God welcomes our honest questions. Afterall, He's a mighty God and should be able to handle them. He welcomes our search for truth (Matthew 7:7-8) and won't strike us down for getting a little contentious with Him.
Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he (the "man") saw that he had not prevailed against him (Jacob), he touched the socket of thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he (Jacob) said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." He said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel (face of God), for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." (Genesis 32:24-30)
Although some of these questions are resolved in my mind, I continue to wrestle with God on others of them:
There are only two options. Either God exists, or He doesn't. Which one is harder to believe?
If He doesn't, then the universe got here by itself. Big Bang. What caused the bang? Where did matter and energy come from? How did life start? By chance? Fat chance. A living organism is irreducibly complex and must be fully functional in order to survive. It couldn't evolve over a long period of time. The entire DNA chain would have to develop in an instant for cells to metabolize and reproduce. The sequences and timing of ions moving through cardiac cell membranes so the heart beats is too complex to have just happened. The odds of life happening has been likened to an explosion in a factory creating a watch. As amazing as that would be, this watch would also have to be able to reproduce itself!
Some try to resolve the problem by saying life came here from another planet. What a cop out! How did life start on that other planet? How did it start for the first time in the universe?
So, God existing is more believable, but why doesn't He just show up on the Earth in a manner nobody can deny? The Bible says Jesus is coming the second time with a loud trumpet (I Thessalonians 4:16) and everyone will see He's the Christ as plain as lightning (Matthew 24:27) and bow down to Him (Philippians 2:9-11). Why not just come and give everybody a clear choice without the need for us to argue among ourselves whether God exists? Or if He doesn't want to appear before the whole world at once, why not give everybody a personal appearance like He did for St. Paul? (Acts 9:3-5)
For some reason, God doesn't beat us over the head with His presence. The Bible says the creation sufficiently demonstrates God exists:
The Holy Spirit also provides an inner revelation:
In addition to the general revelation of the creation and our innate, albeit flawed, sense of right and wrong, we have the specific revelation of God's own written word, the Bible, and His historical intervention into our world in the person of Jesus the Christ. There can also be miracles and signs, but some people won't believe in God no matter the proof:
Jesus knew they wouldn't believe. They didn't even believe the Sign of Jonah, His resurrection. On the other hand, Jesus gave His doubting disciple Thomas the appearance he needed to believe:
So, God seems to choose to reveal Himself to individuals in different ways for His own reasons. He may not bother with those who avoid coping with Him by stubbornly refusing to believe, and will give signs to some who need them, although for some unclear reason He prefers us to have faith in Christ without needing a sign.
I have no proof whatsoever that I go into anything other than a state of oblivion after I die. I have no memory other than inhabiting my own body. Sure, there are people who report out-of-body experiences, but these are nothing more than stories to me. Anybody can say anything.
Are my memories electrical impulses stored in the billions of neurons in my brain? If so, and my brain cells all rot away after I die, how do I continue to exist? What tangible proof is there that I have an immortal soul? Frankly, none.
The Bible agrees that this question of life after death is the central one for Christianity:
So, the question comes down to whether Jesus rose from the dead. Although the professional Roman executioners can be expected to have not botched their job, the Christ's resurrection would be more impressive if His body had decomposed first or his head had been cut off like that of his second cousin John the Baptizer. Assuming I won't be risen a mere two days after I die while my body could still be resuscitated, how can I continue to exist without the physical neurons in my brain that store my memories?
Hey, if God really exists, which is more likely than not according to the conclusion of the question preceding this one, then duh, what's to stop Him from making us new bodies out of nothing, or at least out of dust as He did for Adam? All I can figure is my memories are retained in an immortal soul or in God's infinite consciousness (the divine cloud) until the resurrection.
This is the big question. Is there life after death? It's the great unknown, and perhaps it just comes down to Pascal's Wager.
Blaise Pascal was a 17th century French mathematician and theologian, who has a computer language named after him. He wagered that God exists because there's nothing to lose. If God exists, the believer has chosen correctly. Otherwise, he merely passes into oblivion and never knows he was wrong. On the other hand, oblivion is only the best case scenario for the unbeliever for being right, but if he's wrong and God exists, he'll regret his decision for all eternity.
God gave us the choice to follow Him, and we chose badly, and now we face the consequences. At this point, a holy God would be well within His rights to wipe us out for our cosmic treason, but he loves us in a fashion we can't comprehend. He knew we would reject Him before He created us, but He did so nevertheless, and knowing that we would need saving, the triune Godhead planned before all time that the Son would appear in the flesh and sacrifice Himself for us. Wow! It means so much to God for us to have fellowship with Him out of our free will that He went through with His plan, despite the misery that comes when we reject Him.
He doesn't. Hell bound is our default state if God does nothing.
God provides everyone the chance for salvation through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus the Christ. We have the choice to let God rule in our lives, and for everybody who doesn't, God gives them what they want and butts out, and when God does that, the result is hell.
There are so many religions, each claiming to be the truth. Although some religions allow for others also to be true, many religions don't, so multiple religions being correct can't be true. This leaves only two remaining possibilities. Either no religion is true, or only one is correct. The possibility that no religion is right is examined under the "Does God exist?" and "Is there life after death?" questions, so only the case of one religion being true is pondered here.
Christianity in particular precludes other religions:
Out of the world's many religions, why would Christianity be the one that's true? Well, the one true religion should make that claim in the least. Sorry, Universalists. The one true religion should also be the largest one and the fastest growing, which Christianity is, and although this doesn't constitute proof, the case for being the one true religion would be more difficult to make if it wasn't the largest and fastest growing.
The Bible is an amazing book, claiming to be written by Almighty God through men:
Of course, the Bible isn't true just because it says so about itself, however, it's the most widespread book of all time (no other comes close), and it's translated into the most languages, which would be expected of the holy book of the one true religion. Moreover, it's a literary masterpiece and backed by more ancient manuscripts than any other writing.
Still, not enough proof by a long shot. The one true religion should be unique, which Christianity certainly is. It's the only major religion founded by somebody claiming to be God, and has convinced billions of people to think so. Confucius, Buddha, or Mohammed never made so bold a claim as Jesus the Christ. What's so difficult about believing God took on human form? He's God, after all. The creator of the universe should be able to pull off an immaculate conception.
Christianity is also the only religion that doesn't require its followers to earn their own salvation. Only Christians can be sure they're good enough to be saved because their righteousness (i.e. "goodness" or "rightness with God") comes from the crucified Christ.
No doubt the tens of millions of Christian martyrs throughout time believed it to be all true, or they wouldn't have been willing to die for it, but willingness to die for a religion doesn't say much about its veracity, since Muslims are also willing to die for their beliefs. Still, the testimony of the Christian martyrs is a powerful witness to their belief in the hereafter.
Christianity relies on a belief in life after death, which can't be proved for those of us who have had no experience of separation from our bodies, but if the reality of one resurrection is a leap of faith for Christians, even more so in eastern religions to believe in reincarnation.
Although Christianity isn't proved here to be the one true religion, it certainly has a more convincing claim than the others. However, two troubling questions remain. Why would only 11% of the world's population be active believers in the one true religion (not counting the pew-warmers and hypocrites), and why would the one true religion be concentrated in one part of the world (the West)?
The world population per active believer through the centuries provides perspective:
| Year (A.D.) | Population / Believer |
|---|---|
| 100 | 360:1 |
| 1000 | 270:1 |
| 1500 | 85:1 |
| 1900 | 32:1 |
| 1950 | 25:1 |
| 1980 | 16:1 |
| 2000 | 9:1 (11%) |
Although the world's population is exploding at an exponential rate, Christianity is growing even faster! As for it being a western religion, this is rapidly changing. Considering the phenomenal expansion of the faith in sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South America, the West is rapidly becoming a minority within Christendom.
If there's one true religion, Christianity is the best bet.
The story of King Saul is troubling because God rejected him (I Samuel 28:16). Maybe Saul's heart was never right with God from the start. In that case, considering our continual sin, how can we be sure we've ever really repented and not just been playing games with God like King Saul did?
The story of King Solomon is even more disturbing because he was right with God, and God was pleased with him (I kings 3:10), yet even though he was the wisest man who ever lived, he fell away from the faith.
Judas Iscariot is another sobering example of losing it all, and then there's this warning which seems to preclude the possibility of eternal security, i.e. knowing we're saved:
Although agnostics and atheists such C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell have converted to Christianity, others do go the other way. If this is the case, that salvation can be lost, why doesn't God in his mercy drop a Christian dead with a heart attack or something during an upswing in faithfulness before falling into apostasy? Ugh, this is sounding like salvation based on works, in effect saying, yes, we're saved, but for only as long we remain sufficiently repentant for the rest of our lives. This question is a bugger.
I have a friend with an interesting take on this passage. He calls it the "sin unto death", from verse 1 in this chapter of Hebrews, I suppose. According to my friend, "sin unto death" doesn't mean loss of salvation, but loss of ministry. Makes sense. We've seen more than one evangelist destroy his witness by falling into sin. God can't use such people the same as before. He may choose to put them on the sideline, benched from His team, so to speak, or they may have so compromised their service for the kingdom, He decides to take them out of this world, which would be the mercy killing I proposed in the previous paragraph. I find this interpretation appealing, although I don't really see it in the Hebrews passage, to be honest, but I do see it here:
This holds out the hope that Solomon, and even Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10), remain saved. If so they still got the prize, eternal life, but without the rewards they could have had, like being a benchwarmer for the 2010 Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers, still getting the ring, but not the satisfaction of contributing to the victory. However, I'm wary of basing a doctrine on a single passage of Scripture, no matter how much, or particularly because, it appeals to me.
What good is just praying for stuff like getting a job, passing a test, finding a lost item, a safe trip, etc.? We get these things or we don't, whether or not we pray.
What good is praying for healing, ours or somebody else's? If the healing occurs, it can be attributed to natural causes or medical intervention. If it doesn't, we shrug our shoulders and console ourselves it wasn't God's will.
What good is praying for somebody's salvation? I'm sure God's doing whatever He can to reach every person, with or without our help, but other people decide for themselves no matter whether we pray for them.
No, rather than wimpy and useless prayers, we do ourselves better to pray with power, reminding ourselves of God's truths like Jesus taught us. Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. That's right, the Dude's up there, and He's holy. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Not, please send your kingdom, but it's coming and there's nothing that will stop it, and God's going to have His way no matter what. And so on for the rest of the Lord's Prayer we're simply declaring things God has promised to do. The Bible tells us what God wants and will do, so we pray for those things. For example, He wants us to know Him, and the Holy Spirit will come to do His work.
I pray by thanking God for what He has done, for what He's doing, and for what He will do. Both from my own experience and from what I've read in the Bible. I wrestle with God in prayer over the unanswered questions on this webpage. These prayers have meaning for me.
Prayer is supposedly a two-way conversion, but I can't tell the difference between my own thoughts and God speaking to my mind, because if God's speaking to me, how do I know I'm not making it up from my own good imagination? For me, God's half of the conversation comes from recalling passages from the Bible because those words I know come from Him.
For a good guilt trip, remember the saying, "Christians are the only Bible some people read." There's also this bombshell:
This seems to say that some remain unsaved, not by disbelieving in the Christ, but because no Christians witness to them. Sure, we're our brother's keeper no matter what Cain thought (Genesis 4:9), and we get to participate in the grand enterprise of building God's kingdom, but doesn't the Bible clearly teach that salvation depends on God and not on us?
Does this mean we dare not pass any strangers on the street without asking them whether they know the Christ because God will blame us when they're not saved? Talk about a guilt trip. Does speaking to people out of a sense of guilt and obligation, and simply annoying them, have much good use? St. Paul didn't think so:
Although the people carrying signs and shouting, "Repent, sinners, or you're going to hell!" are not speaking in tongues, resounding gongs and clanging cymbols are good descriptions for them. Although their words are true, do we need to thump people on the sides of their heads with the Bible? Jesus told us there are already plenty of people out there whose hearts have already been prepared to receive the Gospel without having it crammed down their throats:
He's saying there are so many people who are ready and willing to accept the Gospel that we're not to spend too much time on those unwilling to listen, as He instructed His disciples when He sent them on a mission trip:
Paul did the same thing during his travels:
Jesus meant the same when He said:
A fishing story also has something to say on the subject:
Jesus told Peter and Andrew they would be "fishers of men" (Matthew 4:19 & Mark 1:17). When fishing for men, it's best to go where God says the fish are. The Holy Spirit can lead us to those wanting to hear the message:
It's not hard to see in these cases how Paul, Peter, and Philip would have had blood on their hands if they hadn't listened to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and seems to be what God's warning to Ezekiel was about. Jeremiah found himself unable to withhold what the Spirit wanted him to speak:
Apparently fasting should be done because Jesus did it, but how is it not an exercise in self-righteousness for us? "Look at us, We're fasting, so we must be a better Christians!" Perhaps fasting is supposed help us internalize the truth of the following verses:
Is fasting a way for us to show God we're serious? Otherwise, it seems to have no other value than saving on the food budget and dropping some pounds.
According to the arguments of some, and I believe them to be earnest believers in the Christ whose opinions are to be respected and considered, any revelation outside of the Bible is invalid. Taken to the logical extreme, this would include all visions and dreams, the audible voice of God, and inner promptings of the Holy Spirit are to be discarded. If so, how is a personal relationship with God possible? Does it mean that prayer can only be a one-way conversation? How is that different than praying to a wood idol, a statue of stone, or the wall? How then is the Christian triune God different than the distant and unknowable Allah of the Muslims?
Is the argument that revelation outside of scripture is unscriptural itself scriptural? I think not.
Characters throughout the Bible received visions and dreams. Jacob had a dream about a ladder to heaven (Genesis 28:12). Joseph told his brothers about his dreams that they would someday bow before him (Genesis 37:5-9). Ezekiel saw bizarre visions including wheels filled with eyes (Ezekiel 1). Daniel had recurring dreams and visions (Daniel 7-12). Joseph, stepfather of the Christ, was told in dreams to take Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:20), to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:13), and to come back (Matthew 2:19-20). Cornelius saw a vision to send for Peter (Acts 10:1-6), and Peter had his own vision to go to Cornelius (Acts 10:9-16). Saul encountered the Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6), and Ananias received a vision to go to him (Acts 9:10-16). Later, as Paul, he was told in a vision to go to Macedonia (Acts 16:9). Even pagans such as Pharaoh and his servants (Genesis 40 & 41), Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2 & 4), and Belshazzar's court (Daniel 5) received valid revelations from the Lord God.
Audible voice. God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush (Exodus 3:4-4:17) and later on a regular basis (Exodus 33:9b, 11a). He spoke to Elijah in a still small voice (I Kings 19:11-18). The Father spoke at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). The Spirit used an inner voice to prompt Simeon to go to the temple to bless the infant Jesus (Luke 2:27), and He led Philip to find and speak to the Ethiopian (Acts 8:29).
Did these things happen only in Bible times, and are no longer valid today? To say so is unscriptural. Where does the Bible say they were meant to stop? Granted, I Corinthians 13:8 says prophecy, tongues, and words of knowledge will end, but two verses later it says not until a perfect creation has been restored, and of course we're not there yet! Moreover, Jesus said that His sheep would hear His voice (John 10:29). Joel 2:28 says there will be visions and dreams in the last days, and the last days doesn't mean just the time of Jesus. This prophecy, like so many others, has a dual meaning for both the first and second comings of the Christ. Why would God grant visions and dreams if they weren't considered to be revelation, albeit outside of the Bible?
The spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy are certainly scriptural because Paul wrote about them, most extensively in I Corinthians 14. How can they not be considered to be valid extra-Biblical revelation, and just like visions and dreams, where does the Bible say they were meant to stop after the first century?
True, the canon of scripture is the standard to which all personal revelation must carefully be considered and tested against, and nothing can be added to this standard (Revelation 22:18). The Bible trumps personal revelation. Visions, dreams, an audible voice, inner promptings, tongues, prophecies, and such must not contradict scripture in order to be valid, and must not deny the divine nature of the Christ and His work. Moreover, the purpose of any revelation is not personal gratification, but to edify other believers, to build God's kingdom, and to bring glory to the Father.
Jesus gave warning against false teachers and teachings (Matthew 24:5, 11, 23-26). Everything from crackpot cults that get their members to commit mass suicide to major world religions based on false revelation have deceived millions upon millions through the centuries. Should personal revelation be discarded on account of being so easily misused, and even dangerous? That's like saying not to use fire because the flames can harm and destroy.
To say revelation comes only from scripture limits what the Almighty can do. What about reports of people who never heard the Christian message coming to know the Christ because He appeared to them? God can reveal Himself whenever and however He chooses! Does limiting God to the Bible risk elevating the book to be God?
Next comes the question why God holds back revelation, even when we're in a right relationship with Him. I can think of six reasons:
| More Absolute Truth |