Greg Koukl Responds to the Problem of the Unevangelized
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2019
- What about people that have never heard the Gospel message? Are they automatically condemned to Hell? How is that fair?
Link to full interview: • Discussing "Tactics" w...
Affiliate link to "Tactics": amzn.to/2WIYY1y
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#GregKoukl #Tactics #Apologetics
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
"What exactly is the problem?" It is unjust that god would give some people a way to escape eternal damnation, but deny others the same thing, purely on the basis of where/when they are born.
For starters... Condemning people to an eternity of torment for minor transgressions is hardly unproblematical in the first place. These guys have got it really bad, I wonder if it is even possible to recover when you get to this stage of nuttiness.
So would you say that, if God exists, then all who have the opportunity to freely choose God will choose God?
@@rebeccajohnson3402 Not sure what you mean... if god existed demonstrably, one would have to evaluate the options he was offering and choose the least bad option, because there would be no other choices. Hopefully though he wouldn't be the god of the bible or the Koran. I wouldn't be too happy living in their eternities... unless there was some endless supply of hallucinogenic drugs that made me thing I was somewhere else.
@@roqsteady5290 Sorry, I was addressing the OP.
@@rebeccajohnson3402 Ah, sorry I spoke, didn't realise this was an exclusive conversation. Sure you got the right social media platform?
This is how apologists "win" debates, by making claims that are sooo deplorable other people just simply don't know how to respond to it.
they can't, unless they are allowed to use "Special Pleading"
@@richunixunix3313 They can't win debates?
God who knows all things would know who would or wouldn’t accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. So couldn’t God place people in different areas and time according to whom God knows who would believe or not. The ones God knew who would believe were placed in a position to hear and accept. The ones God knew who wouldn’t God placed in areas who wouldn’t hear it but still knows they would reject it. I see no problem when you look at it from Gods perspective.
@@thetheoreticaltheologian2458 I mean, sure. When you make a case for anything "from God's perspective", you can definitely justify alot. The problem then turns into, if a preacher is in a debate and he says what the guy in the video is saying, he isn't going to win over any minds.
Yeah, there's a lot of problems with his response.
First, Greg concludes that it's someone's actions that "condemns" them, and if nothing is done, then they won't reach heaven. Following this line of thinking further, this would indicate that God created this person *knowing* that there is no way that this person would be able to have salvation.
Second, it is a matter of geographical circumstance, (despite him denying that it's not), because there are still many tribes around the world that have not been introduced to Christian theology. In a way, based on Greg's conclusion, God knows that if He sends a soul to that certain geographical spot, that they will never hear the Christian message of salvation, versus someone who was born in the Bible Belt. This would almost guarantee whether or not someone will be saved by hearing the message or not. This would also indicate that location is very important in salvation, since hearing the message is necessary to salvation.
Third, what is the point of "evangelizing" if it was just as simple as God putting people in certain spots where Christianity is prevalent for the ones who He knew are going to be saved and place the non-believers away from the Christian message? This conclusion is contradictory to the Bible, but according to Greg, this would be the best and simplest tactic for God to do in order to secure the salvation of the save, and the condemnation of the damned.
Lastly, this is still *very much ignoring* the fact that God has people destined for Hell. I have brought this up before, so I won't rehash it, but *every* *single* *Christian* *cannot* avoid the fact that they will eventually come to the conclusion of either A: God creates people to go to Hell (which is egregiously immoral), B: We truly have free will and we decide where we go (in which case Hell isn't necessary to have free will), or C: If Hell does exist, it cannot be eternal (which is counter to Christian doctrine).
Nothing against Greg Koukl, but his philosophy is very poor. I don't think he realizes the consequences of the conclusions he's coming to.
1. Only People who willingly follow Satan ie Not all angels only those who stick with him, and those who willingly take the mark of the Beast and those who willingly remove Gods word from the Bible will be cast into hellfire
2. The rest of the lost will be judged after they have paid for their sins in Hell, ie after 1,000 years the lost will be revived and Christians will judge the lost and the fallen angels to A find them in the book of life or B. Cast them into eternal hellfire
3. Not all lost people will go to hellfire and not all fallen angels will go to hellfire, only those who willingly chose Satan until the end
4. We will judge angels, and the lost; what does judge mean: to make a decision or to form a conclusion, how can we make a decision if everyone revived will be thrown into hellfire, we can’t do it seems only certain people ie those who willingly stayed with Satan despite knowing the truth will be cast into hellfire, all sinners will have paid 1,000 years in hell for not trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation
@@japexican007
I appreciate your response, but that had very little to do with my comment, nor what Greg talks about in the video.
If you are here to try and correct him, then how do I know your word is more true than Greg's word? Don't make the folly of thinking that just because you say it or believe it / researched it, doesn't automatically mean it's true or valid.
Thinking outside of yourself and your beliefs is the best way to achieve the truth. If the truth is really beyond us, then the truth is beyond out personal interpretations and beliefs, which means that *we* must go beyond them.
To settle and become complacent in what we think we know is no longer a pursuit of truth, but a pursuit of self-fulfillment.
Also, make sure you're not chasing man-made tails and fables. Many Christians are doing that... which is why there are so many denominations inside of Christianity. If Christianity were true, wouldn't it be more unified? Or was Jesus wrong in saying "A house divided cannot stand on its own"?
Think beyond yourself. That's the best advice I can give you.
J. A. Greene I appreciate your response but you clearly haven’t read scripture so you should refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about
@@japexican007
I could say the same thing to you when it comes to seeking truth...
You, like most evangelical Christians, are more concerned about enforcing your theology than pursuing truth. Truth is greater than theology, my friend, and the sooner you realize that, the closer you'll be to finding truth. If not, then don't pretend that you are genuinely pursuing truth to try and justify your moxy and arrogance against someone else.
...in other words, don't spit on another person's face and call it rain. That demonstrates not only that you are malicious, but a liar as well.
It's not justified because even if they sin they still have no way of knowing about God's laws and commandments. Unsatisfying answer.
Paul wrote about this in Romans. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them", Romans 2:14-15
@@rebeccajohnson3402 Its still immoral to punish someone who has no way of knowing what the "law" is. God should reveal himself to all peoples.
@@goaheadmakemyday7126 If you go to Romans and read the text in context you will see that the verse refers to all people. Gentile was a term often used for the general idea of 'unbeliever'. Thus all people have 'the law' written on their hearts.
@@rebeccajohnson3402 How does the bible know that?
@@goaheadmakemyday7126 So you opened this line of discussion with the assumption that Christianity is true. I.e There is no way for some to know about God's law and commandments if Christianity is true if they haven't heard of Christianity. I gave you why, under Christianity as truth, this is is justified. So are you agreeing that, if Christianity is true, then given the text in Romans, it would be justifiable because we all know of the law?
At 3:07 Greg says "What are they judged by? They are judged according to their behavior, according to their deeds."
If we are to believe John 3:18, the main thing people are judged on is whether they believe in Jesus : "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18)
this man's moral views are so warped by his religion.The actual injustice is we are condemned for being human.
Exactly. I tried to make the same point but you did it more succinctly. This guy's slippery style of argumentation really gets under my skin.
I think that the atheist could say, the unjust thing is that God made the man born sinful. The man had no other choice but to sin, and then God is going to hold him accountable for that.
But the basic problem still exists, with some minor detail changed.
Now one person has the opportunity for attaining salvation, while another doesn't, simply by some geographical accident.
This, the inherent injustice in infinite punishment for finite crime, punishing an innocent person instead of the guilty, and the issue of punishment without purpose are all the reasons as to why I don't believe in this supposedly "just" god of yours.
The injustice is the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Wow. This is so incredibly dishonest I’ve really lost respect for Cameron. The response to these questions are layups and yet he literally throws his hands up and says he has no answer. He’s clearly a smart guy so I have to believe he’s willfully ignoring the obvious.
Ahh, so everybody is guilty, but some can redeem themselves by accepting the Jesus, while others cannot... merely by geographical or chronological reasons, depending on god (if on anyone) and not on themselves. That seems perfectly fair!
//end of sarcasm.
Given that most people's beliefs are the ones they are born into, I guess God is super into spiritual nepotism.
If a judge shows mercy on a hardened horrible criminal, does that mean he must do the same to every criminal ?
@@flippintobyland7257 Did you come up with that example all by yourself?
Try this one:
the judge will show mercy to some only if they heard of him, and acknowledged he was a judge.
To everyone else, they are already guilty of crimes they did not know they had and were being judged for, by a judge they did not know existed.
Some call that "mercy".
@@TheCheapPhilosophy no 🤦🏻♂️ can one not use someone’s example it perfectly illustrates the to me the fallacy in your thought .
@@flippintobyland7257 I am all eyes. Please enlighten me. Where is the fallacy?
Good to see some people can use reason to debunk the Christian apologetic argument of God "justly" condemning people to hell along with creating large sections of humanity with no option but to end up there.
I m a Christian, even I have problem with this question. how can the person receive the salvation because everyone in the world have sinned
"How would you know?"
We don't know if the person who has never heard son something would change to avoid hell. That means you don't know if the consequences God has forced upon them is just and therefore you can't know that God is all good.
But God does and, again, he isn’t sent to hell for not believing. It’s because of breaking the law. You’re making a bigger assumption and even pretending that you know more than God does.
@@theconservativechristian7308
How do you know God knows more then I do? Can you prove outside your bible that God is all knowing?
God making a law the man won't know about and punishing someone for breaking that law is unjust. How so? First because you claim God is all knowing and eternal. If that is the case God created the law just to punish someone who knew nothing for no good reason. If you say there is a good reason because God has a plan for us then gods plan is flawed because God didn't consider this person or, if God did then God once again is unjust because he punished a person who had no choice but to break the law according to gods plan. Either way your God is flawed.
@@insanityplus2196 You are arguing a strawman. A dare you to steelman the christian position.
@@LtDeadeye
Point out the straw man.
@UCJUL4KDI0TxLBEvBxzg_Cuw
Where did you get the idea that hell is like failing a grade? That isn't biblical. I can attack the Christians use of the Bible and the supposed omniscemcets of God without it being a straw man. Try pointing out exactly where I used a straw man argument. Let's see if you know what you are talking about.
Great answer!
"They are judged according to their behavior according to their deeds"
Another contradiction with many Christians. For it is by grace they are saved.
insanity Plus you misunderstand what he is saying. Watch again
@@rebelresource
Just telling me to watch again as though I missed something is not helpful. Tell me what I missed. I literally quoted him and then gave a common statement (I believe from the bible) that contradicts what his stance is.
@@insanityplus2196 Those who have accepted Christ are washed of their sins. Those without Christ are judged by their deeds.
@@LtDeadeye
Ephesians 2:8-9
insanity Plus You’re proving my point for me. They had Christ! Those who reject him will be judged by their deeds.
The certainty with which this guy speaks works only on the credulous and gullible. He is no more an authority on Christianity than the late Fred Phelps.
I am really impressed but I am equally impressed by your videography skills. I wonder how you do it.
The Bible says that God has placed his moral law on the hearts of all men (Romans 2:15), and that His existence is clearly seen from the things that are made (Romans 1:20) so that none are without excuse. Someone who hasn't heard of Jesus obviously won't be judged based on their non-response to his special revelation but they will be judged on the basis of His general revelation. They would have to submit that God exists and that they've failed to live up to His standard, (also from Romans 3:23). Sadly, the Bible also says that very few people follow this path. Though still, I hope Plato makes it!
Do you think "general revelation" is sufficient for someone to respond to?
I don’t know. There may be case-by-case exceptions where someone has a reason that is genuinely not their fault (like mental retardation), but as a general rule my understanding is that’s what the text says.
@@andrewwells6323 Sorry if I wasn't clear! What I meant was do you think general revelation is somehow "less than" special revelation?
@@TKK0812 Yes.
@@andrewwells6323 So the only thing keeping most people from believing is just that they need some deeper facts and knowledge about the Bible? Or Jesus? Care to flesh out your position a bit more.
It seems to me that scripture is replete with not only the absolute power of "general revelation" but also the fact that "special revelation" isn't always the issue of non-belief.
Koukl is doing God's work in creating more atheists with his incoherent drivel.
Which God, you have so many to choose from. The Bible (yours) has 35 listed, so which one?
@@richunixunix3313 If you are an atheist, you don't follow ANY god.
So it's win all around.
@@richunixunix3313 Zeus
@Giggling Stoner Giggiling, There are 35 Gods/Demons listed in the current Bible and yet Christian fail to name even one let alone two or more, also I get is a blank look across there face. Normally there first answer is these are "FALSE" Gods or mythical. But yet the authors of both the new and old testament believed them to be very real. Just look at the first commandment "Thou shall have no other God but me". Example the God Adrammelech as listed in 2 Kings, what ever happen to this god, did he just go away or die? The Bible is silence about him and the other gods. The very same litmus test used to dismiss other Gods would also dismiss the Christian God. So your correct Hail ZEUS!
Wow that was some amazing mental gymnastics. Religious belief impairs a persons ability to logically think and reason.
You know exactly what people mean when they point out the various problems spoken about here, in spite of your attempts to slow down the discussion, disguised as some sort of A1 level apologetics but all it is is some serious matrix level dodging...the problem that opposers to your god or god claims still remain
The problem is that some people are given a reprieve for their misdeeds, while others, through no fault of their own are not. Let me give you an example, Hiawatha was a chief who helped create the Iroquois Confederacy. He lived in what is modern day New York and Quebec in the mid 16th century, nearly 100 years before Christians came to what would become New York. He would be in Hell, because as a human, he would have done things against The Bible. Jeffery Dahmer, raped, kidnapped, murdered, and ate over a dozen men and boys, but he converted while in prison, and gave every indication of piousness. He would be in Heaven because he converted. That is how it's unjust. Someone who helped people is in Hell because wasn't a Christian, while someone is in Heaven because he is one.
And, on the problem of evil... really only Christians, Muslims, and Zoroastrians have this problem. Jews believe that God isn't all-good, in fact he can be downright petty and cruel. Hindus believe in multiple gods, some of whom, like Krishna, Lakshmi, and Ganesha are generally benevolent, meanwhile gods like Kali, and Periyachi are more vicious and malevolent.
If Yaweh is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, why is there suffering? I mean, the simplest answer is he likely doesn't exist. The Jewish answer is, he's not all good; he's always right, but what's right and what's kind aren't the same thing. The polytheist answer is, which god? There are a lot of them. Some are kind others are cruel.
The most common answer I've heard to this is, well Adam and Eve at the knowledge fruit, so it's sin caused it. But, that makes no sense. God made the fruit look delicious, smell great, put the snake there to tell Eve he was lying (which he was), and made it easily accessible. Plus, these people were ignorant, they would listen to anyone who would tell them what to do. If one parent says the child can have a cookie and the other parent says they cannot, do you punish the child for taking a cookie? "But their free will," I hear you state. If you put your meds on a high shelf so your kid can't get to them, are you taking away the child's free will? If you make a painting that looks horrible, are you taking away the viewer's free will whether or not to stare at it? Going back to the cookie analogy, if both parents agree before talking to the child about whether or not they can have a cookie, is having one parent not say anything (because they really don't care whether or not the child has a cookie or not, but they don't want to upset their significant other) taking away the child's free will?
What religion you believe in depends on your geography. It has always been that way. Ridiculous to think otherwise. If any god condemns people for believing in their religion that isn't a good god...but an evil one
@Rabbi Circumcisteinevil is what we humans define as evil. Reprehensible conduct. Rape is evil for example. Few people would disagree with that...maybe not the rapist.
But yes, geography determines your religion. If you are born in India you would likely be Hindu. In Saudi Arabia and you would be Muslim. In Japan, only 1% of the population is Christian
Intelectual side? Where? For sure not in this video....
I'm a believer but this answer , or respond is messed up. He didn't answer the question about the people who do not hear the gospel. Instead he says everyone is guilty of hell because of their own sin. ..... And, so, what??? Is he saying people that don't hear the gospel don't matter? Is he saying even if someone dies without hearing the gospel they go to hell? Simply because of their sin? I never understood the way some Christians response this way
How would you respond as a Christian?
@@rebeccajohnson3402 I honestly have trouble with this. And it's over the question how do you go to hell? Because of sin? Because you reject Jesus? I understand the Bible to teach you go to hell for rejecting Jesus. So if someone has never heard of Jesus then.....?
@@johnford9863 I have heard basically two answers to this question; Inclusivism which is the idea that Jesus work on the cross is sufficient for salvation but the knowledge of said work is not necessary for salvation and Molinism. Have you looked into Molinism?
@@rebeccajohnson3402 no. But I have heard of it. Maybe you can explain it to me here before I look into it. But I don't get People bringing up Romans 1 for this. When they say everyone has creation as a witness. Yeah you can very easily look at creation and conclude there is a creator but that does not get you to Jesus Christ dying on a cross
@@johnford9863 Romans 2 is generally what's brought up. Specifically Romans 2: 14-15, we all have the law written on our hearts so that it condemns us or excuses us. Molinism, to the degree that I understand it, is the theory that God will place those who will freely choose Him in the actual situation in which they will do so.
Why aren’t Christians judged for their works both good and bad? Is it because they passed their sins onto Jesus? How do you know you could do that if so?
First, I’m a Christian, so keep that in mind if you read this comment. Second, the problem voiced is obvious and many Christians who recognize it have struggled with the issue. Giving the answer in this video may be logically satisfying to some people but it’s only going to encourage doubt and Atheism. I’m giving this a big thumbs down because not a single soul will change their mind with this obtuse response. I suppose there are some Christians who don’t care about that as long as they have answered the objection.
We all know that whether or not a person goes to heaven or hell is based on whether or not they are in Christ. Why bother us with talk about their sinful behavior? Do Christians have sinful behavior? Yes, but are they going to Hell? No. So practically speaking it is not a person’s sinful behavior that sends them to hell or else everyone would be going to hell. Or better put, it is not a person’s sinful behavior that determines whether or not they end up in Hell. But has everyone had the opportunity to hear of God’s Grace? No. Now maybe they would still reject the gospel if they heard it, but they haven’t even had the chance!
Honestly, how many Christians can say that if they hadn’t heard the gospel, they would have sought after God? Don’t lie. The vast majority wouldn’t. But are they indifferent to the inevitable fate of people born doomed to hell through no fault of their own? Yes, because they’ll shrug it off with, well they are sinners and deserve hell. How is that loving your neighbor? When you know full well that the gospel is essential for salvation - an essential need for all people that most people are deprived of.
What do you think about molinism?
Rebecca Johnson Molinism is an interesting theory that can affirm human Free Will and God’s desire for all people to be saved. Personally I do not find the arguments persuasive. I have read two books for it: The Only Wise God by William Lane Craig and Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keithley.
If I understand it correctly, as far as the unevangelized go, the theory would suggest that God has chosen a world of events and free choices that has the most people possible hearing and accepting the gospel. It would not affirm that every individual who would accept the gospel got to hear it, but more people hear and accept the gospel in this world than in any other world that God could have chosen from. In other words, for any one individual who theoretically would have accepted the gospel if they’d heard it, to change events so that they had a chance it would end up resulting in two or more other people not hearing the gospel who did it accept it in reality. The reason for the imperfect results is that God is working with free agents who do not usually do his will.
I think more people would accept that as an explanation than what Koukl offers above, but like I said, I find it unconvincing.
ben green Thank you Ben, but as a Christian I must warn you that you are ultimately responsible for your own fate. The failure of some Christians to provide good answers to some questions isn’t going to excuse your rejection of Jesus Christ. If you keep diligently seeking for the truth you will find him, but if you’re looking for excuses they are easy to find. God is not like a genie where you call or rub a lamp and he shows up to answer to you, we are talking about the eternal spirit of life after all.
I don’t know if you grew up going to church or what led you to decide God doesn’t exist but you’ve made the wrong choice so far. Just like reviewing a math equation which your teacher marked red, look again to see where you made your mistake. It’s your life at stake.
@@bengreen171 hey there. To be honest man, your last comment almost describes me perfect, except inverted. I was an atheist for a while and just figured Christian's were folks that just needed an emotional crutch or something. Like they were people who knew deep down God wasn't real but kind of pretended to the point of convincing themselves. But, after a rebellious phase ran its course I really started to seek for truth. I didn't want some tradition or people to mold me or influence me, I wanted to find truth without any man's intervention. Anyway, half a decade and a lot of humility I just found Christianity is by a long shot the only thing that can be true.
Jesus revealed himself to me, and I firmly believe He will reveal Himself to anyone who is desiring to find the truth no matter the cost, but mostly, humble at heart.
What I mean is, if you're only seeking to disprove the existence of a God, you're not going to find Him. If you humble yourself however and from the depth of your heart seek wisdom and truth, you in fact, may find what you're not expecting.
I'm not necessarily speaking to you, I got on more a tangent there than anything.. but anyway.. that is all I got to say about that.
@@bengreen171 I appreciate that you're not being douchey by the way. Much respect to you for being tactful in disagreement
Hmmm.. I live a full life without it thank you.. I seek to know as many true things as possible.. And I'm sorry alone the word appolegetic indicates the problem of some god trying to hide his word. I cannot be a part of that.
And in fact the many strange, horrific and contradicting things in the Bible indicates for me the human origin of the content of this book.
I think your issues with the Bible have been debunked over...and over...and over again.
There are no contradictions in the Bible. Full stop. Every "contradiction" i have seen that an atheist has claimed is a simple misunderstanding or denial of context.
Christianity is not only about a "full life" whatever that means; its about living the right one.
@@TimberWulfIsHere Alone the notion of hell is the worst thing i ever heard.. punish someone for eternity for something they themselves have not done.. (e.g. i did not believe in Jesus)..
The problem of sickness.. do not come with the lords ways are mysterious or free will. If the lord is all powerfull he could create a world without cancer... but he choose not.. so theres some mysterious reason we do not understand.
Sorry no.. this indicates that he's not here that this is what you would expect from a mere naturalistic world… Chance, bad lifestyle and genetic disposition (as science indicates in multiple studies) causes even good people to have cancer and the chance healing by prayer is exactly as expected by chance.
Creation story.. sorry this is so far out there that i dont even want to comment on it.. A bright child of 10 with some interest in sciences know more correct things about the creation of the world and univers than the bible.
Slavery in the bible… wiping out entire populations even children, Noahs ark where god wipes the slate clean in the most cruel way - mafia boss punishment. I could go on...
And i will if you like :)
@@Daniel U Misunderstanding? So god wrote the bible for people to misunderstand especially the people of the time.. he wrote it so they would think that slavery was ok and how to beat them and then later hoped for us to "interpret" it correctly.. in the mean time the blood of so many slaves and people under "Indentured servitude" are on his hands.
The simple commandment would be : slavery and beating of slaves is wrong in the name of the lord..
Just a clarification.. i do not think there is no good passages in the bible as in any book of how to live your life written by men. But i do not think this is any good way of livining in todays world in any standard of measurement..
We could clean it up a bit and take out the crazy thinks and we might end up with a couple of great advices on how to live your life - as great as any today but with out the God baggage and the punishment and the hell and the biases and the all the other moral dubious issues.
@@TimberWulfIsHere every response from Christian's I have seen to contradicts in the bible is usaly to twist the words and interpretations untill they think it fits. They may as well be trimming puzzles peices and repainting them to make them fit. But the delusions are strong so I can get how would fall victim to things like conformation bias. The mere fact that you all can't agree on a single interpretation, or translation is more than damning enough for some Christian claims. People have been fighting violently over different ideas about the Christian versions since before some religious leaders got together to vote on what was cannon and what was heresy.
Exactly how did god communicate his will/word to mankind before the bible?
Greg Koukl has another good video titled "What About Those Who Have Never Heard?" where he discusses this concept in even greater detail from the first two chapters of Romans. Also if someone is unevangelized, go tell him the gospel. Don't keep saying that he is unevangelized.
(Romans 3:23) For ALL HAVE SINNED, and fall short of the Glory of God. (Revelation 20:13) Each person was judged, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE HAD DONE. Thanks for interviewing Greg Koukl on this subject! I agree with his response. Furthermore, I think if a person, in a far away land, truly seeks God with all their heart, God will find a way to bring the Gospel to him.
Right but passages like
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
Or Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Or ...James Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
Seem to suggest there is more to it then just either or. Degrees of punishment perhaps, or less guilt for those who are truly ignorant.
I have never once killed or seriously endorsed the killing of anyone. God's personal kill count in the current cannon bibble alone is enough to sit him comfortably at about the 3ed worst mass murder of all time somewhere after Hitler and yet my sampling a grape in the market before deciding to buy is damnably short of the "glory of god?" Or is it a power thing and not a morality thing? If I fart a world into existence make a bunch of life to fill it and bully some of them into being my personal tongue bathers am I now equal to the glory of god or whatever? Further more why is god the measuring stick here? If he wanted me to be as good as him or whatever it is he wants well then he is the one all the Christians claim is an uber powerful omnipotent being not me. I have jack all for control in my life compared to the popular description of god. if he made me like Christians say and is going to throw a fit and torture me because I or more accurately two people in a fairy tale didn't live up to his expectations then it's his fault for making me that way. Going by the biblical accounts the hole game is rigged from the beginning to because he didn't give man knowledge of morality.
I’m a Christian and this answer was not satisfactory at all
Mr. Koukl sounds like a complete psychopath. Your brother appears to be the more empathetic and loving person, maybe consider listening to him over someone who thinks anyone can be deserving an eternity of conscious torment. What a vile thing to believe.
Instead of getting mad of a reasonable response you could of at least stated the problem of people getting what they deserve.
@@tan1591 I've read your comment like five times and I still have no idea what you're trying to communicate. And it's "could've" not "could of" (contraction of could have).
@CapturingChristianity - I can’t speak for your brother, but I would have wanted to respond by saying: I’m not asking if everyone is guilty of sin, I’m asking if everyone who desires to be free from their sin has the opportunity. In other words, can someone be saved even if they’ve never heard the gospel... but they hoped for good news?
He'd probably have answered by appealing either to God's 'middle knowledge' or to Calvinistic doctrine.
@@LtDeadeye Or to inclusivism.
LtDeadeye I think you are right. But then I would say to him that I am not asking if God knows, I’m asking if we can know.
If we knew someone from such a place who had not heard about the fulfillment of their longing for salvation found in Jesus Christ, and they had died without hearing about it, do we have any assurance that God was not only aware of their cries, but that he answered them with the same grace that we have received?
Rebecca Johnson I’ve not heard of inclusivism. Would you have a link that you could share that explains that?
LtDeadeye I don’t think he’d appeal to middle knowledge since he’s a Calvinist. Calvinists believe God only knows the future because He has determined it “from eternity past” and “has brought everything that happens to pass.” Essentially, because it could have happened no other way.
Hi Cameron! Thank you for this great segment to a daunting question. Really loved the cut that plays at the end!!! Any chance you can pass along the name of the track 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
but i thought we were saved not by our works but by faith in jesus christ?
Romans 1, Paul addresses this. Greg has an excellent take, do does Dr Craig. People are judged based on the light God revealed to them.
Mr Koulk: the problem exactly consist in degenerate view of God's benevolence or in uneven distribution of grace across the humanity. For the sake of illustration: if you have 5 children and they made some blameworthy deed and are evenly guilty and you forgive only only at the cost in the rest this is uneven distrubution of grace or degenerate employment of benevolence. Amen.
The nature of the injustice is completely obvious: infinite punishment for finite "crime". Your God, if real, is a monster.
AdamDoes SE You’ll probably be interested in this podcast episode where we discuss the ‘infinite punishment for finite crime’ and other objections: soundcloud.com/capturingchristianity/cc005-how-could-an-all-loving-god-send-anyone-to-hell
Why would it be unjust to give infinite punishment for a finite crime? What is meant by finite? If someone murders someone in 15 seconds, would it not be just to sentence them to life in prison rather than 15 seconds in prison? Please lay out an actual argument.
LinebackerTuba your analogy doesn’t follow. If you take someone’s life forever (in 15 seconds or 20 days), you forfeit your life for its duration. Christianity: Humans “sin” by their nature, but if they don’t [repent or believe or profess or something else] they go to hell for ♾. That’s a really long time, BTW.
@@TimothyAndrewHolman Who tells you genocide is wrong?
People who truly DON'T WANT GOD, are given what they truly desire : eternal existence separated from God's presence. The Bible doesn't teach that these people will suddenly become SAINTS while they're in hell... To the CONTRARY, scripture actually suggests that they'll CONTINUE ON being sinners (Revelation 22:15). Hence, God's punishment will continue on, and on, and on... I hope that helps mate!
As a Christian, i can't support this answer at all. Who are we to say that God has never approached these people in some way during their lives, even if they never read the Bible or were told about the Gospel by another? The simple answer to understand is that God is PERFECTLY JUST and his ways are PERFECT, no matter how confusing they may seem to human beings.
At 5:30 Greg says "Now somebody might say 'well it's not fair because they didn't hear'. Well are you presuming that if they heard they would have bent their knee and receive the mercy that is being offered? How would you know? The only one who knows that would be God, and I'm pretty convinced that anybody who would do that, god would get the message to"
That has to be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard from a christian apologist. The logical conclusion of what he said is that everyone who never hears about the gospel would have rejected it anyways. Just think about how unfathomably unlikely it would be that all the Native Americans living prior to European immigration would have rejected the gospel, right up until the time that missionaries landed on the scene to teach them the gospel. Only then(greg would have to think) did natives start being born who would be amenable to christianity. NOT BLOODY LIKELY
5:37 He is questioning here: "Are you presuming that if they heard they would bend their knee and receive the mercy that is being offered? How would you know? Anyone who knows that would be God." --> Do you think Greg Koukl means with this that we are predetermined to be saved or not? That it is not really a matter of free will, but just about the game playing out?
Kinda.
But there's another aspect to this after all. Grace as a "thing" implies no obligation. That's why it's grace. And grace is an rescue operation.
We're rightly condemned without even the possibility of salvation (because of what grace is) being presented to us *because we're created in God's image*. What that means is that we know, just like Adam and Eve did, that trust and truth are basically foundational to all moral and spiritual life. It's spiritual in nature. It's both a design and a law. It could only have come from the one true God. And as such, it's God's imprint on us.
If we analyze ourselves we find that we violate this design and law (and the law maker) in one way or another.
THAT is what God will get us on even if we've never heard the gospel.
"Kinda" was an admission that I think your conclusion is right. But if you examine the Bible closely you'll find it to be the case.
But what I added after that is also a factor and is intended to give a balance to the "problem".
Personally, I can live with this problem because the other way to deal with live is to be an atheist who believes in determinism and that choice is an illusion.
So, what's your poison? A good but brutally firm God who also takes the hit via his son? Or a brutal nature that will drive you insane?
@@kennorthunder2428 I would say, for me, it's more about figuring out what is true, not what is more desirable. The reason this is being brought up is, because it has an impact on whether God is "good", as you describe it. If God exists and has developed an unjust system, then that system would have no implication on his existence, but we would describe him differently from how Christians do. So, from what you're saying, I understand that you agree that this system is not perfect. Am I understanding that right? Would you agree that this means that God is not perfectly good, as he has developed an imperfect system?
Yeah, I totally disagree with him on works. His interpretation makes it seem as if Jesus' sacrifice was for nothing.
Quick Attack Films Well he’s not wrong, he was referencing Revelation 20:11-15. But I see what you mean.
GOD has always provided an "escape" for those who are righteous. Long before Christ, people lived a righteous life. Genesis 5:24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
Enoch did not know of Christ, yet he was loved by GOD.
Act 17 speaks of Paul in Athens and the temple "to an unknown god.".
The pharaoh Akhenaton knew the Egyptian gods were false. He started the first monotheistic religion.
People have known what is true and false. GOD is righteous and knows the hearts of true believers. GOD is just and will not condemn a true believer.
People need to think of their own souls.
Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
to believers. There is nothing that indicates non-believes have this option.
1 Corinthians 3:12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved-even though only as one escaping through the flames.
This is the judgement true believers face after GOD opens the book of life.
Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
This is how all of Humanity will face judgement. If you name is not in the book, well it will be a hot time in the town tonight.
@GBF freeloader ...So?
@GBF freeloader...Where do I think who is/are?
Having heard this, I ask "Do babies and young children who die go to Hell if they are not believers in Christ?"
I have just turned to gotquestions.org and here is a quotation in answer to my question above:
"Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing."
Now i ask you, "Why cannot the same reasoning be applied to those of an older age who have never heard of Jesus?"
@capturing christianity - just found you through some twitter searches. I like you. Keep up the good work!
How did the man in Africa now what is the law? If he has no ability to be righteous without Jesus, what can he do? Even the Bible says that everyone has committed sin. This is so twisted morality...
The problem is the Bible very clearly states, within context and in no uncertain language, John 3:16 "For God so* loved the world* that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." Romans 10:13 "For “whoever* calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
God loves every sinner so much he sent his only Son to die for all their sins, yet he did not love them enough to let them hear the Gospel of Grace?
To reconcile this the solution is not to say God can have mercy on whoever he wills to have mercy. That maintains God as just, but God isn't defined as just, God is defined as Love. To insist that God is "sovereign" is supposed to somehow answer the relational problem posited is to undermine the Christian image of God who IS Love.
The proper way to answer therefore will be to establish facts about the Bible that provide justification that if those people would receive Jesus (Only If enabled with foreknowledge by God of course, to the same extent as Adam's capacity to choose.) he would leave the 99 to find them. Such facts may include:
1) Even the people who died before the new covenant need the atonement of Jesus Christ or else they would be condemned to Hell as well. We know for certainty that Moses and Elijah were not condemned to hell even though they lived before the gospel. We know that Abraham was justified by Faith even before the Ten Commandments were given. This proves that God can provide a way for people to be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ regardless of whether they were able to hear it from an evangelist. Jesus could very well reveal himself in other ways.
2) We know that Jesus did no miracles in Nazareth because the people of his own hometown rejected him, saying "what good could come out from Nazareth?" God is aware of all contingencies and possibilities. It could very well be that certain people would not have accepted Jesus even if they did hear the Gospel and there was no reason for God to send someone or reveal the Gospel to them because they had already firmly decided against God in their hearts.
Such an answer however, will not be available to a Calvinist.
The real problem is that the human sense of justice and fairness is superior to that of the deity that the ancient Jews worshiped. Come on people....this stuff is man made.
Obviously for God who knows all things, especially those who would believe in His great and glorious gospel of Christ Jesus and those who wouldn’t believe in the gospel. Therefore, God could easily place people in different areas and time frames to for those who would hear and accept it and place those whom God would know that wouldn’t believe in the gospel in areas of the world and time frames who would hear the gospel. For those whom He “foreknew” He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, and those He predestined He called and those He called He justified and those He justified He glorified. - Romans 8:28-29 So again God would know who wouldn’t believe so God could’ve placed them in areas where they wouldn’t hear it and for those whom He knew would believe God placed in time to hear and accept it. There is no problem in Gods perspective.
God declares the end from the beginning. - Isaiah 46:10
So then what's the point of the entire "being saved" process? If God already knows who would or would not accept him, and placed them in situations to act on that, then was never any actual "saving" in the first place. God already picked who was going to come up, so the entire process seems like a huge waste of time for all involved.
With one foot in the light, and one foot in the shadows, one man dares to seek the truth with interviews.
I actually do like the lighting. 😁
Isn't this answer contradicting John 17:3: Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
it seems that this is talking around the point....because if one has not been forgiven, by Jesus this one is not saved...and if the reason is not hearing...then it is just a little more that actions....be none of us have deeds that merit salvation...
So basically everybody who did something wrong is therefore justified to be sent to hell. What good is believing then anyways? And if the believers dont go to hell then were back to the people who never had a chance at knowing about Jesus in the first place. People who might have lived better lifes than a good chunk of believers.
And by what standard are they judged? People who never knew about the bible cannot possibly know what the book says is good or bad.
Are we all doing something wrong for not holding slaves like the bible commands and Jesus supports? Is a slave holder unaware of the bible going to hell for holding slaves while another slave holder whos aware that its supported goes to heaven? Is there a double standard?
I'm curious about thoughts on inclusivism here where inclusivism = Jesus sacrifice is sufficient but knowledge (and therefore acceptance) of it is not.
Will you explain more about what you mean?
@@quickattackfilms7923 When this topic comes up (the unevangelized) I've seen many Christians adopt inclusivism and defend It biblically. I believe CS Lewis was an inclusivist. I was just wondering about others here.
@@rebeccajohnson3402 I think it would depend on how you define inclusivism. I don't really get what "inclusivism = Jesus sacrifice is sufficient but knowledge of it is not" means.
@@quickattackfilms7923 Sorry. Sufficient for salvation.
Not really a fan of this line of reasoning, or of that theology. Part of the reason CS Lewis was such an incredible apologist is because he didn't believe the unevangelized were condemned, I dont' think it's a very defensible position.
"And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
Any conception of an eternal hell is not a "light beating"
Just to clarify. Every generation before Jesus is in hell?
This is a good article on that question. Christ was always the road to salvation. The Old Testament had the prophets and the righteous believed in the prophecies of Christ. answersingenesis.org/gospel/salvation/how-were-people-saved-before-jesus-came-in-the-flesh/
Here's a problem Craig or whatever your name is:
It is inherently unjust to maximally punish someone for rules they are unaware of.
6 of the commandments are about worshiping some other god. You're arguing that it is just to punish someone for violating rules they never were aware of.
If it is a crime punishable by death in a foreign country to walk in front of one of their holy sites, and you are never made aware of that, and you happen walk in front of it, is it just to be put to death?
According to you, it is entirely just.
The problem: Putting someone through a test that they did not agree too, they did not make, with no knowledge of the rules, no good reason to believe they are being tested and infinite stakes. The consequences are not balanced.
Yeah, no kidding. But hey, Romans basically responds with: Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, "Why have you made me this way?" Job was basically asking the same question.
Greg is brilliant! Loved his response!
Atheists in their feelings on this one
Asking if someone has done something wrong to set up the need for a savior is to assume that person views right and wrong the same way you do. Has the person sinned? Well according to you everyone sins but why should we care what you think of sin unless you can show sin is really wrong without using your holy book?
He is arguing the internal conclusion within his belief. It is internally consistent! What you are doing is judging his belief based on your worldview.
@@LtDeadeye
Can you sum up his argument and explain how my "worldview" has a different argument then what they said.
@@insanityplus2196 Christians believe objective moral values and duties exist. Meaning moral values and duties exist independently of what we think. So it wouldn't matter, under the christian worldview, what we or anyone else thought about right and wrong. Christians don't claim to be the arbiters of morality. Murder and rape etc will be wrong even if everyone on the face of the planet thought they were good.
Doesn't molinism address this question pretty well? Is molinism what he is referring to when he says "I'm pretty convinced that anybody who would do that (bend his knee when hearing of Christ) God would give the message to?"
I can’t say exactly what the Molinist answer would be but this is not Molinism. This guy is a Calvinist, of the compatibilist variety.
@@daltonb1993 Hmmm It seems like calvinism doesn't address the problem at all.
Rebecca Johnson I would agree. I’ve found that Calvinism, more than any other theological system, has the hardest time addressing the problem of evil.
So a person who doesn't accept Jesus as their savior still gets into heaven? Greg says himself that he has sinned but I assume he believes he will go to heaven. I'm unclear what he believes the criteria for going to heaven is.
Definitely didn't answer the problem of the question. He should have gone on to explain how God will decide who would have accepted the message or not (which won't give a fulfilling answer, trust me, I've tried) and then he should have gone on and explained how all the other civilizations in the world during the time of Moses where able to be find favor with God without the Mosaic law.
Cameron I used to struggle with this question as well, you should have your brother read the final chapter of either On Guard or Hard Questions Real Answers by William Lane Craig. It gives a very well thought out answer on this difficult question.
Of all the answers I heard to this question Koulk's answer is arguably the best because often the one answering will appeal to God's justice and fairness only (which is not bad at all). But Koukl, in addition to God's justice and forknowledge, tackles the sins the human committed in their life (making him guilty before God)
Yes, AGREED! (Romans 2:6) "God will repay each person according to what they have done."
The thing I don’t understand about this isn’t about the fact that God applies justice to sins, it’s about the inequality in giving people a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Every person has different levels of access and quality to the gospel, making the starting point for everyone unequal. Do you think this is the fairest system God could deliver on? Or are there hypothetical system that could create more equality in people’s likelihood to accept Jesus as their lord and saviour?
@@questionasker8791 You're asking basically the same question as Job. God basically said to hiim: "Where were you when I made everything?"
It's about God's glory to "handle" sin while at the same time be gracious at his perogative.
@@questionasker8791 It seems that Koukl is saying those who will freely choose Christ will be put in such a position as to do so.
Rebecca Johnson Do you mean that this has nothing to do with environment, but that it’s inherent to a persons personality or brain? Or do you mean that God predetermined this for each person?
He you have an example of a sociopath. A truely disgusting human
"There's none"
So in your mind the little child (real) who gets trapped under rubble from a volcano and slowly they go blind from their skin absorbing the contents of the volcano who then dies days after being trapped from a painful death where God has been present the whole time and loved the child as he let the child suffer excruciating death makes sense? Because it doesn't make sense to those of us a little less delusional about this whole God is good when people suffer thing.
The claim then is that no good can come from this child's death. It would be very hard to support that claim.
@@rebeccajohnson3402
No. Please read the paragraph again. The problem is the child's unneeded suffering which God is completely responsible for. You can't use the fallacy that "it's a fallen world" either because God according to Christians is everywhere and all loving. This is a contradiction in this can see where the innocent child dies slowly in agony with God there for the few days it takes.
So you would need to show that no good could come from her suffering.
Unsatisfying Answer.
Why?
I don't see the problem. Jesus paid for their sins and God is fully capable of allowing those people, who haven't had the chance, the opportunity to accept that payment and repent in the next life.
It would be much better that they were evangelized (while alive) so that they could live for Jesus and knowingly do the good works ready for them to store up treasures for themselves in heaven. But itd be ignorant of us to suspect that God didn't consider the unevangelized when redemption is the main story uniting the books of the bible.
Even if that plays out how Craig suspects with God knowing what theyre response would be ahead of time, this "issue" dissolves one way or another.
The reason it would be unjust to condemn someone for a law they couldn't have possibly heard of and is subjectively wrong based on which religion you ask is because there first off is no proof that God exist so the condemnation is based on weak premises. Second because if your religion preaches that God is all knowing and all loving then it would be a contradiction for God to punish someone (yes it would be a punishment not them choosing) with hell. They cannot choose hell because they never had a choice.
Third if God sends people to hell then God is not good. Fourth it is not benevolent to trick someone into suffering. Fith without knowledge of what they are doing (just like in the garden of eden) it is inhumane to forever punish someone for breaking that law. Eventually their punishment should at least end (though they shouldn't be punished for something they couldn't have known about anyway).
Just out of curiosity don you believe in absolute moral good that applies to everyone. ?
@@isaiahoconnor8236
I believe we should treat others how we would want to be treated. I also believe people deserve general respect and should be treated with kindness whenever possible.
@@insanityplus2196 But why.
@@isaiahoconnor8236
What do you mean by "but why"?
I gave several reasons why. Don't be as dishonest as the man in the video in suggesting atheist never have a reason why even though there are reasons given.
Why is it unjust to send someone who has never head the gospel to hell? Because hell is eternal torment and you are punishing someone who did nothing wrong forever. The punishment in no way matches the servity of the crime. It is an unjust law and unjust act to punish someone who has never heard to hell.
@@insanityplus2196 I meant why do you believe you need to treat others with respect etc.
Christian usually say that god coud possibly be disproved by atheists if a contradiction in his character could be shown. So, god would be infinitely merciful and also just. If he is just he can't forgive the guilty ones but if he is infinitely merciful, he can. So god can and can't at the same time. It's an obvious contradiction.
Gaudio Wind My response would be that He can forgive any sin, no matter how bad and how numerous (infinite mercy) and that he HAS shown this infinite mercy by sacrificing His only Son. If you are in the slightest bit guilty, no matter how self-righteous or how much good you think you’ve done, you will be punished (infinite justice) unless you attempt to seek shelter in His mercy by accepting this sacrifice and following Jesus. So this is rather an easy “contradiction” of God’s nature to refute.
@@harrybutson9821 is it just to forgive the guilty ones?
Of all the people I knew who deconverted including myself, they all shared one thing in common: They all believed that the truth was on their side and they pursued it without fear.
Apologetics is not a pursuit of truth, it’s plugging holes as they appear with a liberal application of thought terminating cliches.
The people who accept Koukl’s answers, who get angry at follow up questions or offended that people don’t believe their blanket and baseless assertions about knowing divine truths almost never deconvert. Because they aren’t looking for truth, they’re looking for reassurance.
First off, nobody goes to "Hell" as a place of unending torment--unless you are the enemy and his minions. To say people will go to hell or even heaven, for that matter, at death presupposes that everyone has an immortal life--something clearly not in agreement with Genesis 3:22-24. That's first. "Christianity" has that WAY wrong. They have adapted Gnostic beliefs into their post-Nicene version of their religion.
Second, one function of having the creation in the beginning of the book is as the clue that the Creator is seen in the creation. Rom 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" You have to be some kind of clueless to operate through life--no matter where you are--and not find wonder and intelligence in the design. If you can't see that, then you have already lost your humanity and you have bigger problems than hell.
When you make the gospel about the personality cult of "Jesus" (not His true name) rather than that of the kingdom of a Heavenly Father, you already are off the rails. "Christians" have misrepresented and misindoctrinated. And when you try to apply some kind of Greco-Roman Western idea of logical discourse instead of letting the Word of God do the work, you're double off the rails. Psalm 19:7 The law of YHWH is perfect, *converting the soul*: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple.
I want to say right off the bat that I love Greg Koukl and I owe his ministry a lot, but this felt like a huge apologetic dodge and flies in the face of much of the Bible.
Let's say I setup rules in my house and never told my children and then punished them for not following the rule and said "I know they never heard, but it's still just because technically they broke the rules". I think every person would say I was a cruel father, regardless of whether I could concoct a definition of justice to fit my theological position. It seems completely ad hoc to say that God is just in this way, because if we say that this is just of God, then we have no basis in which to understand what justice is.
The Bible says that sin is not imputed where there is no law, but that there was actually sin up until the law. How could this be? Because the eternal Gospel is known by all (Rev 14:6-7), and it has always been about fearing and trusting God and giving Him glory. If the law has been written on every man's heart, then all have heard.
There is a multitude of verses to show this, but all have heard, Greg, and in *this way* God is just.
Thanks for your ministry, Cameron.
@@kennorthunder2428 Nothing you said refutes anything I said. God is just because all have heard. The Bible is quite clear.
I never said grace was obligated, however we must receive the grace of God. You're conflating ideas.
@@kennorthunder2428 How? I'm confused at your question. If I am understanding you correctly, I would say the same means He offered salvation to me or you or any other born again believer is how He offers it to all.
The law, the prophets, the law written on our hearts, the heavens declaring His glory, the Holy Spirit sent to convict the world, the True light that gives light to every man, the word of God that's sharper than any two edged sword, the Bible, teachers, evangelists, pastors, prophets, apostles, the church showing the manifold wisdom of God, missionaries, dreams, visions, the seed sown into our hearts, signs, wonders.
I have a lot more, should I keep going or did I not answer your question?
@@TKK0812
All truth and logic originate from God and are two sides of the same coin.
If Jesus said on the one hand: But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. John 6:36 then immediately says: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." John 6:37
Then we should ask some questions: on the two statements coming from Jesus' mouth.
Your understanding is that God draws all men. And verse 36 seems to correlate with that understanding. And if I understand the traditionalists view, it's supposed to be within our capacity to reject God, because in NOT rejecting, we're voluntarily trusting God, rather than being "forced" to trust Him.
However if this is so, why verse 37? Where it's juxtaposed against 36, Jesus is saying believing and coming are the same thing, but in 36 they themselves chose not to "come" to him, but 37 God the Father is basically saying, "okay, you chose not come to me, to but I got people I chose all by myself and gave them to my son".
Additionally, are not the people in v 36 pretty much the same as all the people in the world you claim God is drawing to himself? How do we differ from those in verse 36? If we're all basically the same as human beings, it seems we'd all be like those in v 36.
No?
@@kennorthunder2428 I was speaking more towards Greg's answer regarding "What about those who have never heard?" My reply was basically to say that all have.
Regarding John, we have to look at the larger context in the Gospel. The true light coming into the world enlightened all men and those who received Him He gave the right to become children of God. The Jews are experiencing a hardening, which is why Jesus spoke to them in parables (which seems weird because if they are hardened from birth then He could have just spoken without parables and they still wouldn't have believed) In John 6, it's clear this group is only following Jesus because of the previous miracle He performed. The question we have to ask is _who_ is the Father giving to the son? The reformed assumes that it is a pre-selected group of individuals from before the foundation of the world. Luckily, if we keep reading, Jesus tells us who it is that is drawn and given to the Son.
John 6:44-45 / No one *can* come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has *heard and learned* from the Father, comes to Me.
Jesus didn't come in a vacuum. There were were those who were already worshipers of God, and Jesus' basic message is that if you truly knew what Moses taught, or if you truly knew the Father, you would know me. But the Jews didn't as we know by the NT referencing the ecbatic prophecy of Isaiah 6 five times. That's why He says "If you have heard and learned from the Father, you will come to me". He's not saying that you can't believe if you weren't selected by a mysterious decree before the foundation of the world. Jesus wasn't drawing all people to Himself, which I can go into further if you would like.
@@kennorthunder2428 I'm not sure your point here? There's a lot of misguided things you said I would really like to correct but it's late and I am tired. All I did was list ways in which God reveals Himself to humanity, and He is faithful to bring more light to those who respond to the light they have been given (read the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13)
The Bible is clear that all have been given sufficient revelation to respond to, not that everyone has been brought through the Romans road or can explain the hypostatic union or discuss the in's and out's of Jesus being the propitiation of sins. What did Noah do to be called a righteous man? There was no law or teachings of Christ. He trusted God. How was Abraham called righteous with no law or teachings of Christ? He trusted God. How did a gentile prostitute who didn't know any of the law or Torah or teachings of Christ be listed in Hebrews 11 hall of faith? She feared God. The Gospel has always been the same (Rev 14:6-7) and it's always been about fearing and trusting God, not holding to specific facts about Him.
Decent answer, but I wonder why we just don't tell folks the truth of scripture. Quote Romans 1:18-23, sinners are without excuse because they all know God exists but they hold (or suppress) that truth in unrighteousness. Their very sin nature sears their conscience to deny the absolute moral truth of God's absolute commands (which sinners break, which is why 1 John 3:4 says sin is the transgression of the law and James 2:10 says if you break one law you've broken them all) as well as deny God as Creator. Based on this alone, even if a sinner didn't hear the gospel, that sinner won't stand before God and say, "Hey, I'm innocent because I never heard about Jesus." No, God will judge them, as Greg rightly said, on their works (Romans 2:6, Revelation 20:12-13) and they will be found guilty. And the fact that sinners that don't believe in Christ are condemned already (John 3:18) tells you that their condemnation is not based on the fact that they don't believe, but based on their sin. And John 3:19 explains the condemnation, that sinful "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
As for asking the sinner about fairness and justice; in real life they are going to tell you it's not fair based on subjective morality. They are "good" based on their own standards, while God says no one does good according to Romans 3:12 because God's standards are absolute. This is when, as Christians, we need to define sin for the sinner who doesn't think he is one. Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, and Ephesians 2:1-3 are just some verses that show the depths of mankind's depravity. Sinners won't know the Good News until they know the bad news (that they are sinners). And finally, logically speaking, if it were unfair that the unevangelized went to hell because they weren't told about Jesus, then God shouldn't give the Great Commission because then no one that heard of Jesus would get into heaven through their ignorance. We know that's silly, but this thinking that it is unfair that the lost person who never heard of Jesus is exempt because it isn't fair means we should stop going to the remotest places in the earth to share the gospel because then they would "get in" to heaven by their pure ignorance. Yet that isn't what God tells us to do; He tells us to preach the gospel because preachers need to be sent so sinners can come to faith by the hearing of the Word (Romans 10:14-17).
*Quote Romans **1:18**-23, sinners are without excuse because they all know God exists but they hold (or suppress) that truth in unrighteousness*
Why should anyone care what Paul (who was presumably the author of Romans) has to say?
Frankly, the whole "you're just suppressing the truth" nonsense cuts both ways. I can just as easily tell you that: "Everybody already knows that God doesn't exist, but you're too scared to admit it. We'd rather be comforted by false beliefs than admit the scary truth that we have to solve our own problems." If you're going to assert that you know my thoughts better than I do, you're just dishonest.
@@atheistlehman4420 I think the emotion in your response comes through. Why are you so upset if God doesn't exist? Go live your life and stop commenting on Christian's posts if it bothers you so much. No one forced you to read my comment and get upset. It's amazing that atheists spend more time raging against God who they don't think exists. Even if someone does believe in God, how does that effect your life if it isn't true? Again, just go live your life.
As for your comment, "If you're going to assert that you know my thoughts better than I do, you're just dishonest," that is completely illogical. I quoted Romans 1:18-23; that is what the Word of God says, not my opinion. So how am I dishonest when I'm telling you what the Bible says? If you disagree, that's fine, but that's what it says. And since it's not real in your worldview, why do you even care?
(And by the way, your not caring what Paul wrote in the Bible cuts both ways as well. Who cares about your opinion anyway? If it goes against God's Word, it's irrelevant to me. Your opinion or disbelief in God doesn't invalidate that God exists. You just need to repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins (Romans 10:9-13) because if you don't, you will die and be judged by a holy, righteous God (Revelation 20:11-15). And before you get upset about that as well, that is also from the Bible, not my opinion. I hope you have a good day because by the tone of your post, you need one.)
But your good works are of dirty rags (Isaiah 64:6)
True, but how we live is what we really believe. The gospel isn't merely forgiveness for past misdeeds done so the divine balance sheet has now been reconciled. The gospel is also new life in Jesus. Any profession of faith in the Christ that doesn't result in some degree of a change in how life is lived (at least evntually) should be called into question. To put it another way, Romans 6 is just as true as Roman 3. Or D.A. Carson would say, "The gospel isn't just the little category that tips you into the kingdom it's also the big category that results in life transformation. th-cam.com/video/hELiDJyS2A0/w-d-xo.html
@@theophilus5132 So do you think someone can vaguely accept God into their life without knowing that, that God is specifically of the bible?
Horrible!!!! It’s unjust because the individual never had an opportunity to accept Jesus. Is this some kind of a joke?
This guy is telling me he would be happy to be in hell forever if he was born in Africa and hadn't heard about what God wants or requires. He lives in a community where witchcraft is right, human sacrifice is right and fornication is accepted. This makes no sense at all
The problem of evil is simple.
1:God is all good
2: God made all things
3: God is in all things
4: God made evil
5: God is in evil
6: Therefore God is not all good.
The problem is claiming a god is all good and yet the creator all knowing and throughout all things. This leads to the fact that God knows his actions will lead to evil and still does them. This is definitivly evil.
This hypothetical person doing 10 wrong things per day may only be wrong according to you. In their culture those things may be right.
Debate SKYLAR FICTION!
rape approving Iron Age sky genie don't want me ..aww shucks
Cameron one Christian to another, why not debate Skylar Fiction. I've been on his show (was supposed to be again tonight but a series of problems made it impossible so we're rescheduling) and he was nothing but polite with me even though we disagree. I'd debate him myself but while I have I think interesting things to say on the problem of Evil debate is not my strong suit (I'm a hot head). I'll go you one better in fact. I'll host it on my channel if you like so you have a Christian to moderate it'd be the first and likely only debate I hosted.
The standard assertion of … " God has morally sufficient reasons " is NOT sufficient.
Billions of people ( the majority of humanity ) will not benefit from God's "so called" "morally sufficient reasons" when they are suffering in Hell.
@@TheMirabillis What exactly does that have to do with my point? Or are you just preaching because you think it makes you sound superior?
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia You have nothing interesting to say on the problem of evil that has not been said and refuted. My comment refutes one of the most common assertions by Christians. Namely, God can have morally sufficient reasons why He allow X or Y to happen.
What God calls morally sufficient reasons does not benefit the majority of humanity.
@@TheMirabillis Uh huh you know what I have to say. Tell you what why don't you go get a pulpit and preach llike any other nut who can tell people what they think without htem opening their mouth. Its always funny how many athesits sound exactly like religious nuts.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia I know because I am smarter than you and have heard all the dumb and stupid exuses that Christian come up with.
Bring it on boy and I will put you in your place. Dumb Ass !!
I'm in total support of this video, and I think that it should be spread.
Seeing a callous, poorly thought out arguement call sending massive numbers of random people to be eternally tortured by an all loving entity that intentionally made them that way a just and morally right thing is a damn fine way to make more atheists.
The very idea that an all powerful entity needs apologetic defenders is laughable.
That logic is also massively idiotic as it implies that EVERYBODY who died before Jesus went to hell because they could never be saved. How utterly idiotic this is. If then the apologetic is to say "No all those people were judged by God according to their way of life and sins...then it is unfair from God and God is not worth faith in him. If otherwise all before Jesus went to heaven then also this is unfair and makes God not worth of faith. You can not have your cake and eat it too...this is the problem with this person's views. Moses went to hell then since he could not be saved and never heard of Jesus...see how stupid this guy is?
When your income is dependent on maintaining a delusion, you get this type of stupid answer from a person like Greg Koukl.
I’m thinking maybe put more thought into this question.
So god already knows this unsaved good heathen is going to bend the knee when he hears the word? There goes free will right out the window, along with any argument for this god's supposed justness.
How so?
@@rebeccajohnson3402 If god knows you're going to do something, how are you not going to do it? Presuming, of course, that there is a god who is omniscient and omnipotent and all that. And what justice is there in condemning people for doing what he knows they can't not do?
@@smitisan4984 If I give my son a banana and an apple I know he will choose the apple. Yet he freely chooses the apple despite my knowledge that he will do so. In the case of God, we just multiply his knowledge of us to perfection. He knows all that we will freely choose to do.
@@rebeccajohnson3402 But then you don't have the option of hardening your son's heart against apples, do ya?
@@smitisan4984 Are you saying that God causes people to choose Him or not to choose Him? If so, that would be a different argument separate from His knowledge.
It's easy to responded to the make-believe. So I'll ask, please give a coherent definition of your god and evidence to support your claim and we can go from their. Remember with theology based answers you make unicorn exist, so please avoid any supernatural argument based on Appeal to Ignorance and Special Pleading.
Richunix Unix
...You want a definition of god. Use Goggle.
atheism is the religion of hate.
@J Lo thanks for the correction concerning my last response. I should have re-read my post before I submitted it. Atheism is not a religion nor does it hate. That domain is somy people.
@J Lo oh, my bad
Usually I agree with Greg 1000%, but I'm struggling here. I think God cannot have a double standard. It's either Jesus or nothing. However how Jesus connects to those who have not heard is Gods purview. We can know it all: my humble take...
they should rename this video - "How to make an atheist"