods because science can only work with the present. It simply has to be believed blindly. As a matter of fact, if science has proven anything in recent years it is that evolution absolutely could not have happened. Therefore evolution is no different than a religious belief that leads children into atheism and creates in school exactly what you said you do not want to happen: “an implied approval of one religion while ignoring others, and this is effectively an establishment of religion - a violation of the first amendment.”
III. The Bible cannot provide answers for every moral or ethical question asked,
especially when it comes to law. Besides the issue of whether or not using the Bible to direct legislation is moral, it is incredibly impractical. For example, does the Bible provide any ideas about tax law? Or legal driving age? Or the age of consent for marriage? Even if we are the accept that the Bible provides consistent, broad, moral principles, the idea that it can be used as a guide for the minutiae of everyday like just isn't realistic.
You are absolutely right. The Bible cannot and does not provide answers for every single moral or ethical question there is. It does not claim to do that. The Bible is the final court of appeal for truth but does not contain all possible truth that can be known because God also reveals Himself through other means which include the creation and our consciences (I touched on that earlier). But, as I also pointed out before, God established governments and they are responsible for deciding tax laws, driving age, etc.
6. You said that when Jesus arrived, the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant.
I would clarify this a little by saying, I believe, the Old Covenant was phased-out over a 40 year period starting with the ministry of John the Baptist around 30 A.D. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. “In that he says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). It did not vanish away in one moment; it was phased-out over a period of time.
Deuteronomy 4:2 contradicts this, stating: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you." So it would seem that Deuteronomy is stating, point blank, that the word of God should never be "replaced", and that all the rules from the old testament should be followed by anyone who worships God.
We need to examine the context this verse is contained in: “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:1, 2). God is speaking to Israel and telling them not to add to or take away from His commandments. But God Himself can change any commandments He wants as long as it is not a moral commandment emanating from His own nature. Not all of the commandments in the Law of Moses are moral expressions of the nature of God Himself (e.g., keeping the Sabbath). Therefore, He can change non-moral laws and further define the moral ones.
Moreover, in Luke 8:31, Christ states "My mother and my brothers are these that here the word of God and do it." During the life of Christ, the "word of God" was not the New Testament (because it hadn't been written yet), but the Old Testament.
Actually the Scripture reference is Luke 8:21. And Christ was not referring to the Old Testament in this verse but to His own teaching in verses 5-18 which got interrupted by His family asking for him outside the crowd. He was calling His own teaching the “word of God” which “these” (the crowd) were hearing. During Christ’s life, He was and still is the living Word of God (John 1:1). Therefore, the word of God in His days on earth was not limited to the Old Testament but was also His own word.
In Matthew 5:18-19, Christs says “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven", in Matthew 5:17 ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place," and in Luke 16:17 he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." It would thus seem that, as a follower of Christ, you are bound to follow the rules set forth in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
At this point Christ had just entered His ministry so it was important for Him to state why He came. As a teacher opposing the traditions imposed by the Scribes and Pharisees, He might have been mistakenly charged with trying to destroy the very law God gave to Israel. But He came to fulfill this law and the prophets. As for the law, it contained many sacrifices which were “shadows” of the coming Messiah (Heb. 10:1). These were fulfilled in His sacrifice on the Cross. As for the prophets, they contained many predictions (Psalm 22; Isa. 53) about His coming death which He also fulfilled. He is the whole purpose of the Old Testament.
Christ did not abolish the law when He came but did when He fulfilled it in His death. What else could Paul have meant in Ephesians 2:13-16: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments”? And what did he mean when he said, “Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col. 2:14)? Both verses are speaking of His crucifixion. When He was nailed to the cross, the law itself was nailed to the cross because He was the fulfillment of it. He lived a sinless life under the Law of Moses and then died in our place to redeem us from our sins. Paul, speaking of the Ten Commandments written on stones said that it was “passing away” (2 Cor. 3:7, 11). Hebrews 8:8-13 tells us that the New Covenant law would be written on our hearts as opposed to being written on stone tablets. The law was like a tutor to teach us about Christ but now that He has come we are no longer under the tutor (Gal. 3:23-25).
“Until heaven and earth pass away” does not mean that as long as heaven and earth are still here then all the Law of Moses is still binding on us. It means that the law will not be destroyed until it is all fulfilled even if it takes until the passing away of heaven and earth. But since it was fulfilled by Christ then it did pass away. This is further clarified by Luke 16:17, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away” not that heaven and earth must pass away first. But let’s also not overlook the prior verse, “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it” (Luke 16:16). It is obvious that a change began at the time of John the Baptist.
Now to be sure, no moral law of the Old Covenant was abolished by His death but ceremonial laws only. This is evident from what Paul said about the law, “He has taken it out of the way” (Col. 2:14), “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col. 2:16, 17). Ceremonial laws such as keeping a kosher diet, festival days, and the Sabbath were types that found their fulfillment in Christ. All of these laws were abolished. Moral laws, on the other hand, expressed in nine of the Ten Commandments (the Sabbath being the exception) were not abolished because they are expressions of God’s own nature. Murder and adultery, for example, have always been sin because they are moral in nature. Cain lived before the Law of Moses and was a murderer (1 John 3:12-15). Before Moses received the law, he even committed murder himself and fled from Pharaoh in fear of punishment (Ex. 2:11-15). Joseph lived before the law yet knew that adultery was wicked (Gen. 39:7-9). Moral laws were binding on everyone before the Law of Moses was given, while the Law was in force, and still today around 2000 years after the law. The Law of Moses did not create moral standards that never existed before. It simply defined what had always been true. Therefore the abolishment of that Law did not change what is truly moral and what is not.
So, to be a good Christian, in addition to being opposed to homosexuality and abortion, one must adhere to the following rules set forth:
I. Deuteronomy 23:1 - a man with missing or damaged genitals cannot enter religious congregations
II. Leviticus 19:19 - wearing clothing made of more than one fiber is an abomination
These two laws are clearly non-moral or ceremonial in nature which means they were only part of the Old Covenant law that passed away.
III. 2 Chronicles 16:12 - a story is told that seems to discourage going to a doctor when ill, and instead just pray
This verse is not any kind of rule or commandment binding on anyone. It simply recounts an event that happened. Now Scripture always encourages prayer but I have never read where it discouraged going to a doctor. In fact Christ said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matt. 9:12). The verse says, “Asa became diseased in his feet, and his malady was severe; yet in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians” (2 Chron. 16:12). It sounds like he is saying that the Lord would have healed him if he had sought Him. But instead of seeking help from God also, he relied only on the doctors. Doctors can only do so much and in his case it was not enough so he died.
IV. 1 Kings 13:1 - God commands the ritual sacrifice of pagans
This was not a ritual sacrifice. It was a prophecy that was fulfilled in 2 Kings 23:15-20, executing the divine judgment of God on the non-Levitical priesthood established by Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12:31-32. God punished with death those who were violating the order of the priesthood He had prescribed.
V. Deuteronomy 13:13 - more burning of all non-believers
This was not a burning of any persons but the city in which they lived. If one of the cities in the land God gave to Israel turned away from God to serve other gods then Israel was commanded to kill them. But this was the case only for cities in their own land. What we need to recognize is that God is the Creator of life and therefore has the prerogative to take that life whenever He so chooses. It is murder for us to take the life of another person but not for Him because He is God. Now He can also delegate that authority in certain circumstances such as this and also for governments to enforce capital punishment.
As long as we are talking about God killing people; what about the flood? Considering it occurred about 1650 years after Adam was created and people were living to be over 900 years old, some have estimated that the population would have well exceeded the population of 6 billion today. This is very possible especially when each couple was probably having numerous children over a span of hundreds of years. Yet God killed earth’s entire population except for eight people in the Ark.
VI. Deuteronomy 20:10 - when you take over a town, you should rape the women, murder everyone, and pillage whats left
In this passage God was instructing His people what to do when going to battle against their enemies. They were to first offer peace to any city they came to. If the city not only refused the offer of peace but also made war against Israel then they were to kill every male but save the women and children. And nothing is said here about raping any women.
VII. Deuteronomy 22:28 - if a man rapes a woman who is not engaged to be married, he must pay her father 50 pieces of silver and marry her
It is questionable if this is talking about rape. It says “and they are found out” as though it is not him being caught raping her but rather that what was done mutually was discovered later. The two were simply commanded to get married since they already had sexual relations.
VIII. Deuteronomy 22:23 - if a married woman is raped, she is to be stoned
This is not talking about rape. Deut. 22:25-27 speaks of an actual rape where he “forces her” and she “cried out, but there was no one to save her” because she was out in the countryside. In that case the criminal is the only one who dies. But Deut. 22:23-24 is talking about a man lying with a virgin who is engaged and she did not cry for help even though she was in the city where others could have saved her. It was obviously mutual consent. There is nowhere in Scripture where rape is commanded or where a rape victim is ordered to be put to death.
IX. Leviticus 25:44 - slavery is completely okay, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance."
We tend to associate slavery with kidnapping and abuse because of the ungodly slave trade in early American history. But Scripture condemns kidnapping, “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 21:16). We are told that the poor often sold themselves into slavery to opt for a better life (Lev. 25:39, 47), or they were sold into slavery to satisfy a debt they could not pay (Matt. 18:25). Yet they could always be redeemed or released during the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:47-55).
If a particular government and its society allow it and there is no immorality involved (kidnapping or abuse) then is it immoral for one human to own another? I think the burden of proof is on those who say it is. The unethical treatment or abuse of any human being is definitely immoral but whether or not it is wrong for one human to own another is debatable.
And to be frank it goes on and on and on. However, lets go with what you said in the car, that we should throw out the Old Testament and only follow the rules laid out in the New Testament.
New Testament Only
I. Christ states that all disobedient children should be stoned to death. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"
Moral laws are universal and timeless; they are true for all people at all times. But the punishment for breaking those laws is not always the same at all times. Just because God prescribed certain punishments under Old Covenant law does not mean the same punishments are still binding today. Israel lived under a unique theocratic government in which God gave them specific punishments for specific crimes. But governments we live under today, which are also established by God, are permitted to set their own punishments. It is morally wrong for a child to curse his father or mother but the punishment for doing so is not the same today.
After Christ rose from the dead, He commissioned us, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen” (Matt. 28:19, 20). What Christ requires of His disciples under the New Covenant is to obey whatever He commanded us, not necessarily whatever was commanded to Israel under the Old Covenant. Paul said that he was “not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). The duty of Christians is to obey the law of Christ which is whatever He has commanded us. So when we read the four gospels we need to take into account who He was speaking to. In the verse you quoted above He was clearly addressing the Jewish Pharisees and Scribes (Mark 7:1, 5), not His disciples.
II. In Matthew 5:27, Christ states that adultery should be punished by death, and lustful thoughts should be punished by gouging your eye out.
The Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7 is clearly Christ’s commandments to His disciples (Matt. 5:1, 2). And multiple times He quoted the Old Covenant law then followed it with: “But I say to you.” He was commanding His law over and above the former. The Law of Moses only defined sin to a certain extent but Christ was now revealing the depths of it more fully. And He did not reiterate the death penalty for adultery in this sermon. He simply repeated the moral law of the Old Covenant and then defined it further to be not just the act but the very lust of it in the heart.
Also, Christ was not saying that the punishment for lustful thoughts is gouging out the eye but rather being cast into hell. Eternity in hell is the punishment for adultery. Now the part about gouging out your eye and cutting off your hand was a hyperbolic statement for effect much the same way as Matt. 7:1-5. Certainly He did not mean that anyone has a literal wooden beam in their eye that needs to be removed.
III. In Peter 2:18, he states that all slaves should "be subject to their masters with all fear" - so it would seem that the New Covenant is okay with slavery as well.
The early church lived under the Roman Empire where it is estimated that the slave population far outnumbered the free. It touched almost every facet of life. But the New Testament gave strong warning for masters’ ethical treatment of their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1).
So it would seem that there are a lot of rules that modern Christians don't adhere to because it would be immoral to do so. This begs the question, why would these rules have been moral then, and immoral now? Was it ever really okay to stone women for the crime of being raped, or children for the crime of disobedience?
There are no rules that were moral then but immoral now. Moral laws are timeless and universal. Before the Law of Moses people were accountable for the moral law inscribed on their consciences. Those living under the Law had greater accountability because the moral law was clearly written and given to them directly from God. It would also follow that Christians today have even greater accountability because we have been given greater revelation. Christians now live under the law of Christ which is an even higher standard than the Law of Moses. It is not that morality has changed but that it is more fully defined and demanded of us. And to answer you again, it was never the case that women were stoned for being raped.
7. Finally, how are we to use the Bible as complete moral compass when, within the book itself, there seem to be contradictions in the rules? For example, one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not kill," without any qualifications, while God commands his subjects to kill repeatedly throughout the Bible (such as the killing of rape victims and children). Since the Bible is, at times, internally inconsistent, how are we to use it as a reliable method to decided moral issues?
The commandment to not kill is referring to murder which is always immoral for all people at all times. But God has the prerogative to take any life whenever He wills because He is the giver of life. It is not murder for Him to kill. And He also has chosen to delegate that authority at certain times such as with capital punishment and when He commanded Israel to kill. There were actually 16 different crimes enforced by the death penalty under the Old Covenant. But once again, there never was a commandment to kill rape victims.
The Bible is a very big book—a compilation of 66 books by over 40 writers spanning a period of around 1500 years—so we would expect there to be some apparent contradictions. In fact it is absolutely amazing that there are relatively few. As long as we are honestly trying to understand its intended meaning and allowing it to harmonize with itself then its internal consistency testifies to its divine origin.
Anyway, I know this is a really long email, but I would love your thoughts on these issues. I hope you come up with better answers than I could, and I trust your faith to guide you. If you cannot provide answers, thats fine as well. That said, I would think that any individual who believes faith has any value would want to make sure they have placed their faith in the right religion. Faith without any critical thought is blindness, and belief without skepticism is gullibility.
Thanks,
Keia James Atkinson
I would like to conclude these questions and answers with objective proof for the Christian faith. At one point you seemed to extend a challenge: “While you certainly can have faith that hell exists, there is no way to "prove" it.” Actually, I believe it can be proven. If it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Christ resurrected from the dead then the existence of hell is also proven. The historical event of the resurrection establishes the fact that Christ is the very God who created everything; including heaven and hell. His resurrection proves the following:
1 ) He is God because only God can do what no man has ever done; gotten the victory over death.
2) His death on the Cross paid in full for our sins. The penalty for sin is death but Christ never sinned. So why did He die? He died to pay the penalty for our sins and His resurrection proclaims that God accepted His sacrifice as payment in full.
3) He is the only way of salvation. Man cannot save himself. Only God can save us and He did so through His Son’s death for our sins. Therefore there cannot be other ways to God because He only provided one way through His Son.
4) All other religions are false. Obviously if God saves people only through Christ then no other religion saves.
5) Every claim He made about Himself is true. All of His claims are proven because He is God.
6 ) Everything He taught is the truth. If Christ is God then we need to listen to what He said and, more importantly, obey Him.
7) The Bible is the word of God. Christ validated the Old Testament by quoting from it as authority. He also commissioned His disciples to write the 27 books of the New Testament.
8) There is a heaven and a hell. Christ knows about these two places because He is God and He told us they exist.
9)There is objective, universal standard of morality.
10) He will judge the world.
The entire Christian faith stands or falls on the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). If it did not happen then Christianity is a sham. If it happened then everything above and more is settled. The question now is how do we prove the resurrection?
Let’s suppose a man is standing trial for committing a crime and two people testify that they saw him do it. Would that be enough evidence to convict him? It probably would be. But what if there were five people who testified rather than two? Then it would be a closed case. The point is that just a few people giving eyewitness testimony about an event can convict someone beyond reasonable doubt. Multiple eyewitness testimony is solid evidence.
The apostle Paul wrote that after Christ’s resurrection, He appeared to not just five, or even fifty, but to over five hundred people at the same time (1 Cor. 15:6). How much more evidence do we need? But how can we know this really happened? Mainly, the credibility of not just Paul but all the apostles was on the line because they were in agreement and fellowship with each other. Paul said that James, Peter and John gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9). Also, Peter read Paul’s letters and endorsed them (2 Pet. 3:15, 16). Therefore, this claim was verified by all the apostles after he wrote it. And if anything the apostles wrote was ever proven false then the whole New Testament must be discarded. Because if it was known that they lied even once then how could we ever trust them on anything else? When someone is a proven liar, even when they really do tell the truth they still cannot be trusted because their credibility has been damaged. Defense attorneys use this tactic in court quite frequently. They try to undermine the credibility of witnesses by making personal attacks on their character.
Also, this claim involved so many people—over five hundred—that if false it could have been easily exposed as such. Yet Paul even challenged the Corinthians to investigate the truthfulness of the claim by stating: “most of whom are still living” (1 Cor. 15:6). In effect he was saying that if they did not believe him then it would not be difficult to track down some of those five hundred and hear it from them firsthand because most of them were still alive when he wrote the letter. He was not the least bit worried about his claim being scrutinized.
What gives substance to the Christian faith is that it is established on public events that happened in real history. Other religions have to be followed blindly because they consist mainly of “wise” sayings and commandments of men with no proof they came from God. Only Christianity is grounded in historical events, political figures, geography, archaeology, nations, and people groups that can either be verified as accurate or proven false. Whereas Christianity does not shrink from allowing itself to be examined, other religions do. Christianity is proven objectively by the eyewitness testimony of the resurrection of Christ. The following Scriptures reveal how crucial the Apostles’ eyewitness testimony was for the resurrection to be established as an historical event: Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:8; 1:21-22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:30-32; 10:39-41; 13:31; 26:16.
Furthermore, numerous fulfilled prophecies about the life and death of Christ are also solid evidence for the Christian faith. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumram, Israel was a manuscript find that included every book of the Old Testament except Esther. The documents, along with the prophecies contained in them, pre-date Christ therefore verifying they were actual predictions that were not written after the fact. What’s more is there is a miniscule difference between those manuscripts and the Old Testament we read today attesting that the text has not been corrupted.
Salvation comes by believing in Christ’s resurrection (Rom. 10:9), because to believe this one event is to believe everything else about Him. Does Christ require us to believe He was resurrected even though we never have the privilege of seeing Him with our own eyes? Just listen to what He said to His disciple Thomas after His resurrection: “‘Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). We have no excuse for not believing even though we do not see simply because we have solid evidence from the eyewitnesses who did see Him. This is more than sufficient evidence to believe and to dismiss this proof is to reject Christ and perish.
So, what will you do at this point? Will you continue seeking answers to more questions before you will believe? That is certainly your prerogative but let me please remind you that none of us has a guarantee of living to see tomorrow. Do not wait until it is too late. I plead for you to repent of your sins and believe on Him who loved you and died for you.
Thank you.
Ryan Moody