Mike Licona is one of my favorite Christian apologists. I’ve met him, and he is very very down to Earth and direct.
Here’s a lecture where he defends the view that having accurate views about Jesus is very important in order to be rightly related to God: (45 minutes)
Summary:
even in the ancient world, Christians were persecuted for their exclusivity
some people feel that exclusivity is unfair, but feelings don’t determine truth
there are three views of salvation: universalism, inclusivism, and exclusivism
does the Bible teach universalism?
Paul writes that sincerity is not enough to be saved (see verse below)
Paul writes that an accurate view of God is required to be saved
Paul writes that those who reject Christ will not be saved
John also writes that those who reject Jesus will not be saved
Jesus says that you have to have true beliefs about him to be saved
Jesus says that the way to salvation is narrow and few find it
there is broad agreement across the New Testament for exclusivism
the earliest Christians held to exclusive salvation
the probability, historically, that Jesus made exclusive claims, is high
what about those who have never heard the gospel?
what about babies and the mentally handicapped?
what about those who are sincere but don’t believe?
what about the obligation to be tolerant?
If there is one good verse to take away from this lecture, it’s Romans 10:1-4:
1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Sincerity doesn’t count. What counts is knowledge.
Another thing I really, really liked the part at 33 minutes where he tells the story about the desert and discussion group he participates in with his wife and some non-Christian couples. If there is one reason for me to get married, it’s that my wife and I could discuss interest things with people we have over, and that would be fun.
I stole this image from James Warner Wallace’s Facebook page. Without asking. He is a cold case detective. So, I could get arrested. If I suddenly stop blogging, then would one of you please bail me out of jail?
Now just a quick note about the title of this post. I do NOT believe that a loving God “sends people to Hell”. I think people freely choose to separate themselves from God because they don’t want to relate to him. People who go to Heaven are people who freely choose to respond to God’s unilateral offer of forgiveness. People who go to Hell are those who freely chose to reject his offer of forgiveness.
In the wake of Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” many people are beginning to question the nature and existence of Hell and how exactly God decides who must go there. For many, the idea that our temporal, finite sin on earth should deserve an eternal punishment of infinite torment in hell is ridiculously inequitable. Why would God torture infinitely those who have only sinned finitely? Jim addresses this objection and answers listener email.
A loving God would never create a place like Hell, would He? Any God that would send people to a place of punishment and torment is unloving by definition, right? In this podcast, Jim responds to these foundational objections to the existence of Hell. In addition, Jim comments on the Harris / Craig debate and answers listener email related to hearing God’s voice.
In this podcast, Jim answers the objection that God would send people like Gandhi to Hell (simply because they are not Christians) alongside people like Hitler (who have committed unspeakable atrocities). How can a reasonable and just God be the source of such inequitable punishment? Also Jim answers listener email related to the power of prayer, the importance of evidential apologetics and the grounding for objective morality.
Isn’t it unfair for God to penalize people who are otherwise good, just because they haven’t heard about Jesus? A good God would not send good people to Hell. Jim responds to this objection and answers listener email related to the Craig/Harris debate, pre-existing mythologies that are similar to Jesus, and the difficult, exclusive nature of “election”.
If God is all-loving, why doesn’t he “reform” people rather than simply “punish” them in Hell? Skeptics sometimes argue that a God who simply punishes his children in Hell is a sadistic and vengeful God, unworthy of our worship. Jim responds to this objection and answers listener email related to the nature of “election”, the evidence for “annihilationism”, and a political quote related to same sex marriage.
A Loving God would love all of His creation, right? Wouldn’t He make sure that everyone goes to Heaven (regardless of what they might believe in this life)? A loving God would never limit Heaven to a select few and allow billions of people to suffer in Hell, would He? Jim responds to these objections and answers listener email related to Christian “essentials”, the appropriate response to fallen teachers and the nature of “debate” as it relates to Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig.
I’m listening to the last one right now, and he is really mad at Rob Bell for being evasive in his debate with Adrian Warnock. I could not agree more. I was writing up a snarky summary of that debate but Bell literally made my ears bleed with his disingenuous questioning of anyone who asked him straight yes or no questions. Sometimes I feel like the bad guy for being harsh and snarky with certain people, but Wallace was just as upset with Bell as I was with Bell.
There could be more podcasts coming in this series, but these are so good I though I would link to them right away. I’ll keep an eye out for new ones.
The one thing I do disagree with J Warner Wallace on is that he is a Calvinist, and I believe in the middle knowledge view of salvation. William Lane Craig has written about his concerns with Calvinism, and I talk about those concerns in this post and link to some debates in there as well.
Related to the problem of Hell, is the problem of religious pluralism – what about people who say that you can follow any religion and still be approved by God? Here is a debate on religions pluralism, featuring the king of pluralism John Hick.
Here’s the core problem he found with Bell’s book:
4. Bell seems to advance three propositions in Love Wins
a. Everyone is saved: God wants all to be saved; God gets what God wants.
b. Everyone is not saved. We can refuse God’s love.
c. We don’t know if everyone is saved or not.
5. These statements are inconsistent with each other; they cannot all be true
I am not sure why anyone is reading this book – it’s logically inconsistent. And whenever you ask Bell questions, his stock reply is to ask you questions back without answering. He makes an assertion, you point out how he contradicts the teachings of Jesus, and then he says “I don’t know, do you?” or “do you long for everyone to be saved?” or “do you know if universalism is true?”. These are verbatim quotes from his debate on the Unbelievable show. It is so bad that I listened to the first 30 minutes and just quit. I would rather listen to Christoper Hitchens – at least he is clear about what he believes. Rob Bell makes John Dominic Crossan sound like Hugh Ross.
WINTERY KNIGHT 