Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

In an email message that I received from Stand to Reason (STR) today, there is a list of the The 20 Top Articles read at STR in 2011. I was curious to see what Mr. Koukl had to say in his analysis of what exactly was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

The essay does not disappoint! Mr. Koukl points out the spin that many liberal clergy persons have placed upon the account in Genesis 18:16-19:29. He meticulously points out (through the use of additional biblical texts like the book of Jude, 2 Peter, Ezekiel, and Leviticus) that the only correct conclusion about why God destroyed these cities was because of grievous sexual sin - including the sin of homosexual behavior.

In today's culture, there is rampant homosexuality and through the guise of "tolerance," and anti-bullying efforts, such a sin is often celebrated by those who think that they are being compassionate and helpful towards those who are caught up in this terrible sin. Even our military has now been subjected to the "cause" of homosexual "rights" by politicians who deemed "don't ask don't tell" as wrong and the open disclosure of those serving in the military now necessary for "fairness and non-discrimination" purposes.

However, the man-made laws of human beings NEVER TRUMP the Laws of God! We do a huge disservice to our young people when they are subjected to the forced acceptance of such behavior. Something that was considered so heinous when I was growing up was not celebrated as something to be desired and accepted. If you are a person who does not celebrate it desirable and accepted, then you are unfairly labeled as a "bigot," "hateful," "discriminatory," "ignorant," and deserve to be bashed and punished for your beliefs.   However, such  beliefs ultimately line up with God's Laws in the Bible. This is a classic example of what the Bible describes as good masquerading as evil, and evil masquerading as good.

Now, before readers get angry against me, please read Mr. Koukl's account (linked above and copied/pasted below) so that you will understand where biblically-based Christians are coming from on this issue.

I hear the objections all the time; in person (by relatives and friends who have relatives and friends who are "gay"), and on this blog whenever I post on this topic. Whether it's the "live and let live" argument, or the belief that they must be "born that way," those who do not want to condemn homosexual behavior because they love a gay person cannot seem to accept the danger that people like me see in such acceptance.

The original meaning of the word "tolerance" was that a person DISAGREES with a behavior, but allows the other person to engage in it anyway. But if you knew that such behavior leads to death, would you still be willing to tolerate it and not warn the other person of the physical, mental, emotional, and most of all SPIRITUAL damage such behavior causes? What about if you believed that not confessing and repenting of such behavior (before physical death) would lead to eternal death for the person(s) you love who are caught up in such a behavior?

Let's look at another sinful behavior. The sin of suicide. Someone close to me committed suicide almost one year ago this month. During a phone call before this happened, she told me that "suicide may be against your religion, but it isn't against mine." This person had been ranting to family members for many years, all the ways that she would consider committing suicide. None of us believed that she would follow through with it. However, we each deemed that she was having psychological problems (a mental health agency diagnosed her as delusional and paranoid at one point) so we planned an intervention for her in the month of April, 2011. She killed herself in January, 2011. Our plan to save her from herself didn't happen. It was too late. The guilt of not taking action sooner will remain with me for the rest of my life. The sadness for the loss of her will be with me for the rest of my life. Grieving family members continue to wish that they had done something sooner. I did try to witness to her about Jesus Christ several times, so there is the hope that perhaps she confessed to Christ before her death, but I can't know for sure until I reach eternity.

Can you now possibly see why allowing someone to continue in a sinful behavior that leads to eternal death without warning them in advance is a violation of The Great Commission? The secular world wants to celebrate homosexual behavior, but Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven wants us to share with them the ONLY way to heaven!

I apologize if I am rambling here, but after reading this article by Mr. Koukl, I wanted to share some thoughts of my own on this topic.

After almost six years of blogging here at this site, the topics of homosexuality, "gay" marriage, abortion, and other sexual sins always invite huge controversy.

Do you recall the year in which there was a mad search in scientific circles for a "gay" gene? Such a find might have ended the controversy over whether or not a person is "born that way" or not. During a discussion here at my blog, a gay man discussed this issue with me. I pointed out that if parents could detect a "gay" gene in their unborn child, perhaps they would likely abort the baby. I remember reading that some gay men started to agree with the pro-life issue; thinking that such a discovery might lead to continual abortions of "gay" gene babies! Of course, there is no "gay" gene. But the fact that if there WAS such a gene, gay men were worried that it would lead to a gay baby holocaust in the womb was quite telling about what is right and wrong in the abortion controversy.

Such topics will likely be controversial until the end of time. However, as a Christian Culture Warrior, I cannot, in good conscience, shy away from these or any other issues that go against the Laws of God as written in the Bible. This may very well make me unpopular in the blogosphere. So be it. I have done my duty to warn others of the eternal consequences. God is the ultimate judge of the universe. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be the propitiation for the sins (which we all commit) of mankind. Christ's death on the Cross of Calvary, and His subsequent Resurrection to Life is the only way that we can be saved from the punishment for our sin (which we all deserve) and be reconciled back unto God in order to spend eternity with Christ in Heaven.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

There is no other way by which we can be saved!

Act 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.


Act 4:11 "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' [fn]


Act 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

When we each realize that we have ALL SINNED and fall short of the glory of God, then what shall we do about it? Answer: We ALL need the Savior!

At my website, there is a page that shares how to become a Christian. At the top of the page there is a link to Living Waters.com:

AM I GOOD ENOUGH TO GET TO HEAVEN? 

ARE YOU GOOD ENOUGH TO GET TO HEAVEN?

TAKE THIS TEST AND SEE!!

Living Waters.com  

Here is a copy of Greg Koukl's essay in it's entirety:

What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was the most extensive judgment found anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation actually for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality?
By: Gregory Koukl

People find what they want in the Bible. If one looks hard enough, he can find "biblical" support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every cult of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims and so does some of the occult. It's not surprising, then, that a recent trend in biblical scholarship holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context offers no solid basis to conclude that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality. This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the rank-and-file Christian who finds in the Genesis account a straight-forward condemnation of homosexual behavior. My goal is to answer that challenge. I have no interest to malign, name-call, offend, attack, bash, belittle, or in any way demean a group of people. I want to determine one thing only: Why did God destroy these two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? In short, what was the sin—or sins—of Sodom and Gomorrah? Genesis 18:16-19:29 Though the context of the account in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God's conversation with Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter at Sodom itself are found in Genesis 19:4-13: Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it." What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the principle offense ("Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"). Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom: (1) The Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels...; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.[1] John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) "is the most obvious of the four," though it's been "largely ignored by biblical scholars."[2] Boswell expands on explanation (4), the one he seems to favor as most consistent with "modern scholarship" since 1955: Lot was violating the custom of Sodom...by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that they might know them," they meant no more than to "know" who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.[3] Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also argues this way in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). The men of Sodom wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot's guests. Apparently, it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seem to be at odds. If "to know" the angels means merely to interrogate them, then there is no attempted rape, only an attempted interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men meant to have sexual relations with the visitors (the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (rendering Boswell’s above summary of the views of modern scholarship somewhat incoherent). Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) could have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4). My principle concern here is to determine if the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality factored in at all. Clues from the Text Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not just from the Genesis account, but also from the Prophets and the New Testament books 2 Peter and Jude. These give a sense of how ancient Jewish thinkers steeped in Jewish culture understood these texts. First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, "And the Lord said, 'The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.'" Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city. Second, it seems the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter." Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh."[4] Peter wrote that Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10). Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment. Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation. What do we know about the conduct of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description? Just a Couple of Questions Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.[5] Was this a mere interrogation? Though the Hebrew word yada ("to know")[6] has a variety of nuances, it is properly translated in the NASB as "have [sexual] relations with."[7] Though the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot's response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"—makes it clear they had other intentions. In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe the daughters who had not "known" a man and who were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying, "Please don't question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead. They've never been interviewed"? Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah for inhospitality? Is it true that God's judgment was not for homosexuality per se, but because the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors, violating sacred sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them? A couple of observations raise serious doubt. First, the suggestion itself is an odd one. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime. Second—and more to the textual evidence—it doesn't fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath: a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which the men went after strange flesh. Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There's no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense? The Only One That Fits The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot's visitors violated the Mid-East's high code of hospitality (19:9). This inhospitality, however, is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself. Further, the inhospitality charge is dependent upon—and eclipsed by—the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one. We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter" (19:6), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels. Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the "grave," "ungodly," "lawless," "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard" it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went after "strange flesh." In their defense, some will cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.[8] Therefore I removed them when I saw it." No mention of homosexuality here. Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That's not in question. Our concern here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn't contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail. Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God's wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word "abominations." This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an "abomination" in God’s eyes. Leviticus The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.[9] It is an abomination [toebah][10] ." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them." John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality: The Hebrew word "toebah," here translated "abomination," does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.[11] Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed. Others have added that many details of the Mosaic Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn't mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be punishable offenses today.[12] This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such "diversity" as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah's proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway. Second, it's a serious error in thinking to conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed, "It is one thing not to put a Torah punishment into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin."[13] [emphasis in the original] Third, it's true that much of the Law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct. Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The toebahof homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech's altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple? More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12). The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words: But as for you [the "sons of Israel" (v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27) Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, and even by every visitor. Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews ("aliens"). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came. Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now. [1] John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 93. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Some have suggested the sin was seeking sexual union with angels ("strange flesh"). Though this is a possible interpretation, there's no indication the men knew Lot's visitors were angels. Jude's point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, "did not keep to their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode" (v. 6). "Strange flesh"—the improper domain—wasn't angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh. [5] The rejoinder that homosexual rape could still qualify as the ongoing activity fails to convince. Who would be the ongoing victims? Not the townspeople. Because of their sexual proclivity they would not likely resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be the target. But if newcomers were molested “day after day,” I’m sure this would put a crimp in the tourist trade. The steady supply of sexual candidates would dwindle rapidly once word got around, with most making a wide berth around the area. [6] Strong’s #3045. [7] “Know a person carnally, of sexual intercourse...man subj. and obj. (of sodomy) Gn 19:5).” Brown, Driver and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff. [8] Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text. [9] "Lie" is the Hebrew word shakab meaning “lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to having sexual relations as in Genesis 19:32: "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father" (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012). [10] Strong’s #8441. [11] Boswell, 100. [12] It's curious that some choose to conclude homosexuality was a minor crime because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Both were capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment He requires. [13] Dennis Prager, "Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis," The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Chopra Mocks Palin? ReasonandFaith1 Returns the Favor! [Update!]

While listening to Glenn Beck's radio program this morning, I heard about Deepak Chopra's ranting article against Sarah Palin. Gateway Pundit has the story and links, so I will just provide some insight that I learned about Chopra years ago.

Back in January, 2005, Deepak Chopra appeared on Lee Strobel's television program,  Faith Under Fire and debated Christian Apologist Greg Koukl on the topic of "The Future of Faith."

As a recipient of Greg's email alerts I received an email telling me the date, time and channel of the program. Greg also stated the following in his email:

I think you'll find the discussion stimulating and revealing. I think it's also a great opportunity for the Kingdom. Please pray there will be a powerful impact from the exchange between Chopra and me.

Greg
--
"I have come in to the world to bear witness to the truth."--Jesus, John 18:37

My initial reaction to the show:

Great show!

This broadcast was absolutely fabulous! Greg Koukl pointed out the fact that people can have differing beliefs regarding faith, but that it is logically impossible for them all to be true at the same time. His trust in Jesus Christ and God's Word stood in direct contrast to Deepak Chopra who admitted "embracing his uncertainty." Koukl's view demonstrates a steadfast and true faith where Chopra's view can only lead to theological oblivion.
__________________
Christine

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9

I gathered some additional comments over at my Talk Wisdom forum:

Messengers of an Impersonal God?
I watched Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra discuss the future of faith on Lee Strobel's Faith Under Fire last night. Dr. Chopra has written numerous books on New Age spirituality that have sold millions of copies. Greg did a superb job of representing the gospel in content and character, modeling the qualities of an ambassador that he and the folks at Stand to Reason seek to instill in others. He repeatedly demonstrated the problems with religious relativism and exposed the fact that, contrary to his denial that he is dogmatic, Dr. Chopra adheres to a theological position of which he seeks to persuade others.

As a sign of respect for Jesus, Dr. Chopra said that his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is among his favorites and that he carries a copy of it with him. However, he considers Jesus only one among a number of God's messengers. Not only is this a contradiction of the biblical witness to Jesus' uniqueness, it's also unintelligible given Dr. Chopra's own concept of the nature of God. You see, Dr. Chopra emphatically denies that God is a personal being.

The concept of messenger presupposes two activities, both of which can only be performed by persons. The first is that of sending or commissioning. The summer before I went to college I worked as a messenger for a law firm in Manhattan. They sent me and my co-workers on various assignments to deliver important documents to other firms and businesses. I didn't decide what my destination was to be. Nor did I decide at what times I would go on these errands. All of that was dictated to me by my employer. A messenger is one who is sent by someone not something.

The second activity presupposed by the concept of messenger is communication. A messenger is one who conveys a what? That's right - a message. The task of a messenger is to convey some kind of communication from the one who sent him or her to the recipient. If I were to tell you that my toaster wanted me to tell you something, you'd think that I was either joking or something was seriously wrong with me. That's because we know that toasters and other impersonal entities don't communicate. So, how Dr. Chopra explains the concept of an impersonal God having messengers, I don't know. I don't think he can.

I wouldn't be surprised if Greg offers some more detailed analysis of the exchange at STR's blog so keep an eye out for it.

Posted by KP

***********

Greg Koukl r0x0rz da hizzy
I only got to see from about 20 minutes after the hour, but Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason graciously, fairly, kindly, steamrolled Deepak Chopra on Faith Under Fire last night. I mean, it wasn't even fair. Wasn't even close. TKO first round, except the fight kept going. I have no idea how Greg managed to wrangle the whole hour---the biggest draw-back to Faith Under Fire has been that you have to address big issues in picoseconds, and sometimes you just can't do that very well. So, to get the whole hour with a single "opponent" was quite the coup, and resulted in a much better encounter with a much clearer result.
I've heard from Faith Under Fire three times on three different topics. First program crashed and burned when my opponent backed out. Nothing came of the second two. Haven't heard anything in months now. I don't expect to, honestly (if you go over the guest list you'll see a few names that would explain my non-expectation), but as long as they get folks like Greg on there, they'll be doing well.

Posted by James R. White

****


In addition, SmartChristian's blog pointed out the obvious fact that "Deepak Chopra is simply a new age hindu."

Why am I sharing this with you? Because no matter what fake persona Chopra tries to present to his fans and readers of his books, the true person (emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually) often is exposed during an unnecessarily mean and cruel rant like the one he wrote against Sarah Palin.

Glenn stated some past quotes from Chopra on his radio program. I will try to locate the exact quotes and post them here. But they were similar to the idea that "we all should just get along" and "live in peace and harmony" and "not judge each other" etc. So...what did Chopra do in his angry rant against Sarah Palin? The exact opposite of his guru-type, transcendental meditation gobbledy-gook that he espouses in his books, tapes, interviews and website!

The debate between Koukl and Chopra went on for an entire hour. I found a portion of the program on YouTube, but the portion where Chopra stated that he "embraces his uncertainty" isn't in the clip.

Go here to see just 5 minutes of the debate:

"What is Truth?": Deepak Chopra Denies the Deity of Christ

Last but not least, since Chopra chose to mock Sarah Palin, I don't see any reason to not return the favor. The following 37 second video is truly a classic:


Deepak Chopra Gets Owned.

Hat Tips to all links.

*******

UPDATE!


Via Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason website, I found a link to the entire debate between Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra!


Greg Koukl - Faith Under Fire with Lee Strobel: Greg Koukl exposes the flaws in Deepak Chopra's worldview

It will be worth your time to view the entire debate! It is one of the best I have have ever seen and heard!!

Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith

The following is an email newletter that I received today from Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason Apologetics ministry. The book that is introduced in the essay sounds like a book that every Christian could definitely benefit from reading!

Christine

*******

Dear Christine,

How do you reach out to someone who is not looking for God and does not even believe He exists? That’s a question I’ve asked myself more than once, which is why the opening lines of a little book I recently stumbled across immediately grabbed my attention:

"This book sets out to do what might seem to be a straight- forward task: to recount the experiences of a few months in my life in which I walked away from atheism and entered into Christian faith.

Nothing is ever as simple as that. It is no light matter to meet God after having denied Him all one’s life."

A delightful read—and also a fascinating radio interview with STR— followed. The book, Not God’s Type—A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith, is a memoir by Holly Ordway of her journey from atheism to Christ.

The guide God used to shepherd Holly on her pilgrimage was not a professional apologist, but rather her fencing coach—an ordinary, thoughtful Christian named Josh in whom she saw Jesus for an entire year before the name “Jesus” ever came up in conversation.

Josh was the personification of wisdom—“an artful method”—the second critical characteristic of a good ambassador. Here are some of the lessons I gleaned from Holly’s account of her friendship with Josh and his wife, Heidi.

One, respect people. Period. Treat others as special in God’s eyes regardless of their spiritual condition. To Josh, Holly wasn’t a heathen to be converted, but a human to be valued. He never reproached her for her unbelief, but treated her with genuine grace, dignity, and honor. He also did not fulfill any of the negative stereotypes she had of Christians. Instead, his character silently spoke volumes.

Two, begin at their beginning. Start at square one for that person. The basic message of forgiveness rests upon a number of assumptions about God, morality, guilt, Jesus, and more. Don’t presume the other person has crossed all those bridges.

“What’s helpful varies from person to person,” Holly pointed out. “I was glad for Josh’s willingness to be a guide as I entered this strange new territory, rather than trying to choose the path for me.” Like Josh, be a coach, a guide for the journey. Don’t choose the path for them. Answer their questions first, not the questions you think they should be asking.

Three, don’t push. “Josh didn’t try to close the deal on me—ever,” Holly wrote. If he had, she would have bolted. “Pressing for a decision [too early] would have been a disaster. It would have taken very little to make me close up and turn away, vulnerable and confused as I was.”

Don’t be afraid to move slowly. People need time to think, to digest, to reflect before they can ultimately commit. Don’t press for a “decision” for Christ when a conversion to Christ is what’s necessary. Trust the Spirit to do the deep work. Remember, God is in control.

Four, use questions. Josh consistently used carefully crafted questions to make his point. “If you could do something wrong that would benefit yourself,” he asked, “and you knew that no one would ever know about it, would you do it?” When Holly said no, he asked, “Why not? If there is no God, why be moral when it would benefit you personally to be immoral?” Josh was not trying to score points in an argument. Instead, he was probing the tension in Holly’s worldview, graciously challenging her inconsistency while presenting new ideas for her to consider.

Five, be clear. Make the central issues unmistakable. When Holly asked Josh what would happen to her when she died, he told her the truth—simply, without ambiguity, but without animosity. “I believe we will come before God in judgment,” he said, “and He will give each person either perfect justice or perfect mercy.” When asked, “What, exactly, would I be getting myself into?,” Josh told her two things that Jesus said: “My yoke is light,” and “Take up your cross and follow Me.” “I’ll let you ponder that.”

Josh was especially deft at navigating the challenge that Holly’s situation presented. Sensitivity like his is developed over time, learning how to proceed with wisdom—“an artful method”—based on knowledge—“an accurately informed mind.”

- Written by Greg Koukl

*******
About the book:

Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith
Holly Ordway

Holly Ordway should never have become a Christian. A young, white, highly educated atheist and professor of English, she represents the kind of person that many observers of religion say cannot be converted anymore—a demographic supposedly beyond the reach of the church in postmodern America. Yet through a series of conversations with a wise and patient mentor, Ordway not only became convinced of God's existence, but also embraced Jesus as her Savior and Lord.

In this memoir of her conversion, Ordway turns her analytical mind toward the path that leads from darkness to light—from death to life.Simultaneously encouraging and bracing, she offers a bold testimony to the ongoing power of the Gospel—a Gospel that can humble and transform even self-assured, accomplished, and secular-minded young professionals like herself.

Hat Tip:

Stand To Reason.org

Greg Koukl: The Secret - A Fatal Attraction

This morning, I received an email with the July, 2010 issue of Stand to Reason's Solid Ground publication. It is available [Note: PDF form] at the following link:

Solid Ground - The Secret: A Fatal Attraction

The author's foreword discusses the time that he appeared on a T.V. show called Lee Strobel's Faith Under Fire in a debate with Deepak Chopra. I saw that show, which was broadcast back in 2005, and wrote about it at my Talk Wisdom forum.

After reading Mr. Koukl's analysis of Oprah's so-called "ministry" known as "The Secret," it is revealed that she and the author of the book are misleading over 22 million people towards an old lie type of "religion" which is nothing more than a mix of monism, pantheism and Hinduism. What's even more disturbing is the fact that this false religion is being touted as "consistent with Christianity." Nothing could be further from the truth!

Please feel free to share your thoughts on Mr. Koukl's analysis in the comment section.

Also, you may see Greg's schedule includes an appearance in Manhattan Beach, CA on July 28, 2010. I plan to attend! If you live in the area, perhaps I will see some of my readers there!

God bless and have a great day!

Christine

P.S. FYI - My forum is closed to new members. I was forced to do that because of dozens of spam registrations that were occurring each day. Since I started blogging, I usually use that forum for reference purposes. However, if anyone wants to join the forum board, scroll down to "Contact Us" and follow the instructions. Also, I noticed that the link to "Smart Christian" is no longer active.

Hat Tip:

Stand To Reason

Faith Is About Confidence and Facts Make the Difference

Long before I started writing at this blog back in 2004, I attended several years of educational sessions in the Defending the Faith series at Biola University in LaMirada, CA. I drove one and a half hours (sometimes it took two hours because of traffic) to attend the six weekly sessions at the university which were offered on Thursday evenings. Although it was sometimes difficult to get to the classes, each time I was there was well worth the money and effort to do so. After attending the classes in person for two sessions, I found out that I could complete the work for a MA Christian Apologetics certificate by listening to the sessions on DVD and taking a test online which sufficed as proof that I had learned the material.

During the in-person sessions, I had the distinct opportunity to meet Greg Koukl. His Stand to Reason ministry inspired me to, as Paul puts it, "contend for the faith" and not shy away when atheists/skeptics/agnostics and believers of other religions challenged my faith in Jesus Christ.

Greg just sent out his November, 2009 newsletter called "Solid Ground." It is an excellent commentary geared towards explaining that faith in Jesus Christ is not "blind faith," but rather a faith grounded in evidence, knowledge, truth, facts and confidence.

Enjoy the essay!

In Christ,
Christine

*******

Solid Ground
A Foundation for Building Ambassadors
November/December 2009

If you “just take Christianity on
faith” you may be in trouble.

I don’t like the word “faith.”

It’s not that faith isn’t valuable. True biblical faith is essential for salvation. But faith is often deeply misunderstood in a way that hurts Christianity and harms Christians.

Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief ” unnecessary or irrelevant. They think that kind of knowledge undermines genuine faith and offends God.

The reasoning goes something like this. We all know God wants us to have faith. In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true? Faith, then, is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.

On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you. Faith is a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness. When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,” as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.

This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking. We can hope, but we can never know.

But this will never work. Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.” If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.

The “I just take Christianity on (blind) faith” attitude can’t be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet Peter directs us to make a defense for the hope that is in us.1

Also, the biblical word for faith, pistis, doesn’t mean wishing. It means active trust. And trust cannot be conjured up or manufactured. It must be earned. You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible has in mind unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true.

In fact, I suggest you completely ban the phrase “leap of faith” from your vocabulary. Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence.

The following biblical examples make my point.

Blood, Boils, Frogs and Flies

Israel’s exodus from Egypt was depicted in a clever animated film called “The Prince of Egypt.” After seeing the movie, my wife and I spent time reading the original account in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Though I’d read this passage a number of times, something jumped out at me then that I hadn’t seen before, a phrase God kept repeating over and over in the account.

The material relevant to my point starts in Exodus 3. Reading the encounter with God at the burning bush, we realize Moses is reluctant to be God’s deliverer. And it’s understandable.

Why would Pharaoh, the most powerful leader in the world, submit to a renegade Jew? Why would two million Hebrew slaves follow a murderer and a defector?

“What if they won’t believe me, or listen to me?” Moses demurred. “What if they say, ‘The Lord hasn’t appeared to you’?”

What God didn’t say in response is as important as what He did say. He didn’t say, “Tell Pharaoh he’s just going to have to take this on blind faith. Tell the Hebrews the same thing. They’ve got to have faith.” Instead God asked, “What’s that in your hand?”

“A staff,” Moses answered.

“Throw it on the ground.”

So he threw it down, and it became a serpent.

“Stretch out your hand,” the Lord said. “Grab it by the tail.”

Reluctantly, Moses did as he was told. When he grabbed the snake, it became a staff again.

“Do this,” God said, “and then they’ll believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, has appeared to you.”

More signs followed that got the people’s attention: the river of blood; frogs covering the land; the gnats, flies, and locusts; the boils and pestilence; the hail; the darkness; and finally the angel of death. All for one purpose: “That they might know there is a God in Israel.” Not simply “believe,” “hope,” or “wish.”

Know. This is no idle comment, but a message that is central to the account. In fact, the phrase is repeated no less than ten times throughout the account.2

What was the result? “And when Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Exodus 14:31).

Note the pattern: a powerful evidence (miracles, in this case), giving the people knowledge of God, in Whom they then placed their active trust (faith). Knowledge – some level of certainty – went before belief in each of these cases.

God didn’t ask the Hebrews, or even Moses for mindless faith, blind leaps, or wishful thinking. He demonstrated His power, giving them good reason to believe, resulting in obedience. First, the Hebrews were given good reason to know. This then grounded their investment of faith (active trust) in God. Pharaoh got the picture, too, but his response was not humble surrender leading to salvation. Instead, it was submission under compulsion. In both cases, though, each was compelled to act based on the unmistakable evidence of God’s power.

In the animated feature, “The Prince of Egypt,” Miriam breaks into a song of
praise following Israel’s deliverance. The song is entitled “When You Believe,” and includes these words: “There can be miracles, when you believe…. Who knows what miracles you can achieve, when you believe…Just believe…Gotta believe….”

Is that the way it happened, that the people achieved miracles because of their belief? No, reality was just the opposite. In the original account, miracles didn’t follow belief; they preceded it. Acts of power led to knowledge, which then allowed faith to flourish.

Taking the Easy Way Out?

Fast forward to the New Testament and you’ll find the same pattern in the life of Christ. In Mark 2, we encounter Jesus speaking to a group gathered in a home in Capernaum. A crowd blocks the front door, keeping a paralytic – being carried by his four friends – from gaining an audience with the Healer. The only way in is from above, so they dig through the earthen roof and lower the deformed man down on a pallet.

Jesus is impressed. Seeing their faith He says to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”

His words offend the scribes, though, who grumble among themselves at such an audacious claim. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” they whisper. Jesus, aware of their complaint, puts a question to them. “Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Arise, take up your pallet and walk’?”

How would you respond? If you were in Jesus’ position, would it be easier for you to claim to forgive sins or to claim to heal paralysis? Clearly, it’s always easier to boast about something no one can check up on than it is to claim to have supernatural powers and run the risk you’ll fail the test.

Jesus knew it looked like He was taking the easy way out, until His next remark: “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He then turned to the paralytic – “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” Then, in the sight of everyone, the paralytic got up and got out.

Jesus gives us the same lesson we find in Exodus. He proves something that can’t be seen – the forgiveness of sins – with evidence that can be seen – a dramatic supernatural healing. Jesus heals “in order that you may know.” Once they can then trust in the forgiveness Christ could give.

Once again, there is no conflict between knowledge and faith. Rather, the first is the basis for the second.

The Apostle Peter

The book of Acts and Peter’s dramatic sermon on Pentecost gives us another vivid example of the evidence/knowledge/faith equation. The crowd is both amazed and bewildered at the manifestations of the Spirit they see with their own eyes. Peter takes his stand before the throng and explains that it isn’t intoxication they witness, but prophecy being fulfilled in their midst by the hand of God.

He recounts that Jesus – one attested to by miracles, signs, and wonders – had been murdered at the hands of godless men. Death couldn’t hold Him in the grave, though. He had risen. Not only did King David himself foretell such a thing; Peter and the rest of the disciples had witnessed the risen Christ themselves. The Holy Spirit, the gift promised by the Father, was now being poured out in a way that Peter’s entire audience could “see and hear.”

He then closes with a statement tailor-made for all those who think that certainty somehow diminishes genuine faith: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”3

When the crowd beholds the evidence – the miracles, the fulfilled prophecy, the witnesses of the resurrection, the powerful manifestations of the Spirit in their midst – the people are pierced to the heart. They are convinced of their error, they know the truth, and thousands believe, putting their trust in the Savior.

Hear, See, Handle, Believe

John, the Beloved Disciple, brings it all together for us in 1 John. He opens his letter with the evidence of his own eyewitness encounter with Christ.


Notice how many senses he appeals to: What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also…

Then he closes his letter like this:

And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.4

To John, faith wasn’t a blind leap. It wasn’t wishing on a star. It was grounded in evidence that led to knowledge. And when the evidence is so overwhelming – as it was for the earliest follows of Jesus (and many since then) – the knowledge is certain.

The record is clear from the Old Testament, to the Gospels, from the very beginnings of the early church, to the epistles of the apostles: Biblical faith isn’t wishing, it’s confidence. It’s not denying reality, but discovering reality. It’s a sense of certainty grounded in evidence that Christianity is true – not just “true for me,” but actually, fully, and completely true.

Spiritual growth involves increasing our knowledge and our certainty of God. So there are two things here: first knowledge, and second confidence in what we know.

How do we increase confidence? Wish harder? Hope against hope? Stop our ears to the sounds of the critics without, and ignore the doubts of the agnostic within? This will never work, because confidence cannot be fabricated. It must be earned. As you gather substantiating evidence, your confidence grows automatically and your faith is deepened.

Faith is not about wishing, but about confidence, and the facts make the difference. You get a hold of the facts, you study, you learn – even a little – and you’ll realize you’re not just wishing on a star about eternal things. You’ll realize Christianity is really true.

And that changes everything.

Your Partner for the Truth,

Greg Koukl
President, Stand to Reason


1 I Peter 3:15, the New American Standard Version (and throughout).
2 Cf., Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 7:17, 8:10, 8:22, 9:14, 9:29, 10:2, 14:4, and 14:8
3 Acts 2:36.
4 I John 5:11-13.



Quick Summary:

• The concept of faith is often deeply
misunderstood in a way that hurts
Christianity and harms Christians.

• People think that faith is opposed to
knowledge because you can’t have
faith in something you know is true.

• Following this line of thinking,
apologetics undermines faith and
thus displeases the Lord.

• On this view, faith becomes believing
the unbelievable – a “blind leap,”
despite any doubts we may have.
Christian faith turns out to be nothing
more than religious wishful thinking.

• However, this concept of faith cannot
be correct. The biblical word for faith
means active trust. Peter directs us
to “make a defense for the hope that
is within us.”

• In the Old Testament, we consistently
see faith following the evidence of
miracles. For example, God used
a series of miracles (powerful
evidence) to convince Pharaoh to
let the children of Israel go and
they put their trust in God based on
knowledge.

• Miracles didn’t follow belief; they
preceded it. Acts of power led to
knowledge, which then allowed faith
to flourish.

• We see the same pattern in the New
Testament when Jesus healed the
paralytic and forgave his sins, and
when Peter preached at Pentecost
after the Holy Spirit was manifested in
tongues of fire visible to all.

• Biblical faith is a sense of certainty
grounded in evidence that Christianity
is true – not just “true for me,” but
actually, fully, and completely true.

• Faith is not about wishing, but about
confidence, and the facts make the
difference.

Hat tip:

Stand to Reason.org

Countering Christian Confusion and Inclusivism

The following video link of Obama mocking God and the Bible has been posted here in the past. However, I wanted to share the link once again so that readers here can contrast what he is erroneously claiming to a church congregation (not sure where it is located or what Christian denomination it is) with what Christian Apologist Greg Koukl shares in his latest Stand to Reason newsletter called "Solid Ground: "No Other Name" Part II. [click on link to view entire newsletter article.]

You will notice how Obama takes Bible quotes out of context (and, doesn't even bother to use any Bible verse references). Notice how he mis-characterizes, misrepresents, and incorrectly uses the story of Abraham and Isaac in such a shameful and non-biblical way.

Those who do not know the Bible (like "Inbasul" below) can be easily fooled by Obama's rhetoric. However, it's just astounding to those of us who read and study the Bible, that a politician could get away with such gross errors in front of a church congregation - and not be called out for it!

Those of us who read, study, and know the proper exegesis and application of the Bible in our everyday lives can spot a false teacher like him quite easily.

The question remains, how do we guide those who are not able to "rightly divide the word of truth" (see 2 Timothy 2:15) and are hopelessly being highly deceived and mislead by the likes of Obama? I think that Koukl's article is a major help in this area.

Obama claims to be a Christian, but Greg Koukl's excellent essay points out how far from true Christian faith Obama's ideology truly is.

Take a look at the comments at the YouTube site. Many atheists are applauding Obama's speech! What does that tell you?

The most ironic comment has to be the one from someone who gave themselves the screen name of "Inbasul." How apropos! The name sounds just like what he obviously is - an imbecile!

Quote:
Inbasul (1 week ago) You see, America? This so-called "muslim socialist" knows more about the bible and American history than a lot of the activists do. Man, It feels good having a president who can give a speech and know what he's talking about.

Commenters? You could seriously have a field day with that quote! LOL

Be sure to read Koukl's article in it's entirety. I guarantee that it will help you in your apologetics ministry.

Greg points out some really good talking points:

• From the beginning God has been narrow in His demands; He alone is to be worshipped and served.

• The source of salvation has always been the unmerited mercy of God. The ground of salvation has always been redemption secured by Christ. The means of salvation has always been active trust in God’s mercy by faith.

• What is the appropriate object of faith now in the New Covenant period? Since Pentecost, the object of faith and the ground of salvation are one and the same: Jesus.

• The story of Cornelius in Acts 10 refutes the idea of inclusivism. He had responded faithfully to all the revelation given to him, yet he was still lost. It was necessary for his salvation for Peter to preach the gospel to him.

• As followers of Christ, we should be careful to preach the narrow way that Jesus said leads to life, even if it means we are accused of being narrow minded and exclusivist.

Keep the following point in mind when people object to us preaching the narrow way that Jesus said leads to life:

“If people following false religions are recipients of God’s grace, why does Scripture say they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie?”

Greg concludes:

And I will give you one final reason to be faithful to it.

PASCHAL REDUX

I have a last thought for any who may still be tempted to sit on the fence on this issue. Blaise Paschal, the 17th century French scientist and Christian sage, once offered a famous wager to his detractors. Based merely on a kind of cost/benefit risk assessment, Paschal argued it is smart to “bet” on God. If the Christian is right, he gains eternal life. If wrong, he passes into non-existence, nothing lost.

The atheist, on the other hand, gains nothing if correct, and if incorrect suffers eternally for his errors.

I think the wisdom of Paschal’s wager applies to inclusivism. If we preach the message of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church – that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation – and we are wrong, what is the downside? If we proclaim that those separated from the Gospel are also separated from Christ and have no hope and are without God in the world (Eph. 2:12), yet we are mistaken, Heaven will be more crowded than we thought. If we erroneously preach exclusivism, the upshot is good news, not bad.

However, what if we take the side of inclusivism and err? What if we are wrong when we teach that the person who has heard the Gospel of Christ does not have to answer it’s challenge by humbling himself before the cross? What if we say that sincere people will be accepted by God in the pursuit of their own religious convictions? What if we discourage other Christians from “forcing” their views on “good” Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. What if we do any of these things and it turns out their rejection of Christ – either active or passive – seals their fate: judgment and an eternity of suffering for their crimes against God. What is the downside then? only that we have given false hope to the lost, and have prevented them from seriously considering the only salvation available to them. If you are an inclusivist and you are wrong, that is very bad news.

It seems we have a simple choice. We can be broad-minded and advance the broad way, a path Jesus said leads to destruction. Or we can suffer the charge of “narrow-minded” and preach the narrow way, the only path that Jesus said leads to life. I would not want to be on the wrong side of this issue.

For the truth,

Gregory Koukl,
President, Stand to reason