in.
Instead, we are living with the consequences of Adam’s sin.
There is a big difference between them. God does not
punish someone else for Adam’s sin, and if someone thinks he
does, that person is mistaken. First, we must remember that in
the Eastern culture of the peoples of the Bible, we do not
encounter the fierce individualism that marks the Western
mindset. Rather, we see much more of a communal system. The
individual is subserviated to the good of the whole. So, when
Achan sinned (Joshua 7:20) he was punished by death and his
whole family perished with him. They were not punished, but
they experienced the results of Achan’s sin. They were not
said to he guilty, but Achan, as the head of his house, was
their representative, and what he did was considered to be
their responsibility as well.
The same goes for Adam. As
our representative, Adam fell, and (according to Paul in
Romans 5) we fell with him. We are not punished for his
one act - rather, we live in a world that is completely
affected by that act. Now, the Christian message is that God,
in his mercy, is willing to do the same again - this time with
our representative as Jesus Christ. We can have the
righteousness of God in Jesus Christ when we are united with
him (Romans 5:12-19).
Therefore, it is inaccurate
to say that we are punished in Adam’s place or for Adam’s sin.
Of course, the anti-theist may reply, but that’s not fair! Why
should I live in a messed-up world because of what someone
else did?” That is true - it’s not fair. It is not fair that
an innocent person dies when a drunk crosses the line and
collides with the innocent person’s car. But it happens. It is
also not fair that God would allow anyone salvation in Jesus
Christ. Mercy is not fair. So, if we want only justice, we are
in big trouble, for there is none righteous, no not one. I’m
glad God shows mercy, fair or not!
2. How could two perfect
beings, Adam and Eve, have sinned?
Answer to Question #2:
Adam’s Fall
This is an extremely common
question which is based on a purely false assumption. Indeed,
the Christian must learn to recognize the false assumptions
that underlie most of atheistic thinking, and be prepared to
point those errors out. This question provides us with a
classic example of this.
The flawed assumption
inherent in this question is as follows: if a perfect being
sins, then that being was not perfect to begin with. Or, in
other words, Adam and Eve’s “perfection" also made it
impossible for them to sin. The question is, where does the
Bible say that? Where does the Bible say that Adam and Eve
could not sin? Where does
it
say that because God created them innocent that they did not
have the ability to sin? On what basis can we say that if
something created by God and proclaimed by him to he "good"
sins, then it wasn’t perfect? As you can see, we have to
assume that perfection = inability to sin, and therefore,
the inability to choose! This means that the only beings God
could create that were perfect are those who have no personal
choice. But we are now seeing the foolishness of this line of
reasoning. There is no basis for stating that perfection
includes within it the inability to become imperfect. Besides
all of this, where does the Bible use the term "perfect” of
Adam and Eve in this context? It doesn’t. Always remember this
kind of false logic when dealing with anti-theists - it will
come up every single time!
3. Christians claim that in
order to be saved you must accept Jesus as your savior. If so,
then how are babies who die in infancy, the mentally infirm,
those who lived before Jesus, and those who lived in the New
World before missionaries arrived, saved, and how could God be
just if he condemned people because of where or when they were
born?
Answer to Question #3: The
Pygmies in Africa
Few Christians have been
able to avoid this type of question that basically objects to
the specificity of salvation in Jesus Christ. The lost do not
like Jesus’ claim to be the “way, the truth, and the life, and
they constantly bring this question up. Two things - first,
Christians need to do better in their understanding of God and
sin to he able to deal with this, and second, we must again
deal with a false assumption at this point as well.
The first and most basic
thing that must be asserted is the holiness of God. God is
holy, and he is sovereign, and has the perfect right to do
with his creation as he sees fit. God does not sit before the
judgment bar of man’s reason or man’s sense of what is right
and wrong. Instead, our senses and reasoning must be attuned
to his. I say this because many Christians are afraid to state
what the Bible says so clearly: "The
LORD does whatever pleases him, in the
heavens and on the earth..." (Psalm 135:6).
The most basic error in
thinking in this question is the idea that God somehow “owes"
everyone an equal chance at salvation. This error is so common
that many Christians have fallen into it. It is wrong to think
that God owes us anything - salvation is a matter of
grace, and grace is never “owed." God did not have to
save anyone at all - he could have allowed us to go on our
way, under his judgment and wrath. He did not have to devise
the plan of salvation. He did because of his mercy, grace, and
love. But we must remember that he did not have to
provide salvation for anyone. Given this we can see
the problem with the above question - it is based on the false
assumption that God owes everyone salvation - he doesn’t. This
brings up the question of those who have not heard the gospel.
Can God possibly condemn someone who has never heard the
Gospel? The Biblical answer is, yes, he can. God does not
judge on the basis of whether one has or has not heard the
Gospel - sin is the criterion, and all have sinned. We must
remember that all are condemned regardless of the matter of
having heard or not heard. Only God’s grace and mercy makes
possible the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ.
How can we complain that God shows his mercy to some and not
to all? This would be like faulting the governor of a state
who extends a pardon to one man on death row. Would we be
right to say, "he pardoned one, but he is unfair because he
did not pardon the other 65 people who are condemned to die”?
Of course not, since the governor was under no compulsion to
pardon the one that he did. In the same way, God is under no
compulsion to save anyone, so how can we get angry with him
when he saves some and not all? Every man receives either
justice or mercy - none receive injustice.
The question above also
asked about infants and mentally incompetent individuals. The
Bible does mention an “age of accountability as we call it,
where a youth knows the difference between good and evil
and is responsible for that decision (Isaiah 7:15- 16). Little
is said other than this. Therefore, we have little to go on in
discussing the condition of the infant or the mentally
incompetent. Since they have made no conscious decisions
against God, it is inconceivable that they undergo any kind of
punishment. Rather, it is clear that they are ushered into the
presence of the Lord. Huldreich Zwingli felt that all who died
in infancy or who were mentally incompetent were of the elect
of God, and I feel comfortable with that idea. Now, of course,
anyone who asks you this question is neither an infant, nor
mentally incompetent, nor someone who has never heard the
Gospel, so they cannot hide from the clear implications of the
Gospel in their lives.
In our radio debate,
McKinsey pushed the idea that since Jesus said that no
man comes to the Father but by him, and babies can’t
accept Jesus, then they must to hell. I tried to point
out to Mr. McKinsey that people are punished for sin; babies
have committed no sin, therefore how could they be punished?
At that point Mr. McKinsey said, “I don’t know where you got
the idea that you had to be a sinner in order to go to hell -
you go to hell not because of your acts - you go to hell
because of whether or not you accept Jesus.” I tried to get
him to see that Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 is in reference
to all men because all have sinned, not in reference to those
who died in infancy and never committed sin. Interestingly
enough, this is what McKinsey would call an “extra-biblical”
topic, and he claims to avoid such topics. The Bible nowhere
says "Babies go to hell" - McKinsey is making up his own ideas
as he goes along on this one. Since he has created a position
that is not biblical, am I not just as safe to say the
sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for all infants and mental
incompetents? I could say that if I wished (if someone simply
would not allow for babies to be innocent - i.e., have a sin
nature while not yet being guilty of individual
sin).
McKinsey added something
about escaping via Romans 1 and 2. His comments show that
again he knows little of Biblical theology. Romans 1:18-20
definitely says that man is inexcusable before God. But
McKinsey makes it sound as if the biblicist will say that
‘belief in God and inherently knowing the good’ is how we
“escape” from this dilemma. Nothing could be farther from the
truth, and no good apologist would make that statement.
4. How could Noah
(Genesis 6:9) and Job (1:1) have been perfect if all have
sinned (Romans 3:23)?
Answer to Question #4:
Perfection and Sinlessness
Little time need he spent on this, as it
is clearly answered by asking the question, “why do you equate
perfection and sinlessness?” The Hebrew terms used in these
passages do not mean sinlessness. Rather, the Hebrew word is
tarn, which refers to completeness, not sinless
perfection. When applied to man, it would refer to a complete
man with moral integrity (see Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew
Lexicon for details). Also, we see that Noah offered
sacrifices (Genesis 8:20) as did Job, for it was his “regular
custom” (Job 1:5). Why would these men sacrifice if they did
not know of their own sin?
5. How could Paul have
said we are saved through faith in Jesus when Jesus himself
repeatedly said good works are the pre-requisite?
Answer to Question #5:
Grace and Works
Pauline theology most
definitely teaches that salvation is by grace through faith
(Ephesians 2:8-10). Paul does emphasize good works for the
Christian, but those works always follow - salvation and are
the results of the indwelling Spirit - good works are never
the pre-requisite of gaining salvation. The above question
posits a contradiction between Paul and Jesus at this point.
But does such a contradiction exist?
By no means!
When asked by the Jews “What must we do to do the works of
God?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in
the one he has sent.’ (John 6:28-29). Note that the “work”
Jesus mentions is belief - faith! Jesus
never taught that a man could come
to God by his works, nor that good works brought salvation.
Instead, he taught that he was the way to God, and that
salvation was by faith in his atoning sacrifice (John 3, etc).
Therefore, the skeptic’s question is again seen to be based on
a falsehood - the assumption that Jesus taught
works-salvation. Now, certainly, if one wishes to sacrifice
context, and if one assumes that Jesus was inconsistent
with himself, then one could assert that Jesus taught works
salvation. But if one takes Jesus’ words at face value, and
examines the context and over-all meaning of his teaching, one
will quickly see that Jesus, and his foremost disciple, Paul,
were completely in agreement on this most vital subject. The
burden of evidence, then, lies with the skeptic to prove that
Jesus taught what he asserts above. It is clear, though, that
such an assertion is false.
6. Ask someone if they
believe. The answer is nearly always yes. Then ask if they
would be willing to drink arsenic or handle deadly snakes
since Mark 16:18 says, those who believe shall take up
serpents and drink any deadly thing with impunity.
Answer to Question #6:
Demonstrating how little one knows.
I saw an entire little
“tract” built around this theme once - I cannot express in
words the stupidity of such a question, and I sometimes wonder
why I bother even dealing with it. But, it does crop up once
in a while (rarely from an honest person) and therefore it
should be addressed.
The first and most obvious
thing is the simple fact that Mark 16:9-20 is not included in
the best and most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament,
and it is not included in the actual text of most modern
editions of the Bible. (For further information on this, write
and request our information sheet entitled Mark 16:9-20:
Scripture or Not?) But, I have learned that it is fruitless to
expect anti-theists to be willing to study such subjects as
textual criticism, so it does not bother them that they are
using a passage that is not original in the Bible. What is
worse, many of the believers they encounter are not aware of
textual criticism either, and therefore such inane, senseless,
and idiotic questions as the above tend to carry more weight
with the uninformed Christians. Of course, such questions as
the above completely discredit the questioner in the eyes of
anyone who has done more than a cursory study of the Bible.
7. How can Numbers 23:19
and I Samuel 15:29 (both stating that God does not repent) be
reconciled with Exodus 32:14 and I Samuel 15:35 (which say
that he does)?
Answer to Question
#7: Repentance and God.
This is again a rather
common question. The answer lies, of course, in realizing that
the context of the usage of any word must be examined before a
“contradiction” can be alleged. We must also examine the
meaning of the term itself, for words can be used in different
contexts with different emphases. This is especially so in
Hebrew which uses one word in one form for one meaning, and
then turns around and uses the same word with a completely
different meaning a little later on. This is not as common
in Greek, but since
we are
dealing with the Old Testament here, that is irrelevant.
The Hebrew term
nacham is used to express a range of meanings, from
the idea of “relenting" or “repenting" to "grieving" and
“being sorry.” It can mean a changing of the mind or simply a
permissive action, all depending on the context of the
passage. Now, atheists like to make fun of the fact that the
Hebrews could use a word within one minute in two different
ways, but this objection does not weigh much with those who
have studied the subject. Indeed, if one would take the time
and trouble to learn to read Hebrew writing, one would be
better able to determine if the objection is right or wrong.
And notice also the fact that in the last two sentences I used
two sets of words with completely different meanings
(ways/weigh; writing/right). I doubt anyone was confused by
those words because the context was clear in each instance. We
normally assume that a person who is relating a story does not
desire to contradict himself - in other words, we give the
writer the benefit of the doubt.
This can clearly be seen in the example
given by the question itself: 1 Samuel 15:29 and I Samuel
15:35. Here the writer uses the term nacham in two
different settings - first, in verse 29, in reference to God’s
unchanging purposes and will - that of the fact that God would
tear the kingdom from Saul. Only seven verses later the author
writes, “And Jehovah was grieved that he had made Saul king
over Israel.” The context is completely different. In the
first we are told what God does not do - that is,
change. In verse 35 we are told that God experiences
sorrow over Saul and his state. Given the range of meaning of
the word itself, and the fact that it is completely illogical
to assume that the same author would contradict himself within
seven short verses, the objector is left searching for some
reason for his objection; unless, of course, we assume guilt a
priori, something that no one does with any other book
of antiquity. Why the Bible is treated differently is left
unanswered. However, when one admits the possibility of
harmonization and the idea that accounts can be
complimentary, many objections fade away.
